I have never understood certain fads in purebred dogs, especially in dogs with which I have a great deal of familiarity.
I’ve never understood why breeders think it’s cool to breed retrievers that don’t retrieve. I also never understood why you would have a breed called a golden retriever and then do everything in your power to breed the golden color out of it. Hey, I’m not a dog show person.
I’m also not into fad pet dogs.
So I’ve never understood why I see golden retriever and Labrador dogs offered for stud in the local paper described as possessing the following assets:
1. Big dog (100 plus pounds)
2. Blocky head
3. Heavy bone
Not a single one of those is functional to a working retriever. Very blocky headed dogs often lack muzzle depth to hold a bird properly (That’s one reason why the Newfoundland dog is no longer used as a retriever.) A big dog can overheat far faster than a smaller one, and dogs with lots of excessive bone aren’t agile or efficient movers.
I’m coming to the conclusion that the average pet retriever owner would like to have a dog that looks like a bear, rather than a functional working dog.
Of course, that’s okay.
However, it means that I have to sort through lots of dogs with this type in order to find a decent working dog. It also means that the lines that have a more natural head and body are going to be little less genetically diverse.
So while the “bear goldens” are cute (and they certainly are as puppies), they really aren’t exactly what is needed in a working dog.
Now, my ideal dog isn’t cute. It’s rustic and functional. It looks a bit like it belongs on in Edwardian shooting scene or on a ranch in Montana or the Dakotas. It’s a good natured dog, but it’s entirely without exaggeration.
If you want a dog that really looks like this, it exists. It’s a very trainable and good natured breed– in fact, it’s from that same root stock. It’s called the Newfoundland. You can also go for Leonberger, if you want one with tawny coat. (Of course, Leonbergers and FCI Landseers are closer to retrievers in their builds).
But in a working retriever, you really don’t need a dog with a bear’s conformation. All you have to do is watch a Newfoundland dog swim, and you’ll see why.
I have nothing against Newfoundland dogs. It’s just that, as a retriever person, I find that they lack speed and style in the water. They remind me of a big heavy draft dog that incidentally has water dog ancestry. And that’s probably what they are. A good retriever can swim circles around a Newfoundland, but in a weight pull, I’d definitely put the Newfoundland on top.
Because Newfoundlands are in a different breed group than retrievers, comparisons between the two aren’t given enough attention. The truth is I find them really interesting. They descend from almost exactly the same stock, but they have evolved in such different ways. The bear-like conformation probably works for the Newfoundland, although I suspect that water dog trial purists prefer FCI Landseers or Leonbergers. That conformation definitely doesn’t work for the retrievers, for you want more style and speed in the water.
Have you ever seen one of those cream colored “bear goldens” come out of the water? Buckets of water seem to come out of the coat. It’s no wonder they are not thought of as water dogs.
I had a “bear golden” and a field bred at the same time, and their swimming style was so different. The bear dog had lots of water clinging to her coat when she got out, and she also swam much slower than the field bred. Her posture in the water was terrible. Only her nostrils and the top of her head were above water. My field bred’s head neck and most of her shoulders were out of the water. And because she could keep more of herself out of the water. She could find marks more easily. The field bred had excellent water entry– she would’ve made an excellent dock dog. The bear dog’s water entry was terrible.
I wish the standards for this breed were based on more on function. Rachel Page Elliott tried to get the standard written with functional conformation in mind, but I don’t see a lot of her influence in what I see in the show ring today. (Elliott started with golden retrievers, and she actually did very good scientific studies of dog and horse gaits and how conformation is affected by those.)
I think that you can blame the show people who breed for characteristics that are within the breed standard but are definitely not useful in a field dog. Blame the breeders and show judges. I hope that goldens don’t go the way of the Irish Setter. Beautiful dogs that can’t hunt.
There are working Irish setters in several different forms.
1. Red and white setters are often used as working gundogs.
2. There are field Irish setters, but most of them are in Europe. For some reason, there are a lot of them in the former Eastern Bloc countries and Russia. http://www.irishredsetterclub.com/home/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=85:irish-red-setter-in-russia&catid=42:red-setters-abroad&Itemid=66 (They remind me of golden retrievers)
3. The is a studbook for working red setters. http://www.nrsftc.com/indexB.htm Some of these also look like golden retrievers and are actually coppery gold in color.
I more worry that goldens will become like Newfoundlands, which actually were used as working retrievers in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In fact, they were often crossed into retriever strains. (I’m talking about the big, long-haired Newfoundland, not the St. John’s water dog.)
I have attended a few pointing dog hunt tests. I haven’t seen a hunting Irish setter although I would love to see one. Red setter or red and white setter-I just would love to see one.
I think they are run in their own specific club’s trials.
I’ve never seen one– to be honest with you. I suppose if I went to a setter trial in Russia or Ireland, I might see some.
I don’t know if you’ve seen a golden with that rocking gait, but that’s where they get it. It’s called a “wolf hop,” because that the same gait that exists in wolf when they are traveling long distance. My first golden had that gait, and my current one (although a blond one) has it, too.
Another one:
The working reds are said to be very easy to train and very smart. It’s believed that the golden got its nose and air scenting abilities from this breed, which was crossed into them at least twice– and probably more times, considering that a wavy-coat/flat-coat was a cross between a St. John’s water dog and some sort of setter (and maybe a water spaniel or collie).
My new puppy is from working stock.
She is red and she is smart. Easy to train? We’ll see–she is awfully feisty.
Again, puppies from working stock are different.
I must defend the American breed standard for the Golden Retriever. Yes, Mrs Elliott was one of those that helped write both the 1955 major revision and the 1980 less extensive revision, or rather, clarification. I know that both standards were written with a functional working dog (not necessarily a field trial dog) in mind. There is nothing in the present standard that asks for an overdone, massively-built, open-coated, short-legged animal. Go read it, objectively and without prejudice, if you can.
The problem lies in the fact that the majority of people showing/breeding Goldens these days, have no real depth of experience in the breed (other than as a show dog). This is compounded by the fact that when (and IF!) they do read the standard, they have their own dogs in mind, and of course, well then, that’s what they picture as they read the words of the standard.
The British breed standard is much briefer and much less explicit throughout. It doesn’t even mention a suggested weight range. I know a least a couple of British Golden folks (with long experience in the breed) who much prefer the American standard.
Again, so very much is dependent upon people’s interpretation of the Standard. How that can be corrected, well, that’s always been a problem. Words just can’t convey all the information that is needed.
I wrote that post 18 months ago. My thinking has evolved a bit since then.
My neighbor has a ‘bear’ type golden, and you’re so right about the swimming style and the gallons of water in the coat. (Come to think of it, there were a bunch of heavier goldens at the dog swim, but I’ll bet part was breeding and part was feeding!)
Im not sure what newfoundland dogs you have seen in the water, but i have never ever seen a slow newfoundland dog swimming! i have five newfoundlands and they are all agile and fantastic swimmers. they have webbed paws and they do breast stroke and not the typical “doggy paddel” that most water dogs do, and there strong tail makes a fantastic rudder.
Also, there are accounts newfy dogs in the 1900’s that were big and heavy and also big but slight, so they were used for allsorts of tasks, on land and in water. And yes they are mostly big and heavy now days but basicly every dog in the world has changed from how it was.
any way, more to the point, you may think retrievers could swim rings around a newf, but i would pay good money to see a retriever swim as good or for as long as a newfoundland. newfs can swim four hours and hours in lakes or the choppy sea withought tiring or becoming soaked.
they are fantastic water dogs and working dogs. they are naturally boyant and are so at ease in the water it always amazes me.
I happen to have a source that says that Leonbergers and FCI Landseer are better at this than Newfoundlands.
They do have more endurance and they do float.
But they are useless as a working retriever, which is a dog that must be super fast and maneuverable in the water.
Newfoundland actually went about 70 years where they weren’t bred for water work at all.
And you need to be careful with historical sources, because there are two separate breeds that are called Newfoundlands.
My guess is you’ve never been around working strain retrievers.
I have been around working strain retrievers, i do not see what this has to do with newfies.You obviously you havent been in the company of newfoundlands very much.
Newfoundland dogs are NOT retriever dogs, they are lifeguard dogs and working draught dogs. Landseer dogs ARE newfoundland dogs but merely a different colour strain. and yes they usially are slightly taller and leaner than a black?brown newfoundland dog.
Im not sure you know what your talking about.you may think thier are two types of newfoundland dog, but in this present day thier is only one type.
Stick to what you know, retrievers not newfoundlands.
You dont have to get red setters in Europe to hunt with. The red setter of today is a small 35-45 pound red dog. Deep red to a chest nut. They point, retrieve and run like mad. The second video is a setter that is part American field setter. That is why it hops and runs much faster. Full field red setters in the US run much faster then field setters in Europe. They are smaller.
The working red setter breed also has some kind of field-line English setter in them.
However, they do strongly resemble the old red and red and white setter type.
There are historical records of cream colored, gold, and medium red setters (though not necessarily Irish).
when you say “And you need to be careful with historical sources, because there are two separate breeds that are called Newfoundlands.” what are the two seperate breeds??
I dont understand how the landseer can be classed as a different breed just because of its colour, its still a newfoundland?!?!?
Only in Canada, the US, and the UK is the Landseer considered a color variety of Newfoundland. In the FCI countries, it is a separate breed.
However, the breed I’m referring to as the “other Newfoundland” is the ancestral retriever, the St. John’s water dog or “Labrador” (not the Labrador retriever, which is derived from it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John's_Water_Dog
The same thing happens in Cockers, Malinois, and King Charles Spaniels. There are several breeds where a coat color or type within the same breed is considered enough to make a split into to two.
I think I prefer the more doggish/wolfish working retrievers than the bear-like pets…
a landseer is a Newfoundland dog. If its parents are both Newfoundlands then the puppie is obv a Newfoundland. To say otherwise is absoloutly ridiculas. In my oppinion.
Tell that to the FCI and the Continental European registries.