THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER CLUB OF AMERICA BYLAWS
Article I Name and Objectives
Section 2
To...advance and promote the perfection of (the qualities reflected in the breed standard)....
To do all in its power to protect and advance the interests of the breed by advocating responsible ownership and breeding of Golden Retrievers....
Before there was a cancer concern there was a serious hip problem in our breed. It remains an issue, although the Big C tends to get all the headlines in the present- day Golden Retriever world.
How did the parent club RESPOND? Was it a REASONABLE response to the crisis?
Folks love to go with winners. Without naming names, a TOTAL of FOUR Golden Retriever studs have been bred AT LEAST 384 TIMES. By the numbers: 144 litters, 97 litters, 81 litters, and 62 litters. At least that is true if you believe the information found on the k9data.com website.
What is most significant, however, is not the sheer number of litters which may have resulted in 2500 to 3000 pups, but in EACH case the sire had only an OFA FAIR rating. A number of the matings paired these outstanding dogs to bitches which had scored no better than FAIR themselves.
Did this concentration of breeding enlarge the Golden Retriever gene pool in any way? What affect did using borderline studs have upon the incidence of hip problems in our breed? Were there any words of CAUTION or CONCERN issued by the GRCA? Or was it not their job to speak out? Clearly there were negative consequences(?) Has our parent Club posted an article anywhere suggesting how a potential breeder should deal with the question? Or any other health issues for that matter? There are Goldens with OFA Good and OFA Excellent hip ratings. These dogs would certainly seem preferable for use, though obviously not the only consideration.
The GRCA has at least two articles on its website condemning the use of Golden Retrievers to produce "designer mutts"-- cross breeds. They refer to Goldendoodles by name; but so-called "Comfort Goldens" deserve equal criticism. But aside from the articles, WHAT ELSE has our breed club done? Have sanctions of any sort been placed on a single GRCA member who has bred these animals? Have they been suspended or expelled from the GRCA? And whose role is that anyway? The GRCA Board, the Membership Committee?
Similarly the GRCA has posted an article attacking unscrupulous breeders who falsely advertise rare, white Goldens for which they charge astronomical prices in some cases. Trained puppies with various levels of advanced "degrees" are offered for sale in the five- figure range-- $12,000 to $15,000 perhaps. And there are countless idiots out there willing to pay those prices. Aside from WARNING unsuspecting buyers of this, WHAT ELSE has the GRCA DONE? What else CAN it do?
And I would add, SHOULD the GRCA play any role at all in pricing pups? Do we instead let the free market and law of Supply and Demand determine matters of economics?
There is no question but that good advertising techniques can "juice up" demand for a product. How many of us fought the temptation to own our own "Pet Rock" or paid to send a "Cabbage Patch" doll on "vacation?"
The entertainment industry-- sometimes unfairly --has taken a hit for promoting breeds not fully suitable for everyone. As kids we may have wanted our very own "Rin Tin Tin" or perhaps a "Lassie" or a "Beethoven" or even ONE of 101 Dalmations. Or perhaps a dog like the one that was thrown down a laundry chute. Or that cute puppy in the dog food commercial.
The GRCA ladies got their collective undies tied in a knot and complained about Oprah at the National meeting in Atlanta a few years back. Miss Winfrey, an icon to many for her great personal success ,was criticized roundly for featuring her three "white" Golden Retrievers on her television show and in her popular magazine.
I might add that when a leading member of our organization publishes a book on our beloved breed AND includes about a dozen or so photographs of cream-coated Golden Retrievers, he himself is in a sense advertising this coat color and lending to it a measure of credence and acceptability. True, the written commentary makes it clear that he rejects the color personally. But the photos most certainly may impress the reader. My family purchased such Goldens as a DIRECT result of seeing them in such a publication; which caused us to go on line to learn more about these unusual and impressive dogs.
No one seemed upset by "Liberty" lying at the feet of President Gerald Ford in the Oval Office. Nor did I hear a negative "peep" about the exploits of "Air Jordan." Of course they were GOLD Golden Retrievers.
Does the GRCA live in a bubble? Is it "Under The Dome" as if it were living in that popular fictional tv town? Are American -Type Golden Retrievers the center of the Universe, perhaps the only LEGITIMATE Goldens in that world?
For all the coverage that the GOLDEN RETRIEVER NEWS gives to the English Type Golden Retriever, perhaps it should be RENAMED the AMERICAN TYPE GOLDEN RETRIEVER NEWS.
The English Type Goldens have arrived in ever increasing numbers from overseas origins. They have been bred in large number. Sometimes to like type, while often being crossbred to American type and Canadian lines as well.
When the history of the breed is featured in the Golden Retriever News, there seems to be no effort made to cover the more RECENT breed history in either Europe or Down Under. But it is being made every day none the less. It may not be the job of the GRCA to cover Golden-related news beyond our borders. Yet there are health issues in common regardless of geography. That's just one example.
The GRCA can do its best to marginalize the English Type Golden-- regardless of coat color. But it WILL LOSE that battle. More sensible heads may understand and undertake an outreach program of some sort. That would be good for all concerned. Most important, the Golden Retriever itself.
Which leads us back to ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS. Does the GRCA have ANY?
Punishment accrues to those who violate the GRCA Code of Ethics. But in what FORM?
Does the Club presume to have any power-- beyond the bully pulpit --to control prices, shut down "puppy mills," curtail the questionable activities of "backyard breeders," and such? And does this presumption of power bring with it any legal justification? Legal authority?
It seems logical that there should be a reasonable REGULATORY ROLE for a national breed club. And don't ask the AKC for help. For they have ceded nearly all decision-making authority to the individual breed clubs chosen by them. The AKC does NOT write the breed standard. It merely approves it. Why keep calling it an AKC Breed Standard when our Club has created it, and has the sole authority to revise or replace it? Does anyone believe that this all-breed organization would react in any legal way to anything the GRCA did with reference to the standard?
The GRCA may LAMENT certain practices conducted by owners/breeders/exhibitors who are EITHER Club members or not. Talking to the current 4,000 or so members in good standing is pretty much like preaching to the choir. But what about the many thousands who are not affiliated with us in ANY way? How do you reach THEM? Rearrange the letters in LAMENT and you get MENTAL. "Talk Is Cheap." Posting something on a web page is at best a mental activity unless backed with some means of implementation. This is especially true when the messages are so often negative in tone.
.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
DUDLEY DID-RIGHT; Thank You "LORD"
There is an arrogance among Americans that suggests that we created everything of value, or should have. If there was no Dudley in Scotland, no doubt we would have "discovered" one in the New World. After all, at least one religious faith born in America claims that Christ Himself walked the ground of the Western Hemisphere. There is even an assertion that the original Garden of Eden was somewhere in America's midsection.
So it would not be much of a stretch to say America created the TRUE Golden Retriever breed. Parallel developments in the United Kingdom or Australia/New Zealand not withstanding.
It may shock many Americans to discover that the Golden Retriever does not bear a Made-In-USA label. Though admittedly most Goldens at AKC venues are of the American Type. Curiously, Americans can claim rightfully that they created the "Australian" Shepherd. So much for the proposition that a dog breed is what we name it.
If it had not been for Dudley Coutts Marjoribanks in Scotland (Lord Tweedmouth to his friends) there might never have developed a breed called the Golden Retriever. The Russian white circus dog theory has been debunked by all who have examined the historical record.
So, it is clear that the first Goldens-- born in Scotland --were the direct ancestors of the English Type Golden of today. American and Canadian Goldens have a right to claim that same historic past.
But perhaps America might have invented a Dudley of their own-- thanks to Hollywood and the television industry.
Who can forget Dudley Do-Right from the Bullwinkle and Rocky the Squirrel show? And his true love Nell, who was more smitten with Dudley's horse "Horse" than the rider atop him. We are told that the first significant Golden Retriever was brought to North America, entered by way of Canada, followed by a transcontinental trip to the far west of the nation bearing the Maple Leaf flag. The dog's name was Speedwell Pluto (an apt name, since we are talking toons here).
Suppose there had been a collaboration between Do-Right and his friends, borrowing the dog Pluto from his owner, Mickey Mouse (a strange relationship to be sure; but blame that on Walt Disney). They could have created a new American breed of dog.
Or consider Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald of movie fame. Who can forget the "Indian Love Call" duet from the film Rose Marie released in 1936? Nelson appropriated a Royal Mountie uniform and sang his heart out. A bit less dim-witted than Do-Right but still cartoonish in his conscientious and cheerful demeanor, he might have taken a timeout from serenading to try his hand at dog breeding. Why not create a Golden Retriever? (I guess the breed would have been Canadian though-- unless the film was produced on a Hollywood sound stage rather than on location.)
It would take little to convince the typical American man in the street of either theory's validity. Yes, some of our citizenry are REALLY that dumb.
Monday, September 1, 2014
Moving Backwards in Maple Leaf Country? Making SNOW-capped Mountains Out of Cream Molehills.
It appears that a little-noticed event in Gray Summit, Missouri has gotten some Canadian knickers in a knot. A group which I call the Ontario "Ladies Who Lunch" -- perhaps five in total, from what I can see --have duped the Golden Retriever Club of Canada into releasing a "blizzard" alert for those who fancy "genuine" Golden Retrievers. You know, the REAL Goldens who are "truly gold" and therefore rightly deserve the name. In this "Return To the Ridiculous" an article about English Cream dogs is now featured prominently on the GRCC website. It is unsettling to see that a settled issue such as coat color has become the subject of concern for what appears to be a very small minority of the total Club membership.
In truth, NONE of the eight regional Golden Retriever Clubs appears to find it necessary to repost this essay on their own websites. Certainly NOT on the first page. If you check the GRCC Breeders' List of twenty eight entries, only five seem to share the concern about "white" Goldens.
One in fact still identifies with the nonsensical Oprah Effect which was a topic of concern back in 2011 or thereabouts. On this kennel's website, dogs of the Oprah Type are described simply as a "fad" and were in part a result of the fact that the Big O "bought her pale puppies and paraded them on her (tv) show." (She even had the audacity to feature them in her magazine-- on the cover no less!) This breeder claims that the trio was purchased from a "less than careful breeder, who was breeding for colour and profit above all else." Isn't it amazing that this Canadian breeder knew so much about the "facts" of this transaction?
Similarly, one individual prepared a press release issued by the IABCA (that person is not a part of the organization) which highlighted a fifth show for the Purina Farms fairgrounds held in mid-June of this year. The announcement said that it was to be a Golden Retriever Specialty event for English Cream Goldens. The phone lines, Facebook and Twitter lit up like World War III was about to break out. The publicity release was quickly edited. No harm, no foul-- at least one would think.
But I have since been told by a leading member of the GRCC that there was a Cause and Effect relationship between this far away event in Missouri AND the GRCC article referenced above. Really? C'mon ladies; get real.
The article issued under GRCC auspices is WRONG on the facts. It claims that there are NO English Creams. They don't exist. But they say this by claiming that "English" refers to country of origin. It does NOT. It is a reference to the English TYPE-- Goldens bred to the Breed Standard of country of origin and since adopted by all nations except the United States and Canada.
While leading spokesmen for our breed in America assert that the British Standard describes CREAM as a SHADE of gold, they are factually incorrect. It is an acceptable body COLOR. The Illustrated GRCC Breed Standard states that this has been true since 1936. Are Canadians now having second thoughts? Coat color has long been a non-issue in the Canadian conformation ring. You folks should be applauded for that. Do not weaken your resolve by appeasing a handful of naysayers. You are far better than that.
Nowhere in the world-- EXCEPT Canada and the United States --does TYPE even enter a discussion of Golden Retrievers, if it is a reference to a particular NATION's breed standard. But both north and south of the 49th parallel you have folks who insist that they must have their OWN breed standard-- rejecting both that of Great Britain and the FCI. So we speak of and advertise English TYPE or American TYPE Golden Retrievers. Curiously, no one seems to EVER identify with a Canadian TYPE.
A leading member in both the GRCC AND GRCA has recently imported a fine young Golden from Down Under. Does anyone even think of calling this dog "AUSTRALIAN" TYPE? It was bred in accordance with the rules of the British Standard. There are no Canadian-born or American-born dogs to be found in his pedigree no matter how far back you search for them. (Truth be told, it would be hard to find ANY American or Canadian types running around that huge continent at all. Importing a Golden from North America is hardly to be found on an Aussie's "to-do" list.) The pup in question has Swedish and British lines behind him; in addition, he has six (at least) CREAM-coated Goldens in his three-generation pedigree. True, he is NOT an English Cream, because his birth color was a light gold, not cream. But it can NOT be argued that he is not English TYPE. That is an incontrovertible fact.
I have been told that the debate over color has existed since the time of Mrs. Charlesworth and that it will NEVER be resolved. True it still requires resolution, but there remains only a SINGLE nation where the issue continues to divide our breed. And that is the result of inaction and stubborn resistance to change based upon misplaced loyalty to past tradition. It may be difficult to "move a mountain." But it can be done.
Instead of issuing a "Call To Arms," a GROSS exaggeration of an essentially settled issue everywhere, it would make far more sense for the GRCC to encourage its North American neighbor to the south to accept what all other Golden fanciers know and believe to be true-- CREAM is NOT "UNDESIRABLE."
Coat color in a breed-- any breed --should not be a function of geography.Those who make the rules should know better.
Does the GRCC know what the term proportionality means? Worst case scenario-- the Purina Farms IABCA event went ahead as mislabeled-- a Golden Retriever Specialty for English Cream entries exclusively. How would this have negatively impacted the breed in ANY WAY in Canada? Or the GRCC organization itself? Or was it merely an EXCUSE offered up by a tiny fraction of the membership in order to vent their frustrations over what they viewed an unfair competition in the marketplace? An opportunity to attack other breeders? I think it's admirable that this quintet of ladies were so SELFLESS that their PRIMARY concern was the potential puppy buyer who might be tricked into buying a Golden bred by someone not among their circle of friends .Any one of their number should be fully aware of how cream-coated Goldens are typically treated at AKC venues. Perhaps the Missouri show might even be viewed as payback of sorts for a long history of unfair treatment based upon "incorrect" coat color. It was not the type of dog, not structure, not movement, not temperament that caused cream Goldens to be treated with indifference for so long. And it continues in present-day America. That should be far more worrisome to Canadian breeders than one rather insignificant dog show in Middle America in mid-June of 2014..
In truth, NONE of the eight regional Golden Retriever Clubs appears to find it necessary to repost this essay on their own websites. Certainly NOT on the first page. If you check the GRCC Breeders' List of twenty eight entries, only five seem to share the concern about "white" Goldens.
One in fact still identifies with the nonsensical Oprah Effect which was a topic of concern back in 2011 or thereabouts. On this kennel's website, dogs of the Oprah Type are described simply as a "fad" and were in part a result of the fact that the Big O "bought her pale puppies and paraded them on her (tv) show." (She even had the audacity to feature them in her magazine-- on the cover no less!) This breeder claims that the trio was purchased from a "less than careful breeder, who was breeding for colour and profit above all else." Isn't it amazing that this Canadian breeder knew so much about the "facts" of this transaction?
Similarly, one individual prepared a press release issued by the IABCA (that person is not a part of the organization) which highlighted a fifth show for the Purina Farms fairgrounds held in mid-June of this year. The announcement said that it was to be a Golden Retriever Specialty event for English Cream Goldens. The phone lines, Facebook and Twitter lit up like World War III was about to break out. The publicity release was quickly edited. No harm, no foul-- at least one would think.
But I have since been told by a leading member of the GRCC that there was a Cause and Effect relationship between this far away event in Missouri AND the GRCC article referenced above. Really? C'mon ladies; get real.
The article issued under GRCC auspices is WRONG on the facts. It claims that there are NO English Creams. They don't exist. But they say this by claiming that "English" refers to country of origin. It does NOT. It is a reference to the English TYPE-- Goldens bred to the Breed Standard of country of origin and since adopted by all nations except the United States and Canada.
While leading spokesmen for our breed in America assert that the British Standard describes CREAM as a SHADE of gold, they are factually incorrect. It is an acceptable body COLOR. The Illustrated GRCC Breed Standard states that this has been true since 1936. Are Canadians now having second thoughts? Coat color has long been a non-issue in the Canadian conformation ring. You folks should be applauded for that. Do not weaken your resolve by appeasing a handful of naysayers. You are far better than that.
Nowhere in the world-- EXCEPT Canada and the United States --does TYPE even enter a discussion of Golden Retrievers, if it is a reference to a particular NATION's breed standard. But both north and south of the 49th parallel you have folks who insist that they must have their OWN breed standard-- rejecting both that of Great Britain and the FCI. So we speak of and advertise English TYPE or American TYPE Golden Retrievers. Curiously, no one seems to EVER identify with a Canadian TYPE.
A leading member in both the GRCC AND GRCA has recently imported a fine young Golden from Down Under. Does anyone even think of calling this dog "AUSTRALIAN" TYPE? It was bred in accordance with the rules of the British Standard. There are no Canadian-born or American-born dogs to be found in his pedigree no matter how far back you search for them. (Truth be told, it would be hard to find ANY American or Canadian types running around that huge continent at all. Importing a Golden from North America is hardly to be found on an Aussie's "to-do" list.) The pup in question has Swedish and British lines behind him; in addition, he has six (at least) CREAM-coated Goldens in his three-generation pedigree. True, he is NOT an English Cream, because his birth color was a light gold, not cream. But it can NOT be argued that he is not English TYPE. That is an incontrovertible fact.
I have been told that the debate over color has existed since the time of Mrs. Charlesworth and that it will NEVER be resolved. True it still requires resolution, but there remains only a SINGLE nation where the issue continues to divide our breed. And that is the result of inaction and stubborn resistance to change based upon misplaced loyalty to past tradition. It may be difficult to "move a mountain." But it can be done.
Instead of issuing a "Call To Arms," a GROSS exaggeration of an essentially settled issue everywhere, it would make far more sense for the GRCC to encourage its North American neighbor to the south to accept what all other Golden fanciers know and believe to be true-- CREAM is NOT "UNDESIRABLE."
Coat color in a breed-- any breed --should not be a function of geography.Those who make the rules should know better.
Does the GRCC know what the term proportionality means? Worst case scenario-- the Purina Farms IABCA event went ahead as mislabeled-- a Golden Retriever Specialty for English Cream entries exclusively. How would this have negatively impacted the breed in ANY WAY in Canada? Or the GRCC organization itself? Or was it merely an EXCUSE offered up by a tiny fraction of the membership in order to vent their frustrations over what they viewed an unfair competition in the marketplace? An opportunity to attack other breeders? I think it's admirable that this quintet of ladies were so SELFLESS that their PRIMARY concern was the potential puppy buyer who might be tricked into buying a Golden bred by someone not among their circle of friends .Any one of their number should be fully aware of how cream-coated Goldens are typically treated at AKC venues. Perhaps the Missouri show might even be viewed as payback of sorts for a long history of unfair treatment based upon "incorrect" coat color. It was not the type of dog, not structure, not movement, not temperament that caused cream Goldens to be treated with indifference for so long. And it continues in present-day America. That should be far more worrisome to Canadian breeders than one rather insignificant dog show in Middle America in mid-June of 2014..
Saturday, August 30, 2014
The STATUE is a Wonderful Thing...BUT...
Someone asked why I posted a photo of a castle in ruins. Actually that building is what remains of the Guisachan estate or manor house. Some Scotsman named Dudley once lived there with his black, brown and yellow hunting dogs. The rest, as they say, is history.
You AUSSIES Must Be COLOR-Blind
His sire (F) is a magnificent born-gold dog; his dam (E) is a cream by birth. The paternal grandfather (D) is likewise a cream-coated Golden imported from Sweden. He was mated to a top-winning gold bitch (C). On the left below is (B-- everybody knows my name, Ritzilyn Brandon) who was bred to (A)-- a light gold bitch and champion in her own right. Together they are responsible for bitch (E).
Of the youngster's 14 relatives in his three-generation pedigree, I was able to identify a dozen in photographs. Six were cream-coated Goldens, while six were clearly born gold.
No less than four of his elders were BISS winners in Australian shows. And his background-- in addition to the renowned Ritzilyn Brandon -- includes Erinderry Gaelic Minstrel, Inassicas Song of Songs, Perrimay Hugo of Fenwood and Ritzilyn Cockney Robin. Not too shabby a heritage.
Friday, August 29, 2014
Everything I Ever Wanted To Know About Coat Color In GOLDEN RETRIEVERS I Found On The GRCA Website
There is a wealth of information to be found at the GRCA website. My particular interest was in finding out more about the CREAM-coated Golden Retriever. I discovered that there are numerous references to this birth color, mostty stated in negative terms. One article links them with Goldendoodles and puppies being raffled off at auctions or such. It cautions buyers against being duped into believing that there are rare "white" Goldens and that they are worth a hefty price.
But I was more concerned with the Breed Standard and efforts made by the Club to clarify the meaning of terms and phrases included in that document. So I looked elsewhere on the site.
First, what does the Breed Standard say about coat color? It should be rich, lustrous gold. But what does that mean? Further, Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Then there is some nonsense about puppy ear color indicating adult coat color. Basically, that's all it says. But nowhere are the terms lustrous gold or extremely pale ever DEFINED. And if the extremes-- whatever they may be are UNDESIRABLE, WHY is that so? Are there structural issues; perhaps temperament concerns; or even, and most especially, health factors which fanciers should know about?
The Standard itself is SILENT. Offers NO answers. So I must look elsewhere. There's a section on the website called--The Golden Retriever: An Illustrated Study Guide. That looks like fun.
There are fourteen different subheadings. That's where you find the AKC Breed Standard, but ALSO TWO articles which raise the subject of color.
One is identified simply by the word COLOR. It says, Dogs whose body color is predominantly cream or off-white, or dark setter-red, are not truly "golden" and should be judged accordingly.
But what does judged accordingly mean? It doesn't say. Are we to guess what possible punishment awaits the unsuspecting and NOT TRULY "GOLDEN" cream Golden Retriever? Again, NO answer.
So let's move on. Perhaps the answers lie elsewhere on the website.
There's a third section called JUDGING THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER.There are FIVE Articles and Letters to Judges found here. Under the heading Golden Retrievers: Prioritizing Faults EIGHT categories are identified by the writer. There are Disqualifications, Excusal from the ring issues, SERIOUS faults, Very undesirable factors, things To be faulted, aspects To be penalized proportionately according to the amount of deviation from ideal, and one item which appears out of place-- Permitted but not preferred.
And then there's Undesirable. Bingo! This must be it.
Predominant body color that is either extremely pale or extremely dark. That's it? If a fault, HOW should it be faulted? And what's the difference between VERY UNDESIRABLE and merely UNDESIRABLE? This is written supposedly for the benefit of the judges.
Moving on, there is an article entitled, Judging the Golden Retriever by Jeffrey G. Pepper. This is NOT an OFFICIAL statement issued by the GRCA, but rather one which appeared elsewhere and since has found its way to the Club website. The author opines that...
Basically a coat that is so light that it appears to be cream-colored (what I tend to call a "vanilla retriever") or so dark that it approaches an Irish Setter red should be faulted. After all the breed is called Golden Retriever....
I am not sure why one man's personal OPINION ended up on this website-- unless a GRCA committee deemed it worthy of inclusion. But once again, there are no FACTS to support his view.
In August of 2012 I found the following on the GRCA website.
Coat and Color: Color is probably one of the most common variants seen in the breed. The standard specifies "lustrous golden of various shades" 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.
According to this document issued by the GRCA Judges' Education Committee and posted for all to see, as you can see, CREAM was no longer UNDESIRABLE.
But barely two weeks later, the same document was edited and the word CREAM expunged and replaced with PALE GOLD. And COPPERY GOLD became DEEP COPPERY RED.
A breed authority has written that all Golden color is to be found in the yellow extension series. This can produce color ranging from a VERY PALE CREAM that appears almost white, to the deepest red. This concept of all Golden Retriever birth colors being found on this YELLOW construct seems to have been converted to the idea that YELLOW and GOLD are synonymous terms. Ergo, ALL Goldens are born some SHADE or intensity of GOLD. Following this reasoning, CREAM is NOT REALLY PALE GOLD, though they often appear identical to the observer. Cream is beyond the pale-- pale gold, that is. It is simply too far to the left on this color spectrum. But why? Personal preference? Opinion? FACTS, please.
In any case, just like magic, a GRCA committee of five ( the SAME chairman and the SAME members) had REDEFINED the COLOR SPECTRUM allowed under the Standard. No need to mess with amending that Standard through a long, laborious process (subject to approval by vote of the Club membership as a whole) when five people on a committee-- or three in the majority --have the power and claim the right to dictate the DESIRABLE color range for our breed. And the leadership (that would be the Board) claims it is merely intended to explain the Standard but in no way is it going to change that document in any way. Stay tuned; perhaps in the future this same GRCA committee will pontificate that the Standard consists of a patriotic red, white and blue color range. Wait a sec. That will NEVER DO-- can't have WHITE Goldens or RED Goldens. Sadly, that would leave them all blue.
Prior to being elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Governor Charles Evans Hughes remarked, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...."
Do we have a Breed Standard which says what the GRCA Judges' Education Committee says it is?
You're a better man than I am Gunga Din!...if you can make any sense out of the mixed and confusing messages which emanate from the Club leaders. Whether committees or the Board itself. The GRCA President admonishes us to follow the dictates of our Breed Guardians-- the Old Guard and their wealth of experience, knowledge and years in the Golden Retriever community. But often they have old ideas and viewpoints firmly entrenched in the last century. There is a book about our breed, titled The New Golden Retriever. Must reading if you care about our breed. But it was published in 1996. Nearly two decades have passed since then. And with this passage of time, new issues have arisen which require our attention.
But the question of coat color still divides us. And it affects the size of the gene pool in America. at a critical time. Not to mention the fact that the American Type and the English Type continue to move in opposite directions. And a discussion of these two will only find an audience in the United States or Canada. In Europe or among the Aussies and Kiwis there is no need for such discussion, since there are virtually no imports of the American Type to speak of. The world market for American Goldens is for all intents and purposess non-existent. That should give one pause; but it does not. Place blame wherever you wish. The fact remains that the question of COLOR was SETTLED BY THE BRITISH in 1936. Under FCI leadership, national breed standards throughout the world exhibit near total uniformity. Only ONE nation stands apart as an outlier. It defies simple logic.
There is a problem with false consistency. With unexamined tradition.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
And if that doesn't work for you, how about brushing up on your Shakespeare?
"The fault,...is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Is the general membership of the GRCA listening? Does it care? I'm not suggesting an "Et tu, Brutus" moment; but shouldn't all of us care enough about our delightful Goldens to speak out and speak up on behalf of the concept of ONE Breed/ ONE Standard?
I rest my case.
But I was more concerned with the Breed Standard and efforts made by the Club to clarify the meaning of terms and phrases included in that document. So I looked elsewhere on the site.
First, what does the Breed Standard say about coat color? It should be rich, lustrous gold. But what does that mean? Further, Predominant body color which is either extremely pale or extremely dark is undesirable. Then there is some nonsense about puppy ear color indicating adult coat color. Basically, that's all it says. But nowhere are the terms lustrous gold or extremely pale ever DEFINED. And if the extremes-- whatever they may be are UNDESIRABLE, WHY is that so? Are there structural issues; perhaps temperament concerns; or even, and most especially, health factors which fanciers should know about?
The Standard itself is SILENT. Offers NO answers. So I must look elsewhere. There's a section on the website called--The Golden Retriever: An Illustrated Study Guide. That looks like fun.
There are fourteen different subheadings. That's where you find the AKC Breed Standard, but ALSO TWO articles which raise the subject of color.
One is identified simply by the word COLOR. It says, Dogs whose body color is predominantly cream or off-white, or dark setter-red, are not truly "golden" and should be judged accordingly.
But what does judged accordingly mean? It doesn't say. Are we to guess what possible punishment awaits the unsuspecting and NOT TRULY "GOLDEN" cream Golden Retriever? Again, NO answer.
So let's move on. Perhaps the answers lie elsewhere on the website.
There's a third section called JUDGING THE GOLDEN RETRIEVER.There are FIVE Articles and Letters to Judges found here. Under the heading Golden Retrievers: Prioritizing Faults EIGHT categories are identified by the writer. There are Disqualifications, Excusal from the ring issues, SERIOUS faults, Very undesirable factors, things To be faulted, aspects To be penalized proportionately according to the amount of deviation from ideal, and one item which appears out of place-- Permitted but not preferred.
And then there's Undesirable. Bingo! This must be it.
Predominant body color that is either extremely pale or extremely dark. That's it? If a fault, HOW should it be faulted? And what's the difference between VERY UNDESIRABLE and merely UNDESIRABLE? This is written supposedly for the benefit of the judges.
Moving on, there is an article entitled, Judging the Golden Retriever by Jeffrey G. Pepper. This is NOT an OFFICIAL statement issued by the GRCA, but rather one which appeared elsewhere and since has found its way to the Club website. The author opines that...
Basically a coat that is so light that it appears to be cream-colored (what I tend to call a "vanilla retriever") or so dark that it approaches an Irish Setter red should be faulted. After all the breed is called Golden Retriever....
I am not sure why one man's personal OPINION ended up on this website-- unless a GRCA committee deemed it worthy of inclusion. But once again, there are no FACTS to support his view.
In August of 2012 I found the following on the GRCA website.
Coat and Color: Color is probably one of the most common variants seen in the breed. The standard specifies "lustrous golden of various shades" 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.
According to this document issued by the GRCA Judges' Education Committee and posted for all to see, as you can see, CREAM was no longer UNDESIRABLE.
But barely two weeks later, the same document was edited and the word CREAM expunged and replaced with PALE GOLD. And COPPERY GOLD became DEEP COPPERY RED.
A breed authority has written that all Golden color is to be found in the yellow extension series. This can produce color ranging from a VERY PALE CREAM that appears almost white, to the deepest red. This concept of all Golden Retriever birth colors being found on this YELLOW construct seems to have been converted to the idea that YELLOW and GOLD are synonymous terms. Ergo, ALL Goldens are born some SHADE or intensity of GOLD. Following this reasoning, CREAM is NOT REALLY PALE GOLD, though they often appear identical to the observer. Cream is beyond the pale-- pale gold, that is. It is simply too far to the left on this color spectrum. But why? Personal preference? Opinion? FACTS, please.
In any case, just like magic, a GRCA committee of five ( the SAME chairman and the SAME members) had REDEFINED the COLOR SPECTRUM allowed under the Standard. No need to mess with amending that Standard through a long, laborious process (subject to approval by vote of the Club membership as a whole) when five people on a committee-- or three in the majority --have the power and claim the right to dictate the DESIRABLE color range for our breed. And the leadership (that would be the Board) claims it is merely intended to explain the Standard but in no way is it going to change that document in any way. Stay tuned; perhaps in the future this same GRCA committee will pontificate that the Standard consists of a patriotic red, white and blue color range. Wait a sec. That will NEVER DO-- can't have WHITE Goldens or RED Goldens. Sadly, that would leave them all blue.
Prior to being elevated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Governor Charles Evans Hughes remarked, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...."
Do we have a Breed Standard which says what the GRCA Judges' Education Committee says it is?
You're a better man than I am Gunga Din!...if you can make any sense out of the mixed and confusing messages which emanate from the Club leaders. Whether committees or the Board itself. The GRCA President admonishes us to follow the dictates of our Breed Guardians-- the Old Guard and their wealth of experience, knowledge and years in the Golden Retriever community. But often they have old ideas and viewpoints firmly entrenched in the last century. There is a book about our breed, titled The New Golden Retriever. Must reading if you care about our breed. But it was published in 1996. Nearly two decades have passed since then. And with this passage of time, new issues have arisen which require our attention.
But the question of coat color still divides us. And it affects the size of the gene pool in America. at a critical time. Not to mention the fact that the American Type and the English Type continue to move in opposite directions. And a discussion of these two will only find an audience in the United States or Canada. In Europe or among the Aussies and Kiwis there is no need for such discussion, since there are virtually no imports of the American Type to speak of. The world market for American Goldens is for all intents and purposess non-existent. That should give one pause; but it does not. Place blame wherever you wish. The fact remains that the question of COLOR was SETTLED BY THE BRITISH in 1936. Under FCI leadership, national breed standards throughout the world exhibit near total uniformity. Only ONE nation stands apart as an outlier. It defies simple logic.
There is a problem with false consistency. With unexamined tradition.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo Emerson
And if that doesn't work for you, how about brushing up on your Shakespeare?
"The fault,...is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings."
Is the general membership of the GRCA listening? Does it care? I'm not suggesting an "Et tu, Brutus" moment; but shouldn't all of us care enough about our delightful Goldens to speak out and speak up on behalf of the concept of ONE Breed/ ONE Standard?
I rest my case.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Golden Retriever Conformation Champs
The contributor was lamenting the fact that lithe, red field dogs had devolved into "whites" lacking the ability to get the job done. He asks, "So which breeders are conserving the golden retriever?"
The black and white photo represents the first conformation champion in the golden retriever breed, one of Mrs. Charlesworth's Noranby line. The other is not named, but said to be from Sweden. I think Jane Wild and his breeders would take issue with that. "Thomas" is shown here winning BOB in 2002 at Crufts.
With all the talk about type (American or English) or coat color dividing the breed, we tend to forget that in all nations there is a widening gap between the field Goldens and those bred for the show ring. Regardless of how this author expresses his concern, that is a fact of life. If form should follow function, what in the world are we doing? Not so many years ago seeing a Golden on the grooming table for an hour or two to "prepare" him for the conformation ring....Let's face it; it just didn't happen.
Some nations insist on linking a show title to tests proving hunting ability. Certainly this has great merit. Perhaps it is time to place less emphasis on our breed's FIRST name and concentrate on the RETRIEVER half.
The GRCA offers little in this regard. One article suggests that a Golden should "LOOK LIKE" he could hunt. Appearance is reality(?) Another suggests that before entering the conformation ring to judge Goldens it would be helpful if he attended at least ONE field trial prior to that. Or even watch a Golden actually doing his job in a real-life situation. Heady stuff.
I'm just sayin.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)