As this a subject that is frequently brought up in my breed I wondered what the opinions of those of you with hounds/working/gundogs.

How many of you show and work your dog?  And if so do you think that it is possible to be successful in both fields? 

I was just thinking it must be so hard to breed a multi purpose dog and wondered if it had been done in any of your breeds.

Look forward to reading your replies! 

In red and whites we have one full champion in 20 years or so.  It is possible but I don't think the breeding is the hard part in the red and whites, it's the training and the time to successfully work the dog and show the dog.  It's near impossible for those who also work full time!

One in 20 years - that is less than I expected.  I agree I have no idea how people have the time to do anything on top of showing commitments!

I have friends who want to encompass everything with their dog - racing, working and showing.  With their being so many different lines, each specialising in just one of these areas it is proving impossible to find a dog that can perform to a high standard in all of these areas. 

I show and work mine (so to speak). I know of one current Beagle Champion who won several working certificates so would be classed as both.

I work one of my Spanish due to her eye problem she is unable to be shown as she doesn't like people standing over her.  I am hoping to  both work and show her daughter when she's old enough.  Bought her her first dummy a couple of weeks ago, so can't wait to try her out with it at the weekend :)

There are several full champions in my breed, Large Munsterlanders. A lot of HPR dogs are multi purpose dogs. Thankfully we haven't gone down the separate roads, unlike a lot of native breeds.

If you have the right dog then it won't be too difficult. We tend to use different leads and commands for different things, that way the dog knows what it is going out to do.

I have had an English Springer in the past that was mainly a pet, but she was also a good working dog. You never saw that side of her until she saw the 'working' clothes ;-) She became a different dog then. :-D

It all comes down to training. And the time to put in that extra effort.

My dogs are all pets/show dogs only as I have no interest in working them.  I do think that some of them would be better than others as they have a greater prey drive.  2 of them would rather have a cuddle with a rabbit than catch it! :)

In whippets there is yet to be a VERY successful multi purpose dog. It was nice to see a dog that is a successful racer win his first CC recently - one of the few that have done so. 

Whippets have 3 very clear types though - show, working and racing, which means that those that do race would look so out of place in the ring in terms of size and confirmation compared to the show dogs. 

I did wonder if this was the case in other breeds, but it would seem not. 

A proper pack beagle is quite different to a show beagle but the BC run a working section where show or pet hounds can have to opportunity to work and gain a certificate if good enough. Recently I was at a proper beagle pack puppy show and there was one young dog that you could have almost shown, however the judges felt he was too heavy. I quite liked him! lol

in my breed virtually every hound competing in working trials also shows at championship level. There is no working/showing divide atall (not including the pack hounds as they are mostly crossed for great er speed)
A quick look back at a recent trails catalogue shows 38 hounds entered and only 4 of them were not regulalry shown. Certainly my hounds work and show without any problem atall and I can not imagine why there should be a problem.
Our new puppy is from a working/showing gundog kennel in a gundog breed where theres no real divide and I have great hopes he will be more than dual purpose....he will be multi purpose as he  hopefully will be a gun dog, a stalking dog, a falconry dog and on his day off....a show dog!!

Our newfs are worked in water every week as well as the show ring.

Peanuts

There have been some outstanding whippet kennels who have produced wonderful racing/coursing/show dogs.  I can think of ten off the top of my head.  Maybe it all comes down to breeding for form and not for function!

There are a few full champion Gordon Setters and even a Field champion / show champion gordon, and there are a reasonable number of people who compete in field trials.

I don't work mine  as I dont have the time or the inclination!

Yes, I agree in the past there were - but in recent years there have been next to none, which is what I am referring to.

Is there a height restriction in racing?

I show and work my Malamutes ... in harness and also obedience and some agility.

Lots of people in this breed do both :)

My aussies show (well, just one now) and he also does obedience.
Both my bitches do obedience and one works sheep and cattle really well.
We have one working trials champion and one obedience champion in the breed up to now.

Gabrielle x

Yes height and weight restrictions.  To get their passport they must be below 21" (I think, not certain on that) 

I am so interested to see how many of you successfully show and work your dogs.  I think it's great! 

Casie is a show champion, and we are starting her on obedience.  Mom really wants to enter a show, where obedience and conformation is offered the same day, and walk from one ring to the other. 

Sad to say here, but it seems like to every breed, there are two types.  The show dogs, and the working dogs.  I would doubt if half the dogs in the working or herding group could actually do what they were bred to do.  Especially with the GSD, as the slope on the topline, makes them look like they are sitting all the time, and when you see a "working bred" GSD, the topline is almost straight. 

My friend reckons my Yankee would be great at tracking - I'm less convinced, as although he always loves sniffing around he seems very bad at actually locating the treat on the floor! :-D

On a slight tangent, I work my Cavalier in obedience and she is usually placed at companion shows, though we have yet to break through at open level, and she is successful at open breed shows too. She's also done 'have a go' agility so well that the people there couldn't believe she had no training - she really is multi purpose! Oh yes and she was a perfect mum too! :-)

Racing whippets have been bred for function and show whippets for form and that is why the divide is so great.  I think what is interesting is that every racing whippet could be shown but not every show whippet could be raced, and considering that the height restriction to race is 21" for dogs and 20" for bitches that is a little bit more generous than the desired height in the breed standard.  Maybe whippets should be give the title Sh Ch and only be given the full title if they have demonstrated racing ability.

I think you will struggle to find a very successful dog or bitch who is actually within the standard for height.
One of our girls is 19" and is considered to be small - even getting comments about it in her critiques.
I think that it is something that needs to be addressed in the standard.  Ideally we would all have dogs at 20" and bitches at 19" but I would not ignore a dog that's only fault is being a bit over size.  I'd be very happy with a 21.5" dog who's only fault was his size :)
Poor movement on the other hand I would find hard to forgive and would never breed from a dog whose movement left something to be desired.

Anyway - I digress completely!!

I think the problem is that you get used to seeing big whippets and it becomes the norm.  I think if I were to breed a litter to show I would have a serious look at using one of the top racing dogs.  They are already demonstating their ability to perform the function they were bred for, are of correct size and go back to some of the top dual purpose kennels of the past.  I cannot understand why more people do not do it.

What do you class as big though that is the question?

I am assuming that you exhibit whippets too??

If I could not get a racing passport for it then I would consider it big because that is bigger than the desired breed height in the standard.

Well the breed standard is 20" for a dog and 18.5" for a bitch. 
I can only think of one dog currently being shown below this height. 

Our dogs are 20.5"-21" and by no means look big.
I am hoping our youngster will make 20.5" my ideal height for a dog.  And that the bitches will make 19".  This would make them all over standard but they will still look relatively small in the ring.

Excuse me,but why on earth would anyone hope that their stock is over the desired height in the breed standard? Surely one breeds to keep "within" the standard????
If everyone took that attitude,then within a few years,all whippets would end up like greyhounds!
I think that genuine breeders are fully aware of the size issue within whippets,& are trying to keep size down.
& i can think of quite a few whippets being shown that ARE under the maximum height!

In my breed ESS there is a vast difference in type.

The working type would look very out of place in the show ring and many show dogs would not be able to withstand a day in the field.

If you look at both types the differences are very easy to see.

There are people (the minority) who do work their ESS as well as showing but we have few full Champions.  As the lines are bred for completely different reasons over the years the breed has become completely spilt and there appears to be no going bad which is rather a shame.

Many gundog breeds are the same

Vicky

We have a ISDS Border Collie and he is huge, but moves beautifully and works well. I also have a cocker that is huge over 18" to the shoulder and again moves well. Our problem is choosing a dog that I could have to show when we are rank amatures. I couldn't tell a good dog from a poor dog. What i do know is we have two well mannered, very placid but playful dogs. But I would love a show one!! Where do you get the best advice?
I asked a few breeders at Crufts and was told I had probably over exercised my cocker. However i have also been advised that, that, was a probable old wives tale. So I am still confused.

Well as a genuine breeder we want to keep as much within the standard as possible but knowing that there are next to no dogs that are that size I will be happy for our dogs to reach the size I mentioned, which is in keeping with the current whippets.  As I said in an ideal world we would all like dogs of 20", I do think that the standard needs to be addressed as bitches of 18.5" are just not out there anymore at least not in the ring.  For me there are more important issues than size - movement and temperament being 2 of them.  I do not wish to end up with whippets like greyhound but as long as a dog still looks like a whippet I can forgive a bit of size. 

It is interesting that you think you know of several under the maximum height.  I honestly know of only 2 that are 19.5" dogs.  I think people would be very surprised  if their dogs were to actually go under the measure. 

And after your comment I will no longer be partaking in this forum.

I think the original query you posted was with regard to dogs being able to participate as show dogs and working dogs.  I think I explained fully why I consider it is becoming increasingly difficult in whippets.  In my opinion the most important issue in any showdog is not movement it is type. In the breed we are discussing, whippets,  they must never be confused with  Greyhounds nor  Italian Greyhounds.  I speak from experience as I  have a 22" whippet dog, and the question I get asked most when I am out and about with him is 'Is it a greyhound", I do not show him, in my opinion he is too big.  Living as he does with correct size whippets he stands out like a sore thumb. 

I am  sorry that you are not going to post any more, but that is your choice. 

Trimmer I have to disagree with your comment. "In my opinion the most important issue in any showdog is not movement it is type"

Type is very important but I feel movement is as important as incorrect movement would suggest incorrect construction!

I always think of type as being those qualities that sets one breed apart from another.  I used whippets as my example, that they must not be confused with either a Greyhound or an Italian Greyhound.  A very  small greyhound or a very large whippet can move well, but if you are not certain as to what breed it is then it is lacking in type. 

Perhaps this is a matter that would differ between certain breeds or groups of breeds.  As in my breed (ESS) a dog who lacked type would not be confused for a different breed.

I understand what breed type is and was referring to this as opposed to different types within a specific breed!!

I do however stand by my comment that movement is as important as type.  Departures from standard on either of these aspects would be faults and their severity would be down to each individual judge.

I agree that it can be a lack of time that stops people from both working and showing their dogs to the highest level - I have BSD and do agility, obedience , showing and use a couple of them as therapy dogs in my work with autistic youngsters - however I simply do not have the time to compete in more than one discipline seriously - and as I enjoy showing most that is what focus most of my time on.

However there are plenty of BSD breeders who have produced successful show and working dogs ( eg the Vanistica kennels based in Cornwall have bred a show champion and an obedience champion from the same litter.)

Only working line  Malinois are unable to compete succesfully in the show ring - having moved so far away from the correct breed type that they are almost a different breed.

I must agree that  'type' is absoloutlely vital - without it you simply do not have a breed - the differences between say a Greyhound and Whippet - Norfolk and Norwich - Belgian/Dutch shepherd etc are small but significant ....and should be safeguarded Whilst construction/movement/temperament etc are also important lets not forget that any mongrel can excell in these ...it is the individual breed blueprint that divides one breed from another .

Yvonne

> Type is very important but I feel movement is as important as incorrect movement would suggest incorrect construction!

Oh I'm sorry I disagree, you can get sound moving mongrels but type sets one breed apart from another and I've seen some English Springers that are way too big, have solid blackheads (That make them look like LM's from a distance) light in bone, lack of coat etc.    A dog has to 'scream' type at you first & foremost.   There used to be a Pointer shown in my neck of the woods, nice enough dog but his head looked like a GSP which then makes him untypical.

Just to add another thought into the pot. Surely being fit for the purpose that the breed was bred for is up there. It combines some of both points and adds another dimension to looking at a dog. Even so called 'lap dogs' had a purpose.
All these variances are what makes judging so subjective, I have known in my breed 'Boxers' a judge  put up a dog with a stunning head, but its movement was atrocious. Similarly a dog that looked wonderful on the move, but it's 'bite' was far too undershot rendering it unfit for the original purpose of the breed (even though they are not used for bear baiting nowadays, thank goodness).
We all have our priorities, but should not lose sight of the overall picture.

Well said Marion

This is exactly what I meant in my previous posts. 

No single element makes a good specimen it has to be an overall package.  Type, soundness etc.  The original post I replied to stated one was "the most important".

The degree that people perceive one element or fault more important than another is what makes the judging subjective. 

It's all very well having a dog that "screams type" but if it can't move is that better than a dog with less type who then moves soundly?

Just to reply further to your observations of ESS. 

Colour markings should not be taken in to consideration when judging. The standard states Liver & White or Black & White or either of these colours with tan markings.  So regarding solid black heads as a fault is subjective. 

As is size, kennel types within the breed can differ a great deal I do however doubt when any in the ring presently are over the standard.  Everything about the ESS should be moderate so lack of coat is not a fault it is a preference.  Some kennel types have masses, some have less so again whether this was an important factor in judging would be subjective.

If we all had the same opinions then the world would be a very dull place.  I think we are all correct but cannot agree that any ONE element is the be all and end all.

I'm interested in the two types of ESS  because I wonder if this is happening to my breed.  Do people show the working type in breed classes and if so how do they go on.

To be honest the working type ESS are now so far removed from the standard they would never fair well in the show ring and therefore are never shown.

There are a few breeders who still work or trial their show type with varying degrees of success. Sadly not as many as we would like to see, but again time restraints work committments all play are part in just how much one can do.

There are however some show types that would never in a million years manage a day out on a shoot.

Our first dog bought back in 1985 was a b&w ESS, half show, half working lines - he looked very much like the 'dual purpose' dogs of the 30's & 40's.    But he was smack bang on 20" tall but looked small compared to the show type, so if the breed has moved away from it's original look, I would say it's more the fault of the 'show' people rather than the working people.

Show dogs are to the breed standard as written by the KC in year dot, working are not, need I say more!

I feel apportioning blame on either groups of breeders is unhelpful, the split began long before 1985.