Its this bit i don't agree with and where i think it falls down, this is off wikipedia

Although good with children, it tends to have a moderate energy level. Its long-legged build makes it among the fastest of the spaniels. It has exceptional stamina and needs moderate amounts of activity, to focus its mind and to provide exercise, although this is different for each dog. English Springers need plenty of exercise in order to run off their excess energy. These dogs can be over excitable but adequate walking can prevent this.

Sorry but if my lot got what i consider moderate exercise and activity they would be climbing the walls, yes it mentions field bred for coat and appearance, but not in temperament.

I actually did a piece on crufts radio last year asking the KC to make clear the differences on their info, but if you go to the KC website and look up ESS the info is still the breed standard for the show dog..

We always ask people to go to the kennel club for a list of accreditted breeders , do they tell people which ones are breeding show and which are breeding workers because they are both on the list , if they did this it may make a diifference until then will just keep giving my springer talk when people ring up wanting a dog

To be fair though, Wikipedia isn't exactly the most precise website out there. It's written by the general public, so any preconceived ideas about the ESS will obviously be brought to the fore anyway. That said it does outline the fact that they need adequate walks to prevent them becoming excitable, this can be said to the show type as well as the working type. I also feel if you buy a well bred dog the temperament should be the same. If you look at the second link brought up on Google it gives you a better idea of the differences between the two. People that use Wikipedia to guide them about dog breeds are probably not the type to take good advice anyway if you get my drift.

The breed standard is the correct one for the breed, it's essentially the way it's always been and the way the breed should be. It's something that will never change, no matter how hard you want it.

I do agree more information about the differences in the two types is an excellent idea, but splitting the breed standard isn't the right way to achieve this IMO.

Anyway, don't want to take over this thread with ESS stuff. People know my feelings about splitting the breed, so I think I'll leave it there.

My dogs are very good at doing what they were originally bred for

Though as that was sitting on a dung heap a mile or so outside the village and being heard barking a warning of intruders it doesn't make me very popular with the neighbours at times!

No. It would be impossible to define anyway, as most dogs are pet (no real show or working lines) bred. How would you define pet bred dogs if there was a breed split, as technically they would not fall into either catagory?

Not only that, but working dog people generally are not interested in breeding for physical appearance. So creating a seperate standard for them to breed towards would be counter productive, particularly as those dogs would never be shown!

Totally agree with this. Working people don't care a jot how a dog looks, so long as it is capable of doing the work it is being bred for. Even if there were two standards, most working people would not be interested in it.

I think the breed standards should be rectified to include "capable of doing the job it was bred for" there should be no split. The judges and breed clubs should insist on it, When showing Beardies I saw (my own being one of them) coats to thick and long to allow the dog to do a days work....very flashy in the ring but starting to slide down the road of no return, the same with a lot of breeds they let the looks overtake the purpose...it should be stipulated that the standard is the dogs can do there purpose, in conformation, looks and fitness...there are a lot of very unfit show dogs out there.

No, I dont think there should be a split but there are inevitably going to be breeders who strive for different things, either showiness or working ability. As in the case of gundogs, a good proportion of breeders have no interest in working their dogs therefore this aspect starts to become diluted. Similarly, many in the shooting fraternity dont care what their dog looks like as long as it can hunt or retrieve well.

I agree with some people's view that there should be working tests to go hand in hand with the showring. However, there are some dogs whom I prefer the working look of, such as cockers and springers.

A dog shouldnt just look like it could do the job it was bred for, it also needs the drive.

No Way! .....

But again, where do you draw the line? most breeds were bred for a purpose once upon a time. The majority of breeds haven't worked in their original 'role' for decades, hundreds of years in some cases. Would they have to be 'worked' in their traditional sense and/or win something before they stepped foot in the show ring? because that is not practical or even possible for many breeds that have had their original instincts bred out of them for generations (or the 'work' they once did, simply doesn't exist anymore).