Where Working Dog = Show Dog

DumDog

again i dont understand buying a pet quality working dog. if the breeders of yore had done their job and actually CULLED the less desirable dogs instead of giving them away or selling them as "pet quality" then the bloody BYBs wouldnt have a product to market. Culling might sound cruel and unfair but when you've seen the end result of someone's pity party or free puppy parade you start to realize that the kindest thing WOULD be to cull the ones that dont match up to the standard.
 

With German GSDs, only a certain number of dogs per litter are registrable.  Certain faults like longcoat make the dog totally ineligible for a breed survey.  Some people think it's too tough/strict, but that's the breed is properly maintained.  I really like that they do "Koer Klasse" rating/breed survey with the dogs that include much more than just the dog gaiting around a show ring and standing still for a few minutes.  KKL ratings evaluate all the external stuff (pigment, size, coat, earset, pasterns, teeth, etc, etc) as well as correct structure, temperament, and actual working tests.  They have to have a BH title (and SchH1 I believe), run 12 miles, have a German show rating of G or better (significantly different that AKC/CKC), and hips must be OFAed.

I'm not sure if other breeds have tests like this, but I think a proper breed survey includes far more than just conformation.  A GSD with poor temperament, weak nerves, disobedient, incorrect coat, or 1cm over standard, etc is not going to get a KKL1 rating.  That dog might very well have an excellent conformation rating. 

 couldnt agree with you more. with American Bulldogs you get either or.... the people are head over heels involved with their breed and the sporting aspect (hunting/protection/guarding) or they only focus on matching the standard and breeding for the show ring and would be a dream come true if the AKC accepted the AmBull into the club.. and both groups tend to hate each other. Some say if the AmBull is turned into an AKC dog it will just end up as another boxer.. and why not? they have similar backgrounds. I havent seen many boxers doing protection work, or out catching hogs, driving cattle, trailing wounded game or standing guard over private property all in a days work. (YES i know some do that, but most people that are serious about the job tend to look for a serious dog FOR the job.) Again i admire anyone that tries to bring their breed back to what their foundation was but you have to admit they are the minority. if my books are correct, the dog show began as a leisurely activity for the elite.. if there was a conformation show for the average working Joe then it was usally at a hunting trial and only a small part of the event.. meaning they also were field testing the dog, not just stacking him or testing for obedience.

I think today you could survive quite well without a dog. very few people really truly DEPEND on their dog for survival.... hunting is becoming obsolete (or it was until we started importing contaminated meat..) and we have high tech alarm systems.. etc and so on.. but i believe the majority of us that work our dogs do it because we dont WANT to rely on mechanics, technology, or someone else thinking for us.

anyway, i only i totally understand the point of the thread. those of you that DO work and train for work and breed for work have my utmost respect. i would much rather see breeders testing the dog to prove the working ability rather than assume they have it built in because the father or grandmother were field champions. for example, my dog Kaydee.. i have only a vague clue about her past.. i dont know if her breeder was a show breeder or working breeder (i got Kaydee from a friend who got her from a friend) She has no papers or "proof" that she is a good bulldog.. but i've seen her ability with my own eyes  and thats all the proof that i need to know she is a good dog. the fact that she didnt die of depression from being paralyzed for so long, that she kept trying is enough to prove to me that she is more bulldog than most of the champions registered in the clubs.
 

One of the reasons I love GSDs is that they ARE very versatile, but not EVERY dog can be expected to excel at everything.  I really have no interest in the AKC/CKC structured dogs that are bred mainly for AKC conformation and stuff like rally and obedience.  I'm sure they are very nice, smart, loyal, and obedient dogs, but that's just not my style (structure-wise, I don't like such severe angulation).  For the German style dogs, I don't think it's fair to expect that a top dog must have a top conformation rating, a top herding title, and a top SchH title with competitive scores.  I'm a huge fan of Karl Fuller/Kirschental because he is first and foremost a shepherd.  He would breed dogs that were not even koered and did not have conformation titles, but were extremely adept at herding sheep and had stable temperaments as far as getting along on the farm and with the family.  This is an older article, but I like it and how they talk about how often the best working (as in herding) GSDs are softer in temperament and fail miserably and SchH. http://www.leerburg.com/fuller.htm  http://www.kirschental.de/ 

"During all my years of breeding, I have never lost sight of my breeding goals. 'Focus on workability, because it serves the breed', of course one could also say, 'Focus on the breed, because it serves workability". A very important criteria in my breeding goals, has always been workability.' Only with several exceptions, all my dogs have been worked and titled in HGH. As a professional shepherd, I do not have the time to go for walks with my dogs, but instead my dogs have their exercise working daily with the sheep. A German Shepherd Dog that has anatomical errors, overangulation, incorrect reach, or small long paws, is not capable of working all day long in the field. Herding dogs must also be extremely healthy. Having to work from early morning to late at night, summer or winter, they cannot be sensative. Obviously, healthy hips and elbows are a necessity......My working dogs are also my breeding stock. "

Some people think GSDs are only for herding, some think that if they don't have strong nerves for SchH they are worthless....I think that as long as the dog can excel at ONE of those things, then it's a fine German Shepherd.

For me, the purpose of conformation is to evaluate proper structure, coat, and overall physical condition as well as basic temperament (some level of sound temperament is intrinsically required for a dog who must stand still, allow strangers to pet it all over, hold its position in the ring in close proximity to many other dogs, and not be distracted by the sights, sounds, and smells). 

 so basically the job creates the dog.. not the other way around.. historically speaking...

i've seen "soft" shepherds that would be great at herding, but wouldnt be worth much in a protective sense.. and i've seen it the other way around. i've known some shepherds that would much rather eat the sheep than herd it. i think it depends on THAT dog's personality.. on how dominant it is. a dominant minded dog would be great for protection. a dog with a higher prey drive would be great for field sports. a calmer, more submissive dog, would be best suited for therapy or service work. Ben, the non-bulldog, would be a good bedside companion and would be gentle to a frail person trying to walk him.. Bo or Kaydee would pull your arms out of their sockets before you could get the leash connected to the collar..  

An aside:  CH OTCH HC MACH Outburst Chasing Butterflies UDX TD
HXAsd HIBd HSBs
 

This just came across the Herders List....I would say this BC *** covers it nicely

I also believe with respect to temperment etc.  A good working temperment regardless of field of endevour requires biddibility (the willingness to work as a team), courage (to walk into pressure calmly or quickly if needed), discretion (to know by the situation how much "umph" to use or not use).  These traits are in all dogs who do work, they are in dogs in varying degrees.  The effectiveness of these traits is enhanced through proper exposure and training.

When it comes to protection sport, many of the breeds used in that venue come from herding.  Herding instinct does disappear if you dont breed for it, look at shelties and rough collies.  I believe it is an over simplification to say a soft dog would be a good herding dog, not necessarily: any more than a hard dog makes a good protection dog.  Loose the biddibility, courage and discretion and you get a dog who will do the job less well than a well bred counterpart (a line in which the original instincts were selected in the breeding stock)

I don't want to sound snobbish, but AKC herding titles don't represent excellence for a Border Collie.  And excellence is what I'm talking about - no dog can be bred to excel at everything - you have to choose.  And you won't see Riva taking the prizes at Westminster, either, if I'm not mistaken - and certainly not her kennel mate Ray, who is 100% working bred.  I'm not knocking these dogs, I'm sure they are very nice dogs (the Ettrick line, Ray's breeding, is my fav).  I just want to point out that they are not examples of what I was talking about, but rather examples of the "jack of all trades" concept.

The difference between "doing" and "excellence" is important for the future of a breed. 

brookcove

but AKC herding titles don't represent excellence for a Border Collie.

Wouldn't the ABCA not recognise this dog as a border collie either.  Aren't they one of the definitive sources of what a working border collie is?

As a lab person, my ideal dog would be a dog that conforms to the standard (although is a "moderate" dog physically), has hunting/retrieving instincts intact but is not wired all the time, is intelligent and biddable, is physically and mentally sound and above ALL else, has a good lab temperament.

IMHO, overspecialization has really hurt the breed.  It has been split so much that we haven't seen a dual champion for years (something that both chessies and flat coats have been able to do), although it is encouraging that hunt tests seem to be getting more popular. 

As far as the definition of a "working" dog--my own definition is any dog that has a purpose in life other than being a pet.  Maybe it's because of my horsie background where if a horse is doing something other than standing around burning hay he is considered to have a "job," but I consider a dog that engages in an activity such as agility, fly ball, herding tests, hunt tests, rally, etc to be a "working" dog.  Now of course there are different levels of "working," just like there is a difference between a dead broke gelding packing a 10 year old 4-Her around the ring and a police horse, but most anything doing a "performance" type activity is considered a working animal to me.     

DumDog

 so basically the job creates the dog.. not the other way around.. historically speaking...

Well, more like a GSD that herds is not *worse* or less of a shepherd than one that does border patrol.  And if a GSD is doing either of these as a true working dog, then they will do OK (not necessarily great) in the conformation ring.  They simply can't physically do these jobs all day every day if they have poor conformation/structure.  I suppose that is Kim's original point - ideally, conformation compliments working ability.  There must be something healthy and balanced about the structure of a dog who can work all day long, that's where the standards should come from.  For GSDs, I believe that is true.  There are some fads as far as extreme angulation and more roaching of the back, but those are not part of the standard and are subject to the judge's interpretation and what a specific judge is looking for.  The stretching of standards and subjectivity comes in between the ideals of the standard and the reality of the judge's opinion.  That's the way I see it.

We had a thread similar to this one where we were discussing working/showing.  Unfortunately what should be and what actually is are 2 different things, neither of the 2 shall meet, so to say.  Some breeds were bred to do some type of work, some were not.  There has been alot of changing of breeds and breed standards over the last 75 yrs.  If you research some of these breeds 50 yrs ago, you would see that prior to their breeding 2 dogs they were required to meet certain criteria, both conformation and working wise.  Also these parent clubs require the approval of a Breed Master to approve the actual breeding!  Even if you met the conformation and performance requirements, if you didn't have the BM's approval, you were not able to register your litter.  That is how they have kept their breeds true over a 50-75 yr time frame.  I would venture to say that of all of the litters bred in the US today, a very small number of breedings are made where these types of thinking were considered.  We breed for traits that we want, larger, hairier, etc, not necessarily what the breed was meant to be.  That is a big reason that there is such a wide gap now in Working/Showing.  We have become a society of fad dogs.  Whatever is popular.  Too many people never do any research on the breed of dog they are actually getting.  I get alot of calls for training from people who have chosen a breed they know nothing about and can't figure out why little Fido is doing _______?  DUH  Unfortunately, it is a vicious cycle without end.  Praises go to the breeders that are trying to keep their breed as it should be!!!!!  As far as what you deem as working, I guess that is a personal opinion.  To me if they are working in the field such as a police k-9, or narcotic dog, or competing in a performance event such as tracking, herding or schutzhund, that is all working.  It is showing that the dog can do what it was originally bred to do.

Dawn

I agree that competing with your dogs is a sport, not work.  A working dog is a rarity these days.  A true working dog is absolutely needed by it's owner to carry on with their lifestyle.  A dog doing agility,herding trials, obedience, lure coursing, tracking, field trials, etc is participating in dog sports.  I'm not saying dog sports are bad, in fact I love seeing sports titles on breeding stock, but there is a big difference between Trey's mom who went to herding trials and a dog that helps herd his master's sheep that he needs for a living.  A dog being bred with trials and competitions in mind is being bred for a sport. 

 I also agree that in many breeds the show dogs can perform well in both sports and work.  Thankfully, not all breeds are as split as border collies and labs.  Trey's pedigree is filled with successful show and sport dogs in many different arenas.  Beau and Rose's pedigrees are filled with dogs that are both Chs and have obedience titles and are therapy dogs.  Versatility is always a good thing imo.

 Back to labs... I had a lab growing up.  He was a 'field bred' dog, though not nearly as thin as the dogs nowadays.  He wasn't bred to trial or to show but was from one of those hunting kennels.  He was a moderate looking guy who was an amazing hunting companion for my father.  If you look at both extremes nowadays you have the really thick looking show labs that have no drive, and then you have the non stop drivey field labs that are way too skinny with thin tails and no off switch.  Neither type would work in the original context and purpose of the breed.  But the show labs win conformation ribbons, and the field dogs win field trials.  Of course in both groups there are people who breed moderate dogs which are imo doing the best for the breed.  There are show labs that aren't too thick that actually have drive and there are some less spastic field bred dogs.  The kicker?  They probably don't win the trials as much or the shows as much.  That doesn't mean to me what they are doing is wrong at all.  A breed is defined by both a look and a temperament and a set of drives.  All that should be kept in mind when breeding dogs.

 There ARE wrongdoings on BOTH sides of the fence in this argument and there are people doing things well on both sides of the fence. 

 Btw, I looooove the look of the labs posted earlier in this thread.  They're gorgeous!

The Samoyed that won our national specialty three or four years ago, in the same year he won number one sled dog.

I think extremely competitive people cause damage to the breed in both conformation show dogs and dogs that compete in performance events. There are conformation breeders who think of nothing else but winning. Very bad for the breed.

There are also people breeding for agility, hunting, schutzhund, etc who are doing similar damage to the breed. I have heard that agility bred dogs are showing serious temperament problems.

I know there are a lot of conformation breeders who love the breed more than they love winning. Hopefully the same is true of people breeding for performance.

I know I would rather have a correct dog than the number one dog.

timsdat

brookcove

but AKC herding titles don't represent excellence for a Border Collie.

Wouldn't the ABCA not recognise this dog as a border collie either.  Aren't they one of the definitive sources of what a working border collie is?

Correct on the first.  Not quite on the second.  The ABCA currently is the largest BC registry, but ABCA status is not a "seal of approval" on the working abilities of a registered dog.  They do what they can to promote the working breed, by calling out excellence in performance and health, sponsoring the Big Dance competition, and excluding those who have chosen a different path (more on that in a second), but unlike the GSD, there's no formal working test prerequisite to registration.

It's been discussed a lot, but the volume of work is just too great.  Remember that most BCs that would be eligible live in out of the way rural areas, and contribute to farms where sometimes the owners are just barely eking by - that's why they use dogs, so they don't have to pay people to do what the dogs do!

Riva cannot be registered with the ABCA because she has obtained her breed ring championship.  If she were registered ABCA before, she would have been removed from the books.  So that's why the first part is correct.  There's two main reasons an otherwise eligible dog will be "culled":

Dogs ineligible for ABCA registration:

1. The ABCA is a working stockdog registry and believes that breeding for conformation standards rather than working ability is detrimental to the health and working ability of the Border Collie. Consequently dogs or bitches which have been named a "Conformation Champion" by a conformation registry are not eligible for ABCA registration, even if they otherwise meet the requirements for registration. The ABCA will de-register any ABCA registered dog or bitch should it be named a "Conformation Champion" after January 1, 2004, and will not register the offspring of any dog or bitch named a "Conformation Champion" after that date.
    
2. Dogs and pups which are themselves or are offspring of any dog having PRA or CEA.

You'll note that the intention here is to further deepen the "line in the sand" between working and conformation dogs.  This decision forces breeders to choose a path one way or the other.  It does not, however, take action against showing a dog, only finishing a dog.

The organization which most defines the breed, however, is the one which regulates the Open stockdog trials, the US Border Collie Handler's Association.  Just as the AKC promotes the breed ring as the ultimate standard for every AKC breed, the USBCHA trials are considered to be the defining standard for the BC.   Open trials, not the non-sanctioned novice classes.

It is noteworthy that although the USBCHA trials are open to any dog, literally - no matter what the breed or registration - no conformation champion has ever won an Open trial, nor has any top performing breed ring dog ever even competed in the Open class, to my knowledge.  There is no need for exclusion - their own choices prove the point that focusing on the breed ring sets up our breed for mediocrity in working ability.

This is not to say the same is true for other breeds.  What we ask of Border Collies is highly dependent on complex natural behaviors that cannot be duplicated through training, plus a delicate balance of personality traits.  Compromise in breeding objectives just isn't possible. 

Most dog breeds no longer work. I breed Irish Wolfhounds on a small scale. Since sighthounds really aren't used for hunting anymore, I try to provide healthy, handsome, dogs that match the breed standard and will excell in a home. I want a very large rough coated dog that can run, as that is what the standard calls for, but I don't breed for or even want a strong prey drive. This makes for a difficult house dog. A house dog is what 99% of IW are today. The modern dog is used nearly exclusively as a pet. Working ability is largely unimportant. The breed standard helps keep the breed uniform, and that's a good thing as people know what they're getting. I like when labs or huskies are bred to work as these dogs still serve a purpose. The working huskies energy level makes him a lousy pet. If you had a husky with a lower energy level he would make a better pet and fewer huskies would need to be rescued. What's wrong with having seperate working and show lines or no working lines at all? Most people don't want or need a true working dog.

What's wrong with having seperate working and show lines or no working lines at all? Most people don't want or need a true working dog.

What the Border Collie people say is, what's wrong with only breeding working lines, when that's the way the breed was bred until very recently?  The kennel clubs offer hundreds of very nice pet breeds.  What need is there to convert a uniquely useful breed into yet another couch ornament? 

Just because 1.5 million people who live in Manhattan don't need a working stockdog, that's not a good reason to water down the working instincts of the gene pool for the people who do need working stockdogs. 

That's not to say a family in Manhattan can't have  a working Border Collie as a pet.  But they should do so with the understanding that they are bringing a working bred dog into their home with special needs, and be ready to meet those needs!

Incidentally, speaking as rescuer with ten years of specializing on BCs, I'd say 80% of dogs that end up in rescue come from breeders who breed for the "pet market", from non-working parents, not dogs that come from working parents.  When you take a working dog, and don't evaluate the parents for appropriate working temperament, it's a disaster looking for a place to happen, no matter where you place such a dog.