Why Not Judge On Function?

[The Spotted Devil]

There are some things you can teach to an extent - my Dalmatian is a case in point. With my field-bred ESS I can teach her to retrieve to hand, to not run the bank, to run straight, to pick up game in order but I can't teach her to have an insatiable desire to hunt, quarter and find the game under any conditions. It doesn't make her an easy dog to take for leisurely walk though! Whilst I can refine her marking ability nothing replaces that which comes naturally to her. I've never had to teach her to go from hyperdrive to asleep in 30 seconds either thank goodness! And I know her breeder puts a lot of thought into structure, easy coat, tight eyes etc.

I should add that I have no issue with split lines as long as there is no assumption that a pretty, deceptively sweet field bred ESS will make a lap-only dog any more than a show ESS can cut it in a field/retrieving trial. If they demonstrate they can do both then fine!

Edited October 19, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[Vickie]

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?

Not all breeds are judged on form. Purebred working BC's & Kelpies are judged purely on function.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Vickie

[LizT]

There are some things you can teach to an extent - my Dalmatian is a case in point. With my field-bred ESS I can teach her to retrieve to hand, to not run the bank, to run straight, to pick up game in order but I can't teach her to have an insatiable desire to hunt, quarter and find the game under any conditions. It doesn't make her an easy dog to take for leisurely walk though! Whilst I can refine her marking ability nothing replaces that which comes naturally to her. I've never had to teach her to go from hyperdrive to asleep in 30 seconds either thank goodness! And I know her breeder puts a lot of thought into structure, easy coat, tight eyes etc.

Yes The Spotted Devil, while all dogs have the capacity to learn the basics at various levels it makes no sense and is even quite unfair to choose the wrong breed for the wrong task.

If function is indeed to be tested it truly must be breed specific AND be an instinctive test and not based on learnt skills. EG. Whilst all may have some basic instincts to go on not evey Border Collie is going to have a correct working knowledge about herding sheep unless first taught.

[LizT]

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?

Not all breeds are judged on form. Purebred working BC's & Kelpies are judged purely on function.

Unless of course your Purebred working BC & Kelpie happen to be in a ANKC Show Ring line up! :)

[LizT]

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

Given it's purpose has always been that of a companion and lap dog, I think a temperament test would be paramount...try taking that bowl of food away? What happens? Count fingers....all still there?....dog passes test. :D

Edited October 19, 2012 by LizT

[espinay2]

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.

Agree totally. IT is important to remember though that there are some breeds where the distinction is still minimal and breeders actively work to keep it that way. The distinction only exists in some breeds.

(lets not make this another 'work versus show' thread - we have had enough of those)

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.

Yes it is important to note that a CONFORMATION show is only judging CONFORMATION and nothing more (look up the word folks if you don't know what it means). It is but one piece of the puzzle.

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.

An interesting read is Mary Roslin Williams book "Reaching for the Stars" (formerly Advanced Labrador Breeding) where she discusses structure and working purpose. In discussing the shoulders for instance she writes: "unless they are long and sloping the dog will have difficulty with a heavy hare, will be very much slowed up physically, however mentally fast he is, and tend to somersault when coming down a steep slope or jumping a vbig fence with a hare in his mouth".

Also of interest is the fact that a 'test' itself can change what is considered 'ideal' as competing in the test becomes more important than testing 'natural instinct'. The advent of the long distance retrieve in Labrador retriving trials, for instance, as related by MRW, resulted in an emphasis on faster and more agile dogs than the traditional Labrador, and more 'greyhound types' were bred for which were "athletic enough to fling themselves over in a style quite unlike the former Labrador work" with "handlers becoming more important than the dogs themselves" as the handler was expected to guide the dog straight to the bird in a trial rather than the dog having the ability to seek it out (with dogs actually being penalised if they were required to 'set itself to hunt' - a necessary trait in a working dog when it comes to bringing in shot game). Tests for 'working ability' are therefore not infallible either.

Edited October 19, 2012 by espinay2

[JulesP]

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?

Can only speak about my breed, border collies, but it isn't easy to train a sheepdog! Most people also do not have access to sheep. I trained one of mine to a certain herding level and due to lack of time on sheep really can't go any further. And people working on a farm would say that the herding I do is crap anyway.

[Vickie]

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.

And yet, very few dogs who ARE performing the true function look anything like this standard. Weird huh?

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.

And yet, for herding breeds farmers rarely use these dogs. Weird huh?

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.

Geez, you make it all sound so easy. I might just give it a go. I wonder why you don't see more dogs, bred for form in sheepdog trials, (and i mean the ones that dont use trained sheep), weird huh?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Vickie

[Steve]

This is a really important issue . The ANKC is set up to judge a dog on its conformation - how it stacks up against the visual standard on the day and how it moves in a ring - that doesn't mean that dogs shouldn't be or are not judged for other characteristics in other ways.

That period they are in front of a judge shouldn't be used to judged them for their health - because only a vet can judge that and it shouldn't be used to judge them on whether or not they can function in the way they were intended to past what is visible in that arena

There are various authorised affiliated activities which award dogs for agility, obedience, scenting etc. Working dogs are judged every day in their working roles and those dogs which have evolved to be little more than lap dogs are judged by the owners and breeders every day.

When a breeder makes a selection for which dogs to breed with they don't - or shouldn't just take into account where the conformation champions are but also how they behave, what jobs they do or what their inherent characteristics are .

Clearly some breeders haven't understood this. When we see breeds which are so far removed visually from a working dog to a show dog it is because 2 groups of breeders have recorded and selected for dogs which have excelled in one area they have been of the belief counted and didn't research or consider or for them it didn't matter in selection.

You see show dogs which cant do the function they were intended to do and you see working dogs which look nothing like their breed in the ring.

With humans we see them get a certificate in cooking at TAFE but we know that doesn't say how they run - if we want to look at how a human performs in certain areas we simply look at their achievements and characteristics but for some reason we have come to expect that with dogs it should all be done at one event and placed more importance on on how they look. That was never the intention of any breed's forefathers.

Every person who ever decides to breed a purebred litter should be aware of their goals and understand what they may be compromising on as they select which dogs to breed. Just as a human has to include all of their certificates, skills, and characteristics including their work experience and hobbies when applying for a job a breeder needs to consider these things as well as conformation in selecting a mate.

So the answer to why not judge on function - we do or at least we should when we select a breeding dog but dog shows judge one thing and because the mob who keep the stud book also run dog shows and make a truckload of money out of it they push the importance of dog shows over anything else.

On a personal note.I have always bred ANKC registered purebred dogs - for me the registered pedigree is the issue as it allows me to see the ancestry and keep records on health and temperament . I have kept meticulous records on every little thing for about 40 years .This week I added information about a dog which killed a snake on her pedigree notes and I added the fact that the other dog took off on his.The jobs they do in their new homes and any issues are all recorded for every dog I own or breed. These days these notes are also added to the MDBA pedigrees so anyone coming after me for generations to come can also use it.

Since this breed came into Australia in the main we have been able to have dogs which worked well in the paddock all week and came out on week ends to run a show ring and win a championship. I was very proud of the fact that I had dogs which worked 24 hours a day which had no dog in their 5 generation pedigree which wasnt a champion or a grand champion . I was chuffed about the fact that my dogs were working and I was breeding puppies which were working well and winning in the ring. But as time has progressed more breeders are breeding these dogs and not working them. they are also selecting partners for their dogs based on conformation wins with no interest in working ability in the belief that even with out selection these characteristics will not be extinguished over time. They see typical breed temperament characteristics in their dogs which are pets and assume that equates to them possessing first class working ability so they think they are selecting for function as well as conformation but they are not

Joint problems are now an issue which was never there because they are breeding them bigger and heavier and because there isnt as much importance placed on the dogs ability to lope.Several other things which dont matter to a pet are showing up which are crucial for a working dog such as lack of pigment in the noses, lighter eye colour etc .

So for the first time I'm aware that Im at the same place as breeders of other working dog breeds must have been at one time.

Im understanding more clearly about why there is such an obvious division.

I want a registered pedigree, I want to breed dogs which are good examples of the breed visually , I want dogs which are able to work , I dont want to breed with dogs which have no known ancestry but work well, I dont want to breed with dogs which are showing joint problems or lack of pigment or which have a coat which needs grooming but only 119 were registered last year Australia wide - about 10 litters [ 4 of these were litters I bred] half of them would be on limited register some would be bred by people who don't work them, some have recessive genes for light pigment , I want form and function but that's getting harder. Im going shopping for a new stud boy early in the new year and these are pretty big issues for me right now ?

[The Spotted Devil]

LizT, I certainly understand your point and there has to be some learning involved - like all things including basic stuff like socialization. At the end of the day it's up to breeders and buyers and the degree of variation and definition of 'working' is huge. Some people want a high drive working Lab to excel at retrieving trials but prefer the field bred ESS for hunting. I met a lady in the US who was trying to breed dual purpose ESS. Her best example at the hunt test was not a patch on the working ESS and Cockers in my opinion but she clearly likes that style of dog and has a market for them. Not everyone likes the same style of dog. I don't put much stock in performance titles unless I've seen the dog in action anyway.

[Vickie]

Great post Steve. Puts it all into petspective

[mixeduppup]

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.

Yep, real work is competition practice. I don't know anyone who just keeps kelpies for trials without working them as well.

[LizT]

LizT, I certainly understand your point and there has to be some learning involved - like all things including basic stuff like socialization. At the end of the day it's up to breeders and buyers and the degree of variation and definition of 'working' is huge. Some people want a high drive working Lab to excel at retrieving trials but prefer the field bred ESS for hunting. I met a lady in the US who was trying to breed dual purpose ESS. Her best example at the hunt test was not a patch on the working ESS and Cockers in my opinion but she clearly likes that style of dog and has a market for them. Not everyone likes the same style of dog. I don't put much stock in performance titles unless I've seen the dog in action anyway.

Ahhh...that's the beauty of the dog...you might choose a breed because of a certain characteristic, and their parents may well excel at the chosen disipline we have grand plans and aspirations for our new puppy, but at the end of the day they are all individuals and we must love them for who they are ...quirks and all...or we simply have failed them.

[Kavik]

Yes great post Steve!

[LizT]

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.

Yep, real work is competition practice. I don't know anyone who just keeps kelpies for trials without working them as well.

Ummm..possibly a city/suburban/semi rural enthusiast? :)

Highly unlikely though.

Edited October 19, 2012 by LizT

[steamboat]

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.

Of course. nurture & nature doing the business.

Not all good working dogs are even pure breeds. Just as not all specific "functions" are performed by a designate breed.

Not every sheep dog is a kelpie nor every cattle dog a blue heeler for e.g.

Not all good field dogs are good yard dog & vice versa.

Nor does being a bred to a standard somehow disqualify a dogs capacity to ''function". Back to nuture.

Just as breeding & exhibiting is considered a ''sport'' by the pure breed fraterniy. So are sheep dog trials by that section of the community.

It is their recreation & the challenge of getting it right is the goal.

Of course, there is some money to be made by those who do it the best.

[mixeduppup]

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.

Yep, real work is competition practice. I don't know anyone who just keeps kelpies for trials without working them as well.

Ummm..possibly a city/suburban/semi rural enthusiast? :)

Highly unlikely though.

True, there could be some but to have a dog at high levels of competition they have to have access to sheep most days.

[eyeopener]

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?

It is hard to do this as you wouldn't want to put American staffy's in a pit of ridgebacks in with a loin etc etc... But that said I think there are way to test for working ability n drive without doing those things & would far prefer to breed with health first, then temperament, work ability n drive n very last comes type coat n colour. IMHO way too many breeders but type above all else & I think this drive to breed cookie cutter images of each other is insane n will only lead to narrowing gene pools further. Specially in breeds that are actually a landrace type nota breed anyway & therefor meant to have differing types all under 1 breed umbrella.

[Steve]

On the other side - look at beagles. In 35 years Ive never sold a beagle to a hunting home - every single one has gone out as a pet and while they muck around here scenting Ive never selected them for how well they scent .Thats why when I send them home they are easier to live with as pets and if I went back to driven dogs which scent and drive you nuts they would be more difficult to live with for those who want them as pets. I don't care if they don't pass scenting tests or go into the quarantine program.I breed pets not hunting dogs and if ever I get an enquiry for a hunting beagle Ill tell them to find someone who has been selecting for that. No doubt that people who have placed a higher importance on hunting think Ive buggered it up but the people who live with them like it lke that and so do I.

[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.

And yet, very few dogs who ARE performing the true function look anything like this standard. Weird huh?

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.

And yet, for herding breeds farmers rarely use these dogs. Weird huh?

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.

Geez, you make it all sound so easy. I might just give it a go. I wonder why you don't see more dogs, bred for form in sheepdog trials, (and i mean the ones that dont use trained sheep), weird huh?

It's a weird world.

Maybe if more farmers did try selective breeding from conformationally correct dogs the towns wouldn't be full of failed working dogs.

Those who have made a business of selective breeding are world famous in the working dog world & are paid astonomical amounts for their pups....weird eh?