Personally, I wouldn't class this as sitting on the fence at all. A while ago I was involved in the same discussion elsewhere and looked at several papers (based on human temperament) that found that temperament was approximately 40% genetic, the rest environmental (I think those were the results, it was quite a while ago and my PC on which the information is stored is currently bust - still ). So I think it is a perfectly valid 'camp' to be in.

Absolutely spot on, as far as I am concerned.

I totally agree. The Nature versus Nurture argument will still be being debated long after we're all gone, but it is surely just common sense to think that it must be both?????

Agree completely! There is a study, think I posted reference previously on Dogsey, that Houpt & Willis refer to, with aggression showing polygenic inheritance.

The genetic basis of temperament just provides a platform for environment to shape behaviour from birth (possibly before) onwards. Eg if you intended to make a dog human aggressive, you would be better off starting with one of the guarding breeds. If you chose a Siberian for instance, you may succeed but it wouldn't be so easy.

Likewise with virtually any behavioural trait. If you wanted a sheep herder, you choose a Border Collie from appropriate bloodlines, a gundog for gundog work etc. Not to say it can't be done with other breeds, just that generations of selection has grouped the approprioate behavioual genes together.

I appreciate that shows are the vehicle for ensuring the standard of breeds.

However, I wonder where this is all taking us. Given that some breeds do not hunt, chase, guard, point, rescue, etc., the only way they may be proven is by gaining official recognition in shows. Correspondingly, the premise that breeding should only be between show proven dogs and bitches will reduce the number of parents considerably. Maybe a good thing, maybe not.
We have always ensured that the sires of the litters we have delivered have been show proved and that is reflected in our KC pedigree certificates. Our bitches are not (but their fathers were), so in that respect I suppose we are only partially-compliant.
However, it is common knowledge in Cavalier KCS breeding circles that a well-known champion stud was removed from service a few years ago when it was believed that he had passed on Syringomyelia – a pernicious and horrific defect. One stud owner we approached quite correctly refused to pair with our bitch, because both prospective parents shared this champion’s generic heritage – significantly increasing the possibility of passing on the defect to the litter.
The skull and brain configuration of the Cavalier is predisposed to provide the causes of Syringomyelia and it is entirely possible that 90% of Cavalier’s possess the malformation, although a fewer number may show the symptoms. Screening to identify the defect is not avaliable throughout the country and costs £1,200.

There is also :-

Mitral valve disease (It is rare for a 10-year-old Cavalier not to have a mitral valve heart murmur)
Episodic Falling
Hip dysplasia
Luxating patella
Keratoconjunctivitis Sicca

There are many who would own Cavaliers but do not for fear that the many defects are too heavy a burden to bear upon ownership. Some even fear for the future of the breed.

So my question to those who believe that breeding should be between proven dogs and bitches is – will this principle exacerbate or eliminate genetic problems ?

Of course not!

What about people who want a dog to do a specific job? What about someone who wants a breed to point game? They aren't going to go for a spaniel, are they? They are going to go for a pointer, setter or an hpr. Why look anywhere else.

If you have a line up of working gundogs (I mean who are actually working in the field), I would be able to recognise those breeds, and I'm sure the majority of people who know dog breeds will be able to as well. Surely that has nothing to do with the show people?

I am in no way anti showing but I think it's incredibly arrogant to say that the show people are the one's preserving the breeds.

Helen

Working bedlingtons do and look nothing like their show cousings. Not sure how popular they are though.

Helen

Yes there are still plenty of working Beddies, I know of a lot that still regularly go ratting and a gamekeeper guy that still works them to ground and has done for 30yrs.
Dawn.

back on the fence,,, but I think in many breeds one needs the other, show need working and working need show, at some point or another,,, I cant talk for all breeds but I do believe labs for one example are very diff, most of the working labs I know are very diff to the show labs, working being a bit calmer, smaller, a bit more gentle in nature, and so on, where the show are a fair bit bigger {though I do believe size is coming down again in the show ring} bigger built, with a broader head and muzzle, You put the two next to each other and its like a diff dog, but I do feel that now and again, it pays to outcross to working or to outcross to show depending on what you need, so I think both have a place, I dont feel show dogs should feel they are the main {keepers of type~} sometimes they cause more harm than good with fashions coming and going in the ring, you only have to stand by the ring and watch the younger dogs, then look at the vetrain class to see how quickly a breed can change, tis the same in rotts, we dont really have such a big pool of working breeding to pick from, but I feel rotts are ok at the moment, the breeders seem to have hit a good point, they have stopped the over angulation that was very common a few years ago, that along with overly long backs would have led to big problems if it had continued, the fashion in rotts changes as quick as it does in the high street,,, fink I will just stick with my middle of the road dogs,,, never been a follower of fashions,

I think you're missing the point slightly. If showing stopped tomorrow and breeders no longer worried about how a breed should 'Look', eventually somewhere down the line, all breeds would begin looking like other breeds. Its already happening now. I've seen many puppy farmed dogs with papers, that claim to be a breed but are actually nothing like the breed it claims to be simply through bad breeding of unproven stock that looks very little like the breed.

So all non worked dogs would then become like mongrels and only working dogs would still actually look like a breed.....is that fair ?

Again you miss the point. Without show poeple to keep campaigning the breed to it's standard, all breeds would no longer look like breeds, as people will breed whatever, thinking they ALL have a dog worthy of being bred from !!

Who else is there preserving the way a breed should look ?