# First Golden Retriever Bench Champion



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I found this photo on Facebook. For those who have stated that today's field Goldens more resemble the original "ideal", this photo is enlightening









http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=2873
This dog looks like he could physically handle today's field testing. Notice the length of leg and rear pasterns. Solid topline, nice neck-to-back transition. Moderate substance. Nice feet. No exaggeration in any feature. I do notice that the depth of chest does not reach down to the elbows, as is stated in our Standard today.


----------



## mostlygold (Aug 5, 2006)

Looks much like my avatar. Nice looking dog and he certainly looks like he can do field work.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi Gerry:

There will be mention of Noranby Campfire in the Sept/Oct 2013 issue of the GRNews in an article done by Bill Feeney which I found in an old GRNews -- from the Archives. Also an article by the owner of Noranby Rowdy. In the September-October 2012 issue, Marcia Schlehr did an excellent article about Mrs. Charlesworth and the Noranby dogs. There is another photo of Campfire at nine years of age. He looks like he could still run a trial---also, his chest looked a little deeper with more maturity.

Thanks for finding this and putting this out there for us to see.

Glenda


----------



## Good Dogs (Nov 1, 2005)

To coin a phrase: "That dog will hunt."


----------



## truthseeker (Feb 2, 2012)

Nice looking dog, what happened????


----------



## TexGold (Jan 27, 2009)

Sometime someone forgot, "Pretty is as pretty does" and began breeding them to be fluffy instead of working retrievers. It is nearly as bad with the Labs. I would have to chuckle when someone would bring their "show dog" to a hunt test to show that they could play the game too. I would be out in a blind and though not in all cases, but most, you would hear the show dog huffing, puffing and wheezing to run a 100 yard mark.


----------



## mbcorsini (Sep 25, 2005)

Looks like our current field dogs that we see today. Beautiful dog.


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

My heart absolutely breaks for what has been done to this breed. Thankful my three golds more closely resemble the dog in the photo than what is more common now.

Randy


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

It is pretty remarkable that the almost identical transition took place in both the UK and the US/Canada during the same periods. Campfire appears in many of the pedigrees of our first North American Goldens. He also appears in the pedigree of Speedwell Pluto, who is very much the basis for almost all Goldens in NA.

This photo of Pluto doesn't show his whole body, but I've seen photos of his body, and they closely resemble Campfire.










An Am CH from the mid-50s begins to show some minor change, but still retains the basic shape
Wessala Pride of Golden Pine http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=1159










As late as the mid-70s you could still see the basic shape in this CH










But also in the mid-70s some subtle changes were takinig place in show dogs, as this dog shows more substance. I also notice the shorter rear pasterns and the more definitive stifle angulation. The forechest is more pronounced. There seems to be more rounding in the skull. The feathering on the front legs is increased. This dog's birthdate was 1973.










Maybe other people notice some other things?

Then, here is a dog whelped in 2004. If you take off some of the coat and pounds, you can still see the basic shape. After going through a phase of quite short legs, the length of leg has re-appeared.









One thing is obvious, Noranby Campfire was born in 1912 (!!). It took 60 years for the changes that took place between him and the dog born in 1973. We are now 40 years beyond this last dog shown. That's 100 years! This kind of "evolution" does not happen quickly. 

I don't know any of these dogs personally ... I just followed pedigrees to find dogs of certain decades to see if trends could be followed.


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

That is interesting to look at Gerry. Thanks for posting the photos through the years.
I really like the photo of Pluto.
Randy


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

I wish I had a copy of that first photo in my wallet so I could show people what a Golden Retriever used to be, when they ask what kind of dog my athletic built, wavy coated, dark red field Golden is.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Even that 2004 show champion is moderate compared to a lot of the "teddy bears" in the GRCA ads of today. 

I don't think that it's particularly heart breaking as someone mentioned earlier. They are beautiful dogs with great personality and they fit the bill for a lot of house holds who don't use dogs for hunting or field tests. I have one at my house along with my field bred model. He is happy to go train with us and sit at the line watching his "sister" work. Then he gets his fun bumper for being a good boy. He is a joy to have in our lives and very cuddly. Great with my two toddler grandkids. 

The only sad thing is when an unknowledgeable buyer goes to a show style breeder with hopes for a hunt test dog and the show style breeder says: "Sure, this dog will be fine for that."

Edit: That said, there ARE breeders out there who breed HT titled moderate dogs who can do the work. It's the extreme show style that I'm talking about.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> I wish I had a copy of that first photo in my wallet so I could show people what a Golden Retriever used to be, when they ask what kind of dog my athletic built, wavy coated, dark red field Golden is.


Glenda says that there will be photos in an upcoming News, so you could print them out, John


----------



## Erik Nilsson (Jan 16, 2011)

Thanks for sharing the info, always interested in Golden history and especially the field lines


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

The history of field lines might look somewhat different, Erik.

I would like to see more photos in GRCA News and k9data that show similar body shots of our field dogs. Same for our agility Goldens. I know it is not the nature of field people to do this  ... the work is about a dog in action, not static ... but it is really historical information that can help new generations of Golden people learn about the breed.

Since structural integrity is very important to a working dog, the working Goldens have been "protected" ... to a degree ... by "natural selection". There are knowledgeable conformation experts who have found (through the CCA) that there IS some very admirable conformational structure expressed in the field Goldens who have participated in the CCA. Some observers at such events are sometimes surprised at the respectable structural scores that are given to the field Goldens. Those involved in field pursuits can benefit from expanding their education in this regard to further their understanding about how structural integrity furthers the purpose of keeping the dogs' bodies sound.

For example: there may be dogs that would resemble Campfire on a quick look. However, they may not have some of his structural virtues. Even I am not old enough to have known Campfire in the flesh  ... so going by the photo, I see a front angulation that supports a nice length of neck set well onto his shoulder/withers making a smooth transition to his solid, level topline. Although it may be his position, it appears that his rear angulation is not quite as good as his front's.

The front end is a very important factor in a Golden's work. We have so often focused on the rear due to hip dysplasia; yet, years ago, Torch Flinn used to say that "the back end goes where the front end will take it." When a dog leaps a ditch, the front end is part of the launch; the back end helps. More important, perhaps, is that the front also takes the "punishment" of the landing; the back end does not take the same "jolt" that the front end has taken on the landing.

This could be why field Goldens often have a good front end. Working dogs who tend to "break down" often can be less likely to reach fullest potential and thereby NOT play as an important part in breeding (and, therefore, the future of the breeding programs). So, if two dogs have near-equal working ability, we can benefit by also then looking to the structural integrity of each of the dogs in making our choice of a stud dog or a puppy. Based on this pragmatic evidence of "durability", it is not so surprising that a Golden who works hard in the field has evolved a good front end. Also not surprising that, at least a few years back, there was quite a lot of discussion in conformation that front ends had "deteriorated". Use it or lose it?

The front angulation also has a role in supporting the neck. For the goose hunter, the neck needs this support in carrying a larger bird. We may not see a large bird like a goose in hunt tests or field trials, but hunters do. 

You have seen portions of Marcia Schlehr's "Blue Book" on breed structure in the GRCA News. It is worth carefully removing those pages from the books and keeping them for future reference and study. Did you skip over them because you were busy that day? I've found that cutting out articles like those and saving them can provide interesting reading when you have more time. You can also get "The Blue Book" from GRCA for easier reference as well.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

I am discovering another challenge to the contemporary show-bred Golden. I am training a puppy now, and he seems to have desire and talent. But I don't know how any of you evaluate structure through all of that coat! I have a hard time judging his structure and movement even to tell if he is sound or not.

Does anyone trim their Golden's coat for field work? This puppy's owner will allow it if there is some reason to think it will help.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

There have been some photos of these early Goldens but getting truly good ones has proven extremely difficult----the quality is poor and doesn't reproduce well in a magazine. If anyone has actual photos of some of the early Goldens, I would love to have a good scan of them at 300 dpi, high resolution. In the last few years, the GRNews has featured some of the earlier Goldens in articles, with photos when available. 

John---let me see if I can come up with some to send you, although they probably won't be in color. Look through some of the past issues under the articles "Great Goldens from the Past", if you see one you like, let me know, and I will try to send you a copy. When anyone asks me what breed my Goldens were/are, I state "They are field Goldens, and darn good ones."


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

afdahl said:


> I am discovering another challenge to the contemporary show-bred Golden. I am training a puppy now, and he seems to have desire and talent. But I don't know how any of you evaluate structure through all of that coat! I have a hard time judging his structure and movement even to tell if he is sound or not.
> 
> Does anyone trim their Golden's coat for field work? This puppy's owner will allow it if there is some reason to think it will help.
> Amy Dahl


Definitely, it's useful to trim! Saves time and effort later 

This is not a totally new problem ... in the article about Honor's Dorado of Sprindrif, it was noted that his owner hacked off his front "apron" and other unnecessary hair for field work. One of the photos showed the "hacked" apron pretty well.

I also trim the "pants" and tail of my girls before whelping.


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

A lot of very good information Gerry.

A thought and desire I have often had is wishing the golden could not get a CH without a significant working title. JH would not fit the bill in my opinion. Perhaps this approach would lend some credence to the Golden as a true sporting (field) dog. Perhaps the long and rather useless coats would fade away through necessity of field work. Perhaps working ability and talent would be placed a little higher on the show breeders wishes.

Any thoughts?

A side note: I am truly grateful to the works of Glenda Brown for all her hard with with the annual field write up in the Golden Retriever magazines. Education to the working merits of the breed is invaluable!


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

TexGold said:


> Sometime someone forgot, "Pretty is as pretty does" and began breeding them to be fluffy instead of working retrievers. It is nearly as bad with the Labs. I would have to chuckle when someone would bring their "show dog" to a hunt test to show that they could play the game too. I would be out in a blind and though not in all cases, but most, you would hear the show dog huffing, puffing and wheezing to run a 100 yard mark.


It is MUCH worse in Labs in my opinion. Both show AND field breeders have done the breed wrong.

The dog pictured at the top of this thread is extremely pleasing to the eye. Obviously in shape to do an extended days work. I would love to have seen him at work-he must have moved effortlessly.-Paul


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

paul young said:


> It is MUCH worse in Labs in my opinion. Both show AND field breeders have done the breed wrong.


I remember about ten years ago while at a hunt test and seeing a number of gorgeous labs. Then this round-bodied jug-headed black thing came to the line. One judge fawned over that dog... and the dog could barely breathe after loping out (I did not say run) and picking up it's mark. After seeing stellar work all day long, she wanted to breed her girl to that thing. How could one want to breed for those traits? I just dont get it.

And to lend credence to the other end of the statement... We all have seen those 40 - 45 pound mouse-faced labs that bounce off the walls of the crate and kennel acting as if high one some super accelerated drug.

****

Another thread is talking about the video of a long ago field trial... and one mentioned how surprised she was at the number of goldens! Yes goldens were once big players in the sport! Unfortunately they have lost a lot of ground... Is this to poor breeding on the part of the golden group or better breeding on the part of the lab group? Good campfire discussion.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Klamath Hunting Gold said:


> A thought and desire I have often had is wishing the golden could not get a CH without a significant working title. JH would not fit the bill in my opinion. Perhaps this approach would lend some credence to the Golden as a true sporting (field) dog. Perhaps the long and rather useless coats would fade away through necessity of field work. Perhaps working ability and talent would be placed a little higher on the show breeders wishes.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> The AKC refuses to consider anything like this ... making one title dependent upon another. In the UK they have two titles: CH and SH CH. The CH title requires completing some basic working ability test. The other title is "Show Champion".
> ...


It goes without saying that Glenda is one of Goldens' national treasures! As long as there are people like Glenda who can navigate the waters between field and show, there is hope for each group coming closer together, or at least understanding each other a little better.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Another thread is talking about the video of a long ago field trial... and one mentioned how surprised she was at the number of goldens! Yes goldens were once big players in the sport! Unfortunately they have lost a lot of ground... Is this to poor breeding on the part of the golden group or better breeding on the part of the lab group? Good campfire discussion.


At the beginning of US field trials I've read somewhere that Goldens were considered the superior water dog. How times have changed!

Why the change? There are probably several reasons.

Some years back, it was true that more people bred Labs for field work than for dog shows. That may still hold true. Someone else will have to track down the stats on that. WRT dog shows, fanciers seem to wreak much havoc with long-coated breeds ... the setters come to mind. My theory is that Goldens are too pretty for their own good  Focusing on their coat and how it could be made even prettier seems to have played a role in the Golden attracting the attention of many people who valued the appearance v. purpose.

The tolerant temperament of Labs and Goldens made them both popular as family dogs first; hunters, second. The next step was that those who DID want a working retriever did NOT usually want the higher upkeep of the Golden coat as the coat evolved into a higher-maintenance realm. Even our fieldier Goldens can be higher maintenance than a Lab. (I'm not saying "high-maintenance", but just more than a Lab with no feathering at all.)

So, it may be just a matter of numbers: that there are more Lab breeders interested in purpose than dog shows.

Then we can get into the fact that Golden people may be less willing to send their dogs to pro trainers than Lab people. The percentage of successful field trial dogs who are fully owner-trained is very small. If you own Goldens, you may very well have a very emotional attachment to your individual dog. This could explain the relatively large numbers of Goldens (though still outnumbered by Labs) in hunt tests. 

Those numbers decline, though, as you move to Master which is a level more difficult for the owner-trainer to do on their own. The e-collar is a valuable and sophisticated training tool. Many owner-trainers just don't have the ability to use it correctly. In today's world, very few dogs get a MH title who have been trained withoOUT the e-collar.

So ... the differences may be a numbers game. More people who want to breed Labs for field purposes, than there are Golden breeders who do so. We can't forget that the Goldens who do get those FC and AFC titles do so by excelling over some very good Labs . That means that the Golden breeders who do focus on field traits aren't doing so badly.

I read somewhere here on RTF, and it's worth remembering in your darkest moments: The success rate in field trials is quite low. A lot of defeats v. very few ribbons. Every time you go home without a ribbon, there are also a LOT of Labs to keep you company 

We never see how many dogs are washed out v. the number who succeed. It might be safe to guess that if many more Labs are purchased for field trials, there are also many more who don't succeed. Just a matter of numbers. 

I do NOT believe that there are fewer Goldens for the reason often cited: the tests are designed for Labs. I think that's a cop-out. Both breeds are physically capable of doing the tests. Both breeds are intelligent enough to learn the concepts (even as those concepts have evolved into greater complexity over time). Good field Goldens can compare in drive and birdiness to Labs. The key, I think, is presentation of the information. Remember, Einstein was considered a dolt in school ... until he proved himself to be a genius  Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were both geniuses with computers ... so we ended up with MS-DOS and also with Apple operating systems. Great minds may not always think alike?

I apologize for rambling thoughts ...


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

To Gerry and Randy: 

Thank you very much for your kind comments. I appreciate them greatly. They could not have come at a better moment. Glenda


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Wonderful post, Gerry - thanks for writing it!

As new as I am to field sport, I have already had a few dealings with Glenda via email. You are very appreciated Glenda for your time and effort and willingness to share your vast knowledge and resources. Not to even mention your contributions to GRCA News and the Golden gene pool. 

Jennifer


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

Glenda Brown said:


> To Gerry and Randy:
> 
> Thank you very much for your kind comments. I appreciate them greatly. They could not have come at a better moment. Glenda


Glenda you are truly one of my heros in the game. As I was training yesterday I thought of the week I got to spend in Montana with your training group. I learned a lot! Your further support through the years has been nothing short of a blessing. I truly thank you for your personal help and the push you have given the golden through the years!


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

Gerry,
Thanks much for the wonderful response! This has been a wonderful discussion but I must leave it! I will be gone for a week of professional training (for me, not the dogs). Location reportedly has no outside connection.

Gerry I wish to also thank you for your work with goldens, especially with the pra-prcd stuff. We have not met (yet) but likely will at a trial or test someday!

Randy


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Change isn't always a bad thing. 
First Miss America contest.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

what he said, times 10. Glenda is simply the BEST.



Klamath Hunting Gold said:


> Glenda you are truly one of my heros in the game..... Your further support through the years has been nothing short of a blessing. I truly thank you for your personal help and the push you have given the golden through the years!


----------



## Erik Nilsson (Jan 16, 2011)

All good info! Gerry Im going to send you an email re a few things
Erik


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> At the beginning of US field trials I've read somewhere that Goldens were considered the superior water dog. How times have changed!
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for rambling thoughts ...


I loved reading your rambling thoughts, am looking forward to seeing you in Texas this Fall.

John


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

hotel4dogs said:


> Change isn't always a bad thing.
> First Miss America contest.
> 
> 
> ...


Good one, Barb!!!


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

Breeding for "conformation" effs everything up.
That's what needs to be taken from this. 

OUR ideas of "conformation" are hopelessly, and irreparably flawed. 

What works in the field, is simply what WORKS in the field. As long as there is a difference between the bench and the field, a breed split is the inevitable outcome. The only other option, is mediocrity in both venues.

Pick a venue and excel in it. That's what Labs did.
And they picked the one that mattered.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Gotta disagree with you here, in my humble and often wrong opinion.

Breeding strictly to win is what effs everything up. Doesn't matter which venue you are trying to win.

"Conformation" means the dog conforms to the breed standard. Don't see how breeding to conform to the standard could possibly eff everything up. It's when people breed to only select parts of the standard, ignoring the other parts, that we have issues. For example, the Golden standard reads, "primarily a hunting dog...." (often ignored), also says, "Coat -- Dense and water repellent with good undercoat. Outer coat firm and resilient, neither coarse nor silky, lying close to body; may be straight or wavy...." (often ignored)...and so on.




copterdoc said:


> Breeding for "conformation" effs everything up.
> That's what needs to be taken from this.
> 
> OUR ideas of "conformation" are hopelessly, and irreparably flawed.
> ...


----------



## Lonnie Spann (May 14, 2012)

copterdoc said:


> Pick a venue and excel in it. That's what Labs did.
> And they picked the one that mattered.


Couldn't have said it better myself!

Lonnie Spann


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

copterdoc said:


> Breeding for "conformation" effs everything up.
> That's what needs to be taken from this.
> 
> OUR ideas of "conformation" are hopelessly, and irreparably flawed.
> ...


They did? I wonder what percentage of the total Lab owners population has even heard of field trials or hunt test. From what I have heard it is pretty much a tie on which breed's show dog has deviated the most from the original field oriented structure and build.


----------



## copterdoc (Mar 26, 2006)

John Robinson said:


> From what I have heard it is pretty much a tie on which breed's show dog has deviated the most from the original field oriented structure and build.


 The show ring eventually ruins ALL breeds.

It just needs time.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

John Robinson said:


> From what I have heard it is pretty much a tie on which breed's show dog has deviated the most from the original field oriented structure and build.


While hunt tests and field trials are not comparable in in level of difficulty, it is encouraging to see that GRCA recognizes the dogs who have CHs and MHs ... or CHs and QAA. It is even more encouraging to know that there actually are dogs that continue to achieve those accomplishments.

While it's been a long, dry spell for both breeds since the last Dual CH, perhaps not all is lost when there are still people who care about bridging the gap ... and producing dogs who are capable of doing so.

I think most of the dogs (in Goldens) who achieve the field and show titles are a more moderate version of the show ring population. They may also be a rung lower on the ladder of field achievement of the top field trial competitors ... but isn't it Ted Shih who often says "The perfect is the enemy of the good,"?


----------



## luvgld (Jan 24, 2010)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> It goes without saying that Glenda is one of Goldens' national treasures! As long as there are people like Glenda who can navigate the waters between field and show, there is hope for each group coming closer together, or at least understanding each other a little better.


Gerry,
I agree with you 100%. I don't want to hijack your thread, but this is a good time to comment about "understanding each other a littler better". I'm with the Dallas GR club, host of this year's National. Glenda has been very helpful to us in setting up something special for the Field Trial that has not happened in a long, long time.

My club extended the invitation to the 3 Conformation judges at the National (Best of Breed, Dogs and Bitches) to attend the first day of the Field Trial with an experienced Field Trial mentor as their "guide". Two of the three have accepted and will be there. We are also extending this invitation to the those judges attending the Judges Education Seminar at the National. I won't know until about a month before the National how many of them are interested in coming. We hope all of you who are competing that day will make them feel welcome. I think that it is a fitting event for this 75th anniversary of the GRCA.

Ann
2013 GRCA National Fundraising Chair


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

luvgld said:


> Gerry,
> I agree with you 100%. I don't want to hijack your thread, but this is a good time to comment about "understanding each other a littler better". I'm with the Dallas GR club, host of this year's National. Glenda has been very helpful to us in setting up something special for the Field Trial that has not happened in a long, long time.
> 
> My club extended the invitation to the 3 Conformation judges at the National (Best of Breed, Dogs and Bitches) to attend the first day of the Field Trial with an experienced Field Trial mentor as their "guide". Two of the three have accepted and will be there. We are also extending this invitation to the those judges attending the Judges Education Seminar at the National. I won't know until about a month before the National how many of them are interested in coming. We hope all of you who are competing that day will make them feel welcome. I think that it is a fitting event for this 75th anniversary of the GRCA.
> ...


Wow Ann and Glenda, that is awesome! I look forward to meeting those judges and trying to make them feel welcome. Similar to Labs running field trials, I notice our field trial Goldens run the gamut from coyote looking Goldens to some dogs that I think look very much like the early bench Goldens and some that are very handsome by today's standard. I wonder what the confirmation judges will think of the whole?

John


----------



## luvgld (Jan 24, 2010)

John Robinson said:


> I look forward to meeting those judges and trying to make them feel welcome. John


Thank you John - appreciate it. I would love to see this become a tradtion at our National.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

"Like" button for John's post ... and for Ann and Glenda for doing this. In the past, offers like this have been made to the conformation judges, but the invitation was not accepted. So, perhaps these particular judges deserve an extra warm welcome for stepping outside of their comfort zone?

It can do no harm at all for the judges to see the extraordinary physical and mental capabilities of the dogs running the field trial. 

It is also part of Glenda's handiwork that some of the field trial dogs have been included as "demo dogs" in the Judges' Education seminars over the past several years at the National Specialties. For those judges, it may be one of the few times they ever have a chance to put their hands on such dogs. It can only be a good thing to give them such an experience.


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

Good work Glenda!


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

The other thing that is being done is to have the Judges Education Seminar include at least one field trial dog for the new and upcoming judges to go over. This way they will realize that the field dogs demonstrate a form which follows function although maybe without some of the trappings, ie., heavy, long coats, etc. The first time I worked with the JEC on this, the field Golden I suggested was Push---before he became a Canadian Dual Champion. It really helped open some eyes. I also suggested a "wet dog" contest, judging Goldens dry then looking at them all again when soaking wet. This suggestion was not met with overwhelming favor.

For those of you who are strictly Lab people, Fred Kampo has used his Labs at some of the LRC Judges' seminars and Lyn Yelton has as well. At the recent National Amateur, ten of the competitors, including the sire and son who both carry the NAFC title, were gone over by three Lab Judges for a conformation certificate, and all ten passed. What was interesting with Fred's Lab at the seminar was that all the novice judges thought he was oversize---until his dog was measured and was right in standard. It shows how the eye can deceive and only see what you are used to seeing. 

For you Chessie owners, at one conformation show a Chessie came in second in the class and the judge later told the owner that the reason for that was because his muzzle was such that he wouldn't be able to hold a large duck or goose and the winner would. The owner then told the judge that his Chessie was a Field Champion. Since the vast majority of conformation judges of retrievers no longer hunt, or anything close to hunting, again, this is an opportunity for potential judges to actually see what retrievers that are fulfilling the original purpose of the breeds look like.

Sure we aren't going to change the way the world runs, but the reasoning behind the breed standards is to have a healthy, athletic, structurally sound dog and this is one way to educate more persons as to what that actually entails.

Re Barb's photo of the early Miss America contestants---I suspect that the majority of those in the early swimsuits could be just as competitive in today's swimsuits---and with no artificial enhancements!

Glenda


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> Re Barb's photo of the early Miss America contestants---I suspect that the majority of those in the early swimsuits could be just as competitive in today's swimsuits


This is probably a good comparison ... change the hairdo & the clothing, and the form beneathe is not so very different? But in our dogs, at least in some cases, it's more than the "accessories" that have changed.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

nah, the earlier ones were much more substantial than what is winning now! 



Gerry Clinchy said:


> This is probably a good comparison ... change the hairdo & the clothing, and the form beneathe is not so very different? But in our dogs, at least in some cases, it's more than the "accessories" that have changed.


----------



## Amy Gooch (Mar 17, 2012)

There is a difference between correct conformation that meets the standard and winning in the conformation ring. Goldens that show may or may not have correct conformation just as field dogs may or may not have correct conformation. However, there is certainly a difference in the style of the dogs and their ability to perform the tasks the standard says they are bred to do. IMHO, a hunting dog that cannot hunt is not a correct representative of the breed.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

All the Standards leave some room for "interpretation" ... and that's where we get into trouble  There is a broad range of appearance that can meet the Standard (for conformation), but there is some whimsy in what "interpretation" may become the trend in conformation. The conformation of a working dog is constrained (in a good way) by purpose to stay within certain parameters of the possible range of interpretation of appearance. When purpose doesn't get factored into the assessment the range of interpretation can be much broader, and may tend to overly focus on one feature (like head or coat or "otter tail", etc.) and fail to consider the total package.

Then we do get into the aspect of breed "type" that Amy refers to. The very simplest definition of type is that appearance that assures you that the dog you are looking at is a Golden (or a Lab, or a Chessie, etc.) Years ago, I knew a dog who competed in obedience that looked very much like a Chessie. It was not a pedigree that was familiar to me (I think it may have been a BYB). When you saw the dog, you really had to study him to decide whether he was a Golden or a Chessie. Mostly the confusion was due to his medium-gold coat that was very curly; and his body type resembled some good-looking Chessie field dogs with the more level topline. His facial expression was that of a Golden.

The perennial debate in conformation circles is how to place appropriate weight on "type" v. structure/purpose. Glenda's work in getting demo dogs for judges' seminars from among the field competitors allows judges to see a different interpretation (people are now calling that "style") of type that is STILL acceptable within the parameters of defining a dog as a Golden (or Lab, etc.). The goal is to inform conformation judges that there may be a dog in their ring tomorrow that may not look like all the others ... but that "different" dog may be just as "correct" as the other dogs in the ring (and might even have some structural attributes and musculature that is superior to the other dogs). 

Getting the judges to actually see the dogs working can give them a much better perspective on how "type" should conform to purpose. Then you will get the argument that field trials are too extreme to be compared to the breed's hunting purpose. True, field trials are the penultimate demonstration of the skills needed for hunting. It's hard for me to believe that the professional level skills of the field trial dog could not make a good hunting dog. It's sort of like saying that Peyton Manning is too extreme in his skills to play college football  Not to mention that some field trial dogs get to vacation ... being hunting dawgs


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Home run post Gerry. 
Great thread.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I really don't think that we will ever see another Dual CH though.
The sport of Field trials has become more and more difficult.
I think that the best we can hope for is CH Master Hunter or CH ***.
I'm not being a poop just a realist.
Sue


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

I agree, Sue. We do have a GCH/MH now and some CH that have MH titles that should be running some Quals. Some of it is just the vast amount of time/energy/money and the right dog to even think about doing both. Goldens used to be able to go from the field, maybe with or without a bath, into the show ring, and then be taken hunting during the week. Each venue is very demanding and the field trials are getting more and more difficult as the dogs are responding to the constantly improving training, more knowledgeable handlers, etc. Training grounds and access to water are disappearing for many of us and, yet, who wants to spend the weekend at a conformation show when you can be running a trial! But, the more field people know about what constitutes good conformation, the more likely we are to produce sound, athletic, hard running field dogs. Glenda


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I'd also have to agree with you, Sue and Glenda. The closest we are likely to come is CH *** ... however, with the present difficulty of field trials, such a dog is probably very much like the quality of some titled dogs of years gone by. However, from what I've heard about Quar (the last Dual CH), his field ability was so amazing, with today's training he could probably do it now as well. We do have one CH ** right now. and he still has time to get that ***.

Also agree with Glenda that even if another Dual CH is not to be, there is still a lot of virtue in making both "specialists" more aware of the other's perceptions. As John mentioned, there is a varied spectrum among field trial dogs. Those among them who represent correctness to the Standard deserve to be acknowledged as correct, even though they are "different" from what is most often the trend in conformation at any given point in time.

I think it is worth noting that those field dogs who still resemble Campfire may have, indeed, preserved the vision present at the origin of the breed. It's not so bad to have dogs like that in the breed to act as a "reminder" of what came before.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I'd also have to agree with you, Sue and Glenda. The closest we are likely to come is CH *** ... however, with the present difficulty of field trials, such a dog is probably very much like the quality of some titled dogs of years gone by. However, from what I've heard about Quar (the last Dual CH), his field ability was so amazing, with today's training he could probably do it now as well. We do have one CH ** right now. and he still has time to get that ***.
> 
> Also agree with Glenda that even if another Dual CH is not to be, there is still a lot of virtue in making both "specialists" more aware of the other's perceptions. As John mentioned, there is a varied spectrum among field trial dogs. Those among them who represent correctness to the Standard deserve to be acknowledged as correct, even though they are "different" from what is most often the trend in conformation at any given point in time.
> 
> I think it is worth noting that those field dogs who still resemble Campfire may have, indeed, preserved the vision present at the origin of the breed. It's not so bad to have dogs like that in the breed to act as a "reminder" of what came before.


Just want to say thank you to everyone who has made this such an interesting thread to read, as well as the picture that speaks volumes about how the current "field Goldens" have evolved very little from the original Champions. It's simply fact.

This is off on a tangent, but I love to read some of the older dog stories-Albert Payson Terhune, Nop's Trial's, etc. They illustrated the inherent qualities of herding dogs with a bit of a romanticized bent, but with an absolute passion and respect for what these dogs were bred to do. The Border Collie folks fought tooth and nail to keep the breed from being AKC recognized out of a very realistic fear that not only would they become popular and placed in homes that didn't understand their need to work and be mentally stimulated, but also that breeding for markings and change in coat, head type, etc. would trump breeding for intelligence and working ability. It's exactly what happened to the Golden Retriever. I don't need to rehash examples of dogs who are simply not birdy, driven and intelligent. It's all been said before.

I do think it's a wonderful idea that conformation judges will be attending the field trial at the Specialty. I hope they go with an image of the first Dual Champion in mind and I hope they stand on line and get goosebumps when they see that these dogs are doing what they were bred to do and that their conformation and intelligence allows them to do it.

M


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

> I hope they go with an image of the first Dual Champion in mind


Maybe the judges' "goodie bag" should include a photo of Noranby Campfire?


----------



## Klamath Hunting Gold (Nov 12, 2005)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Maybe the judges' "goodie bag" should include a photo of Noranby Campfire?


Oh I love that idea!


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

I think that it is awesome that both the Conformation judges are willing to entertain the idea of standing(sitting)in a field watching the trial and vice versa but...........I don't need validation that my "field dogs live up to the "breed's standards".
When I see the Conformation dogs have gone sooo over board. ex: coat, bone.
And breeding them to that standard without any type of working titles have left them with the ability of never performing in any type of hunting situation without allot of work. They are just an average pet with a lot of good coat and bone.
My opinion : just let it go...................
Sorry I just don't see all your efforts making any difference. 
I would love to be proved wrong. 
Sue


----------



## John Robinson (Apr 14, 2009)

But Sue, you can't be proved wrong if we just let it go. I remain optimistic that at least two confirmation judges eyes will be opened just a bit. Baby steps in the right direction hopefully.

John


----------



## Amy Gooch (Mar 17, 2012)

I applaud the efforts of Glenda and company to educate the judges at the specialty and hopefully they will take what they learn to heart. However, the weekend show judge is not a "Golden" person. They judge our breed as part of a laundry list of breeds of which they are not experts. They have more interest in making the people that hire them happy than in determining whether or not the dogs in front of them could perform the tasks for which they were developed. Judges that don't put up dogs that are popular with the show crowd don't get invited back to judge. The unfortunate thing is that the AKC's methods for adding breeds to a judge's list does little to really ensure they are educated about the breed. The other issue is that they can only judge the dogs presented to them. As long as we, as Golden people, continue to breed and present dogs that lack focus on the breed's purpose the problem is perpetuated. Since Americans tend to head toward extremes, I really don't see this changing. When I had Quarter Horses, I also struggled with the wide split in the breed. My cutting horse looked nothing like the halter horses or the race horses. All were selectively bred to win in a particular venue but cross sport competition was not very common.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Gerry: 

I sent photos of a lot of the early Field Champions to Ann Burke with the idea of blowing them up in size and using them as decoration at the dinners, etc. during the National Specialty. 

Hope it works out ok as these were old photos, but it is important to emphasize our roots.

Glenda


----------



## NWitters (Jun 29, 2009)

That really is amazing how much our goldens have changed over the years. Personally I have one "breed type" dog and two "field type" bitches. Hands down my girls can out work my boy any day of the week. That heavy bone does not hold up out in the field. Nothing prettier than a golden doing it's work out in a duck blind.


----------



## riskyriver (Feb 23, 2010)

Good discussion and kudos to those that are at least taking 'baby steps' (and Glenda - you do SO much for the Goldens!). As I have Chessies my perspective is a bit different - keep taking those baby steps! While I don't watch real closely, it does seem to me that there are more moderate Goldens being put up in the ring. I actually saw a group photo of several of the Goldens that won at last Specialty - while you can only tell so much from one photo I thought several looked quite moderate. From my own experience, there ARE conformation judges that DO appreciate a sporting breed in working condition. But those judges MUST be given something to choose from! I think the key is to join forces and get several NICE moderate / field type Goldens in the ring together, under the right judges. Yes it takes some coordination and it won't always be effective. But it is a place to start. I actually think the Goldens can see another Dual someday...


----------



## luvgld (Jan 24, 2010)

Sue Kiefer said:


> My opinion : just let it go...................
> Sorry I just don't see all your efforts making any difference.
> I would love to be proved wrong.
> Sue


Sue,

I’ve never let anyone telling me my efforts may not make a difference stop me from working on a worthwhile project. The driving force from the beginning of this project, for me, has been for the betterment of this breed that I love dearly.

This event at the National is a small step. But change never happens without those small steps being made. 

The shame, I think, is in not trying.


----------



## PalouseDogs (Mar 28, 2012)

Sue Kiefer said:


> I think that it is awesome that both the Conformation judges are willing to entertain the idea of standing(sitting)in a field watching the trial and vice versa but...........I don't need validation that my "field dogs live up to the "breed's standards".
> ........
> Sorry I just don't see all your efforts making any difference.
> I would love to be proved wrong.
> Sue


I'm afraid I agree with Sue, although possibly for different reasons. 

Even if there was a good understanding of which conformation was best for a particular breed (and I would argue that most of the conformation rationale like what you see in a book like Dog Steps is largely based on fantasy), conformation is only the external appearance. For the breeds that have a purpose, other than being an art object, there are too many characteristics that cannot even begin to be evaluated by trotting around a ring. It would be as if a building inspector were only allowed to evaluate a building by standing outside the building and maybe by touching the outer walls. Sure, the inspector could tell whether the walls were perpindicular, but he wouldn't be able to tell whether the plumbing or the elevator worked or whether the buildling had a chance of surviving an earthquake. All he could evaluate would be the veneer. 

No matter what the dog looks like in the ring, no conformation judge can tell whether the dog can see a bird fall 100 or 400 yards away or whether the dog can remember where 3 birds have dropped. In the most recent issue of Golden Retriever News (or whatever the GRCA pub is called), there are several pages of discussion about the proper Golden tail. How it should not extend beyond the hocks. How it should be perfectly straight. When you go to a hunt test and watch the show line goldens whining as they run along the shore and try to figure out how to get the bird without getting wet, you kind of wonder whether the standard should be more concernced with whether the dog actually likes to swim.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

This is an intelligent and well thought out post, from someone who clearly sees what is going on in the Golden conformation ring.
My boy is very moderate in every way. He's 23-1/2 inches tall and weighs 67 pounds, and doesn't have a big, dripping coat nor clunky bones. Substantial, yes, but not coarse nor clunky. He finished quickly with 3 big major wins.
I showed him only at big shows with lots of entries, where the judges were, in fact, "golden people". Most were breeder judges. When he only needed 1 point to finish, I did show him at several small shows. This same dog who beat 75+ other goldens at a specialty, and got back to back 4 point major wins in one weekend couldn't beat 3 other dogs to get the last point. I just couldn't understand it. Then I was told by a very well known handler to go back to showing him only at big shows because at the smaller shows the judges don't have a clue what a golden should look like, and will just put up the flashiest one there with the most coat. They don't care if he moves like a hippo or is tripping over his coat, as long as he looks flashy running around the ring. 
So I entered him in another very large show, and sure enough he won, and finished his CH.



Amy Gooch said:


> I applaud the efforts of Glenda and company to educate the judges at the specialty and hopefully they will take what they learn to heart. However, the weekend show judge is not a "Golden" person. They judge our breed as part of a laundry list of breeds of which they are not experts. They have more interest in making the people that hire them happy than in determining whether or not the dogs in front of them could perform the tasks for which they were developed. Judges that don't put up dogs that are popular with the show crowd don't get invited back to judge. The unfortunate thing is that the AKC's methods for adding breeds to a judge's list does little to really ensure they are educated about the breed. The other issue is that they can only judge the dogs presented to them. As long as we, as Golden people, continue to breed and present dogs that lack focus on the breed's purpose the problem is perpetuated. Since Americans tend to head toward extremes, I really don't see this changing. When I had Quarter Horses, I also struggled with the wide split in the breed. My cutting horse looked nothing like the halter horses or the race horses. All were selectively bred to win in a particular venue but cross sport competition was not very common.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Maybe the judges' "goodie bag" should include a photo of Noranby Campfire?


I truly think it's a wonderful idea!

Before owning a retriever, I had Newfoundlands. The NCA's mission statement supported form follows function and breeding that supported continuity of working ability. It was not uncommon at all to have a conformation match on a Saturday followed by a Draft or Water Test on a Sunday-all with the same dogs. Nobody worried about finishing a Bench Championship prior to pursuing working events because of coat or grooming issues. The dog exhibited in the ring was/is supposed to represent the dog ready to perform the duties he was bred for.

I was a novice. Didn't come from a family background that was involved in dog sports and didn't grow up with a dog that "did" anything. But because I bought a breed where working ability was fostered I was able to purchase a dog with it's inherent abilities at the forefront. My very first dog as an adult was fully self-trained to a CH, as well as water and draft titles. There were no Newfy clubs where I lived at the time and so I trained 100% alone. Still, because of good breeding-my dog passed her first draft and water tests. 

My point is that it's not a small thing to breed with an eye for what is the original purpose of the breed. It should be every breed's birthright and when modifying or eliminating breed characteristics for a "pretty" dog only than shame on the breeder who doesn't care enough to research and foster what their breed was bred to do.

M


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

I went to look up the conformation judges, and one of them is Kitty Cathey. Some of you if you are old enough  will remember the Pekay prefix (Kitty and Pat Klausman were partners in that prefix; and there was an article on their breeding program not too long ago in the GRCA News) which produced conformation, obedience, and ... a few dogs who also ran field trials. I found one on k9data that had **. This was the one, I think, that got them interested in running some field trials:
http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=4919 You can still see a working package in Sherman, who came from basically show lines and a "dab" of Dual CH Ronaker's Novato Cain. I had thought that Sherman had gotten **, but that doesn't seem to be the case on k9data.

I think it is unfair to say that ALL conformation dogs are incapable of having the innate skills needed to succeed in field trials; just as it is unfair to say that all field Goldens are ugly. As John mentioned, there are variations. 

Just this spring Marge Trowbridge's young boy Trowsnest Second Wind II won a Qual; and he was about 3-1/2 at the time. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=393704 The only link you find to field lines in this pedigree is Bainin of Caernac***, an English import who shares some lineage with Barty, and who may be best known for producing the dam of Tangelo's Side Kick. 

I have to agree with Ann that while a particular project may look overwhelming, that is not a reason for giving up your convictions. 

Also, GRCA is not only doing this. The judges' seminar at the National is well attended, and field dogs are presented to these larger numbers of judges (and/or aspiring judges) to demonstrate the correctness that can still be found in the field Goldens. If nothing else, it can show these judges what hard, working condition is for the dog who works hard on a regular basis. It can also show correct coat, both in texture and quantity for a working dog. 

Note that we are 100 years! away from Campfire. We didn't get to where we are overnight. If we are to correct the course, it will also NOT happen quickly. It could take another 100 years. We can hope that some hearts will be won over, both among judges and breeders, and also hope that there really is an afterlife, so those of us typing here will get to know about it if it happens 

We (Lab and Golden people) are not alone in this situation. Every breed that has moved toward the top 10 of AKC breed popularity has suffered. Toy Poodles, Cockers, Irish Setters, German Shepherds, Shelties, Dobes. Border Collies & Aussies are the latest victims. The list goes on. There are always some breeders who hang onto a breed's origins to preserve the "essence" of the breed. For that everyone should be thankful because it leaves the door open to recapturing those qualities that may have otherwise been lost entirely.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi Kelly:

Thanks for taking part in the discussion. In the GRNews where the article was done on The Tail" there were also articles on the 1992 Master National re the Golden Finalists; a Golden who was a Finalist in the Canadian Master National; Interviews and photos of all the Goldens that were Finalists in the 2012 Master National including a list of those that qualified for it; an article by Bill and Becky Eckett on Developing Marking; and a short article by Bill Hillmann. Not all that many years ago, you would not have seen this amount of support for field articles. In some of the older GRNews, for quite a few years running, you rarely saw articles on anything other than conformation Goldens----so, we actually have come a long way, baby!!!!

This is what I feel Ann and others such as John mean, you have to start somewhere and we are making strides. Again, it will never be a perfect world, but if you don't make an effort to change it, you will never know what you might have accomplished. There have been some very prominent Golden judges who have had nothing but praise for seeing the field dogs featured---the photos of them working, leaping into water, athletically jumping over obstacles, the sparkle in their eyes from the joy they get from doing their job. Again, these were Golden judges who breed and compete in conformation with their own Goldens, not ones who have Goldens listed as one of the breeds they happen to judge as Barb described.

I feel the discussions we are having here are really important, and everyone's contribution is worth reading and thinking seriously about. I know a conformation judge can't judge some of the intrinsic qualities a Golden might need for the field, but they can judge whether or not that Golden is physically built so it could stand up to a long day's hunt or wouldn't swamp a duck boat when sitting in it. But, then again, in all our retrievers, even in those that are bred specifically for field work, you have pups who never show that desire or indicate the hoped for potential anticipated when the breeding took place.

I want to thank everyone who has participated so far, and to Gerry for her insight and well thought out comments and for getting the ball rolling. I hope all of you will continue to contribute your thoughts and suggestions. 

For the Champion Goldens that don't want to get in the water at a hunt test, maybe some tactful helpful advice re training may be beneficial---my Golden that I wanted a WC on was 4 years old and never had seen birds or water. Her sire was in the SDHF and her dam was a Champion. The first day I showed up with her at a training group, I was told later that bets were taken that I would never return or even last the day. And some of the members of that group were definitely not very supportive of Goldens. She turned out to be the birdest dog going, got a SH title (she had an OTCH and TD) but I couldn't get her MH as she would break since she was so eager for the birds and I didn't know what I was doing. She produced my first AFC/MH and was the grandmother of my FC/AFC/MH Golden. There were none of the DVDs, chat rooms, etc. or even many good books on field training (I am old!!!). A few kind souls offered some encouragement and advice, and I have never forgotten the ones who believed in her. 

Maybe if this keeps going, we can take some of the comments and mesh them together in an article----it might be fun!

Glenda


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

This thread has really made ponder confirmation regarding field bred dogs. In reading the breed standard and the articles in GRCA news, I have been wondering how closely to apply the standard and it's ideas to a field trial hopeful to evaluate breeding potential. 

We talk a lot about how the standard has been misapplied to the show lines and made them too heavy boned, big headed and heavy coated. But we don't talk about how to really analyze the bodies of our field dogs meant for breeding beyond health testing and titles. Obviously, we focus on breeding the winners and title holders, but are titles enough if you want to further the breed toward a standard?

I have been hoping to breed my young female once she passes her medical tests and gets a significant field title to prove her worth. But as I look at her, I wonder about her "Golden" confirmation. I personally think she is lovely and balanced and incredibly built as an athlete, but what do I know? 

How do I trust the current breed standard and its current application to the typical golden? Is that standard going to make for a field trial winner, which is what I want? How do I judge her tail set, her ears, her length of leg and depth of chest. She is 23 inches tall, but she looks "tall" in comparison to my other show line boy who is the exact same height, because her chest isn't as deep and her build is more sleek. 

I've read interpretations of the standard that say the specimen shouldn't look reedy or setter-like. I kind of see that in my female and in most field bred females. They are built for speed and moving on a dime. How do we balance and judge the qualities called for in the standard with those necessary for winning trials or running in the pheasant field on a long, warm fall day?

When I see the photos and drawings that go along with most discussions of the Golden standard, I see they are much bulkier than the reality of my female dog. 

I would like a real discussion and analysis about how to gauge a field line dog's confirmation for purposes of deciding whether to breed that dog. There are some past and currently living highly titled female golden field dogs that I feel are very ugly and not even close to the middle of the chart for what a golden should appear to be. And frankly, I'm a little biased regarding my own female. Maybe others would see her as too setter like.

Where should a person start when trying to analyze their field dog's confirmation beyond field titles and absence of obvious deformities like cow hocks and bowed spine. 

My dog has white toes. What about that? For me, it's something I'm OK with if she's otherwise balanced, capable and long lived. As a field person and not a show person, do I consider the white toes only in as much as it will effect marketability, or should I weigh it heavily as a flaw for all future goldens in the line I continue?

Coat? My female has a low maintenance flat coat with typical feathering. No way her coat will keep her warm on a long morning winter duck hunt. She will require neoprene and other measures to keep her warm in the 3rd or 5th hour. 

If breed standard is to be seriously considered for field breeders, how do we balance these physical traits and factors against raw talent and desire and winning (not that I'm there, lol)?


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Jennifer you need to find a CCA event and take her. There will be 3 "judges" there, generally people who really and truly know the Golden standard and often heavily represent the "field world". 
They will evaluate her, hands on, and give you honest feedback of which you will get a written copy. It's fascinating. They will evaluate every inch of her, from head to tail. 
There's some info. on GRCA's website, including a copy of the evaluation sheet.
I did a CCA on Tito even though he was already a CH, because you get such intense feedback on every part of the dog and it helps me to intelligently discuss him as a breeding potential. For example, he's got a "good" front assembly. But it's not stellar, and I wouldn't consider breeding him to a bitch where they are looking to improve the front assembly. However, he's got an awesome rear assembly and a lovely head, so if that's what someone is looking to improve in their lines, we can at least talk.
That's stuff you don't get, in writing, in the breed ring. 
One of the CCA evaluators told me, "he has a wonderful, broad back end". I told her so does his owner, but she wasn't impressed  .


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

Gerry,
"Sherman" the dog listed as "Pekay" was born in 1982?
Pat used to run Hunt Tests as well. But now you'll find nothing but all show.
Yes baby steps. But by the time you make that one baby step technology with training will have passed you by yet again and you'll offer nothing to the breed as far as hunting ability through either Hunt Tests (as they are changing/getting more difficult) or Trials. Then we are back to WC  which don't show me crap about the abilities of a hunting dog.)
Loading the breed ring with all field dogs that would be fun to watch a judge struggle with that. I'd love that. Too bad that couldn't happen every weekend somewhere. Wouldn't that be fun to read about? 
Carry on.............................
Sue


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Good idea Barb, thanks for the tip. Would love that. 

And congratulations on your wonderfully broad rear assembly.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Dunno if it's too late to get in, but Norcal GRC is having their CCA at the end of this month, I think. Go to the GRCA website and look for upcoming CCA events.



Jennifer Henion said:


> Good idea Barb, thanks for the tip. Would love that.
> 
> And congratulations on your wonderfully broad rear assembly. ha ha ha !


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Sue Kiefer said:


> Gerry,
> "Sherman" the dog listed as "Pekay" was born in 1982?
> Pat used to run Hunt Tests as well. But now you'll find nothing but all show.
> Yes baby steps. But by the time you make that one baby step technology with training will have passed you by yet again and you'll offer nothing to the breed as far as hunting ability through either Hunt Tests (as they are changing/getting more difficult) or Trials. Then we are back to WC  which don't show me crap about the abilities of a hunting dog.)
> ...


----------



## twall (Jun 5, 2006)

Does the AKC still hold their Sporting Dog Judges Institute? 

I participated in a field demonstration with one of our chessies back the late '90's. This was part of a two or three day event about all breeds in the sproting group and their breed standard. We have every breed except the Weim in the field doing what they are supposed to do. All dogs were CH's with field titles. After our bitch did watermarks one of the teachers, Anne Rogers Clark, had a number of the judges go over her and see how a correct coat kept her skin dry.

Maybe something like this put on by the GRCA at the national specialty or other event would increase judge understanding of the working requirements of the breed.

Tom


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

Hi Jennifer..unless you are thinking of the breed ring in the future and or just unable to tolerate any white...I would forget about the white toes on your lovely girl. 

Hip(OFA/PennHip), elbows, eyes and heart are important information to have just for her well-being, your knowledge...

Orthopedic specialist that you go to for her hip/elbows would show you her xrays before sending in..talk to you about what he or she sees, good or bad. Eyes and heart health of course.. 

Temperment ... you know what you have. If there are any concerns about a boy that you really like, ask questions about his daily life, his WHOLE life..kennel dog, lived in the house, socialization or not...the training focus for him as a pup, did he change owner/trainers/handlers as it went..did the wish list of accomplishments change..say Derby points ...or was the big picture the AA Stakes and trained with that in mind. ...a boy that has Hunt Test accomplishment (exellent pedigree..longeivity/clearances) but does he have more to offer if that owner had wanted to ..either HT or FT. 

Longeivity in the pedigree, if short life span dogs without given cause of death, ask questions and try to find out the reason. Could be accidental or a cause that is not passed on. 

Then, there are some issues that you can avoid being carried on to puppies by a boy that is clear of them or visa-versa. Some issues may not be worth discounting a particular boy, if the combination of the two would more than likely produce outstanding puppies. (not talking of failed hips, heart, eyes etc..of course) 

A knowledgeable person can advise of weaknesses that are inherited, passed on..and how to avoid that..or things that are not of concern..unless a pet peeve. 

Such as the white factor..some don't care, some hate it..can and has been a heated topic..but white does not cause temperament issues, issues with being sound, movement, ability to do well in the field etc..that has been published by the medical community anyway. 

If a person does not want white or doesn't care..then that is their choice to make! Golden Retriever's shade of golden color as well..it's a personal choice..and some feel depth of that color blends the dog into the hunting environment..like camo..so prefer it...others could care less. 

When looking at the combination of pedigrees for your hope of wonderful puppies...do you get a really great feeling about that combination..  

Also..coat can change as a dog matures, thickness and length. 

Barb's idea of CCA feedback is a good idea and might give you more confidence in what you have!

Best, 

Judy


----------



## Golddogs (Feb 3, 2004)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> At the beginning of US field trials I've read somewhere that Goldens were considered the superior water dog. How times have changed!
> 
> *Why the change?* There are probably several reasons.
> 
> ...


Gerald Ford.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Thanks for your post, Judy! In February/March I will start getting all of her health testing and x-rays done to evaluate her soundness. After that I think I will take Barb's advice and get a CCA evaluation done, hopefully by people with field dog experience.

My concern was that if she is evaluated against the standard by judges more in tuned to a more moderate or show line dog, that I would get mis-information about how my girl stacks up. But I guess structure is structure. It's either good or not. Performance will tell the rest of the story.

Sorry to all for my rambling post last night. I was tired and should have edited.


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi Tom:

I don't know if the AKC still has their sporting dog event for judges, but quite a few years ago they held one in the Morgan Hill area of California.
It was held on a ranch where some of us were training and Bill Totten (pro) was working with his dogs as well. For those of us who saw the retrievers being used as demo dogs in the event, it was a travesty. They wouldn't go in the water or rocks were thrown to get them to go out and get a bird, etc. The AKC had chosen the wrong person to chair and manage the retriever section. Ironically, some of the judges lingered around afterwards, came and saw us training Goldens and Labs (sorry no Chessies in the group that day) and were overwhelmed at what they could do---many of these were young Derby dogs. They asked why they weren't shown these retrievers working rather than the ones they saw.

There were many outstanding examples of field retrievers readily available in that area: Goldens, Labs, and Chessies yet the AKC showed examples of field work with ones who were extraordinarily inept and/or poorly trained. I don't know what they used with the other sporting breeds, but if this was an example, then no wonder many of those judging conformation don't have a clue as to what a working retriever should be expected to accomplish if it were asked to do the job for which it was originally developed. This is why it is important to get the conformation judges to view hunting tests and field trials---better yet, is some of you that hunt ask them to join you for a day! 

I am not concerned with a Dual Champion, what I would like to see is the increasing gap between conformation and field dogs narrow and the divide lessen. It would be nice to get back to one breed which contains variations of a theme. This includes the Labs as well. The Chessie people are doing the best job of maintaining their breed as it was orginally intended to be.

Glenda


----------



## Judy Chute (May 9, 2005)

Jennifer Henion said:


> Good idea Barb, thanks for the tip. Would love that.
> 
> And congratulations on your wonderfully broad rear assembly.


... LOL...passed on by pedigree


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Jennifer Henion said:


> This thread has really made ponder confirmation regarding field bred dogs. In reading the breed standard and the articles in GRCA news, I have been wondering how closely to apply the standard and it's ideas to a field trial hopeful to evaluate breeding potential.
> 
> I don't usually try to be picky about spelling ... but the word is "conf*o*rmation" as in "conforming to the Standard". You're not alone, Jen, in this ... so I'm not picking on you. Those two words are close in spelling, but not really the same thing.
> 
> ...


That last question is the toughest! Each individual will arrive at their own unique decision. You may change your mind as you go along as well  Your own personal decision will likely be influenced by becoming familiar with the Standard and watching the work of the best working dogs. 

When I go to a Natl Spec, I go to watch the field trial. Since there are few Goldens in field trials (often less than 5 in an entire all-breed trial), the Natl Spec is the best place to see field trial Goldens. And you get to see dogs from all over the country, not just one area. I can find many local dog shows to see conformation Goldens. There are also plenty of obedience and agility events where Goldens are well represented. The Natl Spec, however, is the only place to see a large number of Goldens in a field trial. 

Jen, you are wise to start asking these questions now. I was not nearly as bright and perceptive when I first started in Goldens! 

Never hesitate to ask questions. If you get a brutally honest answer that appears to be a put-down, don't necessarily believe that's what it is. Think about the answer, and learn from it. Don't let your hurt feelings get in the way of the learning. Be a fly on the wall when you hear knowledgeable people discuss topics you'd like to know more about.


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

paul young said:


> Only REAL HUNTING will show you "crap" about the dog's ability as a hunting dog. FT's and HT's are GAMES that get farther from hunting by the minute, it seems.
> 
> I wish the few breeders of Goldens that are striving to produce an honest to god Dual Champion all the best. It's a worthy endeavor.-Paul


But, Paul, what about the hunt test and field trial dogs who ALSO hunt, and do a doggone good job of it ... I'm sure John Robinson is still lurking here. I'd just ask, "Does Michael Phelps swim too well to swim in your pool?" 

So, the "games" are only a way of making a larger number of people aware of the dogs who have the basic traits to perform as a hunting dog.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Thanks for all of the information, Gerry! You are a wonderful resource. 

Some of the evaluators' names you mentioned are listed on the Norcal GRC site, so I will seek them out when the time comes next spring. In the meantime, I will read and stick to the wall and listen!

Jen


----------



## paul young (Jan 5, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> But, Paul, what about the hunt test and field trial dogs who ALSO hunt, and do a doggone good job of it ... I'm sure John Robinson is still lurking here. I'd just ask, "Does Michael Phelps swim too well to swim in your pool?"
> 
> So, the "games" are only a way of making a larger number of people aware of the dogs who have the basic traits to perform as a hunting dog.


Gerry,

The dogs that have the HT or FT titles and are hunted extensively are truly superior hunting companions. Each time I judge I see these dogs showing that they are the elite dogs we all would enjoy hunting with.

It's easy to spot those dogs at a test. They make everything look easy and the teamwork is exceptional.

The post you quoted addressed a statement that the measure of a hunting dog was in the titles accrued, which I think is only partially true. A large portion of the dogs with advanced HT or FT titles are not enjoyable to hunt with. Some are never afforded the opportunity to develop into good hunting dogs while others can hold themselves together for 5 or 15 minutes at a time and have wonderful retrieving skills but would be a PITA if they had to just hang out for extended periods between retrieves or if you needed them to work from a remote position or sit quietly in a boat while you set or pick up decoys unless they have had the training and exposure to real hunting situations. Some never would, as they're just wound too tight for that kind of work. My point is that measuring real hunting ability just does not happen at trials and HT's. There's nothing wrong with that; that's not what the games are about.

I really enjoy running my dogs and judging tests and trials, but I also know that I need to train beyond what I need for success in the games to have a truly exceptional hunting companion. I hope that explains my opinion.-Paul


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Been trying unsuccessfully to breed it out of the lines, LOL



Judy Chute said:


> ... LOL...passed on by pedigree


 _Originally Posted by Jennifer Henion 
Good idea Barb, thanks for the tip. Would love that. 

And congratulations on your wonderfully broad rear assembly._


----------



## M. Robinson (Apr 13, 2011)

Great thread! I just mailed an entry to have my male evaluated at a CCA event here in Canada. It will be very interesting to see my amateur impressions confirmed or refuted.

I have seen no mention of Nona Bauer's book The World of the Golden Retriever- a dog for all seasons. I had a hard to find copy which I loaned to someone...never got it back. I just ordered a used one from Amazon. It has some wonderful old pictures and if I remember, the dog and bitch breed winners of every GRCA Specialty from about 1955 to the early '90's. It is a perfect pictoral of how the bench dogs have evolved. The early dogs look very much like the one pictured at the beginning of this thread. There is an extensive section on field dogs. It is well worth rooting one of thesse books out for your library.

Medie


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

I will second what Medie says about Nona's book. It has been a staple in my library since it first came out and I have used it for research as well as reading it for pleasure.

Glenda


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Where could one get this book, Glenda?


----------



## M. Robinson (Apr 13, 2011)

http://www.amazon.ca/The-World-Golden-Retriever-Seasons/dp/086622694X


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

If you get a chance, after the CCA please jump back on here and let us know what you thought of it.



M. Robinson said:


> Great thread! I just mailed an entry to have my male evaluated at a CCA event here in Canada. It will be very interesting to see my amateur impressions confirmed or refuted.
> 
> I have seen no mention of Nona Bauer's book The World of the Golden Retriever- a dog for all seasons. I had a hard to find copy which I loaned to someone...never got it back. I just ordered a used one from Amazon. It has some wonderful old pictures and if I remember, the dog and bitch breed winners of every GRCA Specialty from about 1955 to the early '90's. It is a perfect pictoral of how the bench dogs have evolved. The early dogs look very much like the one pictured at the beginning of this thread. There is an extensive section on field dogs. It is well worth rooting one of thesse books out for your library.
> 
> Medie


----------



## M. Robinson (Apr 13, 2011)

Will do...it is in November if there is a spot for him.


----------



## M. Robinson (Apr 13, 2011)

Confirmed he has a spot...will post my experiences and thoughts re my expectations,


----------



## M. Robinson (Apr 13, 2011)

fyi this is the dog in question

http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=349028


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

awesome pedigree, good looking dog. Love his expression.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

M. Robinson said:


> fyi this is the dog in question
> 
> http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=349028


Definitely a top end typical field Golden. It will be very interesting to hear the results. Thanks for sharing, Medie!


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi Bait:

Re Nona's book---I have had mine forever but try Amazon or even at some of the dog shows where they have booths with old dog books. It is a great asset and well worth having.

Bait has a new grandson everyone! As soon as he was delivered, I think Bait put a shotgun in his hands!

Glenda



\


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Glenda Brown said:


> Hi Bait:
> 
> Re Nona's book---I have had mine forever but try Amazon or even at some of the dog shows where they have booths with old dog books. It is a great asset and well worth having.
> 
> ...


 Thanks, Glenda! Gonna look for it. And, yes we have a Grandson! Brayden Samuel Anderson. His middle name is his Grandpop's middle name.  Posted a photo on FB with me holding him, in a rocking chair @ one day old. And a buddy of mine commented on how he hopes the youngster grows up to be a better shot than his Grandpop.  Well, he already has a (never been fired) youth model 20ga. Wingmaster waiting for him.....soon as he can pick it up.


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> I think it is unfair to say that ALL conformation dogs are incapable of having the innate skills needed to succeed in field trials; just as it is unfair to say that all field Goldens are ugly. As John mentioned, there are variations.
> 
> Just this spring Marge Trowbridge's young boy Trowsnest Second Wind II won a Qual; and he was about 3-1/2 at the time. http://www.k9data.com/pedigree.asp?ID=393704 The only link you find to field lines in this pedigree is Bainin of Caernac***, an English import who shares some lineage with Barty, and who may be best known for producing the dam of Tangelo's Side Kick.


Just to give credit where credit is due: This dog was trained by Lois Monroe, who has done a great job with many of Marge's dogs. Speaks volumes that he was trained well enough to go out and win his very first Q.

M


----------



## Miriam Wade (Apr 24, 2003)

Oh!!! And Congratulations on the new grandson Bait!! 

M


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Miriam Wade said:


> Oh!!! And Congratulations on the new grandson Bait!!
> 
> M


Thanks!.....But I didn't do anything.  My daughter and son-in-law are great kids and were blessed with one themselves. When I asked my son-in-law about the middle name thing, he said,"It was a no-brainer." I was in tears.


----------



## Sue Kiefer (Mar 4, 2006)

aweeeeeeeeeeeeeee.
How super cool is that Bait?
You just had "me " in tears now.
Sue


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Miriam Wade said:


> Just to give credit where credit is due: This dog was trained by Lois Monroe, who has done a great job with many of Marge's dogs. Speaks volumes that he was trained well enough to go out and win his very first Q.
> 
> M


I sort of had a feeling that Marge didn't do the training herself ... but she stayed her course in moving forward with her breeding program. And, as you say, the dog and his trainer, deserve a lot of credit for doing so well; and he's a young dog yet.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Awesome thread!


----------



## Glenda Brown (Jun 23, 2003)

Was just going over this thread with the National Specialty of 2013 being completed. And, what a NS it was!!! The quality of the Goldens competing in the field events was exceedingly high and the talent was evident. We will be including lots and lots of photos by Mark Atwater in the GRNews showing you some of the field stars--- just competing there made you a player no matter what. 

In this thread we discussed having show judges at the field trial. We had two attend the Amateur and the Qual., and they seemed to have a great day. Interviews, etc. will be in the J-F issue. Their mentors were John Gassner and Andy Whiteley----can you ask for anything better (that is a rhetorical question)? Actually, the guys were excellent and so good, they may be asked to do it again. We would like to make this something that becomes a tradition, and it was brought up that we should try to get show judges from all levels in conformation to spend at least part of a day watching Goldens at Work! Thanks to those of you who saw the show judges and made them feel welcome. Especially big thanks to Ann Burke for all she did in pulling this together to make it such a success.

This has been one of our best years for producing field champions in Goldens since some of the glory days of the past. Let's make this a tradition that keeps rolling on through the years.

I re-read the whole thread, and one thing that was mentioned a couple of times was how much persons who participated in the thread were enjoying these discussions. Is there anyone out there that would like to pull it together into an article for the GRNews? If so, please contact me. If you don't want to take on the whole project, I would be happy to work with you. If no one wants to, I will use some of what was written here with everyone's permission to use their words. I don't have to use your name if you would prefer that, but I didn't see anything written which would lead me to believe that should be the case. Unless you are just shy! I think this is a discussion which would be interesting to the conformation crowd as well as those of us whose venue of choice is field.

Give me a heads up and add some of your remarks about what you really enjoyed with regard to the field aspects of the 2013 National Specialty. 

Glenda


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

It will really be interesting to see what the show judges thought of the field trial. To move toward greater understanding takes time, so it would be great if this became a "tradition" of the National Specialty.

Thanks to John and Andy for doing the mentoring!

And it's also a great year for Goldens in field trials! Remember that last year was a "bumper crop" of QAA dogs ... and some of those are among the new titles  Last year and also this year, has been a good year for Derby dogs, so that could be hopeful for 2014 having another good crop of QAA dogs, and dogs who begin making a mark in the AA stakes. Kudos to all of those who make Goldens be as good as they can be.


----------



## Jennifer Henion (Jan 1, 2012)

Great news that John and Andy hosted the guests. I too am very interested to hear what they thought. It is funny how perceptions can change. Just 4 years ago, I honestly thought most field bred Goldens were homely creatures and couldn't imagine choosing one of them over a cuddle bear type. As I've gotten involved in the sport, I found out quickly why the field gold is practical, but also very beautiful! Can't wait for the new GR issues!


----------



## Cooper (Jul 9, 2012)

Having problem getting the new posting button to click on


----------

