Hi Everyone,

Recently Julie asked me if I would consider writing a new column for Everything Golden and being very flattered I accepted. The idea of this column is to interview some of the great Golden Retriever people that we all admire.   Thus I thought a "perfect" candidate for my first interview would be long time GRCA member Betty Gay.

First I want to thank you, Betty, in advance for granting this interview for the newest column in "Everything Golden". I found our discussion at the Eastern Regional so enlightening that I thought others would enjoy your wealth of knowledge and experience too.

********************************************************************************************************************************

PH:   Could you please tell the readers when and how you first got involved in Golden Retrievers? Perhaps you would like to relate an experience or two that you think our readers might enjoy as well.

BG:   I had never had dogs in my life until after we were married. One day Sam said he wanted to get a Golden Retriever to hunt with - he learned about them from the Outdoor Life magazine. I said, "What the heck is that?" and then agreed, but told him "just keep the darned thing outdoors". It now seems a funny comment considering how much my life changed because of the "darned thing". Rocky came from the Shelter Cove kennel in Minnesota by Railway Express and was a grandson of NFC King Midas of Woodend..

PH: What were the early dog shows you went to like? I know that the entry sizes were quite a bit smaller, but what about the quality of the dogs? How "political" was the judging? Does any show/judge stand out in your mind that you would care to share?

BG:   We didn't try showing any dogs right away, but tried first at the Detroit Kennel Club with a field line bitch. I don't recall her placement (if any), but shows in those days were always benched. We were required to remain at the show until late in the afternoon. I think it provided a much better learning experience than the "show and go" procedure followed now. We had the chance to visit with fanciers of many breeds and were often present when the Group judging was done.

      Of course, there were many fewer entries, but the good dogs were still good dogs, and the judging was generally done by livestock people who understood the relationship between purpose and structure. There were some professional handlers, but Goldens were not so popular nor so numerous in those days, and most of us handled our own dogs. We also didn't have to contend with the "Top" rankings and the propaganda advertising aimed directly at Group judging. The Best of Breed was generally the best of the breed, and not the dog that might do best in the Group.

      One of the judges I always respected was Alva Rosenberg. We went to the Eastern Regional in 1957 because he was the judge. Our bitch, Gayhaven Bit of England, went Reserve. Torch Flynn had won both the dog and bitch field classes, so she asked Sam to take the dog into Best of Breed while she handled the bitch. Yes, there were a number of professional handlers in that class, but Sam (with Ch. Little Joe of Tigathoe***) won the Breed. Sam & Torch both dropped their dogs and danced around the ring while the dogs looked on in bewilderment!

PH:   Among those early dogs that you saw, which ones stand out in your mind and why? Did you feel that one sex was overall better in quality than the other? If so, which sex and in which ways?

BG:   One of my strong early memories was of AFC-Ch. Lorelei's Golden Rockbottom UD. Reinhard Bischoff lived in Michigan for a few years when he was head architect for the Ford headquarters building. He invited me to see the structure during the construction, and when I went into his work office there were two Goldens lying on the floor. One was Ch. Hornet of Tigathoe and the other was Rocky. He was such a complete dog, and still represents to me what a Golden should be - beautiful, workmanlike structure; sensible, responsive temperament.

          We also had the opportunity to board a dog and his mother for a few months while the owner moved his location. Both were lovely in breed character - Ch. Gilder's Wingra Beau and Rock River Sue. She was a gorgeous bitch. I wish I had taken pictures of her. We did use Beau in our breeding and this took us in the direction of show dogs. But Sam and I had an agreement that we wouldn't keep anything he couldn't hunt with or I couldn't show.

      You asked about gender quality. I have always thought that bitches are better in our breed. The Standard describes a mid-range animal without extremes and that fits bitches a little more than dogs.So that is a generality, and while there are always some great dogs, if I have a choice of which gender to judge, I always ask for the girls.

PH:   Both handling and grooming techniques have changed through the years, would you please comment on these changes? As a follow up question, what bothers you the most, as a judge, in both grooming and handling techniques that proliferate the show ring today?

BG: As I said before, most of us handled our own dogs in any venue that was available. It seems a shame that so many people do not (or cannot) present their own exhibits. Maybe others may do a better job than the owner, but it was a real feeling of accomplishment when you did it yourself. Presentation was also simpler then. Grooming was minimal - brushing, neatening, a bath now and then...not several in one week. A good coat is almost self-cleaning with good brushing and general maintenance. I don't wonder that people seem to have more skin problems than we used to know. Of course, we never used "product" on the coat nor blew it open.

      Trimming generally meant removal of scraggly hair, especially on the underline, neatening of tail, some work on feet and rear pasterns. Some of the things I never understand in the barbering these days is the effort to make all the dogs look the same instead of featuring individual qualities. And WHY are so many taking body hair off the dog's rib cage??? He is supposed to have a well developed body and this technique generally makes him look flat-ribbed. And those "bibs" - spare me! Some of the trimming actually makes the dog look worse instead of better.

      As far as presentation in the ring, it seems a shame that "flying around the ring" is the gait du jour. A moderate, working trot, on a loose lead, shows the dog to his best advantage. The other seems to be used when trying to hide gaiting faults. Every dog has his best speed and it isn't usually extreme.

PH: When you first started showing Goldens, it was not unusual to see the same dog that was winning in the show ring being used in the field also. But then somewhere along the way a chasm developed and fewer and fewer people exhibited in both venues. Do you remember when this started to happen and why it started to occur? Following up on the above, do you see today's Golden Retriever fancy bridging the gap between show and field? What must be done to to overcome the gulf that exists between the 2 venues?

BG: I think many show dogs can still be used in the field, if the owner is so inclined. Those dogs that are exclusively show dogs should be able to prove themselves in (at least) general field ability, or how do we know that it has not been lost. Dogs are bred and selected to fit a preferred venue, but the basic function of the breed should never be lost. There has always been a gap between show and field (and now agility) because of these venue preferences, and there has always been a certain amount of sniping between owners who prefer one activity over another. I think what we need to encourage is a real respect for the effort required to be really good at any of them. Goldens have so many wonderful characteristics that it is the rare owner who can develop them all...or is even willing to try!

      Of course, I am a big advocate of the WC/X and the CCA club titles. These basic, first steps allow anyone to learn the qualities that their dog posseses...or lacks. I don't really favor the "fun & games" competitions because I think that original purpose is not always reflected in them. Even the American field trials tend to focus away from the original kind of working animal, which was a stamina dog, not a speed dog...and structure is different.

PH:   GRCA has been instrumental in forging the future of the Golden Retriever in the past through establishing such health related programs as the Golden Retriever Genetic Council (forerunner to OFA) and CERF.

They have also been very progressive in helping people to enjoy their Goldens in both field and to learn about structure through such programs as the WC/WCX and the CCA. What types of additional programs would you like to see the GRCA establish to benefit the Golden Retriever?

BG: I don't have a suggestion regarding GRCA, but I surely wish the AKC would provide an Amateur Show Ch. title as they have an Amateur Field Ch. This might not benefit a lot of breeds, but for Golden owners it would surely draw more people into showing their own dogs and avoid the feeling that they cannot compete with professionals in this breed.

Perhaps the new amateur-owner class is a step in the right direction, if it were also carried on to Amateur Best of Breed, Amateur Groups and Amateur BIS.

PH: Along the same lines, GRCA holds seminars for new and/or prospective judges. There are also "hands on" opportunities for these new Golden judges to participate in and learn from. Yet it seems that breed type has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. So I am wondering if these programs are really being utilized by the judges and if not, why not. I am also left wondering how GRCA can improve the present programs to educate both present and future Golden judges. Should GRCA require a prospective Golden judge to attend a field event prior to them being granted their license as some have suggested? What are your thoughts?

BG: I think that many judges are trying to find the kind of dogs that the education committees are referencing, but many say that this kind of dog is seldom in the ring. It seems to me that exhibitors and professional handlers may have to look more closely at the dogs they chose to present. Where is the balance of angles, timing, and proportion that the Standard describes??? Is it all too much "show" and too little "dog".

PH:   I want to thank you once again for this interview and for you sharing you thoughts and experiences. In closing is there anything you would like to add or touch upon?

BG:   So here's to my husband who not only participated, but encourages my dog activities and to his "darned" dog that got all this started. We treasure all the wonderful 'dog people' we have known over the years because of it.

I hope that everyone enjoyed this interview as much as I did doing it.