Golden Retriever Dog Forums banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Kate
Joined
·
20,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I assume the ones for 2018 will get released in a few months. But the attached link got shared on FB. I'm sort of a numbers person (I stare at numbers for a living) so I was very INTERESTED in seeing all the numbers for 2017.

Among else - this shows how healthy and successful the breed is - when you compare directly to others. While I KNOW a good chunk of this is because unlike some of the others - there are splits all over the place.

Those splits mean that you may have CH dogs who primarily are just CH/CGC/RN titled. And you have a LOT of dogs playing in both obedience and field.

Depending on pedigrees - you have more specialization from one breeder to the next. This means you are very unlikely to have DC in a breed like goldens. But they are VERY HEALTHY when you consider the participation rate across the board. It's not just them being a popular breed, because you can compare to labs.

With labs you have a TON who would never go near the show ring (and considering what's in the show ring, that's not a bad thing!) and all the eggs are in the field basket for them. In a big way. o_O

With agility - I was surprised by the numbers because I expected them to be MUCH HIGHER for goldens due to the popularity and general push towards agility by most people. Maybe they get spread all over the place (so many titles I don't understand in that sport!)? Or there's a high drop off????

I kinda just wanted to get a look at where participation was with the different breeds. And this is why I included CGC too. IF you think of each of the sports as a different cup which people are spilling into with their dogs and getting titles. And to see where which breeds had a more severe drop.



Goldens
311 CH's
350 CD's
29 OTCH's
429 RN's
155 NA (I think novice level Agility - agility titles are Greek to me)
60 MACH
1607 CGC
238 JH
93 MH
2 FC

Labs
203 CH's
164 CD's
4 OTCH's
272 RN's
68 NA
30 MACH
1301 CGC
1385 JH
669 MH
62 FC

GSP's
176 CH's
21 CD's
0 OTCH's
47 RN's
14 NA
2 MACH
115 CGC
265 JH
56 MH
56 FC


Cockers
414 CH's
25 CD's
0 OTCH's
35 RN's
32 NA
17 MACH
41 CGC
18 JH
1 MH
0 FC

English Cocker Spaniel
154 CH's
20 CD's
0 OTCH's
35 RN's
19 NA
4 MACH
159 CGC
45 JH
19 MH
19 FC

Collies
322 CH's
32 CD's
0 OTCH's
96 RN's
30 NA
8 MACH
29 HT
2 HC
185 CGC


Border Collies
141 CH's
119 CD's
14 OTCH's
194 RN's
16 NA
105 MACH
26 HT (sort of like JH for herding breeds)
54 HC
351 CGC

GSD
240 CH's
171 CD's
0 OTCH's
254 RN's
47 NA
12 MACH
25 HT
6 HC
1524 CGC


Belgian Malinois
49 CH's
42 CD's
2 OTCH's
46 RN's
22 NA
5 MACH
5 HT
2 HC
127 CGC


http://images.akc.org/pdf/events/2017_AnnualStatistics.pdf?fbclid=IwAR1Vji3vjsyvp7QFgR_6ZzfOJv-6HIQsYzAk6CneLG7cBiOcz2EV5dcehZQ
 

·
the party's crashing us
Joined
·
4,172 Posts
62 FC Labradors -- holy guacamole
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,439 Posts
I know this is an old thread, but it's really interesting. There are so many more labs than goldens. I know that so few are bred to be show dogs compared to goldens bred to be show dogs. I know at my local shows, goldens usually have higher counts than labs. We're ahead of labs except for the field events. We are way behind. I do think its way easier to find a good field trial lab litter than it is to find a good golden field trial litter. There are just less goldens raised solely for field than labs.



What would be very telling is how many Ch/MH titles each breed has in a year. I'm going to guess you'll find more golden Ch/MH titles in a year than labs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Thanks! It would be interesting to know the numbers of dogs registered for each breed for the year so that we could get an idea of the percentages of each breed for each title. You used to be able to get the data on registration numbers/year from AKC, but they no longer provide this information. I wonder why?
 

·
Kate
Joined
·
20,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I know this is an old thread, but it's really interesting. There are so many more labs than goldens. I know that so few are bred to be show dogs compared to goldens bred to be show dogs. I know at my local shows, goldens usually have higher counts than labs. We're ahead of labs except for the field events. We are way behind. I do think its way easier to find a good field trial lab litter than it is to find a good golden field trial litter. There are just less goldens raised solely for field than labs.
Labs are a preferred breed for field people.

They like the short coats.

They like the temperaments (not soft like goldens).

They like the energy levels (with field labs, it's way beyond the energy levels of field goldens).

And also there's just preferences. A lot of guys prefer labs. It's a guy's breed. And majority of people in higher level field are men.

Goldens as a breed are more typically bred to be pets. They are not strictly bred for show if just one pup per litter is kept for showing and the others are all with no exception sold with limited registration and placed in pet homes. And because majority of the pups go into pet homes - they are bred to have golden retriever temperaments and manageable energy/activity levels.

I had a very good laugh at ringside with my breeder and other golden people when describing a conversation with an obedience person recently. Obedience person had goldens from a certain big name breeder of performance goldens. So think a very different looking type dog and not really golden-like in many ways.

We sat together for 4 hours and the woman had nothing to say to or about my golden who sprawled happily and quietly across my feet the entire time. She just gave him looks like he gave her heartburn and that was it. LOL. He was all show-dog in appearance and I happily shared with anyone who asked that he'd just gotten reserve for the second show/second day in a row that morning.

I was chittering (kinda one-sided, but that was OK - I'll talk to walls if I'm bored) with her to kill time and mentioned how happy I was to be able to bring a 1.5 year old out to an obedience trial and trust that he knew his job out in the ring. And explained how thrilled I was to have a boy who was serious and calm so early.

I knew what I meant there, but the woman gave me and my dog a TSTL look and asked, "Why on earth would you want a calm golden retriever?"

I explained what I meant exactly (having a male dog who was mentally mature enough to enter trials and trust and expect to get scores in the 190's with him, most male dogs do not mature mentally until they are closer to 3) - but it was on the tip of my tongue to respond that if I'd wanted a high energy dog, I would have gotten a lab. There's reasons why people like me prefer goldens over lab. There SHOULD BE breed differences vs everyone having a generic retriever that doesn't even look exactly like one breed or another. :laugh:

I know that some people get performance bred goldens because they are more biddable than labs, but the dogs themselves - yeeks. They don't look like goldens. That's putting it nicely.

And I'm saying that as somebody who actually likes some performance breeders and what they typically produce. There's some out there though who have sacrificed completely on the looks front.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,439 Posts
Megora,
Please stop hating on non-show golden retrievers. Cool that they don’t work for you you, I get that. But your hate isn’t getting you anywhere. P.S. Your knowledge of field work is super light and not in depth at all. Please don’t tell us all about something you lack knowledge in. It really shows your ignorance.

Just for the record I have an excellent calm field trial dog with an excellent field trial pedigree. You might want to check out my thread about the boxer jumping the obedience ring after my guy’s dumbbell. I think I have a very calm dog. He goes to sleep in the honor position at field trials, I have to do things to keep him awake. Yes he will never get a Ch. Here’s my guy’s pedigree: Pedigree: Thistle Rock Kicking Up a Fuss CD RA WCX ** https://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/golden-retriever-agility-obedience/511988-obedience-trial-dog-next-ring-jumped-fence.html

We all love our dogs and think they are the best. But putting down other dogs to make yourself feel better isn’t very nice.
 

·
Kate
Joined
·
20,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
Wow. Talk about hair triggers. How embarrassing.

If you see hatred in my posts - I think that is more YOUR problem. I've never expressed hatred for anybody's dogs. If you have a nice dog who is everything a golden should be, there's no reason for you to lump him in with the goldens out there who are incorrect in appearance for the breed. Especially if your dog will ever be bred.

Put your "I see hatred" blinders away and read what I actually said. There are breeders out there who produce nice dogs who are nice looking though very different from the show lines. But there are others - and particularly those I interacted at that trial who are gawdawful in appearance. They look like a completely different breed.

I saw your other thread and raised an eyebrow about you being afraid of a dog fight. <= And fwiw, I just assumed you were afraid of the boxer vs your dog getting into it with the boxer. Otherwise, I had no comment because I do believe dogs in Open should be trained and I had my eyeful of untrained dogs recently with a rally trial (at the obedience trial I was at) I watched. Dog at that trial was running around, barking at the handler and judge, etc... and judge SHOULD have NQ'd the dog at the start but kept letting the craziness continue. This was happened right before I was going into the ring right next door and I was leery of that distraction affecting my dog (it didn't but as trainers we all are thinking ahead to what could happen).

If I were doing a tit for tat thing and wouldn't be hugely embarrassed at the ridiculousness of saying such a stupid thing - I really wish you would recognize that some of the dogs bred for show... are nice dogs and everything the breed should be. You know... instead of hating them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
The only titles that mean anything to me are FC & AFC. QAA is a step in the right direction.

No disrespect to anyone else's dogs or the titles they have earned.
 

·
Kate
Joined
·
20,434 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
The only titles that mean anything to me are FC & AFC. QAA is a step in the right direction.
Heheh - I'm apparently too ignorant to know what QAA means (questions and answers?)... :laugh:

Seriously speaking though - I think people put a lot of value on titles and rely on titles to tell them what they want to know about a litter. And I think this is... not good.

I think when you put too much focus on breeding or buying dogs based on what is on paper... you are leaving out the fact that titles don't tell the whole story. There's health issues. There's also other serious faults with the dogs themselves.

I'm pretty simple and basic in my needs. And have sat at obedience classes enough to see pretty humbling displays of greatness by some dogs who were not the flashiest in obedience classes. But they were steady workers.

One I know of - I remember the trainer despairing of ever getting her cocker spaniel to heel off leash. And it was bad! But that dog now has a CDX - and she got it easily 1-2-3.

I think more of us golden people should learn from people like that. Do your best with what you have.

And my take on how that applies personally - I know what kind of golden I will always get. For as long as I've posted on this forum, there's been pictures of my Jacks. He was the most ideal golden in my world. And he came after a boy who similarly was the most ideal golden. They had a certain look and temperament. And no matter what - I always want dogs like that. That looks, sweetness, temperament, gentleman nature, devotion, etc... I have found it in the dogs I've gotten.

Fortunately, that type of dog is close or exactly what is in the show rings today. So I get to show my dogs and have fun out there. And I've personally gotten the show bug simply because it's been so much fun showing my dogs. I would have dropped out years ago if I found it to be as brutal as people say it is.

And obedience - I've felt that any dog can get a CD. Doesn't matter where he comes from. Novice is really easy and whether you squeak a Q in or if you get scores in the 190's and easily title your dog... that's less about the dog and more about how well you prepared that dog.

CDX - is more physically demanding. So you do want a more athletic dog. But again everything else can be trained, including the retrieves and position changes.So many people whined and wept bloody tears about the changes in open with the increased difficult of position changes being added to the level. But my 1.5 year old EASILY is doing those position changes and cleanly. And while I think he's pretty smart, there's also the fact that I trained with somebody who made those position changes very easy to teach.

Anyway - my point is - with an unknown breeder using unknown dogs, it's useful seeing what titles are on their dogs. But if you know the breeder and have watched their dogs for years, you know what kind of puppy you are getting regardless of titles on the parents. And of course, it's what YOU do that matters.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Heheh - I'm apparently too ignorant to know what QAA means (questions and answers?)... :laugh:
Qualified All Age; Placed first or second in a qualifying stake or any placement or JAM (judges award of merit) in an all age stake.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top