Lest anyone think this is perfect answer to how to preserve both working ability and “type”, and that a combined working/show breed is ideal, I’ll give an example that suggests otherwise.

From the founding of the breed in 1899 and up into the 1970’s, the German Shepherd Dog breed was a combined show/working breed. The breed split into separate American showline, German (International) showline, and working line populations in the 1970’s because the show fanciers started to breed for an extreme, unsound cookie cutter type rather than maintain the less extreme structure and diverse appearance that had existed in the breed up to that point.

In the GSD’s home country of Germany, a conformation show rating of “good” or better, a working title, and a radiographic hip clearance are among the requirements for GSDs to be eligible for breeding. The pups will not be registered as GSDs if all the requirements are not met.

So what has been the result of this requirement?

It did not prevent a show/working split in the breed, though it may have delayed it.

It led to massive overuse of a few popular sires during the early years of the breed, mainly top showdogs. This reduced genetic diversity in the breed, which in turn probably led to increased morbidity and decreased longevity, and selected for structure that was unproven in and less suitable for work.

It did not prevent working abilities from deteriorating in the showline population. The odds are around 10x higher of finding a suitable working GSD in the working lines than in the German showlines, with the difference getting larger each year. Granted, at least there are still many German showline GSDs with working abilities. That cannot be said of the American showline GSD.

It did not prevent a bizarre, unnatural, and unsound structure from becoming the preferred structure in the German showline GSD. One only needs to watch these dogs while they are running to see the problem. It reminds one of a gangly puppy in his most clumsy and awkward stage of development.

It did not prevent even the working lines from losing some of their athleticism, since they too have been subject to the influence of the faulty notions of “correct” propagated by the show ring. Had the breed split into separate show/working lines sooner, this might not have happened.

The faulty notion of “correct” from the show ring altered the structure of the GSD breed from one that was not unlike modern Malinois to a more angulated, larger, heavier built, longer bodied dog. This probably caused the large increase in hip dysplasia in the breed. Even with 40 years of mandatory radiographic hip clearances for breeding, the rate of HD in GSDs in Germany is still higher than in Malinois, whose more athletic AND healthier structure was primarily maintained not by radiographs but by very demanding tests of physical agility.

All GSDs bred in Germany need to attain a breed club working title, which is almost always schutzhund. To accommodate the reduced athleticism brought on by the show ring, the tests of athleticism in schutzhund had to be watered down.

Bottom line, the GSD was created to be a working breed, is still a working breed, and as a working breed would have been better off if the conformation show influence had never appeared. Not just the extreme show ring influence that started in the 1970’s, but even from the beginning.

If one wants to preserve working abilities, a combined show/working breed is not preferred. Too many compromises have to be made. Too much genetic diversity is lost due to the priorities of the show ring for a specific “type”. Health suffers, as does athleticism.

Better to keep a working breed only a working breed. The next best alternative is to completely split them into separate show lines and working lines, which effectively creates separate breeds. At least then the working lines are protected against show ring influences.

I don’t doubt that the showdogs are better all around dogs (even as pets) when they have health and working title requirements imposed upon them. But don’t confuse this with ideal. Working abilities suffer, athleticism suffers, and health eventually suffers, when the conformation show ring has any influence in breeding dogs for work.

You cannot serve two masters who have radically different ideals of “correct”.

“I’ve never seen a correlation between selection for show wins and suitability as pets, either.”

No . However, most hobby breeders I know of raise their dogs in their homes, and the puppies get lots of exposure and socialization as a consequence of simply being part of the breeder’s family. And most hobby breeders I know of WANT to be producing dogs who have the sound temperament to be good companions, so in addition to *training* for it, they also generally work on *selecting* for it.

Often fanciers will argue their dogs could do the work, if only their dogs were trained for it. Those of us involved in the work have seen examples of show bred dogs whose handlers attempt to work them, and see firsthand the watered down abilities of these dogs. We point this out, but we are ignored by those who have zero involvement with working dogs.

******

Funny thing is, I’ve never heard a working dog handler or breeder assert that his dog “Could win that there Westminster, if’n only I showed him.” We don’t care, and we know that the pageant ring is about politics, fashion, and whimsy, not the quality of the dog. No way would my sound, correct, and undeniably beautiful working GSD bitch win in the show ring. I should hope not!

***********

The Other Pat wrote:

But again, that was then, this is now. These days, if you have a working breed, and decide you want to select for working traits, what do you do with the ones who don’t “measure up”. Because frankly, even a lot of those dogs will still be too much for the average companion home.

*******

This is why I recommend that average pet owners select their pets from breeds and mixes that are intended to be pets, not from real working breeding or half-cocked breeding of the descendants of working dogs.

That means, among other things, that the wise pet owner does not select a dog based on a “look” or a mystique that is inappropriate for his or her actual lifestyle and abilities.

I’ve never seen a correlation between selection for show wins and suitability as pets, either. In some breeds, it’s been pageant selection that has destroyed previously dandy pet temperaments (cocker spaniel anyone?)

In a well-considered working breeding, there will be few or no offspring that are useless as workers. There will be a range of talents; the GSD pup who doesn’t have quite the grip wanted by a police handler may have great talent for SAR; her sister may be fine service dog, and her softest brother may excel as an obedience competitor. Fortunately, it is rarely an all-or-nothing proposition, and the “average pet home” is not our only option for “culls.” Serious dog hobbyists provide good placements for pups from working breeding. And there are more serious dog hobbyists who want a dog with talent than there are handlers of real working dogs.

In Saturday’s Philadelphia Inquirer

http://www.philly.com/inquirer....._hope.html

A nice story about how the PAWS (Philadelphia Animal Welfare Society) is opening an adoption storefront in a busy section of Old City (very trendy location) for older dogs and cats.

I haven’t read a word about “idealology” in the Philadelphia papers, but about every 6 weeks, another story about how animals are being helped in Philly seems to hit the Inquirer. I’m betting not only did someone read “Redemption”, but they are actually putting the blueprint in action.

In Finland the parent club of flatcoats is very active in maintaining the working abilities of flatcoats. There are also many dogs that have championships in hunting and shows.

There’s also a difference in attitudes in the Nordic kennels clubs when compared to the US at least since all retriever breeds require at least passing a tendency trial (a hunting test that many have described to me as more difficult than achieving a JH in the States) to become show champions.

The Swedish retriever club has also passed along the suggestion to their kennel club that CC’s (of which three are needed to become a show champion) could only be given in the utility class (and in order to enter a dog in the utility class the tendency trial must be passed).

I did a quick searh on the situation in Finland with flatcoats and of the 5071 flatcoats in our database (see http://jalostus.kennelliitto.fi ) over 1100 dogs have passed the trial. The number of dogs in the database includes all imports and pedigree listings of imports and doesn’t have any information on foreign test results (so the true number is much higher).

In comparison in the last five years about 200-300 flatcoats have been bred per year (this year is the record of 326 which is already too much and the breeders have noticed this).

Finland also has a strong (kennel club enforced) health program that means that certain health requirements are in place for breeding programs. However, the amount of control varies from breed to breed.

For example, in flatcoats the kennel club allows dogs with mild hip dysplasia to be used in breeding, but practically only healthy dogs are used. In golden retrievers the kennel club requirement is similar and dogs with mild hip dysplasia are actively used in breeding. Which is one reason why it took us almost a year to find a golden retriever litter from which we took a puppy.

I probably should write a longer posting on these issues from a Nordic perspective at some point since the differences I’ve seen between the Nordic countries and the US seem quite large.

P.S. We own three flatcoats and a golden. Two of the flatcoats have passed the tendency trial, the oldest hasn’t because of our training error. The two oldest have been hunting and have worked well. Three of our dogs are also show dogs (our youngest flatcoat is yellow and thus disqualified). All will get more hunting experience once (if ?) I start hunting myself…

“So – the argument goes – do you “soften” those traits to make the dog more acceptable as a companion, since “pet” homes are far and away the overwhelming majority of homes available? Or do you keep the working breed traits sharpened, even if it severely limits the homes that would be available and qualified to work with dogs possessing such traits?”

Indeed, softened or watered down dogs from working breeds has created some very nice pets. Being a pet is a very useful and important role for dogs; the most common role dogs have today. There is a great need for well-bred pets.

What watering dog working breeds has also done is transformed breeds into utterly different breeds. Oh, they may still go by the name of German Shepherd Dog or Border Collie. But the very essence of what these and many other breeds are is lost when they are watered down. A watered-down German Shepherd Dog is NOT a GSD. The AKC calls it a GSD, the GSDCA calls it a GSD, but it most assuredly is not a GSD.

Dogs have been bred for thousands of years to perform useful functions for mankind. This was accomplished by breeding proven good working dogs to proven good working dogs. Working dog breeders know that the need for this selection never ceases. If it does cease, or even ceases to be the top priority, the odds of producing good working dogs declines over time. Fewer and fewer dogs will be produced who can do the work at a level that would satisfy a working dog handler.

Those with common goals for working dogs created working breeds. The breed is by definition the population of dogs bred for the job. If selection for the job ceases, the dogs that descend from working breeds gradually change into different breeds. Or it may happen more quickly, when the “keenness” or “drive” required in working dogs is actively selected out of show and pet dog populations, as it is contraindicated in their more sedentary dogs.

“Shepherd dog breeding is working dog breeding, or it is not shepherd dog breeding”. That’s a nearly 100 year old quote from Max von Stephanitz, the founder of the GSD breed. Change the words slightly and it could apply to any working breed. It defines traditional breeding of “pure breeds”.

“Pure breeding” was long understood to be breeding within a population of dogs purely selected for the work. This was long before the Fancy hijacked the notion of what a pure breed is and turned it into one where genepools are totally walled off from one another by an Act of God. By doing this and jotting down some attributes in a written breed standard, modern “pure breeds” are defined. This is not, however, the traditional definition of a pure breed.

This all seems radical today, even heresy, among those who ascribe to the failed 19th century model of eugenics that has been rejected almost everywhere except in the Dog Fancy. But for thousands of years, breeding for the work is how breeds were defined — healthy, intelligent, bright, and useful dogs.

Kennel clubs and breed clubs will argue otherwise. They claim that their dogs are “correct”, and the working dogs their watered down dogs descend from are “incorrect”. They claim they have “improved the breed” when what they have done is utterly transformed it into a different breed. They don’t understand that the very definition of a working breed isn’t what’s in a written breed standard, isn’t what a dog looks like, but rather what a population of dogs has been bred to DO. They don’t understand that the most important feature in determining what a breed can DO – and the most difficult attribute to maintain — isn’t front or rear angulation or bone length or “substance” or ear shape or pigment or tail carriage or markings, but rather the contents of a dog’s skull.

Since they don’t work dogs, fanciers have no idea how difficult it is to maintain working abilities in breeds, and what the ramifications are if working abilities are not ruthlessly selected for in every generation. They believe against all evidence that working abilities in breeds become “fixed” and that their dogs “breed true” by walling off breeds from genetic contamination.

Fanciers believe that if their Border Collie herds the kids, by golly that proves it retains “the herding instinct”. They have no idea that there isn’t a single yes/no instinct involved in a useful working stockdog. They believe that if their GSD growls at neutral strangers on neutral territory, it must be a good protection dog, even though this behavior suggests just the opposite. They believe that if their Siberian Husky pulls hard on a leash when taken for a walk, this proves it would make a good Arctic sled dog, even though it simply proves their dog is untrained to walk on a leash. I’m not making these examples up; all were provided by breed fanciers.

Fanciers point out examples of show-bred dogs who can attain a “working title”, without realizing that usually they are talking about a “working title” that is as watered down from real work as their dogs are.

Often fanciers will argue their dogs could do the work, if only their dogs were trained for it. Those of us involved in the work have seen examples of show bred dogs whose handlers attempt to work them, and see firsthand the watered down abilities of these dogs. We point this out, but we are ignored by those who have zero involvement with working dogs.

The unusual or rare throwback in showlines who really can do the work is held up by the Fancy as proof that working abilities aren’t severely damaged in their breed population, when it proves nothing of the sort. If they understood working dog breeding, they’d know that the odds of producing good workers declines when selection for work ceases. If they can point to a relative handful of show bred dogs who can do the work in a population that numbers in the thousands or tens of thousands, that is not demonstrating useful odds.

A fancier of show Belgian Shepherds claimed that Malinois (one of the 4 varieties of that breed) are faulty if they are bred and used for police or other protection work, that these dogs are supposed to have the temperament of a Border Collie, and that they must have been crossed with other breeds to enable them to do protection work. This is an astonishing example of a fancier utterly denying an essential part of their breed’s historic and current working role. To assert that Malinois had to be crossed with another breed to enable them to do police work is as ludicrous as asserting that greyhounds need to be crossed with another breed in order to run fast.

A fancier of show Labrador Retrievers claimed that field bred Labradors are “too skinny” to be able to handle extreme conditions such as diving into icy ponds to retrieve ducks. The argument seems to be that like whales, Labradors need a substantial layer of blubber in order to survive the cold. Her belief seems to be common in the Fancy, since show Labradors have got blubber in abundance. Meanwhile, it is those skinny field bred Labs who actually ARE happily diving into icy ponds. A colleague in search-and-rescue is up in the Sierras as I write this, training her “skinny” mission ready SAR Labrador Retriever from field lines in avalanche SAR. The dog is working, and digging, in large snowdrifts. Thoroughly enjoying himself, the dog manages to do this with no problems, with no layer of blubber.

Many of us involved in working dogs fully recognize the desire and need for a wide variety of different pet breeds. We recognize that dogs watered down from working breeds can make wonderful and cherished pets. We don’t deny pet owners these wonderful dogs. We just wish those who are breeding these dogs, their breed clubs, and their kennel clubs, would stop labeling their dogs by the names of the working breeds that their new breeds descend from.

I wouldn’t bet the farm on that.

It can, but it can also introduce traits we deem undesirable as well. In the study the bob tail trait was selected for in response to the animal rights movement move to ban tail docking, not to eradicate a health issue in the boxer. As we already know it is much easier to introduce a cosmetic trait than to address a health problem like cancer. But my points in posting that was that without the ability to have the gene breed true, you will always have corgis and boxers with tails, no matter how much cross breeding you do, and regardless of even bob to bob breedings. Let’s face it the reason we have outcrosses of poos and doodle dogs is because there is a public demand for them as pets. If there weren’t a market for them I doubt they would be given a fancy name and we would still refer to them as a poodle mix. If these crosses could provide a cure for cancer I think you would see a lot of interest from the AKC and parent clubs, not to mention the NIH. Corgi breeders have not traditionally selected for the bob tail trait because docking was an option, and we hope it will continue to be in the US. Our standard says “docked”. Other traits have been traditionally selected for through the years, but the gene does still exist. The 4th generation of these boxers were registered as purebred and shown in the UK. A similar study is going on with the Australian Shepherd. http://www.imgnr.com/nbt_study.htm

Here is the FCRSA field site you asked about —

http://www.fcrsafield.com/index.html

And a quick glance through the most recent FCRSA newsletter (Fall 2007) shows that the parent club does put a great deal of emphasis on hunt tests and hunting…

Page 1, the club president mentions his own upcoming hunting plans, discusses a recent WC & WCX test, and field committee work.

Board minutes mention insurance approval for three field events

The FCRSA Specialty Veteran Sweeps comments show that of the ten veteran dogs with placements, five had hunt titles, eight had performance titles. Of the twelve bitches with placements, ten had hunt titles, eleven had performance titles.

There is a full page ad for a FCRSA field trial

The regional club reports all discussed their WC/WCX and field training events.

The field committee had a report on new events and contacts.

There was a three page field training article

There was a one page article on hunting

There was a two page article on teaching dogs to line for hunt tests

The following new hunt titles were listed for April - August 2007 — 41 Junior Hunters, 13 Senior Hunters, 5 Master Hunters.

Seven field trial placements & jams were listed

And there was a two page list of producers of dogs with 2006 field accomplishments (sires and dams.)

The Fall 2007 newsletter is 72 pages long, and about one quarter of the newsletter includes mention of or is completely devoted to hunting or hunt training or field events.

There are also email lists specifically geared to fcrs in the field.