It's taken ages to plough through this lot and my brew has gone cold!

A few points - in no particular order of importance (and they are just my observations: no better / worse than anyone else's )

1) Going right back to the original shots of the 2 springers: I agree that the basic construction is pretty similar and that without meeting both dogs in the flesh and actually seeing them at work (notwithstanding the fact that so much work-wise depends on training too!) it would be impossible to tell which had the most natural aptitude.

However, I think it is absolutely fair to say that in very thick cover, it is more practical to have a dog with a less long and silky coat. Having said that, I'd rather have a dog with a naturally long coat who would crash through rhodies and bramble all day ( I could just keep it trimmed) than one with a more practical length but less enthusiasm for the job.

2) As an aside, I've often wondered why we have so many flushing breeds with long, tangly coats, when a good harsh wiry jacket would be much more sensible if you think about it! I guess it's all down to the fact that the gene, or combination of genes for flushing are somehow linked with the gene(s) for a less than practical coat - show or non-show. I think the technical term is 'Sod's Law'

3) Having said that, what I do object to about the 2nd photo of the springer is pristine show pose is that the presentation (in my opinion) is exaggerated and to deliberately produce a working dog with such a profusion of coat does seem illogical. It's almost as though the dogs need the profusion of coat so it can be 'groomed' into the correct shape. To me, it looks contrived and a bit silly and smacks of a culture where dogs are being produced for the benefit of the show-scene, when really, surely the show-scene should be there for the benefit of pedigree dogs.

4) I agree there are working springers of all shapes and sizes and the same can be said for cockers! However, the terrain on different shoots vary, as does the actual purpose people want a dog for. Some want a rangey, faster dog; others want a bigger, broader dog that will push through dense cover. I suggest (ducks for cover) that it is more by certain people being in certain places at a certain time that we ended up with Clumber / Field/ Cocker / Springer/ Welsh Springer / Sussex as named breeds with breed standards at all If different people had been of different committees etc., we might just as easily have had different 'types' morphing into different breeds. You can still see old illustrations of English Water Spaniels, Norfolk Spaniels and I bet every county had (actually they still have) their leggy, rangey spaniels and their smaller, very stylish 'busy' little spaniels and their 'bramble-busters'.

5) Poodles are cool - end of

6) I think the term 'Fit for Function' can and should be applied to toy breeds. Toy breeds were created from other breeds to produce amiable, appealing and easy to manage companion dogs and the mark of a good toy is that they can fulfil this role. In reality, most households need exactly this sort of a dog, rather than one designed to run for miles / guard the flock / root out and kill anything small and furry Personally (as in 'just my opinion') I'd rather see more toy breeds kept as companion dogs and fewer larger working breeds 'dumbed down' for the pet market by having the drive and tenacity bred out because these do not make them especially good household pets (a role for which the breeds weren't created in the first place)

However, once a breed is recognized in this country and bred as a show dog, the breeders need to find homes for puppies and the public starts to expect / assume that all dogs should make good house pets.

Right - that's my contribution. If you are going to rip it to shreds, please do it politely

6) I think the term 'Fit for Function' can and should be applied to toy breeds. Toy breeds were created from other breeds to produce amiable, appealing and easy to manage companion dogs and the mark of a good toy is that they can fulfil this role. In reality, most households need exactly this sort of a dog, rather than one designed to run for miles / guard the flock / root out and kill anything small and furry Personally (as in 'just my opinion') I'd rather see more toy breeds kept as companion dogs and fewer larger working breeds 'dumbed down' for the pet market by having the drive and tenacity bred out because these do not make them especially good household pets (a role for which the breeds weren't created in the first place)

I've got a reply from someone with American Cocker Spaniels, and who also works their dog, they say that some are worked in a full coat, but generally they are clipped, and in the US there are also some with a field coat, simalar to the working type english cocker spaniel, but that they are not really bred over here.

So I will say I was wrong, they can work in full coat, even if some clip them for work, and in America there is a split with the coat, it doesn't change the fact that they can.

Wow - will say again - don't envy them!! Don't suppose they pointed you to any pictures?

Well the reply was on a Lurcher forum, so I'll ask if she has any pics of hers and other dogs working (her dogs coat isn't as full as the dog's pic I posted), funny thing is I asked the breed club and contacted a show breeder who has bred dogs who work and describes the breed as dual purpose and got no reply, but on a thread on a Lurcher forum theres someone with a ACS who works her dog and gave the info, and showed pics of her dog day to day (with some cute pics too).