On Form and Function

 I think the American Cocker has been pretty much bred to be a pet.  It was so popular for years that it was frequently misbred, and the well bred dogs were bred for appearance, not work. They probably were a favorite with puppy mills back when puppy mills were not understood and talked about.  The Cockers I've seen hunted tend to be from English breedings, back more to the original.  If you track it back far enough, from what I have read, Cockers and Springers were in the same litters.  Cockers were the short legged ones, Springers were taller.  They were used to hunt different terrains.  Even with English bred, coats tend to get a hunters cut-a buzz cut.  In breeds like Springers and Goldens, where there is a sharp divide between working dogs and show ring dogs, the coats tend to be shorter.  But even then, a hair cut doesn't hurt.  We have some fields around here where it looks like burrs were planted.  Even with a hunter cut, I have to spend time working the burrs out.  And Piper hates that.

Not American Cocker Spaniel related.  But a similar problem.  I remember the hours my English Setter needed to spend on the grooming table after a good run in the woods.  It was way worse when I was still showing him!  The breeder would tell me to "Save every hair"!  Geesh!!  You had to be kidding!!  At least when he was done showing, I clipped his back and sissored his feathers shorter in a LOT of places.  Stlll, his coat was a magnet for every stick, leaf, seed, or burr out there.  My back is thanking me for my short coated bullies now.  Grooming is murder on your back!!!

 As for ACS's, I think the majority of breeders in this country stopped breeding for any hunting instinct a while ago.  (that's just my observation)  I have heard that there are some very few breeders in the midwest who still have kind of an English/American mixed cocker who still hunts.  I would guess they would do poorly in the show ring because their coats are likely not "enough".  I think it's ridiculous, not just in ACS's, but for any breed whose show coat scrapes the flloor because to have those coats the dogs spend most of the time in crates "growing and saving" their coats.  Not much of a life, if you ask me.

I don't obsess about coat in dogs because you know...if you don't like it? cut it off. LOL. I mean even the hard working BC, has fringe and feather and breeching...Pyrs, Maremma, etc...all have long heavy thick coats that are matted as anything in the working dog most times. These coats aren't something that just came up...Pyrs have ALWAYS had some coat. To me the coat is not form..the body and actual flesh and blood of the dog...is the form.

Yes the Cocker coat is excessive now,...but a lot of gundogs...have coat...pretty coat...functionless coat. The fringe on the back of a Setter's legs and tail (and yes even field setters have fringe) seems functionless, but that is how the coat grows. Plenty of time to make the Setter and spaniel both into smooth coated breeds, hasn't happened...not even among the "sporting" set. If there's a "form" issue with the Cocker it is that the head and jaws have gotten too small to carry a bird! Now THAT, is a form/function issue. And wh's to say? Maybe the fringing is there TO catch burrs...break off, and grow back so they don't burrow into the legs themselves? I certainly would believe either scenario.

You need to remember...especially...ESPECIALLY with gundogs...they were there right when the snooty men of Victorian era UK and later US, decided to HAVE dog shows, and standards. They were the people breeding the dogs, the setters, the spaniels, etc. Sure they had kennel help but just like with their horses these upper crust gents considered their dogs reflections of their own, pure breeding, blue blood and superior aesthetic sensitivity. These men in short were no more about the dog JUST hunting...than they are now...probably LESS so. After all hunting was not done from NECESSITY all the time...it was a pastime, leisure activity...something for the idle rich to do whilst the house party was on.

YES many breeds like those in the herding or hound group were more utilitarian, owned by your local farmer and bred to work...but IMO the gundogs that originated in the UK and US around those Victorian or Regecy period were VERY much about appearance. The coat mattered then...otherwise ALL gundogs would be short or wire coated...and they are not. You can read much old literature about dogs and dog keeping and read the gushing prose about the turn of so and so's nose, the beauty of whatshisnames tail, or the glisten of whowasthat's coat. It's all very posh. LOL. There's even plenty to read about appearance and it's importance in such a utilitarian breed as the Beagle!

I really get bored of aesthetics and their role in purebred dogs being referred to as tho it were new. It is NOT new...people have ALWAYS cared about the beauty of their dogs. These were self proclaimed expert connisieurs of horseflesh and dogs both...and just as a smartly turned out, matched pair of greys for the phaeton was important...so were the angles, coat, color and overall look of the dogs that graced their homes and often were included in paintings and outings. It's hysterical to read of of it. Men probably had less kind words to say about their WIVES appearance than that of their favorite dogs. LMBO!