Which Breeds Come In Working Lines?

[silentchild]

That makes sense DeltaCharlie, thank you very much. I wonder if we should be striving to achieve that ideal world - getting the Australian shows to accept the different coat types and also breeding our working line border collies to try to ensure they still look like a border collie? Could we not breed a dog focusing on both aspects without having to choose one or is that difficult genetic-wise? As for people having access to a more laid-back border collie from show lines I can't help but think, if someone doesn't want the work ethic of a border collie, perhaps they shouldn't get a border collie..... but working dogs should also come with an off switch so they are not hyper bouncing off the walls all the time? I don't know what the middle ground is. I completely agree with you that temperament should be priority. However I think form is also important as without good structure a working dog would not be able to work all day anyway and that's where the show ring assessment could help.

Sorry I don't know much about the whole thing, I don't show neither do I work stock so I am perhaps being too naive. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom, it's all very interesting!

[Starkehre]

At the risk of opening a can of worms...... I'm always a bit confused about working lines vs show lines - wouldn't a breed be a breed be a breed and shouldn't they all fall under the same breed standard? For example shouldn't a border collie be a border collie - there is one breed standard so there should be just one type, one border collie, and that's it? Why should there be such a big difference between show and working lines? Shouldn't there just be one type that everyone sticks too - the one true breed type? Show borders should be able to work stock, and working borders should be able to show. Why should there be such a big difference in temperament? (and not talking about the border collie specifically but all breeds that have working vs show lines, just using it as an example). I'm not wording this well enough.. but I hope somebody understands what I mean LOL. Not trying to start a debate - I honestly just want to learn more about it. Have always wondered why there needs to be such a difference.

Exactly!!!

Unfortunately some breeders deviate for one reason or another.

I won't buy into the debate regarding other breeds, but I will say that this is particularly true in our breed.

All Rottweilers should be bred to be successful in both the show ring and in working arenas.

Rottweilers were never meant to be as hard or as high drive as some of the more serious working breeds anyway, they are slightly softer worker. Very much a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" sort of breed.

That's not to say that plenty of individuals aren't or have not been very successful in different arenas, but they are certainly not the breed would deliberately get into if you were a serious and super highly competitive obedience, IPO or Herding enthusiast.

IMO all breeders should be aiming to tick all the boxes, not breeding extremes of either side or ability.

[Bjelkier]

At the risk of opening a can of worms...... I'm always a bit confused about working lines vs show lines - wouldn't a breed be a breed be a breed and shouldn't they all fall under the same breed standard? For example shouldn't a border collie be a border collie - there is one breed standard so there should be just one type, one border collie, and that's it? Why should there be such a big difference between show and working lines? Shouldn't there just be one type that everyone sticks too - the one true breed type? Show borders should be able to work stock, and working borders should be able to show. Why should there be such a big difference in temperament? (and not talking about the border collie specifically but all breeds that have working vs show lines, just using it as an example). I'm not wording this well enough.. but I hope somebody understands what I mean LOL. Not trying to start a debate - I honestly just want to learn more about it. Have always wondered why there needs to be such a difference.

Exactly!!!

Unfortunately some breeders deviate for one reason or another.

I won't buy into the debate regarding other breeds, but I will say that this is particularly true in our breed.

All Rottweilers should be bred to be successful in both the show ring and in working arenas.

Rottweilers were never meant to be as hard or as high drive as some of the more serious working breeds anyway, they are slightly softer worker. Very much a "Jack of all trades, Master of none" sort of breed.

That's not to say that plenty of individuals aren't or have not been very successful in different arenas, but they are certainly not the breed would deliberately get into if you were a serious and super highly competitive obedience, IPO or Herding enthusiast.

IMO all breeders should be aiming to tick all the boxes, not breeding extremes of either side or ability.

I totally agree, especially with the bolded bit.

[Starkehre]

DC, I respect and totally understand what you are saying. However, I disagree with much of it.

I have no real issue with working registries and breeders breeding for specific working traits and deviating further and further away from the Breed Standard and deliberately breeding from dogs with faults/disqualifying faults.

But me not having an issue with it is not because I agree with it. It is simply because I have no intention to worry about what everyone else is doing.

I feel the need to mention one particular point you made that I vehemently disagree with (sorry I don't know how to quote) ... You cannot breed for every single aspect of the breed, so people focus on a few.

IMO breeders can and should absolutely breed for every single aspect of the breed, every single time. They won't always get it, but they should be trying. Enough goes wrong when breeders try to tick every box, let alone when they deliberately choose to ignore some of the boxes.

I know everyone won't agree on this working versus show debate, they never will and it really doesn't matter, but I think it is important to realise that making statements such as the one you made above is just an opinion and not a fact.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Starkehre

[DeltaCharlie]

That makes sense DeltaCharlie, thank you very much. I wonder if we should be striving to achieve that ideal world - getting the Australian shows to accept the different coat types and also breeding our working line border collies to try to ensure they still look like a border collie? Could we not breed a dog focusing on both aspects without having to choose one or is that difficult genetic-wise? As for people having access to a more laid-back border collie from show lines I can't help but think, if someone doesn't want the work ethic of a border collie, perhaps they shouldn't get a border collie..... but working dogs should also come with an off switch so they are not hyper bouncing off the walls all the time? I don't know what the middle ground is. I completely agree with you that temperament should be priority. However I think form is also important as without good structure a working dog would not be able to work all day anyway and that's where the show ring assessment could help.

Sorry I don't know much about the whole thing, I don't show neither do I work stock so I am perhaps being too naive. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom, it's all very interesting!

I agree, and there are people trying to do it. My Whip has an ISDS, main registered father but his mother is from show lines. Ann is trying hard to bring the working lines back into the MR lines, but most of them will never be "show type" no matter how good their structure is, they just don't fit the preconceived image of what a BC is. There are people trying hard to get all colours and coat types recognised but it is a long way off. They will never accommodate the size range though, because BCs come in all shapes and sizes. You get thickset dogs working in the cattle yards, light-framed rangy looking dogs working the paddocks, and anything in between. It is a breed used for too many different purposes to be able to label a particular type as being ideal.

I agree with you about people not prepared for a BC not having one rather than breeding low energy ones to suit. I actually think a working line dog (depending on the lines) would be a better suit for most families as they are bred to have an offswitch. A dog that bugs the farmer all day for something to do will not last very long! They are expected to amuse themselves until called upon.

I was thinking more along the lines of something like a labrador. I lived next door to working line labs for a few years and there is no way I could picture either of them as Guide Dogs :) Both useful lines to have, but bred for very different purposes.

I tend to think as far as structure goes, that if the dogs from those lines are working all day, every day for their entire lives then their structure can't be too bad :D They may not fit into the rules per se, but if they weren't up to the task structurally then they wouldn't be bred from either. I think you would find though, that most of them have actually got great structure, it is just tested in a different way. Kinda a version of natural selection rather than someone measuring how long their hock is, the structure is proven practically rather than scientifically. Although we pay more attention to structure and angles etc because we are also breeding with performance sports in mind, and the dogs need to be built in such a way that they can handle that additional stress on their bodies.

[RiverStar-Aura]

See I guess that's why I'm confused too about the working vs show lines too. These working dog breeds were bred to work and developed through years of careful cross breeding etc in order to produce the epitome of a working dog. That should be what the standard aims for and there shouldn't be a discrepancy between show or working lines.

It almost sounds as though the show lines of working breeds don't technically meet the standards because they don't make good working dogs ... I don't know if ironic is the word I'm looking for :laugh:

[DeltaCharlie]

I feel the need to mention one particular point you made that I vehemently disagree with (sorry I don't know how to quote) ... You cannot breed for every single aspect of the breed, so people focus on a few.

IMO breeders can and should absolutely breed for every single aspect of the breed, every single time. They won't always get it, but they should be trying. Enough goes wrong when breeders try to tick every box, let alone when they deliberately choose to ignore some of the boxes.

I actually agree with you for the most part there, so probably didn't explain myself properly. I actually used it as a way of trying to explain why there is such a big divide between the lines :) I'm not sure what it is like in other breeds for this, so can only comment from the BC point of view.

An example of what I mean by an aspect of the breed would be ear set. Sheep couldn't really give a rats what the ears look like on a dog, so for a working person that is the last thing they would look for. However, if the ears are pricked (allowed in every other country but ours) then the dog technically doesn't tick all the boxes and shouldn't be bred from. Never mind that it is the best worker produced in years and has structure and temperament to die for, its ears are wrong. Or perhaps it has a white spot on its back, or it has hardly any white on it at all. To me they are trivial things, a border collie is more than that.

In the ideal world, a border collie would never be bred from unless it had the instinct and ability to work well. That will never happen though. Most breeders do not have access to sheep or the time to work their dogs on them. Instinct is not a requirement in the show ring, they are not judged on it, so the dogs are bred for their appearances and movement. Breed for a few generations and unfortunately you lose a lot of the instinct from your lines. It will still pop up here and there, but if it is not focused on then it will filter out. I don't agree with this, to me a BC is a working dog and that is not a box that can be ignored. Its why our dogs are always coming from imported lines, we want a dog that has retained that instinct and ability. Then, we work the dogs and determine whether or not they are suitable for breeding. Not every puppy in a litter will be a great worker, so breeding without even considering that is something I can't quite fathom.

[Starkehre]

See I guess that's why I'm confused too about the working vs show lines too. These working dog breeds were bred to work and developed through years of careful cross breeding etc in order to produce the epitome of a working dog. That should be what the standard aims for and there shouldn't be a discrepancy between show or working lines.

It almost sounds as though the show lines of working breeds don't technically meet the standards because they don't make good working dogs ... I don't know if ironic is the word I'm looking for :laugh:

I can see why you'd come to this conclusion.

The reason many show dogs don't cut the grade as top working dogs is because of the breeder. They may not be a working person themselves, so are deliberately not placing enough emphasis on temperament, work ethic, instinct. They may be selecting sires that will assist them in continuing their success in the show ring and ignoring the working virtues.

I just find it really sad when both show and working people do not believe they CAN have it all. And instead of trying to achieve same, they come up with reasons why they can't. IMO it simply is not true.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Starkehre

[RiverStar-Aura]

And see I find that distinction actually detracts from the standard of the breed -- these dogs weren't bred as show dogs.

I can see how it'd be hard but yes, in an ideal world the breed champions would be both working line AND meet the show standard.

[DeltaCharlie]

The reason many show dogs don't cut the grade as top working dogs is because of the breeder. They may not be a working person themselves, so are deliberately not placing enough emphasis on temperament, work ethic, instinct. They may be selecting sires that will assist them in continuing their success in the show ring and ignoring the working virtues.

That is what I was trying to say :) But put much better!

[RiverStar-Aura]

It is hard though because showing is generally about dog aesthetics not their ability to work. Should modern Championship Shows develop to include a working test to prove the ability of the dogs too? That way if a Kelpie for example can't heard sheep but is an amazing specimen standard wise, it can't win BOB/BIS by default?

It's certainly not an easy thing to work out that's for sure!

[Starkehre]

I feel the need to mention one particular point you made that I vehemently disagree with (sorry I don't know how to quote) ... You cannot breed for every single aspect of the breed, so people focus on a few.

IMO breeders can and should absolutely breed for every single aspect of the breed, every single time. They won't always get it, but they should be trying. Enough goes wrong when breeders try to tick every box, let alone when they deliberately choose to ignore some of the boxes.

I actually agree with you for the most part there, so probably didn't explain myself properly. I actually used it as a way of trying to explain why there is such a big divide between the lines :) I'm not sure what it is like in other breeds for this, so can only comment from the BC point of view.

An example of what I mean by an aspect of the breed would be ear set. Sheep couldn't really give a rats what the ears look like on a dog, so for a working person that is the last thing they would look for. However, if the ears are pricked (allowed in every other country but ours) then the dog technically doesn't tick all the boxes and shouldn't be bred from. Never mind that it is the best worker produced in years and has structure and temperament to die for, its ears are wrong. Or perhaps it has a white spot on its back, or it has hardly any white on it at all. To me they are trivial things, a border collie is more than that.

In the ideal world, a border collie would never be bred from unless it had the instinct and ability to work well. That will never happen though. Most breeders do not have access to sheep or the time to work their dogs on them. Instinct is not a requirement in the show ring, they are not judged on it, so the dogs are bred for their appearances and movement. Breed for a few generations and unfortunately you lose a lot of the instinct from your lines. It will still pop up here and there, but if it is not focused on then it will filter out. I don't agree with this, to me a BC is a working dog and that is not a box that can be ignored. Its why our dogs are always coming from imported lines, we want a dog that has retained that instinct and ability. Then, we work the dogs and determine whether or not they are suitable for breeding. Not every puppy in a litter will be a great worker, so breeding without even considering that is something I can't quite fathom.

I hear ya DC. I know why and how it happens. I still don't agree with it.

Non herding breeders can go to the effort to source sheep or other stock to ascertain the level of instinct on their dogs prior to breeding them. I know that is only a small indication of true working ability but choosing not to do so is just that, their choice. It might not be easy but IMO breeding say BCs without testing this would be a huge error.

and equally on the other side of the fence choosing to ignore ear set (though clearly a cosmetic fault only) as well as other structural or cosmetic faults for me is still not the right thing to do. Once again, just my opinion.

City breeders can source sheep/cattle to work if they put in a bit of effort.

Country farmers can source dog shows and judges if they put in the same effort. No excuses. It is simply their choice and passion. No excuses.

[denali]

I also agree with the above, being able to achieve ALL of a breed standard should be strived for more often. I look at GSD's and Labradors in show rings and I almost always feel they done meet the standard as much as their working counterparts

Gooch (potential husband for Rush next year)

Working Aussie (if I was ever to cross to the dark side I love these Flatout lines and would head there :) ) Can't find a better pic sorry.

Agreed - love some of the flatout dogs!

:)

edit: attached was not one I can't get it to work for me today

Edited December 5, 2014 by denali

[Starkehre]

It is hard though because showing is generally about dog aesthetics not their ability to work. Should modern Championship Shows develop to include a working test to prove the ability of the dogs too? That way if a Kelpie for example can't heard sheep but is an amazing specimen standard wise, it can't win BOB/BIS by default?

It's certainly not an easy thing to work out that's for sure!

Good point. It is not easy.

Some breeds do or at least try to. They have specialty shows that require more proof of temperament. Not enough breeds unfortunately.

I think it still all falls back on the breeders. The judges can't be responsible for breeders breeding with dogs that possibly shouldn't be bred from. They make the decisions to breed. It is about their ethics, their ability to objectively critique their own dogs.

[denali]

It is hard though because showing is generally about dog aesthetics not their ability to work. Should modern Championship Shows develop to include a working test to prove the ability of the dogs too? That way if a Kelpie for example can't heard sheep but is an amazing specimen standard wise, it can't win BOB/BIS by default?

It's certainly not an easy thing to work out that's for sure!

Good point. It is not easy.

Some breeds do or at least try to. They have specialty shows that require more proof of temperament. Not enough breeds unfortunately.

I think it still all falls back on the breeders. The judges can't be responsible for breeders breeding with dogs that possibly shouldn't be bred from. They make the decisions to breed. It is about their ethics, their ability to objectively critique their own dogs.

I could be wrong, but in germany do they not do something like this with GSD's?

[Bjelkier]

It is hard though because showing is generally about dog aesthetics not their ability to work. Should modern Championship Shows develop to include a working test to prove the ability of the dogs too? That way if a Kelpie for example can't heard sheep but is an amazing specimen standard wise, it can't win BOB/BIS by default?

It's certainly not an easy thing to work out that's for sure!

Good point. It is not easy.

Some breeds do or at least try to. They have specialty shows that require more proof of temperament. Not enough breeds unfortunately.

I think it still all falls back on the breeders. The judges can't be responsible for breeders breeding with dogs that possibly shouldn't be bred from. They make the decisions to breed. It is about their ethics, their ability to objectively critique their own dogs.

I could be wrong, but in germany do they not do something like this with GSD's?

I know they require proof of working ability in Sweden before issuing a championship title with Samoyeds.

So far there isn't a real difference between working and show lines in my breed and for that I am very thankful

Edited December 5, 2014 by Bjelkier

[Dory the Doted One]

Willow isn't strictly working lines...but...she does alright,

Schmooozing at the Zombie Walk with a random stranger

[Yonjuro]

A Siberian Husky in my opinion in the epitome of function and form. Sadly there seems to be a trend of shorter legged huskies preferred in the ring

They should have longer legs, be lean and able to run great distances. I see them in all shapes and sizes these days and sadly most fall out of what they "should" be.

I get annoyed when people say that this is a show sibe and that is a racing (working sibe) I do not believe they should be mutually exclusive. Thankfully there are a number of good breeders out there that agree with these sentiments.

Rant off :D

[Bjelkier]

A Siberian Husky in my opinion in the epitome of function and form. Sadly there seems to be a trend of shorter legged huskies preferred in the ring

They should have longer legs, be lean and able to run great distances. I see them in all shapes and sizes these days and sadly most fall out of what they "should" be.

I get annoyed when people say that this is a show sibe and that is a racing (working sibe) I do not believe they should be mutually exclusive. Thankfully there are a number of good breeders out there that agree with these sentiments.

Rant off :D

Depends which country you're in. The show Siberians in the UK and much of Europe are far more like the racing dogs we have here. It very interesting to see the difference from country to country.

For example this is the dog what won it's breed at Crufts this year

http://crufts.fossedata.co.uk/Breed.asp?ShowYear=2014&GroupID=WOR&ScheduleID=22

Edited December 5, 2014 by Bjelkier

[Kavik]

It is a pity that there are show lines and working lines, but in some breeds, there is too much of a divide for it to be 'fixed'.

With Kelpies, as explained, there are 2 different registries, and not many breeders with dual registration. So already there is a big hurdle. Also there is no incentive to do this. There is no reason why a working Kelpie breeder with WKC registration would want to use an ANKC registered showline Kelpie - there is no benefit to it - why would they want to breed with a dog who has no proven ancestry of working? If they are looking to breed the best working dogs, they should breed with the best working dogs. I can see the benefit to the show dogs - to introduce more instinct and working ability - but there is no benefit to working line dogs in breeding to show dogs.

I don't have a problem with the split as long as people are open and honest about what they breed, so that people can source the type that they want.

Edited December 5, 2014 by Kavik