Ethically Bred, Fully Health Tested Golden Retrievers for ALL
Proud Members of the GRCA
Est 2020 - Treasure Valley, Idaho
The Full Story
All About Golden Retrievers
Golden Retrievers have our hearts and we love their fascinating origin story, how the breed split occurred, and what the future of the breed looks like now, and the common health problems that plague the breed.
Origin Story
This story takes us back to 1859 Guisachan estate, owned by Sir Dudley Marjoribanks, or Lord Tweedmouth, in the Scottish Highlands.
Lord Tweedmouth came across a wavy coated yellow retriever owned by a local cobbler, in need of a versatile hunting dog, he purchased him. At this time many hunting dogs were black coated and black dogs were desired over lighter colored ones. But Sir Dudley bought Nous, thought to be a setter mix, who had two black coated parents himself. Sir Dudley eventually bred Nous to his Tweed Water Spaniel bitch ( a now extinct curly haired, liver colored breed with white chests, toes, and faces) named Belle, with the hopes of creating a hunting dog able to navigate the marshes in the area and hunt well despite the cold and unpredictable weather.
This litter of 1868 is considered the first "golden retriever" litter. The first goldens produced were called Cowslip, Crocus, Primrose and Ada( from a repeat breeding). These pups were gifted to family members and their offspring tracked and recorded by Sir Dudley.
Marjoribanks son, Edward, was given Crocus and the fact that he also owned a red setter named Sampson, may have had something to do with the dark red coat color we now refer to as "dark golden" appearing very early on in the breed.
Ada was gifted to Marjoribanks nephew, Henry, the Earl of Ilchester, whose line of golden retrievers at Melbury Hall in Dorset became well known.
From there, the youngest son of Sir Dudley, Archie, traveled to Texas with a female named Lady, thus introducing the breed to the states and starting the well known Culham line of golden retrievers.
Understanding the Breed Split- Field Vs. Show Lines in the United States
The Golden Retriever is often described as being a split breed, with two distinct looks favoring lines that have purposefully carried on those looks. This would be "field" and "bench" lines. The field goldens commonly seen in the United States are usually darker in color, leaner, more muscular and smaller in stature than their show bred counterparts who are often larger, lighter in color, with bulkier statures.
Although they are both "Golden Retrievers," it is important to understand how and why this breed split occurred.
Fern Hills Goldens has put it nicely:
"Before the 1970's there were no distinctions between working and conformation line Goldens. They were essentially the same dog! In the years since however, the breed has developed two distinct types. A male named Cumming's Gold Rush Charlie came along in 1970 and was like no golden before him, with a new and very distinct look, he became very influential in the show world. As a result, the conformation ring has increasingly belonged to heavy bone dogs with long-ish bodies that may appear rather low to the ground, and often with a somewhat downward slope along the top line. Coats on show dogs have become longer, straighter, and silkier and the more desired color is a paler cream shade of golden. As show ring success has become more difficult to achieve with the increase in goldens being shown, looks have become the most important attribute for many show line breeders. As a result of decreased attention to disposition and working talent, the prevalence of truly outstanding working dogs or dogs with both Field and Show championships, has declined in the conformation lines.
Around the same time, the field goldens, owing influence to a dog named AFC Holway Barty, diverged in the other direction. Forsaking looks as a principle target, field breeders worked to improve the hunting and retrieving abilities of their dogs. As a result intelligence, trainability, the "bold golden" disposition, high activity levels, and extreme athleticism are much more prevalent in these lines as these are the features most necessary for field and working success. While many of these dogs do have wonderful conformation *( after all they do need to hold up physically under demanding athletic competition), some of the features, such as pretty broad muzzled heads, full dentition, and a good scissor bite, correctly carried tails, dark brown eyes color and a full black nose leather, are not universally present. There are other differences in appearance as well- most of the field dogs are darker shades of red or "dark" golden, typically darker than show goldens. They are frequently smaller, lighter boned, longer in the leg, and have shorter curlier coats than the dogs that are currently successful in the show ring. White markings, highly discouraged in the show ring, are more common in the field lines as well."
The Breed Standard Set by the Golden Retriever Club of America
Below is the official breed standard set by the GRCA, which we are proud members of. It is our mission to produce dogs in accordance with the written breed standards set by our Breed Club in order to preserve the breed and their purpose as both a hunting dog ( all our dogs have natural hunting ability) and a well rounded, versatile, and temperamentally sound family pet.
As members of the breed club we adhere to the breeding code of ethics set by our parent club.
To learn more about the breed and the standard, check out The Golden Retriever Study Guide by the GRCA
In Short- we can only do our best to produce healthy dogs who will live long lives. We test for and screen for every possible thing we can- but many health issues are out of our control.
At Mountain Reign Retrievers we screen our dogs for
- Hip and Elbow Dysplasia
- Genetic Eye Conditions
- Genetic Heart Conditions
- Genetic Diseases through Embark ( there are thousands of them with genetic markers).
We cannot screen our dogs for:
- Illnesses they may contract from their environments
- Types of Cancers
- Infections or viruses
- Genetic Mutations that do NOT have biomarkers or available tests
Spay and Neuter May be More Impactful Than We realize
According to the study "Assisting Decision-Making on Age of Neutering for 35 Breeds of Dogs: Associated Joint Disorders, Cancers, and Urinary Incontinence,"
"In an attempt to address the absence of breed-specific information on joint disorders and cancers associated with neutering, we undertook a project focusing on various specific breeds using data collection and analyses with our extensive veterinary hospital database where the same diagnostic criteria could be applied to all breeds. We started with popular breeds well-represented in the database, initially with the Golden Retriever (11, 12), Labrador Retriever (12) and German Shepherd Dog (13). The joint disorders examined included cranial cruciate ligament tears or rupture (CCL), hip dysplasia (HD) and elbow dysplasia (ED). The cancers examined, which previous studies found could be affected by neutering, were lymphoma/lymphosarcoma (LSA), hemangiosarcoma (HSA), mast cell tumors (MCT), and osteosarcoma (OSA).
In the Labrador Retrievers, Golden Retrievers, and German Shepherd Dogs, there was an increase in the incidence of one or more of the joint disorders with neutering in the first year in males and females to 2–4 times >3–5% incidence in intact dogs. In female Golden Retrievers, neutering at any age was associated with an occurrence of one or more of the cancers followed to 2–4 times higher than the 5 percent incidence in intact females. But in male Golden Retrievers, and in male and female Labrador Retrievers and German Shepherd Dogs, there was no evident increase in cancers above that of the dogs left intact. Preliminary analyses from some small-dog breeds revealed no apparent increased risks of joint disorders with neutering. Thus, the research that had been undertaken revealed a wide range of breed-specific differences in disease vulnerability to neutering. The purpose of this study was to analyze, in a variety of additional breeds, the increased risks, if any, of the above specified joint disorders and cancers associated with neutering male and female dogs at various ages, so as to increase the information available to pet owners and veterinarians for consideration when making decisions regarding neutering specific dogs. We added 29 new breeds to the study, separating three varieties of Poodles, for a total of 32 breed groups (referred to as breeds); this made a total of 35 breeds with the Goldens, Labs and German Shepherds included. The goal was to use the same veterinary hospital database and diagnostic criteria for the diseases as was used with the published studies on the retrievers and German Shepherds so as to allow for direct comparisons among various breeds. The primary purpose was to offer readers some evidence-based information on breed-specific differences with vulnerability to neutering, including suggested guidelines for neutering ages to avoid increasing long-term health risks of neutering, if any. A secondary, unforeseen, purpose was to document breed-specific differences in the increases in some cancers associated with removal of gonadal hormones, as an area for possible research on genetic aspects of cancer occurrence."
For Golden Retrievers Specifically:
"The study population was 318 intact males, 365 neutered males, 190 intact females, and 374 spayed females for a total of 1,247 cases. In intact males and females, the level of occurrence of one or more joint disorders was 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Neutering males at <6 mo. and at 6–11 mo. was associated with risks of 25 percent and 11 percent, respectively (p <0.01). In females, spaying at <6 mo. and at 6–11 mo. was associated with risks of 18 percent and 11 percent (p <0.01, when combined). The occurrence of one or more of the cancers followed in intact males was a high 15 percent and for intact females 5 percent. Neutering males at <6 mo. and at 6–11 mo. was associated with increased risks of cancers to 19 and 16 percent, respectively (p <0.01). Spaying females at <6 mo. and at 6–11 mo., was associated with increases in cancers to 11 and 17 percent, respectively (p <0.05, when combined) and spaying at 1 year and at 2–8 years was associated with increased risks of 14 percent (p <0.01, when combined). The occurrence of MC in intact females was 1 percent and for those spayed at 2–8 years, 4 percent. For females left intact, 4 percent were reported with PYO. No cases of UI were reported in females spayed at any age. The suggested guideline for males, based on the increased risks of joint disorders and cancers, is delaying neutering until beyond a year of age. The suggested guideline for females, based on the increased occurrence of cancers at all spaying ages, is leaving the female intact or spaying at one year and remaining vigilant for the cancers."
