Is it true that there are different written breed standards for working type gundog breeds? I have never thought this to be the case, and I would have argued black was white for there being only one breed standard for each breed, the KC breed standard.

If there is a working standard for any gundog breed, do the breeders register with some working gundog registry? I have certainly seen working bred dogs registered with the Kennel Club, surely they would not be, if the puppies were bred to somebody else's standard.
I'm finding the concept rather hard to believe, inasmuch as I have never in 30 odd years heard this idea before, but it has recently been suggested that there are several breed standards knocking about. Surely not!!!!

I'm certainly willing to accept the concept of 'interpretation', but not a whole other standard. Maybe I'm just more naive than I first thought.

Dawn R.

As far as I know the Kennel Club Standards are for the show ring, if a working dog does not fulfil the standard it does not mean the dog is not pure bred. Those breeding for work are interested in the working capabilities of the dog to do it's job, sadly the show ring is inclined to produce an emphasis on the glamorous aspects of the breed that means a sound example of a working dog would not do well in the ring even though it fulfils the standard. I find this sad but never the less a fact. Do not think this is a proplem of the standards but the interpretation put on them by judges.

Hi Dawn,  I am sure that their is onlly 1 KC standard for each breed, but perhaps some working gundog clubs have their own standard for breeds such as Cockers where there is such a very big difference between the show and working dogs?  Perhaps some of our working gundog people can help on this one?
bye
Gwen

The standard for gundog breeds whether working or showing is the same. Ideally the dog working in the field and the one in the show ring should look alike. There is not a separate standard for working dogs, however many people breeding for working potential will ignore looks preferring working ability to be the deciding factor, people breeding for the ring will choose a dog or bitch to mate purely on it's looks. I have come across quite few "show bred" dogs who show no inate ability for work. Equally I have seen many working gundogs which look nothing like the standard!
If all gundog breeders mixed show lines and working lines eventually we might get back to where the breeds started. Of all the retriever breeds probably the nearest to a true dual purpose breed is the flatcoat, as many are still worked and shown. I did hear that the Duke of  Wellington had spoken about getting the labs back to a dual purpose status, I'm sure John would know more about this though.

Hi everyone, thankyou so much for your input. It would seem that things are exactly as I originally thought. I can now go off and argue my point with increased conviction.
Dawn R.

In the case of Labrador retrievers, some distinctions have become aparent between the working dog and the show type. There was a tendancy to breed smaller, shorter coupled dogs for a while but thankfully the breed is moving away from that now.

My friend has just got a beagle puppy, and he told me that there are two standards, A type and B Type - I don't know if this is true?

Thanks Izzi, however my point is, are the type A and type B standards written down anywhere, and conciously bred toward by separate factions. Or as in the gundog breeds, is it one standard and one faction breeding for looks as described in the standard, and the other faction breeding for working ability without regard for physical appearance. With the exception of course , of the people who are breeding for dual purpose.

Dawn R.

There is no seperate breed standard for working gundogs (at least not in th UK). I would doubt that many working gundog breeders have ever read any breed standard!

I doubt that there are many working breeders who breed with NO regard to physical appearance, it just has to be set alongside other (more important) criteria. However, I cant believe many people would deliberately breed ugly dogs.

Preferences do occur though, as my ideal of a 'perfect' looking labrador, golden, springer or cocker would be unlikely to achieve any success in the modern show ring. (flat coats would be quite a bit closer though!)

Many people actually prefer the smaller, lighter boned labs even if they do depart from the breed standard.

Breeding show and working examples together would probably produce some nice looking dogs, but they are unlikely to be as succesful in either activity as 'purpose-bred dogs'. (Although, i can think of a couple of noteable exceptions.)

Exactly, so now that the supposed split has occurred, there's no going back, you can't uninvent something. It's human nature to want to do well, have success and maybe even excell. So we are going to use the best 'tools' for the job as we see it.

Dawn R.

I recall reading an article in (I think) a Labrador Retriever Club yearbook by the Duke of Wellington bemoaning the split in the labrador. He criticised both show and working breeders for losing sight of what they are trying to achieve. Interestingly it was accompanied by a picture of him and his dog, which I thought looked a huge great 'lump' of a thing that didn't appeal to me at all!

Fortunately in the HPR breeds we do not see the separation evident in labs and spaniels thank goodness.

HPRs are interesting as from a physical perspective, show and workers are pretty much the same although from what I have read some lines have very differing aptitudes for work.

I think it is equally important for show breeders to maintain the temperamental characteristics required for work as the physical. Continued breeding for purely show purposes definitely seems to dilute working ability if they are not tested adequately in the field.

Competitive working success for HPRs appears to be limited compared to labs, springers & cockers (based on the number of awards with-held in field trials). I do wonder, if much of this is down to the breeders striving to achieve dual-purpose?

I have to say that some HPRs are fantastic looking dogs though :-)

I totally agree with you, if you do not select for working ability then ipso facto it will be lost.

Unfortunately because of some of the breeds popularity in the show ring the working ability is being lost because some of those that have the required "attitude" to work can be somewhat difficult to live with for the inexperienced owner.

The market for working HPRs is minute unlike that for labs and springers and so if one breeds one has to take into consideration I suppose where a lot of the puppies may end up.

There are very few "working" kennels that spring to mind in the majority of the HPR breeds unlike labs, springer or, on the working/pastoral side, BCs and GSDs for example.

The best worker I had was nothing to look at but was also a somewhat "challenging" dog around other dogs and people.

I think part of the reason that the market for workng dogs other than labs and springers is minute ispartly due to the way "serious working handlers" like to be seen. I have seen many working bred flatcoats being sold into pet homes or to novice handlers. These novice handlers do their best and as we all know, we all make our worst mistakes with our first dog. Hence flatcoats earned a reputation for being willful and scatty. They are neither, and do work very well. I watch these novice handlers getting told endlessly by some lab owners, "Why don't you get a proper dog, get a labrador, you'll never do anything with a flatcoat". Many wishing to be taken as serious working gundog handlers are swayed by this and do make sure their next dog is a lab, they acheive more success because they now have the knowledge to do a reasonable job of training. Having said that thankfully flatcoats are gaining in the working field.

It is vital for show breeders to maintain the working ability of their chosen breed, by selecting working dogs to be part of their breeding programmes, if it is to stay dual purpose. Equally it is vital that working dog breeders need to keep a watch on how closely the dog or bitch, in their breeding programmes, resembles the breed standard.

My puppy is working bred, and at his first championship show this year he won his class and qualified for Crufts. Working bred dogs can win at championship level in breeds which have not completely split. I hope flatcoats never go down the road that labs have, where the two types are very different.

As to wether a split breed can turn back time and return to a dual status the  answer is yes, but it will take several generations and the willingness of all the breeders whether they follow the show or working disciplines to work towards this goal.

Flatcoats are a lovely breed, I know quite a number of people who own them and the majority are dual purpose (at least to some extent)

I must admit I am one of those people that regularly tell them to get a lab (with tongue firmly in cheek!), but they all ignore me and carry on anyway! ;-) Flatcoats really seem to attract enthusiasts, and those that own them seem absolutely devoted to the breed. 

Fortunately the show-goers interpretation of the breed standard still favours a conformation that is suitable for hard-work.

To be honest, from the Labrador perspective I would prefer to keep the split. From a working point of view dual-purpose just seems to dilute the excellence that can be achieved through a more focussed approach. If the show lab owners want to continue to breed fat dogs thats entirely their choice.

I was interested to learn that at the National Specialty for my breed in the USA next month (American cockers) they are holding "fun field trial and tryout" which the show dogs can go along to to see if they have any aptitude.  Of coures, it is eaier to do this sort of thing in the USA when the Club show lasts 4 days!
bye
Gwen

I have stonking flattie in my class and I keep telling the owner that I would have him if she wants to let him go.................:

Not really my "type" of dog to look at, but personality and brains plus which is what I like.

I'd love to agree with you Polly but I seriously doubt the clock can be turned back in several gundog breeds. Further, I believe more breeds are going to split into Show and Work lines including the Flatcoat. We both remember when Crufts moved to the NEC. Flatcoats were still using just one ring and were finished in plenty of time for the group. This year, as there has been for a number of years now, there was two rings and the judging took as long as the first year at the NEC. In days of old so many exhibitors also worked their dogs but now? Nowhere near the same kind of percentage! Show people show, work people work. More to the point so many show judges have never worked a dog in their life and really have no idea of how to interpret the standard in respect of a gundog who by the name should at least LOOK as if it could do a day in the field. People breeding for the show ring who have no interest in working, You know the names just as I do.

Sadly I fear the day of the dual purpose Flatcoat is drawing to a close and shortly will be no more. Maybe not this year, maybe not next. But it is coming inexorably closer. :(

Best wishes, John

I agree I don't think the clock can be turned back and eventually there will most probably be a pronounced split in flatcoats. The problem being that neither the working people breeding for ability nor the show people breeding for what they think is good construction, will agree to meet half way.

It's not a dog thing, that prevents breeds going back to an original one type, it's a people thing, people like winning prizes, the dogs just love a comfy bed, a bowl or two of food and somebody who thinks they are the best thing ever.

As Havoc says given the choice between a working bred lab and a fat show dog she'll go for the working dog, so why is there this divergence? It is the owners and breeders who make these choices.