Perhaps I have misled you into thinking the WC is my highest aspiration; it's not. But it's probably my highest aspiration for 2010. After 2010, we move on to the JH. After that, I'd love to keep going. Tito is a young dog, he'll be 3 in March. We have plenty of time.
The problem is, which is true for so many people, there are only so many hours in a day, and only so much money in the coffer. We can't compete aggressively in all sports at once.
I've opted to chase the CH aggressively for the next several months (to the tune of almost $1000 a weekend, between hotels/handlers/travel expenses/etc. which should explain in and of itself why we can't also pursue field work aggressively).
I'm also actively pursuing his UDX at this time. That adds more time and money. Don't know if you're familiar with the UDX, it's a very high level obedience title that very few dogs ever attain. To get a UDX leg, you have to qualify in both Open B and Utility B in the same show. It takes 10 legs to get a UDX. I'd like to have at least 5 UDX legs by the end of 2010. Only have 1 right now. Think...double entry fees...more hotels, more travel....
And, we are training actively in agility, just because it's a lot of fun, but I do hope to have him ready to trial in agility by the end of 2010. It's on my goal list.
And if you've seen any of my other threads, you know we also do dock diving. He's got a junior jumper title (UKC), we're hoping for a senior jumper title by the end of 2010. Again, just because it's so darned much fun. But then, goldens SHOULD willingly want to jump into the water over and over to retrieve something.
As far as breeding him, I haven't made any decisions, although most of the time I'm inclined against it.
But to answer your question, I firmly believe that Tito personifies the very best of the golden breed. But I don't just want my own, biased opinion, I want other, unbiased ones. So I show him in the breed ring, where the judges seem to agree he's among the good goldens out there in terms of breed standard.
I train/show him in obedience, to prove that he's trainable, smart, and willing. He got his UD at 30 months old, which is very, very rare, especially considering I've never trained a dog anywhere near that level before.
He will do anything you ask of him, willingly and happily.
He's got a temperament made of gold. Never met a person, child, or other dog, including intact males, that he doesn't get along with. He's calm and quiet. I can count on the fingers of one hand the times he's barked in his life.
He has passed all his health clearances. He is free of allergies, chronic ear infections, or other health issues.
Tito is the true multi-purpose dog, which IMHO is what the golden should be. That's why I would even consider breeding him. I'm still undecided as to whether or not I will, but if I do decide to, it will be with enough titles on BOTH ends of his name to say that others besides me think he's got a lot of what it takes to be an excellent golden retriever.
FWIW, I've turned down 6 requests to stud him so far. People do notice dogs who are "double ring dogs", because there are so few of them who seem able to compete and excel in multiple venues.
I'm sorry if this sounds like a huge brag on Tito, but I couldn't answer your question any other way.
Before I reply, let me say that I appreciate any and all efforts to keep the word "Retriever" in the name of our Golden Retriever breed an adverb, rather than a noun. I'm not a WC participant, although I've volunteered as a gunner at them.
I require of myself and my dogs the highest standards of field performance to which we can aspire, so I train to levels competitive in the highest stakes of both the hunt test
and field trial venues. You have stated something I believe is an honest apraisal of WC competition. I believe WC defines itself as a minimum. But a minimum is far better than surrendering what makes a dog a retriever.May I ask why? I'm not passing judgment here. I'm asking an honest question. I get tons of inquiries from people desiring my opinion on whether thier dogs should be bred to 'this or that line'. Often my reply is designed to discourage most of them from breeding - especially once we determine that the dog in question has little to add to the gene pool that is exceptional. The dog pounds are perpetually full, and I haven't noticed any shortage of puppies for sale.I agree with your assessment of a WC. But do you not agree that we should aspire not to the lowest common denominator, but rather the highest if we're to uphold or improve upon the higher traits in our breed? Might it not, then, be better to regard WC in an accurate perspective, and make plans to follow the WC title with subsequent titles that reflect a degree of talent that is ever higher? Build his record; one title leading the next - revealing the ways this future stud may improve the breed, rather than uphold its minimums?
Now, in direct response to your question about my saying "By far, most Junior's I've witnessed have been slighly glorified puppy tests. Still more meaningful than any of the WC tests, however." It isn't the JH or WC stakes themselves that I refer to as being more or less meaningful. It's the tests in so many of them that reveal little as to superior retrieving qualities in the animals. The content of the tests themselves is so minimal that it often appears that the judges are more concerned with promoting the number of entries than in upholding the higher traits of the breed - at least at these types of events.
I hope to see JH & WC tests that actually test the dogs, and therefore reveal what kind of animal we're perpetuating by way of what, in
my opinion, is currently an excess of breeding for the sake of breeding.
I am fully aware that when I'm this brutally honest that someone will be offended. To them, I'm sorry if you're offended. But I do no service, either to you, or to our breed by hiding from important issues like this. And, after all, I was
asked and honestly replied.
Judgmentally yours,
EvanG