Why Not Judge On Function?

[Blackdogs]

So I've been thinking. And excuse my naive thread, as I'm not as well versed in the nuiances of pure breeding as most of you here, but I've been wondering this: Why are purebreds judged on form rather than function? I mean, we have a certain expectation as to how a particular breed of dog will look, that is true, however, when we recommend a breed of dog we always talk about temperament characteristics. Surely the most accurate way to measure this is to test the dog's temperament against some kind of functional standard rather than the way it looks? Does function always follow form? And if so, where is the proof? Do not dogs bred for function generally outperform dogs bred for form?

I'm not against showing dogs under the current standards, but I just wonder why function is not considered as a general rule with most breeds.

Can anyone enlighten me?

[OSoSwift]

It is illegal to test my dogs they way they were years ago.

[Blackdogs]

It is illegal to test my dogs they way they were years ago.

Do you have whippets?

If so, can they not simulate some kind of faux prey as they do in greyhound racing?

I don't know a lot about this, so just asking the question.

[becks]

With some breeds eg in the uk gundogs and border collies, they must pass a working test to qualify as full champions.

Under FCI rules, many other breeds have a working test too.

Of course some breeds can't be tested against what they were originally bred to do.

[Kirislin]

Oh how I wish......... Yes it's illegal to do live coursing these days but even if whippets were judged on speed (I mean racing, not drugs) like they do in Europe, but it's not recognised here. I used to wish the VCA would include my whippets racing achievements on their pedigrees. I dont think it will happen in my lifetime. I've put it in the whippet archives though. :) I have 2 Grand Racing Champions and I'm very proud of them.

[Salukifan]

The simple answer is that for many breeds, ffunction cannot be tested reliably - for a range of reasons. The other point to keep in mind is that form for many breeds is governed by function, right down to features like foot shape. That form is what's expressed in int breed standard.

Take whippets for example. The standard states that all colours are acceptable. Why? Because any colour of dog can be fast.

Not all sighthounds will lure course. The fastest, most prey driven dog in my house will not chase a plastic bag. Show him a rabbit and it's game on!

[espinay2]

So how to test a livestock guardian dog? This has been Discussed ad Nauseum over the years in the LGD community and by some researchers and there is no simple and easy test that can be applied, particularly off territory. It comes instead from observation of a dog over time. There is limited ability to test this in the conformation ring and that is generally well understood. All the conformation ring can test for is basic mental soundness with some understanding that different breeds will display that sound ess differently ie some may be more aloof or reserved than others a d this needs to be differentiated from shyness and vice versa. There is limited ability for more understanding in the short time a judge has to assess a dog.

In some countries these breeds such as mine must also pass a temperament test but even with that it is recognized that this only tests general mental soundness and not working ability.

It should be noted though that an understanding and assessment of form should tell us a lot about working ability. A standard is designed to produce a dog that is structurally fit for purpose. A dog meant to work in a harsh environment with a flat and thick double coat is not going to benefit from a standoffish open one. A breed where tight eyes with good pigment are specified may be more prone to eye or skin damage with looser eyes and/or missing pigment. A straight shoulder or short neck may prevent a retriever from picking up game in the quickest and most efficient manner and the dog may break down more easily. In this respect Pat Hastings book 'structure in action' is worth reading. A dog whose structure impedes its work will not work as well.

[steamboat]

Firstly, form follows function.

Dogs employed for specific tasks developed the ideal form to perform the tasks required by selective breeding or through isolation.

The attributes of the perfect form of a dog to do a specific task were generally agreed upon by the masters who exploited them & were eventually written down. The description of the perfect specimen. The standard.

Most bred to a standard dogs today are companion dogs & not required to function, although their form, generally, is still the ideal for the task.

As nature follows nuture, take a pure breed puppy from a well bred, bred for perfect conformation litter & drop it into a ''function'' environment &, generally, it will function well because it is built for the task.

The working dogs people marvel at at sheep dog trials aren't just pulled off the farm & plonked in a competition. They are specifically trained to do the exercises required at the trials.

Some have never even done a genuine days ''work'' in their lives.

They are, for all intents & purposes, show dogs.

[Kavik]

Firstly, form follows function.

Dogs employed for specific tasks developed the ideal form to perform the tasks required by selective breeding or through isolation.

The attributes of the perfect form of a dog to do a specific task were generally agreed upon by the masters who exploited them & were eventually written down. The description of the perfect specimen. The standard.

Most bred to a standard dogs today are companion dogs & not required to function, although their form, generally, is still the ideal for the task.

As nature follows nuture, take a pure breed puppy from a well bred, bred for perfect conformation litter & drop it into a ''function'' environment &, generally, it will function well because it is built for the task.

The working dogs people marvel at at sheep dog trials aren't just pulled off the farm & plonked in a competition. They are specifically trained to do the exercises required at the trials.

Some have never even done a genuine days ''work'' in their lives.

They are, for all intents & purposes, show dogs.

You do realise that in a lot of breeds there is a split between work and show line dogs? There is a split with both of the breeds I own. A lot of purebred dogs at sheep dog trials are not registered with the ankc show body but with working registries and that they often look different to their show counterparts. This is a controversial area and it is not black and white. With selective breeding you select which traits you want to pass on. If you don't select for working ability, or do not pay attention to which working attributes you are passing on (because you don't know or are not working/testing) then you can lose it. Good working breeders put a lot of thought into each breeding, looking at the working attributes of the parents and what they are hoping to achieve with the working attributes of their offspring, sometimes with specific breed related traits in mind. You can't get the same level if you are not paying attention to working ability.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Kavik

[Christina]

So what shape person should sit on the chair to test lapdogs :laugh:

Does this chihuahua, toy poodle or pomeranian look comfortable on this lap :)

It wouldn't work for some breeds.

I do see your point that as long as dogs fit the breed standard & behave at the shows function & certainly health in the lines have no place but it's difficult to find another way to judge that would suit all.

Was only saying to someone yesterday when they were doing my young boy in show clip that I wished poodles could be shown in a pet clip. I hate the show style & its not great for the dog either.

[Inevitablue]

What concerns me is that while everyone talks of structure and if the dog has the correct physical attributes to do the job then it must still be fit for purpose, yet subtle changes over generations is most likely occurring in brain configuration and wiring.

In a perfect world all dogs would still be tested for their original purpose to maintain the gross thinking patterns of individual dogs within a breed. Impossible for some breed, but not all.

I look at my chosen breed, ACD's, dingo was added to the mix, not to change structure but to change the behavioural tendencies of the dog. To change the way the dog worked. Hence a highly cognitive dog was produced. If it is correct that Bull Terrier was added then that is where the solid nerves of an ACD originated. If those mental capacities are not selected for then cognition and nerve might be lost.

If a show champion is celebrated for its correct conformation yet has never had the behavioural patterns of it's brain tested then a dog with genetic/mutational changes in hard wiring could possibly be influencing the breed. Add up hundreds of these dogs and the breed could be changed.

Reading the Working Breed Standard of the American ACD Club the behavioural and thinking patterns expected of the dogs is outlined in detail. As an example BC's - the difference in 'eye' between the show line and working line is quite marked. Yes,I know there is the argument that some dogs take awhile to 'switch on' to stock, including working line and it's unfair to judge the eye of a show line seeing stock for the first time. However, if the brain wiring is never tested then breeders cannot say that they are maintaining the original behavioural tendencies expected of the breed.

I'd like to see the ANKC introduce another Champion title. Forget about adding another after the Supreme Ch, how about a Working Champion title for those breeds where ability can be tested - a dog which attains its conformation title and a specific performance title. Or a Reward of Merit title. There is nothing stopping show people from attempting working titles, except maybe time and interest, and they can continue to breed physically conformed show champions, but we should be celebrating dogs which are being selected for physical conformation and mental configuration.

[juice]

In theory it would be great , but lots of breeds can't be tested, however i would like to see more emphasis on dogs who can move properly.

I don't want to see a dog who looks stunning standing still, but looks like its going to fall over when it moves.

The gap between working and show lines is too big, i would like to see a middle ground with a well rounded dog.

[Crisovar]

A good judge understands the reason for development of a breed and looks for a dog that he/she believes still capable according to structure, attitude etc, as part of the judging process. The standards describe the ideal dog for the purpose, but a depth of knowledge and understanding helps form the picture. A cringing cripple would not a good working dog make. Of course the system is not perfect, but as has already been stated many of the breeds can no longer be tested.

The notion that all dogs are judged as show ponies is piffle.

[LizT]

Also good function could purely be a result of excellent training and handling skills and have little to do with the breeding and form of the animal. There are many good show handlers out there who excel at hiding faults in their dogs by the use of their superior handling skills....while most good Judges worth their salt can see through this easily, not every Judge is a good Judge. Also there are many good trainers out there who will get more out of any given dog than some people ever could, just based on their ability and knowlege as dog trainers and handlers.

[4Kelpies]

The working dogs people marvel at at sheep dog trials aren't just pulled off the farm & plonked in a competition. They are specifically trained to do the exercises required at the trials.

Some have never even done a genuine days ''work'' in their lives.

They are, for all intents & purposes, show dogs.

But no serious sheep dog handler is going to waste time on "specifically" training dogs that don't have heaps of natural ability.

I can't speak for three sheep trialling as I'm not involved in that and it appears to have become more of an exhibition than real work, but I can assure that the majority of yard dogs earn their keep on farms during the week and then go trialling at weekends.

[huski]

Also good function could purely be a result of excellent training and handling skills and have little to do with the breeding and form of the animal. There are many good show handlers out there who excel at hiding faults in their dogs by the use of their superior handling skills....while most good Judges worth their salt can see through this easily, not every Judge is a good Judge. Also there are many good trainers out there who will get more out of any given dog than some people ever could, just based on their ability and knowlege as dog trainers and handlers.

I think it's definitely true that a good trainer will get more out of a dog but at the end of the day you can only bring out in a dog what is already there genetically.

[LizT]

Also good function could purely be a result of excellent training and handling skills and have little to do with the breeding and form of the animal. There are many good show handlers out there who excel at hiding faults in their dogs by the use of their superior handling skills....while most good Judges worth their salt can see through this easily, not every Judge is a good Judge. Also there are many good trainers out there who will get more out of any given dog than some people ever could, just based on their ability and knowlege as dog trainers and handlers.

I think it's definitely true that a good trainer will get more out of a dog but at the end of the day you can only bring out in a dog what is already there genetically.

True. You wouldn't bother trying with a poor animal that is a hideous mess, but if you considered the said faults minimal...then you work on the pros. The 'pefect" dog has yet to be found.

[huski]

Also good function could purely be a result of excellent training and handling skills and have little to do with the breeding and form of the animal. There are many good show handlers out there who excel at hiding faults in their dogs by the use of their superior handling skills....while most good Judges worth their salt can see through this easily, not every Judge is a good Judge. Also there are many good trainers out there who will get more out of any given dog than some people ever could, just based on their ability and knowlege as dog trainers and handlers.

I think it's definitely true that a good trainer will get more out of a dog but at the end of the day you can only bring out in a dog what is already there genetically.

True. You wouldn't bother trying with a poor animal that is a hideous mess, but if you considered the said faults minimal...then you work on the pros. The 'pefect" dog has yet to be found.

Yes, but if we are talking about a dog actually working I don't agree it can do it well "purely" because of good training. The dog has to have a correct enough temperament, drive, nerve etc relevant to the work it needs to do. And a working dog needs to be structurally sound or it could tire faster/lack endurance or be more prone to injury.

[LizT]

Also good function could purely be a result of excellent training and handling skills and have little to do with the breeding and form of the animal. There are many good show handlers out there who excel at hiding faults in their dogs by the use of their superior handling skills....while most good Judges worth their salt can see through this easily, not every Judge is a good Judge. Also there are many good trainers out there who will get more out of any given dog than some people ever could, just based on their ability and knowlege as dog trainers and handlers.

I think it's definitely true that a good trainer will get more out of a dog but at the end of the day you can only bring out in a dog what is already there genetically.

True. You wouldn't bother trying with a poor animal that is a hideous mess, but if you considered the said faults minimal...then you work on the pros. The 'pefect" dog has yet to be found.

Yes, but if we are talking about a dog actually working I don't agree it can do it well "purely" because of good training. The dog has to have a correct enough temperament, drive, nerve etc relevant to the work it needs to do. And a working dog needs to be structurally sound or it could tire faster/lack endurance or be more prone to injury.

Agree. But I'm sure there are plenty of dogs out there who work hard every day for their living who could have numerous minimal faults pointed out if presented before a Judge. The emphasis being on minimal.

[minimax]

What function would a pug be judged on... speed eating?