From anns8smith.
In case you didn’t already know, this strain is the type of golden I love.
And note that they are from North Dakota. The Midwest is well-known for this type of golden. They descend from the original imports that arrived here from Canada in the 1920’s and 1930’s.
Most East Coast goldens descend from more “British line” dogs that were common in the 1940’s through the 1960’s. At that time, the golden in Britain was beginning to change type from the preferred red and lithe dogs to the more blond and heavier boned type. By the 1970’s, the British show golden change dramatically from its North American counterparts into a really heavily boned dog with a very pale coat. In this country, interbreeding the “aboriginal” type of golden with British lines resulted in dark rather heavily feathered dogs that made up the mainstay of our show lines from the 1970’s until recently.
In North America, our working lines and show lines differed more in coat length than color or other conformation. However, this similarity in our show and working forms has been greatly diminished. Most show goldens have significnatly more hair and bone than their working counterparts, and now, the show-line dogs in our gene pool are losing their darker colors. They have not turned into the really pale dogs of Europe, but they are becoming very different from the working form.
This “aboriginal” form is the working form of golden. It is essentially the same type of dog in Europe and North America. However, in Europe the really, really dark colors do not exist– at least not the extent they do here.
I really wish the people who wrote the standard would have thought some of this through. Saying that goldens can no longer be dark red or mahogany really knocked out a lot of good working dogs in the registry. The breed’s first dual champion, Dual Ch. Balcombe Boy, was a mahogany, and most of the foundation stock in the golden retriever studbook were of the very dark colors. Saying that goldens could no longer be dark colored had the same consequence as if we now said that border collies could no longer come in black and white.
Isn’t this how all Goldens act when you say this? How old are do you think those dogs are? They certainly are not blockheads.
My previous red, who was a blockhead, but more gracile and redder than a pure show type, knew the words, “walk” and “klaw” as well as “walk” spelled out
w-a-l-k. Due to our poor pronunciation, I expect, he was confused by wok. He bounced like this at 9.
If you, Retrieverman, were to rewrite part of the breed standard, I assume you would focus on temperament, working ability, etc. In terms of appearance, how would you change the current standard. What do you feel are appropriate weight ranges & colours. That big show Golden you showed a while back looked like a Hovawart. What was up with his stop or muzzle (not sure how to describe it)?
How about size of white splashes on chest? I have been asked about the white hairs numerous times. They are usually covered once the full coat grows in. Second most popular question to “Is that an Irish Setter?” Urrrgh. Looks nothing like an Irish Setter, thank you.
I take it you would allow the liver-pigmented. Do they often have amber eyes, or is that more a spaniel thing. I do like those Boykin and Spaniel eyes, as long as they are functional. Not something to breed for, but a nice surprise. Not sure if I’m up to dealing with Spaniel ears, you know.
If I rewrote the standard, there would be a diversity in type, but generally I want them to look like this:
This would include some of the color range and type: http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/noranby-diana.jpg
And mahogany color would be allowed, too:http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/mahogany-golden-ii.jpg?w=450&h=267
And you could allow for variance like this: http://retrieverman.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/woolley-goldens.jpg?w=400&h=251
I’d prefer that we get back to breeding the old flat-coat way: “Power without lumber; raciness without weediness.”
I’d also be okay with some white on the dogs, and liver skin pigment.
However, my main rule is this: if it isn’t a natural retriever, it doesn’t get bred.
And one other rule: If it shows aggression to people or other dogs, it doesn’t get bred.
But I’d prefer breeding away from the English “Newfoundland” type because it’s not functional. It’s too slow in the water, and it’s the wrong color.
And I’d also like a limit on the maximum length of feathering, and increase the height standard by 2 inches for dogs and bitches.
Sounds pretty good! Just curious, why would you increase the height standard?
I expect you would not increase the weight standard — would you decrease it?
To me, the dogs in the first pic have ‘houndish’ faces, but I know you wouldn’t agree. Do you call that a more spaniel face?
I really like that “power without lumber” phrase. Also I’m tired of those anemic looking creams that are almost white, lol.
Have you ever seen the best Olympic swimmers?
They have long limps and big hands and feet. Long limbs give them more reach, like long oars in the water.
As for their looks:
To me they look like what you’d get with dogs that were most setters and St. John’s water dogs.
If there’s hound in them, it comes from the Tweed water dog, which was crossed with bloodhounds occasionally, and the hounds that were crossed in with the early retrievers.
I find the accounts of the direct bloodhound ancestry in the golden quite dodgy. The claims make no sense. It was written on a piece of paper and then conveniently lost. The cross reduced the size of the retrievers– have you ever seen a bloodhound? It wouldn’t reduce size at all. The bloodhound crosses with goldens were aggressive dogs– again, nonsense. The bloodhound of Europe was never an aggressive breed. It was the slave-catching bloodhound of Latin America, which is mastiff/bloodhound cross that is aggressive.