Testing For Breed Function

[Kavik]

If breeders maintain they are the guardians for the breed for the future, IMO this means function as well as appearance. If breeders are not willing to do the training with their dogs required to at least show they have a certain basic amount of ability to do what they are bred for, IMO they should not be breeding as they are doing the breed no favours.

Sheridan,

I did realise last night that there were a few terrier breeds that couldn't be tested using earthdog, Airedales and SCWT among them. With multipurpose dogs it is more difficult. Not sure what to suggest for them.

[espinay2]

Livestock Guardian Dogs - what they do is not easy to quantify in a static 'test'. Researchers have looked into this and have found it very difficult to formulate any kind of suscinct 'behaviour test' for what a LGD does. While the French pyr club does use a standard 'temperament test' which all Pyrs in France have to pass before they are shown (at least at the RACP Nationale) this is not a test of working ability but rather temperamental 'stability' (and is equally applicable to many if not most breeds). As a LGD's role is very specific to its environment and as when they are 'off territory' they generally don't consider themself 'on duty' any test performed off their own territory is not going to effectively test their ability. A lot of what an effective LGD does too, is not something that can be tested in a matter of minutes, or even hours. So having a 'working test' for LGD really isn't something that is very feasible.

One thing I would note about 'working tests' in general as well. A working test by its nature is not necessarily testing traditional working ability, but rather how the dog can perform that particular test. How the test is formulated can also affect how a breed develops. Mary Roslin Williams in her book 'Reaching for the Stars: Formerly Advanced Labrador Breeding' discusses how the development of field tests has changed the Labrador bred to compete in these tests. With the advent of the long-distance retrieve in these tests for instance speed and agility came to be more important and field triallers bred for 'long lean greyhound types'. She discusses at some length the changes that the particular requirements of field trialling tests brought to the Labrador. Thus it is not only the show ring that changes dogs. Competitive working tests also change dogs. I would hazard to say too that this is not the only type of competitive 'working test' that has changed dogs. Perhaps the Border Collie/Working Collie and Agility etc may be another possible example??

Yes LGD do present a challenge when thinking of testing for function - good point about it being specific to the environment, otherwise I would have suggested the same test as the GSDs but noting that they wouldn't expect to do the play drive aspect (tugging).

Working tests are obviously not the same as actually working the dog, but in cases where working the dog is not actually possible any more it is the only thing I can think of to try to prove that the dog has at least some ability to do its original function. Your example with Border Collies and agility though is not quite accurate, although some people may be breeding Border Collies specifically for agility and this may change those lines of Border Collies, agility is not a test of the dog's original function, herding trials would be (there are several different types of herding/sheepdog trials, a topic in itself!), so those breeders are not breeding for function. Don't know as much about Labs and field trials, will leave that one to someone with those breeds.

Test used for 'guard' style breeds are very different to those needed for 'guardian' style breeds. This is one thing that researchers have specifically noted. The tests are simply no good at all for testing LGD function. With LGD we are talking about a low prey drive, high 'protection' role independent thinker who acts on its own without command. General tests of 'obedience' are not relevant as an LGD does not 'obey' (yes, they can be taught to obey commands to a certain extent but that tells you nothing at all about its ability to do its job). Observation over a long period in the home environment is really the only thing that will tell you how strong particular traits are. They are very 'instinctual' traits. Different LGD in the same breed may also have different working 'styles' - each just as effective as the other but suited sometimes to different roles. These dogs can be born in the same litter. Yep, a VERY hard thing to create a stylised test for.

Border collie and agility was probably not the best example of 'working test' to use though IMO it is perhaps a good example of how a performance test can put pressure on a breed for change. The main point is we need to realise that the show ring is not the only influence on breeds and we should also be aware that stylised working tests can also result in changes to a breed. Not saying that working tests can not be very useful - but rather that we must remember that working tests are also not necessarily always emphasising 'doing what the dog is bred for'.

A bit of a quote from Mary Roslin Williams (who I should note is considered a doyenne and leader in her time for breeding dual purpose Labradors which excelled in both the show ring and the field and her book has a lot of good information for breeders of ANY breed) - somewhat paraphrased as she writes at length:

Before the last War there was plenty of strains capable of doing this [compete at shows and in the field/field trials], indeed it was more or less the norm......the dogs were good-looking on proper Labrador lines, they were thoroughly experienced shooting dogs and cut out their own work with the minimum of help from their handlers. and while Lady Howe was alive this happy state of affairs, when Trials were fun and you and your dogs welcome, remained until the sad day she died, when we immediately feared and experienced the Great Divide, into entirely show bloodlines and entirely Field Trial, poles apart....

The bloodlines were no longer kept pure, but alien blood was introduced as the competition altered. Speed and agility became all important with the advent of the long-distance retrieve and fences which were now flown at speed, the long lean Greyhound types being athletic enough to fling themselves over in a style quite unlike the former Labrador work. The handlers became more important than the dogs themselves.....If the handler knew where the bird lay then he was expected to put his dog straight on to it by the whistle and hand-signals and only three aspects were being tested, these being speed, handler-ability and a quick clean retrieve, if the dog set himself to hunt then the judges considered time was being wasted and out you went.....alas it was not always rubbish that was being discarded, but good dogs who just perhaps failed on a difficult bird after having put up a great attempt at finding it....The tempo had changed from wanting to find out the real merit of a shooting dog to just plain 'first past the post' red-hot competition. The dice was now loaded against the keeper and the amateur's home-trained Labrador and went in favour of the professionally trained and handled hot-rod type of racing machine, bred and looking like a Greyhound, yet with, as almost its only asset, the ability to take hand signals rather than using its own nose....all this makes it extremely difficult to marry the present day Trial-blood to the Show lines which are now entirely different...it can be done as some of us can still prove, but it gets more difficult with time as the types diverge.

Edited March 15, 2012 by espinay2

[BJean]

Hi lilli

Seeing that it is so difficult to test for function in LGDs, how do you suggest we keep the working ability/integrity of LGDs? Should we require that the only people breeding them actually use them for their original purpose? Or that a certain amount of their dogs go to working homes so we can be sure they can still work? How do you suggest we stop them from just becoming big teddy bears and losing their working ability if they are only bred by people who have them for the show ring?

If there is a need in potential homes for working ability, then the working ability will remain. There is no need to regulate for it.

However, if as you imagine it eventuated that a breeder group in Australia UK or USA (or any other country which feels the need to regulate everything), decided working ability/integrity was lacking, then such breeder groups could obtain dogs with working ability/integrity from the dogs' countries of origin. It is no problem.

:)

[Kavik]

TSD,

Did you see the gundog display at Crufts? Would something like that be something that could be used? Able to take direction, retrieve, over an obstacle etc? Maybe a gunshot test too?

[Salukifan]

I also think that testing for breed function assumes that many breeds just naturally do a job. Working dogs are trained to do their job.

It's also mistaken to think that earthdog is the testing function for terriers. Many terrier breeds were multi-function dogs. They didn't just go to ground, they did herding, were guard dogs, and were spit dogs at night. I've always maintained that my breeds should be shown running around a farmyard covered in mud instead of in a ring but how many of the fancy would be willing to train their dogs to do the job for which they were bred before they got in a show ring? I suspect very few.

Testing for function requires time and access to the right envirionment - challenging for many people. Testing for INSTINCT on the other hand may be more practical and certainly some instinct tests are available.

Mary Roslin Williams (Espinay's second quote) - what an inspirational breeder. Nice to see it acknowledged by someone of that ilk that it's not only the show ring that shapes the direction of breeds and not always in the direction of orginal function.

Even dog sports themselves are changing.. and as they change the dogs that excell in them are changing too.

Kavik competition obedience had its origins in the tests for working gundogs. I try to imagine someone walking across a paddock with a shotgun broken over their right arm and a dog wrapped around their leg staring into their face and it just doesn't work for me. ;)

Edited March 15, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[Kavik]

Hi lilli

Seeing that it is so difficult to test for function in LGDs, how do you suggest we keep the working ability/integrity of LGDs? Should we require that the only people breeding them actually use them for their original purpose? Or that a certain amount of their dogs go to working homes so we can be sure they can still work? How do you suggest we stop them from just becoming big teddy bears and losing their working ability if they are only bred by people who have them for the show ring?

If there is a need in potential homes for working ability, then the working ability will remain. There is no need to regulate for it.

However, if as you imagine it eventuated that a breeder group in Australia UK or USA (or any other country which feels the need to regulate everything), decided working ability/integrity was lacking, then such breeder groups could obtain dogs with working ability/integrity from the dogs' countries of origin. It is no problem.

:)

Maybe then you are lucky in that with LGD they are actually still doing their original job in their country of origin. Many breeds are not so lucky. Should we just let the working abilities of the other breeds die out because they are not used any more? Wouldn't that be a shame? What about the breeds where people are looking for working ability but find it difficult with Australian bred dogs due to the lack of any way to test these dogs? Should we always have to look to import if we are interested in working ability? (apart from the breeds that still do their work here - I am quite lucky with Kelpies in this way).

[BJean]

Hi lilli

Seeing that it is so difficult to test for function in LGDs, how do you suggest we keep the working ability/integrity of LGDs? Should we require that the only people breeding them actually use them for their original purpose? Or that a certain amount of their dogs go to working homes so we can be sure they can still work? How do you suggest we stop them from just becoming big teddy bears and losing their working ability if they are only bred by people who have them for the show ring?

Atypical working temperament in Anatolians and Central Asian is already difficult for most homes in Australia to accommodate, and far removed from what Australians expect of dog behaviour. Australian culture expects big teddy bears.

Also it is a misnomer to imagine the purported physical soundness and health in these breed groups comes from the dog 'working'.

The breeds' hardiness comes from the dogs' total environment IE: the way the dogs are raised, kept and bred in their home countries.

Stock guardian work is the best way we can emulate the home countries conditions, but still it is very far removed from the actuality.

Edited March 15, 2012 by lilli

[Kavik]

I also think that testing for breed function assumes that many breeds just naturally do a job. Working dogs are trained to do their job.

It's also mistaken to think that earthdog is the testing function for terriers. Many terrier breeds were multi-function dogs. They didn't just go to ground, they did herding, were guard dogs, and were spit dogs at night. I've always maintained that my breeds should be shown running around a farmyard covered in mud instead of in a ring but how many of the fancy would be willing to train their dogs to do the job for which they were bred before they got in a show ring? I suspect very few.

Testing for function requires time and access to the right envirionment - challenging for many people. Testing for INSTINCT on the other hand may be more practical and certainly some instinct tests are available.

Mary Roslin Williams (Espinay's second quote) - what an inspirational breeder. Nice to see it acknowledged by someone of that ilk that it's not only the show ring that shapes the direction of breeds and not always in the direction of orginal function.

Even dog sports themselves are changing.. and as they change the dogs that excell in them are changing too.

Kavik competition obedience had its origins in the tests for working gundogs. I try to imagine someone walking across a paddock with a shotgun broken over their right arm and a dog wrapped around their leg staring into their face and it just doesn't work for me. ;)

That is a good point. Obedience and agility have certainly changed a lot too.

[Crisovar]

Kavik competition obedience had its origins in the tests for working gundogs. I try to imagine someone walking across a paddock with a shotgun broken over their right arm and a dog wrapped around their leg staring into their face and it just doesn't work for me. ;)

Yes :laugh:

At hand but not under your feet, laying quietly till needed, it is a far cry from the obedience tests we see now. It seems that people look for such intensity it looks almost frantic at times, not what is wanted out of a hunters companion.

[Salukifan]

Human society is evolving. The reasons that we keep dogs are evolving.

I don't have an issue with breeds evolving and new breeds emerging provided that changes don't adversely impact on the health and welfare of dogs.

There are a lot of breeds that have softer, more biddable temperaments now than 150+ years ago. We've moderated protective instincts, aggression levels, etc. Personally I don't have an issue with that because like it or lump it, the future of most dog breeds lies in them being pets. I can think of a few breeds that would benefit from some temperament modification still. ;)

Working dogs are a whole different ballgame and I can see how frustrating it must be to folk with "proper" working dogs who see a breed being "dumbed down" for pet owners. Nonetheless, I think a dumbed down dog breed is infinitely preferable to an extinct one. Others may care to differ on that one.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[BJean]

Maybe then you are lucky in that with LGD they are actually still doing their original job in their country of origin. Many breeds are not so lucky. Should we just let the working abilities of the other breeds die out because they are not used any more? Wouldn't that be a shame? What about the breeds where people are looking for working ability but find it difficult with Australian bred dogs due to the lack of any way to test these dogs? Should we always have to look to import if we are interested in working ability? (apart from the breeds that still do their work here - I am quite lucky with Kelpies in this way).

I don't know how or what or if you should test the other breeds. I can only respond for LGD, and then for Antolian and Central Asian.

I guess I am a fossil like my dogs :laugh: specialised with what I know but not very applicable to the general

Edited March 15, 2012 by lilli

[Sandra777]

Those who suggest basic obedience as a test for function/temperament, what does "basic obedience " mean to you.

My idea of an obedient dog is one that does as it's taught then told. None of my dogs sit, but they all have commands for coming and going from the house, get to their crates, go in their kennel, get up, get down, stand, heal, steady, watch, fetch, leave it and the list goes on. They aren't going to pass a "basic obedience " test and once again, I have no interest in teaching them to sit to appease the masses.

I have done CGC in NZ with a Stafford, she was the first to get to Silver. There was a sit stay, but the emphasis was on the stay not the sit, I could put her into the sit rather than give a command for her to sit. There was a drop on recall but it should have been a STOP on recall, as long as the dog stopped when told the position didn't matter. To me this is day-to-day "obedience". Definitely not the precision of formal obedience.

Everything was more about the dog paying attention to the owner rather than the dog being precise and perfect which IMO is obedience in the real world.

[wuffles]

I also think that testing for breed function assumes that many breeds just naturally do a job. Working dogs are trained to do their job.

It's also mistaken to think that earthdog is the testing function for terriers. Many terrier breeds were multi-function dogs. They didn't just go to ground, they did herding, were guard dogs, and were spit dogs at night. I've always maintained that my breeds should be shown running around a farmyard covered in mud instead of in a ring but how many of the fancy would be willing to train their dogs to do the job for which they were bred before they got in a show ring? I suspect very few.

Testing for function requires time and access to the right envirionment - challenging for many people. Testing for INSTINCT on the other hand may be more practical and certainly some instinct tests are available.

Mary Roslin Williams (Espinay's second quote) - what an inspirational breeder. Nice to see it acknowledged by someone of that ilk that it's not only the show ring that shapes the direction of breeds and not always in the direction of orginal function.

Even dog sports themselves are changing.. and as they change the dogs that excell in them are changing too.

Kavik competition obedience had its origins in the tests for working gundogs. I try to imagine someone walking across a paddock with a shotgun broken over their right arm and a dog wrapped around their leg staring into their face and it just doesn't work for me. ;)

My dog's not a gundog and apart from a nice formal dumbbell retrieve she doesn't know the meaning of the word... does that mean a wrap heel is acceptable?

[Salukifan]

My dog's not a gundog and apart from a nice formal dumbbell retrieve she doesn't know the meaning of the word... does that mean a wrap heel is acceptable?

Unquestionably... but I still find it highly stylised, mostly a breach of the rules (contact between dog and handler occurs frequently) and not in the interests of the dog, chiropracticly speaking. A dog has peripheral vision way better than ours.. why it has to have its head around your leg and to be looking into your eyes to be considered to be "paying attention" beats the hell out of me.

But it's here to stay and obedience will go the way of agility with it being less about something everyone can try with a dog and more and more about 'dogs for the job'. That's if it ain't already. Herding breeds now dominate and the original breeds whose obedience it tested are fading into the background.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Telida Whippets

[espinay2]

Hi lilli

Seeing that it is so difficult to test for function in LGDs, how do you suggest we keep the working ability/integrity of LGDs? Should we require that the only people breeding them actually use them for their original purpose? Or that a certain amount of their dogs go to working homes so we can be sure they can still work? How do you suggest we stop them from just becoming big teddy bears and losing their working ability if they are only bred by people who have them for the show ring?

If there is a need in potential homes for working ability, then the working ability will remain. There is no need to regulate for it.

However, if as you imagine it eventuated that a breeder group in Australia UK or USA (or any other country which feels the need to regulate everything), decided working ability/integrity was lacking, then such breeder groups could obtain dogs with working ability/integrity from the dogs' countries of origin. It is no problem.

:)

Maybe then you are lucky in that with LGD they are actually still doing their original job in their country of origin. Many breeds are not so lucky. Should we just let the working abilities of the other breeds die out because they are not used any more? Wouldn't that be a shame? What about the breeds where people are looking for working ability but find it difficult with Australian bred dogs due to the lack of any way to test these dogs? Should we always have to look to import if we are interested in working ability? (apart from the breeds that still do their work here - I am quite lucky with Kelpies in this way).

I don't beleive that is what Lilli is saying at all. For a start she is only referring to LGD not other breeds (and in respect to LGD I agree with her completely). We are perhaps in a reasonably unique position with LGD as breeders for the most part respect working instinct as being part of the dog and recognise those traits as being important and what distingushes them from being a 'big cuddly teddy bear' of a dog (e.g. what makes a Pyrenean a Pyrenean and not just a big white dog). This is something that a breeder is taught to observe and recognise for the most part - maybe because this is really one of the only ways breeders can TEST for traits. It is something I observe and recognise in my dogs every day. It is something I could observe to some extent even when I lived in suburbia with them (though it is naturally more obvious now here - particularly as it is fox breeding season at the moment and they are making a right racket ;) ). But even here in Australia, as Lilli mentioned, we can not duplicate the environment any particular breed of LGD traditionally worked in, and we need to recognise that even that can change things.

Yes, develop tests for breeds - but simply be VERY aware about what you are actually testing for and what affect that may be having on the breed too.

[wuffles]

My dog's not a gundog and apart from a nice formal dumbbell retrieve she doesn't know the meaning of the word... does that mean a wrap heel is acceptable?

Unquestionably... but I still find it highly stylised, mostly a breach of the rules (contact between dog and handler occurs frequently) and not in the interests of the dog, chiropracticly speaking.

But it's here to stay and obedience will go the way of agility with it being less about something everyone can try with a dog and more and more about 'dogs for the job'. That's if it ain't already.

Mine doesn't really wrap so doesn't touch me. She does watch me though. Or she's meant to.

I prefer the stylised heelwork but I like that there are different ways you can do it (at least in Australia), keeps it interesting for all types of handlers and dogs I have no problem with dogs heeling who look straight ahead, or are a slight distance away from their handler, or even the ones that target the leg. I just hate lagging, slow responses and dogs that look tortured in the ring.

[espinay2]

Kavik competition obedience had its origins in the tests for working gundogs. I try to imagine someone walking across a paddock with a shotgun broken over their right arm and a dog wrapped around their leg staring into their face and it just doesn't work for me. ;)

Yes :laugh:

At hand but not under your feet, laying quietly till needed, it is a far cry from the obedience tests we see now. It seems that people look for such intensity it looks almost frantic at times, not what is wanted out of a hunters companion.

Not very practical outside of a flat and clear obedience ring ;) . I can just see a dog in the field slamming blindly into a log or bush right in front of it because it is not watching where it is going :laugh:

[The Spotted Devil]

Not to mention missing the fall of the game!

I teach 3 different styles of heeling for obedience, retrieving and agility.

[Kavik]

My dog's not a gundog and apart from a nice formal dumbbell retrieve she doesn't know the meaning of the word... does that mean a wrap heel is acceptable?

Unquestionably... but I still find it highly stylised, mostly a breach of the rules (contact between dog and handler occurs frequently) and not in the interests of the dog, chiropracticly speaking. A dog has peripheral vision way better than ours.. why it has to have its head around your leg and to be looking into your eyes to be considered to be "paying attention" beats the hell out of me.

But it's here to stay and obedience will go the way of agility with it being less about something everyone can try with a dog and more and more about 'dogs for the job'. That's if it ain't already. Herding breeds now dominate and the original breeds whose obedience it tested are fading into the background.

When I started out in obedience with Zoe 12 years ago, the majority of dogs at the highest level in my club were Golden Retrievers.

Watching Crufts agility, DWD and flyball I would say BCs made up the majority of dogs. That they have an ABC (anything but collie) class in agility tells you something!

[Crisovar]

Whilst I agree that it is a good idea to have some testing for breed function it is never going to be able to replace the purpose that dogs were bred for fully, and compromises will be made and as has already been mentioned all these things can alter the dogs to some extent.

Whippets for example (just now being discussed at my house) you can test their speed and agility and fitness, but that is no way to test the dogs ability to catch and snap its prey. They need strength of under jaw (sadly lacking in some today)and how do we test for that. My rambling point being we risk losing the headpiece that the functional animal needs. I spoke to a Whippet breeder once who had no idea why they need that strong under jaw. As we move further and further away from the time that dogs could be used for their intended purpose we are losing the background knowledge and the dogs are changing.