Feeds:

Archive for February, 2009

When I once thought retrievers were boring

neapolitan

Believe it or not I once thought retrievers were boring dogs. The ones I had were nice dogs, biddable and clever with gentle natures. I didn’t realize how unique they were.

I wanted a Neapolitan mastiff.

I wanted one badly.

Not because I thought they were great guard dogs.

I thought they looked cool.

I loved that they were the dogs of the Ancient Romans, Greeks, and Assyrians.

I liked the idea of a Neapolitan mastiff.

I didn’t know any of these dogs personally.

But some friends of the family got one.

They had always had goldens and Labs before.

Their dog was cute as a puppy.

But they can’t be raised as casually as some retrievers.

They must be socialized.

This dog bonded so closely to his family.

But he hated everyone else.

The reality of the dog began to set in.

These dogs aren’t easy to handle.

They might be nice in Harry Potter films.

But the truth is they are an image dog.

They are meant only for special owners– ones who really get dogs.

My advice to anyone wanting any dog of any breed is to really get to understand the dogs as they are. The images and lore bring about romantic thoughts. But the truth is as it always will be. Each dog is an organism with its own emotions, drives, and instincts. Each dog that was originally bred for a purpose is going to have some of these traits in different concentrations and permutations.

These differences in instinct, drive, and behavioral tendencies mean that different dog breeds often behave as differently as distinct species.

I can handle retrievers and herding breeds. I can’t handle an old-fashioned guardian mastiff. And recognizing one’s own abilities is really important in determining which dog breed you should get.

If everyone would just take the time to do the research before choosing a dog, both humans and dogs would be far better off.

Read Full Post »

So you want a performance-quality golden retriever?

If you want a dog like "Shuttle," please consider it carefully.

If you want a dog like "Shuttle," please consider it carefully.

Read this page by Bredekaer Goldens in Denmark.

This is good advice for anyone wanting any performance bred dog, be it a golden retriever, a Labrador, or a Jack Russell.

These dogs can be obsessive about using their predatory motor patterns. And if they are smart enough to learn so many things useful things, they are also smart enough to learn how to destroy the house.

With retrievers, getting muddy and dirty is fun, so you may have to clean up muddy paw prints on the carpet every once in a while. Goldens shed almost as much as Nordic breeds do, which is a good reason to buy golden-colored carpet.

Ultimately, though, the energy and intelligence of these dogs must be channeled and focused.

That’s why I don’t have one. Right now, I cannot give one of these dogs what it needs to thrive. In the future, I hope to be able to devote some time to my beloved breed.

The Lab inn the film and book Marley & Me was one of these dogs. His behavioral problems were actually not the result of the dog being stupid. They were the result of his owner not fully understanding what kind of dog he had.

Too many retrievers of this type aren’t getting what they deserve. Behavioral problems kill dogs. And in this type of dog, the main behavioral problem they will have ultimately comes from not having their drives, instincts, and brains fully utilized and focused.

I love the philosophy of Bredekaer’s goldens.  They don’t want their dogs to wind up in the hands of neophytes, who want a “calm” dog. The show-lines of golden in Denmark are full of very calm dogs. What they want to do is preserve the working ability and working conformation of these dogs. And I absolutely agree that a dog bred for intelligence and ability isn’t the best choice for the casual dog owner.

Read Full Post »

The video is from blueribbongoldens.

The website for their kennel is here.

This is breeder who produced “Shuttle.”

These are her full brothers and sisters.

***

Notice the intensity of  how they play with the objects. They also have a distinct spark in their eyes that you see only in really driven field dogs.

It is interesting to compare their movement with this video of English show-type goldens playing. You don’t see any of that “lupine” intensity in these pups.  And these puppies are either roughly of the same age or a bit older.

The first dog I had that was of partial English show breeding played this way. I actually thought there was something wrong with her. I was expecting a little firecracker of a golden pup, not a quite little lamb.

I know that it requires more than a few minutes of video to make a fair comparison, and it is possible for a dog to be a late-bloomer and not develop his or her retrieving instincts until the age of two.

However, I think this video shows the real difference between the strains. The performance bred litters tend to show their abilities early on, although I tell you this with the caveat that some dogs mature slowly, especially goldens.

This difference between the two strains shows us something that Valerie Foss wrote about in The Ultimate Golden Retriever.  She’s a breeder of show-strain dogs in the UK, and in the very early part of the book, she warns against using the show dogs in the highest level of field competition. She says, almost point-blank, that you almost have to purchase field stock if you’re ever going to get anywhere. There are exceptions to this rule, however, and in American show lines, in particular, you can run across a few gems.

This same sentiment appears in Tom Quin’s The Working Retrievers. On the section about the golden, the author says to pick only a golden from working lines, because they begin to show the behaviors sooner. Let me point this out, you really don’t train a dog to retrieve. You merely shape inherited tendencies to show a specific predatory motor pattern through socialization and operant conditioning.

Strangely, he says that if you want to show one, you just get a field bred one and fatten him up!

Now, there are dogs that are force-broken to retrieving. I don’t have any expertise at this, because I believe this motor pattern is the definition of a retriever. I would rather the motor patterns and drives exist in the dog as a matter of inheritance, but there are dogs that need this training, usually this method is applied only to.pointing breeds. James Lamb Free, who wrote the seminal work, Training Your Retriever, advised against force-breaking in retrievers.

Read Full Post »

The black and tan color in the wavy-coated retriever landrace

This tricolor BC has the black and tan coloration that its ancestors introduced into retrievers and Gordon setters.

This tricolor BC has the black and tan coloration that its ancestors introduced into retrievers and Gordon setters.

Here  is a painting of a terrier, a pointer, and a retriever by Landseer. The retriever is obvious. It even has the same expression in its eyes we see in our dogs today. It is black and tan with some white on its chest. This black and tan color was quite common in the wavy-coated landrace and the old flat-coated retriever breed. It still exists in the Labrador.

The black and tan coloration comes two sources. One that is usually mentioned is the Gordon setter, which is black and tan. However, in the nineteenth century, Gordons were allowed to come in a much wider variety of colors. And the Gordon got its black and tan coloration from a specific source.

And I think that this source is the main source for black and tan in retrievers, too.

All the classic dog books talk about the use of collies in producing retrievers, including Idstone, who talks about how much the introduction of collie blood improves a retriever. If you would like to see what the typical collie of the nineteenth century looked like, click here. This is an excellent post about what collies once looked like. Queen Victoria did not have the borzoi-muzzled dogs we know as collies today.

And what I find interesting is that if you cross a modern collie, even a sable one, with a golden. You’ll get a very similar dog. (The only dog that isn’t a collie-golden cross on that page is the golden mix with collie ears). These dogs are always black with some white or black and tan. And they strongly resemble the old-type collie and the old wavy-coated landrace of retriever with collie ancestry.

Further adding to my case, when I was growing up, the neighbors had an English shepherd that looked like a very long-haired flat-coated retriever. She was solid black in color with floppy ears. In fact, when I first saw a flat-coat in a dog book, I thought that the flat-coat was an English shepherd.

In the loose-eyed Welsh sheepdog, which is one of those working collie breeds,  one can find dogs that also have this appearance. The dog in the link looks very much like my neighbor’s English shepherd.

For those of you who have heard the golden called a “swamp collie,” you now know that collie-types were important in the founding of its ancestors. You should take this supposed pejorative in pride, because the collie introduced even higher levels of biddability and intelligence in our dogs.

Because the collie crosses happened before the surge in collie popularity, I think tendency to not make as much a deal out of collie in the retriever bloodlines.  Collies were dogs for working class people, while retrievers were dogs for the landed gentry. Admitting collie ancestry would be almost like suggesting some sort of taint to their noble retriever dogs. Further, I think that the retriever breeders who bred collie into their lines were less willing to admit the cross because doing so would admit a trade secret. And collies were very common throughout Britain and Ireland.

Read Full Post »

How the Labrador replaced the Flat-coat

These field bred labs are built like flat-coats.

These field bred labs are built like flat-coats.

The Labrador retriever is the top retriever today, both in terms of registrations and in working tests and trials. However, this breed did not become even remotely common until just before the Second World War, even in field trials.

The most common trial retriever before the Lab’s ascendancy was the old wavy-coat landrace and then the old flat-coat breed (both of which included the golden). In Britain, these trials were almost exclusively land trials, that made use of pheasants or hares.  These land trials were perfect for dogs that have a high degree of setter in their background.

Labradors, as we know them today, were actually quite rare dogs in the UK. They were first bred by the Earl of Malmesbury out of the short-haired St. John’s water dog. These Malmesbury dogs and newly imported short-haired dogs from Newfoundland provided the basis for the Labrador breed that was finally established from the St. John’s water dog at the Duke of Buccleuch’s estate. Today, you can still find the Buccleuch strain of Labradors.

The Labrador was unknown to the fancy. One cannot find them in the works Hugh Dalziel or Idstone, although one must assume that the St. John’s water dog is the breed Idstone mentions as the “Newfoundland” that was used as a retriever outcross. However, we do know that the dogs that eventually evolved into the heavy Newfoundland were also used for retrieving shot birds.

The short-haired dogs were closely held by the Earls of Malmesbury through the nineteenth century. The same conditions applied with the Dukes of Buccleuch’s strain.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the Buccleuch strain occasionally wound up into the hands of a few other sporstmen. However, they really weren’t that common.  These were not superior trial dogs, either, and they generally didn’t do as well at land trials as flat-coats did.

But then something happened. The Labradors fanciers began to outcross with lots of dogs to increase speed and soften the mouth. They crossed with foxhounds and pointers to add speed and endurance, and whippets and greyhounds to make them lighter on the ground. They also used lots of good flat-coat trial dogs as an important outcross.  The fact that a lot of field type Labs look like flat-coats is no accident.

It was during the Interwar Period that the Lab began to be perfected as a trial quality working retriever, and at the same time, the flat-coat was undergoing some bad fad breeding. The dogs were being bred way too light in build, and to make matters worse, they were developing a long, “borzoi” muzzle that had no strength or control to grip the birds as a more moderate muzzle. In fact, a lot of trialers began to claim that borzoi had been added to the flat-coat line, which further decreased their popularity.

This very lightly built flat-coat is similar to the "weedy" dogs that were being produced in the interwar period.

This very lightly built flat-coat is similar to the "weedy" dogs that were being produced in the Interwar Period.

By the late 1930’s, the Lab had finally replaced the flat-coat as the top retriever in British trials.

In the US, retriever trials were largely duck dog events. In fact, the earliest American retriever trials consisted of Chesapeake “duck-dogs” and water spaniels (Irish and American). The Labrador was then adapted into the duck dog trials. It proved to be an easier dog to handle than the Chesapeake, simply because the Chesapeake is a market hunter’s dog, designed entirely for efficient retrieving, not fancy trial work. It was also faster in the water than the water spaniels, so it very quickly became the top duck dog on this continent.

The Labrador replaced the top retrievers in both the US and the UK by the late 1930’s. It was able to do so because its breeders were willing to experiment with crossbreeding to make a dog that was as efficient in the water as any Chesapeake, as biddable as any collie, and as birdy as any setter. And to think that this breed was virtually unknown 40 years before it took over.

Today, the Lab is the top retriever, and it will probably never be replaced. I will bet on it as long as stud-books remain strictly closed and no one can do the experimental breeding that Labrador people used to perfect their dog.

Read Full Post »

What’s my favorite dog book?

This one:

It is isn’t just a story about a dog. It is more like an intellectual and emotional exploration of all things canine.

 Ted Kerasote is quite an author. There are very few authors who can weave engaging narrative with analysis of complex scientific studies. He is a master.

And although you can find things to quibble about in this book, it is a very good piece of science and nature writing.

And if you’re a retriever person, he so aptly describes the mannerisms of our dogs that you know this man has experienced retrieverdom in all its glory.

The main theme of this book is that we should sometimes let our dogs be dogs. It’s quite a novel concept in this age where the trend is to have dogs as regimented as soldiers.

Of course, we’d all like to live in a little isolated hamlet, where the author raised Merle.  In the wilds of Wyoming, the dogs got to experience nature, people, and other dogs as they have for thousands of years. Today, giving a dog that sort of freedom is something not advised or even legal.

But I really liked the book. I wish we could all give our dogs the life that Merle had, but I know that’s not realistic.

The author’s website can be found here.

I think Merle was a golden retriever/Redbone cross, although the author thinks he was  either Lab/Golden cross or a Lab/Redbone cross. He had no retrieving instinct (as we know it), but he could be coaxed into retrieving at one point in the book. He also bays like a hound, which makes us understand that he does have hound in him. However, he looks almost exactly like my first golden retriever, except she had the golden retriever coat, a very strong retrieving instinct, and a sharp retriever bark. I would have expected Merle to have a very short coat if he were Lab/Rebone, but his coat is about as long as we see in most Labradors. I think you are more likely to see that in a golden/hound cross than a Lab/hound cross.

Read Full Post »

Selective breeding has also dramatically changed the goldfish

This is a feral goldfish caught in the US. It strongly resembles its ancestor, the Prussian carp.

This is a feral goldfish caught in the US. It strongly resembles its ancestor, the Prussian carp.

It is often pointed out how much domestication and selective breeding have changed the domestic dog.  But they are far from the only species in which our selective breeding has changed dramatically. Dogs have been with us for a very long time, and because of tandem repeats, they can evolve into various different forms rather quickly.

However, if you would like to see another species that has dramatically changed because of domestication, look no further than the goldfish. Goldfish are species of carp, and believe it or not, there are two wild subspecies of this carp that still exist in the wild. These are the Prussian carp (Carassius auratus gibelio) and the Crucian carp (Carassius auratus carassius). These fish can all produce fertile offspring with the goldfish, and the Crucian carp is known to come in a yellow mutation. It was thought that the goldfish descended from the Crucian subspecies, when now it is generally accepted that it descends from the Prussian subspecies.

Prussian carp

Prussian carp

crucian-carp

Over a thousand years ago, the Chinese were breeding carp in ponds. Some of these fish were yellow in color, a common mutation in carp.

yellow-crucian

A yellow Crucian carp.

In 1162, an Empress of the Song Dynasty had a pond constructed solely for yellow and reddish fish. Yellow fish were the sole domain of the imperial family, so the gold colored were bred more often. As a result, the main color of the domesticated goldfish would become gold, not yellow.

Within a 150 years, the Chinese began to breed veil-tailed varieties of the fish, and soon, goldfish began to change dramatically.

This fancy breeding happened in East Asia first, but it soon spread to Japan, where the fancy breeding really took off.

My favorite type of Japanese goldfish is the ranchu. The ranchu has a large head with an arched back that dips down before it reaches its tail. And, like many fancy goldfish, it has two tails. On its head, it has lots of growths that are considered absolutely necessary for its breed standard. It also has no dorsal fin.

ranchu

The ranchu, like most double-tailed “fancy” goldfish, cannot really live in a pond as its less exaggerated relatives can. The double tail and unstreamlined body prevent these fancy goldfish from swimming fast. They need to swim fast if they are to be pond fish, because they will be unable to compete with faster swimming goldfish in their school. Also, these fish have lost their ancestors’ tolerance for very cold water.

However, I would not count the ranchu as the most bizarrely exaggerated goldfish. That title goes to the bubble-eye.

bubble-eye

The bubble eye also has no dorsal fin. It has a double-tail, which does slow the fish down. But its most striking feature are the fluid filled sacks that come off the bottom of its eyes. It cannot ever be pond fish or ever kept with fast moving goldfish. Those sacks and the double tail make it really slow in the water. It is very hard to keep in a fish tank, because the chances are very high that it might damage its eye sacks. I once purchased one of these and it lasted about a week in my goldfish tank. I had a common feeder-type goldfish in that same tank that lasted several years, so that should tell you which races of goldfish are the hardiest.

So our selective breeding has not changed only dogs. We like to really mess around with selective breeding, and if we can find novelty in our stock, we’ll breed for it. It is because of this almost inherited tendency in our species that we must draw the line at some point. Interest in novelty of all sorts may have been a great advantage for our species, allowing us to develop all sorts of new technology and art, but like everything else, our tendency to select for novelty can be excessive.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow