So, in attending some training days and setting up an assessment of your own, you can measure your dog against the national level of what makes a successful gundog?  You know what the standard is nationally, and exactly where your dog would fall - and that it would be in the awards if you were competing??  Sorry, but this is tantamount to saying that someone who is interested in showing can just attend some ringcraft classes and ask someone else you know what they think of your dog.  It is, in no way, going to be comparable to someone who goes to the time and effort of driving about all over the UK to attend champ shows and ensure that they know, for certain, how their dog measures up against other dogs in the breed and who *proves* that their dog has what it takes.

I see time and again on Champdogs that there seem to be 2 different standards - one way of thinking about proving conformation and a total different set of criteria for deciding if a dog has working ability.  This is really quite patronising and offensive to those of us who go to the time and effort to bother to trial and test and compete with our dogs, then not to be given any credit for doing so - why should we?  Evidently they are no better than the dogs of someone who goes to the local shoot 10 minutes up the road and lets them get up to who knows what (there being no criteria for attending many shoots).  Why should I get up at 5am and drive 4 hours to assess my dog against the UK's best if, in your eyes, it counts for no more than someone who turns up a few times on a shoot?

JG, you have said many things in this thread which quite simply are factually incorrect.  Trials are not 'false', they are as close as they can possibly be to a real shooting situation, since this is what's required by the KC J regs.  You make many statements about trial dogs which are incorrect because they would not be successful in trials, if they were correct.  (Read the regs.)  You reveal you don't know what you're talking about.  As for 'flushing and picking up' - no one says 'flushing and picking up' - it is a very strange sounding phrase.  Beating and picking up is what the roles of dogs and their handlers are, on shoots.

Sorry, but this subject comes up so infrequently that when it does, it pains me to hear things so misrepresented.  Test, assess and prove your dog (whether conformation or working ability or both) before breeding.  Or don't breed.  We have so many unwanted and superfluous dogs in this country that to breed anything but the best makes no sense whatsoever.

And - yes, it takes time to do that and would not be achieved before a dog is probably the age of 3/4yrs.

Rabid, were you replying to me?  As the mod has already pointed out we appear to be drifting a bit but if you want to move this to another thread I can answer the bits relating to my post if you like

> As the mod has already pointed out we appear to be drifting a bit but if you want to move this to another thread I can answer the bits relating to my post if you like

Please do thanks ;-)

In many of our breeds (and I am sure it happened in working lines as well) we have a problem of the popular sire syndrome, and inbreeding levels that eventually allow health issues to be over represented in the gene pool, as not dog passes on only good traits.

to maintain a healthy gene pool as many suitable and varied individuals need to be used to keep a wide gene base.

So to insist that only the top dogs in any sphere are used is a dangerous concept.

As even the top dogs will not reproduce themselves in the same quality in most of their offspring, to breed only from the elite few, is neither wise or going to necessarily get you the results you seek.

In my personal view a dog or bitch may be bred from if it is robustly healthy (and passed breed specific health testing), of sound temperament,  typical (not necessarily top flight) of it's breed in type, and sound in wind and limb.  So these decisions judgements can be made on an adolescent in most breeds, and an educated guess be made of whetehr to use the young dog.  After all no-one ever really knows what tehy will end up with in the whelping box when putting any two dogs together, one uses ones knowledge (and that of others).

In breeds or lines bred primarily for a working purpose 'aptitude' for work, with strong working dogs in the pedigree will give you a good chance of getting what you hope for, pups capable of working.  The majority of dogs born will never actually work, they may simply be a companion and go for walks, or maybe take part in training, or canine sports.

My breed cannot be worked in this country, but in my opinion make one of the best family companion breeds, robust, a handy size, affectionate without being overly clingy, as active as you want, but settle happily at home, all in an attractive package.  Yes can be pretty exuberant as youngsters, and of course with a double coat twice a year there's the hair, and the selective deafness are less positives.  The hunting season is short no more than a month or so, so of course for 11 months of the year the dogs are purely family companions for most owners even in working homes in their home country.

Perhaps being in a numerically small breed I can see the danger in using the top dog, as I know it will mean the breed will be in a corner in the next generation, so tend to look at bloodlines of any available male and see if they may make a worthwhile contribution.

Maybe hunting instinct is different, more a matter of basic instinct, and of course we get regular imports from Scandinavia, but dogs bred here from US and UK show stock (with some proven working dog in the background) have successfully worked in their country of origin.

In fact a US all show bred bitch for many generations was exported as an adult to someone keen on showing as well as working the breed, and was successfully worked.  It's a little different there as anyone wanting a working title on their hunting dog needs to show it, and be classed as first quality (excellent) on several occasions, and anyone wanting to title in the showring has to work it and gain several awards before it can gain it's show title.

In this country few of our breed ever get a chance of hunting, the occasional one has been used for stalking etc. Yet the hunting instinct is strong in most, hence why such care needs to be taken if they are allowed off lead, and why many choose not to take the risk, with it being so easy for a dog to range too far and be shot or run over.

One of the advantages of waiting to use an older dog is that conditions like epilepsy often doesn't appear until the dog is 3-4 years old.

I do wonder out of interest how many dogs which are used for the first time around the age of 3 have a very low sperm count and how many fail to sire litters... Has a study been done on this topic to give us some accurate readings?
I know of some dogs, large breeds who didn't start to sire litters until they were about 4-5yrs old and no issues there...

> One of the advantages of waiting to use an older dog is that conditions like epilepsy often doesn't appear until the dog is 3-4 years old.

Many dogs of 3 -4 years of age might well struggle to perform if they had never been used at stud before. So this level of caution could well prove to be counterproductive.

As for epilepsy, it quite commonly strikes between the ages of 1 & 2, and anecdotal evidence suggests that it is often found in puppies younger than 12 months, or even before the age of 6 months. I hope the current studies will throw some light on this condition.

Yes if that's an issue in your breed, but someone has to use the dog for the first time, and for best future performance it has been found that it is best to allow a dog to sire a litter when in the first flush of adulthood.

Now if I owned and older bitch (maiden dogs are best used on a proven bitch) who was past any likely later onset issues, and the young males parents etc were also free, then using a promising young male may well be a minimal risk.

I certainly do think that young males should only be used sparingly until their producing ability is proven.  Mind you I am in a breed where a dog is considered well used if it sires half a dozen litters in it's life.

I agree I like to use a mature dog on a young (2 - 3 years) bitch.  The sire of my youngest champion I used at 17 months, I had bred him (both his parents were around 7 when he was born) and I used him on his 5 year old half sister.  Now at 6 years old he has only sired 3 litters, and probably won't sire again.

> I know of some dogs, large breeds who didn't start to sire litters until they were about 4-5yrs old and no issues there...

I also wonder whether the lack of issues may be due to later maturity and also large breeds tend to have large litters, so any drop off on the male side less noticeable.

I will have a serch on quality of spernm related to age of canine male.

Here is one http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2006.00743.x/abstract;jsessionid=F96F9C819440EB0EE3902BAC03D93B00.d02t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false

"The age was negatively correlated with the percentage of normal spermatozoa.......
In conclusion, dogs tend to produce ejaculates with a lower percentage of normal spermatozoa with increasing age and dogs with higher body weights produce ejaculates with a higher TSO and a lower VCL."

> however by 12 months we can have a pretty good idea if they will go on to be effective agility dogs too, even though too young to compete.
> With all due respect, you can't know a dog's ability when it is unproven.  What you've said here, is like me saying 'I know my dog would be titled in the show ring, so I'm going to breed her without showing her'.  Quite rightly, that would be said to be inadvisable - no one is a good judge of their own dog, and that is so much more true when you're talking about performance and not conformation.

I have been a bit of the loop on this one so got a behind with posts, but taking Rabid's reply to me first and picking up only 2 of the replies.  First, I think you misunderstand the showing/training/competing situation I am talking about.  By 12 months I would expect the dogs to have a fair few wins at both Open and Ch shows - mine is a fast maturing breed, and at 12 months you have a very good idea of the mature dog.  Agility competition can't start till they are 18 months old, but of course the training starts much earlier, and to be honest, the whole point of us being involved in Agility training is to prove they dogs are fit, health and capable - I could not care less if they don't go on to compete or win, my aim is to have them running agility courses effortlessly and eagerly to help prove that my breed can move and breathe at the same time!

Next you state no one is a good judge of their own dog.  I have always considered that an absolute essential part of being a breeder and exhibitor is to be able to assess your own stock clearly and impartially.  Some of the dogs I have loved most have been total no hopers when it came to showing, their lack of breed attributes did not stop me adoring them, my adoration did not stop me seeing their faults - and allowing them to be used in breed seminars as examples of various faults.  And of course they were not bred from!

My first male dachsie Rhuari I expected to be rejected for breeding purposes when I took him to 3 different show breeders[one also judged] for assessment, he was too heavy to show because he was heavy boned and had lots of muscle, each said they thought my scales must have been wrong till they picked him up because looking at him he was smaller than dogs 2lbs lighter, each passed him fit to breed from as any faults were minor and mated to the right bitch could possibly be eliminated.

Now if it had been left up to me I would have said he wasn't good enough to be bred from, I am too critical and because of my fear of getting things very wrong.

He is the only dachsie that I didn't know the PRA cord1 status of when bought, he was born June '04 and DNA testing wasn't rolled out for general use till Feb '05, research didn't help as none of his immediate relatives had taken part in the trials or been tested when I took the plunge in 2007 and got him tested, prior to any physical assessment, it was a long 4 weeks wait [some hold up at the AHT,should have only been 10 days] but he came back clear which was a big relief, his litter sister tested 2 yrs later was also clear. His only litter to date last year the pup was a fresh stillborn.

So I think some owners can assess their own dogs but in my case would get an independant opinion by showing or assessment too.

>Agility competition can't start till they are 18 months old, but of course the training starts much earlier, and to be honest, the whole point of us being involved in Agility training is to prove they dogs are fit, health and capable - I could not care less if they don't go on to compete or win, my aim is to have them running agility courses effortlessly and eagerly to help prove that my breed can move and breathe at the same time!

Ok, I wasn't taking into account the breed concerned.  But, putting aside the breed specific issue - and taking health for granted - you would usually want much more than simply participating in a sport.  Since anyone/dog can participate in a sport, it doesn't prove any standard has been reached.  I accept that if you're talking about ensuring your dog can breathe easily and is physically capable of running, then agility training is as good as jogging with your dog or any other aerobic activity, to assess that.  But most breeds would need to prove far and above their dog's ability to breathe and run, before breeding.... most breeds have no difficulties breathing and running.

>Next you state no one is a good judge of their own dog.  I have always considered that an absolute essential part of being a breeder and exhibitor is to be able to assess your own stock clearly and impartially. 

I wouldn't go so far as to say that no one can judge their own dog.  Evidently some people can.  But the vast majority of people can't, which is why they make all kinds of excuses for their dogs' abilities and conformation and bog-awful dogs are mated regularly.  I'm talking about people involved in showing and working their dogs, not your average pet owner.  I think you have to look at the achievements of your breed as a whole (how hard is it to get CCs, how large are the classes, how many dogs get working qualifications and what are those qualifications?) and assess where your own achievements fall in that - and if they really are exceptional.  Too many people decide that being placed 1st in Open shows with perhaps 2 other dogs in the class, proves a dog is of breed-able quality.  Or a dog getting placed in working tests which is not even trialled at all.  Or a dog is trialled but perhaps it gets only the guns' award or a couple of COMs.  It's funny how suddenly the 'standards' required are so much lower when people have to determine whether their own dog is of breed-able quality.  NOT always, and NOT all people - but the vast majority.  That is why assessment is so important.

> It's funny how suddenly the 'standards' required are so much lower when people have to determine whether their own dog is of breed-able quality.

but where should the bar of quality be set for 'breedable' when not only do you want to produce dogs of quality to get to the top, but also keep a healthy and varied gene pool.

You need to keep a broad range of acceptable type/characteristics (remember fashions come and go in the breed ring, one year small dogs are in, next all, then ones with heavier/lighter bone etc).

Conformationally a dog consists of so many different parts and each dog will have faults and virtues.

Whether a dog is breedable may depend not only on it's own merits but also on how prevalent are it's faults in the breed as a whole, and also how rare are its best qualities.  In some breeds like my own you can go back to pre post war dogs, and they would not be out of place in the show ring or field today. 

In other breeds some dogs have changed beyond recognition in both the field and show ring, from the original dual use dogs (perhaps they should recombine, but that's for their breeders to decide as I'm sure they would feel each would loose something of what they have striven to achieve from going that route).  I am sure that may show Lab people would not consider some of the show type breeding stock as breedable and vice versa.

Back to the original question how much of the existing representative gene pool is suitable to be bred from?

In my own numerically small breed about 20% of the population are health tested and less are ever bred from.  If one then said only dogs achieving so and so could be bred from, that might cut it to an unsustainable 5 - 10%, as it is without imports every other generation or so we cannot sustain a viable population that isn't too inbred.

Currently we are breeding around 10 litters a year.  On an average year we make up around 3 - 6 champions across the sexes.  Last year there were 33 dogs and bitches winning CC's or RCC's, but of course these will be anything from puppies to veterans of 10+ years, as we continue to show for many years.

Perhaps just counting the number of new dogs winning into the stud book (in our breed that is CC, RCC, JW winners and 1st and 2nd placed in Open class at CC level) each year would give a better idea of number of 'quality' dogs coming through each year.  In 2011 there were 9 dogs achieving this, in 2010 it was 11, 15 in 2009, 10 in 2008, and 10 in 2007.

Some of those dogs and bitches will of course not be bred from, as breeding is not something many exhibitors feel able to commit to) it is quite apparent that even then that would not make enough new dogs to add to the gene pool each generation.

And of course there's the question of temperament, which is unquantifiable. The most handsome and well-put-together dog, and who's got marvellous health test results, isn't breedable if it's savage. You need a steady supply of 'good enough' dogs that aren't stars to keep the gene pool as wide as possible.

> You need a steady supply of 'good enough' dogs that aren't stars to keep the gene pool as wide as possible.

and those dogs should have something to offer, and preferably have pedigrees with top quality performing producing dogs behind.

Absolutely. I'm sure we all know of dogs and bitches who aren't top class themselves but produce very good offspring; equally great dogs whose offspring are a disappointment.

> Ok, I wasn't taking into account the breed concerned.  But, putting aside the breed specific issue - and taking health for granted - you would usually want much more than simply participating in a sport.  Since anyone/dog can participate in a sport, it doesn't prove any standard has been reached.  I accept that if you're talking about ensuring your dog can breathe easily and is physically capable of running, then agility training is as good as jogging with your dog or any other aerobic activity, to assess that.  But most breeds would need to prove far and above their dog's ability to breathe and run, before breeding.... most breeds have no difficulties breathing and running.

1) As I said previously, as did other posters, this is a very breed specific or size/development specific question. 

2) Our point in training the pugs for agility is to prove that they don't have problems running and breathing - to lets others see this.  The assumption is they are not able to be active, not the fact. It's a bigger picture than a win or two!  A single pug competing and winning at agility is unusual but happens.  A team of 20 in training together is something else.  The point is to prove a norm not an exception.  Training and performance can be meaningful for a breed as a whole.  It is unlikely that agility pugs are going to sweep the board in the Small agility classes but a change of perception could be much more valuable to the breed than a few points gained.  They are always going to be disadvantage against leggier, lighter dogs - they are running against Spaniels, Border Terriers, Shelties and lots of very athletic cross breeds, many considerable taller.  Does the fact that they are outrun by a very different kind of dog make the pugs won acheivement in completing a course less meaningful?

There must be similar situations with other breeds, dogs proving a point for the breed which is meaningful but not necessarily quantified by a win?

>There must be similar situations with other breeds, dogs proving a point for the breed which is meaningful but not necessarily quantified by a win?

See my point (way) above:  That the achievements have to be specific to the breed - what might be a huge success for a minority breed would not be considered worthy of mention in the breeds which typically succeed at a sport.  My point is that *within* the breed concerned, you should set a standard to breed only the best.

I don't believe this is going to compromise gene pools:  There should be many dogs across a breed capable of performing.  I do recognise that there are times when it's desirable to breed to an unqualified dog, perhaps because of the genetic variety, or because of what is behind that dog and not necessarily what that dog as an individual has achieved, or in other cases for health reasons (ie it does not carry a health issue which is endemic in a breed).  But I believe that far, far, far more often these reasons are not the reasons that dogs are bred.  Amongst the people I know, in the breeds I'm involved with, the reason they have chosen to breed their bitch is because they want puppies from her and they've decided that her unremarkable achievements somehow make her a desirable breeding prospect. 

You only have to look at the fact that stud dogs are almost always more qualified than bitches, across all breeds, to prove that point:  Why is this?  Because it's a buyer's market:  The bitch's owner gets to choose, and because it's their choice, they will choose a stud which is qualified to ensure the pups are sale-able - and because they want to improve what they produce.  Unfortunately this 'improvement' doesn't extend to their half of the bargain:  Too often the bitch herself is substandard or unproven, or unremarkable and so on.  She has not been assessed against others and found to be worthy of being bred from.  Of course there are exceptions to this, and hopefully many of them are folk on this forum, but unfortunately by and large this is how it is.  If it weren't the case, we'd have bitches which were (on average) just as qualified as studs.  And by no means is that the case.

Imagine a weird reverse world where it was up to the stud dog owner which bitches to breed their dog to - would they really be choosing the bitches which end up being bred?

> But most breeds would need to prove far and above their dog's ability to breathe and run, before breeding....

Rabid, I'm comfortable with the idea that a dogs conformation should be proven by showing over a period of time and under a number of judges, but I don't see why they have to prove themselves in the working arena to be used at stud.

Surely we are talking about heritability: and a dog cannot pass on its learned behaviours or its training.  It matters little that you "get up at 5am and drive 4 hours to assess my dog against the UK's best" if what is being assessed is something that can be taught.  Ballet dancers don't breed ballet dancers even though the child may have the perfect physique or temperament for it...

My previous comments "I've done enough training days with mine to identify their aptitude and an experienced gundog trainer would be able to set up situations to easily assess a stud dogs natural working ability if considering him for stud duty" relate to aptitude which is the basic raw material.   IF an experienced gundog trainer/handler were to decide to use a successful show dog in their breeding plans than I'm confident that he/she could find ways to determine that dogs natural ability.  This is a level of inherent ability which they might expect to be passed on to any resulting puppies.  In my gundog breed it's also quite likely they could see several working dogs very closely related to any stud dog being considered.  In breeds where there is less of a divide between show and working dogs you still see many breeders looking to have both in their plans and some regularly produce dogs capable of excelling in the ring and in the field.

You said before that "I see time and again on Champdogs that there seem to be 2 different standards - one way of thinking about proving conformation and a total different set of criteria for deciding if a dog has working ability".  I genuinely can't see that there is anything wrong in this given that conformation is 'as born' and true working success is continually trained and honed over the dogs lifetime...

>Imagine a weird reverse world where it was up to the stud dog owner which bitches to breed their dog to - would they really be choosing the bitches which end up being bred?

But they do make the final decision, don't they? These competition-orientated people with the super-trained and qualified stud dogs can simply refuse to allow their dog to be used if they don't think the bitch is suitable.

> Imagine a weird reverse world where it was up to the stud dog owner which bitches to breed their dog to - would they really be choosing the bitches which end up being bred?

Actually that should be the case, an ethical stud dog owner will take great care over which bitches his dog is allowed to be mated to, especially if he cares about his dogs reputation.

After all any faults in the pups are often blamed on the sire more often than on the bitch.

Maybe my breed is different (and I am talking those who are working within the KC and breed clubs)but the track record of either parent does not make puppies more or less saleable, pet buyers don't care, and people within the breed will know and may be interested in the particular combination of dogs or bloodlines. 

We try as breeders to keep roughly to same price give or take £50 and stud fee from first time to well used dog are the same (Price of a puppy).

But then most litters are not bred just to have pups but hoping to get something decent for those who may want to show, or to enhance the breeds gene pool and provide potential breeding material for the next generations.

Very few BYB litters are Kennel club registered, some years none others one or two, often originally from IKC registered stock.  Most BYB or puppy farmed litters are unregistered or DLRC.

Dogs ababe you have said in a few short sentences what I couldn't get across.

In breeding we are looking for what can be produced based on inherited characteristics.

Performance as opposed to aptitude is not inherited, that is training and the ability of the handler.

I am sure a top notch handler could train a show bred gundog puppy that they had selected as showing aptitude to a higher standard than a novice handler with a pup from two top trial winning parents, though of course that top handler would prefer to start with the second dog .

To some extent a dogs show ring success, or lack of, will depend on training and handling skill, to show a dog off to best advantage, (it's why so many novices with a good dog cry foul when they are beaten) but anyone who knows a breed well enough to successfully produce good dogs can spot a dog in the rough and assess it's potential even if the poorly handled dog never wins a class, due to poor handling.  Personally id do think judges should not penalise dogs for lack of polish and many good ones will always put up the better dog above the better performing one, but some won't.

dogs a babe & brainless, what you say really reveals the extent of not understanding performance or working ability amongst show folk.

> I don't see why they have to prove themselves in the working arena to be used at stud.  Surely we are talking about heritability: and a dog cannot pass on its learned behaviours or its training.  It matters little that you "get up at 5am and drive 4 hours to assess my dog against the UK's best" if what is being assessed is something that can be taught. 

Do you really think that a schnauzer will be as good, as a gundog, at gundog work? 

The only difference between a schnauzer and a gundog (at birth), is genetics and inherited ability.  Gundog breeders have bothered to select, over generations and generations, for qualities needed for gundog work.  That is how gundogs have evolved.  The second that selection stops, we are in danger of losing the abilities which make a gundog breed what it is.  Because not to select for a quality is to de-select for it.

Heritability is as important for working traits as it is for anything else.  Why do you think there are different strains in many gundog breeds (working and showing), if it's all about training? 

Of course natural ability is a HUGE HUGE, massive component of success in performance - regardless of the sport concerned.  Intelligence and physical prowess, and scenting capabilities and biddability and quietness (for gundogs) are all heritable.  One squeak from a field bred lab and it's out of a field trial.  There is not one single quality which is not inherited.  Training can only capitalise on what a dog inherits naturally and cannot compensate for deficiencies in natural ability.

There is SO much down to natural ability, it's about 50/50 between training and what is inherited.  If it's all down to breeding, why do you think that a pup out of 2 FTChs goes for £1000+, whereas a pup where only the sire is a FTCh goes for about £500?  Because it's recognised that the chances of producing another FTCh are higher, if both parents are!!  I'm afraid it's definitely not about training and what you say reveals a great lack of understanding about breeding for performance - and you're not alone, in that - since many, many show focussed breeders would be similarly unaware.  If you still think it is all about training, please do train up a schnauzer to handle as well as a gundog and we'll talk about it more then...

>  IF an experienced gundog trainer/handler were to decide to use a successful show dog in their breeding plans than I'm confident that he/she could find ways to determine that dogs natural ability.  This is a level of inherent ability which they might expect to be passed on to any resulting puppies.

No, determining natural ability alone is not sufficient.  How do you propose to assess whether a dog has the 'natural ability' to hold a straight line over 200 yards, without attempting to train it to do so?  Some dogs simply don't have the confidence to be able to maintain a line for that long, so far from the handler.  How do you propose to see if a dog can be silent and steady and remain sitting and walking at heel with birds falling all around, and not put a foot wrong, without training it to do so?  How can you assess natural ability for a dog to mark a seen retrieve at 200 yards in heavy cover and to run right to it, using eyes and not nose?  (I'm afraid bringing back a dummy at 20 yards is no indication!).  How do you know if your dog can remain focussed enough on you, if a spaniel or HPR, to hunt and quarter yet remain in contact with you, and not go awol - without attempting to train it to do so?  How do you know that your dog has a nose which is up there with the best of them, without testing it against others?  How do you know, if your dog points, that it will not be sticky and will move on and flush when commanded, unless you ensure your dog is worked?  How do you know your dog has the capacity to launch itself into freezing water in February for a bird, unless you have asked it to do so and seen that it complies?

Part of the reason many, many gundog breeds are in such a bad way in this country, is because too many people think they can chuck a few dummies and decide that because their dog brings dummies back, therefore it has 'natural ability' as a gundog.  I'm afraid the standards for success are far, far higher than this and the only way to know if your dog meets performance criteria is to test and assess your dog. 

>I don't see why they have to prove themselves in the working arena to be used at stud.

Because, if they are gundogs, the single defining quality which makes them not, say, collies, or German Shepherds or any other breed of dog, is their natural ability.  Some breeds even have 'hunting ability' and working abilities specified in the breed standard. If breeders are not assessing and testing for these qualities, they are not selecting for them when breeding and are actively breeding away from the breed standard.  The breed standard is not only a physical thing.

>In breeding we are looking for what can be produced based on inherited characteristics.  Performance as opposed to aptitude is not inherited, that is training and the ability of the handler.  I am sure a top notch handler could train a show bred gundog puppy that they had selected as showing aptitude to a higher standard than a novice handler with a pup from two top trial winning parents, though of course that top handler would prefer to start with the second dog .

No.  In short, your idea will never be proven because no gundog trainer worth their salt would want to be training an entirely show bred dog as a trial prospect.  It just wouldn't happen. Why not?  Because performance is so essential and is an inherited quality.

Honestly, I am really depressed to read that experienced breeders believe that 1) it is possible to assess how good a dog is in performance without testing and assessing that dog, in performance and 2) that they think performance is all down to training and not inherited.  Two massive fallacies.  And a massive double-standard for performance versus showing, since it is widely accepted that conformation should be impartially assessed against the best before determining breeding quality - yet the same doesn't appear to be held to be the case, for performance. 

>But they do make the final decision, don't they? These competition-orientated people with the super-trained and qualified stud dogs can simply refuse to allow their dog to be used if they don't think the bitch is suitable.

Unfortunately, JG, that doesn't happen often.  Some do refuse, but many want the stud fees.  And let's not kid ourselves - there is a kudos attached to being asked to use your dog at stud - it is very flattering, to know that others think your dog has something worthwhile.  Would take a strong person to refuse.  Most of the time, it doesn't work that way.  It has become an accepted fact that bitches are less qualified than studs, and a stud dog owner would be seen as being unrealistic if they expected all bitches approaching them to be as qualified as their stud dog.  (Not to mention, their dog wouldn't get used much, since most bitches are not).

In many continental gundog breeds, in their countries of origin, dogs must pass strict performance-based tests organised by breed clubs before breeding.  No breeding is allowed by the breed clubs if dogs do not pass these tests.  (Or pups will not be registered.)  Many HPR breeds must prove they can track deer, retrieve, protect, hunt and much more before breeding is permitted by the breed club.  As a result, in their countries of origin, it's ensured that performance abilities are passed on through the generations and remain in the breed.  Do you really think these qualities will remain if such selection is not in place and dogs are bred without having performance assessed first??  Why are the countries of origin even bothering to test their dogs, then?

>No breeding is allowed by the breed clubs if dogs do not pass these tests.  (Or pups will not be registered.)

Huge numbers of working gundogs (for example) aren't registered - in fact very many of them are crosses, so the threat of lack of registration wouldn't bother them in the slightest.

>, I am really depressed to read that experienced breeders believe that 1) it is possible to assess how good a dog is in performance without testing and assessing that dog, in performance and 2) that they think performance is all down to training and not inherited.

1) People have only said that testing and assessment needn't be done in competition, and 2) I can't see where anyone's said that it's all down to training. Far from it. However just as a dog need never have seen the inside of a showring to be able to pass on its excellent genes, a dog needn't ever have been worked. The genes are there all the time; the difference is the owner's particular inclination. The experts can tell whether or not a trainee guide dog has potential long before it's fully trained, for example.

Gundogs are only one group of dogs, there are 6 other groups and in those groups many, many breeds which have outlived their original purpose.

To expect them to to conform to a test of their natural ability in todays urban, family setting would be madness.

Many people over the years have brought their so called 'problem' dogs to me to stop them exhibiting their natural behaviours.

Is a boxer no longer fit for purpose because it is less "distrustful of strangers" than its war-dog predecesors?

Just picking up on the bitch being less qualified aspect.  It is logistics really as a dog can sire many more littrs than a bitch cna or shoudl produce (actually it probably is a bad thing that males can produce almsot without limit for gene pools).

There is no kudos in a dog producing rubbish pups from por quyality bitches.  So thsoe stud owners mindful of theri dogs reputation will take care where they are used.  Of course if they are confident the resutls are never likely to be seen to embarass them, they may well be happy to take the money.

It isn't that bitches may even have neccesarily less ability, but being bitches they will have theri competitive working lvies interupted/disrupted by seasons and maternal duties, and for that reason many people whose main focus is competion (whatever sphere) will choose to compete with males.  In most breeds for example the males will win BOB over bitches about twice as often as the bitches.

Also nowhere have I said that ability or apptitude should not be tested for, just not only competition results.  Surely when a gundog handler goes to pick that puppy from the invariably  less qualified bitch, they are picking a puppy on what potential it exhibits, and the quality of the dogs in the pedigree?

A shepherd can and has trained a rescue Rottie to work sheep, but of course he would choose a collie pup from a litter of working lines showing apptitude, to increase theit chances of a good worker, even so they sometimes get dogs from the best of lines that are no good at all. 

My friend has such a sheep killing strongly driven Border Collie bitch, the farmer was too soft to shoot.

Of course with no selection and assessment, whatever lines your breeding from the dogs will move away from what you want.

I am sure any working dog breeder when keeping their next puppy hopes to breed from it, and if they have chosen pups with apptitude they should not find the dog unsuitable once it is old enough to breed from, (assumign ehalth results are good etc) even if at that point it has only shown what it's capable of in training.

Whether one uses the top working dog or an unproven son with apptitude in the litters they produce some will make good workers, some not so good, and some outstanding, but the results the individuals achieve will largely depend on theit training, not what is in their genes alone.

I know behavioural and temperament traits are quite strongly inherited, and thie can be very useful if these are desireable behaviours.

What a good debate this has been (is).  Some good points put forward and plenty of food for thought.

Rabid I think you've missed the parts where I've clearly stated that I'm discussing a breed where there is almost no split between show dogs and working dogs - and many are coming from the same litters!

...and I'm not entirely sure at which point I deviated so much in context (when I kept repeating gundog, gundog, gundog) that you now think I'm confused about what a schnauzer is and which group it might be in :)

...and do I need to repeat that I was discussing one scenario - that of a gundog handler/trainer(from a working background) wishing to use at stud a particular dog that hasn't been fully trained for the field.  This would be a person more than capable of making a judgement call about heritability.  I do not dismiss the value of a well trained and tested dog but again, I'm discussing a situation where, for reasons we haven't yet talked about, a breeder might be wanting to use a tested show dog to sire a litter.

In my breed this could well be to access lines that might otherwise be difficult for them to access, to increase the chances of a proper wire coat (vital in the working environment), or simply to maintain dual purpose in our HPR breed.  We have some very good dogs in our breed that are working one week and in the show ring the next...

I do not deny the long term damage that can be caused to our breed by poor breeding decisions and contrary to your manner in responding to me I'm not on the opposite side of this debate.  However in some breeds, and mine is one, the pool of dogs is too small to start demanding that every stud dog be fully field trained before allowing them to sire a 'working litter' and it goes against the grain when the objective is to produce dual purpose dogs.  Many puppies in this breed could go to the ring and the field and their direction is dependant as much on their owners resources as it the dogs natural ability.

>Huge numbers of working gundogs (for example) aren't registered - in fact very many of them are crosses, so the threat of lack of registration wouldn't bother them in the slightest.

It is not possible to compete if a dog is unregistered and unregistered puppies cost less than registered ones.  Not sure what your point is?  Of course there are dogs which are unregistered on the continent - just as there are, here.  However the working abilities of the breed are protected to ensure they are passed on to progeny, through compulsory performance tests before breeding.  Not sure what any of that has to do with unregistered dogs which are entirely outside the system - as they are here.

>People have only said that testing and assessment needn't be done in competition,

It needs to be in competition - or at least, against a standard.  The tests I referred to above are not in 'competition' (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc), they are against standards and if all the dogs on the day meet the standard, they all pass.  So no, it does not need to be competition, but it does need to be against either a standard - or against other dogs.  Otherwise it is arbitrary and you do get people saying 'my dog has working ability' when all it can do is run out and get dummies which are 20 yards away, at a pretty slow pace.  We live in a world where everyone who wants to breed their dog has a huge motivation to 'read into' it that it is worthy of being bred from.  Would we accept a situation whereby people decide for themselves if they should pass GCSEs or A-levels??  No, they have to prove that, on the day, they are capable of meeting certain standards.

Quite rightly, in terms of conformation, we say that achievement in competition (ie showing) is far preferable to your own opinion or even the opinion of friends.  Exactly the same goes for working and performance and there is NO logical reason why it should not and why it should be any different.

>The experts can tell whether or not a trainee guide dog has potential long before it's fully trained, for example.

Oh I see, so can you account for the many guide dogs which are failed at various points throughout the process then?  I've trained assistance dogs myself and I can assure you that many, many dogs are thought to be candidates as puppies but fail to meet targets at various points throughout the assessment process and are then placed in pet homes.  All the 'experts' can do is determine which dogs are worth continuing with, based on their current achievement.  Natural ability gives you statistically a greater chance, but even so many dogs will fail.  The guide dog example is an excellent case in point:  If we stopped assessing guide dogs and just bred any old dogs together, would they be as good as they currently are?  No.  They need to be assessed against standards which inform breeding practices.

toolz

>Gundogs are only one group of dogs, there are 6 other groups and in those groups many, many breeds which have outlived their original purpose.  To expect them to to conform to a test of their natural ability in todays urban, family setting would be madness.

No, that's not what I'm saying.  Obviously not all dogs can continue to fulfil their original functions.  But I do think that those people who choose to have a gundog (rather than any other breed - they presumably have chosen that breed for a reason), if they intend to breed their dog, owe it to the breed to ensure that not only the best physical characteristics are passed on - but also (even more importantly) the working qualities too.

I would hope that the breeders of other breeds would take an interest in more than conformation:  After all, dogs are more than what they look like - more than health and temperament, even.  There is also intelligence, trainability, enthusiasm, energy (not too much, but enough) and more.  There are plenty of dog sports open to any breed, and although not all breeds will be as successful as, say, collies, in dog sports, within their own breed and against each other, they can still be deemed successful.   

>I am sure any working dog breeder when keeping their next puppy hopes to breed from it, and if they have chosen pups with apptitude they should not find the dog unsuitable once it is old enough to breed from, (assumign ehalth results are good etc) even if at that point it has only shown what it's capable of in training.  Whether one uses the top working dog or an unproven son with apptitude in the litters they produce some will make good workers, some not so good, and some outstanding, but the results the individuals achieve will largely depend on theit training, not what is in their genes alone.

No, that's not true and it's not how genetics works.  Different pups in the same litter have different phenotypes even in terms of appearance.  Just as you get different coat colours and even textures in some breeds, you also get different working abilities the same litter.  Working ability is far more complex than coat type even, being made up of many more factors and their combinations.  So no, the results which the individual pups achieve in a litter are not down to their training - they are very much about their genes, just as other qualities like personality can differ widely in the same litter. 

dogs a babe,

You're right I did not realise you were discussing such a specific scenario, but even so I would disagree with a few things you say.

>that of a gundog handler/trainer(from a working background) wishing to use at stud a particular dog that hasn't been fully trained for the field.  This would be a person more than capable of making a judgement call about heritability.  I do not dismiss the value of a well trained and tested dog but again, I'm discussing a situation where, for reasons we haven't yet talked about, a breeder might be wanting to use a tested show dog to sire a litter.

I don't disagree (in fact I think I've stated it above somewhere) that there may be occasions when someone wants to use a dog which is not tested.  This might be for genetic variability, it might be because of what's behind the dog - because it's predecessors were proven in the field, although the individual dog isn't (and access to the predecessors isn't possible), but by and large and the vast majority of the time, it is always better to use a dog which is tested and found to be successful against its peers.  Otherwise you are not selecting for working ability and what you're not selecting for, you are selecting against.

As for using a tested show dog to sire a litter, you would have to ask yourself why there are more tested show dogs available over and above tested field dogs in the breed.  IMO there is something wrong in a breed when you see far more SHChs around than you do FTChs or even field trial awards, forget about the elusive FTCh title.  It tends to suggest that the hands the breed has gotten into are more interested in showing than in success in the field.  And that is exactly what I'm talking about - when that situation arises, the working ability in the breed is on a road to no where.

I agree that a correct coat is important, and I guess if the gene pool is small then yes...  But you would hope there are available some studs which work in the field and have the correct coat.  Again, if not, then you need to ask yourself if there are more people showing in a breed than working that breed - and what that means, for the future of the breed, as a viable working breed.

There are many gundog breeds which are rarely worked - from American cockers, to Clumber spaniels.  As soon as you get people more interested in showing than in working, it spells the end for a breed, as a successful and respected working breed - it is only a matter of time.

>>Huge numbers of working gundogs (for example) aren't registered - in fact very many of them are crosses, so the threat of lack of registration wouldn't bother them in the slightest.
>It is not possible to compete if a dog is unregistered and unregistered puppies cost less than registered ones.  Not sure what your point is?

The point is that competition isn't the most important thing in most people's lives. Many people, for example, are perfectly good typists - but they don't need to enter wpm competitions to prove it.

>>People have only said that testing and assessment needn't be done in competition,
>It needs to be in competition - or at least, against a standard.

The standard for the average working dog is 'can it do the job well enough to make the handler's life easier?'

>Quite rightly, in terms of conformation, we say that achievement in competition (ie showing) is far preferable to your own opinion or even the opinion of friends.

Not really; we use showing simply as being the easiest way of getting a few unbiased opinions of a dog's conformation. If a dog is usually placed in decent sized then it's close enough to the standard. If it's consistently unplaced then it isn't. Only half a dozen or so shows should prove the point.

>All the 'experts' can do is determine which dogs are worth continuing with, based on their current achievement.

Exactly my point. It's possible to determine which dogs are showing aptitude and which aren't at a very early stage - in livestock breeding it's called 'having an eye for a xxxxx'. Some people have it but most don't.

>As for using a tested show dog to sire a litter, you would have to ask yourself why there are more tested show dogs available over and above tested field dogs in the breed.

That answer's quite simple; a high proportion of 'working' (as opposed to 'show') people have their heads firmly in the sand, and believe that thier dogs are free of any chereditary problems because they're worked. health tested working gundogs are only slightly more common than hen's teeth.

>Different pups in the same litter have different phenotypes even in terms of appearance.

'Phenotype' is physical appearance. Are you confusing that with 'genotype'? And different pups in a litter, unless identical twins, which is incredibly rare) will have different genotypes, unless of course they're very closely inbred.

> There are many gundog breeds which are rarely worked - from American cockers, to Clumber spaniels. As soon as you get people more interested in showing than in working, it spells the end for a breed, as a successful and respected working breed - it is only a matter of time

Rabid, there is a general decline in working dogs - of all types - and you cannot draw a line and put show people on one side and working people on the other.  It really isn't that simple.  The world has changed and we no longer live in an era where our dogs earn their keep working alongside us.  Some do but for many owners this aspect of their life with their dogs is a hobby not a living. 

However much one might regret that, it's a fact and some more specialist breeds have entirely lost their original function.  One of the reasons I chose my breed is that it's still very close to it's original design/function.  I can reasonably expect to take the same dog from the show ring into the field and look like we belong.  The reason I don't is time, finances, interest etc but we still have many breeders that look to both disciplines when making their breeding decisions and I think that should be applauded.

Rabid you often get into a situation where you appear to alienate the very people who are attempting to do the right thing. In the years that I've been reading this forum it's quite clear that CD has as its members some key people working within their breeds to preserve and maintain standards.  Surely it would be more useful to ask them what they think, and to discuss their positions than to just shout at them and tell them they are wrong, or worse just generalise about us all.  There are a great many of us who not only have an open mind but are interested in opposing views even if we do not in the end choose to agree with them.  It's just preferable not to beat each other about the head during the process!!

(Oh and have you heard the expression that "everything before BUT is bullish*t"?  I like you, but...    I agree with you, but...    I don't disagree with you, but...   !!  :)  )  Sorry I'm gently teasing, I was always taught to watch for the hitter and a well placed BUT can really change the message. 

> 'Phenotype' is physical appearance.

Actually phenotype isnt just physical appearance, it the physical expression of the genotype. So this can include a faulty heart valve, poor hips, eye anomaly or anything in the physical makeup of the organism...not always seen by eye.

>The point is that competition isn't the most important thing in most people's lives. Many people, for example, are perfectly good typists - but they don't need to enter wpm competitions to prove it.

Then such people should not be breeding.  If they don't want to - or don't have the means to - assess and test their dogs before breeding, then don't breed - or at least, don't claim that the litter has any claims to being a working litter.  There are many, many excellently bred litters of most gundog breeds - we are not in need of any litters from untried and untested dogs (unless, again, there is another good reason for that breeding - such as the bitch being the last of a particular line or having other excellent attributes).

>The standard for the average working dog is 'can it do the job well enough to make the handler's life easier?'

That is an exceptionally low standard.  If I took a terrier on a shoot with me, it would put up enough birds just running around to make my life easier - does that mean we should start selling terriers as gundogs?!  Assuming a basic retrieve and basic obedience, ANY dog makes the handler's life easier - that does not mean we should be breeding from any old dog if we want to better the breed.

>we use showing simply as being the easiest way of getting a few unbiased opinions of a dog's conformation. If a dog is usually placed in decent sized then it's close enough to the standard. If it's consistently unplaced then it isn't. Only half a dozen or so shows should prove the point.Only half a dozen or so shows should prove the point.

Likewise for trials - enter half a dozen trials and have a dog placed in most of them, and I'd say that dog has proven its worth as a breeding prospect.  I'm not sure what the difference is..?

>That answer's quite simple; a high proportion of 'working' (as opposed to 'show') people have their heads firmly in the sand, and believe that thier dogs are free of any chereditary problems because they're worked. health tested working gundogs are only slightly more common than hen's teeth.

We're not talking about health testing, JG, we're talking about 'testing' being the testing of working ability.  Nothing to do with health testing at all.  Health tested working dogs are actually much more common now than they used to be. 

>'Phenotype' is physical appearance. Are you confusing that with 'genotype'? And different pups in a litter, unless identical twins, which is incredibly rare) will have different genotypes, unless of course they're very closely inbred.

As toolz points out, phenotype is not only about physical appearance.  It is the expression of a gene and the way in which it manifests itself in the organism. 

dogs a babe, I'm not getting you on the 'but' subject...

I would not be being this outright if I didn't feel that some very harmful points are being put across by some people on this thread.  I'm not trying to alienate anyone (or to disalienate them, either), just to point out why what they are saying is potentially damaging - and evidence of double-standards.

> there is a general decline in working dogs - of all types - and you cannot draw a line and put show people on one side and working people on the other.  It really isn't that simple.  The world has changed and we no longer live in an era where our dogs earn their keep working alongside us.  Some do but for many owners this aspect of their life with their dogs is a hobby not a living. 

Yes, I agree.  But (is that the but you mean?) I think there are implications to this.  For one, in the long term, I don't think it is going to be possible to preserve working ability in most breeds unless there IS that split between working and show.  If you think of the entire genetic make-up of a breed as a melting pot, and you imagine the vast majority of that melting pot to be people breeding for appearance only - and then many people breeding for neither appearance nor working ability, but just because they want a litter from their pet - then only a tiny proportion of the whole is bred for working ability at all (tested or untested working ability!).  Given that situation, and fast forward several generations and I just don't see how any working ability at all is going to remain - or, if it does, it will be what just happens to remain by chance after not having been selected for. 

The only way out of the situation that I can see is the way of labs and spaniels, who have evolved 2 very clear and distinct strains - working and showing.  I know most HPR owners think that is the most evil thing it is possible to say because they want to claim 'dual purpose' dogs, but I truly don't believe it is possible to have 'dual purpose' dogs when working ability counts for so little of the total gene pool.  In principle, it is a fantastic ideal - but because of the realities you describe (so few people using their dogs for original purpose and even fewer actually assessing working ability before breeding), it is really going to lead to their downfall as working breeds.  This subject, though, is a slightly different one to the above and more relevant to HPRs.

>If they don't want to - or don't have the means to - assess and test their dogs before breeding, then don't breed - or at least, don't claim that the litter has any claims to being a working litter.

But these dogs are working dogs, that's the whole point! They go out on shoots every week during the season; they're the ones whose puppies can be docked because they fulfil all the legal definitions of a working gundog. What they don't have is owners who have the time, money or inclination to take them somewhere to get a bit of paper. Their assessment is ongoing every week: "the proof of the pudding". The bit of paper doesn't change the dog's genes, any more than a dog becomes a better breeding prospect the day after it gains its third CC than it was the day before.

Sorry, Jane, this has strayed again. :-(

Think of the dog you consider the top dog in your field, now tell me if every dog in it's pedigree is as qualified as he is?????

I am almost certain not, and therefore someone had to have made the decison that the particular dog was breedable.

My bitch who has the best looking pedigree in terms of winning dogs is far from my best bitch, though she has produced better than herself.  I kept her and bred from her for her bloodlines (i'd taken ehr mtoehr abroad for mating).  She was the least good in her litter but sadly I keep only bitches, and the good ones were male. 

> they are very much about their genes,

I did say not in their genes alone, I believe strongly that mental characteristics are as strongly inherited as physical, which is why I sometimes disagree with those who seem to think 'socialisation' only is the key to a mentally sound dog.  I know dogs who have spent 6 months from weeks old in Quarantine and come out bomb proof and mentally sound.  That is inheriting sound mental traits.  Breed from two temperamentally unsound animals and all the socialisation and habituation in the world will only improve things not correct them.

The genetically super dog will achieve nothing unless the handler trains and works it, and will only go to the top if it's handler is really good too.

Conversely as in my socialisation point a dog that has no natural aptitude will achieve very little even with the best training, though I suspect it can achieve the basics.

> The only way out of the situation that I can see is the way of labs and spaniels, who have evolved 2 very clear and distinct strains - working and showing.  I know most HPR owners think that is the most evil thing it is possible to say because they want to claim 'dual purpose' dogs, but I truly don't believe it is possible to have 'dual purpose' dogs when working ability counts for so little of the total gene pool.  In principle, it is a fantastic ideal - but because of the realities you describe (so few people using their dogs for original purpose and even fewer actually assessing working ability before breeding), it is really going to lead to their downfall as working breeds.  This subject, though, is a slightly different one to the above and more relevant to HPRs.

Interesting and I have to agree with you if the aim is to 'keep dogs truly working'.  As you say those the true working dogs in any breed are going to be more and more marginalised, and inevitably their gene pool will get smaller and smaller as fewer and fewer people work dogs.

So for a safety valve, even though many working people poo poo show dogs, people who show should be encocuraged to at least assess their dogs for that spark of working ability, or even better to at least aim for dual purpose, otherwise sooner or later the marginal purebred working gene pool will not be viable.  This is the method chosen in scandinavian countries for all hunting dogs, including my own breed (but then far more people still particiapate in hunting activities).  Ii goes both ways though, the working dog has also got to conform to the breed standard in terms of physical characterisitics to be able to title in the field, just as the show dog has to prove working ability.

It is strange though that I see far more supposed working bred Springers and labradors in pet homes than their show counterparts, so there must be a huge percentage of wastage from working bred litters (yes the majority of pups from show bred litters go to pet homes).  Sadly of course these working bred pups often do not make as suitable a pet as one from show lines.

>I think there are implications to this.  For one, in the long term, I don't think it is going to be possible to preserve working ability in most breeds unless there IS that split between working and show.

Exactly what is happening with some obedience collies. In the race to breed the totally obsessed, maniacal, compulsive competition dog, the biddable kind nature is being lost.

As they say..."Obedience dogs.... not obedient dogs". Try walking past a compound or bench full of them!

As I said above, insisting that the once working dog has to fulfil its working traits, in a modern urban setting, is unwise.

When I first started researching getting into breeding I thought getting pups/dogs with as much RED on the pedigree as possible was the way to go, following discussions with long time show/breeders realised I was wrong, as a newbie I had no way of knowing if the non red dogs had ever been shown, how well they did, did they gets lots of RCC's but only 2CC's due to the strong competion around at the time, the dog may have been shown and been placed each time but hated the experience[this was the case with my second bitch] she wasn't going to get top honours because her heart wasn't in it but went on to produce pups who did well at Crufts and enjoyed showing off, they may never have been shown but had great conformation/temperament or been awful examples of the breed that slipped through because they went on to produce at least one champ.

In the years since I have seen great looking dogs produce mediocre pups and visa versa, what may look fine on paper is a completely different story when Mother Nature gets her hands on the genes and mixes them up.

It must be the same in working dogs that not all the genes for doing that job will be carried forward in the progeny.

brainless and toolz, I think I largely agree with what you say.  I would disagree that it is 'unwise' to insist a dog fulfil its working traits - it depends on what you need a dog for.  If people want collies and some people want calm pets and others want excitable and high energy working dogs, then those two directions will be bred for and will increasingly diverge.  I don't see that as a bad thing - both parties get what they want and if, at some future point, it is decided that the high energy dogs need some calming down, there can be an injection of pet collie.  And if the calm pet dogs get too placid, there can be some injection of working collie.  This already happens in breeds like labs and spaniels, where you get the occasional mating of show and working strains.  As far as I can see, the result is that the working abilities of the breeds are preserved because there does remain a small coterie of people breeding exclusively for working ability. 

What I object to is dogs which are not worked being bred and puppies sold as working prospects - they are not, unless the parents have been proven in the field.  (Or whatever sport concerned.)  The best anyone can claim is that they are a pet litter or a show-bred litter.  Once you are talking about breeds like labs and spaniels, which have very divergent strains of working and show, you cannot say that you are breeding a litter for show purposes if your dog is a working dog - it would get chucked out of any show ring almost immediately and everyone knows that.  So unless we are now saying that it's fine for people to breed purely 'pet' litters (in an already saturated market), the only other way they can prove their working strain dog is worth breeding from, is in the field.

I think you are misunderstanding what I'm saying, if you think my point is that every dog on a pedigree needs to be a champion.  I never said that, so please don't twist what I've said.  I've said only that dogs should be assessed in competition or against standards before being bred.  Being assessed in competition may not necessarily mean even earning a title. 

>But these dogs are working dogs, that's the whole point! They go out on shoots every week during the season; they're the ones whose puppies can be docked because they fulfil all the legal definitions of a working gundog. What they don't have is owners who have the time, money or inclination to take them somewhere to get a bit of paper. Their assessment is ongoing every week: "the proof of the pudding".

JG, I'm not sure what I can add to what I have already said, little of which you even respond to whenever you reply, since you just continue to make the same point.  To which I continue to make the same answer (which you continue to not reply to):  Going out on a shoot every week does not prove anything.  I repeat again:  I go out on a shoot every week with people whose dogs run around out of control, play tug of war over birds occasionally and need to be put on the lead because they cannot stay close otherwise.  Several of the dogs on the shoot are not even gundogs.  Working on a shoot is no proof that a dog has breeding potential.  I have worked on many different shoots, and on all shoots there can be identified dogs which are out of control.  On some shoots there are more of them than on others, but I've yet to be on a shoot where every dog has been a model working dog.  To say that the only thing you need to breed your dog, is to work on a shoot, is frankly ridiculous and fundamentally unethical.

Putting forward the point of view that all anyone needs to do to 'prove' their dog has working ability is to turn up on their local shoot and, hey presto, they have now proven that their dog has what it takes, is unethical and irresponsible.  Perhaps all anyone need do, to prove their dog has good conformation, is to turn up at a show - who cares if they get chucked out of every class they compete in, at every show, and are never placed??  It doesn't matter - they turned up - they should breed their dog!  It has 'proven' itself because they've put it in a car and transported it to a show!! 

Do you think we have a shortage of dogs?  Do you truly think that the UK desperately needs more dogs bred?  I thought CDs was really in favour of responsible breeding practices and condemned people breeding dogs in any other way.  We have far too many puppies bred already and in 90% of cases there are no reasons to breed unproven and untested dogs.  What you're suggesting is frankly unethical practice.

As for the docking situation, I'm afraid that is a joke (as we all know).  If you're implying that the ability to dock your puppy somehow determines that someone's dog has breeding potential as a gundog, I suggest you think again.  If you wanted to dock a litter, you can just turn up with your out of control dog for a few days on your local shoot and then ask the keeper to sign and say you have a working dog.  It doesn't mean the dog has achieved any standard whatsoever, again it only says you have been there.  I even know litters bred by big show breeders which continue to be docked if requested by owners - because they know keepers or because they've obtained a shotgun licence (which pretty much anyone can get) in order to get their litters docked - without even firing a gun themselves.  And finally, puppies are docked at less than 3 days old, long before anyone knows their working ability.  Sorry, but you continue to demonstrate how little you know about gundogs, about genetics, or about breeding for performance.

>The bit of paper doesn't change the dog's genes, any more than a dog becomes a better breeding prospect the day after it gains its third CC than it was the day before.

Sheesh, give me strength.  Of course it doesn't change the dog's genes, but it proves that they are worth reproducing and that we want them in the gene pool.

If you are going to breed a litter and advertise it as a 'working' litter, then you need to ensure that you are breeding to better the breed.  How can you ensure you are doing that, without testing and assessing your dog before breeding - just as you would in conformation.

>To which I continue to make the same answer (which you continue to not reply to):  Going out on a shoot every week does not prove anything.

It is a form of assessment (test) of working ability, which is what's needed. It's not 'KC official' but it's completely valid. The out-of-control dogs on the shoots you go on are being assessed for their working ability (and failing) in just the same way as they would fail an official trial. There's no difference.

>How can you ensure you are doing that, without testing and assessing your dog before breeding - just as you would in conformation.

It's ironic that you accuse me of repeating the same point! :-) Nobody has said that you breed without testing and assessing your dog - just that it doesn't need to be 'official'. Day to day practical work is no worse in this respect than a KC-run working trial or competition.

In fact if you limited breeding to dogs whose owners were interested in competing the breeds would very quickly be so inbred they'd become unviable and be lost. So just to make it quite clear: Nobody is advocating breeding 'purely-pet' dogs and advertising them as working dogs. What's being disputed is whether official KC tests are the only valid form of assessment of working ability.