Yea, the more you know the scarier it is to think about. Breeding to improve...HMM.... for me it would be to improve the bitch or the dog you have. Say, your bitch needs a stronger front, then breeding for a stronger front is looking to improve her. But, IMO if you want one thing, you will lose something else. Give and take..

If you want to improve my breeding for better hip production or longevity (which I hope everyone is doing), then that is breeding to "improve."

 

Well, that's just the thing. I mean, if we only breed dogs with a good clearance history without some red flag disease warning (understanding that there is something wrong in every line), that's a lovely thing. But is it improving the breed? Is getting two pups out of eight that have a stronger front "improving the breed" if you're breeding to a very popular sire and thereby reducing the genetic diversity in the breed?

I'm just kind of confused by all this. It seems to me that people breed for what they want and then they call it improving the breed. Seems arbitrary. Seems like it means whatever you want it to mean on any given day.

 

Good question. It seems to me like a very subjective goal. One person can truly believe what they're breeding for will improve the breed while someone else can view what they're breeding for as taking away from the breed. Even if a breeder's only goal were improving health and longevity, someone else could question whether what they're doing would accomplish that and whether disregarding all else is in the best interest of the breed.

 

It means everything and it means nothing. Much like the term "healthy living" IMO.

 

Good question!

Breeding to "Improve The Breed" means to improve upon what you have, one dog and one pairing at a time.

Every breeder should evaluate the dog(s) they have and compare them against the Breed Standard. No dog is a perfect specimen. There are ALWAYS shortcomings. The Breed Standard is the blueprint you should be breeding toward. It is the center line of the pathway that defines the Breed.

You should be selecting mates that help you move toward the center line for the breed.

 

Every breeder should evaluate the dog(s) they have and compare them against the Breed Standard. No dog is a perfect specimen. There are ALWAYS shortcomings. The Breed Standard is the blueprint you should be breeding toward. It is the center line of the pathway that defines the Breed.

Does the breed standard say anything about health though? How do you factor in the health problems rampant in the breed? That's what muddies the waters, the way I see it. Not that I have ever bred or intend to breed, I just think it's all very interesting.

 

I have always had trouble with that statement. I had an interesting conversation at a field trial training this past weekend and then continued it on FB yesterday.
Of course this brought me back to the same statement over and over about "improving" the goldens where now they can hardly make it in field trials anymore. From my point of view that is not an improvement at all. While the labs aptitudes have been increasing in the field the goldens have decreased; therefore the field trials have evolved based on the winners, the labs. Also more labs are bred for the field and with their purpose in mind while less and less goldens are bred with their purpose in mind.

 

Question, are goldens intended purpose to be field trial dogs? Are they actually meant to keep up with the field trial labs? I've always read the standard as primary a hunting dog, not necessarily a field trial dog. My males parents were both actively hunted every season and did very well, but would have never kept up at a field trial. IMHO they (in that respect) fit the breed standard still.

What I am not saying, is that breeding field trial dogs is outside of the standard. I just don't know if all goldens should have to be able to keep up in the field trials in order to be with in the standard. Just wanted to clarify that part.

 

I'll probably get slapped for saying this, but it seems to be the phrase that's always used to denigrate someone who isn't breeding according to someone else's strict guidelines. If someone comes here and says that they want to get into breeding, and they're following most of the rules but maybe missing one thing, it's always "what are you doing to improve the breed?"

I don't want an improved Max, I'm pretty happy with the one I've got.

 

My opinion....

1. People who do stuff with their dogs are more likely to be aware of their dogs' shortcomings. Or the shortcomings of their programs. You know people stuck at home or with just friends are going to have a super-inflated opinion of their dogs and their breeding programs. And that super-inflated opinion when challenged turns into a "us against the world" defense mechanism.... I think we've been treated to some sad examples of that on this forum with some breeders who call every word against them lies and slander....

2. All dogs have faults. And biggest thing is understanding what those faults are an how costly they are going to be as far as "can you breed them out?"

I've heard of breeders throwing away dogs who have seemingly minor faults - primarily because those faults are terrible to weed out by 8-10 weeks and odds are those puppies are going to inherit all that stuff. Not just the big things like hips and elbows or cataracts or eye cysts..... It's gay tails and stuff like that.

^ This is not easy to do just from home. Especially if you do not have mentors or friends in the breed who can go over your dog and tell you what you have. It's not just knowing people who will tell you the uncomfortable truth about your dog, but it's also being able to take constructive criticism about your dog. And counting up all the things that are wrong with the dog.

I know it's probably not as huge a deal with the girls, because you as the breeder are paying others to "fix" your girl's problems. But good luck if you own a stud with a bunch of problems. :uhoh:

My opinion too as a boy dog owner - I would not breed my dog to anything that I would not be interested in keeping a puppy from. So from my perspective, the litters have to be prospectively as good as my dog or stronger. So even "fixing" a girl's problems - that's going to really depend on the problems and my own honesty as far as whether or not my boy's own faults would make things worse. It's not a huge deal to me because - I'm not really thinking about breeding my boy - not right now. But I do cringe when I see experimental litters set up by friends and I have no idea what they are trying to do. It looks way too much like them breeding whatever they can get their hands on.

3. Popular sire - I was thinking about this, particularly as I was going nuts trying to track down any future litters with a boy I really like. You know why popular sires are popular?

Because of the expense and gamble with going with a unproven boy. A while back, I was sitting with a friend who was telling me about what she was looking for in a "boyfriend" for her girl. And she had a list of things she wanted - particularly a dog who threw good heads, as well as coats.

I'm gathering the big push for certain studs is because they are throwing good X that all the breeders are looking for. And I can think of one popular stud who I swear everyone used in the past 3 years or so.... he already has puppies getting going in the conformation ring who are everything the breeders were hoping for.

I guess if you are a breeder who is trying to improve what you have.... using a popular sire is the sure bet.

It's not just conformation. Get into obedience and you have even fewer boys who are the puppy daddies for everyone's up and coming obedience stars. And if they aren't the puppy daddies, then they are the grand-daddies or closely arranged in that pedigree.... The breeders get RESULTS with titles on those puppies, so I would imagine it is all about improving what they have based on what their prerogatives are.

 

Kate, good points. As one popular sire example everyone knows of and has talked about extensively, and is affecting my thinking right now -- Kirby (but it could be any sire as popular as him for this example) -- people used him like crazy to "improve" their bitches. And I know lots of great dogs came from Kirby. But boy, so many people used him, now it's pretty hard to get away from Kirby (at least in the West). He's ubiquitous. So, while each person may have improved on their bitches by breeding to Kirby, given how prominent he is in pedigrees, did that improve the breed as a whole?

I know that when I breed Ziva, one of the really appealing choices I can make is to breed her to Chaos (Kirby's son). Looking at it, it would be a bold and potentially great breeding, and would give me a lot of what I'm looking for. But by going that way, am I improving the breed? How do I know? Isn't the answer all in how I look at it?

So, very good point you raised. I'm not sure there actually is an answer. Or perhaps it's the answer if I want it to be. I dunno.

 

I don't want to improve the breed, we are already suffering the consequences of all of the *improvements*. I want to breed to return it to what it used to be.

 

EXACTLY!!!

We need to be breeding back toward the center line of the highway.

 

hahahaah - now this is funny? So why even care if the breeders compete in any venues with their dogs - if it DOES NOT MATTER! Isn't that what most people post here about the "reputable breeders"? They have "proved" their dogs?

I do not know how to go back and quote but paraphrasing Barb - I want the goldens the way they were....

Funny, I was told that I must really love goldens to try to go into field trials with them. My reply was - Not ALL of them lost those capabilities, they are just not bred for it, they have been "improved".

 

The "average" golden retriever probably comes from a pedigree with mostly un-titled dogs and little or no clearances on its parents. It has an average lifespan of 10.5 years. If a breeder takes the necessary steps to improve upon this -- clearances and lifespan -- they are improving the breed and producing "above average" goldens. Competition never comes into it. NO competition judges dogs based on its health or longevity. Those breeders or exhibitors who do compete in addition to clearances are way above average and are already "improving the breed" above the median. We like to think that we're the average golden owner but truth be told those who compete or have dogs from well known pedigrees are GREATLY in the minority when you look at the breed as a whole. Talking about field trials and differences in the breed ring is splitting hairs compared to the work we have done and still have to do to improve on health and longevity.

 

Well, here it goes, my two cents and you all know I am long winded.

I do not think this is a hard and fast term. It allows for breeders to interpret. I believe it is quite possible and quite common for breeders to differ in their oppinion of this interpretation and speak in their own circles about how what they are doing meets this term, while what others do does not.

So, here is my oppinion, my definition.
For me a breeder using this term and meeting it would meet each of these 7 criteria.

1. A well defined and articulated goal.
This could be breeding a Field Trial Champion, a Breed Ring Champion, an
Obedience Champion, etc. though, it does not have to be that lofty. It could be to
produce a dog that can earn a CCA, a CD or breed a dog that will live actively and
healthy until 12-16 years of age. Persoanlly, I think most good breeders have several
goals they are balancing. What I do not consider a worthy goal for improving is
producing puppies for production sake.

2. This goal is tracked an measured.
It is great to have a goal, but if it is not tracked or measured, it is really just a hope or
wish. In any endeavor, if you are looking to improve, you must know where you were,
where you are and where you are going.

3. This goal would be validated by an external organization recognized as the experts in
their field.
If I am breeding for a solid hunting dog I should take advantage of organizations that
offer tests, competitions or certifications. The same would hold true for all other
disciplines as well as for health. This independent/external evaluation is critical to that
measurable piece I listed above.

4. The goal would not be contrary to the standard, integrity of the breed or health.
This is the one that everyone likes to argue over. Here from my perspective, I am
talking about substantial deviations like breeding aggressive guard Goldens or
knowingly breeding a strain of dogs with a health problem for which their is a test.

5. The breeder is willing and able to remove dogs from the program that are not a step
forward regardless of time, money, resources, and/or emotions.
Having a goal, measuring it, and all the rest means little if the breeder is unable to
make the hard decision to put the breed put the breed before their own desires or
their dogs.

6. Drive to push on to the next goal.
Once a goal is accomplished, improvement must drive forward. Adding a new goal,
refining or even adjusting a goal. This also speaks to a breeders growth as well.
Breeders are not handed a magical tome that holds the collective knowledge of those
that came before and poof now you are a breeder. As they grow in experience and
knowledge, it is natural for goals to grow and change as well.

7. Honesty and integrity
To the breed
To the dogs
To their goals
To their buyers
To themselves

At that point even if it is not a direction I would choose, I have to believe they are breeding to improve the breed.
I think it would be interesting to ponder if our earliest breeders had such conversations. I bet they did.

 

OMG please let's not exhaust ourselves by diagramming sentences!
The standard is open to opinion and interpretation and that is why "improving the breed" can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To me it means improving on the average life expectancy, health and happiness of the puppy you produce and the people who own them! The rest is gravy on top!

 

OMG please let's not exhaust ourselves by diagramming sentences!

I will refrain if folks likewise refrain from declaring any four words therein as paramount above all others. Sound fair?

I do apologize for my grammatical enthusiasm. It's about the only use there is for my two English degrees (I know, it's hard to believe ). I lost the essence, which is about whether or not we can have any agreement on what "breeding to improve the breed" means. Sorry!

 

I think it's called confirmation bias.

 

When I say I want to return to the *original* breed, I think of a lot more than physical looks.
While there are always exceptions to every rule, 20 years or more ago we pretty much didn't see Goldens with the temperament problems that are so common now. Skittish, shy, scared dogs? Wasn't happening. Aggressive dogs, either toward humans or other dogs? Virtually unheard of. Dogs dumb as a box of rocks? Nope. Dogs who are so high energy (and/or neurotic) they simply cannot hold still for even a few minutes at a time? No such thing. All of these things are totally incorrect in the breed, yet we see so very much of it these days. Try boarding dogs, rather than seeing only dogs who are trained in some venue, and you (that's a general "you", not directed at anyone in particular) will see what I see in the breed, and it's not a good thing going on.
Overall longevity statistics remain unchanged over time, so have we made any progress? Hip dysplasia is down, but we have some new issues, especially eye issues, that were unheard of just a couple of decades ago.
Loved the motto from 2012 National:
"In our past, lies our future"

 

I also have to wonder though how much has changed vice how much is now known that wasn't in the past? For health testing, the eye issues could have always been there but now symptoms that might be dismissed as "allergies" are now known as actual symptoms of PU? How has the number of dogs increased in the numbers being tested/evaluated as compared to many years ago? Also, how many pet dogs were out in the public as they are now with stores allowing pets & doggie cafes & dog parks? Has pet ownership changed from a pet never really leaving one's property to now being forced to co-exist in public where issues with temperament are more readily apparent? Also, communication has greatly improved (internet, email, forums...), so folks now have a various means to communicate issues they're dealing with.

 

Julie, it is hard to spin around! First it was the inexperienced trainer, then the very young dog.
I have posted my girls videos (good and bad) under their FB page. And I have wrote many a times about the training (good and bad) on this forum.
That video actually summarizes how goldens are really expected to perform in the field after the "respected breeders" have "improved" them.
I do not pretend to be a breeder, this issue has been raised for over 50 years. It fell on deaf ears and nothing was done to keep the aptitudes alive.
As pointed before nowhere in the breed standard does it specify that "only goldens bred for field trials are upholding the golden retriever standard -- an opinion that many well respected breeders appear to disagree with." Actually the breeders seem to have eliminated them from the conformation pool as if the field goldens no longer fit the breed standard. Excuse my inexperience but I believe that is what the conformation is all about.
I am always happy and rooting for any dog to pass in the field test and take exception with he goldens. Many a times I sit in the working station and hold my fingers crossed while whispering "go go go". But it still pains me to see the difference in style and performance even if the golden does pass the test.

 

I'm not "spinning" anything. In my first reply I referenced both an inexperienced dog and what I saw to possibly be an inexperienced trainer. I was provided with more information about the woman in question (actual facts, not conjecture), rewatched the video with that new information in mind, and adjusted my opinion. That's what most people do when presented with new evidence. My point isn't that I know exactly what is going on in that video. I don't. Neither do you. That was the point. As evidenced by the fact that you assumed to know this dog's age from looking at his coat yet it turns out he was under 1 year old when that video was posted. I have no idea what you mean when you say, "That video actually summarizes how goldens are really expected to perform in the field after the "respected breeders" have "improved" them." No one expects a well trained golden retriever to blow off a cast. Do you believe this is an innate, instinctual behavior that goldens of yesteryear naturally possessed without need for training? I highly doubt it. I would equally expect a novice lab who is still in the learning stages (and less than a year old) to at times get over excited, break from the line, and grab the nearest bumper (especially when no particular stay command has been used to give the dog guidance). Are you claiming labs don't do that? Ever? Since you freely admit there is some "bad" along the way while you are training your dogs, how can you so readily assume that the bit of "bad" displayed in this video is an example of some sort of deficiency or lack of aptitude from breeding while claiming that your dog hasn't lost the capability. What makes your dog's bad moment superior to this dog's?

I'm starting to think that either you live in a place unique for an over abundance of poorly performing goldens or I have just been lucky to live in multiple areas with exceptional ones. When I am working in the field with Jersey, I just don't see all this inadequacy in the breed that you do. I see passes, failures, great performances, and occasionally some poor ones from ALL breeds competing on any particular day. Perhaps it is, to some extent, that our expectations are different. I do not expect a golden to perform exactly like a lab. I don't expect a poodle to perform exactly like a golden. I don't expect a NSDTR to perform exactly like a poodle. And so on. They are different breeds for a reason. Otherwise, we would only have ever needed, and ever had, a single "retriever" breed. If you prefer the working style of a lab so much, I have to wonder why you would be interested in owning future goldens (perhaps you're not, I don't really know).

Conformation breeders do not seek out dogs at the farthest extreme of "field bred" (for the most part) because it is not the style of dog they prefer and it is not the style of dog that is likely to be successful in their chosen field of interest. Similarly, breeders primarily focused on field trials generally do not seek out conformation bred dogs for the same reason. Why is one more guilty than the other in your eyes? It does not mean that most conformation breeders have absolutely no interest in preserving the "retriever" in this breed. I never claimed that the standard said that field trials are necessary to uphold breed type. I referenced the fact that you say it every time a discussion remotely similar to this arises.

Julie and the boys

 

As a posting novice, but long time Golden owner, I'd like to offer my first hand experiences of owning eight very different Goldens over the last 37 years. First and foremost, with minmal training, these dogs can do more than a creditable job with ducks and doves AND live indoors on the dole for the other 7 months of the year. All have been great family dogs. They have come from a variety of breeders and cancer took 5 of the 8. I guess I'm lucky but we have not had any issues with dysplasia or other genetic issues. The primary purpose of choosing Goldens for our family dogs was to have a working retriever and a dog we could trust around family. NONE have ever exhibited any behavioral trait I would consider abnormal. All have had that Golden sixth sense when it comes to handling toddlers - unless they were eating something desirable and at that point our dogs like to "share", LOL! I strongly agree with the posters above that the tendency among some professional breededs to focus on conformation at the expense of the breed standard is doing a great disservice to our Goldens as a whole. My opinion of the breeders in the local club my wife and I once belonged to soured considerably when we came to realize that most of these folks were only in it for the money and fame they could generate from their litters. Sure, they bred to rid a certain line of dysplasia, bad elbows, heart defects and eye problems but only as a secondary means to end. And that end was the almighty dollar. Happily, some focus has been brought on certain breeders tendency toward large chested, blockhead dogs, who do well in beauty contest but are moving further and further from the conformation standard previously detailed. In the perfect world financial gain is not the driving force to working toward a genetically sound, physically fit, field savy, family dog who our childrens, children will still apreciate for all the Golden can be. I have enjoyed and been educated by this thread.

 

@DixieJim - please don't misunderstand what people have said above. I've talked privately with a few people not necessarily regarding this thread, but an ongoing discussion as far as problems that exist when you have so many splits in the breed and so many people going obstinate about what they see as problems and what they refuse to admit are problems.

The issue is that it's not just conformation breeders moving aware from the center of the road (so to speak). It's the other guys moving the other way as well. And this is a problem when you have people getting tunnel vision or disparaging other areas of the complete dog.

 

Unfortunately Kate, when you take the work-ability and tractability out of the dog you cause the original breed to become extinct. You may still call it the same breed in the conformation ring but that does not mean that it remains the same breed.

And when you lose the stamina, the water attitude, the style etc then you will feel like all eyes are on you when in the field and feel bad about it, but it is nothing that the field people did; it is the fact that it has been indeed bred out of it.


As far as what Barb brought about the temperament changes of the goldens. I think it is a combination of breeding but also the false expectations of the owners that the golden is just this cuddly ball of fluff that does not need training, and breed specific exercise.

Darcy was on Xanax because the previous owner said she was too hyper. Well lady, you got a flat coat retriever breed not a couch potato! Amazing how for the past year she has not had any Xanax and any other medications this woman had her on. All Darcy needed was the appropriate amount of exercise and her brains directed in the field.

 

See Julie, once again we are defending the golden of today instead of going to the golden of yesterday that had the qualities of a RETRIEVER and the looks of a golden retriever in the show ring.

You keep on asking me why would I still want goldens, why am I critical of the goldens and not just accept them the way they have been "improved". Call me a romantic but I prefer the Golden Retrievers the way they were.

Frankly because I am tired of them being beat by the back dog. Both in style and performance. Yes, definitely our expectations are different and that is the reason why I will not defend and accept the "new improved" golden retriever.

BTW - this is what IMHO a one year old golden looks like as far as coat goes:

 

See Julie, once again we are defending the golden of today instead of going to the golden of yesterday that had the qualities of a RETRIEVER and the looks of a golden retriever in the show ring.



You keep on asking me why would I still want goldens, why am I critical of the goldens and not just accept them the way they have been "improved". Call me a romantic but I prefer the Golden Retrievers the way they were.



Frankly because I am tired of them being beat by the back dog. Both in style and performance. Yes, definitely our expectations are different and that is the reason why I will not defend and accept the "new improved" golden retriever.



BTW - this is what IMHO a one year old golden looks like as far as coat goes:

All this talk about what goldens used to be able to do in the field. I've gotten the impression that you are relatively new to working in the field with your dogs. Unless I am completely mistaken, you haven't been out there over the past 50 or however many years to have observed what their style or level of performance used to be. Or what used to be required for a field trial as compared to today. You assume that because their style and performance differs in some ways from that of a lab (or whatever breed) that it is a fundamental change and decline in the golden's style and performance. I'm new to this too. But I hold that those things have always differed between the breeds.... it's fundamentally the reason there ARE different breeds. They were bred for similar, but nonetheless different, purposes. Yes, there is more of a spread between the extremes and less dogs capable of excelling to the absolute top levels in both field and conformation today. There hasn't been a Dual Champion in however many decades. But how many were there ever? Was it ever really the norm? I'm asking honestly, I can't seem to google up the answer. As someone else mentioned, both sides of the spectrum have moved farther apart over the years. Labs have gone through that same spread of extremes. But there is still a ton of middle ground that many responsible breeders fill, focusing on their particular priorities but always keeping an eye toward purpose. I prefer that middle of the road dog. I want a dog with the look I prefer who has a ton of drive in the field but I do not have the interest, the time, or the money to pursue field trials. Which one of us is more right for wanting what we personally desire in a golden? I would say neither. And I don't see it as an entirely negative thing that there is enough variation in the breed to satisfy us both. I agree with you that any breeder who has NO concern for maintaining the working ability in goldens is doing a disservice to the breed. I just don't see that the majority of breeders (excluding mills and BYBs) fit that description. Go for the breed you want. Go for the style within that breed that you prefer. Support breeders whose ideals coincide with yours. Show a modicum of respect to those breeders who are closer to the middle of the road than you. But stop denigrating this entire breed because of the fundamentally flawed argument that goldens once upon a time performed identically to labs.

Julie, Jersey and Oz

Edited to add: you are welcome to your opinion of what a 1 year old dog should look like. But individual dogs and lines of dogs, just like individual people and families, mature at different rates. Jersey was nearly 3 before he hit full maturity. This dog may have been there at 18 or 20 months. I tried to use a good analogy for people but most of them are less than appetizing - and since I know I often snack while reading posts, I'll refrain from anything unsavory lol. But you get the idea. I know 12 year old boys who practically look like grown men and others who look like babies by comparison. Ever gone to watch a little league game? Those kids can really run the gamut. Dogs are no different.

 

As for the original question, since it's gotten a little off topic, improving the breed to me means (as someone else posted) improving on what you have. Prioritizing health, temperament and overall soundness. It can certainly mean different things to different people, as can many things in this hobby. So many breeding decisions end up being made based on where that decision lies within one's personal comfort zone. For me it is making choices that, if questioned later, I would feel comfortable telling a puppy buyer that I did all the research I could and made the best decision I could at the time.

 

To me, breeding to "improve the breed" is a way of saying to set thoughtful high goals, and don't just breed the dog you have because you love her/him as a pet. Breed with a high bar set in your mind rather than lowering your bar to be commensurate with the dog you happen to own who grows up with more limitations than you hoped when selecting a puppy.

When my show puppy passed elbow prelims but failed finals, well I neutered him though many counciled me to still breed him. When my field bred dog had cripplingly poor conformation, I spayed her. That is what most people also do who love the breed.

However the ones who make excuses and breed the dog anyway bc they put money and emotional investment and precious training time into it already? Those are the people for whom that phrase was invented, especially when the truth is purposely hidden.

To me, trying to improve the breed is in some ways in the eye of the beholder. However, when people start compromising their own formerly high standards bc they want to breed for breeding's sake, then that is the opposite of the phrase.

Goldens of the past: I lived every day of my life with multiple goldens, and the goldens of yesterday were my nannies and best friends, went hunting with my grandfather, played ball, slept in my bed - they are not all that different from my current dog Finn. From someone who grew up with responsibly bred, dual bred goldens from a top past breeder, it just isnt true they are so very changed except at the extreme polarities of each sport/ venue.

If a golden is way too long in leg to comply with the breed standard, and long in the loin, then these things are not window dressing meaningless except in the show ring; they keep the field dog from breaking down physically when his mind still has good drive.
Having owned a golden with amazing prey drive and MH x MH parents, it was heartbreaking when her elbows were set way too loose to her body and she lacked proper angulation in the front, so that her superior drive only served to injure her and worsen her drastic ED. In the ideal world, form and function are equal parts of a whole.

 

May I make a respectful request that the Israelis and Palestinians take it to another thread for their endless war where they just yell at each other and never even try to understand the other's perspective?

This thread was to discuss what the phrase "breeding to improve the breed" means, if anything. Certainly there is room in that discussion for someone to say that to them it means breeding to win field trials. But once you've said that, give it a rest and let other people chime in with their thoughts, and don't use this thread as an excuse to hijack it for another one of your endless diatribes about how ruined Goldens are. Let's please try to get back somewhere in the same zip code as the topic.

Thanks.

 

Since I'm perfectly guilty of some of the off topic chatter here, I'll try to bring myself back to the original question. I really like the comments made regarding improving health and longevity while striving to adhere to the standard and, as I think it was Swampcollie put it, focus on veering toward the middle to maintain good looking dogs who maintain their original purpose. I don't have really anything new or interesting to add to what has already been said on those fronts. Great thread, lots of good thoughts -- sorry I got distracted.

Julie and the boys

 

But on the same vein I cannot see the bulky (and I know it is just fluffed up coat), stocky, big pawed goldens in the conformation ring be able to do the same. While I have seen a show style golden pass an MH test it was quite pitiful to watch that dog's style and performance. I really thought he would be dropped just on style. In a way I was glad he passed but on another hand I figured that dog will be bred with "the big achievement" of passing MH tests even though that dog tippy toed to the marks.

I have to say this.... stuff like this after the previous comments on Bernadette and her young dog.... it's.... unkind. Particularly all the more since people with conformation dogs are going to feel personally charged here by your critical description here when they would not say anything critical about your dog. And still wouldn't, I hope.

Structure - is very important to me as a dog owner and I'm still learning what exactly "good structure" is from head to tail from back to foot. Me personally without going into a lot of the other stuff (that I'm still learning about), I like balance. I had a judge (she hasn't judged my dog so not a personal comment on my dog) tell me that you know a dog is balanced and there's much wrong with him if he is able to stack himself on his own without having to be trained to stack.

This was interesting because in obedience you have people who feel you have to stack the dogs to really make sure they are balanced and will stay in place - and fight with the dogs who don't want to stand that way. And one person I know of, she always stacked her girl and kept having her break the stays. One of the times we traded stays in class, I told her to not fuss with the feet and see how her dog would do just putting the feet where she wanted as long as she wasn't falling over. So the dog was put in a stay where her rears were well under her and closer together. The dog held her stays and it worked in the ring too as she got her CD without any points off on the stand. <- This was a champion flatcoat, btw, who has been bred. I honestly am not really saying she had bad structure. But following what judges see when you have dogs not comfortable standing square, it was interesting to note.

ETA - and I brought the structure thing up because it seems a very minute thing as far as "how dogs want to stand" but I filed that right in the same area of my brain that took notes sitting outside the ring and watching a local person working in obedience with her CH/MH/MACH/OTCH German shorthair pointer and thinking the whole time that I wanted a dog whose movement and like moving stands and drops and everything were so effortless. Big thing I noticed with this dog was she is superb physically and structurally and very controlled (meaning controlled as far as how much energy she expends while working). <- I don't know if there is a golden out there who could be all that, but at the time it motivated me to go on and bring up structure and movement and strength when talking to golden breeders after that.

What that judge said about even little things like the dog being able to stand square comfortably - that hit in the same area because I do believe that structure isn't just for show. You want these dogs to be healthy in every way. It does trickle into how they perform, even in obedience.

My instructor (another flatcoat person) has frequently brought up structure when it comes to stays. She's had a couple dogs who had problems with sits - and this led her to speculate as a flatcoat person if there is something going on with the structure of these specific dogs or if it is the breed even. Her dogs have had adjustments which helped them with the stays - so there may be something there.

^ This is just talking about sitting and standing and the effects that proper or improper structure have.

 

Claudia, I am at a total loss of what you are trying to prove. Now it sounds like you are saying this something is wrong with the dog in the video's breeding because of the amount of coat he has? This is that dog's sire:

Pedigree: OTCH MACH Sunfire's Undeniable VCD3 UDX RAE TDX MH MXC MJB WCX OBHF ADHF ** OS

Yes, he throws thick, beautiful coats. He also throws dogs that can WORK. He has a son that was the first ever OTCH MACH CT MH in the breed, and a second son is one pass away from being the same.

I really think you chose a bad example of a dog to pick on, because every breeding decision made for generations to create that puppy was based on creating a great working dog who is also a nice physical representation of the breed and with a genuine "golden" temperament. IMO that puppy is what breeders should be striving to create.