A BREED STANDARD FOR ALL GOLDENS?
The Golden Retriever breed standard in the United Kingdom is written for and applies to ALL Golden Retrievers registered in that nation of origin.
In contrast, the breed standard of the AKC/GRCA is written for Golden Retrievers who enter the conformation ring.
TRUE or FALSE?
Consider the fact that nowhere in the British document is there any reference whatever to exhibiting dogs or the conformation ring. Not a single word. It is a standard which is intended to apply to ALL Golden Retrievers, regardless of venue. Which is as it should be. One would think.
Now consider the document issued by the GRCA with AKC approval. Under General Appearance
in the FIRST paragraph of the written standard it says:
....Primarily a hunting dog, he should be SHOWN in hard working condition....
Barely forty words into the standard, reference is made to the "show" Golden. Why? Was the standard written and meant to apply to a small fraction of the entire breed? Those deemed worthy (or maybe not so) to enter a ring to be judged.
Are the other AKC-sanctioned standards-- for each and all breeds --likewise intended to refer to the "show" dog?
I'm just askin'.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Monday, November 26, 2012
Thoughts on CCA and AKC National Owner-Handler Series
Those of us who own and love "undesirable" Goldens which are cream in color have two opportunities for our dogs to strut their stuff in the show ring-- sort of. If you participate in the Certificate of Conformation Assessment program and your dog is deemed to be of very good to excellent quality, the dog will earn a CCA certificate which gives you bragging rights. If your dog is in the conformation ring and is owned and handled by you (or a non-professional handler, apparently) then if you stick around in that same ring, he or she may be judged again. If, however, your Golden is selected as the best of the owner-handled entries in this second round of competition he or she receives NO award, NO certificate, NO points toward a championship.
Both of these programs may have value, in that your Golden is considered to be an outstanding example of its breed, but I believe each of these programs provides a good deal of insight into how the dog show venue operates.
On the GRCA website it points out that the CCA program "is an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is 'ideal' for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style."
The original intent of the CCA program is to "...provide a NON-COMPETITIVE area of participation in conformation where dogs are assessed against the Breed Standard rather than merely against other dogs present..." And it also provides information about your dog which can not be gained in the conformation ring.
Merely? Really? The prevailing belief (or is it a myth?) is that every dog in a show ring is judged against the breed standard, NOT against the competition. This is said to be true in the Group as well as Best In Show judging. Have those show commentators on television been lying to us all these years? To their credit, they do add a disclaimer of sorts. The winning dog exhibits that "extra something" or shows that he "really wants it." Or whatever.
Sounds like a CCA certificate is a better judge of quality than a CH in front of a dog's name. But does anyone really believe that? Do we line up to use a stud dog because he has a CCA designation after his name or a CH title in front of his name?
Sadly, cream-coated Goldens who earn CCA certificates rarely if ever win points toward a championship when they enter the conformation ring. Does anyone see the disconnect here? The parallel universe as it were? Assessors found them to be "very good to excellent" representatives of our breed. Why is that not good enough to assure success in the conformation ring?
The Owner-Handler Series presents a bit of a conundrum as well. First and most important, why is such a program necessary? If the judge is doing his/her job, that individual should be concentrating on the four-legged animal at one end of the leash, NOT on the two-legged animal holding the other end of the leash. Is this newly-instituted program a recognition of the fact that judges are often too impressed with the professional handler? How he does his job? Is competition between owner-handlers and professional handlers patently unfair? Are judges unduly influenced? Nobody seems to want to go there; which begs the question.
Is it fair to believe that judging in the show ring may well be rigged, third only to the performances offered in professional wrestling or the judgments made in figure skating? Some might add gymnastics to that list-- especially in international competition.
The chance of a cream-coated Golden doing well in the Owner-Handler Series is slim to none. Wouldn't you agree?
Those of us who own and love "undesirable" Goldens which are cream in color have two opportunities for our dogs to strut their stuff in the show ring-- sort of. If you participate in the Certificate of Conformation Assessment program and your dog is deemed to be of very good to excellent quality, the dog will earn a CCA certificate which gives you bragging rights. If your dog is in the conformation ring and is owned and handled by you (or a non-professional handler, apparently) then if you stick around in that same ring, he or she may be judged again. If, however, your Golden is selected as the best of the owner-handled entries in this second round of competition he or she receives NO award, NO certificate, NO points toward a championship.
Both of these programs may have value, in that your Golden is considered to be an outstanding example of its breed, but I believe each of these programs provides a good deal of insight into how the dog show venue operates.
On the GRCA website it points out that the CCA program "is an educational gateway for everyone to reflect on the written description of what is 'ideal' for this incredible breed, the essence of a Golden Retriever, that is timeless, without prejudice and not subject to changing fashion or popular style."
The original intent of the CCA program is to "...provide a NON-COMPETITIVE area of participation in conformation where dogs are assessed against the Breed Standard rather than merely against other dogs present..." And it also provides information about your dog which can not be gained in the conformation ring.
Merely? Really? The prevailing belief (or is it a myth?) is that every dog in a show ring is judged against the breed standard, NOT against the competition. This is said to be true in the Group as well as Best In Show judging. Have those show commentators on television been lying to us all these years? To their credit, they do add a disclaimer of sorts. The winning dog exhibits that "extra something" or shows that he "really wants it." Or whatever.
Sounds like a CCA certificate is a better judge of quality than a CH in front of a dog's name. But does anyone really believe that? Do we line up to use a stud dog because he has a CCA designation after his name or a CH title in front of his name?
Sadly, cream-coated Goldens who earn CCA certificates rarely if ever win points toward a championship when they enter the conformation ring. Does anyone see the disconnect here? The parallel universe as it were? Assessors found them to be "very good to excellent" representatives of our breed. Why is that not good enough to assure success in the conformation ring?
The Owner-Handler Series presents a bit of a conundrum as well. First and most important, why is such a program necessary? If the judge is doing his/her job, that individual should be concentrating on the four-legged animal at one end of the leash, NOT on the two-legged animal holding the other end of the leash. Is this newly-instituted program a recognition of the fact that judges are often too impressed with the professional handler? How he does his job? Is competition between owner-handlers and professional handlers patently unfair? Are judges unduly influenced? Nobody seems to want to go there; which begs the question.
Is it fair to believe that judging in the show ring may well be rigged, third only to the performances offered in professional wrestling or the judgments made in figure skating? Some might add gymnastics to that list-- especially in international competition.
The chance of a cream-coated Golden doing well in the Owner-Handler Series is slim to none. Wouldn't you agree?
Friday, September 21, 2012
You Did Not Build That
You Did Not Build That
The Golden Retriever was NOT "invented" in America. It is NOT a creation of the United States. Rather, it was a glorious gift from the British Isles-- more specifically Scotland. The breed is ours to promote and protect. To love, admire, and enjoy. First and foremost he is a hunting dog, though multi-talented in many fields.The AKC has granted near-sole authority to the GRCA to protect our cherished breed; as such it has created a breed Standard which represents the ideal for the Golden Retriever. This document generally reflects that of the nation of origin; differences between the two and those used throughout the world are minor-- for the most part. But they do affect the breed as it has developed over the years on either side of The Pond.
True, there are differences in type-- often subtle though real --between the American-breds and those found overseas. Distinctions can be found regionally within a single nation. And we can not dismiss the growing divergence between the field Golden Retrievers and those bred for the conformation ring-- regardless of where they are being bred.
But do our dogs live in a "restricted neighborhood?" Is the American breed Standard one which may declare an entire sub-set of Goldens "undesirable," based upon a Golden Retriever's birth color? This is the case at present. Individuals or GRCA committees of five or perhaps six members are deciding whether a born-Golden Retriever falls within the acceptable color spectrum-- a range that to them dismisses the born-cream dogs as something other than true or truly Golden Retrievers. And, they are doing so by ignoring the rules and By-laws of the GRCA itself. Personal tastes and opinions (NOT FACTS) are used to declare to all America what a Golden Retriever should look like. The Standard makes no mention of the color cream--whether good or bad; nor does it refer to red, yellow, yellow orange, pale gold, tan, off-white, reddish or coppery gold. These terms are provided for your edification by the miniscule percentage of the GRCA membership alluded to previously. You can find them in articles featured on the Club website. They appear in Committee documents intended to educate judges in the ring and the general public as a whole. But each is little more than opinion. True, the Standard says that Golden Retrievers who are born or mature to a color which is "extremely pale or extremely dark" require a penalty if they appear in the show ring. Such personal biases, however, are all extra-constitutional. Nowhere can they be found in the Golden Retriever Club of America Breed Standard. They are exercises in a Fill-In-The Blank game; they are entries upon an Etch-A-Sketch pad, subject to change at any time by a fraction of the Club membership. The whim of this tiny group of GRCA leaders.
It has been said, as negative criticism, that the Supreme Court is what this highest court says it is. But, like it or not, our Constitution grants our courts the right to interpret our founding document. No such power has been given to the GRCA's committees or individuals to interpret the meaning of any clause in the GRCA/AKC Breed Standard of our beloved Goldens. If anyone wishes to change that Standard, proper procedures must be followed, without exception. Would anyone like to remind the GRCA Board of Directors of this FACT? So far, the silence has been deafening.
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
GRCA LEADERS ARE MAGICIANS!
THE MAGICIANS WHO CONTROL THE GRCA
In my last blog I referenced the fact that a document created by the Judges' Education Committee for the edification of would-be evaluators of Golden Retrievers in the conformation ring contained a paragraph which clearly stated that the approved color spectrum for the breed included a "range from CREAM to a coppery gold...." Thus, your cream-coated Golden was not "undesirable" under the national breed Standard-- or so it would seem. Cream was not to be included in the definition of "extremely light" members of our beloved breed.
A week or two has passed since I pointed this out to a member of the Board of Directors of the GRCA. The paragraph has been REWRITTEN, as if by MAGIC. Did the Committee which prepared and approved the document as previously worded RECONVENE? Did they amend this document as a group? Or, perhaps, did a single member of that committee or someone else in a leadership position at the GRCA simply rewrite the paragraph to suit his/her opinion and bias against the cream-coated Goldens? The answer is important, for it suggests the way things are properly-- or improperly --done by individuals who exercise control of the national club. The document was an official statement to inform judges of the color parameters. One assumes that the paragraph in question-- as did the entire document --received careful attention by those who created it. Why the sudden change? Was it something I said(?)
Most specifically, the paragraph at issue HAD SAID the color ranged FROM CREAM TO A COPPERY GOLD. The same paragraph NOW READS that the color of a Golden may range FROM PALE GOLD TO A DEEP COPPERY GOLD. The word "cream" has been exorcised (the dictionary defines it as, "to drive an evil spirit out or away by ritual prayers, etc...."). Apparently, COPPERY GOLD has survived-- and the paragraph NOW permits a DEEP and not just coppery gold. Sort of pushing the red boundary I would think. In any case, CREAM has been expunged.
Anyone familiar with breeding and showing Golden Retrievers knows that there are three birth colors--cream, gold, and red. A born-cream pup is NOT simply pale gold. It is, as it were, a "horse of a different color." How long will those of us who own and admire the cream-coated Golden Retrievers have to contend with a GRCA which refuses to accept what the rest of the world has for so long accepted-- that a cream Golden Retriever is a legitimate representative of the breed?
It would be interesting to see if ANY OTHER part of this document has been tampered with, or re-thought or rewritten. But that's not my job. Perhaps the Judges' Education Committee would care to tell us.
In any case, America remains the only nation to insist that to be TRULY a Golden Retriever, a dog must be truly gold. Congratulations to the "ladies who lunch" for steadfastly keeping their collective heads in the sand. Just remember that while you have the power to do something it is not the same as doing the right thing for the breed.
( Two new developments:
I received notice from the GRCA that the full Board will consider my letter to the Judges' Education Committee.
I received a letter from the GRCA Judges' Education Committee itself. They claim to have the authority to determine the color parameters for the breed since the club gives them the right to "enhance" the understanding of the judges and the public in general. But enhancing knowledge is NOT the same as enhancing the Standard by adding their personal opinions and biases. Nowhere in the GRCA By-laws does it give a committee of five such power. If the wording of the Standard is imprecise or requires further explanation then change the Standard THROUGH PROCEDURES CLEARLY SPELLED OUT in the By-laws.)
In my last blog I referenced the fact that a document created by the Judges' Education Committee for the edification of would-be evaluators of Golden Retrievers in the conformation ring contained a paragraph which clearly stated that the approved color spectrum for the breed included a "range from CREAM to a coppery gold...." Thus, your cream-coated Golden was not "undesirable" under the national breed Standard-- or so it would seem. Cream was not to be included in the definition of "extremely light" members of our beloved breed.
A week or two has passed since I pointed this out to a member of the Board of Directors of the GRCA. The paragraph has been REWRITTEN, as if by MAGIC. Did the Committee which prepared and approved the document as previously worded RECONVENE? Did they amend this document as a group? Or, perhaps, did a single member of that committee or someone else in a leadership position at the GRCA simply rewrite the paragraph to suit his/her opinion and bias against the cream-coated Goldens? The answer is important, for it suggests the way things are properly-- or improperly --done by individuals who exercise control of the national club. The document was an official statement to inform judges of the color parameters. One assumes that the paragraph in question-- as did the entire document --received careful attention by those who created it. Why the sudden change? Was it something I said(?)
Most specifically, the paragraph at issue HAD SAID the color ranged FROM CREAM TO A COPPERY GOLD. The same paragraph NOW READS that the color of a Golden may range FROM PALE GOLD TO A DEEP COPPERY GOLD. The word "cream" has been exorcised (the dictionary defines it as, "to drive an evil spirit out or away by ritual prayers, etc...."). Apparently, COPPERY GOLD has survived-- and the paragraph NOW permits a DEEP and not just coppery gold. Sort of pushing the red boundary I would think. In any case, CREAM has been expunged.
Anyone familiar with breeding and showing Golden Retrievers knows that there are three birth colors--cream, gold, and red. A born-cream pup is NOT simply pale gold. It is, as it were, a "horse of a different color." How long will those of us who own and admire the cream-coated Golden Retrievers have to contend with a GRCA which refuses to accept what the rest of the world has for so long accepted-- that a cream Golden Retriever is a legitimate representative of the breed?
It would be interesting to see if ANY OTHER part of this document has been tampered with, or re-thought or rewritten. But that's not my job. Perhaps the Judges' Education Committee would care to tell us.
In any case, America remains the only nation to insist that to be TRULY a Golden Retriever, a dog must be truly gold. Congratulations to the "ladies who lunch" for steadfastly keeping their collective heads in the sand. Just remember that while you have the power to do something it is not the same as doing the right thing for the breed.
( Two new developments:
I received notice from the GRCA that the full Board will consider my letter to the Judges' Education Committee.
I received a letter from the GRCA Judges' Education Committee itself. They claim to have the authority to determine the color parameters for the breed since the club gives them the right to "enhance" the understanding of the judges and the public in general. But enhancing knowledge is NOT the same as enhancing the Standard by adding their personal opinions and biases. Nowhere in the GRCA By-laws does it give a committee of five such power. If the wording of the Standard is imprecise or requires further explanation then change the Standard THROUGH PROCEDURES CLEARLY SPELLED OUT in the By-laws.)
Thursday, August 30, 2012
DID YOU KNOW THAT CREAM AND COPPERY GOLD ARE "ACCEPTABLE?"
Recently I had occasion to revisit the website of the GRCA, and to my surprise I discovered some interesting instructions to those who would judge our breed. It appeared in an article compiled by the Golden Retriever Club of America Judges' Education Committee for the A.K.C.
Under the heading of Coat and Color, I found this entry:
Color is probably one of the most common variants seen in the breed. The standard specifies "lustrous golden of various shades" which allows a broad range of color, ranging from CREAM TO A COPPERY GOLD, with allowable lighter feathering. This variation in color is one of the breed's attractions. EXTREMES of LIGHT and DARK of the predominant body color are considered UNDESIRABLE.
The current understanding among fanciers of the Golden Retriever breed is that both CREAM and RED are colors which fall OUTSIDE the allowable range and deserve to be penalized in the conformation ring. Is public opinion among breed aficionados wrong? Are we failing to read our Breed Standard correctly? What does our Standard mean? What inferences are to be drawn properly from the following:
COLOR: Rich, lustrous golden of various shades. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat....Predominant body color which is either EXTREMELY PALE OR EXTREMELY DARK is UNDESIRABLE....Some latitude should be given to the LIGHT puppy whose coloring shows PROMISE (as in, pick me, pick me, I promise to turn "golder" when I grow up) of deepening with maturity....
For those who fail to recognize these words, they are part of the GRCA/AKC approved Golden Retriever Breed Standard which has been in place for a generation.
When judicial seminars and workshops are held do the spokespersons for the GRCA (Marcia, Chris, James, et al) clarify this apparent contradiction? Does our present Standard include both CREAM and COPPERY GOLD as acceptable in the show ring? That's what the article especially prepared for would-be judges says. Or do the seminar leaders assert that CREAM is UNDESIRABLE?
What does the phrase, " extremely pale" as found in the Breed Standard mean? Is CREAM undesirable? Is it acceptable? What do these GRCA leaders counsel those who attend these judicial meetings? Do CREAM and "extremely pale" equate? Are they synonymous? And do those who run these sessions for the judges have a RIGHT to INTERPRET the breed Standard to suit their own biases and color preferences?
An article on the GRCA website dated 2010 states the following with regard to color:
Comment: Color is essential in defining the breed as "Golden." The Standard includes a range, from pale gold through deep reddish gold, as the predominant body color. "Golden" requires a brilliance of hue that is definitely yellow or reddish yellow, NOT dull tan, brown, or FLAT CREAM. Lighter shadings on the underbody, "pants" and tail, in varying degrees are quite typical and acceptable....
If this paragraph looks familiar, it is because it has been taken almost word for word from a book written by the present Chairman of the GRCA Standards Committee. She is firm in her belief that a Golden Retriever which is not truly golden in color is not truly a Golden Retriever. What exactly this un-Golden Retriever is is not explained by the author.
This same writer believes that the British Standard for Goldens considers the cream-coated Goldens merely a lighter SHADE of gold, NOT a separate color.
How does one wade through these apparent contradictions? Is CREAM in or out of the acceptable color spectrum for the breed? You will have to judge for yourself(?)
Recently I had occasion to revisit the website of the GRCA, and to my surprise I discovered some interesting instructions to those who would judge our breed. It appeared in an article compiled by the Golden Retriever Club of America Judges' Education Committee for the A.K.C.
Under the heading of Coat and Color, I found this entry:
Color is probably one of the most common variants seen in the breed. The standard specifies "lustrous golden of various shades" which allows a broad range of color, ranging from CREAM TO A COPPERY GOLD, with allowable lighter feathering. This variation in color is one of the breed's attractions. EXTREMES of LIGHT and DARK of the predominant body color are considered UNDESIRABLE.
The current understanding among fanciers of the Golden Retriever breed is that both CREAM and RED are colors which fall OUTSIDE the allowable range and deserve to be penalized in the conformation ring. Is public opinion among breed aficionados wrong? Are we failing to read our Breed Standard correctly? What does our Standard mean? What inferences are to be drawn properly from the following:
COLOR: Rich, lustrous golden of various shades. Feathering may be lighter than rest of coat....Predominant body color which is either EXTREMELY PALE OR EXTREMELY DARK is UNDESIRABLE....Some latitude should be given to the LIGHT puppy whose coloring shows PROMISE (as in, pick me, pick me, I promise to turn "golder" when I grow up) of deepening with maturity....
For those who fail to recognize these words, they are part of the GRCA/AKC approved Golden Retriever Breed Standard which has been in place for a generation.
When judicial seminars and workshops are held do the spokespersons for the GRCA (Marcia, Chris, James, et al) clarify this apparent contradiction? Does our present Standard include both CREAM and COPPERY GOLD as acceptable in the show ring? That's what the article especially prepared for would-be judges says. Or do the seminar leaders assert that CREAM is UNDESIRABLE?
What does the phrase, " extremely pale" as found in the Breed Standard mean? Is CREAM undesirable? Is it acceptable? What do these GRCA leaders counsel those who attend these judicial meetings? Do CREAM and "extremely pale" equate? Are they synonymous? And do those who run these sessions for the judges have a RIGHT to INTERPRET the breed Standard to suit their own biases and color preferences?
An article on the GRCA website dated 2010 states the following with regard to color:
Comment: Color is essential in defining the breed as "Golden." The Standard includes a range, from pale gold through deep reddish gold, as the predominant body color. "Golden" requires a brilliance of hue that is definitely yellow or reddish yellow, NOT dull tan, brown, or FLAT CREAM. Lighter shadings on the underbody, "pants" and tail, in varying degrees are quite typical and acceptable....
If this paragraph looks familiar, it is because it has been taken almost word for word from a book written by the present Chairman of the GRCA Standards Committee. She is firm in her belief that a Golden Retriever which is not truly golden in color is not truly a Golden Retriever. What exactly this un-Golden Retriever is is not explained by the author.
This same writer believes that the British Standard for Goldens considers the cream-coated Goldens merely a lighter SHADE of gold, NOT a separate color.
How does one wade through these apparent contradictions? Is CREAM in or out of the acceptable color spectrum for the breed? You will have to judge for yourself(?)
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Cream Will Not Rise If Not There: Ya Gotta Be In It To Win It
Attended an AKC-sanctioned show in Orlando today. An impressive collection of 63 Golden Retrievers. The judge seemed partial to near-red entries whenever possible. Perhaps just a coincidence. Yours truly had the only cream-coated dog in the show. This, despite the fact that there are a number of breeders in Florida who specialize in European-type Goldens-- usually of that color. The judge barely looked at Luthor, my boy; and it didn't help that he sat every time the young handler tried to set his rear legs (the dog's, not the judge's). I certainly can't fault the judge for that-- or the handler for that matter who was only introduced to Luthor shortly before entering the conformation ring.
What I found interesting and likewise disturbing is that my dog appeared "invisible" to all the fanciers, breeders and owners who gathered at ringside. A breeder in Texas told me that the solution would be to get a sizeable entry of cream and light gold dogs entered at each show. She believed that judges and the general public would get used to seeing them and that eventually the dogs would do well in competition.
But this ignores one very essential fact. The creams (and reds for that matter) are declared "undesirable" in the official breed standard. And don't we want and expect the judges to follow the standard as written?
What I found interesting and likewise disturbing is that my dog appeared "invisible" to all the fanciers, breeders and owners who gathered at ringside. A breeder in Texas told me that the solution would be to get a sizeable entry of cream and light gold dogs entered at each show. She believed that judges and the general public would get used to seeing them and that eventually the dogs would do well in competition.
But this ignores one very essential fact. The creams (and reds for that matter) are declared "undesirable" in the official breed standard. And don't we want and expect the judges to follow the standard as written?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)