From: sla54@cas.org (Sandra Augustine)
Subject: Re: Obedience v. Breed
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 21:20:31 GMT

In article <168C1C219.CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu> CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>
>AS A BREED, golden retrievers are not as accomplished as labs or
>chessies (the other 2 main breeds that participate).
>They are far more likely to be incapable of receiving a
>qualifying score at all proficiency levels.  Let me put it this way,
>it is a very rare Lab that *can't* obtain it's JH title.  It is much
>less rare for a Golden that *can't*  (can't in this context means that
>it doesn't matter how many tries the handler takes, it simply will
>never pass 4 junior hunting tests).
>
	I don't think that ANYONE who knows retrievers would even try to compare
the field ability of labs and goldens. Labs are much better in the field.
(E.g., just look at the number of FCs and AFCs for both breeds)
However, I don't think that this means that many/most goldens can't function as
field dogs for hunters.

>Not coincidentally, as a percentage they are also far more likely to have
>a conformation background.  And I don't believe it's all that strange
>that most people are readily able to tell the difference between goldens
>with a hunting test/field trial background from those with a show
>background - they physically look different.
>
	I can easily tell the difference between labs from conformation lines
and labs from field lines, too. So I don't think that you can single out
goldens in this respect.

	Chris, I think that a golden who is not a good retriever should
probably not be bred. I also think that a golden who is not a good retriever
is not a good specimen of this breed. However, I strongly disagree that a
golden who not a good retriever is a poor dog ("ruined" in your terminology).
For example, a couple years ago I sold a 1-year-old golden retriever who was a
poor retriever (she'd retrieve an object about 10 times, then get bored and
quit) to a divorced lady who planned on neutering the dog. The lady has a
young son (about 7 or so) who was going through therapy because he felt
"unloved" (his grandfather had just died and he felt really bad about the
divorce). When I called about a month later to find out how the dog was
working out for them, the lady informed me that her son really loved the dog
and had made some new friends in the neighborhood while he was out walking
her. His outlook about life had dramatically changed for the better, and there
was some talk about discontinuing his therapy.  Although intellectually, I
feel strongly that a golden should be a good field dog, emotionally I feel
that turning this kid's life around is far more important that bringing the
11th duck out of the water.

	I agree that a golden should be good in the field. However, this is
only one of the many important/enjoyable things that this breed can do. I
disagree with you that golden retrievers as a breed have been "ruined" because
I've seen too many examples of members of this breed enriching the lives of
their owners, including bringing the duckies out of the water.

********************************************************************************
Sandra Augustine  |Home of: Conformation, obedience, and field titled Golden
NORWOOD KENNELS   |Retrievers who do therapy dog work, a disobedient but
ems: sla54@cas.org|beautiful Siberian husky and a *cute* Norfolk terrier puppy
********************************************************************************
		The above opinions are not those of my employer.
********************************************************************************