espinay2 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Lets look at it from the other direction. Why shouldn't people who show be able to breed dogs that are also good working dogs? Wouldn't selecting for dogs who retain sound breed function and working ability be a good thing for people who show their dogs to be doing? I guess I just don't see how breeding a dog that is both 'good looking' and able to perform its job well is something that needs to be mutually exclusive. I was contemplating that point today in between replying too as I drove to and from a sheep breed association AGM and considering it too while we were examining some stud sheep at the property we were on. When I breed a good ewe or ram that is fit for purpose I want it to be structurally sound and 'good looking ' too. Structure and how the sheep conforms to the standard is just as important to its future commercial value and 'worth' as a working animal as any other trait. Personally it is the same thing I look for in my dogs. While acknowledging there are breeders on both sides that have good looking dogs that are able to work, I find the conversation that's now taking place a bit ironic. We're told the standard is what makes a dog able to do the job for which it's breed yet the argument that seems to be made here is that dogs that meet the standard are unable to work and dogs that are able to work are unable to meet the standard. Frankly I do agree with you Sheridan. I strongly beleive that a good example according to the standard is both a good show dog and a good working dog and that if we look at any breed we will find examples of these types of dogs there already. This is the 'middle ground'. As we have seen here and in other threads before this though, there are those who may have views more towards the outer edges. The trick is to recognise that the two things are not really mutually exclusive and can be found in the same dog. And work with those who have differing views to build a common ground ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 We're told the standard is what makes a dog able to do the job for which it's breed yet the argument that seems to be made here is that dogs that meet the standard are unable to work and dogs that are able to work are unable to meet the standard. It is often not that the working dog doesn't meet the standard but that it doesn't how the standard is interpreted and judged. Take BCs for example. The standard has requirements for marking only that the basic colour must predominate yet you would be very hard pressed to get looked at in the show ring with a dark tri colour like the one in my avatar even if he had perfect conformation. He actually fits the standard relatively well except cosmetic features like his prick ears and light eyes and he is a bit too tall. This is one of his daughters at a year old to an ANKC show bred bitch. She is showable and she works, maybe not as well as a lot of good pure working bred dogs but good enough work for a living, probably 3 sheep and top level ANKC trials when she is trained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacobite Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Not many show whippets get to hunt, course or race, and I doubt show greyhounds ever would. I wish that performance ability was recognised by the breed authorities and VCA. At least there's provision for it on the whippet archives, an amazing resource for whippet enthusiasts. I've put all my girls racing acheivements on there. I'm probably the only Australian who's done so. racing is not what greyhounds were originally bred to do, they were bred to hunt and yes some still do so, race and show bred. Not all greyhounds live in backyards plenty live on farms where there are rabbits, hares etc. eta to fix my spelling - again! Yes, I know originally they were hunting dogs, but they've been bred for racing now for many years and many generations. I've always had trouble accepting show bred greyhounds as the pinnacle of perfection in the breed, I feel a succesful racing dog that is sound would be the better expample, but I think I'm alone with this opinion so I stay away from showing. The Greyhound was originally bred for coursing hares and until the hunting ban in UK were still used for that. The modern day show Greyhound is nothing like the coursing dogs, the racing dogs would be a much closer type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inevitablue Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Take a look at how the Aust. Cattle Dog Club of America keeps the divide to a minimum. I really like the fact that the dual purpose dogs are the ones put on a pedestal. ACDCA REGISTER OF MERIT Program Guidelines I. REQUIREMENTS FOR ROM TITLE: In order to be considered for a ROM award the applicant dog or bitch must have: A. Earned an AKC Breed Conformation Championship B. Earned an AKC Obedience Title of Companion Dog or higher. C. Earned one of the following herding titles: After September 1, 1995, all applicant dogs must have earned an AKC Herding Started Title or higher. Applicant dogs earning the following herding titles prior to September 1, 1995 are exempt from the AKC Started Title requirement: ACDCA QW or VQW, AKC Pre-Trial Tested Title or higher or ASCA Started Leg or higher on cattle. D. Produced offspring with an AKC Championship, AKC CD or higher, and one of the herding titles shown in item C. above. Qualifying offspring titles may be earned by one or more offspring. The dogs can earn additional points from any of the FCI or AKC sports. From what I can gather a ROM means much more than just a show title. OK, the system doesn't force people to take their dogs herding but it sure rewards those who do. Each year the dogs with the highest points are the celebrated ones, with the top 100 published. Perhaps the ANKC (or state affiliates) could install a similar points system so the dogs put on a pedestal are the ROM dogs, not the Gr Ch dogs. Don't force people to take their dogs herding/earthdog/retrieving etc but reward those who do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voloclydes Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 While acknowledging there are breeders on both sides that have good looking dogs that are able to work, I find the conversation that's now taking place a bit ironic. We're told the standard is what makes a dog able to do the job for which it's breed yet the argument that seems to be made here is that dogs that meet the standard are unable to work and dogs that are able to work are unable to meet the standard. well how do you explain the best bred bc we owned had no work ethic with sheep... he was terrifed... he was from a back ground of about 30 australian show titled dogs.... he bred nice puppies... but he couldn't work in an iron lung... actually he used to be worse than a dog that would not work... cause as he fled home to the house on first sight of a woolie... he would chase them in all directions.... not helpfull. but on a ball or chooks he was deadly... i understand why he was a retread... instict if you can breed for it is great but often dogs don't have too much instinct and need to learn... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) well how do you explain the best bred bc we owned had no work ethic with sheep... This would then I guess lead us to a debate about whether he was in fact 'best' bred ;) i.e. in what context he was considered 'best'. Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I actually think most dogs have the instincts some just need shaping a little, ours have all readily done what was required, but dual purpose has always been to the top of our requirements. I think it is sad that so many are happy to go along with the pretty show pony cannot work theory, but then dogs doing what they were bred for has been a fact of life all my life, and it has always been taken for granted. Last year when one of our oldies had come to the time that we all dread, we went for our usual late afternoon stroll knowing it was to be his last. He was rising 15 and quite a grey old man, and his eye sight was going, but he got wind of some quail and how I wish I had my camera to record that last shaky point, and a gun to let him bring back that last bird. He was a Gr Ch in the ring and his collection of BIS sashes are near my desk, but those few moments are the most dear to me. I had his favourite ball in my pocket intending for him to have one last play but he found something better to do instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 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. What if the dog has offered that position from day dot?? It has never been made to do it but does it by choice which has of course been reinforced. I have heaps of bunnies. Maybe we should have a Whippet instinct test here :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voloclydes Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 well how do you explain the best bred bc we owned had no work ethic with sheep... This would then I guess lead us to a debate about whether he was in fact 'best' bred ;) i.e. in what context he was considered 'best'. well i haven't his pure bred papers now but i think he was from show champions... hell i was a child who managed to train our first bc to work sheep without any idea.... she seemed to just know.... he seemed to have no clue even with her to show him... it was just too hard... he was a good looking dog, very good looking... ;) but to herd sheep epic fail.... but i guess there is always one fail.... and he could have been the only one of his relatives to hate sheep...and yes it did put me off the idea that pure bred papered dogs are better than farm bred un papered ones... same as you would hope to get a horse from black caviar that knows how to run... you would hope... but its not a guarantee... its just more likely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espinay2 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) well how do you explain the best bred bc we owned had no work ethic with sheep... This would then I guess lead us to a debate about whether he was in fact 'best' bred ;) i.e. in what context he was considered 'best'. well i haven't his pure bred papers now but i think he was from show champions... hell i was a child who managed to train our first bc to work sheep without any idea.... she seemed to just know.... he seemed to have no clue even with her to show him... it was just too hard... he was a good looking dog, very good looking... ;) but to herd sheep epic fail.... but i guess there is always one fail.... and he could have been the only one of his relatives to hate sheep...and yes it did put me off the idea that pure bred papered dogs are better than farm bred un papered ones... same as you would hope to get a horse from black caviar that knows how to run... you would hope... but its not a guarantee... its just more likely. Sounds like he was from one extreme and one example does not a population make. Yes, there are some dogs of any breed out there that don't work as well. I have had a rescue Pyr that taught me a lot about what I DONT want in the breed. Supposedly a working dog but with absolutely no working instinct at all. A basket case in fact. I have/have had dogs that excel in the show ring that could out perform her by miles as a working dog. I have also heard of show dogs that were as ditzy as but these tend to be in the extreme and are generally not selected for in my breed thank goodness. I am presuming your dog was never bred from? As for Black Caviar, often it isn't the showiest or best performed in a line that produces the best offspring. Sometimes, particularly if they are standouts in a line they don't breed on. And there is much debate over whether Black Caviar is a 'fluke' and will never breed anything as good as herself. Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Some comments about lure coursing. No it's not the same as live prey, but it's a good test of stamina and agility that is closer to triggering the "natural" instinct of a sighthound than other tests of stamina and agility. A dog that doesn't chase on the first exposure to the lure can wind up a senior coursing champion. There is some work to be done sometimes in making the desire to chase "go live" but it can be done. I've also seen dogs that are too smart for the lure, but IMO they still enjoy working in pairs and can get a great deal of enjoyment out of chasing, even if they'd score poorly in a trial. There is also often a false dichotomy posed. I have seen dogs that are great on the lure and crap on live prey, dogs that are great on live prey and crap on the lure, and importantly, dogs that are hot shots on the lure AND on live prey. It is not either/or. If you offered me a puppy from a show only breeder, and a puppy from a show + lure coursing breeder, all things being equal I would pick the latter every time. I have a great deal of admiration for the Windrush (USA) and Hadi el Basher (Europe) kennels who are successful both in the show ring and on the lure coursing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angeluca Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 As for Black Caviar, often it isn't the showiest or best performed in a line that produces the best offspring. Sometimes, particularly if they are standouts in a line they don't breed on. And there is much debate over whether Black Caviar is a 'fluke' and will never breed anything as good as herself. like makybe Dive none off her offspring perform any good in comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OSoSwift Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 If they wanted another Black Caviar they would be better off breeding her parents together again. They are more likely to get another black Caviar than by breeding her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted March 17, 2012 Author Share Posted March 17, 2012 (edited) I actually think most dogs have the instincts some just need shaping a little, ours have all readily done what was required, but dual purpose has always been to the top of our requirements. I think it is sad that so many are happy to go along with the pretty show pony cannot work theory, but then dogs doing what they were bred for has been a fact of life all my life, and it has always been taken for granted. Last year when one of our oldies had come to the time that we all dread, we went for our usual late afternoon stroll knowing it was to be his last. He was rising 15 and quite a grey old man, and his eye sight was going, but he got wind of some quail and how I wish I had my camera to record that last shaky point, and a gun to let him bring back that last bird. He was a Gr Ch in the ring and his collection of BIS sashes are near my desk, but those few moments are the most dear to me. I had his favourite ball in my pocket intending for him to have one last play but he found something better to do instead. Maybe that depends on your requirements/what you define as working? Several years ago I instructed obedience ata club that also trained security and personal protection dogs. I often stayed back to watch the protection work after the obedience class, it was fascinating and I learned a lot. There were a LOT of people that showed up with their traditional guarding breeds from a variety of backgrounds, and certainly not all of them had the goods for protection work training. So no I do not think most dogs have the instinct, I have seen first hand that this is not the case. Also, with herding, while I have not done a whole lot with my dog, it was apparent from the first time he saw sheep that he had plenty of instinct, all the instructors commented on him, not surprising as he is WKC bred. I was amazed when I went at the number of dogs which had absolutely no interest in the sheep. I expected that some would be crazy and just want to chase them and maybe not have the desired instinct/control, thinking surely all dogs would want to chase, but I saw some BCs who were more interested in eating sheep poo than in the sheep. Edited March 17, 2012 by Kavik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voloclydes Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 i understand completely, kavik.. in the farm world they are pts... as a dog with no sheep drive is just not worth feeding... as it costs as much to feed and care for a good one as it does a bad one. as you guys say with horses its often the case that off spring are no where near as good as the parent. as it is so with dogs... but some can learn some can't or don't want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vickie Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Also, with herding, while I have not done a whole lot with my dog, it was apparent from the first time he saw sheep that he had plenty of instinct, all the instructors commented on him, not surprising as he is WKC bred. I was amazed when I went at the number of dogs which had absolutely no interest in the sheep. I expected that some would be crazy and just want to chase them and maybe not have the desired instinct/control, thinking surely all dogs would want to chase, but I saw some BCs who were more interested in eating sheep poo than in the sheep. First exposure doesn't always mean much. Some start out looking good, but do not show serious faults till real training starts, others start out with little interest & turn into brilliant dogs. One of the nicest & best bred sheepdogs I have ever seen started like a piranha. A good sheepdog needs more than instinct & balance. Edited March 18, 2012 by Vickie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Some comments about lure coursing. No it's not the same as live prey, but it's a good test of stamina and agility that is closer to triggering the "natural" instinct of a sighthound than other tests of stamina and agility. A dog that doesn't chase on the first exposure to the lure can wind up a senior coursing champion. There is some work to be done sometimes in making the desire to chase "go live" but it can be done. I've also seen dogs that are too smart for the lure, but IMO they still enjoy working in pairs and can get a great deal of enjoyment out of chasing, even if they'd score poorly in a trial. There is also often a false dichotomy posed. I have seen dogs that are great on the lure and crap on live prey, dogs that are great on live prey and crap on the lure, and importantly, dogs that are hot shots on the lure AND on live prey. It is not either/or. If you offered me a puppy from a show only breeder, and a puppy from a show + lure coursing breeder, all things being equal I would pick the latter every time. I have a great deal of admiration for the Windrush (USA) and Hadi el Basher (Europe) kennels who are successful both in the show ring and on the lure coursing field. Excellent post ssm and I agree with every word. Lure coursing is far from a perfect test, but it's very much better than nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crisovar Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 I actually think most dogs have the instincts some just need shaping a little, ours have all readily done what was required, but dual purpose has always been to the top of our requirements. I think it is sad that so many are happy to go along with the pretty show pony cannot work theory, but then dogs doing what they were bred for has been a fact of life all my life, and it has always been taken for granted. Last year when one of our oldies had come to the time that we all dread, we went for our usual late afternoon stroll knowing it was to be his last. He was rising 15 and quite a grey old man, and his eye sight was going, but he got wind of some quail and how I wish I had my camera to record that last shaky point, and a gun to let him bring back that last bird. He was a Gr Ch in the ring and his collection of BIS sashes are near my desk, but those few moments are the most dear to me. I had his favourite ball in my pocket intending for him to have one last play but he found something better to do instead. Maybe that depends on your requirements/what you define as working? Several years ago I instructed obedience ata club that also trained security and personal protection dogs. I often stayed back to watch the protection work after the obedience class, it was fascinating and I learned a lot. There were a LOT of people that showed up with their traditional guarding breeds from a variety of backgrounds, and certainly not all of them had the goods for protection work training. So no I do not think most dogs have the instinct, I have seen first hand that this is not the case. Also, with herding, while I have not done a whole lot with my dog, it was apparent from the first time he saw sheep that he had plenty of instinct, all the instructors commented on him, not surprising as he is WKC bred. I was amazed when I went at the number of dogs which had absolutely no interest in the sheep. I expected that some would be crazy and just want to chase them and maybe not have the desired instinct/control, thinking surely all dogs would want to chase, but I saw some BCs who were more interested in eating sheep poo than in the sheep. Are you implying that only bite work and herding sheep qualify? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weasels Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) I was amazed when I went at the number of dogs which had absolutely no interest in the sheep. I expected that some would be crazy and just want to chase them and maybe not have the desired instinct/control, thinking surely all dogs would want to chase, but I saw some BCs who were more interested in eating sheep poo than in the sheep. Eating sheep poo is often a sign of stress or uncertainty, it doesn't mean the instinct is not there just that the dog is currently a bit overwhelmed. I've seen this in plenty of the new dogs who turn up to training, Weez did it too at the start and he definitely has instinct. I had to herd him on to the sheep for the first few lessons! I think it's a problem of confidence rather than instinct. Edited March 18, 2012 by Weasels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavik Posted March 18, 2012 Author Share Posted March 18, 2012 Good points Vickie and Weasels I expected most dogs would be pretty excited and crazy at the start with sheep, I did not expect to see indifference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now