Breeding Ethics Question

If a dog is an exceptional example of their breed, structurally and physically speaking, but is lacking the drive/temperament to perform the job the breed was intended to do (obviously, this question does not apply to companion dogs), does breeding that dog become unethical?

Let's assume the dog has already gotten its CH.

i suppose it all depends on what the dog bred to do? can i ask what breed they are?
in a lot of breeds there is a big divide between show line and working line, one example being springers

i see it is dobermanns- do the numerous dobermanns out there that have gained ch really have the ability to work?
Although the dog lacks the drive/mental ability to be able to work i see no reason if the dog is a ch then that obviously proves they are a fine example of the breed, and has good health test results then is their a real need for this dog to work? afterall their are numerous ess that show but could not work a day in the field, but some of these dogs are champions and go on to breed.

Any breed... Example.. If you breed Golden Retrievers and your retriever doesn't retrieve, well then, you don't breed Golden Retrievers, you breed a dog the same as any stray in any shelter across the country that simply LOOKS like Golden Retriever!

well when you put it like that-a lot of golden retriever show lines would not be able to do a day in the field but do have the instinct to retrieve 'normal' objects.
Thats how breeding has gone- their are big divides between show and working line because if your saying that then most show springers who are unable to work are bad examples of the breed? its a minefield out there when it comes to breeding and a lot of it depends on your/the breeders individual opinion

Well, that is already reality for many breeds. As the person above as already mentioned, this 'split' is particularly prevelant in the gundog breeds. As a Lab owner, I assure you that there is fierce debate on either side. Don't forget you can also flip that "show dogs lack drive" arguement around by saying field dogs often don't physically resemble how the breed should look. So who is more in the 'wrong'? hard to say.

I know some people object when you say it, but isn't it a simple fact that show dogs are bred for aesthetic conformation and temperament rather than working ability?

People often argue that they are bred to adhere to a breed standard that was developed as a 'blueprint' of the perfect working dog. Whilst breeders of working dogs might have used such a 'blueprint' as a guide - to get them in the right ball park so to speak, they would have mostly judged a dog according to it's working ability. Isn't this why dogs bred for working almost always look different from dogs bred for show - even if the same breed standard is applied?

What I find interesting in my particular breed (beagle) is that the working hounds varied greatly from pack to pack. This is because the build and size of the hound depended upon the type of terrain it was required to hunt in. If the hunting terrain was ploughed or rough then bigger, longer legged hounds were needed. On flat ground very small, short legged hounds were required as large hounds ran too fast on flat ground for people on foot to keep up. The small hounds needed to be quite stocky to be robust enough for a long day's hunting, whereas the bigger hounds were fairly lithe and athletic. Does today's breed standard describe a dog suited for flat ground (small, stocky and short-legged) or rough ground (taller, lithe and athletic)?

I don't see a problem breeding dogs for aesthetic appeal and temperament rather than working ability - lets face it, if the dog isn't going to work is it even desirable to have working ability? Those that breed working dogs probably can't claim to have the 'real' version of the breed as working requirements have no doubt changed in many breeds.

But anyone that thinks they are breeding for working ability if working ability isn't tested in conformation shows is kidding themselves. Can you imagine an olympic games where the athletes were judged and placed according to appearance rather than ability?

Where do dual purpose dogs fit into this then? granted, people who breed true dual purpose dogs are the minority, but they are certainly out there. The breeder of my dogs sire would be be pretty miffed if you said her field trial winning (FTW) show dog couldn't work.

Well I hate to disappoint but I'm afraid I wouldn't say a field trial winning dog couldn't work. So she'll need to find someone else to be 'miffed' with

Either a dog's working ability is tested or it isn't. The fact that someone shows a dog too has no bearing on the dog's working ability.

If a dog that does well in shows also does well in working trials then it suggests that the breed standard and the judges interpretation of that standard isn't too far of the mark.

If a dog bred according to a breed standard that does well in shows does badly in working trials it would suggest that there is something wrong with the breed standard. Or the judges interpretation of it.

That is of course assuming that the breed standard and the judge give a jot about working ability. As I said before, working ability is not the be all and end all in a society where few dogs work, so maybe they don't care about it? If you really cared wouldn't you test it?

I'm pretty sure that my breed has to earn their show dog working certificate before they can be made up to a champion.