Testing For Breed Function

[Crisovar]

Just because they can

Cockers

[dasha]

But the separation is caused by the kennel clubs.

2 tone Kelpies generally will not place in a show............... but if you see a working Kelpie in a working role, they are predominately 2 tone colours.

Why can't a poodle enter a retrieving trial......... after all they were originally a retrieving dog. But the kennel clubs limited breeds to what they think should still be ABLE to contest a trial.

If a genuine working border collie had a bath and was taken to a show ring, it would be laughed off as its ears are offset, its stop not pronounced enough, its coat too short, to white blah blah, but that same dog just mustered a paddock of stock and helped farmer joe draft them off then put them all back out to the paddock, but is not eligible to be able to contest a working breed of dog breed judging class. I even heard that the ANKC was looking to divide the classes of herding................. one for ANKC registered dogs and one for the sporting/working lines dogs.......... cause they keep beating the ANKC ones. Not sure how true it is........... but it is pretty sad if that happens.

So unfortunately there will always be a divide.

I agree in some breeds, the divide is not as large as others but in some breeds there will be a massive one.

I read posts on here with people admiring the drive of the working line cocker doing a job, or how impressive the working line shepherd is at something, and the performance of the field lab at crufts. That is great and it was an awesome job, but why does it make people go googley eyed.............. because these traits that are so great to watch in action, are becoming lost.

I think in breeds where the true original job had lost its place in society, a test will be designed to try and save some resemblance of history and it will be designed to suit the dogs of today.

In roles where a dog still is used ie hunting, stock work, stock protection etc there will be a great variance within the breed because people are breeding for function over looks.

[espinay2]

But the separation is caused by the kennel clubs.

No, separation is caused by those involved in the breed - not kennel clubs

2 tone Kelpies generally will not place in a show............... but if you see a working Kelpie in a working role, they are predominately 2 tone colours.

They may CURRENTLY find it more difficult but this may not necessarily be due to colour but perhaps to the qualities of the dogs being shown? These things can be 'fashions' too - or the individual likes of particular judges. Some judges don't like heavily marked Pyrs, or mismarked ones but as breeders we understand that these types of likes or dislikes can be limited to a set period of time and don't discount good dogs because of it because a dog is more than its colour. And still show them as we WANT them to be seen out there in the show ring even though at times they may seem to be the odd one out. And at some times some of these types of dogs may be more prolific in the ring than at other times. The more you show them, the more they are seen, the more they become the norm and the more they get accepted. That is simply the way it goes and isn't something confined to 2 tone kelpies.

Why can't a poodle enter a retrieving trial......... after all they were originally a retrieving dog. But the kennel clubs limited breeds to what they think should still be ABLE to contest a trial.

A good question then considering this thread is about DEVISING tests for breed function. Perhaps this is something that can be looked into and changed if enough poodle people are interested and they feel the tests adequately reflect the particular working traits the poodle was designed for (noting that all retrievers are not the same or have the same function). Just because something doesn't currently exist doesn't mean it cant be started.

If a genuine working border collie had a bath and was taken to a show ring, it would be laughed off as its ears are offset, its stop not pronounced enough, its coat too short, to white blah blah, but that same dog just mustered a paddock of stock and helped farmer joe draft them off then put them all back out to the paddock, but is not eligible to be able to contest a working breed of dog breed judging class.

But this is not stopping someone who wants to breed a DUAL PURPOSE Border collie from doing so. If someone wants to breed a good working collie who also has the qualities to meet the standard for the Border Collie in the show ring they can do so. It is only because particular breeders choose NOT to that it is this way, not that it can not be done. I would also note that perhaps current Australian conditions and working requirements are different to those of a TRADITIONAL Border Collie? Perhaps it is that these things have changed working collies here in Australia to be something different rather than maintaining their original breed function and style (of work in the Scottish borders)? Just thinking out loud here.

I agree in some breeds, the divide is not as large as others but in some breeds there will be a massive one.

If that is the way you wish to think then that is your own decision. Realise however that by thinking that way you work to maintain and even widen the division and do nothing towards breaching it. If you don't like the division though (which from your other comments it seems you don't? It is perfectly within your power to work towards changing the staus quo as you see it.

I read posts on here with people admiring the drive of the working line cocker doing a job, or how impressive the working line shepherd is at something, and the performance of the field lab at crufts. That is great and it was an awesome job, but why does it make people go googley eyed.............. because these traits that are so great to watch in action, are becoming lost.

Rather I commend people for recognising good working traits. This is what we WANT people to do and to work towards maintaining. Not every dog that has those traits will be out there working though and why shouldn't people have 'good looking' dogs that maintain their traditional breed function? What this thread is about is trying to look at ways to RECOGNISE those traits so we can be sure we keep them. A postive thing which I am not sure your post is reflecting? Lets have some positive discussion on how ot do that rather than taking a negative approach.

I think in breeds where the true original job had lost its place in society, a test will be designed to try and save some resemblance of history and it will be designed to suit the dogs of today.

Now we are getting somewhere. I think you are right as for some breeds at least our current social values have changed to a point that devising 'true' working tests would not be socially acceptable. Looking at the breeds and saying 'how can we ensure the features of this breed that made it this breed are maintained' and devising a way of doing that is an interesting task though and one I think all should be looking at. For some it may come from developing a modern day test. As discussed though care needs to be taken to ensure that whatever is devised to 'test' the dogs breed function does not change the dogs breed function to suit the test (as happened with field trial Labradors in the UK).

In roles where a dog still is used ie hunting, stock work, stock protection etc there will be a great variance within the breed because people are breeding for function over looks.

As has been discussed before, many breeds used in their traditional role and also in the show ring do not show great variance overall. This is because breeders have worked to maintain both breed function AND looks (as how the dog 'looks' can be important to its function). It is only in SOME breeds that the divide has been created by breeders and enthusiasts (and interestingly perhaps mostly in breeds where 'working tests' have been developed? Wondering out loud if there is some correlation there?). It really does not pay to generalise.

JMHO & YMMV

Edited March 16, 2012 by espinay2

[helen]

RV - I do like that idea. However, I see much the much heavier boned Brittany competing in Vic retrieving trials - very tough, good workers, are proven hunting dogs but are different to what I am used to.

The most common word in the Brittany standard to describe the body is broad, and the general description is cobby, so that may explain it?

[toshman]

I didn't see the working Springer video - off to watch it now!

It will make you either swear off them for life or want a dozen of them :laugh:

Just watched it - it was awesome! They were so enthusiastic :laugh: Their carriage and body language looks very different to the show line dogs I've seen

And this one too:

The little working cocker is quite awesome :D

[Crisovar]

As has been discussed before, many breeds used in their traditional role and also in the show ring do not show great variance overall. This is because breeders have worked to maintain both breed function AND looks (as how the dog 'looks' can be important to its function). It is only in SOME breeds that the divide has been created by breeders and enthusiasts (and interestingly perhaps mostly in breeds where 'working tests' have been developed? Wondering out loud if there is some correlation there?). It really does not pay to generalise.

This does need to be repeated :)

[Kavik]

espinay - with breeds that have split into working/show lines what do you think would be the point of crossing the lines? Certainly with breeds like Border Collies and GSDs there is a big difference in appearance. To cross the working lines with the show lines you end up with what? A dog that can't work as well as a pure working line dog and a dog which is not suited to the show ring.

For someone breeding eg Border Collies for station work, why would there be a need to have a dog that looks like a show bred Border? Where would the incentive be for someone breeding for sheepwork to have a dog that looks like that? When the working line dogs do the job well, and that is what matters for someone who is actually working their dogs, why would they risk the quality of their dogs by bringing in dogs which can't work as well just because some show judge decided they looked nicer?

[espinay2]

espinay - with breeds that have split into working/show lines what do you think would be the point of crossing the lines? Certainly with breeds like Border Collies and GSDs there is a big difference in appearance. To cross the working lines with the show lines you end up with what? A dog that can't work as well as a pure working line dog and a dog which is not suited to the show ring.

Do they need to? I am sure there are those breeders out there, here and overseas, that are breeding dual purpose dogs/dogs that maintain traditional working instinct. Remember too not to look at the extremes. Look in the middle and you often find dogs that combine virtues of both.

For someone breeding eg Border Collies for station work, why would there be a need to have a dog that looks like a show bred Border?

So the question is here, do people who use their dogs for station work need a Border Collie that maintains traditional breed function? Or do they require a collie type that displays different traits and this is what they have bred for? Read further back in the thread about tests and 'new' working environments contributing to changes in a breed.

Where would the incentive be for someone breeding for sheepwork to have a dog that looks like that?

Maybe if the type of work they are doing is similar to that on the Scottish Borders? Hilly country with light cover? Cold climate? An ability to go to the flock and bring them down from the hills to the shepherd? Thinking out loud here.

When the working line dogs do the job well, and that is what matters for someone who is actually working their dogs, why would they risk the quality of their dogs by bringing in dogs which can't work as well just because some show judge decided they looked nicer?

Fine. No problem with that. As long as they recognise that perhaps what they have done is CHANGED the breed to suit their own requirements.Changes are not just the purview of 'show breeders'

Edited March 16, 2012 by espinay2

[Vickie]

If a genuine working border collie had a bath and was taken to a show ring, it would be laughed off as its ears are offset, its stop not pronounced enough, its coat too short, to white blah blah, but that same dog just mustered a paddock of stock and helped farmer joe draft them off then put them all back out to the paddock, but is not eligible to be able to contest a working breed of dog breed judging class.

But this is not stopping someone who wants to breed a DUAL PURPOSE Border collie from doing so. If someone wants to breed a good working collie who also has the qualities to meet the standard for the Border Collie in the show ring they can do so.

Really? How would one go about this? There is a very small percentage of ANKC registered Border Collies in the country who have been bred based on their working ability & none of them, that I know of, meet the breed standard. So where do you start? Maybe pick the 10 closest to the standard and water down their working ability by breeding them to dogs who do meet the standard?

It is only because particular breeders choose NOT to that it is this way, not that it can not be done.

That is a very simplistic and idealistic view. It totally undermines the complexity of traits that people select for in breeding a dog for stock work. Again, how would you go about it?

There are currently 44 BC puppy listings on DOL. 11 of those mention herding, and all in the same breath as obed. & agility. Most of them do not show dogs. Some Sires &/or Dams of those 11 litters have HT titles...which mean they have enough instinct/ability to move trained sheep around a cone on a small yard. Is this the starting point if one wanted to "choose" to breed dual purpose dogs?

I would also note that perhaps current Australian conditions and working requirements are different to those of a TRADITIONAL Border Collie? Perhaps it is that these things have changed working collies here in Australia to be something different rather than maintaining their original breed function and style (of work in the Scottish borders)? Just thinking out loud here.

Australian working Border Collies bear a strong resemblance both in terms of work and looks to working BCs all over the world, including Scotland, the country of origin. They ARE the traditional Border Collie.

Edited March 16, 2012 by Vickie

[espinay2]

Really? How would one go about this? There is a very small percentage of ANKC registered Border Collies in the country who have been bred based on their working ability & none of them, that I know of, meet the breed standard. So where do you start? Maybe pick the 10 closest to the standard and water down their working ability by breeding them to dogs who do meet the standard?

Yes, you pick dogs that meet the standard as closely as possible that also display good working instinct to pass on to their progeny. If you choose wisely by using a dog that is prepotent for its working ability there is no reason that the trait would be 'watered down' in all its progeny. You then need to be selective in which puppies you choose to breed on with. Working to achieve a breeding goal is something that is generally achieved in more than one generation of course as any good breeder will know.

There are currently 44 BC puppy listings on DOL. 11 of those mention herding, and all in the same breath as obed. & agility. Most of them do not show dogs. Some Sires &/or Dams of those 11 litters have HT titles...which mean they have enough instinct/ability to move sheep around a cone on a small yard. Is this the starting point if one wanted to "choose" to breed dual purpose dogs?

Given that this thread is a discussion about testing for breed function, perhaps border collie folks such as yourself can tell us? What is a suitable test for border collie breed function that can be utilised by breeders who want to breed dogs that both meet the standard AND have the ability to work at their traditional role? Is the HT a suitable test? We have already discussed how it is possible that tests such as obedience anf agility are perhaps changing what is being selected for in dogs bred for these sports. Rather than be negative and say it cant be done, lets ask the postive question - if a border collie breeder wanted to have it all, how would they test for breed function? I would like to hear your views and the views of other border collie breeders/enthusiasts.

[Kym]

I am sure there are those breeders out there, here and overseas, that are breeding dual purpose dogs/dogs that maintain traditional working instinct. Remember too not to look at the extremes. Look in the middle and you often find dogs that combine virtues of both.

I agree. Much has been made of field vs. show type Springers, for example, but there are breeders out there (mostly overseas) that have show type Springers that can both win in the show ring as well as do a day in the field. See here and here for example. Whether these dogs could win in a Field Trial is another matter entirely, but I don't think implying that the show type Springers that can do a days work in the field (such as those I pointed out) but may not have the speed required to win in an artificial creation such as a competitive Field Trial have somehow lost their ability to be "fit for function".

Fine. No problem with that. As long as they recognise that perhaps what they have done is CHANGED the breed to suit their own requirements.Changes are not just the purview of 'show breeders'

Yes, absolutely. My own opinion on the matter (as it pertains to Springers) conforms to that of Colin Muirhead, as he wrote in The Complete English Springer Spaniel: "In recent years the working ability of the breed has been sharpened to a great extent by the keen competition in Field Trials, although this has turned out to be something of a two-edged sword. While the performances at Trials have improved in style and speed, this has meant that the average owner finds that stock from the more high-powered lines is too much to cope with. It is a matter of some debate as to whether this hyperactivity is of benefit to the breed as a whole, or just to the competition dogs. Many general shooting men have, in fact, taken to using Labradors, as they have found them more sedate. Having said this, a good Springer from sensible, trainable lines is still the best all-round gun dog for most people."

Edited March 16, 2012 by elevenoclockish

[Kavik]

Really? How would one go about this? There is a very small percentage of ANKC registered Border Collies in the country who have been bred based on their working ability & none of them, that I know of, meet the breed standard. So where do you start? Maybe pick the 10 closest to the standard and water down their working ability by breeding them to dogs who do meet the standard?

Yes, you pick dogs that meet the standard as closely as possible that also display good working instinct to pass on to their progeny. If you choose wisely by using a dog that is prepotent for its working ability there is no reason that the trait would be 'watered down' in all its progeny. You then need to be selective in which puppies you choose to breed on with. Working to achieve a breeding goal is something that is generally achieved in more than one generation of course as any good breeder will know.

There are currently 44 BC puppy listings on DOL. 11 of those mention herding, and all in the same breath as obed. & agility. Most of them do not show dogs. Some Sires &/or Dams of those 11 litters have HT titles...which mean they have enough instinct/ability to move sheep around a cone on a small yard. Is this the starting point if one wanted to "choose" to breed dual purpose dogs?

Given that this thread is a discussion about testing for breed function, perhaps border collie folks such as yourself can tell us? What is a suitable test for border collie breed function that can be utilised by breeders who want to breed dogs that both meet the standard AND have the ability to work at their traditional role? Is the HT a suitable test? We have already discussed how it is possible that tests such as obedience anf agility are perhaps changing what is being selected for in dogs bred for these sports. Rather than be negative and say it cant be done, lets ask the postive question - if a border collie breeder wanted to have it all, how would they test for breed function? I would like to hear your views and the views of other border collie breeders/enthusiasts.

But my question is WHY would they want to? When working dogs work better than show dogs? And your livelihood depended on the dogs? Maybe the difference in construction of the working dogs is part of the reason they are better?

[espinay2]

apologies - iphone glitch

Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2

[Kavik]

Isn't the point to breed your best working dogs? Why would somebody compromise this? Why are you suggesting they should?

[Janba]

But my question is WHY would they want to? When working dogs work better than show dogs? And your livelihood depended on the dogs? Maybe the difference in construction of the working dogs is part of the reason they are better?

Are working dogs different in construction or is the difference in the current fashion an interpretation of the standard for the breed ring? Fashions change in the show ring.

These are 2 top winning BCs from the 70s.

The basic structure of a sound working dog is no different to the basic structure of the dog in the breed standard, it is the interpretation of the standard and the cosmetic features that causes the difference between the working and show lines in appearance.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Janba

[Kavik]

One of the differences I've noticed is in how the dogs carry themselves. The show dogs carry themselves much more upright and the working dogs carry themselves lower, the BC crouch etc, this lower carriage was also noticeable with the working Springers compared to the show Springers.

[Jumabaar]

What if you don't want a dog that is bred for its original function?

As far as I know no dog has been bred specifically for agility or flyball which will have slightly different traits than dogs trained for herding, hunting etc. Thats not to say a they can't do both but like your point that a show bred dog may not be as competitive as a working bred dog, the same goes for a flyball bred dog. Since I am specifically aiming (at this point in time) to produce a fast flyball dog why am I then also trying to produce a dog that will do its original function to the same level as the dogs that are still being used for its original function??

You can't just tell me to go out and get another breed because there isn't one. Thus I have taken a breed that already excels and bred toward attributes that will make it do even better at my chosen sport.

espinay this has actually meant my dogs don't do as well in the showering because the attributes I am selecting for are not popular in the ring. Would they do well at herding? Well I don't know because I don't live on a farm and I don't have the time to really work them on sheep. Yes they have all passed their Instinct test but I agree with Vickie that this isn't really a true test of their ability to work.

I think the big difference (and why I can justify breeding for a purpose other than the original) is how I advertise my pups when I sell them. I am quite open about the fact that they have been bred for the purpose of agility, flyball and obedience. I don't mention herding because it isn't the purpose that I personally have bred them for, and can offer no guarantees because I have not put my dogs to the test in that setting. I do get frustrated when I see dogs advertised as being able to do agility, flyball, showing, herding and obedience when the breeders have never been involved in these and really are not producing dogs that are bred for these purposes. And yes I have seen Kelpies that have not been able to do flyball because they have not had the temperament to do it.

I think it would be a shame if we were all breeding to exactly the same purpose- I like looking at different lines and seeing their weakness and strengths and being able to match them up to produce what an individual breeder is looking for.

[Kavik]

I don't know as much about Flyball (the noise is too much for me) but IMO the qualities that make a dog a good sheepdog make a dog a good agility dog (athleticism, functional structure, good drive levels, stable temperament, biddable/ability to take direction) so you can source good agility dogs from those who breed for sheepwork.

But breeding for sport such as Flyball will change the dogs.

[The Spotted Devil]

elevenoclockish - but I agree with you. There are some show line dogs who can work and some working line dogs I wouldn't want to live with. Everyone's idea of what is "fit for function" is different depending on what the dog's role is, thus a 'test' doesn't really tell us anything. Only that the dog can do that test - maybe it tells us more about how good the trainer is! Heck, I taught my Dalmatian to retrieve, tug and swim (kinda ;) ) and he would rather walk on hot coals than do any of those things. I haven't ventured into field trials yet but a Springer needs to quarter, flush, hunt and retrieve. A gundog with game makes for a stunning photo but there is so much more.

Thank you for the links. I don't doubt there are plenty of other breeders out there doing the right thing by their dogs. Personally I prefer my dog with shorter ears, firm skin around the head (tight around the eye) and less feathering. But that is me - a personal choice for the conditions my dog trains and trials in. I never have to clean, pluck or dry ears no matter how much water work we do. My youngster is a very intense little worker but walk in the front door or put her in the back of the car and she relaxes and sleeps, even with gunfire indicating another dog is working. Her breeder calls her Jeckyll and Hyde. I think that is a wonderful trait to preserve.

As I've said many times, I don't have a problem with split show/working lines. One size does not fit all.

Edited March 17, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[Jumabaar]

I don't know as much about Flyball (the noise is too much for me) but IMO the qualities that make a dog a good sheepdog make a dog a good agility dog (athleticism, functional structure, good drive levels, stable temperament, biddable/ability to take direction) so you can source good agility dogs from those who breed for sheepwork.

But breeding for sport such as Flyball will change the dogs.

I agree you can source a good agility dog from a dog bred for sheepwork- but can you get a BETTER dog for agility from a dog bred for agility? And will that dog be as competitive with a dog bred for sheep work? Or a dog selected for sheep work?

I personally have a dog that I think (from the small amount of herding that I done) is much better at herding than the dog that I am currently training. The dog good at herding keeps chasing after the other dogs- because I was still learning when I trained him and I stuffed up. His instinct is making it hard to fix my problem because I need to overcome it. The dog with less herding ability (again IMO) is proving much easier to train for flyball and I think will be the better dog. I don't think this is entirely based on the herding ability but at some level it does contribute to the training issue I have been having. Had I been a better trainer I possibly could have nipped the dogs problem

So the pup I would select from a working bred dog would not necessarily be pick of the litter for herding.

For my little breeding program I want the athleticism, functional structure, good drive levels, stable temperament, biddable/ability to take direction- but my personal test for function is the dog actually being able to do the task and then the speed and style which it can do it because thats what flyball is about.

It is sport about speed, and dogs with poor style get hurt. There are lines of dogs with poor turning style regardless of how much training the owners do- I think that it means there is a structural issue but the only external symptom is the poor turning style. It isn't seen when the dogs do agility or any other action so I wouldn't personally breed from a dog with poor turns. Once again that dog with poor turns might be amazing at its original breed function but for the function it is being used for it is at greater risk of injury.

If you then select away from the poor turn then it might mean your no longer selecting toward its original function..... The dog might still pass an instinct test but would it actually be fit for function??