A golden retriever-derived lurcher. It looks like a sturdy, wavy-coated gold greyhound.
A few week ago, Jess at DesertWindHounds asked me why there were no golden retriever lurchers. Seeing as Miley is a golden that wishes she had been born a saluki, I thought that this was an interesting question. Jess seemed to think that it was strange that this type of lurcher seems absent from the lurcher population. After all, I have written about pure goldens catching rabbits and bringing them to me as presents– both dead and alive, so why couldn’t you cross these dogs with greyhounds and make a good retrieving lurcher?
Well, David Brian Plummer, the famous British dog man, answered this question in his book Merle: The Start of Dynasty, which is about the founding of his own strain of lurchers. He didn’t like the friendly temperament that a golden retriever would create when mixed with the equally friendly nature of a greyhound:
I wouldn’t have use the word “sycophant” to describe a golden retriever. I would have used the word “sagacious.”
And the reason why we would have used different words is because of our own anthropomorphism.
“Loyalty” is not a word I use do to describe dog behavior. Most “loyal” dogs I’ve known have been those that are really more reactive to strangers than to people with whom they live. I don’t think it has anything to do with our anthropomorphic concepts of “loyalty.” I could just as easily turn “loyalty” into “xenophobia.” But I don’t think many owners of “loyal” dogs would appreciate that.
But as for this type of lurcher, I like the looks of it. And from the description of the dog, I think I’d like a golden lurcher’s temperament, too.
It would be a very good dog for just about everything.
And from the photo of the dog above, it’s a pretty dog, too.
Who cares if it’s a friendly dog?
That’s not a vice!
I suppose I prefer a friendlier dog, for I am very reserved and somewhat grouchy person by nature. Having a friendly dog is a good juxtaposition.
Grouchy person, you? Never! Lol.
I have a “very Prussian” temperament.
I’m sort of like a Victor Meldrew:
“I don’t believe it!”
Golden retrievers, sycophants? I am the definition of sycophancy.
Interesting that he considers Labs to heavy but not Goldens.
I’ve seen all kinds of lurcher crosses (Cattle Dogs, GSD, Pointers, Labs, Bully breeds) but never a Golden. Actually, the number of crosses out there that work in a way that their owners consider successful, in that they do what the owner wants them to do, is interesting in and of itself.
Most goldens are more lightly built than Labs.
Here’s a goldador:
That’s what a typical golden would look like with short-hair.
At least within the working-type and American golden population.
I’m assuming that when Plummer was doing these crosses the majority of goldens were more or less working types.
He didn’t want overly friendly dogs who would go up to anyone, as he was using them to poach! That’s the classic lurcher use, of course, as poachers’ dogs. Some were even trained to run away when called by their owner, so that if they got caught by the gamekeepers, they could both deny the lurcher lurking nearby was theirs, and send it off safely all with one command!… As for the “too heavy” labs–those are chunky British Labs–I bet if Plummer had seen some rangy, working type Labs in the U. S., he might have liked them–at least physically, if not also for the too friendly temperment…… And “loyalty” is being anthropormiphic regarding dogs??!! You must have never had truly loyal dogs, then!(or just haven’t noticed or had it tested). Dogs exhibit far more true loyalty than any humans I know! They are the STANDARD in loyalty for we humans to try to emulate!!!!
Loyalty is just anthropomorphic projection that can be explained as I just did.
You can call it what you want, but it’s not like when one says he’s loyal to his wife.
And anyway, I find that particular characteristic repugnant in dogs. Those that bond with just one person and attack all others aren’t worth anything to me. I like dogs that are docile and socially tolerant, which is more acceptable in this modern era. I just have no use or admiration for a dog like that. I want a nice dog.
Yeah, I don’t think you’d want a friendly poacher’s dog, which explains why the curlies were never quite friendly.
There is a such a thing as dogs that bond with their humans and *don’t* attack all others. They just don’t make friends with everybody they meet.
Yes.
But to call that loyalty or some other anthropomorphic project virtue I think is a bit off.
It’s just different wiring.
But most of the ‘loyal’ dogs I’ve run into are of this other type.
I wasn’t questioning the term. Dogs are dogs, people are people, they do not have the same motivations.
Dogs do not exist in only two states: friendly, ‘well-socialized’ dogs that like strangers, and dogs that hate everything that isn’t familiar. There are infinite variations.
I walk back the dichotomy.
However, you have to admit that there are breeds that exist whose breeders will never breed for a more manageable temperament because they are so into that thing called “loyalty.”
A few years ago, I got attacked on a youtube video because I questioned Fila Brasileiro ojeriza.
And it all came back to my dogs are loyal and love me, and yours don’t.
But my dog hasn’t attacked anyone.
There’s no accounting for stupid people.
Some goldens are like that, but I wouldn’t call it “loyalty.”
Social tolerance is an important thing to select for if one also selecting for dogs that have higher trainability and people reading skills:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/taming-wild-animals/ratliff-text/2
It’s also something that our species attained. We likely became smarter because we are less emotionally reactive with each other.
I’m not really impressed with “loyalty” in animals.
I find that in dogs many breeds have enshrined this concept into their breed’s temperament as a way of excusing their selection for rather hard animals to hand. Best example: ojeriza in Fila Brasileiros.
I’m just not impressed by it, projected or not.
You and Plummer may not have recognized it, but the ability of the English retrievers to work for different people is a sign of pretty highly developed canine intelligence. Different people handle dogs differently, and they have different skill levels. For any dog to have performed competently, it had to have had a very high level of social cognition.
That’s what the nineteenth century dog people called “sagacity,” not “sycophancy.”
I was recently on a call for Rabies vaccinations at a stable/kennel with foxhounds, lurchers and jack russells, and I am pretty sure that any of those dogs would have gone in the truck with me and hunted. I had to physically remove a couple of them form the truck before I left. These dogs are trained to hunt with the local coyote hunt club and with visiting hunters.
having “xenophobic” dog in this situation, and hunting on public lands would probably be counterproductive and a legal liability as well. Well socialized dogs are always a pleasure to work with.
Years ago, my uncle had a pointer dog that he often loaned out for friends to hunt with on his own property. The dog would work for anyone– until they missed two shots. Then he gave the unlucky shooter a disgusted look, and lit out for home. No reason to work for someone who couldn’t get the bird, he figured.
The next time you pull your dog’s nose out of another’s butt think of sycophant. “I never met a butt I didn’t like.” They are so good at it.
I have what I consider to be a reserved Aussie, and I really like her temperament for suburban living. She allows strangers to pet her if I ask her to do so, but she’s not interested in going up to strangers on her own. It’s not fear, but disinterest. Although she has a good recall anyway, this reserve takes it much easier for me to have her off-leash without worrying about her going up to strangers who may or may not like/fear dogs.
Now I just have to deal with her greeting ritual for people she considers friends as she will lick them on the face when they’re standing up and she has all 4 feet in the air. It’s a little disconcerting since most people don’t expect to see eye-to-eye with a 20″ tall dog.
I’m not talking about a reserved dog that tolerates it or one that shies away.
I’m talking about a dog that is very reactive toward others for no good reason and that dog being called loyal.
Loyalty is a human projection of what can easily be described with an understanding of behavior.
A livestock guardian dog is supposed to be like this, but other than that, I can’t see of any practical reason for having a dog that has the aggressive form of “loyalty” that I’m describing.
I can see it with a poacher’s dog.
But wth a normal pet or hunting dog, I think it’s asking for trouble.
I have a reserved breed and thats how I like them.
If i say its ok they may go up to people for a stroke , but they dont run off to strangers and wont walk off with a dog thief very easily.
i’ve had a couple that prefered other people in my family ( I do the horrible things like bathing and vets so thats understandable ) and thats fine by me. personally I think it shows intelligence that they think about who they like most and who they dont.
I would not like a breed that fawns over absolutely everyone they meet.
[…] coursing alaunt, and a variant of the Lucas terrier. He was a lurcher breeder, who once wrote a few paragraphs that slagged golden retriever-derived lurchers. Then he later extolled the virtues of golden retriever-derived […]
[…] coursing alaunt, and a variant of the Lucas terrier. He was a lurcher breeder, who once wrote a few paragraphs that slagged golden retriever-derived lurchers. Then he later extolled the virtues of golden retriever-derived […]