I was talking to someone about this a couple of days ago, and it seems the status of a dual champion has become watered down from the achievements required in days gone by.  Is this a good thing?  I'm torn on the issue, it would possibly mean that very few or no dual champions would be made up currently, but would that make those wanting to attain that status work a bit harder to achieve it, or would it be too off putting? 

I think it would be pretty hard to attain that status in labs... so few show people are Field Trialers at Championship level, and few FT Ch would get looked at in the showring... The last Dual Champion in the breed was Knaith Banjo born 1946

Arnold White-Robinson succeeded in making up to FT Ch the mainly show bred Stratfieldsaye Calcot Crossbow. He, however, was virtually ignored as a stud dog by show breeders. Neither was he much used by field trial people. It is not an uncommon fate for dual purpose dogs to be wasted at stud, as neither side are prepared to use them.

to answer your question.... No.. I don't think it will make much of a difference.. the dog may have superb abilities to do well in both fields, but if the owner/handler has little interest in one or other of the sports...

This is only my opinion with respect to Labs.. I can't speak for other gundog breeds or owners

I have GSP's there have been 9 Dual Champions, ie Sh Ch and FT Ch, over the years. However even in a breed where there is little split beween bench and field the Dual Ch will always remain a rare occurrance, as so few owners have equal interest in both aspects of the dog game.  IME it is certainly no easier for dogs to win an open FT today than in years gone by, in fact in early 2000's  we had no living FT ch at all. The tide has howveer turned and we have seen a couple of new FT Ch made up in last couple of years. 

Those who focus mainly on shows often work their dogs to gain qualifying certificates - show gundog wrok certificate or to a place / COM at a field trial - to attain title of Champion , but few have the drive to really polish the performance to open FT standard.  Likewise FT handlers rarely have overall presentation/handling skills to really get the best from their dogs at the very few shows they attend - breed Ch Sh / Crufts - to seriously worry the polished show dogs. Also as many of the FT dogs have not been selected on conformation (more for their nature/drive) they often have a few more deviations from standard. Thus a Dual Ch is truely a rare thing. 

That said a study of our Dual Ch pedigrees demonstrates blood lines that could be found in the pedigrees of very many Sh Ch dogs of the same era, and in the pedigrees of many show dogs today ---- long may our show breeders seriously consider a well made working dog in there breeding plans to maintain work ability, and long may our work enthusiats continue to use our top Sh Ch on their Ft bitches to maintain type and sound construction.   

K

Thanks for those comments guys, there are certainly a few breeds where it would be difficult to achieve the dual championship status, retrievers and spaniels I'm thinking in the main.  The HPR's don't seem to have quite the same division, not so sure about the setters, although I think although there is a divide it may not be to the same extend of retrievers and spaniels perhaps??? 

Do you think it helps making it more attainable, or do you think it should stick to the status of a true dual champion, ie they've achieved the status of field trial and show champion.  The SGWC isn't something any serious working person would look to attain, so I'm not sure how it can be held as such a high achievement to make up a show champion into a dual champion.  If the same were true for working dogs, that they could pass a basic conformation test and become a dual champion, would that reflect adequately on the true status of the dogs? 

Now I'm not taking anything away from anyone who has taken the SGWC and achieved dual championship status, I applaud them, it's no mean feat by the standard of anyone who aspires to get anywhere in gundog training.  But it's just not anywhere near the same as a field trial champion, and I'm not sure it's doing any favours in the long run by allowing the great divide to continue with a bit of a glossing over. 

Have I missed something here?  since when did the SGWC give Dual Champ status?

> The SGWC isn't something any serious working person would look to attain, so I'm not sure how it can be held as such a high achievement to make up a show champion into a dual champion. 

it doesn't though it makes a Show champion into a champion, where the Sh is dropped.

A dual champion would have to be both a Field Trial champion and a Champion in the show ring (so the Sh would be dropped anyway).

I am wondering if Sleeping lion has got the wrong end of the stick, or if the conversation she had about Dual Champs wavered into the Sh Ch x Ch mode, and lines got crossed...

I was under the impression she was talking about Dual Champions as per her heading.. but it seems she was talking about Full Champions..

confused :-)

I maybe have got the wrong end of the stick, but if you look on the curly coated retriever club website, the 'CH' status, which to my mind denotes dual championship status, can be achieved from a show champion gaining the SGWC, if I read it right? 

> I maybe have got the wrong end of the stick, but if you look on the curly coated retriever club website, the 'CH' status, which to my mind denotes dual championship status, can be achieved from a show champion gaining the SGWC, if I read it right? 

Yes, you have picked things up wrongly... not uncommon lol..

A Sh Ch is  3 CC's under 3 different judges.  FULL Ch (CH) is where the dog has gone on and passed his SGWC, either after gaining Sh Ch  OR, qualifying at a Ch Show enabling dog to undergo SGWC prior to being made up to Sh Ch.... wherefore he would automatically become CH... clear as mud lol

A DUAL Champion is where the dog is SH CH in the Showring.. AND FT Champion... ie: having also won 3 seperate FT's at championship level

Believe me, this is no mean feat. and The last Labrador to acheive this was back in the 1940's... over 60 years ago

For easier clarification... the awards would read

Sh Ch =  Show Champion
CH = Full Champion
Dual CH = Dual Champion

Hmmm, why are they using a CH then for dogs that don't appear to be FT CH and SH CH? 

From the CCR site
Therefore, the title of Show Champion came into being, but to achieve Full Champion status the dog still needed to qualify at a Field Trial either with an award, COM or by passing the Show Gundog Working Certificate.

That's the part that's thrown me......

Because if a dog is a Show Champion (Sh Ch) and a Field Trial Champion (FTCh) it has the title of Dual Champion, not Full Champion (Ch).

A Full Champion is a Show Champion that has proved it has a degree of working ability, but hasn't achieved Field Trial Champion status.

> Hmmm, why are they using a CH then for dogs that don't appear to be FT CH and SH CH? 
>
> From the CCR site
> Therefore, the title of Show Champion came into being, but to achieve Full Champion status the dog still needed to qualify at a Field Trial either with an award, COM or by passing the Show Gundog Working Certificate.
>
> That's the part that's thrown me......

The above is correct.. they need to complete the above to become a Full CH... this does not give them DUAL Ch Status.. only CH status...

Dual and Full Ch are completely different titles...

I had a quick look at the site, and nowhere does it mention dual status.. so I feel your confusion lies in the difference between the two titles..

That's what I thought, and yet I've seen dogs listed with the 'CH' that haven't achieved these titles.  In fact if you look on the CCR club website, they list dogs that have passed the SGWC and have the title of SH CH as a 'CH':

http://www.curlycoatedretrieverclub.co.uk/gundogwork.htm

You have to scroll down to the bottom....

Thanks for that, it is the CH that has thrown me, I did think this means Dual CH?? 

> That's what I thought, and yet I've seen dogs listed with the 'CH' that haven't achieved these titles.  In fact if you look on the CCR club website, they list dogs that have passed the SGWC and have the title of SH CH as a 'CH':
>
>

but that is correct.. if they have passed their SGWC they are no longer a Sh Ch, they move up to CH. 

I wonder if this might help...

Hypothetically.. I have a dog who has 3CC's  and is now a Sh Ch... tomorrow he sits and passes his SGWC, he then loses the Sh Ch title, and it is replaced with CH... however.. I then go on to win 3 Field Trial Championships.. I lose the CH and Become DUAL CH...

Dual Ch is the ultimate. :-)

And just to answer myself, found this useful KC article! 

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/9430/SGWC-v2-19-Aug.pdf

That makes it clearer to me, but I'm not sure if it still muddies the waters, what is the point of the SGWC?  I'm getting more baffled to be honest!!  Surely working tests and field trials provide credible proof??

Apols, replying to you both, I think I've grasped the concept, not sure whether the method is madness yet, chuckle!  But yes, for a working bred dog, the ability is hugely important, and that does sometimes get taken for granted without being proven.  But, and yet again a disclaimer, what is the point of this extra status?  Without taking away anything from those who've achieved a CH, why couldn't this be achieved by competing at working tests or field trials, which surely are the most widely accepted way of proving credible ability?  Apologies if I'm sounding dismissive at all of the SGWC, I'm not trying to be, but I just think it's a side step, when other means are there to prove ability that could be used. 

>what is the point of the SGWC?

It's to show that a dog is more than just a beauty queen; that it can still do the job it was designed for. However it takes more than that to become a Field trial Champion, just as it takes more than a Best of Breed to become a Champion in the show ring.

Sorry JG, I've sort of moved on a step there with the working test question, which could be used just as much as a SGWC situation.  I understand the SGWC is done under FT conditions, ie with game, but working tests are already a widely accepted way of proving ability, and winning an open working test is no mean feat. 

The SGWC seems an oddity, an add on, if you like, when there are already ways of proving a working ability, or maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way? 

> what is the point of the SGWC?  I'm getting more baffled to be honest!!  Surely working tests and field trials provide credible proof??

Few show people compete at FT or working tests.. and rarely do you see field trialer handling a dog in the showring.. although to be fair, more show folks are becoming interested in the working side of things :-) 

The SGWC give the showdog and handler a chance to train to a certain level in order to gain a qualification to attain Ch Status...

Unlike other breeds, The gundog group can only become Show Champions with 3CC's, they NEED the SGWC to become a champion... other breeds (apart from Border Collies) automatically become Champions with their 3CC's, with no need to prove themselves.. so in fact in makes it that much harder for a gundog to attain CH status...although not neccessarily through the dogs inability.

>The SGWC seems an oddity, an add on, if you like, when there are already ways of proving a working ability, or maybe I'm looking at it in the wrong way?

Some of the dyed-in-the-wool field trials people would agree with you (curiously they're often the people whose dogs have only a passing resemblence to the breed standard ;-)). In some ways it can be compared to passing your driving test as opposed to winning the Monte Carlo rally.

Thanks for that, I can see where the SGWC fits in for those who show, but still am not sure why some of the current tests/trials that are already in place couldn't be used as a qualifying competition, rather than create something specifically for show dogs. 

And whilst I can see the analogy, surely if the point of learning to drive a car is to win the Monte Carlo rally, only learning to drive doesn't really achieve that?  It's a good starting point though.  

There are some nice looking working dogs out there, that do fit the breed standard very well, it's just alongside their counterparts in the ring, they have a broader head, loin etc.  Without turning this into a debate about the breed standard for those breeds where there is an obvious division, there is a huge difference in the way some components of a breed standard can be interpreted. 

> what is the point of the SGWC? 

It is to show that show dogs still have the working ability, even though they don't have owners that want to go on and train the dogs at the highest level and compete in Field Trials.

If more people did at least this then the split between working and show liens in breeds would be less.

You have the same situation n Border collies.  They can only become Sh Ch by winning at shows, once they have passed the aptitude/ability tests required they become full champions ie just Ch. 

Now if the owners also want to compete at the relevant Trials they can work to attain the Trial championship, which will make them Dual Champions.

For most of us trying to do one canine discipline is enough of a challenge and there is the time and money too.

Thanks for that, I can see where the SGWC fits in for those who show, but still am not sure why some of the current tests/trials that are already in place couldn't be used as a qualifying competition, rather than create something specifically for show dogs.

It's very hard to get a chance to run in any Trials, only a certain number of those entering get to take part.  so taking serious competitors chances of Trailing their dogs by allotting places for those who are just wanting to prove their dogs working ability is probably the reason for the separate tests.  Also it is probably more about inate aptitude in one as opposed to that plus trained ability in the other.

Yes, I understand that, but my thoughts are, that if you offer an 'inbetween' award, then perhaps that's all people will want to achieve?  So rather than try and attain a dog with correct conformation, temperament and ability, they'll skimp on the last part, because a field trial isn't achievable with their dogs.  I know some people won't always view the ability aspect as important, as much as they value how a dog looks, I personally feel it should be a balance between both, with temperament paramount.  So a dog that is a good representation of the breed, and can do what it says on the box, I admire more, than one that has achieved higher in one side or another, but doesn't tick all the boxes, if that makes sense? 

>So rather than try and attain a dog with correct conformation, temperament and ability, they'll skimp on the last part, because a field trial isn't achievable with >their dogs.  I know some people won't always view the ability aspect as important, as much as they value how a dog looks,

I swithered whether to come back on this.  I do appreciate every has their opinion.. and no one more than I do lol... but this is bothering me a little

We do NOT skimp on the last part.. I breed to the standard... I breed dual purpose.. my dogs work and show... I have more pups in true working homes than show homes... not just the odd beating weekend, but earning their keep... Gamekeepers and the Chairman of a shooting syndicate.. who also came back to me for a 2nd pup... (the son of Ollie... spawn of satan lol... who would believe that one :-P )

It is unfair to judge those of us who choose to show rather than field trial, but our dogs still have the ability, and the capability to trial if they had the correct handler.. I used to Field Trial,(ESS not Labs) but that was 15years ago now.. I am too old.. I have fun with my dogs now.. the odd picking up.. the odd beating during the season... but my dogs are more than capable of doing both .... just because I choose not to, should NOT be judged as the dogs lack of ability

I recently bought my very 1st Flatcoat specifically to work... very strong working lines... Sire owned by a gamekeeper (sire is 12 years old = that was aimed at another thread ;-) )  and I plan to have fun with him in the showring...

Sleepinglion.. can I ask if you field trial and if so, how many runs on average do you have from your entries

Can only talk about HPR's .. A dog with a show ring CC, or already a SH Ch, can apply to run at a FT for a SGWC. This is under true field conditions, the dog must hunt, cover ground methodically, be under control, point in contact with game, flush on command , be steady to shot & fall, retrieve tenderly (including runners) to hand and retrieve from deep water at the end of the day.  This is no different than what is expected of any  FT competitor HOWEVER as long as the dog fills its card, and does not committ any disqualifying faults,  it will be issues with a SGWC. So whats the benefit ????  Well the dogs has only to demonstrate its work ability and its bidability to training but it does not have to have the polish & finesse required to achieve a FT place award. The latter is more down to the skill of the handler and access to the right level of experience in game situations than the natural ability of the dog. Hence more accessable to show handlers

K

I think, in modern times where the vast majority of show dogs are domestic pets, that it's unrealistic to expect the owners to also spend every spare hour trialling their dogs as well. In the 'old days' of the big kennels there were enough staff to undertake the time involved, but unless an owner has private means with no need to work then it's a choice of one activity or the other.

Kayc you may ask indeed, and I very much respect your input.  No is the answer, I have two halfie bitches here, who may have done well, except for personal circumstances, and, in one instance an injury. 

I really don't judge anyone who chooses to show, and not work their dogs, honestly, and I am certainly in no place to do so.  What I'm querying is why there is the need for a separate division almost, does the SGWC need to be there?   Maybe not, if we didn't have such a great divide with some breeds, and that's my point. 

I haven't bred one litter yet, if I do, it will hopefully be to produce something for me to compete with.   My interests will always lie with working gundog breeds, and I hope my questions won't ever be negative, but merely informative?

brilliant, and I honestly applaud that, particularly as I've achieved bugga all, but, what does the SGWC in this instance, achieve for the breed overall? 

> What I'm querying is why there is the need for a separate division almost, does the SGWC need to be there?   Maybe not, if we didn't have such a great divide with some breeds, and that's my point. 
>
>

The other side to the coin.. we take away te SGWC and after 3cc' we automatically become full CH?   No.. I feel the SGWC is a good thing.. we HAVE to prove at least some ability to attain Ch Status.. where other breeds take the CH title automatically.. We at least then have the choice to compete further after Sh Ch.   If we took this away, the divide would be irretrievable, as it stands, we have many show people taking an interest in the working side of things.. that is not a bad thing...this would be lost if the SGWC was scrapped...

>We at least then have the choice to compete further after Sh Ch.   If we took this away, the divide would be irretrievable, as it stands, we have many show people taking an interest in the working side of things.. that is not a bad thing...this would be lost if the SGWC was scrapped...

Absolutely. The very existence of the SGWC encourages people with a greater interest in showing to maintain the working ability within their lines, and not lose it.

Just out of interest, is there the equivalent for the working fraternity to prove that their dogs are equally close to the breed standard in appearance as the show type is to working ability?

"Handsome is as handsome does" applies to both sides.

I echo Kays views.  In my own breed working owners will consider using a show gundog at stud dogs that had a recognised working award on game - so a FT award or SGWC - and this helps reduce the divide between work and show types. Where dogs don't have recognised field awards, Sh Ch dogs are generally only used by working breeders if they have persoanally seen /shot over the dogs as their focus is mainly WORK ability, type/constuction is secondary. Likewise FT classes at shows enable the show breeders to see working dogs, who may not take top honors at shows, but non the less demonstrate good type.. such dogs (from home or from European imports) are used by show breeders from time to time to maintain work ability.

A Full Ch is not a Dual Ch and cannot be compaired to one BUT regardless of how the SH part of the title is dropped (FT award or SGWC) it has proven itself in bench and field competition and thus MAY be an asset to the breed. I for one would not change the system we have.

K 

> It is unfair to judge those of us who choose to show rather than field trial, but our dogs still have the ability, and the capability to trial if they had the correct handler..

In breed like my own where the breed is dual purpose in it's homeland even after generations removed from hunting the dogs still have the innate ability.

A couple where the wife is Scandinavian have successfully hunted with their dog in Norway, though they haven't passed the hunting trials.

I am sure there are plenty of working gundogs and their handlers who have no interest in Trialling their dog, same as plenty of sheepdogs and shepherds who don't participate in Sheepdog trials.

A conscientious breeder breeds with the breeds purpose in mind even if they have no interest in taking part.

I'm trying to remember all the points to answer to, which, on a Monday morning is quite a task. 

No, absolutely agree, that the status of a 'Ch' should be proven with ability, but can't understand why a separate test has to be used, other than the ones that currently exist, the working tests and field trials. 

Jean, absolutely agree, but then you have to decide whether the breed standard was written as something to aspire to in the future, ie the broadest head, broadest loin, or was written to describe the ideal dog of the day.  I believe the latter, and see many working and show bred dogs from my breed, that appear to be the same sort of stamp as past dual champions.  I don't think anyone would deny that some of the past dual champions in Labradors wouldn't get anywhere in the ring today, yet everyone insists at the same time, that the show ring hasn't moved away.  Nor would any working folk deny that some of the working bred Labradors are too fine, and aren't the best example of the breed when it comes to looks.  But for those who choose ability over conformation, that isn't the most important factor.  In days gone by, it wouldn't have mattered to them, and they probably wouldn't have shown their dog, or been successful if they did, and so perhaps a dog of lesser ability that was shown successfully, would have achieved higher accolades.  Yet now, it's swung completely the other way around, and the vast majority of show Labradors do not have proven ability.

K, I strongly believe that ability is as bred into a dog, as temperament.  Now you can work with a dog of poor temperament, or poor ability, and bring it round to some extent, but you cannot put in what isn't there.  Take my bitch as an example, she is mostly show bred, with a mix on the dam's side, and although she works well, and has good natural marking, she just does not have the same drive or ability as many of the working bred dogs I've seen.  I have a little Labrador who is entirely working bred staying with me, while her owner, who is a game keeper on a grouse moor, gets around to building her kennels.  She is incredibly biddable, and completely natural when it comes to retrieving, and she has the awful habit of hitting the floor at the slightest thing that spooks her as though she's been beaten with a big stick all her life, when I've made huge attempts to be as gentle with her as possible.  And yet she wouldn't even get in a show ring, but that isn't what's important to her owner, it's what she can do out working that matters. 

It's the old conundrum, what's the point in having a Labrador that doesn't look like a Labrador (although that's open to interpretation), or one that can't do what it's bred to do in the first place. 

>I don't think anyone would deny that some of the past dual champions in Labradors wouldn't get anywhere in the ring today ...........  Nor would any working folk deny that some of the working bred Labradors are too fine, and aren't the best example of the breed when it comes to looks.

Both 'sides' are equally at fault in this respect, and sadly the split between the two camps is very obvious.

Interestingly it's usually the 'show' folk who health test before breeding their dogs, when you'd think it would be the other way around.

Actually Jean, I do know a lot of folk who work their dogs that health test, although I'd agree there are many who don't.  My OH did a quick survey when he was out picking up, and out of the whole team, there were only two I think that made use of some of the health tests available, and there were a couple that didn't even know about the health tests available.  However, it has to be borne in mind, that these people know their dogs inside and out, and whilst health testing tells you the status of your dog(s) in no uncertain terms, it doesn't give you much knowledge about the dogs in it's lineage.  I think where the health testing falls down, is that a little knowledge can be a bad thing, and many use it as a check list for breeding, rather than the small bit of knowledge it actually is, about the dog in front of them.  There are a few dogs that spring to mind that probably wouldn't have been used to the extent they were, if at all, because of their health status.  And yet the condition I'm thinking about, PRA, isn't life threatening, nor is it even something that will definitely develop into a condition within the life time of a dog. 

To get it down to a personal perspective, we've been considering getting a labrador again - our last one died nearly 15 years ago - and it's nearly impossible to find a decent old-fashioned 'middle-of-the-road' type of dog. The show types are too heavily-built (the dreaded word 'chunky' tells you that they're destined to be cloddy) and the working types are either too whippety or too 'hot' to make a good house pet. It's very sad to see how much the breed has deteriorated.

Jeangenie, you're obviously not looking in the right places! ;-)

If you can point us in the right direction we'd be very grateful! (PM obviously, because we don't want to advertise!)

I find the perception of working dogs being too hot an odd one.  For much of the time, working Labradors lie about sleeping, it's only when you want them to do something, that they can turn into excocet missiles, some of them.  As well, much of the work they do, means they need to be steady, and quiet, I've known shoot days where a peg dog hasn't had one retrieve, but has sat quietly all day, waiting for something possibly to happen.  The worst Labradors I've come across for being mad hot and giddy, are badly bred pet dogs, where people have just bunged two Labradors together to make money. 

Am trying to do both in a very small way (very trying & very small lol)

I think there may be a divide in the working side too, those dogs used for actual work, and those bred in addition to win at trials in a competitive setting, that are too hot to handle.

This was something that John who used to post here mentioned.

It isn't just the show side that are guilty of exageration of a given trait, the oen has concentrated more on looks the other on behaviour.

I would not be happy with a Labrador (or any breed) that spooks and creeps no matter how good a worker or potential show dog.

Do you mean John Weller? 

No, I wouldn't be happy if she were mine either, but there's no denying she has the ability in bag loads, it's a shame she's such a timorous wee beastie!  She's actually here for socialisation with my dogs, who are big and daft enough to help her come out of her shell.  Her owner has no interest in showing, so as long as she does what she was bred for, he'll be more than happy. 

I hope I haven't given the impression that I think it's all down to those pesky show people, I think I've posted that conformation doesn't matter to some who work their dogs, but there are people who work their dogs that greatly value their dogs' looks.  I think the saying goes, life's too short to shoot over an ugly dog.  It's just the intreptation of the breed standard they hold is for a more moderate dog than some of the larger show types. 

> It's just the interpretation of the breed standard they hold is for a more moderate dog than some of the larger show types. 

Oh no I didn't think you meant that, but there are many in the show side who also try and aim for a more moderate dog, they perhaps don't do as well until the judges start putting up more moderate dogs.

To this end the KC are having/planning to have judges before approval for CC's attend working events I believe.

I do prefer the Scandinavian system for my breed.  A working dog cannot gain its Hunting title unless it is typical of the breed and can gain Excellent/first quality at shows, and a show dog cannot gain its show title unless it also gains passes at 3 hunting tests (run before the hunting season starts and the Elk is not shot).

This means there is no real divide.  I rather like their English Setters too, less coat and glamour and very workmanlike.

Except it does stop those not interested in working achieving titles with their dogs in the ring, so non hunters with no-one in the family hunting will not choose the breed. 

This sadly means that in their homeland they are being outstripped in popularity by other breeds year on year, and with increasing urbanisation the breed could eventually decline too far in numbers.

There are many breeds whose original purpose is now illegal (eg. Staffords and Bulldogs) or largely redundant that only continue to exist because of the show-ring and companion homes.  This includes some of the older working breeds that have been superseded by newer variants.  Thinking here of the old Spaniel breeds and the Springer Spaniel for example.

Springers are still very popular working dogs here, as are cockers, it's the HPRs and Setters that you see much less of, and the less popular retrievers, flatcoats and curly coated retrievers, I have yet to see one on the shoots I've been to of those last two.

But back to the spaniels, I think the divide there is probably greater than the one in Labradors.  They don't look like the same breed any more, which is a great shame; I am fascinated watching these dogs work, they have incredible motion when they are hunting. 

A really interesting discussion to read, especially if you didn't understand some of the finer points...

I show a non-gundog breed but husband and I are shooting twice a week through the season and an estate we used to live on regularly held Field Trials and Tests, in fact, the headkeeper was 'big' in trialling and an A-Panel Retriever judge. ..

From what I have gleaned over the years is that it is far more difficult and expensive to Field Trial than ever it is to get into showing as it seems quite a closed camp i.e. often who you know not, what you know that gets you runs.

Therefore there must be a halfway house for all the more than capable dogs and handlers that perhaps haven't got the finances or the 'links' to progress up the Field Trial ladder... I know folk in purely working Gundogs who think the SGWC is a farce (all Lab and Springer owners) but since most of the breeds that have their SGWC are those where there is far less of a work/show divide (i.e. HPR's), surely that shows that it 'works'?  If the majority of Lab/Springer and Cocker owners strived to achieve both, there wouldn't be the divide that there is.

It's very telling that the majority of legally docked gundogs that both work and show include neither Cockers nor Springers.

Personally I think the SGWC is an asset and should be given more credit.  JMHO

What about working tests though?  Granted they aren't on live, or even cold, game, but an open test is no mean feat.