Very early in the short history of this blog, I posted this video.
I think it’s worth looking at again. The golden retriever is changing before our very eyes, and in my humble opinion, not for the better.
The golden retriever began as a strain and color variety of the wavy-coated and later flat-coated retriever.
The first champion in the breed was Noranby Campfire:
And to get an idea of what color these dogs were, here was the original range:
(The second dog from the right is Ch. Noranby Diana, who also placed in field trials. She is also my avatar on the comments, just in case you were wondering.)
After a nearly century of showing, this is the type we get in the European show ring:
These dogs have lots of bone and are more sedate and docile. They tend to be healthier and longer lived than other strains of golden, but they typically lack true retrieving instinct. They are not bad pet dogs, provided one avoids those European lines that have some aggression issues.
American show lines of golden have evolved very differently.
They have lots of bone, but they also have lots of feathering. Feathering and heavy bone are antithetical to functional conformation to a retriever. The dogs can do the work if they have the instinct, but they are not built for efficient movement. Aggression issues exist in these lines, but their biggest problem is that feathering.
The show ring has essentially turned the golden retriever into the reddish colored Newfoundland. It’s not that Newfoundlands can’t swim and retrieve. That is the original purpose, and they still can be used for that today.
However, they are next to useless as retrievers. And yes, Newfoundland dogs, not just the St. John’s water dog, were used as retrievers. In fact, both types of Newfoundland are at the base of retrievers, and the addition of this blood was a great leap forward in the development of retriever.
The problem is that Newfoundland dogs as they exist now are not as efficient movers in the water or on the land as the modern strains of retriever. Now the Newfoundlands are stronger dogs and can haul greater weights in the water. But they are not fast dogs– not in the least.
That’s why you never see a Newfoundland doing retrieving work. In the nineteenth century, these dogs were very commonly used as retrievers.
As retrievers began to develop, there was a deep disdain for heavily built retrievers:
“The worst cross the author ever made was with Zelstone. Although not a large dog, he was said to be a pure bred Newfoundland. He was a flat-coated retriever Champion, and may have been himself a good worker ; but he ruined the working qualities of the descendants of Jenny above mentioned, and brought the author’s strain of them to an end. Consequently, it is suggested that the Newfoundland is the type to breed out of the flat coats.“
George T. Teasdale Buckell, The Complete English Shot (1907). He was writing about flat-coats. At the time, this breed included golden retrievers, which were referred to as “Lord Tweedmouth’s strain.”
The early retriever breeders liked some of the Newfoundland’s traits, like their interest in water and retrieving instinct, but they were very concerned that its heavier size and longer coat was a hindrance in the field. By the twentieth century, the retriever breeders wanted that conformation bred out.
For the most part they succeeded, but then competitive dog showing changed all of that. Top breeders on both sides of the Atlantic are breeding for the Newfoundland’s conformation in golden retrievers, even though we know that the Newfoundland’s conformation prevents it from ever working as a retriever.
So bit by bit, the golden retriever is becoming the twenty-first century Newfoundland, which was the first large working breed to ever be mass-produced for the pet market. Today’s Newfoundland is but a remnant of what was once perhaps the most common dog in the world. They are dogs with gentle natures and biddable temperaments, and they do water trials and hauling competitions. But the original Newfoundland dog is lost the pages of history.
And I’m afraid that’s what’s going to happen to the golden retriever.
Update: Okay, this is getting too hard to moderate, so comments are now officially closed.
Have there been any breeds of popular hunting dog that have completely lost all strains of working lines despite there being demand for them? It seems like most true hunting breeds still have kennels that breed working lines that are outside the ‘show network’. As hunting has declined into a niche activity by most in the West, it only makes sense to me that ‘pet and show’ lines end up the most numerous with true working types becoming the minority. There just isn’t the demand for them as much as there is demand for cute pets and conformation/dogsport contenders. Hunting was a huge pastime 50-100+ years ago, but not anymore. It seems natural then, that hunting breeds would similarly decline.
I think it is great that there are people out there keeping working lines alive. But there just isn’t the widespread market for them anymore like there was when those breeds were originally created. I don’t see how their decline could possibly be prevented, to be honest.
As much as the show fancy likes to say they’re preserving heritage breeds and whatnot, we all know that most only care about the current ring fashion. I wish they were more honest with themselves and others about that. But as long as they don’t breed their dogs into sickness pursuing their hobby, I don’t see how that’s wrong. I don’t see why working dog breeders should even care about conformation dogs or how many of those there are, because that’s a completely separate world from actual hunting.
As long as a working bred is needed and wanted, it will be preserved in it’s true form by -somebody-.
There are several.
Sussex spaniels are really close. The number world-wide that are still used for spaniel work is in just a few dozens. However, many of them do have the instincts. It’s just that there aren’t that many people who can use a slow flushing dog. But that breed is really uncommon. American cockers haven’t lost all of their working instincts, but most lines have. And the dogs have too much coat. Show bassets might have the instincts to trail rabbits, but they are built all wrong to really carry themselves efficiently enough to trail rabbits. They just can’t run all that well.
Hunting dogs are going downhill. Any dog that is used for a purpose in which the dog must be in a rural setting to do its work is in trouble. Most people are urban dwellers. Many have no idea what nature is like– except what they see on TV.
It’s much worse in Europe than it is here. Their antis have actual political power. The Labour Party of GB actually listens to them and placates them as a lobby. In the US, the closest I’ve seen them to political power is that Matthew Scully (who is an animal rights conservative) wrote Sarah Palin’s convention speech.
The reason why their movement is strong is that most European countries lack an egalitarian hunting culture. Hunting is for the big landowners, who own the game on that land and who keep it with private wildlife managers, which are called game-keepers. All of these things are usually state-owned in the US. The wildlife is property of the state (in my state this is about the only thing state-owned) and it is managed by the state. We have the second amendment, and then we have that whole frontier, Davy Crockett/Daniel Boone/Teddy Roosevelt ethos.
That ethos is why hunting still exists in America, and why most polling shows the public supports it. You can’t find that in most developed countries.
Without hunting or working selection, people start selecting for fads and cuteness, and the dogs go to hell as a result.
Now, working dog people do care about conformation, but the conformation standard is totally set by function.
Pai, what you describe is pretty much what has happened with the Labrador. In fact, I know several small kennels where one spouse does hunting and performance breedings and the other show, and rarely do the twain meet…
However, they still do meet (occasionally), and some breeders have “dual purpose” as their breeding program’s goal if not their general expectation for each litter, and I think these things keep the breed somewhat (kind of, sort of) together (in a way, loosely).
But the two pretty much do their own thing, which has its plusses and minuses.
I think the Lab folks are far more resigned to a split than most of the other sporting breeds. In retrievers, I think the Chessie and flat-coat people are still fighting the good fight to keep their breeds together, and mostly winning; I think the golden people have lost, but they’re in denial; the curly people just don’t have the numbers, but they are really trying to get their working dogs back; and I’m not sure I understand toller folks yet, but I’m trying–there are some who are very conscious of working ability.
But perhaps breed splits are inevitable. Life goes on.
Pai Hits the nail on the head here. Hunting is a hobby. Its an escapist sport not an elitist sport but it is also not what the majority here in America needs to do in order to live. Not many people are leaving their home each day and telling themselves “I need to go out and bring home that big game today so I can feed the family”. For some it is an elitist hobby, when it comes to field trials…. Most hard working Americans don’t give a rats ass about the conformation titles or the field titles. Ague all you want, they just don’t care. The ones that do care are the dog fancy people and the rare individual who really appreciates the history behind the many breeds that were once or maybe still used as working dogs. As it is now here in America, dogs are like buying a car. You pick the make and model that you appreciate the most and you buy it. They all do the same basics things. They play with us, keep us company, walk and jog with us, hike with us and explore with us. Some even hunt with us. But ultimately it is an individual’s taste for what they want in their dog. Whether a Mongrell Or a Papered Mongrel in the AKC. The majority of buyers are not hunters. They are families and active lifestyle people who are looking for a dog that fits them. For many its a Lab or a Golden or a Flat Coat. And they are not hunters nor are they interested in packing up their dogs and traveling all over the country to enter them in field or conformation events. That would not be fair to their companion, nor for the majority would such an elitist type of event be easy for them to stomach to that extreme.
I understand what the romantics want in their dogs. And if that is what floats their boat, then there is someone out there breeding that perfect specimen for them. Again going back to analogy of a car. If you just need to get from your home to the market you can do it with a Ferrari or a Pinto. Ultimately the choice is yours. And in the end the goal is met by either of them. If however you want to race around an oval track and win then you of course take a Ferrari or better to obtain your goal. Maintenance on the Pinto is less to worry about if that is your concern.
This for the majority of Americans…. is the same basic thought process applied to their choice of dog.
The only thing about that is that working forms have all the good qualities that really make the breed what it is.
If I were looking for a pet dog right now, I’d avoid the golden retriever like the plague.
The Flat-Coated Retriever Society of America strongly supports the dual purpose of today’s breeding stock. The dog you see in the field is the exact same dog you see in the conformation ring. For me, when looking for a stud or a puppy, it must have field titles as well as conformation, and hopefully obedience.
Field work does still exist, although in my area Labradors far out number any other breeds. Some of them may also be in conformation, but most are definitely a different type. The ones who would excel in the conformation ring could never keep up with the lithe athletes you see in the field. The same goes for Goldens, although they are much closer to being believable. My guy can go all day.
In our breed, Field is considered an activity like agility or obedience, albeit one with a very loyal following.
This weekend my Champion FCR will go for his second and third leg of his Junior Hunter title. He’s also working on an obedience title and we start Agility in September.
Retriever man: You know the history, but today’s FCR’s are doing it all, always with a wagging tail.
I didn’t mean anything about flat-coats.
I meant goldens. Goldens are the ones in a lot of trouble. If I misspoke, I misspoke.
Goldens are totally split, and they have characteristics that wav-coated retrievers had and modern flat-coats don’t have. The working golden is more “old-fashioned” than the flat-coats are. Flat-coats have a heavier dose of setter genes–which is what got rid of that wavy-coat. The flat-coat actually made the Lab into the dog it is today, because the Buccleuch strain was heavily interbred with flat-coats. This interbreeding happened until the 1940’s. There were also imports from Canada– the last of the St. John’s water dogs.
A breed that has not split is one in which a decent example of the breed can earn a conformation title, the standard is an example of working conformation, and many of the examples actually perform the function for which the standard was written. Flat-coats, as Shari notes, have not split.
I love Labs. Here is what I love: I think they’re great dogs in general, though they’re not for everyone; though breed is split, which is a shame but it’s water under the bridge, I can choose a working strain and play the games and enjoy those hobbies and it makes the dog darn happy. You have to know what you’re doing and do your research to find the breeder of the right kind of Lab for you, but there are a lot of great Labs out there.
I love flat-coats–I think they’re great dogs in general, though they’re not for everyone; the breed is not split, which is a remarkable thing, and I don’t have to make a choice among different factors like what the breed has historically looked like, what is appreciated by those who understand the breed’s history and conformation, and the working ability they have always been bred for. More often than not, something close to the total package is the norm, if you choose a good breeder. There aren’t a lot of dogs available, so don’t expect a puppy to arrive at Christmas, but when your turn comes you pretty much know what a gift you’ve got.
Very different situations for each breed.
Good luck this weekend, Shari–I don’t think I know you, but have a blast!
I’m going to amend “decent” in my above post to “good.” I started one train of thought, but switched tracks.
I’m also going to explain it–I think in breeds that have split, a “good” conformation example is no longer enough–it has to be an “extreme” example–so in Labs, an “otter tail” needs to be a two-by-four to win! I guess part of it is just a numbers problem.
But anyway–that’s where I was going with that. In FCR’s, the CH actually means what it’s supposed to mean–that it’s a dog that meets the conformation standard close enough that it is representative of the breed and hopefully, if bred, will pass on the breed’s conformation characteristics.
The following save the flat-coat:
1.This axiom: “Power without lumber; raciness without weediness.” Goldens could benefit if such an axiom were applied to them.
2. A rumor was spread in the years following the First World War that the flat-coat had been crossed with borzoi to make their heads narrow, and the was hard to train. That rumor probably had no basis in fact. The only reason why they are a little more independent is because Irish setter was heavily interbred into their lines in the final years of their development from the wavy-coat. The golden never got new Irish setter blood, but it obviously had quite a bit of it.
Sorry if I went on a flat-coat tangent–I think what got me (and maybe poster Shari?) onto FCRs was the mention of three retriever breeds together. I don’t think you misspoke–I think I, at least, took a trip deeper into my own little world.
I think another thing saves the flat-coat, and hurts the Labs and goldens:
Labs about 150,000 registered annually
Goldens about 50,000 registered annually
Flat-coats about 500 registered annually
Just the pressure of the numbers for Labs and goldens I think makes it very difficult to breed to a dual-purpose standard, when the consumer for the dogs generally isn’t focused on EITHER purpose. On this, I suppose Sengimage is right.
I don’t think it’s a good thing for the retriever breeds, though; I dearly wish that people who want a sporting breed like a retriever would have a little more respect for what that means–an animal that needs to learn, an animal that needs a certain amount of discipline, an animal that has instinctive drives that compel it to do certain things, an animal that needs to learn to channel those drives and has an opportunity to fulfill those drives in some way, an animal that needs a purpose in concert with people, an animal that was born to be an athlete suited for a particular sport. All of these things are articulated in the standards for the retriever breeds–and I’m sure most people don’t care. It’s a shame.
Even if the dog’s purpose is not as a hunting partner but as an active companion–and that’s a fine, worthy purpose–the partnership between human and animal would be best served if the human understood what the breed was literally born and bred to do.
It’s not that the hunting dog that is the whole issue. It’s that we are actually losing the good traits in our dogs.
What I think may have been confusing is that I said that goldens are more representative of the old wavy-coated retriever than the flat-coat. The flat-coat is old-fashioned in one sense, but it also fully modern. The Labrador’s working ability comes from the flat-coat. It is kind of surprising that the flat-coat is so rare, for it’s why the Labs are almost always solid in color. St. John’s water dogs very often had lots of white on them.
I know that seems to be a contradiction. Goldens and flat-coats are very closely related, but goldens more resemble the older strain from whence they both descend. But Labradors wouldn’t exist as they do without infusions of flat-coat blood. That’s why all three have very similar histories and are almost a theme and variation on the same basic dog.
The golden is the one that has retained a lot of the old wavy-coat’s characteristics (not just the coat) but the general temperament, the nose, occasional Newfoundlandishness (what a word!)– everything but the color.
Again, “the times are a changing” should apply here. Maybe the qualifiers for the dogs need to be changed? Maybe the expectations need to shift? This is not colonial times. We’re in the year 200X and there is not really a need for hunting except for reasons of population control. Yes, purpose bred dogs will always have their place. And so long as there is some demand then there will always be that choice. But the qualifiers for a Family are very different for a hunter. And as I’ve learned the qualifiers for a true hunter are VERY different from those of a pretend hunter. As I’ve been told by several of my clients….. Some field trial dogs certainly know how to do the things they were trained for, but for what they need, NOT, what they’ve witnessed from some titled dogs isn’t worth a damn in the real world. Oh Well.
BUt the measure of quality and those expectations for what a dog should be…… is different for everyone. From the lapdog to the epitome of companion dog. Retrieverman. I certainly respect what traits you admire in a dog. I love many of them as well, and I have other qualifiers I look for as well. As with any other individual those tastes may differ. And the picture of a perfect specimen in another person’s mind, won’t be palatable for you or me. And just the same What You find perfect will also fall short of the mark for someone else. If the frustration you get from the people who challenge you about their Golden line or other breeds is any proof. Then the one thing we can all accept is that everyone is different. And that also applies to dogs in current times more than ever.
“But the qualifiers for a Family are very different for a hunter. And as I’ve learned the qualifiers for a true hunter are VERY different from those of a pretend hunter.”
That’s why families shouldn’t get hunting dogs. If by “pretend hunter,” you mean a field trial or hunt test performance dog, I think it depends on the dog. The games are certainly a) a simulation (hunt tests, various organizations), b) an extreme test of skills and concepts (field trials).
Your word “pretend hunter” implies that it is something like a game of dress-up or a tea party; I would respectfully suggest that you actually participate in one at least once rather than formulating your opinions on what your “clients” might tell you. I tend to think of it as more of a flight simulation. And yes, it’s different from hunting; the purpose is to test natural abilities and acquired skills in a controlled environment. Heaven forbid breeding stock is objectively tested.
If they don’t want working dogs, then they should be steered towards breeds that aren’t used for anything, except to pet.
Pugs are really good dogs– if you can find a healthy one.
Yes Pugs are nice, also with their own problems. As for working dogs, supply and demand must apply, there are possibly, not enough people to match to all the pups produced to actually find each one a home with a hunter. So what to do with the rest? They are destined to go the route of a companion animal. Not to say that’s bad. Provided the needs of the dog are met. But, you can’t expect every purpose bred dog to actually have someone wanting it specifically for that purpose in modern times. And the limit on how many dogs you wind up keeping as a breeder is again individual choice. But if you breed 2 or 3 litters a year and expect to sell each and every pup to a hunter….. you may just come up short. So the rest are relegated to what?
F&L I respect the feedback from my circle of people just as you do yours. If they’ve witnessed it and that’s their opinion then its just as good as if I’ve been there. Just like many biased opinions have been made of me from people who’ve never met me. Where my implications are backed by people who’ve been there and done that. Opinions made of me have been conjured up from speculation and prejudice. BIG DIFFERENCE.
I do get it Retrieverman. I do understand that there is a huge investment of time and effort to maintain what the original purpose of these breeds are all about. And I greatly appreciate a dog that is capable of doing the things these purpose bred dogs do. I love mine for their abilities and their mannerisms that surprise me everyday. But, the times don’t support a single purpose anymore, at least not here in America. Perhaps in countries where hunting is more to survive, but not so much here in America. Here it is mostly for sport and pastime. And if the supply of dogs is far greater than the demand for them for the purpose they were bred for….. Well. Many will no doubt find themselves as loyal companions
And there again is another difference. As a companion animal you expect more from your dog than you would a pet. You still expect a sentry, a running mate, a presence by your side as you hike, a guardian for your family or a nanny for your kids. Not just a lap animal without a purpose. There is so much more to it then just being this or that. So I’m of the opinion that a hunting dog can make a great family companion. Its just a matter of whether the family interested in those breeds can accommodate the drive bred into them. I say, I can and if I’m an example then there are certainly others like me who will also.
As for the current state of the Golden. Like you’ve mentioned before. Some grownups are really going to need to step up and make this right. Otherwise, what is left of a true field type retriever…. will become extinct. And not through natural selection which stings even more.
You see, applying supply and demand to dogs is one of the problems. In reality, with golden retrievers, the demand tends to be very high (even today), but the supply is actually somewhat limited. So lots people breed what sells, which may not be best for the long-term interest of the breed.
“Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to live under the laws of justice and mercy.” — Wendell Berry.
Justice and mercy for dog breeders means that we select for health and try to preserve the good qualities in the breed, not what sells.
Here’s what you do:
You sell “to working homes only” — meaning they must do something with the dogs to keep them active and stimulated.
And you have to explain to them that if they don’t do this, their dog will drive them insane.
I find this a fairer way of operating than trying to change the behavior of working dogs.
There are way too many breeders that don’t explain a damn thing when you buy a pup from them. Lump that in with the control freaks and you choices are very limited.
“You sell “to working homes only” — meaning they must do something with the dogs to keep them active and stimulated.
And you have to explain to them that if they don’t do this, their dog will drive them insane.
I find this a fairer way of operating than trying to change the behavior of working dogs.”
Well said.
“How can we educate so many people when the picture painted for so long is only one way about the breeds they want. The breed description lists these retrievers as excellent family companions and good to excellent with children. At that point the damage is already done. Unless you want to completely go against what the AKC is telling everyone or for that matter what the very breed clubs that came up with those descriptions are telling everyone.”
Again, its like getting nowhere with all the contradictions we face.
I agree.
It just seems that in reality we breed for a purpose to fill a need and are still left with what’s left over to sell.
Once the need to have something that conceptually grabs a hold of us emotionally…. supply and demand is credo. – Sorry to Mr. Berry.
When there exists a demand then we are the rats and Roaches.
It deeper than just selecting for health. Too many healthy relatives will still get you nowhere. I still applaud those who breed for health concerns before cosmetics fads.
“As for working dogs, supply and demand must apply, there are possibly, not enough people to match to all the pups produced to actually find each one a home with a hunter. So what to do with the rest?”
Decrease supply.
Not only reduce supply– reduce demand.
Tell people that only an insane person would want one, and that you just escaped from the State Hospital.
Ditto,
F&L, I’m with you there. The problem is how do you do that? Breeders still breed to achieve the goal of their perfect specimen. In doing so they always overproduce. Then what? Do we go back to drowning pups?
I think that once DNA maps are at completion for many breeds in question then we can breed smarter. And thus breed less often to achieve our desired goals. Until then, continuing to overproduce is just the way it will be. Even in a good program…. over breeding is going to happen. Out of a litter of 12 or more you may only have one winner. So the rest???? Should we fill a bucket with water?
I think the question was answered prior to all the drama.
If a breeder is thinking of the bucket, they’d best get out of the hobby altogether.
I find that a little bit interesting. In Germany, it’s six pups per litter. No more.
Do they have a pet overpopulation problem?
Are their native dog breeds severely split into show and working forms? (the Drahthaar is the only one I know of in which the working people and show people can be at odds with each other).
It does raise an interesting question, even though I don’t like the idea of killing puppies.
Well, unless I’m mistaken the litter size I not limited, just the number from the litter that is allowed registration. So what happens to the rest? In germany the water filled bucket may still be practiced.
Well, euthanasia is practiced.
It’s better than them starving on the streets, being neglected, or being bred for silly reasons.
Well, I can understand that. Provided all the other pieces fall into place correctly then population control measures like euthanasia are a good way to do a number of things.
Force the prospect of monetary gain from overbreeding into a losing option for many breeders.
Weed out the serious breeders with a serious beneficial program from the unscrupulous ones.
Force breeders to delve seriously into better selective breeding practices to maintain diversity.
Give interested clients a real reason to actually research the dog breed they are interested in.
Maybe, this should be practiced here in America???? At least until Genetics and DNA provide a better answer?
If applied to the current Golden situation, maybe the argument about so many poor specimens would eventually go away? But, what if it causes another fallout due to a poor selection of pups to be spared Vs those put down. how long do we keep the whelping process going before we say…. okay now we can make a better decision on which to cull? 8 weeks? 14 weeks? 20 weeks?
I personally would hate to have to be in a position to decide which pup lives or dies. And if the pups are that old in a program that promotes better socialization practices….. this is extremely cruel.
Or breeders could choose only to breed when supply and demand are appropriately balanced.
Or one could attempt to halt indescriminate breeding of pups in future generations through spay-neuter contracts or limited registration, but, well, those aren’t exactly foolproof.
But whatever.
Sengimage said, to me, “10 litters in 12 years should produce on average maybe 100 pups of which you’ve clearly pointed out were all created between two studs. Mated possibly to 10 different bitches. Or maybe the same two bitches again and again.
Not much diversity there and definitely a long road to a decline. I think your breeder seriously needs to rethink her program. But hey Whatever. At least I don’t come from that school of thought. Would put me in with the same crowd that already screwed it up for the Goldens.”
1. This statement illustrates a profound ignorance of how a breeding program works.
2. This statement is perilously close to meeting the definition of libel.
3. 7 bitches, 8 studs.
4. I deeply regret ever mentioning anyone’s specific breeding program, even anonymously, even as an example of something that is good, as it has been turned into a weapon in some vendetta I have nothing to do with.
This should end this portion of the conversation.
However, we don’t have a pet overpopulation problem– we have a bad animal policy problem.
“However, we don’t have a pet overpopulation problem– we have a bad animal policy problem.”
YES!!!
Ultimately all driven by greed. Whether the greed is for monetary reasons or for reasons of vanity as a breeder lives vicariously through the accomplishments achieved by a dog that really does not covet these trophies the owner desires.
The AKC didn’t come up with the breed descriptions. The breed clubs did. And those clubs are made up of the same breeders that produce too many dogs for the purpose they were intended for. All for a title, a ribbon or a trophy.
The pet overpopulation issue is also driven by lazy animal rights/welfare organizations and bad public policy all around.
By the same token, you have to stop breeders from producing more litters than there are hunters wanting them. Or really provide an education for an interested buyer to the point where if they feel uncomfortable they will balk from buying. Only if they are determined to do things correctly does a pup get sold.
How can we educate so many people when the picture painted for so long is only one way about the breeds they want. The breed description lists these retrievers as excellent family companions and good to excellent with children. At that point the damage is already done. Unless you want to completely go against what the AKC is telling everyone or for that matter what the very breed clubs that came up with those descriptions are telling everyone.
For what it’s worth should people choose to ponder it in light of recent statements, again here follow the very round numbers of AKC-registered retrievers in the three breeds I know about off the top of my head:
Labs: 150,000 annually
Goldens: 50,000 annually
Flat-coats: 500 annually
The last time I examined these figures it was more like
Labs = 200,000 annually
Goldens = 150,000 annually
Flat Coats = 600 annually
Still the numbers for the Flat Coats hasn’t moved much in decades. Which could be a good thing or bad. If the litters produced are from the same Sires and Dams again and again, then even low numbers of registrations does not reflect good odds for diversity in the breeding population.
Goldens have a big problem with most-used sires.
Yes F&L.
Perhaps in the future breeders will understand that getting what you pay for applies. The next time a pup is sold as a papered dog all papers really do need to be presented otherwise the dog should be sold for a reduced price.
I’m sure you got all the appropriate documents for your dogs. You definitely got what you paid for if that is the case.
Nothing is foolproof. But life being what it is. It goes on.
Spay and neuter is an option before 8 weeks of age. If it is that much of a concern to the control bandits. But, then again. the spaying and neutering has played a MAJOR role in where diversity currently stands with certain breeds. So much more homework is necessary before making any ASSumptions.
I am assuming nothing, nor am I calling anyone an ass, because that would be terribly impolite. I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about re. papers; I would imagine that would be my business, but thank you for your concern.
I just think breeders should breed when the dogs are uncommonly good, and only when there are enough people to place puppies with. That might be a solution to a whole lot of problems in goldens, and Labs. I don’t see many problems in flat-coats, myself.
My gosh, this thread is broken to bits. Not that it’s been all that coherent lately anyway.
You should try moderating it.
It’s something.
“Uncommonly good” Well, that is in the eye of the beholder as I’ve discovered.
My point on papers is its a part of the purchase process for those who wish to remain in control. And Spay neuter as you brought up is usually held over the buyer’s head like ransom has to be met before producing what was paid for.
I just felt compelled to shari that with you. In no way to call anyone an ass. Sorry you felt that way. As far as ASSumptions go…. that was me guessing you got what you paid for? Not anyone’s business but your own. And how anyone chooses to do things in their life behind their closed doors should always be that way.
Spay Neuter is effective for controlling the population of the dogs, but also very detrimental to the continued diversity in a pure breed. A fact made worse by the continued breeding of the same stud or bitch, but when you apply spay neuter to a limited population to begin with, your choices for what specimen to breed also becomes limited. And eventually you’re breeding relatives. For it to work, you need enough like minded people working with you to provide the amount of diversity necessary to move forward with improving the breed. Without that in the equation you might as well be running on a treadmill and getting nowhere. That is clear and concise for the simplest of simpletons to understand regardless of how coherent or not hey are.
I’m not sure where this fits in, but I think part of a breeder’s responsibility is to evaluate their litters carefully and to try to match the strengths and personalities to the prospective homes.
When breeding purebred dogs, that responsibility is also to determine if a puppy is lacking in adherence to the breed standard in looks or temperament. And if it is, I see no problem selling the puppy as a pet with a limited registration, ie. with the requirement to spay/neuter.
If you are a responsible breeder and an ambassador of your chosen breed you owe it to the breed to protect its standards.
What I have a real problem with is breeders who give prospective owners a choice; one price if you want a full registration and less if you are willing to take a limited one. The puppy’s quality as a representative of the breed’s standard should determine whether it should be fully registered ie. whether it should be permitted to breed, or if it should be sold as a pet.
And I think its purpose as a pet is an important one, not to be dismissed as left overs, but also ambassadors for the breed. A Flat-Coat with an imperfect shoulder is still a Flat-Coat, still a joy to the family it joins. It’s just not a speciman you should breed and perpetuate that particular fault.
A breeder of purebred dogs functions with what earlier breeders have left them, and therefore is responsible for what it produces to breeders in the future.
I should add, though I’ve not mentioned it, that shoulder carriage is working conformation. If the shoulder is too upright, then the dog will be limited in what it can carry in its mouth.
Shari, you have no arguments from me on any of your points. As to where it fits in–I think those choices and responsibilities by breeders are at the heart of this thread.
Related to the shoulder issue–I enjoy listening to conformation people discuss structure, but it’s hard to sort the practical from the extreme and the careful from the obsessive. Something I’m going to do someday when I have unlimited time and funds (hah!) is take some serious animal anatomy courses; in the meantime, I’ll just have to listen carefully and watch dogs work and think about it.
Moreso even than bird carriage–a working retriever puts a tremendous amount of pressure on its shoulders.
In Labs, it’s knees (torn ligaments) that have turned into the major area of weakness, and even a lot of the non-conformation folks agree that poor inherited structure is part of the issue.
http://www.shopanimalnetwork.com/product.aspx?cid=49&pid=493
This is the book you need.
I don’t count on it. It just happens. You do come away making money from it. A litter of 10 or more dogs will gross you over 10K a pop. The cost of one pup covers the medical expenses and shots and food and care for the litter during whelping. Show breeders tend to make deals behind the scenes for stud fees or brood fees. Without having more than one or two litters of there own they can have a vested interest in several litters that are maintained at other clients.( thus studding out a single male to many bitches or mating a bitch again every two or three years). And that doesn’t require the breeder to shell out any of their own money, just to pick up a percentage from the sale of pups as a stud or brood fee or pick of another litter. Or if their feeling is their stud or bitch is that worthy a champion specimen they require two or three picks from the litter or an expensive fee. They can use these picks to either run with as potentials for show as their own or sell as their own. Some even require the client to tag every pup with their kennel name. The list goes on.
But, in stating there is no money in it…… You are just very mistaken or once again believing what the consortium of breeders is telling you. The expense in their lives is not the breeding or the whelping or the cost of veterinary bills. It the costs incurred upon them to crate their kennel of show dogs up and drive them all over the country and internationally to attend another show for their own satisfaction. Unless you really believe a dog really loves the hours spent going from place while locked up in a crate.
The papers are where the given value of the dog is. Its an acknowledgement from the registry that you in fact have what you paid for and the very reason the AKC does not stand behind a sale of a purebred without papers. Limited or not the fact remains that what you are paying for is proof in the eyes of peers and the registry itself that what you have is indeed what you paid for. Limited registration alone prevents buyers from selling future litters with AKC papers. This in fact makes any offspring in the eyes of the registry ….. just another Mongrel, but in no way a acknowledged as a purebred. Damage done. Or Control established. Either way the results prevent profit from others trying to breed the same dog. It is therefore acceptable for a reduced price if those papers are not produced, because the fact remains you have no proof that you just received the breed of dog you paid for.
If you ask the majority of hard working American, they prefer to get exactly what they paid for. And if not then they should expect as a consumer to be offered a lower price for anything less. That is responsible as well. You can still be an ambassador to your breed and offer a fair price for what you sell. Its exactly the same for a show minded breeder that relies on dogs for a significant portion of their income to shoehorn buyers interested in the best specimens into contracts that relinquish control when convenient for the breeder. For breeding rights or give interested clients the privilege even of buying the dog outright without any strings to tether a relationship back to the breeder. In those cases the price for the dog is now three to four times the norm. All for what? I say GREED. Whether its for monetary or vanity, greed still stinks the same way.
There is no perfect answer from either side of the fence. But there can alway be a middle ground. It just requires the tight ass in the equation to loosen up and the hard ass to relax a bit.
I have yet to meet a breeder, one-time or regular hobbyist, that counts on making money off of any given litter. If they cover expenses and make something to defray the cost of keeping dogs or facility upkeep or what have you, they consider it a successful endeavor on the financial end of things, but they don’t count on it either, as number of puppies or a health emergency can put them in the hole on the endeavor.
Then again, even the breeders I know best don’t have a large number of litters–the only FCR breeder I know who considers it a key part of her overall livelihood and business has had 10 litters herself in 12 years, and is only on her second stud dog.
As far as limited registration goes, why I’ve bothered arguing about it is a psychological mystery, as I don’t personally like them, they’re not my style, and I have not and doubt I ever will buy a working dog on a limited registration (and with a pet I wouldn’t care).
Anyway, I am fast becoming convinced that it is a useless tool in protecting a breed or a breeding program, and not worth arguing about even in the abstract. Perhaps this explains the Germans. *shiver*
You can make money raising pigs at a volume. For the public to use a pig, the encounter it as a dead animal. Most people don’t care that the pig was raised in crate on concrete slats, and that its mother hasn’t been screened for any genetic disorders. Most pork consumers only care that it tastes good, and that its fat content is low.
Dogs, however, actually live with people, and it definitely matters what their parents were like, whether they had health or temperament problems or not, and where the puppies were raised.
You can breed dogs like that, but my guess is that you won’t be producing anything that sane people actually want in a dog. Of course, Paris Hilton is okay with dogs raised like factory-farmed pigs. I’m not.
(again, its hard to follow replies here. This was supposed to be here, but for some reason wound up higher in the list, Frustrating)
Most Americans are concerned with temperament, health and seeing the parents, I know I am and that reflects in how we sell our pups. As well as the quality of care given in the whelping process. Anyone else can just go to a pet store. And that’s another can of worms. Fortunately you don’t find Flatties in a pet store. But, sadly there is no pet store that is complete without a Lab or a Golden in it’s inventory.
Most Americans are concerned with temperament, health and seeing the parents, I know I am and that reflects in how we sell our pups. As well as the quality of care given in the whelping process. Anyone else can just go to a pet store. And that’s another can of worms. Fortunately you don’t find Flatties in a pet store. But, sadly there is no pet store that is complete without a Lab or a Golden in it’s inventory.
I’m certainly glad I don’t move in the circles you must. Did it never occur to you that some show and breed JUST for the love of it? We’re not all out there because of greed…..makes me think that’s number one in your mind.
Sure there are breeders out there like that – they’re called puppy mills. Showing and breeding dogs is something I’ve wanted to do my entire life. Once my four children were out on their own, I figured it’s my turn. I know I won’t make money at this – that’s not the point. There are lots of easier ways to make money, without the emotional attachment. Of course, that is if you have an emotional attachment.
I’m having a great time with my dogs – and don’t try to tell me they don’t enjoy it. We don’t travel more than a few hours from home, but they love the shows, the performance events, just any place they can socialize with other dogs and people. And they love showing off.
Why are you so bitter and cynical? Don’t you enjoy your dogs, or are they just a financial investment?
“I’m certainly glad I don’t move in the circles you must.”
Ditto from me.
Libel is a published false statement that damages reputation; the object of libel must be recognized. I hope no one recognizes who I’m talking about.
Because I’m going to respond.
Numbers off? I think not. These folks HAVE HAD two stud dogs, not USED two stud dogs. Good grief. There are breeders who go to the great length of finding the right stud for a bitch, and pay a stud fee. Wondering about the bitches? Well, folks will just have to use their imaginations, because we’ve strayed into the none of anybody’s business area, which is becoming narrower and narrower on this blog.
You bet you’re under my skin. You publish your “side” of whatever, systematically maligning the keepers of one of the few sporting breeds that hasn’t split, in comments to a post about a breed that HAS split.
Then, anything mentioned about that breed–in the most careful way to keep your breeding practices, whatever they may be, unmentioned–becomes your platform to express to ME PERSONALLY that I’m a clueless brainwashed idiot who couldn’t possibly have observed a responsible practice in the fancy.
I am not clueless, nor brainwashed, nor idiotic–or if you really think I am, then keep it to yourself.
I know people who breed responsibly. You don’t believe it. That doesn’t mean everyone else that reads this has to agree with you.
NOW I’m done.
“Excuse me? Libel? My statement or yours? I just pointed out what you presented. If that was in fact NOT how it works for you then thanks for clearing it up??? I think.”
My response to the above is placed several posts away up the chain.
Libel and slander laws don’t usually apply to the internet.
[…] acredita em mim? Aqui estão duas fotos tiradas do Retrieveman, um ótimo blog, aliás. O primeiro é o Campeão Noranby Campfire, o primeiro Golden Retriever […]
[…] acredita em mim? Aqui estão duas fotos tiradas do Retrieverman, um ótimo blog, aliás. O primeiro é o Campeão Noranby Campfire, o primeiro Golden Retriever […]