The following quotes are worthy of revisiting.
"Those of us who drew up the standard of points in the early days realised that the foundation colour of the original Guisachan strain was cream and knew the difficulty, if not the impossibility, of completely eradicating this colour. I thought then, as I do now, that a mistake was made in forbidding the cream colour, but my views were in the minority." --Mrs. Charlesworth
"One of the most appealing qualities of the Golden Retriever is the wide range in colour of coat. If we are to breed and judge to the Breed Standard, all shades of cream and gold should be acceptable and no judge should accept a judging appointment unless they can be completely unbiased when judging colour." --Valerie Foss
"...let us resolve that there will never be one group of dogs for show and a totally different group for the field." --E.F. Rivinus
"To judge is a great responsibility, because judges can change a breed, for it is the dog that wins in the show ring that is used for future breeding programmes." --Valerie Foss
Why have I selected these four quotations?
First, Charlesworth makes it clear that CREAM was the foundation color for the breed. She was there. She should know. No need to apologize, "Charlie."
Second, Foss states judges should be bound by the color range found in the breed standard, even if judges may have personal and subjective opinions and preferences. The key here is what is ACTUALLY IN the standard itself. The reference is to the British show scene and British Standard. BUT, please note, the breeder/judge/author speaks of all SHADES OF CREAM AND GOLD. Is there any way to interpret this phrase-- or rewrite this phrase --in such a way that cream is simply a shade of gold? No way.
Third, the concern voiced by Rivinus in 1940 has been summarily dismissed by the GRCA ever since. The American Type show dog could well be mistaken for another breed when compared with the American-bred field Golden Retriever. I would argue that this is because the Breed Standard is NOT written for ALL Golden Retrievers but rather for those destined for the show ring.
Fourth, as Foss points out, breeders breed to winners. If a dog (or dogs) look or style or whatever wins over the judges who rate him, he will be rewarded with a lifetime of stud service. Regardless of coat color, the overall gene pool will be restricted by those who flock to the winning dog-- regardless of whether a bitch has a complimentary pedigree or relates well structurally to that would-be sire.
If coat-color bias in the conformation ring prevents cream-coated Goldens from winning championship titles, they will be largely eliminated from the gene pool. How can this be good for the future of the breed here in America?
Trouble is, the AKC/GRCA Breed Standard is what Club Committees say it is, NOT what it actually says. The word CREAM never appears ANYWHERE in our standard. The GRCA Judges' Education Committee has assumed and presumed to tell us what the proper color range is. Nor is the color RED mentioned in the standard. We are left with interpretations of "extremely pale" and "extremely dark." And these phrases are defined NOT by the breed standard BUT by a GRCA Committee of five who CLAIM to know what these terms mean. And the GRCA Board of Directors assert the Committee's RIGHT to do so. Conclusion: the Golden Retriever Breed Standard is what a five-member committee says it is. Their OPINIONS are then sent to judges to educate them on proper coat color. Assuming, that is, that the judges pay attention to that document.
And if commentators are to be believed, each ten-year period seems to have produced a wide variety in what the "current" Golden Retriever should look like. If you can identify winning dogs by decade, what does this say about breed consistency? To Foss' point, what role have the judges played in this-- by "playing" with the breed standard? Or is lack of precise language in the standard to blame?
No comments:
Post a Comment