Page 46 - ShowSight Presents The Golden Retriever
P. 46
WITH BARBARA ALDERMAN, PLUIS DAVERN, LINDA HURLEBAUS, GLORIA KERR, golden retrieverKATHY LORENTZEN, DR. DANA MASSEY, CONNIE GERSTNER MILLER, BARBARA PEPPER,
JP: I do agree. I think breeders need to get back to basics and breed the best dogs they can, not what they think the judges might be looking for. We should be breeding to improve the breed, not just to win. Breeders need to pay attention to the requirements of the breed standard without exaggerations. Specifically, worry about cor-
rect structure and proportions, looking for balance and harmony in the dog both standing and moving. Heads are a hallmark of any breed. The correct eye size, color and shape are important parts of correct expression. Good pigmentation, muzzles that are about the same length from nose to stop as the distance from stop to occiput are correct. Short, bear-like muzzles may be cute to your eye but are not functional in a retrieving breed. Lots and lots of coat may look pretty but the standard asks for a functional coat and faults excessive length and softness. Protect your breed. Breed to the standard.
MS: Yes. Breed type and functionality too often loses to the pretty “show dog”. Soundness is also a component of breed type in any retriever; they must be able to work. Hallmarks of the Golden are its classic head and expres- sion, over-all proportion and balance (which is far more than just the front and rear angulation), as well as its characteristic coat, unique among Sporting dogs.
NT: The great dogs of the breed are still here and have lovely breed type. I think that it is dangerous to see good in only what was in the ring “back in the day”. When you look back at photos from the 60s and 70s, in truth there were many dogs being shown that were not at all in keep- ing with the breed standard. Dogs far oversized and with atypical heads, single coats, poor angulation and weak toplines with low tailsets, were finishing championships decades ago. Were there excellent dogs also in the ring? Absolutely. However, to say that in general the dogs were better than today is stretching things, in my opinion. That being said: I do see trends that need attention to keep Goldens looking and acting as they should to meet the requirements of the standard. Heads and expres- sion: the soft, kindly eye with a shape that is just off-oval, is often missing in the ring, with a narrow, small or triangular eye taking its place. This leads to harsh and atypical expression. Heads have improved in most parts of the country in the past 10 years and we see far fewer that lean toward Kuvasz in shape. We need to be careful that the opposite extreme does not take its place, with overdone heads such as those having too much stop, domed skull or heavy flews. Front assembly: as in so many breeds, the properly made front is an area of cau- tion. There are some breeders who have made a con- certed effort to work on fronts and it shows—those dogs are being recognized, but not as often as they should.
A Golden must have balanced angles front and rear, not
a sweeping bend of stifle with an upright shoulder. It is sadly rare to find a well laid-in scapula, the wonderful experience of running your hand down the neck of a dog and barely feeling the top of the shoulder blades because they so smoothly fit into the withers. I suggest that judges pay particular attention to the return of elbow as well,
they are judging coats, not with what looks “pretty”. A short, but dense coat, with a slight wave perhaps (abso- lutely as proper as a straight coat), wrapping the body, with moderate feathering and ruff, is the coat that a working hunter wants in her or his boat and in a stubble field while walking down pheasant.
6. Do you agree that today’s Goldens are losing breed type? What can be improved upon?
BA: Overall balance needs to be improved.
PD: In the pursuit of winning I feel that the true function of
the Golden Retriever has often become somewhat over- looked. The athletic, functional components are being sacrificed for what is perceived as eye-catching, flashy and often exaggerated movement with over angulated rears. More attention should be placed on correct not profuse coats and kindly expressions with correct eye size and shape.
LH: Type is there, but styles are always changing. We have gone through changes like hairdos every decade. 70s saw big dogs in size and bone, 80s saw small dogs with lots of hair, but lack of proper head proportions. Breeders have done a good job and continue to do so. Fad styles can’t be predicted. Overall in large entries I don’t see the breed as losing type. I see a commonality in faults.
GK: There are still pieces of breed type in the ring, but many are the generic show dog. Our breed was bred to carry a goose/duck through deep cover, or swimming. For that, you need legs as well as two level head planes and enough muzzle to carry birds. I think we need to look to proportions, coats and athleticism.
KL: Yes the breed has desperately lost adherence to true type. Far too much (and incorrect) coat, proportion has been lost in many cases, leg length is much too short, actually all the bones have been shortened. You cannot shorten a leg without shortening everything else.
DM: When I first started judging Goldens, “Meg” was the picture in my mind. I remember an ad that showed Meg airborne going into a pond. She was beautiful. I also thought of Asterling’s Wild Blue Yonder and looked for that type. “Hobo” was spectacular. Do we still see the “outstanding breed-type” of those dogs? I like leg under a Golden, but it seems when I find the rest of the dog I like, sometimes the leg is missing.
CGM: Yes, I agree. Breeders need to improve on correct length of leg and length of body. Proper coat has gone by the wayside and grooming techniques are atrocious. Cor- rect temperament has also been lost.
BP: Yes. Moderate correct balance and proportion, solid toplines, short-coupled not long loins, fronts with both good layback and return of upper arm, eyes medium large not small, skulls not overly rounded, muzzles with both depth and breadth. It sounds weird, but at times I wonder if anyone reads and understands our standard. Part of the problem is there are people is the breed today who have never had their hands on a “correct” Golden. The fact that hundreds finish and win doesn’t make them correct.
Q&A
JEFFREY PEPPER, MARCIA SCHLEHR & NANCY TALBOTT
