It’s called “The ‘Ideal’ Golden Retriever: How Do You Find Such an Animal?” by veteran retriever trainer and dog writer James Spencer. It’s a very good article about what a golden has to have in order to be able to do its work. It has to be birdy, possess a strong retrieving instinct, be able mark or have a very good nose, and be super trainable. My first dog was a terrible marker, but her nose was phenomenal. She was the easiest dog of any breed that I’ve ever trained. She was on about the same level as a border collie. She truly deserved the name “swamp collie.”
And I didn’t realize how lucky I was to have her. I thought they were all like this. She whelped a litter of exceptional working-type puppies, and I thought things could only get better for the golden.
I was wrong.
Spencer actually paints a far bleaker picture than I have previous written about on this blog. He estimates that 85 to 90 percent of all goldens are of the “inferior pet stock” type, which don’t either don’t retrieve, don’t listen, or like to bite.
Now, that’s very bad news for the working-type golden. This situation is further complicated with the fact the breed’s lines are being rather balkanized. The show variety very often isn’t used for field work. In fact, as I’ve mentioned here time and again, it typically has an inefficient body type for doing the work for which it was originally bred.
However, Spencer takes it further. He points out that the agility and obedience lines are literally becoming golden border collies. Now, I have less complaints about those dogs, because the smaller fast dogs are quite useful and stylish in the field. However, it is easy to confuse their appearance with that of the Nova Scotia duck-tolling retriever, which I suppose might tick off a few people. However, these dogs are being bred to be super-biddable, which means they could be an asset to anyone wanting an outcross into the working gundog lines.
With such specialized and highly balkanized lines within the breed, finding a suitable working dog is a daunting task. A working golden retriever is actually a very hard dog to find, even though the breed itself is consistently in the top five dogs in AKC registrations.
Spencer feels the only solution to the problem is for the golden to lose some of its popularity. Amen, I say. Too many numbskulls are breeding these dogs without any attention to how important health and genetic diversity issues are. Further, I don’t think the average pet dog breeder knows how important it is to select for retrieving instinct. People are breeding dogs that don’t retrieve at all. How can you call a dog a retriever, if the only thing it puts in its mouth is kibble?
I really enjoyed this article. It made me feel a lot better, even though it painted a far bleaker picture of the breed than I had previously assessed it. At least it showed that I am not alone in worrying about my beloved breed’s future as a functional working dog.
This issue of Gun Dog is available in newsstands and bookstores now, and you can always subscribe to the publication here.
I always like anything Spencer rights.
You have a juxtaposition of sentences that rather stood out to me: “Now, I have less complaints about those dogs, because the smaller dogs, fast dogs are quite useful and stylish in the field. However, it is easy to confuse them with the Nova Scotia duck-tolling retriever. These dogs are being bred to be super-biddable…”
To clarify: Do you perceive the NSDTR as a super-biddable breed?
I had just re-edited that post when your comment appeared.
I do think they are rather biddable. They have a bit of collie closer in their bloodline than any other retriever. They aren’t as easy to handle as a properly bred golden, but they are easy to work with.
All retrievers are pretty biddable. I don’t know enough about curlies to say anything, but I think they are from what I’ve read about them.
Thanks for another interesting post. I have a few questions. When you write about retrieving, are you referring a hard-wired characteristic that makes training a retrieve easy? Would a working golden retrieve a tennis ball with as much enthusiasm as retrieving a bird? Do ball obsessed retrievers typically come from working lines?
You mentioned in my blog that some people think aggression in goldens comes from trying to breed a more sedate personality type. I wonder though, if most of these aggressive goldens come from puppy mills / bybs or families who fail to properly train their dogs. Obviously a field-bred golden begins training much earlier and is typically handled by very experienced handlers. I would imagine most of the calmer goldens are bought by first-time dog owners (with children) who don’t have enough time to train and exercise the dog.
I like the idea of a “golden border collie”. I have no interest in hunting, but eventually, I would like to get a performance dog (ideally a golden) that could excel in agility and obedience.
Last question, do you consider standard poodles in the retriever family?
Retrieving is selectively-bred predatory motor pattern. I have had goldens that naturally retrieved to hand at six to eight weeks of age. I’ve had others that really had to be trained to do it, and I’ve had one that never could be taught to do it at all.
Now, all canines have some version of the predatory motor pattern. However, they have to learn the context of that motor pattern. That’s why wolves that are raised in captivity can’t be released into the wild. They never learned the context of the behavior. A pet retriever with the instinct learns to use its predatory motor patterns on toys, and as a social behavior. (My dog greets me with objects). A working retriever has to learn to carry feathered objects and then up to live birds. Ducks are somewhat of a challenge, because ducks have a distinctive odor and taste that dogs naturally don’t like. However, you can condition a dog to like that smell and taste, because it is associated with doing those intrinsic predatory motor patterns. For these dogs, doing a retrieve is a reinforcer. In fact, in a lot of them, retrieving is a better reinforcer than food, touch, or praise. Now, that’s bred for, but it’s very easy to lose through careless breeding. I don’t think you can have a low energy dog with some predatory motor patterns with low fear and also have one that is low in aggression. I just don’t think the brain chemistry of the dog works that way.
As for calmer dogs and aggression, what you say is true. People want calm dogs thinking they are easier to manage, but I don’t think they fully get how unusual the golden retriever’s temperament is. They are low fear and low aggression dogs that have some modified predatory behavior and high energy levels. Such behavior would not be successful in the wild, because a low fear animal would probably open itself up to predation and if it was also low aggression, it probably wouldn’t defend itself. In working bred goldens, there is a very strong selection dogs that are not aggressive towards other dogs. When you start breeding out predatory motor patterns and for a lower activity level, you are basically producing a Great Pyrenees, which are low energy dogs with rather modest levels of aggression. A lot people get this sort of dog thinking it will be nice all the time and then don’t train it in such a way as to prevent aggression. Most people buy goldens assuming they are never aggressive dogs, which is crazy. In fact, I think this false sense of security that people get from purchasing these hyped low aggression breeds is far more dangerous than the existence of pit bulls, which people think are natural-born killers. People who have pit bulls typically socialize their dogs and bomb proof them for aggression. They understand that if their dog even looks at someone the wrong way, their municipalities will come up with all sorts of draconian laws to ban them. If a golden bites someone, it almost never makes the news. However, they are now a major biting breed. (#4 biter in Canada, and #3 biter in the US).
In field trials, strange dogs are brought together and handled really close together. You have to have low aggression in those lines. It is partially inherited, and it is partially the result of socialization.
(Keep in mind that I say they typical golden is too calm, but I also say the typical field trial Lab is too crazy and wild for the average person to handle.)
Now, most working-type goldens– be they field or obedience/agility (the dogs are derived from the same root stock)– are very easy to handle. You can get a good obedience or agility dog out of a field line, and you can get a good field dog out of an obedience and agility line. The real difference is that the agility/obedience type tend to be a bit smaller, but lots of field-line dogs are very small, too. The show dogs from the AKC lines are a mixed bag. Some of them can do the work. Some can’t. Their body type is inefficient to really dog the work, but it is the European show-line dogs that are really poorly built (and they have weird coloration). Some of them retrieve; most don’t.
The golden is the border collie of the gun dogs. Before border collies got big in this country, goldens dominated all the dog sports. The first three obedience trial champions that the AKC awarded all went to goldens. The first conformation champion to win an obedience trial championship with the AKC was a golden. Now, the border collies are a major competition breed, and they really have been bred much more for ability first. But border collies are very difficult pets. If more goldens had the working temperament, I don’t think they would be nearly as popular as they are now. I don’t think the average person can give them the mental and physical workout they need. And I know they couldn’t, that’s why they’ve tried to make them calm and have less prey drive and retrieving instinct.
As for poodles, they are retrievers. They are the original retrievers. Water dogs of the poodle type existed in virtually every European country. In England, they were called rough water dogs. These dogs were then bred to spaniels, setters, and maybe collie-type dogs to produce the water spaniels. These dogs were faster in the water and didn’t need to be clipped. Then the British began to import the water dogs from Newfoundland. These dogs retrieved from the water, and some of them had short hair. Short hair is more stream-lined in the water and doesn’t get bogged in the water. These dogs were then imported to Britain and crossed with water spaniels (which were derived from dogs of the poodle type) and setters and collies to make the retrievers. So poodles are actually the original retrievers. They just got replaced with a more efficient model– the Labrador retriever.
Wow, thank you for that response. That’s a lot to digest. Do you have any books you would recommend – this is a really fascinating topic. I will definitely have to look into the Animals in Translation book that you mentioned.
I have never been around field-bred goldens. Most of the goldens in Manhattan are big, stocky with lots of feathering and light in color. They all have very sweet temperaments, but I think dogs in Manhattan are typically more socialized than suburban dogs.
Is the aggression that you are talking about directed towards human, dogs or both?
It’s usually resource guarding, and it’s only that. Normally, these dogs are nice, until they are fed or have a toy they don’t want to give up. A few goldens have avalanche of rage syndrome, which is better documented in American show-strain English springers and European show-strain English cockers. That is a seizure based aggression disorder that cannot be treated through training or medication. Usually, the dog has to be put to sleep. That aggression disorder is scary, because the dog will just fly off after someone for no reason.
Animals in Translation is a very good book. Her new book is Animals Make Us Human, and I also liked that one. Nicholas Dodman’s The Dog Who Loved Too Much is also good. Those are really good primers for animal behavior and brain chemistry.
For retriever history, Marcia Schlehr’s New Golden Retriever is a great historical resource on the history of these dogs. My other favorite book on goldens is Gertrude Fischer’s New Complete Golden Retriever. (Her book is older, so the vast majority of the dogs in the book are the old fashioned darker type.)
Do you know the name of the dog in the photo?
He looks very much like a couple dogs I know; wonder if there’s any relation (and there probably is…).
I don’t know his name.
It looks like Burns Golden Phoenix, but it’s probably not. Phoenix is an old man now, and that photo would have to be when he was quite young. It’s the mannerism more than anything that really strikes me.
http://www.topbrass-retrievers.com/freedaphoenixpups.htm
Phoenix’s ears are more highly set than that dog’s.
Right you are–ears look a bit different. I don’t have the best eye.
The intensity, the broad chest, the lean forward really struck me.
Ironic statement of the day: I should be a dog show judge.
Once when I was an editor I bought some pieces from Jim Spencer and visited him at home–also met him when he was judging HRC stuff–a level-headed and humane guy–definitely worth reading.
Although I am a long-time Chessie fan, it was hunting over a friend’s golden that made me want a retriever. That dog was as cool and professional as a Swiss mountaineering guide, working for “clients” whom he never had met before.
I don’t know as much about the Chesapeake as I do about the others. I know that they the average Chessie is going to have a lot more retrieving instinct than the average golden or Lab. Their breeders have made certain that they have good working conformation in their standard, and they very often are worked, even if they are also shown.
What I’ve always found interesting about them is they weren’t classified as retrievers through much of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century. They were always called “Chesapeake Bay dogs” or “Chesapeake Bay duck dogs.” I’ve even seen references to them as “Newfoundlands,” which isn’t incorrect for the terminology of the time.
I think the reason for this is that the retriever was thought of as a British invention. The British used retrievers on their driven shoots for pheasants, partridges, rabbits, and hares. These were mostly land retriever work. Thus, to the fanciers of those days, a retriever worked on the land. Because the Chessie was primarily a waterfowl dog, it was thought of as a different sort of dog. (At this time, Labs were held by only one or two people. A short-haired, smooth-coated retriever would have been a novelty in those days.)
My reading of the Tweed water dog’s description is a dog that looks a lot like a Chesapeake, especially the deadgrass and sedge ones.
Absolutely love this article.
I got my first dog when I was ten years old and had decided on a golden retriever. We found a litter of puppies and I soon took one home. Years passed and, being a bit naive and not too savvy, I didn’t understand my dog. I didn’t know there were different stains, and I had picked a working dog. She was energetic, bored and destructive until I started taking her to dog classes – now she’s a fantastic obedience dog. Looking at the dog in the pictures, I can immediately see the similarities to my own pooch and the differences between the working and show strains. My sweet girl is now 10 years old, still energetic and prances around like a dog half her age. She is a natural water dog, retrieves easily, obediant, loving and highly, highly intelligent. I was truly blessed that she picked me the day I went looking for her.
I am looking for another goldie in the next year or so, not as a replacement (I know I’ll never get another sweet girl) but because I want to be surrounded by this special breed. However, living in Scotland I am finding it hard to find another working golden – I have seen two litters and the mother was small and skinny, far removed from my big boned bitch, and the other working goldies were fluffy, pale coated pups.
I’m hoping I find a likely litter soon!
Anyway – thank you for writing this article! It really was a joy to read.