First off, I’d like to apologise to the knowledgeable ones on this board who know all of this as well or better than me!

Going right back to the start, dogs were developed in the main to help man in his or her endeavours, often but not always in his work. Some were developed to help man by carrying or hauling loads for him Sledge dogs and the like. Others such as the “Lap Dogs” for example were developed as small dogs to sit on the laps of the “Well to do” to take their fleas! By putting the best to the best, the puppies were hopefully as good or maybe even better than their parents. As the characteristics which were being sought were attained it became necessary to find some way to identify the individual types of dogs and the names given often being taken from the geographic location (Skye Terrier), the name of the breeder (Jack Russell terrier) or maybe an identifying characteristic (Flatcoated Retriever)
Retrievers, which were being discussed in the original post were, when first brought into the fold of the KC were never classed as breeds but were “Varieties” and as such, interbreeding was allowed under certain circumstances. Witness the fact that the gene for PRA is the very same gene in both Labradors and Goldens!
Add to the above the fact that so few dogs were registered during the war years (Flatcoats for example were down to double, and very nearly single figures) that at the end of WW2 the KC allowed registration under the “Pink Form” scheme. If it looked like a breed, was mated to a pedigree dog of that breed and the puppies looked like that breed then they could be registered as that breed. (There is a case of a dog which at some time produced a litter of Goldens, a litter of Labradors and a litter of Flatcoats!!!!! As can be seen, the possibilities of “Throw backs” was always there although selective breeding did help to keep the incident under control.
Talking about Labradors which was where this post originated. With the advent of competition a whole new set of criteria arrived on the scene and some people were not quite so keen to preserve the breeds as they were in winning! As early as the 1920’s Lorna, Countess of How commented on, Some “Labradors running in Field Trials today bear more resemblance to Whippets” and “Thinly disguised Flatcoats”. Definitely in the 30’s and 40’s quite a bit of Flatcoat was sereptiously added into the Labrador by people with a “Win at all cost” attitude! Although in my idea wrong this was and is by no means the only or worst case! Only a couple of weeks ago was talk in Shooting Times by a well known Field Trials man of Border Collie/Working Sheepdogs being added by the unscrupulous! With the best will in the world and with no intention to upset the sheepdog people, a collie is not an ideal addition to a working gundog. Talk about a guided missile with a rattrap for a mouth! BC’s were never bred for soft mouths and for the job they do have no need of one. I know there are some very soft and gentle BC's around but the excitment on a shoot with guns being fired and birds falling is enough to sent all but the very best retrievers over the top!
So Jackie, with all this are you surprised we have throwbacks in the breed? And are you surprised I have fears for the future?

Sorry to rattle on a bit but you did ask! :)
Regards John

Thank you John, very interesting and as you say very worrying. I think I had heard about the Pink Form scheme but had assumed that it was designed to be used for dogs that were of 'the breed' but had perhaps not been registered because of WW2 or ignorance on the part of the breeder. I did realize that may be a miss mating may have slipped in, but had no idea that it extended to the lenghs you say.

I'm aware that in my breed (Elkhounds) there has been a tremendous change in the dogs, those of today being very different to the animals originally imported, and had always assume the changes had come about by selective breeding, which in my breed may well be so. But it would appear from what you are saying that what we accept today as a thoroughbred dog or hound, may have a very short history in it's present form.

Of course, many breeds are an amalgam of breeds, but I've always thought of it having taken place in the past. I suppose that it is OK to introduce a breed or crossbreed to strengthen another breed if the person doing it understands what they are doing and why they are doing it but the idea of a border being crossed with a gundog seems to me plain lunacy.

I would be very pleased if you could suggest further reading. Love it when someone sets the old cogs turning, thanks. JH

Lets face it, out crossing is the only way to establish a breed in the very first instance. The gene pool must be large enough to produce healthy animals. Even when you have produced what you want you may still have to go outside to expand the gene pool or the inbreeding will produce weaker and weaker dogs.
Yes, the Pink Form was intended to be used by dogs "Of a type" but the gene pool had sunk to such a low level in some breeds that they were very nearly extinct! Desperate times indeed and there’s no doubt in my mind that without some breeds may well not have survived! But what's happening now is something else all together.
Not wishing to upset anyone! In obedience in the early years the GSD was king! Other breeds had good fun and were capable of getting into the awards. Then the Border Collies arrived on the scene and it was all change! They were so much more stylish and precise than anything around at that time. Unfortunately there were several very good workers who were also not exactly what you would want to live with! Around 40 years ago the Obedience Council brought out a new set of rules (S2) for obedience competitions. These included a Temperament Test, whose stated aim was to weed out those dogs of iffy temperament. Unfortunately, the judges of the day never interpreted the rules in the manner they were drafted and it became just another "Stay" test. I dropped out of obedience at that time, being sick of my old Labrador being marked down for a bad temperament because she would step forward wagging her tail!!!!
Now, in gundog work we have things called Scurries, (Timed retrieves.) Just imagine what's needed for this. Speed, handlability and not much else. You can have no test of mouth on a dummy so hard mouths go unpunished. To a certain extent the same thing applies to gundog Working Tests. Just watch a BC or WS working. It can turn on a sixpence and be handled with precision! The only reason it can’t win is because it is not a gundog so cannot take part! Now this is where the unscrupulous come in! Some of these "Dodgy matings" no doubt look like the breed they purport to be so these run and get a name for doing well. What happens then? They get used on the "Genuine" animals and the contaminated lines become part of the breed!
Breeds are subjected to fashion and always have been. Labradors in the ring have by and large got chunkier, Goldens have got much lighter in colour, Flatcoats have got smaller. This may or may not be a good thing. The minute you reduce the size of your gene pool in order to produce dogs of a certain type you could be loosing good genes and doubling up on bad!

Just the ramblings of an old dodderer!
Best wishes, John

Hi John, very interesting reading. One thing that bothers me is the diference in show and working labs. Surely a lab is a lab is a lab! Looking at the size of some of the show specimens, I can't imagine them out doing a days picking up. Don't get me wrong, I adore all labs, and I respect the show-ers and the workers. But why is there such a difference.?
Lorna

There was quite a lot of discussion about this right back in 1907! (And before you ask, no, I wasn't there!) In those days most gundogs worked but it was generally recognised that if the dog was not of a high enough standard to show then the only thing to do with it was to work it! Obviously, if you put in more time working a dog it SHOULD be a better worker and if you take "Inherited knowledge into account future generations should be better workers to! So you can see the start of the breaking away of the working and show lines even in those far off times. Over the years the breed characteristics have got "Fixed" into two general types although the working lines are rather more variable because of the greater emphasis on ability and less on looks .
I have said before on this board that I feel the show judges should take more account of the dogs "Fitness for Purpose" but then I have to ask, how many judges in the show ring have actually seen a shoot or Field Trial? Some, I know but not that many!

By the way, I apologise for this developing into a bit of a massive tome but it's been raining today!!!!!

Regards, John

Don't worry John, best read I've had all week. JH

< ' ......I have said before on this board that I feel the show judges should take more account of the dogs "Fitness for Purpose" but then I have to ask, how many judges in the show ring have actually seen a shoot or Field Trial? Some, I know but not that many! ...' >

Totally agree John and how many judges truly know a dog in hard condition when they lay their hands on it? Thank god that some of them do :-) In the HPR breeds it is not so bad.
Having said that I read a critique about a dog recently, that I have had the 'pleasure' of going over, and it said ".. good hard condition, no doubt could work all day long.." !!! I was appalled. It looks ok in profile, but when you touch it, it felt like a blancmange !!

There is no way it could do a days work without injury.

Your average pet dog has more tone.

Leigh