Marcia Schlehr

This month I had the honor of interviewing Marcia Schlehr of the famous Kyrie Kennels. Besides being a long timeGolden breeder, Marcia is a highly respected AKC licensed judge and an evaluator in the GRCA CCA program.

First I want to thank you Marcia for agreeing to be interviewed. I am looking forward to your answers to my questions as I think that they will give much insight to my readers of the development of both the show world and the Golden Retriever breed since the 1950's..

PH: Could you please inform our readers as to how you got started in dogs and in particular Goldens? What made you choose this breed over any others that you may have considered at the time?

MS: My mother took us kids to a dog show in Pittsburgh, where we were fascinated by the obedience dogs. We moved to Indiana, went to another show, found an obedience class not far away, and signed up, my mother and I with 6-month old cockers. One thing led to another, including showing in obedience and meeting some great dog people over the years. Two of the dogs trained in our little club were Goldens, bothof which earned UDs. Mud Creek Flare UD lived with us for a year or so when her owner died (what a character she was!). I had done a portrait of the other UD on her getting her title, but somehow instead of cash I ended up with a 4-month old Golden puppy. Well, I had him for 11 years, and he was the dog that "sold"

me on Goldens. I still consider him the epitome of Golden natural aptitude, trainability, and personality. The son of a Dual Champion, he became Sidram Selectric, UDT, WC, Can. CDX...first UDT dog of any breed in Michigan.

PH: Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that you got your first Golden from Betty and Sam Gay. Could you please tell us about that particular first dog? Also please tell us about any other dogs that struck your fancy? When did you start to breed and who were the parents of that first litter?

MS: Tuck (Sidram Selectric) was actually "my" first Golden (Flare only lived with us for a while). We moved to Michigan in 1957, where I met Betty Gay, joined the GRCA and the Michigan Chapter. In 1959 Betty offered me a co-ownership on Gayhaven Harmony. I had seen Harmony's sire, Ch Gilder's Wingra Beau earlier, in Indiana, and had decided that that was the sort of Golden I really liked; the others I'd seen were pretty much just "plain brown dogs". And I knew the Gays' dogs. So Sassy (Harmony) came to live with me, and I finished her CD, CDX, and Ch titles. Her 1960 litter had the Gayhaven prefix, then her next two litters carried the Kyrie kennel name, and the last (by Gayhaven Timidiquis) both Gayhaven and Kyrie. Sassie produced 6 champions by 4 different sires, at least five Outstanding Sires/Dams. She could produce well no matter the sire, it seemed; two litters were linebreedings, two were outcrosses.

PH; I know that a lot of your early dogs sported titles at both ends.What changes have you seen in the various venues? Which of these changes, in your opinion, have been positive and which have been detrimental? What changes would you like to see in the future, if any?

MS: When I started, the only performance titles available were CD, CDX, UD, TD. Earning UDT was the highest honor. Tuck achieved that in 1962, and added the WC in 1965 on his first try. He had some conformation points, but a crooked foreleg, the result of a puppyhood accident, didn't help. Next to the UDT, a highpoint of his career was going HSDT, BOB, and Group 4th on the same day.

There have been so many changes in Obedience, since 1977 when the OTCH title was introduced, that it is now a "whole different ballgame". Then also Agility and Rally have been added, as well as Hunting Tests and the advanced tracking titles....seems as if the list is endless! I think peoples' attitudes changed a lot when the OTCH was introduced; competition became much more intense and not always in a better way. And frankly, those early Obedience folks probably would have fallen over laughing at the idea of a "Pre-Novice" title...Novice WAS the most basic expected of any dog, and a dog was expected to be capable of qualifying after a 10 or 12 week set of classes. And many did.

What changes for the future? Well, if we're adding titles, why not some additional titles in conformation? how about a Bred-by title, or a Junior or Puppy title? England has the Junior Warrant, European countries have various titles. How about a Grand Champion title for dogs that achieve notably beyond merely acquiring a Ch? There are many possibilities.

On the field end-- I'd like to see field trials for retrievers set up as are those for Pointing breeds; where specialty clubs other than the Parent Clubs can hold championship stakes for their one breed only (currently denied by the Retriever Advisory Committee). Flat-Coats don't work like Labradors and should not be judged by Labrador standards. Same for each of the breeds. Tollers work completely differently (do we expect Labradors to toll-in ducks?) If sufficent Qualified dogs are running, and the judges are competent to set up appropriate test, what does it matter if it is one breed running, or several?

RAC & AKC should allow clubs to limit entries at field trials and hunting tests. Currently many clubs can't muster the manpower and/or grounds to manage the large entries-- so they don't hold any at all. Limiting entries, and enabling breed-specific events would surely help more people enjoy this area of participation.

PH: Just as there have been changes in the venues, there have been changes in the Golden Retriever through the years. What structural changes have you seen? When did they start to appear? Also how many of these changes are actually structural changes verses style changes? Could you please name particular dogs that had tremendous influence in changing styles and what those style changes were?

MS: How Goldens have changed over the years: hm (That could take hours!) Certainly the show dogs have become considerably more uniform in many ways. However, not always for the better. Modern winners have much more hair, but nearly always the wrong kind (soft, lacking undercoat, lacking weather-resistance). Proportions have changed -- the Standard gives the desired proportions and most of the dogs measured in the early 1950s survey (and reported in the GRNews) were close to that. Now, most are notably longer, overall. This is due to either or both of two factors: shorter legs and/or longer bodies. Short legs are FAR too common these days. For a dog expected to work in tough cover, over harsh terrain, this is not suitable. Some of the current winners have the same proportion of height to length as the winning Clumber Spaniels, although slightly less "bone".

Heads also far too often lack the strength, the 'finish' and the nobility of the classic Golden. I've seen some fairly awful heads lauded as "typical"....!!! And fronts---- finding a truly excellent front assembly in the show ring is exceptionally rare. (Although good front assemblies can still be found, particularly in some of the working field-bred dogs.) By "front assembly" I mean the total of correct ribcage, forechest, and brisket to support the correctly laid scapula and upper arm, with lower les, pasterns, and feet ....all these together constitute the front assembly, in my mind at least.

It seems that many of the changes began in the 1970s when Goldens surged exponentially in popularity, both as show dogs and as companions; this increased in the 1980s with the success of some even more extreme sorts (hair and grooming and "presentation" became a sine qua non)....and have not yet gone back to a realistic level. Will it ever? I wonder. There is so much emphasis on the "show" and too little on the "dog" in "dog show".

These changes are far more than merely "style": when change starts to affect the dog's suitability for purpose, it is much more than preference for a "look", it is altering the fundamentals. Yes, several good dogs may vary considerably in "looks", but will be found to all have the same basics of structure, proportion, and other essentials. Our Standard does allow a certain range of variation, but deviations out of that range are deviations away from type. Differences in coat color, some degree of refinement or substance, and some other details, can vary without departing from basic correctness.

Field trials and performance events in general have also gone to some extremes. Field trials have nearly no resemblance to actual hunting, and hunting tests are becoming more like field trials. Even in Agility, the trend is to more difficult courses and faster times ("too many dogs are qualifying"). Of course this means that the sport becomes even more and more specialized...not a good trend.

PH: As a follow up question, I know that as an artist you have studied structure. Could you explain how these structural changes affect the ability of the Golden to do the job it was bred to do? How do you view these changes as a conformation judge? What areas do you see as a judge that we need to improve upon within the breed?

MS: Poor structure, or structure incorrect for the breed, affects the dog's efficiency in movement (not just at a show-ring trot, but at all the working gaits a retriever needs) and its endurance. The Golden is a dog of moderation, capable of working in tough cover and in harsh terrain, both land and water, and in a cold, damp climate. A soft, water-absorbing coat would be highly detrimental, as would be one lacking in undercoat. Short legs, upright shoulders, long bodies, flat shallow ribs, lack of chest, poor quality coat, are among the commonly seen features that detract from the dog's capability for work. As a judge, and guided by the Standard, anything that detracts from the dog's fitness for purpose must be penalized, and that fitness for purpose must come before any of the strictly "show dog" details such as mode of grooming or handling skills.

Now, as to heads -- while a dog with a head resembling a Flat-Coat might well be able to work efficiently (certainly the Flatties do), the head is very important as expressing the breed character, and is a part of breed type, as well as function. Hence it deserves appropriate attention. Length breadth, and depth of muzzle are too often lacking; we see skulls both too narrow and too coarse; stops absent or too pronounced. Seldom the right balance of parts, with the correct calm, confident, kindly (not vacuous nor frantic nor hard) expression. As to areas needing improvement, I think I've mentioned most of them.

PH: Speaking of judging, could you describe what you look for when judging? As a breeder judge are there areas that you particularly reward for good structure because you realize that the breed as a whole needs improvement in these parts of the dog? How does the "show" part of the dog figure into your decision in comparison to structure? Are there faults that you have trouble getting pass when judging?

MS: I've probably covered most of this in paragraphs above. Fitness for purpose (retriever type) comes first: then the characteristics of Golden Retriever type specifically. No, I haven't forgotten soundness: to my mind, soundness is inseparable from both "retriever type" and "Golden Retriever type". Trying to say one is more important than the other is a specious argument; rather like trying to say, "which is more important, the right leg or the left leg?".

As for "the 'show' part", I'm judging the dog, not it's performance. As long as the dog performs in a way that I can properly judge it, that is sufficient. Of course it's nice to see a dog that is happy and cooperative as a Golden should be, and nicely trained, but beyond that, no "extra points" for flash and dash. The "showing fool" too often is just that. Some of the best dogs I've seen thought the show ring was booorrring...and I can't say I blame them!

PH: In the show ring today, it seems very unpopular to have "a slight wave" in the dog's coat. Instead the handlers feel the need to blow the coat out straight and use lots of "product". What do you think about this trend and do you find that the all breed judges are "penalizing" those few dogs that are still seen with that slight wave? Also what about coat length? Anything you'd like to comment about coats in general?

MS: The Standard says the coat may be either straight or wavy, with NO PREFERENCE indicated. Wavy coats nearly always are of good texture (firm, resilient, and protective). Far too many groomers destroy an acceptable (or even excellent) coat by over-grooming-- over-bathing, over-conditioning, over-blowing, sculpting, stripping out undercoat. Good grief, a *correct* Golden coat is one of the easiest to care for of all the long-coated breeds. Regular brushing, a bath two or three days before a show (if needed), and tidying up the "rough edges", plus clean teeth and nicely trimmed nails, really is all that's needed. Yes, I know that sounds laughable to modern-day exhibitors....but it really makes me ill when professional groomers put Goldens into the same category with Poodles and Cocker Spaniels...!!! Correct coat on a well-made dog does not require extensive shaping, sculpting, stripping...if it does, then it is by definition incorrect. (Or the dog is).

As for "product", any "foreign substance" in the coat is verboten. The guidelines for judges put out by AKC at one time specified that if the judge detected such substances, or if he could not judge the coat texture for such a reason, that the dog should be excused. Is that still in the Guidelines? I wonder. A correct coat is extremely practical, as it resists burrs and fiel debris, and any that is picked up is easily combed out; the undercoat keeps cold and wet from the dog's skin and body. Goldens used for SAR, for tracking, for hunting, as assistance dogs or guide dogs, all need an easy-care, practical jacket....not a fancy party-dress, or a floor-sweeping gown, eye-catching as that might be.

Judges who penalize correct wavy coats, or who prefer over-grooming coats, are obviously not familiar with the requirements of the Standard or of practical retriever work. At one seminar for judges, several Goldens were presented as they should be, with natural, neatened coats. After examining the dogs, one impressed, but puzzled, judge asked, "But why don't people SHOW them that way?" Good question!

PH: Again as a follow up question, I think that there may be many newer people who do not know the difference between a correct coat and an open coat. Could you please explain how the two coats look and feel in such a way that even the pet person could determine which type of coat their own Golden has?

MS: It's much easier to show the difference on real dogs. Once seen and felt, an ideal coat should be engraved in your mind. (You may have to go a long way to find it, though) The best coats have a topcoat that lies so as to follow the contours of the body. The topcoat is firm and springy to the touch-- if ruffled up with the hand, it goes right back into position. The hairs themselves are substantial, almost coarse, compared with a setter's fine hairs. The topcoat lies to form a smooth surface over the undercoat, much like a duck's feathers lie over the down. The topcoat looks close to the body, but is supported by the thick, wooly undercoat, so dense that it is hard to see the skin. This combination is very protective. Featherings need only be long enough to make a nice "drip edge" to guide water away from the body, and thick on chest, underbody, back of thighs and tail to protect those vulnerable areas.

An "open coat", on the other hand, generally stands off from the body, rather than lying close. Usually it is lacking undercoat, and the skin is easily visible when the topcoat is parted. Often the hair is finer in texture (and usually quite straight). Soft coats and excessive furnishings are only a detriment in any practical arena, and should not be rewarded by judges, no matter how "glamorous" they might be.

PH: Another area I would like to touch upon is the Golden's temperament.

There has been much concern among some Golden breeders that the Golden's temperament has become "sharper"than it was in the past. In your capacities as a judge, a CCA evaluator and as a long time breeder, have you found this to be the case? Do you see differences in temperaments in dogs that are shown and bred for the different venues or in different regions of the country? What should be considered correct Golden temperament in comparison to normal dog behavior? By this I mean, are there various behaviors that would be considered acceptable for most breeds but not correct for a Golden?

MS: As for temperament...there have always been the few "bad apples" in the breed. Now that there are about 30 times as many Goldens as there were in 1955, for instance, it follows that we may see more of them.

I do think that selection for dogs that are always "on" and "up for action" in the show ring, may have produced a trend towards "hyper" dogs in a few lines. Often the "showing fool" is just that. In field lines as well, some dogs are so "high" and so possessive, that they don't do well with other dogs. The "pressure" put on them by common field training methods may also contribute.

As a judge, and in CCA, I personally have seen very little of temperament incidents. But there have been a few over the years, and most of the "bad ones" I've seen were not in the ring. Of course they are memorable, because so rare and so unexpected. But we must remember that these are real dogs, and they may have failings just as people may. Also the fact that so many dogs are now owned by people who have no clue as to to proper selection, socialization and training is likely a contributory factor to the number of ill-behaved Goldens.

As for the last two questions in the paragraph above, to answer those fully would require far more space than is available here. The Temperament Task Force a couple of years ago spent a great deal of time working on that exact topic. Our Goldens are wonderful dogs, but they are most definitely real canines, not furry angels nor mobile stuffed toys. We need to understand that, and also to understand, realistically, what normal dog behavior is.

PH: As an evaluator in the GRCA CCA program as well as an AKC judge, will you please explain the differences between the two arenas? Do you "judge" the dogs presented for your opinion differently? If so, how? Do you prefer one over the other? If so, why?

MS: In the CCA program, the dogs are examined and evaluated individually against the Standard, and given a numerical score in each of the various categories. Evaluators are also encouraged to explain and discuss their findings with the dog's owner, one-on-one. This takes about 15 minutes per dog per evaluator. Owners get a copy of the scoresheets with written comments. There is no comparison of scores and no "placements". (The CCA program is fully explained on the GRCA website, under Standards and Programs).

In conformation showing, dogs are compared (mentally) to the Standard and also to the other dogs in the ring at the time. The judge places the dogs in an order of merit, based on his/her opinion of their overall quality, and awards are made. Winning dogs can progress through the classes, the breed, and (if Best of Breed) on into the Group competition (various breeds competing against each other) and even Best in Show. In most judging the AKC expects judges to do 25-30 dogs an hour (including paperwork) and discourages judges from discussing dogs with the exhibitors. So even if a dog goes Best of Breed, there is no real information gained, other than "the judge liked my dog!". (Or didn't, as the case may be).

The CCA is strictly non-competitive, and educational. Most people enter their dog for the information they will gain, and for what they may learn from the experienced evaluators about their dogs. Dog shows are for competition, and for letting folks see that "my dog is better ...."

As an evaluator, doing CCA is MUCH more thought-intensive! One cannot just think "that dog's better than the other", but must consider every area of the dog and comment on it, and score it on a 0 to 10 scale and a possible score of 100. (three scores of 75 can qualify the dog for the CCA title). 15 minutes on each dog is intensive. Doing a full day of CCA is hard work, even if it is only 24 dogs. But it is very rewarding, as each dog gets full-focus attention. So often at shows, in a nice class, one must leave some good dogs out of the ribbons, always disappointing. People work hard for their dogs, and so often for little reward; no wonder "newbies" drop out. CCA gives them far more useful "feedback".

PH: As my final question, is there any comments or observations that you would like to add?

MS: ...............Hm. Well, if people are going to be serious about their Goldens, even if in a limited way, I can only suggest that they try to learn as much as possible (not just in their chosen area of activity, but in other areas as well); keep an open mind, but consider everything dispassionately and weighed against sound knowledge, not just the latest trend or fad or instant expert. If one needs to learn about structure, consult works by such as Rachel Page Elliott, Curtis Brown, Dr Chris Zink, and others of real knowledge and experience; these and veterinary texts or websites are probably better than most popular dog-show "experts". There are excellent books on behavior, training, etc, and no excuse for not learning.

Remember what the Golden was intended to be, what it has been, what it should be. That is what has made the Golden a useful and practical dog for many kinds of work in the modern world. And always, keep the Golden a strong and noble dog.

PH: Again, I want to thank you for taking the time for this interview. I know that my readers will enjoy your thoughts and comments.

MS: Thank you for the chance to talk.