Good luck

You're touching on the possibly the most 'heated' working/show dog discussion there is !

I'm wise enough to know that my opinion doesn't really matter.

As per Nero's original post - there's physical differences between show & working examples of any breed.

Spaniels are a fantastic example.

To be honest - if it's something you want to research...attend a shoot and just ask the handlers why their dogs don't conform to the breed standard.

Failing that..attend a show and ask the owners why their dogs differ so much from those that have been 'breed selected' to work.

IMHO I suspect you will find the show people will have dogs that can work (aherm) but the guys that work their dogs know fine well they're not suitable to show

I know! i knew it happened but i thought the KC would be aiming for cohesion and an all purpose dog.. i know "sprockers" are quite commonly worked and so crossing with cockers down the line could account for the size difference; a manageable, more compact dog capable of working in dense cover, which could also account for the often shorter coat and ears..

i supposed they were so fit for purpose when they originally came onto the scene that they haven't really been altered that much.. i suspect that spaniels started from one common type? so the traits that were selected for by breeders happened to be closely related to colour or something..?

OMG

We're into size selection now - selective Spaniel breeding for woodcock AKA Cocker Spaniel.

Sprockers are another thing all together LOL

I'm off to bed - I'll catch up tomorrow

hehe.. can of worms alert! i'm just meaning it's something that people do in order to produce a working dog tailored to what they want it for.. when the breed standard was set it wouldn't take much for someone (who wasn't bothered about it) to cross a springer down the line with something else, or just breed from smaller springers to get what they wanted.. but it would never differ from the original springer (whatever that was) too much as springers i imagine have been around a long time, are good at what they do and have obvious traits and so crossing them with something completely different wouldn't be advantageous.. so they've retained features which make them recognisable as springers.

the sprocker thing was just to illustrate how the working springer could be tailored to fit an individual quickly, without a lifetime of selective breeding.

Actually we don't all agree!! As I said in a previous post - there is absolutely no difference in my hound breeds between show and working stock. Malady has stated that the sled dogs are capable too.

Good grief - anyone reading all the doom and gloom on this thread would think that no dog that's ever been shown is capable of anything other than to look pretty!

I totally agree that some breeds have a wide split between working and show types. But it's far from all of them. I'd say most of the hound breeds could do a days work. My friends' Ch Bassets regularly hunt with a pack, as do a friend's Bloodhounds (trailing obviously).

It occured to me that it might not be solely the show breeding fraternity that has ruined the breeds mentioned previously on this thread. Most hound breeds have never been that popular with the general public. Afghans in the 60s are an exception, they became 'fashionable' and were turned into glamour dogs instead of working dogs. Before then, the Afghan in the show ring was quite different to what it is today. Suddenly they're being bred them willy nilly due to popular demand and very soon they're glamour dogs. This maybe attracted even more people who liked the glamour aspect who then decide they want to show and breed and glamour then becomes the 'norm'.

Just something to ponder maybe...

Debs

I personally think that a breeder should try to breed to the breed standard of course, but one thing that did come to mind as reading this topic, what about joe public that buys the dogs out of a litter that did not quite make it for showring, say for instance, a breeder that breeds dobes (this is just an example and not picking at the particular breed) they are a guarding breed and very protective of their owners? so all well and good an experienced person can cope with this "trait" but what about the average person ? not all of the litter tick all the boxes for showing so the rest are normally sold to "pet" homes, I have also noticed there are many collies that end up in rescues because they come from working stock/lines and that have been passed on as pets possibly because they did not tick those boxes for showing, yet still have a very strong work ethic which the average joe public has neither the time or inclination to channel correctly and the dog becomes unmanageable. so to sum up my dithering thoughts, breeders SHOULD breed to the standard, BUT should also remember that the majority of there dogs are going into pet homes and therefore should place those dogs correctly.

mo

Good point!

But that's where home selection and potential owners doing their homework is so very, very important isn't it. There's loads of breeds I like the look of but couldn't live with. Unfortunately in today's society it's always looks and image that prevail isn't it.

Debs

this is a very real problem in breeding, I dont breed hard rotts, {eg dogs from europe are often said to be harder} but I dont breed rotts that would run off if you were being beaten to a pulp {cept mea} shes soft,
So far I have been lucky, but im only just learning about breeding, but if I had to chose, I would soften the temprament rather than hand dogs out to people which were difficult to control,
hence why I rarely breed, its so hard finding the right homes for the stock I breed, x

Interesting Shona, you say Mea is soft, would you breed from that temperament? As being incorrect for the breed. This is my point re: Dobes, many have very inferior temperaments, people may as well just choose a colour and size of a dog and buy it for that reason alone, because if you ignore the correct temperament and character, then all dogs will be the same.

Working Springers are completely different in type and temperament to show Springers. Show bred ones are not hyper and loopy, they are not the ones you will find in rescue, they are not the ones that are often said to be "snappy," why? because they are styled and bred to be show dogs. Working Springers look nothing like the breed standard asked for apart from a couple points here and there, although I like to see a nice one! Their front legs are often bandy and bent, they are smaller, have less coat and are energetic "busy" dogs in comparison. the same type of differences we see in the working and show bred Labradors.
Dawn.

Bandy legs! lol I wouldn't say often! I think I can count on one hand how many bandy legged springers I've seen and I've seen a LOT. We do have one with queen anne legs but got her when she was around 7 so have no idea of her background. Agree with the other bits though Dawn.

I think there are more in rescue, purely because there are more working springers out there than show. Also, a lot of working springers are sold to very unsuitable homes. How many in rescue are in their teenage phase? My springers are laid back but I believe it is because they have enough mental stimulation, which comes from working and training. I would say out of my 4 springers, 2 are probably closest to the breed standard, the other 2 are too small but are FANTASTIC workers. I've also found that you get different "types" in different areas.

I also have 2 gwp's who would be fine in the show ring. I do show 1 of them but very rarely. She has done pretty well and I certainly don't feel out of place in the ring. They are both also cracking working dogs, with temps second to none.

The other breeds I have are pointers and a setter. The setter is my first introduction to a working setter. COMPLETELY different to the show lines, certainly in looks. She is very sensitive, which I understand show setters are as well but she knows exactly what to do when faced with a grouse. The pointers, one is sort of near the breed standard but doubt she will win anything in the show ring, and the other one would just get laughed at. Get them on the grouse, and you can't fault them. They are from pure working lines. There are pointers out there that are worked, as well as shown but I find them to be a bit heavier than the pure working lines.

Agree with the bc's as the shepherds I know, don't care what they look like, as long as they can do the job they want them to. Surprisingly, you can tell if it's a border collie or not.

Regarding the other breeds, I'm sat on the fence here. Do we want certain breeds to be still capable of the jobs they were originally bred for? Wouldn't that be asking for trouble? Isn't it better to keep these breeds alive, but have them so they can fit into society?

Helen