How can we say that kennel clubs have preserved golden retrievers, when they once looked like these dogs:
The second dog from the right is Ch. Noranby Diana. You'll never see a dog like her in the British show ring for goldens today.
Now look like this:
European-type golden retriever.
Or this? :
American show golden.
The answer is dog shows and kennel clubs are not about preserving breeds. Some breed clubs, like the one for the flat-coated retriever in this country, are very concerned about making sure their dogs still have functional conformation and don’t have wide swings and divergences from the original functional type.
In the show-ring, the golden shifted from being a functional retriever to being an art piece. These dogs are an accumulation of silly standard revisions and the accumulation of “fancy points” in the breed.
Someone in Britain started breeding the very light colors. I still have yet to find who that was. In the 1936 standard revision for the KC, the golden received a two inch height reduction at the shoulder– 20 1/2 inches– and the color was changed to allow cream. My guess is the original intent was the allow for cream shadings on a light gold dog.
However, that’s not how judges interpreted it, and by the late 1950’s, very light colored dogs began to appear in the bloodline. These dogs were also quite heavily built, which one would expect from a standard that had a height reduction and no adjustment for weight.
In North America, the breed ring began to favor dogs with lots of feathering. As late as ten years ago, most American goldens had functional conformation, except that they had too much feathering. All I have to do to explain the golden’s need for a reduction in feathering are the words of the great retriever man James Lamb Free when he said the golden swimming with that much hair was “like [a person] going swimming in a coonskin coat.”
Now you can still find goldens that are built nicely and resemble the old type.
But now, most people think such a dog is a “setter-golden mix” or a “puppy mill” golden. Why? Because goldens are supposed to be “red.”
The truth is they are all “red,” even the palest “white” ones. The gene that makes that coloration is the recessive red to yellow color (e/e). The darkest dogs on that spectrum are mahogany, and Irish setters are that color, too.
The only problem with these “old-fashioned” or “working-bred” dogs is that they don’t have much genetic diversity. Try to find a golden from these lines that doesn’t have this dog in its pedigree: AFC Holway Barty.
Barty is the Wiston Cap of working golden retrievers in this country.
It is very hard to find a border collie of trial stock in any part of the world that doesn’t have Wiston Cap in its pedigree. He and Barty were what we would call most-used sires.
With goldens, it is a bit better. However, most European working lines are also partially derived from Holway dogs, so you have real problem in trying to increase genetic diversity.
Because of this problem, some breeders, like this one in Sweden, are crossing with the “fancy” dogs. Her F1 cross with these dogs produces puppies with rather difficult to predict working characteristics. She calls these her “lost generation.” (BTW, she is a bit wrong about calling the show dogs the “old-fashioned” type. The “old fashioned” type is working type.)
So here is the problem with working golden retrievers: we have a narrow gene pool but to broaden it we have to breed away from the original, more athletic type to include dogs that are slower on both the land and the water and very often don’t have retrieving instinct.
And that’s why I say the golden retriever is very much in trouble.
I wish we could go back to the dogs that lived 15 years, retrieved from land and water as well as any Lab, and never thought of biting anyone. But in order to go back to that time, we are going to have to some reform of our canine institutions. And the breed is going to have to lose some of its popularity so it can be rehabilitated.
I know a couple of local golden folks who intersperse show and working lines. I actually prefer many of their working temperaments to some of the super fieldy goldens I’ve met. But, I don’t like that super-high, nervous energy, buzzing retriever temperament . . . great for field trials, but not the dog I want to share a day in the duck blind or upland field with. They still all have Barty behind them in decent concentrations, and most don’t have the deep red color (they actually have some really interesting coat variations).
I really like that old, dark color, and I like a hard driving “swamp collie.”
If you want an obedience dog (or agility or anything else that requires speed and precision) or flushing retriever in rugged country that’s exactly the dog I’m looking for.
I actually accept the title swamp collie as a sign of real quality. Because I’m thinking border collie, not the Lassie dog.
The dog behind virtually all show goldens in this country is this dog: http://www.gold-rushgoldens.com/charlie.html
So those lines have the most-used sire effect, too.
I don’t know European show lines, but my guess is that they are the same way. The very light color would not exist to extent it does unless it was heavily pooled our of a few dogs of that color. But my guess is that, despite their rather poor working conformation and lack of real drive, they are probably a touch healthier than the strains we have over here.
Having had a dog that was half British type, I can say that it is exactly true about the “lost generation.” My dog was so mellow that she didn’t like to move. Her thyroid was fine. She was just “mellow.”
And that’s why I would avoid this type of dog like the plague. And I wish I could, but there are all only so many dogs in the “old-fashioned” retriever gene pool.
Or, to put a point on the pencil: “How is it a ‘standard’ when it (and the dog) changes every 20 years?”
Patrick
The original golden retriever standard was written in 1911 by the woman who actually founded the breed. The dogs may all descend from the 1st Baron Tweedmouth’s stock, but he never made any bones about separating them from the wavy-coated retriever. In fact, he bred them to the best possible wavy-coat stock that he could find. The woman who founded the golden retriever as a distinct breed was Winifred Charlesworth, and in her standard, the dogs were allowed to vary a bit in type. However, she refused to breed a heavily-built and light-colored dog out of her own stock. Today, she would have a fit if she saw what was being shown in the UK today. The darker two dogs in that first photograph are her own breeding stock.
It is interesting that the working strain of golden retrievers hasn’t changed that much because the nature of what is useful conformation in the field doesn’t change as wildly as the whims of the show ring.
I also think that the dark-colored goldens may become the fad dog in Europe. I’m just getting that feeling.
That’s why most say they breed to ‘improve’ the breed, not ‘preserve it’.
‘Improve’ meaning making it into whatever the current ring fashions says it should be.
I use that word “improve” as irony. I call the English shepherd an “unimproved collie-type,” and I mean it as a sincere compliment.
Outcross to old, cancer-free flatcoat studs from healthy lines.. And/or good red setters. Select for type & temperament for 3 generations and fold in the descendants who make the cut. Don’t breed the descendants of any crosses to one another for 4 generations.
Suck it and accept the occasional black pup.
Gene pool salvaged.
That’s exactly what I would like to do, but 1. I would never be able to get a flat-coat of any kind, and 2. there is no provision for interbreeding at this time in the registry– but there should be. I’ve considered the red setters, especially the working red setters with golden retriever heads. http://www.nrsftc.com/fame.htm These dogs are even a lighter color of red than the typical Irish setter. These dogs are one of the major ancestors of the golden.
The 1st Baron Tweedmouth used black dogs in his breeding program extensively.
And one of the founders of the modern breed, the 1st Viscount Harcourt, who had a tragic personal life, always interbred his dogs with black flat-coats. Those black dogs themselves could use the red and blond dog’s genes again, too.
I would love to be able to do this, but it just isn’t allowed at this time.
I would even be okay with using goldendoodles. If you take a goldendoodle and breed it back to the golden, you will get some puppies with the golden retriever phenotype that are virtually indistinguishable from the typical golden
Opening the registry would save the gene pool. And in the long run, it’s the only thing that will.
Retrieverman, what is up with that short muzzle in picture #3? Doesn’t even look like a Golden to me!
I’ve had 3 Goldens, and known others quite well, and the amount of feathering didn’t stop the swimming prowess. Some Goldens seem to have a better physique for swimming than others. My best swimmer was a light red American blockhead, probably field/show mix. My current smaller dark red fieldy guy is the one who hates to swim & acts like a rug. But I get what you’re saying & this guy would be the exception that proves the rule. Plus feathering gets stuck in everything & everything gets stuck in it.
I agree with H. Houlahan on the outcross (what heresy!). Are there any cancer-free lines of flatcoats? Use any healthy breed of setter, retriever, pointer, or spaniel with a field type — easier to keep the prey-drive — with a good, big, diverse gene pool. Actually use 2 breeds. I’ll buy a pup with a spot, splash, stripe, even a black pup, even a pup with (shudder) short-haired tail. Get to work, someone. I’ll be ready for a new pup in about 3 years.
It is allowed if you say to heck with the registry. Surely more & more people are considering this. Start your own registry. Just don’t rename the breed something like “Olde English Bulldogge.”
Do Standard Poodles have health issues? I believe there are a few people who hunt with them in NAVHD or some such organization.
Standard poodles do have health issues, but I don’t have them handy right now.
I’m very uncomfortable with starting my own registry, simply because to do this right, you would need the support of hundreds of other fanciers with similar views. There are long-lived strains of flat-coat that don’t get cancer as often.
To me that would be the most logical outcross, because goldens were flat-coats until 1912. They were interbred until 1916. That’s why you still get yellow flat-coats in some litters, and lots of goldens look like flat-coats. My first dog would’ve made an excellent flat-coat, except that she had a tawny color and white tail tip. She was the most drivey retriever I’ve seen of any breed.
An interesting side note (and something I should finally find the time to write about in more length) is that the Finnish Kennel Club has a provision for registered outcrosses and reintroducing them into the breed.
There isn’t any material available in English that I’ve found, so I’ll have to paraphrase it at some point and send you a pointer to it.
I’m also interested, why can’t you get a flatcoat?
Flat-coated retriever people in this country are very concerned with not allowing outcrosses. They worry that goldens have been crossed into their dogs all along, because the dogs are getting inherited diseases that exist in goldens. They also worry that their breed would lose its working ability and maybe pass on golden diseases rapidly through its smaller population.
Now, the F1 of any outcross with a golden and a black flat-coat or liver one not carrying the yellow gene will result in a litter containing mostly black puppies. In fact, because most goldens have black skin, I would say that nearly 100 percent of such crosses would result in that color.
The Belgian shepherd dogs are currently registered under an outcrossing scheme in every country but Canada, Britain, and the US. But in doing so, you can get black Malinois that cannot be placed in any of the varieties. The old KC rules had a class for “Interbred retrievers.”
And there are lots of people who would throw a fit if retrievers became a variety rather than a breed: http://www.goldenretriever-france.com/ag/2008/racvare.htm
I’d be interested in hearing the paraphrase of the Finnish rules.
IMO individuals interested in doing outcrossing for the betterment of a breed ought to make sure they’re in a position to know what characteristics really make the breeds they are combining–and to do that, I would think a person would want to have observed several generations of many different lines working in a variety of capacities, from couch potato and kids’ companion to dad’s running partner to weekend hunter to obedience to agility to hunt test/field trial competitor.
That, and the trust and support of those whose dogs would be the foundation stock. I personally don’t think it’s “kosher” to use a dog like this without the knowledge and support of the breeder.
Flat-coats are definitely different from other retrievers, and I think the differences can be either endearing or maddening, depending on the dog, and depending on the person. But they ARE different. And I think perhaps, like with Labs and goldens, the best examples of the breed are perhaps NOT the best dogs for MOST people. (Be careful what you wish for!)
I guess my sympathies lie with the flat-coat folks who may appear over-protective. I really think they are about breed preservation in a way that the Lab and golden fanciers sometimes aren’t. I’ve met flat-coats that were far from perfect, and there’s variety in the breed for sure and every dog is different to some degree, but flat-coats always seem like flat-coats to me; there are Labs and goldens don’t even seem like Labs and goldens, and yet they are held up as best examples… I don’t get that…
I would’ve felt the same way had I not known many goldens that but for their coat color were basically flat-coats– even having the same head shape and leg proportions with straight coats and less feathering. They were more like flat-coats than the “white” dogs that are also called golden retrievers. The fact that the two of them are basically the same dog that diverged less than 100 years ago really bothers me. Both of these dogs don’t have great genetic diversity and crippling health problems that are genetic in nature. One study has the golden’s average live expectance at about 10 years of age; one flat coat study has them at 8 years. A dog of that size should live at least a dozen years.
“Not allowed.” Piffle.
What’s the AKC gonna do to ya, take away your dog license? Screw them. They’re busy digging their own grave. That page link to the Brit show person pitching a fit about the golden retriever “standard” and crossbreeding is a perfect example. Waaaaa! Who the hell cares what she thinks or what makes her squeal? She’s an idiot.
Yes, you need others to support and participate in this project. The days of English nobles with huge kennels establishing and defining breeds is over, and thankfully so.
But you don’t need hundreds to start. Dozens will do. Several is enough, at the beginning of a project.
And you know what? The owners of the right kind of flatcoat or red setter studs (or field Labs, or Gordon setters, or whatever) are not going to begrudge a fellow breed conservationist a sperm donation. This project is a one-way infusion of new blood into the golden gene pool — not a melding of the two populations.
The faithful have committed heresy for less in the past.
The key is being transparent and bold — hide nothing. Show your pedigrees online, justify every breeding, show your culls and explain why they were culled (to great non-breeding pet or hunting homes). Show your health testing, all results, good and bad. Compete in those venues that are open to you, and if there aren’t enough to help select breeding stock, cooperate with others to create open-to-all trials and tests.
I pick on you, young man, because you are a young man. You have plenty of time ahead of you to shepherd such a project, and should be young enough not to care what dinosaurs such as kennel clubs want. Why are you waiting for permission to fix something from the very people who broke it in the first place?
Come on, sing it with me …
You can get anything you want at Alice’s Restaurant …”
“The key is being transparent and bold — hide nothing. Show your pedigrees online, justify every breeding, show your culls and explain why they were culled (to great non-breeding pet or hunting homes). Show your health testing, all results, good and bad. Compete in those venues that are open to you, and if there aren’t enough to help select breeding stock, cooperate with others to create open-to-all trials and tests.”
Nice post overall, but I really agree with the above.
Don’t get me wrong–I’m not jumping on the cross-breeding bandwagon–perhaps I’m a bit less skeptical about the health and welfare of the “true” representatives of the breeds, and willing to let those who don’t “conform” to my own ideal (a working ideal that still exhibits the type that makes a dog look like its breed) play their own little game and have their fun while I play mine. Or perhaps I’m just getting old and gravitate toward change from within more than I would have 20 years ago.
But I think fewer people will stand in front of your bandwagon if they know what its “cargo” is.
I’m not trying to destroy breeds.
I’m trying to make sure they are the best dogs they can be.
I’m not even in a position right now to breed dogs. My current dog is spayed and she’s 1/4 “white” dog, 1/4 American show dog, and 1/2 field dog. But should I ever be in that position, I would definitely consider starting such a project. I would focus on goldens, which are far easier to get, and then maybe use some of these “Golden Irish” dogs.
Yes – standard poodles have a boatload of health problems, many of which are related to a big genetic bottleneck created in the 1970s. See http://www.poodlehealthregistry.org/docs/Standard/PHRBreed_Listing_Standard.html for examples of some of the problems in the breed….
Yes – more and more people are hunt training their poodles [don’t know how many actually hunt with them though…], and even breeding for “that kind” of poodle. See http://www.lakelandhuntingpoodles.com/ The breed club has also gotten on board and now hosts hunt tests at the National Specialty held in Salisbury, MD in April.
There’s a lot of work to be done with the breed – and a carefully controlled outcross would do wonders to loosen up that bottleneck. But change comes so very slowly….
Though I personally have no interest in out-crossing, I can appreciate the concerns and ideas behind out-crosses which are intended to improve health through genetic diversity. However, opening registries is a scary proposition for me because it provides an “official” avenue for out-crosses done for the wrong reasons, and without research, follow-up, or transparency. How would registries determine an appropriate vs. inappropriate out-cross? That said, last time I checked the AKC has still refused to register the 4th G. off-spring of the Dal project, and I think that is very unfortunate.
It only works when the breed club IS the registry, or at the very least, has total control over what dogs are registered.
When the breed club IS the registry, the epic fights about registration criteria don’t get clouded with issues irrelevant to the breed at hand.
I train and / or hunt a coupla days a week with a mixed bag of gundog breeds – mostly goldens and flatties with the occasional toller, poodle, IWS, and Chessie. The field-bred goldens and flatties are more alike in their working temperaments than any of the other breeds I’ve observed, and certainly more so than either is to our show goldens. The golden breed type I see locally is all across the board, but I have seen the Flat-coat-eqsue goldens you described.
One reason I appreciate the dual-purpose nature of Flat-coats is because I believe it helps maintain a particular working temperament, not just a particular type. When lines split, it seems that each line becomes almost reactionary to the other – “you can have your BIS, and I’ll take my FC / AFC.” Show lines are bred to meet some breed standard, while working lines are bred to run / swim 200 yd. straight lines at a million miles an hour. Show lines are line-bred on top conformation dogs, while working lines are line-bred on NAFCs, FCs, etc. Each line develops their own health and temperament issues as breeding for any ‘one thing’ concentrates bad genes. Breeding for show traits is just more damning because it is superficial and less pertinent or downright contrary to the dog’s original purpose as a hunting retriever. But, I’m not convinced that breeding for field trial potential will preserve a breed’s ‘original’ type or working temperament either. Some field dogs have almost whippet-like bodies and I can’t imagine how people keep their dogs warm in the duck blind with such minimal body volume. When I describe the super-high, nervous energy, buzzing temperament, I’m not talking about a hard-driving dog. I’m thinking more of a dog who does without processing what he’s doing; who isn’t capable of meaningfully channelling the drive he’s got; who ‘turns off’ correction (verbal or collar); who is too easily over-stimulated; who muddles emotions (ie – excitement becomes frustration becomes aggression). I’m certainly not saying that all field bred dogs are like this and I’m not undermining the natural talent and training required to succeed in field trials – I love watching FT dogs run. If I were recommending a hunting lab or golden, I would definitely direct someone towards a field line. I’m also not saying that we should do away with field trials or change them in any way – any dog sport promoting athleticism and working ability is A-OK in my book.
FCR working temperaments aren’t for everyone – they’re typically slower to mature; easily bored; more sensitive, stubborn, independently minded and ‘nosey,’ etc. But, one thing that concerns me with out-crossing FCRs to other retrievers is potentially altering their working temperament, getting a taste of a more suitable trial temperament, and then breeding towards that with the risk of losing some of what they are now. FCRs may never gain status in FT circles and I salute those who do, but they’ve got awesome versatile working temperaments, natural hunting instincts, plenty of drive, and generally don’t require a pro to make the most of ’em.
The “original golden” was a yellow to mahogany colored flat-coat, and yes, they did look like them. https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/woolley-goldens.jpg
The field trial has shaped a different Lab from the Bentley type, which is the original Lab type. I do think the Lab needs some modification, because a lot of field-line Labs, especially yellows and chocolates, are zany.
Everything you say about flat-coats is true of the golden, except goldens have been selectively bred to have sort of herding dog temperament. If you ask anyone who does agility, fly-ball, or the various sports that evolved from the obedience trial which breed to choose, they will always say border collie, sheltie, or golden.
I was a bit taken aback when I saw field trialers say that goldens were harder to train that Labs, because for regular obedience work, the golden is a far better dog– far easier to regiment. It’s just that goldens, like flat-coats, hunt in a very different style from Labradors. Goldens have a very high content of setter in them, which affects their quartering and air scenting behavior. Most of the dark goldens actually resemble the old-line of Irish setter that once existed, and their behavior, save for the index behavior, is very similar.
I like the flat-coat’s behavior. It lacks a lot of the softness that I see too much in goldens. It may not have the golden’s easy regimentation– after all, goldens are being bred specifically for obedience trials– but these dogs tend to have good style and virtually all of them have the instinct (at some level) and drive. I see too many goldens that just don’t have it. It’s partly that there are so many of them, but it’s also that they aren’t seen as working breed.
A drivey retriever has more utility than a gun dog. Search and rescue, substance detection, and blood trailing (all with all other tracking) are useful activities for them. In the town where I work, the main drug detection dog is a working-type golden.
You do have a point about what field trials do to these dogs.
I fundamentally think that it was a mistake to separate the golden from the flat-coat, and it was only done because the yellow dogs couldn’t win in conformation shows against the black ones. I also think it was a mistake to allow the Labrador to split off from this line, too, because that breed has very high genetic diversity (comparatively). These Labs were augmented with outcrosses to flat-coats (including goldens) and the last of the St. John’s water dogs as late as the 1940’s. The St. John’s water dog became extinct only because the government of Newfoundland passed a punitive dog tax on any dogs not used in the production wool. Then the fishermen developed really good mechanized winches to pull nets out of the water, and the dogs were doomed. The last two were found in the early 80’s, both were male, and ones was 13 and the other 15. After those two dogs died, the ancestral retriever went extinct.
There was also a yellow Lab that whelped some good golden retrievers in those early days. I’m actually amazed at how many common the sires and dams there are for all three breeds. In fact, to really know one of them, you have to know all three. Otherwise, you don’t get the big picture at all.
Yes, there are differences among goldens, Labs, and flat-coats, but they aren’t differences in the same way. They aren’t as different as they are from the Chesapeake Bay retriever. It’s more like theme and variation.
And not all of the early flat-coats were built like the modern dogs. Some were more like modern goldens, like Zelstone (whose son Tracer was bred into the line that gave us goldens), https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/zelstone.jpg, and these field dogs from the early 1900’s: https://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/heavy-bodied-flat-coats-from-complete-english-shot.jpg?w=378&h=622
The variance in type we have goldens is the same variance that once existed in wavy-coated/flat-coated retriever in the nineteenth century. It’s just that as the breeds developed, there was desire for more moderate bone and less lumber.
“Everything you say about flat-coats is true of the golden, except goldens have been selectively bred to have sort of herding dog temperament.”
Can you explain this? I don’t understand what you mean.
I’m saying that they are as good at most dog sports as shelties and BC’s. They are easily regimented; a friend of mine calls goldens, BC, and shelties “precision dogs.”
The golden retriever is the only breed I know of that is selectively bred for obedience trials to the extent that there are special lines of obedience trial goldens.
Yeah, I own some from those lines.
We like to refer to it as ‘biddability,’ not herding dog temperament.
Where they often cannot compete is with the speed the herding dogs bring to flyball and agility.
Thanks for clarifying.
I also use that word, but Labs are also bred for it. However, they are not as easy to “precision train” as goldens, except in gun dog work. When I say herding breed temperament I mean a dog that is intensely focused on its handler’s voice and body language. I see it as qualitatively different from the typical Labrador temperament, and I think it’s not something that most people who deal in working retrievers are expecting.
But your use of the term “herding dog temperament” implies that a Puli, a Cardigan Welsh Corgi, and an Old English Sheepdog have the same temperament, speed and precision as a Border Collie, Sheltie or Performance-bred Golden.
After all, they’re all “herding dogs.”
Some dogs in each of those breeds are excellent obedience candidates. Some can do well enough in agility. But I’ve never seen a CWC that could approach a Sheltie’s speed in a jumpers course. Or a Old English Sheepdog that could outrun a golden in flyball.
Part of it has to do with the physical structure of the different breeds, but much of it has to do with the difference in temperament between the different breeds within the Herding Group.
I’ll just use my BC colleague’s word for it. It is the precision temperament. Goldens are really good at precision training, provided no feathers are involved. As soon as feathers get involved, then they have their setter-retriever behavior, which some people, who are more used to Labs, call stubbornness. I think this is why field trialers say goldens are headstrong and obedience and agility trialers say they aren’t but Labs are. Labs are easier to regiment when feathers are involved; goldens are easier to regiment when they aren’t. Again, I’m resorting to stereotypes, but at one time goldens were getting a huge proportion of the total AKC titles given out in any one year. I forget the exact numbers, but they were far ahead of all other breeds in the number of obedience titles given. When the BC got recognized by the AKC, things got more competitive for the golden.
The reason why goldens aren’t as good at guide dog work is because they have this precision temperament. They do not always do the “intelligent disobedience.” However, one guide dog organization had the highest graduation rate with goldens (73 percent of all goldens) compared to the Lab, which was at 72 percent. (The hybrids between the two were the highest percentage of graduates in the study).
Those other breeds “herd,” but very few OES herd or drove (they are a droving dog, like an Aussie). The corgis are heelers, as are Lancashire heelers and Vallhunds.
You could teach a golden to herd. It won’t be a BC. But you could teach one to herd.
Agreed (mostly). Field Labs are bred for biddability, but most folks who love a Lab for field trials, hunt tests, and hunting don’t want a dog that is “intensely focused on its handler’s voice and body language.” The dog needs to respond promptly and precisely to its handler’s voice and body language–but its “intense focus” needs to be forward, in the field, where the birds are. If the focus is elsewhere–even on the handler–the work suffers (IMO; in most opinions).
So, I guess I’m not sure I know what you mean by Labs being easy to precision train in gun dog work. First, it’s far from easy, with all that drive behind them; and second, it has sort of a “robotic” connotation to it. They are trained to respond promptly and precisely, but there’s really nothing robotic about them, because their focus is on the unknown out beyond the control of the handler. Maintaining the right balance between independence and responsiveness is crucial, and a good trainer works very hard to get and keep a dog “in balance.”
I personally don’t like to see a dog look up at its handler lovingly as if to say, “Please-oh-please command me to go get that bird so that I may please you.” It’s cute and all, but I want that dog to be zoned in on his birds and ready to go, and upon release–zing!!!
Now, all this said, I have a Lab that’s not quite your typical Lab–he’s just a little soft, a little stubborn, a little sensitive–and I have a flat-coat that, with the exception of a few flattie quirks, seems to think she’s a Labrador. So in they end, I guess they’re just good dogs.
They are far easier to train for trial and test work than goldens are. What I mean is they don’t do setter behavior, and you know what I’m talking about, when retrieving. I’ve never had a golden that didn’t do that behavior.
Labs take a line far more easily, because they won’t starter quartering in long casts as soon as they are sent.
It’s easier to train a dog to take a line if it doesn’t do that.
I’m sure flat-coats do setter behavior. Most Labs do something like it but it’s not in long casts.
Again, these three breeds are theme and variation on the same basic dog.
Should have quoted above; I was responding to retrieverman’s comment:
“I also use that word, but Labs are also bred for it. However, they are not as easy to “precision train” as goldens, except in gun dog work. When I say herding breed temperament I mean a dog that is intensely focused on its handler’s voice and body language. I see it as qualitatively different from the typical Labrador temperament, and I think it’s not something that most people who deal in working retrievers are expecting.”
I knew that F-N-L! ‘Biddability’ is also an imprecise term, that means different things in different venues.
First, there is so much more to a successful obedience (or agility) performance than a dog’s willingness to follow his/her handler’s bidding.
The perfect obedience dog has superb physical memory. He demonstrates perfect physical alignment during heeling patterns and recall fronts. He has impeccable timing, turning absolutely in sync with his handler or dropping smoothly during a drop in recall exercise. He has a constant awareness of his handler’s position and can correctly interpret his handler’s subtle physical signals.
A perfect field dog looks out, looks away. He looks out when coming to the line, to see possible bird stations. He looks out to the falls – single, double, triple, quad. He looks forward and away when told “dead bird.” That dog understands that “in this place, my job is out there!”
Some dogs can master both sports. Others excel in one, and can’t handle the other. Some “dabble” in both but excel in neither.
“The perfect obedience dog has superb physical memory. He demonstrates perfect physical alignment during heeling patterns and recall fronts. He has impeccable timing, turning absolutely in sync with his handler or dropping smoothly during a drop in recall exercise. He has a constant awareness of his handler’s position and can correctly interpret his handler’s subtle physical signals.”
That would be the sterotypical golden temperament.
Hi Patti–I know you knew!
I’ll probably never know if I have a good obedience dog because I don’t “get” obedience. I tried and tried, but “The Great Weimaraner Humping Debacle” got me and Atticus more or less booted out of the best ob class I could ever hope to be in… (he was going through a bit of a phase; he has better taste and more discretion now.)
And Raven… hm… Let’s just say I think I’d better focus on being excellent in one venue with her.
F-n-L, remind me to tell you about my last obedience experience with my 14-mo old boy. He fell in LOVE while in line for the long sits & downs. I knew we were going to have a problem when I told him “sit!” and walked to the other end of the ring. He looked at me. He looked at his newfound love. He looked at me. … … … Then he sighed a mournful sigh, and lay down. Still looking at his lady love.
No humping involved, thank goodness.
What did he fall in love with?
Absolutely, theme and variation.
I know exactly what you mean–quartering and air-scenting don’t lend themselves to lining. But then again, let a Lab loose in a pheasant field and tell him to hunt it up, and quartering comes naturally to most, and I think they use their nose differently when hunting like that.
And then again, if I had to list the “top five lining dogs you’ve seen,” three of them would be goldens! And yes, they’re all dark red and a bit curly. :)
My flat-coat takes an awfully pretty line (if she remembers where she’s going), as does her brother, who is on a FT pro truck at the moment.
When she does hunt an area of a fall, she does her nose-up setter-y thing–I don’t doubt some field trial judges would have NO idea what to make of that…
Really? I’ve always had a hard time with goldens and lines, and because they weren’t trial or test dogs– they were being used as red springer spaniels– they really didn’t have to. I used James Lamb Free’s method for getting a dog to take a line, which must have worked for him.
Scottie quoting me —
“The perfect obedience dog has superb physical memory. He demonstrates perfect physical alignment during heeling patterns and recall fronts. He has impeccable timing, turning absolutely in sync with his handler or dropping smoothly during a drop in recall exercise. He has a constant awareness of his handler’s position and can correctly interpret his handler’s subtle physical signals.”
That would be the sterotypical golden temperament. –”
Me answering me??!!??
No, or every golden that walked into an obedience ring would be an OTCH.
It’s something the best goldens are capable of. I’ve seen lots of goldens (& fcrs & other breeds) with so-so physical memory. Their butts swing out on a sit, they “front” to the right or left of center, they lag a bit on an about face. They qualify, but aren’t likely to place. I’ve seen lots of dogs with so-so timing. They hesitate just a second or two (which translates into a few strides and several feet) before dropping at their handler’s signal.
I guess it depends on the level you are evaluating. The OTCH dogs demonstrate impeccable spacial awareness, timing and response. The majority of goldens in the obedience ring are good journeymen dogs. A few are flakes.
My experience with working bred goldens is that they all have some of this ability, and very many of them could be polished to the highest level of obedience work. They wouldn’t be the best working retrievers.
Even my lazy golden was very easy to obedience train, and could have been polished.
I also worked with a service dog organization that used goldens exclusively, and they were all doing advanced obedience work at 7 or 8 months. The dogs were taught AKC obedience trial drills, along with their wheelchair work. These dogs were mostly show dogs, but all of them were competent at the behaviors.
The stereotypical golden is something that can be polished.
The first three OTCh’s (of any breed) were all goldens, and although they still are considered one of the best breeds for obedience work.
Having been around more difficult breeds, I’d far rather have the golden. The dog I had that was a “golden boxer” was very hard to train. I also had a Dalmatian that I absolutely couldn’t train at all. And he wasn’t deaf. He was just speckled inertia.
He fell in love with the only other liver flatcoat in the lineup. He’s liver, she was pretty, and I guess he heard bells ringing and saw visions of siring the next generation of liver flatcoat field dogs.
Of course, she was all business, and didn’t even notice him.
That’s the difference between intact males & intact females in the obedience ring. The guys are frequently hopeful. The girls are all business.
From F-n-L “I know exactly what you mean–quartering and air-scenting don’t lend themselves to lining. But then again, let a Lab loose in a pheasant field and tell him to hunt it up, and quartering comes naturally to most, and I think they use their nose differently when hunting like that.”
We spent the first two years of Zip’s training doing traditional hunt-test training (he earned his JH, WC & two passes of his SH during that time.) Then we took him pheasant hunting.
He immediately figured out that quartering & air-scenting were part of the game. But the first bird he pushed up was in a stand of brush. After that, on that day, it was like watching a ball in a pin-ball machine. He ran from stand of brush to stand of brush.
The next time out, he pushed up a bird in a wide open field, and a light-bulb switched on.
He doesn’t have a problem switching from marking at hunt test training or testing days, he just understands that there are differences between upland hunting and other training days.
Labs quarter very differently from goldens. They are shorter in their casts.
Now, there are Labs that point, but I’ve not been around those dogs. I’ve heard that they do the long-cast quartering.
I’ve seen only one golden that could point, a throwback to the Irish setter.
Some labs are shorter in their casts. Not all. And an upland dog can be trained to shorten or lengthen their casts. Lots of handlers use whistle commands to tell the dog to reverse direction. That’s especially handy when hunting with different pary sizes. Quartering in front of five hunters is very different than quartering in front of two.
I’ve hunted with several pointing flatcoats. Since Xan owns two of them, (or does puppy D point now, too?), perhaps she could add to this discussion?
Yes, you can train the cast, but the natural cast of most goldens much longer than I’ve ever seen in a Lab. I love to watch a natural long cast. Just as you can shorten the cast, you can lengthen it.
But the last thing you’d want in a retriever taking a line is for it to suddenly start casting into the wind on its own. There goes your line. My first golden would always, always do this if she couldn’t see the mark.
She always found her mark. It’s just without taking a line.
That’s more about training than about natural abilities. Every dog has a natural length of line, after which they’ll start hunting. Every dog has a natural number of casts they’ll accept before they decide that they should rely on their nose rather than their handler.
A well-trained retriever will mark a fall and take a straight line to the area of the fall. Then they’ll use their nose to find the bird.
A young or novice dog needs to hone their marking ability, and a wise trainer will use certain drills to help the dog learn to discern the distance of the fall. The dog will learn how to judge length of fall, and the handler will increase the length of the marks as the dog shows that they can handle longer distances. An inexperienced dog that tries to retrieve a mark longer that their “logical distance” mark will almost always try to hunt it up. That sounds like your experience with your first golden.
A well-trained dog will understand the difference between a mark and a blind. They will trust their eyes to mark a fall, an run to the area of the fall without starting a hunting pattern before arriving at the area of the fall. A well-trained dog will take a line for a blind without using their nose at all. If terrain or some other factor causes them to alter their initial line, they will sit promptly on receiving a whistle, and follow their handler’s hand signals to reestablish the line.
A dog that doesn’t understand the difference between a mark and a blind (unseen fall) is one who hasn’t been trained in the fundamentals of blinds. She trusts her own ability to find a bird more than her handler’s ability to handle her to one.
There was a study done by some ethologists, although I can’t put my finger on it, but they used sophisticated regression equations to analyze ability in guide dogs. I think the numbers were essentially this– about 70 percent of what makes a good dog is breeding and 30 percent is training. In my own experience, this is quite true.
And it has already been known. I just reread what James Lamb Free wrote about it. Good dogs are born that way, and then polished.
“My experience with working bred goldens is that they all have some of this ability, and very many of them could be polished to the highest level of obedience work. They wouldn’t be the best working retrievers.” and, “I’ve always had a hard time with goldens and lines, and because they weren’t trial or test dogs– they were being used as red springer spaniels– they really didn’t have to.”
Not that I think every dog has to take a perfect line every time, but I think you’re selling the competition potential of your beloved working bred goldens a little short! I’ve had the priveledge of training with a couple of the best goldens in the country (haven’t in a while–miss it). Hard driving, smart, great markers, great lines–could give any Lab a run for the money any day, any trial. I don’t have any doubt they could quarter tight and dig out a pheasant, though.
Patti’s post is right on. There are some simple drills that really do teach depth perception and lining on fallen marks–and those same drills are often used to tune up an older dog. Short/long or ABC drills, some are called. We did one today–4 marks in an offset diamond pattern, 2 at about 40 yards and 2 at about 120. Teaches depth perception, running a line past distractions, etc..
From the little I’ve gone out chasing pheasants with my Lab, I don’t think they confuse their purpose or venue. If it’s a good dog trained to get the bird the fastest way, it’s gonna get the bird the fastest way.
A good friend with some great flat-coats–one the much-missed poppa of my Raven–regularly pheasant hunts his flatties, and then runs them in Master tests another weekend. If the Labs and flat-coats do it, I don’t see why the goldens can’t, as they really do seem to be “the happy medium” in many ways.
I just don’t think goldens are as good as Labs, and virtually all trainers who deal with both for that purpose have said so.
“I just don’t think goldens are as good as Labs, and virtually all trainers who deal with both for that purpose have said so.”
Shhhhh! Don’t tell these folks!
http://www.minerskennel.com/index.htm
http://www.topbrass-retrievers.com/titles.
http://www.ambertrail.com/index2.html
I personally think there are a sizeable number of goldens that can go toe to toe with the best Labs any day.
I have some of those linked in my important links. They are good working dogs. I’m not saying that.
But they aren’t Labs. The top retrievers in the country are almost always Labradors.
Goldens haven’t won a National Field Championship in nearly 50 years.
I’m just saying that conventional wisdom is that the best working retrievers for competition are Labs. Not only that, most are either black Labs or yellow Labs. Very few are chocolates.
I think Labs are great competition dogs, and they’ve been more strongly selected for it than goldens have.
There are good working goldens out there, but there are far more excellent dogs in the Lab breed. And I’m not saying this because I’m Lab person. I’m a golden person. There are also at least 4 times as many Labs in the country as goldens. But even when you count for that, they still are the top retriever.
I don’t have the numbers on me right now, but I would say that the proportion of the Labrador breed being actively trialed, tested, and worked is significantly higher than the golden.
BTW, you’re the first Lab person who has ever suggested that goldens were as consistently as good as Labs.
Labs have been developed for the modern trial; goldens were developed for estate shooting. That why the Lab is the trial dog, and the golden is the secondary dog.
Now, this could be changing as people really have begun to focus more on the golden as a working dog, but there is a reason why the tendency is to pick the Lab over the golden.
I’m not saying that there aren’t good goldens, but I’m saying that, as a breed, they aren’t at the same level as Labs are.
” just don’t think goldens are as good as Labs, and virtually all trainers who deal with both for that purpose have said so.”
If you are talking about field trainers or “pros”, I’m sure you would get that response. As a rule, goldens don’t respond to training in the same way that labs do. Many goldens will shut down under pressure where a lab wouldn’t, and different training techniques must be used to achieve the same result.
A pro trainer’s reputation & income depend on achieving training goals for client dogs with a minimum of time. A dog that doesn’t learn in the same way as the other dogs on the truck, a dog that requires more time to achieve the same result is a dog that many pros don’t want to deal with.
Now if you are talking about good hunting companions for upland or duck blind, many of the field-trial labs can’t hold a candle to a talented golden or flatcoat. They just don’t understand the game. In that situation, some goldens are better than some labs.
That’s what I mean.
And if you want a dog for other dog sports, like obedience and agility, the golden is a good choice, too. Flat-coats probably do well at obedience and the others, too. It’s just there are very many of them anyway.
“BTW, you’re the first Lab person who has ever suggested that goldens were as consistently as good as Labs.”
I don’t know if I’m saying that or not. Labs do rule.
But–I will definitely say that if I had a Topbrass golden puppy I’d have as high an expectation of it as if I had a Candlewoods (or whatever) Lab puppy. Maybe higher.
My three all hunt upland very differently. My two older FCRs point, as do a lot of Flatties I know. My older girl works a field more like a pointer or setter than a retriever or spaniel, and I let her because she’s got a great nose and a natural understanding of scent, wind, etc. – I watch a lot of dogs get caught up in old scent, runner scent, or scent way upwind, and Layla has this worked out before you even know she’s working it out – you don’t get a lot of warning that she’s on a bird until she throws the point. She runs big haphazard patterns, but at the end of the day, when I take note of where she’s been, she usually covers the field on her own without much direction. My older boy hunts in a big open quartering pattern, taking longer and deeper casts than any spaniel or retriever I’ve seen. He is highly influenced by his nose and wind in HT work. My youngster has a tight quartering pattern and naturally adjusts as needed for the size of the hunting party, the terrain, etc. She doesn’t point and probably never will since she’s figured out it’s much easier to catch her own birds than rely on my shot, and she’s wicked fast and sneaky. Despite her more natural upland quartering, she takes nice lines and is the best ‘natural’ marker of my three and the least ‘cheaty.’ But she was running mini W drills at 6 mos., while my older dogs got a late start on marking so who’s to say whether nature or nurture is playing a role there.
I run my dogs at tests during hunting season and I haven’t noticed any issues with them discerning venues. I also have spent many days during overlap season hunting upland after a morning in the duck blind.
Generally, the less trained labs I see will run past the fall before they hunt it back up while the less trained goldens and flatties run just short of the fall when their noses kick into gear. Flatties and goldens also seem more influenced by the wind. I do believe that, generally speaking, flatties and goldens are more into their noses than labs and that they make great natural upland dogs because of it, though I’m sure a lab can be trained to kick his nose into high gear.
I don’t believe FCRs are as good a choice for obedience as ob. bred goldens, unless they’ve got a creative handler. FCRs have a lot in their favor – decent trainability, focus, drive, generally bombproof temperaments – but they often loathe repetition, and obedience training requires lots of it to get that precision. I sometimes see my FCRs do things differently the second time around because they can’t fathom that I’d really ask them to do the same exact thing again. I have to change pictures a lot with them (ie – instead of one backpile, I’ll have three of them out there just to mix things up). Meanwhile, my herders love repetition – to them, each repeat is an opportunity to do it even better than before – and it seems goldens have more of this mentality.
I call it the “precision” temperament. I think goldens might be the only gun dog breed that really has it. In fact, they may be the only breed other than the collie-types and shepherd types that has it. Labs kind of have it but it’s not the same.
I’ve probably said it before, but I have a red Golden who naturally herds sheep. Of course, someone with a real herding breed would never recognize it as herding, but it’s all I need. When the sheep escape into the woods, I no longer have to trek up the hill and get behind them. I give him a command & a hand signal, and he goes behind them so they’ll come toward the electronet or the pen. He doesn’t nip or bark at them, either. He also alerts me when they get out & eat my raspberries. :)
When he was puppy, there was one big Shetland ram (he was a wuss who was always getting beat up by the smaller rams) that would play. Under supervision, of course. Watson would do the play bow, and the ram would jump & pronk, instead of butting him. So I guess there is some buried herding ability, but I wouldn’t call my dog precise! But I understand what you mean by “precision” temperament.
Patti, I didn’t know FCRs let out that same sigh as Goldens!
Really?
Now, I’ve heard of goldens herding. They just aren’t exactly like a BC.
They would most likely be “loose eyed” herding.
There are some herding breeds that don’t often have herding instinct– Old English sheepdogs are what I’m thinking of.
A golden would never be able to do a herding trial, though, because in some of the lower level tests and trials they have to herd ducks. My dogs would rather catch the ducks and bring them to me.
Yes, the same Golden caught a duck and brought it to it’s owner, a neighbor, alive — much to his surprise!
In trials and tests, they are required to bring live birds back in their jaws. They can carry eggs in their mouths without breaking them. Something I didn’t believe, until I had one of my dogs retrieve a few eggs.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I’m definitely going to bookmark you! Thank you for your info. And this is **online dog training** blog. It pretty much covers dog training related stuff.