My personal view is that the blame lies equally at both doors. The show breeders interpret the standard subjectively, but it appears the working breeders don't even read it! :(

A show labrador (for example) should be able (with correct training and loss of a few kilos ;) of course) be able to work as well as a working lab - and a working-bred lab should be able to do well in the show ring.

It's a pity but then I suppose if you want a dog for work and not interested in show deviating from the standard won't matter.  If that dog turns out to be a super worker then you might want more of the same and breed from him/her.  Like you say it's a no win situation.

Exactly! If you exchange the words 'show' and 'showing' for 'work' and 'working' in your post it makes equal sense. The original breed standards described multi-purpose dogs - those who were good at their job and still looked good.

To be honest, I think its a win/win situation! The people that show have the dogs that appeal to them, and the people that work are happy with their dogs. From a personal perspective I've rather have the excellence of specialisation than accept the compromise of dual purpose, but I've no problem with anyone keeping the type of dog that suits them.

I haven't met a working gundog owner yet that actually favours having an ugly dog rather than a good-looking one. However, my own interpretation of a good looking springer would have less of the exageration of the show variety. There is nearly as much split within the working world, as to what constitutes the ideal looking springer. Many favour the bigger, more hairy, heavily marked dogs while others favour the little white flying machines. Nevertheless there is sufficient consistency in type that most people (apart from those living near tingaley!) know that they're looking at a springer.

Perhaps there ought to be a separate breed called 'Working Spaniel', because judging by the ones in this area there's no difference, not even in size, between 'working cockers' and 'working springers' - they're just a generic 'Spaniel type'.

(Far better that it's impossible to tell by looking whether a dog of any particular breed is shown or worked)  That is exactly it Jeangenie. You have hit the nail on the head. Now we can tell! They are so diverse in every way you would not even think most show and working (in many breeds of dogs) are from the same breed.

We people who breed, show or work our dogs all have our own conformations for that particular breed.

But we now have working dogs in the home as pets as well as show dogs. And because of this I think the two strains are so different they need different recongnised classifications.

How many of us with the working or show strains have been stopped by the public and asked what is that? I think the time has come to acknowledge the split.

If you have a split, however, you lose the possibility of ever drawing the two extremes back together, which IMO would be a shame.

Just to add, people who show and people who work tend to stick to their own strains of the breed, you usually get home breeders who may breed a show and a working type together.  And then look at what happens, you get people posting on here wondering whether they have a cross! With dodgy papers. (Not to mention the constant whispers and ums and r's of working dogs 'throwbacks') It is all getting too confusing! I can understand why it has not been done, it gives me a headache!!!!

Thing is there are lots of a breeds traits, that distinguish it from any other that really have nothing to do with it's working ability.

In the ESS for example, length and shape of the ear, colour, to a large extent head type and eye shape, other than any unhealthy exagerations, and obviously a soft mouth and decent jaw are irelevant to it's job.

An ESS is supposed to be Liver or Black or Tri with white, but it could still work if it were solid yellow or grey, had pricked ears or what have you.

In the same way in my breed a dog that was a poor colour had extensive white markings, light eyes, no mask could still hunt Elk, but it sure hell would be a poor looking specimin, and in fact that is exactly what many work only dogs are.

In the main Working Springer breeders are not breeding for a dog that visually conforms to a standard it is only the working traits they are interested in, so even splitting the breed into two woudl serve nouseful purpose as the working dogs would still not confoirm (in the main) closely to any standard of physical perfection.

Sadly also a lot of so called Working Type Springers sold as Pets are nothing of the sort they are simply por examples of an English Springer and the working abilities of the pa5ents ahve not beeen tested or bred for, they just produce pups.

The only way that you can have breeds that son't significantly diverge between working ad show typ is if as in Norway with my own breed a dog cannot become a Show Champion without passng a working Test, and just as importantly a dog cannot become a Filed Champion unless it can gain a first quality grading at shows, so has to at least look like a quality example of it's breed.

Even then  there will be some hunters who are not intersted in official working titles, but these will no be used for breeding.

That's a very interesting post, Brainless.  I approve of the Norwegian way of doing things.  My dog is a pet but I want her to get more out of life so whilst I don't need to work her, I would like her to have work to do so she can follow her instincts and use her brain.

I must be missing the point, or something! Surely if you have the sort of dog you want and like, there is no issue. Why not live and let live? This is an agument that has no right or wrong. We all have the freedom to breed and keep the dog that suits our requirements regardless of what our neighbour keeps and prefers, that's a good thing isn't it?

I agree completely with the posters who have said previously that working type breeders have no interest in what the dog looks like, as long as it can do the job. A show dogs job is to look a certain way, so show type breeders will strive to breed to their interpretation of the breed standard, which is solely a description of the appearance.

I also feel that natural instinct is NOT bred out completely, and even the top FT Chs had to be trained, they didn't just go out on day and do it all alone did they?

Dawn R.

Nursey,

I completely agree with your first paragraph.

However with regard to your point : "I also feel that natural instinct is NOT bred out completely" I'd suggest that the key word is 'completely', as the kind of instincts that many people refer to as 'working instincts' are often merely behaviour that any dog with a pulse ought to be demonstrating!

The top FTChs are skillfully trained, but with spaniels, this training is more about harnessing and controlling the raw power, drive, style and instincts of the dog than it is about teaching it behaviours. In the same way that in a litter of show puppies there will only be a limited number (if any) that are good enough to take the top honours (whoever owns them), the same is true of field trial puppies.

This seems to be borne out on a rescue site that I looked at recently.  A beautiful dog had been put into rescue because she didn't come up to scratch workwise.  The owner now had another litter to bring on and choose from.  It shocked me I have say. I suppose that shows my naivity.

I would just disagree slightly that a breed standard is not just about the way a dog looks, it needs to have the correct temperament and character for it's breed, harder to judge in the showring than appearance admittedly. :D