I brought Abbeystead Pleasure as a Dual Purpose Labrador and she has now had puppies. As such I have listed them as Dual Purpose - but am I doing this in error?
https://www.champdogs.co.uk/dog/79866

Yes. 'Dual Purpose' means they have both working and show lines. Your pedigree has only show-bred dogs on it - from a few different countries, but all show bred. There are no field qualifications or titles so you would not say this dog is 'dual purpose' - unless you had definitively proved that in the dog herself by competing with her in field events and putting titles on her/proving her, herself.

Nice health test results though, well done for those.

Urg. So even with the heritage behind her, that doesn't show enough fieldwork? I have her contract and it says 'dual' so was I mis-sold?

There're no field titles on her pedigree at all.

It's a case of buyer beware really. Anyone can claim their litter is anything, which is why people have to do their research and look at what the pedigree actually means...

Ok - so if after this she can prove herself I could list her as Dual Purpose? Well, that's positive at least. Thank you so much for the clarification.

Would you say though that she is more working type from her looks compared to those actually seen in the show ring? Long like of US champs there I know.

I also guess the dual purpose is because you hVe full UK champs there rather than just sh ch's?

'Dual Purpose' means they have both working and show lines.

No it doesn't. Dual purpose means the dogs have been bred to be able to both work and be shown. Lines that have never been split into two types.

I spent a lot of time researching her parents to ensure good scores, and although yes, she is more Show than Working her looks are more working and she undoubtedly has ability if I was to do more gun dog training with her. I've been told that by a reputable gun dog trainer.

Yes - looks more Working - I've emailed the breeder for clarification. Such a shame. I've found a lovely family but they want a Dual or a Working lab so are unlikely to want her now she is shown to be Show. :(

'Lines that have never been split into two types.' Can you explain this further please?

'Lines that have never been split into two types.' Can you explain this further please?

Many breeds have a show type and a working type that look very different and have different temperaments too. For instance Cocker Spaniels, Labradors, Golden Retrievers, Belgian Shepherd Malinois and Greyhounds. There are a lot more. When each breed originated they were bred for work but also for looks -the particular look and the particular type of work they were suited for is what makes a breed a breed. In the many decades and sometimes much longer that such breeds have existed, some breeders concentrated on the working abilities and ignored the looks and therefore the look of the dogs gradually changed, others concentrated on the looks so much that the working ability was lost. Dual purpose breeders are those that want to retain both working qualities and show looks and although I can only speak for the breeds I have owned personally there are lines of these breeds where they stayed dual purpose due to the breeders involved wanting a dog that can do it all. But there are not all that many left.

Just mixing working lines and show lines doesn't make the dogs dual purpose as you will have some that look like working lines but with different characters so not useful either for working or show, and vice versa. It will take generations to breed dogs that actually are dual purpose. Speaking from experience here as I have had 8 true dual purpose Golden Retrievers and 2 that were show lines -the show line dogs did not have the same willingness to retrieve. I currently own both types of Malinois and  have deliberately mixed show and working lines to regain qualities lost. I'm on the fourth generation and I'm still getting dogs that aren't suitable for both purposes. The first bitch was bred from a winning show dog mother mated to a working police dog father. That bitch has 100% working looks but literally 0 % working qualities.

Isnt the term also used for breeds that arnt split or habe i misinderstood all this time ? for example i have a  flat coat retriever and the breed and in her case her parents do both work and show as well as the grandparents etc . The breed is described as dual purpose. There is also no split in conformation

>Lines that have never been split into two types.

There are no Lab lines that have never been split into two types which are also successful - (meaning - competing at the highest levels with success) both in work and show. So good luck finding those...

The last Dual Champion Labrador was Knaith Banjo, whelped 1946.

If you're claiming a dog is 'dual purpose' then it has to excel both in conformation and performance in the field. Perhaps not to Dual Ch level but to a level where they are seeing reasonable success in championship shows and in field trials.

A SHCH dog which occasionally gets taken to the shooting field, waddles around and brings back a few pheasants which were easy marks, is not dual purpose. (Ditto for the 'Show Gundog Working Certificate').

A FTCH whose conformation is assessed alongside other working dogs before a trial, is not dual purpose.

Doing one thing really well and the other being a little gesture towards it, isn't dual purpose...

I don't think being Dual Purpose means the dog has to excel in trials and in shows. To me if means a dog that wouldn't look out of place in the show ring but not necessarily a champion. Also it has the instincts and ability to work.

As was mentioned earlier, some breeds are dual purpose still, it doesnt mean every dog will become a show and field trial champion. Most will not make a big mark at  shows or trials, but will look typical of the breed and if trained will make an acceptable working dog

>If you're claiming a dog is 'dual purpose' then it has to excel both in conformation and performance in the field. Perhaps not to Dual Ch level but to a level where they are seeing reasonable success in championship shows and in field trials.

LOL! As the last Dual Champion labrador was born in 1946 you're suggesting that there are no dual purpose labradors in existence! To be 'dual purpose' they simply need to not look too out of place in the show ring (although technically all they need is to be KC registered!) and to have some ability and willingness to retrieve in the field.

My dogs grandsire was a dual purpose dog. He could do a goods days work on a shoot and do reasonably well in the show ring. He regularly entered field trials and although didn’t win against purely working goldens, he did ok. He won a GR club trophy over several years (I can’t remember it’s name, but it was awarded to dogs was placed at a show and working trial and was presented at Crufts each year).
His owner (breeders of my dog) regularly worked him at shoots over the winter and really only bred to replace their working dogs. Their dogs looked more like show goldens although less heavy and not such a profuse coat and less like the dark gold slim and leggy working goldens.

A friend of mine bred Labradors for over 40 years(now retired due to her health) & bred dogs that were equally popular in the show ring & working, with the added bonus of always having all available health tests done. Her dogs never changed in quality both of being conforming to the breed standard & being able to do a day's work in the field. I would consider they were dual purpose

>To me if means a dog that wouldn't look out of place in the show ring but not necessarily a champion. Also it has the instincts and ability to work.

And this is pretty awful for me, and not what my definition is at all. Otherwise we end up with a mediocre dog. A dog which kinda looks like it might pass in the show ring and can work just about acceptably in the field but doesn't really excel in either.

No way. To me that's not dual purpose. And it's not breeding to 'better the breed' unless you think pursuing mediocrity is somehow desirable.

Why deliberately breed for mediocrity in order to pursue two different end goals? Either pursue excellence in both or, if you decide that's not achievable or desirable, pursue excellence in just one! But don't breed for "can pass for either", 'Jack of all trades, master of none'.

>To be 'dual purpose' they simply need to not look too out of place in the show ring (although technically all they need is to be KC registered!) and to have some ability and willingness to retrieve in the field.

Wow, er.... and "dual purpose" is supposed to imply something desirable, with that description?? I've trained a chihuahua to retrieve in the field (someone on a shoot I was on, had one, and it became a joke project). I guess I could claim it was a "dual purpose" chihuahua, except it was never a chihuahua's job description to work in the field. I think people need to raise their expectations a little higher.

Dual purpose shouldn't mean "pretty crap at everything but can kind of still do it", I'm afraid Otherwise it's on the way to being something everyone wants to avoid rather than a desirable epithet! It should mean a dog excels at both work and show.

Dual purpose for me is a dog which would do well in the ring and equally should have the ability to work in its field, so for Labs being able to pick up on a shoot or do well in field trials. If they don't conform to the breed standard then I do worry where some breeds are headed. I never understood why breeds are split into what technically now seems to be 2 different looking breeds with different traits. Cockers are a big one here. Why yhe split? Why have all these changes gone on? If the breed standard hasn't changed then why are people evolving breeds into something completely away from what they once were?

I would expect a dual purpose gundog to be of at least championship show quality, (though not necessarily a Champion), and to be regularly shot over in the field. Several Golden Retriever kennels have filled this criteria, and deserve to be classed as dual purpose, though I don't think there has been an actual Dual Champion since Joan Gill's David of Westley.

My first golden was sired by Westley Samuel

My first Golden, (born 1958), was Haulstone on the sire side and show breeding on the bitch side. My second was by Daniel of Westley out of Sh Ch Tingel Ripple of Arbrook.

Doing one thing really well and the other being a little gesture towards it, isn't dual purpose...

Guess it depends on what the owner/handler concentrates on.

There are certainly true Dual Purpose Golden Retrievers. They don't have to be Champions in either shows or the field, but good enough to be shown as a good example of its breed and also being used practically in the field -not in trials.

>Doing one thing really well and the other being a little gesture towards it, isn't dual purpose...
>Guess it depends on what the owner/handler concentrates on.

Absolutely. In gundog breed circles, the number of people who are keen on both aspects (conformation as well as working) is vanishingly small, hence the split in types which, sadly, seems irreversible, with both 'sides' being very disparaging about the other. There are extremes with both types, and some of the working-bred, FTCh lines dogs are too 'hot' for the average person who wants a dog to do a few day's shooting and picking up in the season. The 'show' breeders are, surprisingly, the ones who are most likely to do health testing, which is very disappointing. Plus, of course, the majority are destined to be companion dogs, so the middle ground is surely the better way to avoid mental frustration.

I presume you mean that it’s disappointing that working Gundogs are less likely to be health tested.  And why is it surprising that the show types are more likely to health test? I would have thought it desirable for both.

I see this and people want working lines but without the brain geared up to only do this. Labradors and Cockers 
These days I say if you aren't working yhe dog properly don't get a working cocker.

I look back at our old family Labs and they look like the show line of today with a slightly better leg length, nothing like these fine whippet types I'm seeing. Field trials and working on shoots the Lab needs to have the ability, its not about the speed being able to run 100mph into everything.
When I read the breed standard very few pure working line Labs actually meet it at all. They aren't supposed to be slab sided at all or have a narrow fine head and lacking in bone. They are the type which is far removed from the standard compared to show line. If the dogs of 20 plus years ago could work and do a good job then why change the breed? Why slimline them?

>When I read the breed standard very few pure working line Labs actually meet it at all. They aren't supposed to be slab sided at all or have a narrow fine head and lacking in bone. They are the type which is far removed from the standard compared to show line. If the dogs of 20 plus years ago could work and do a good job then why change the breed? Why slimline them?

I quite agree, many of the working lines are far too 'whippety'. Equally, many show lines have strayed just as far from the standard, with heavy, blocky heads with short muzzles (too short to be able to pick up a large cock pheasant without damaging it) and short legs, becoming commonly seen. They're no more good labradors than the lightboned finely-made ones. Link to image of the last Dual Champion labrador. I wish they were still like this!

(And yes, I meant that it's disappointing and surprising that fewer working dogs are health tested, because if you want a dog to have a long working life you don't want it going blind at 5 years and crippled by HD at 7 years.)

Most gundog owners do not take part in field trials, they want a reliable working dog not not a FT Ch. These dogs are NOT mediocre, they are doing the work the breed was developed for. Most of the people I know stick to the lines they know work, and they don't always include FT Ch close up in the pedigree.

Shows and field trials are not why breeds like Labradors exist, they were valued as gundogs to begin with. This was long before the advent of dog shows.

In the UK only a handful of show champions are made up each year in most breeds, probably a few more for the popular gundogs. I don't know how many field trial champions get  crowned in a year. To think a dog has to become a Champion in the ring and the field to be known as dual purpose is crazy.

Maybe in some places like America it would be easier. As long as a dog has four legs and is the correct colour, and is shown long enough it can be made into an American champion. Well maybe not that easy, but a lot easier than in the UK

For me that's too skinny for a Lab JG. No barrel ribcage on that one. The Labs I grew up with from working lines actually in body shape looked more like Bilbo Baggins at Baileydale. Not quite the head of him sadly, he had a stunning head piece. If I were in Labs that is the type I would be aiming for.
I have seen some ott heads in some show lines, far from the soft tranquil expression I'd like to see.
Going onto that lad mentioned he also did his gundog test, so had the ability to do the work too.
A note aside I saw him as a 6 month old puppy walk past me at an open show and just went wow, he turned my head then. Looked him up from ring number. Same dog but didn't realise at the JW finals one year, loved his movement and found out it was him again when I got home to check the results.

Another Lab I love is Loch Mor Romeo, or something like that, the Italian dog who did well at Crufts one year. Yes a tad heavy for my liking but he has great bone, leg length, overall size and not over done aside for perhaps his weight on the day of the show. I've seen photos of him where he wasn't carrying that sort of weight and think I could easily own him too.

>For me that's too skinny for a Lab JG. No barrel ribcage on that one.

He's got a broad and deep ribcage, which is what the standard calls for. The standard doesn't call for a barrel chest! And he has a (just) visible waist, showing that he's not carrying too much fat. Basically he looks like a good, fit active dog, perfectly suited for purpose. His head has beautiful proportions; some show lines have heads like Rottweilers, with very short muzzles, with the skull about twice the length.

Agree with you there JG about some heads now akin to a Rott head which they shouldn't have. I love my Rotts and they hold a similar ish shape on the stand their heads shouldn't be the same, ratios should be different.

I think some people are missing the point. The majority of people who breed working Labs don't care much about what they look like - a good dog (in the field) never looks bad! If you breed for performance (and only performance) you can assume that the phenotype you end up with, is correlated with that performance and with the behavioural traits that are desired...

They used to do both so why the massive change in the working type away from the standard? Genuine question on this because working ability for the breed shouldn't be about speed, it's doing the job well.
The split has a huge difference now in type and the average working line is too much for most homes when they wouldn't have been 20 plus years ago.

The dog in any breed imo should not only meet the standard but be able to perform in the job it was created to do, so water retrieval work in the case of the Lab.
Cockers have gone the same way as have English Springers. Yet Welsh Springers haven't.
Not putting total blame on the working side of things as show lines have also changed but there is a breed standard so I don't know why you can't have both?

>They used to do both so why the massive change in the working type away from the standard? Genuine question on this because working ability for the breed shouldn't be about speed, it's doing the job well.

There are extremes on both 'sides'; too many of the show lines only pay lip service to the standard, and don't resemble the 'very active' dogs that are called for.

>The split has a huge difference now in type and the average working line is too much for most homes when they wouldn't have been 20 plus years ago.

And the show type often lack the desire as well as ability to work.

It's sad because they both have the same breed standard and so should be interchangeable. We gave up looking for a labrador a decade ago (even at Crufts we only saw one labrador that we could have given house-room to, and that was in the gamekeepers class. There wasn't a single lab in the conformation ring that we liked.) because the working lines were too full-on and the show lines too hefty and solid and not active enough! So we got a setter instead.

I’ve been thinking for a while that I dislike the separation of working and show lines, mostly because I think a dog can’t be considered a good example of its breed if it can’t do the job it was bred for.

I don’t necessarily expect a show line lab to retrieve as well as a working lab, but I do think it should be capable of working. I mean being able to retrieve is an intrinsic part of what makes a Labrador a Labrador - it’s in the name, after all!

There’s no way a modern bulldog could deal with a bull. There’s an awful lot of border collies out there who look beautiful but wouldn’t have any idea what to do with a sheep!

I mean I’m not going to demand that dachshunds prove they can kill badgers, but a dachshund that doesn’t have the drive to do that kind of work is like a greyhound that just looks at you when a rabbit runs past.

> I dislike the separation of working and show lines, mostly because I think a dog can’t be considered a good example of its breed if it can’t do the job it was bred for.<br />

Coming from years with a breed who should be able to hunt, I'd totally agree.  However, as my breed can no longer legally 'hunt' the only thing left really is tracking of which many Bassets do extremely well.  I'd like to think a show Basset would at least look as if it could hunt, physically if nothing else .

I liked it when there were dual championship titles available in gundogs at least.  In the now distant past, many people with 'show Bassets' were approached for studs from their males, a number who had a conformation title at that.   That did show a degree of the joining up of both show and working hounds and it did show a willingness amongst breeders to let the BHC Pack use their show stock.  I was approached for one of mine again years ago, but it never happened - for what reason I don't know!!  That boy's father was an American show Champion, but had done two seasons with an American pack out there.

Unfortunately the BHC Park (the Albany) parted company with the Breed Club.

> only thing left really is tracking of which many Bassets do extremely well

Yeah that’s the kind of thing I was thinking of, showing that a dog has some ability in something relevant to its original purpose.

My breed’s job is to look pretty and be an amusing companion and he does that extremely well, but I can also see some traits from his spaniel heritage - he loves to fetch and carry soft things around almost as much as my old Labrador did.

(That said, I absolutely love to see dogs doing well at something you wouldn’t expect them to be suited for, like a bull terrier doing obedience or a frenchie doing agility.

It fascinated me going to tracking classes with River, and my friend with her standard long-haired dachshund. Willow is of course a natural at that kind of task, right from the first class she was deliberately sniffing each individual footprint, carefully collecting each treat, never going more than a step off track - not the fastest dog there but certainly the most accurate. She’d follow a scent for hours just for the sheer joy of sniffing.

River of course isn’t a scent hound but he makes up for that shortcoming with non-specific drive and enthusiasm for work, and his lightning-fast brain. He knows his job is to find the glove that marks the end of the track and that the footprints will tell him where it is, and he’s off. Misses half the treats on the way there even though his nose passes right over them, because he’s so focused on “follow scent to get to glove”, like a tiny furry laser.

And yes, I’m bragging about my clever little dog again, but I think it’s awesome that from a getting-the-job-done perspective he’s just as good at tracking as a dachshund. Willow’s owner is very keen to prove her dogs can do relevant work and she’s planning to breed in the future, so good for her.)

I spoke to a Labrador judge once who said that a good Labrador should look like it could jump over a five barred gate and that too many look like they’d just go through it!!

>I spoke to a Labrador judge once who said that a good Labrador should look like it could jump over a five barred gate and that too many look like they’d just go through it!

And it should be carrying a pheasant in its mouth when it jumps the gate!

Thinking about Bassets doing what they were bred to do - with our first hound all those years ago, the Pack people held a Club Branch event one afternoon where they laid an aniseed trail and had people with their pet hounds give it a go.  Harvey was 'great'..... and was highly commended.  I didn't have the heart to tell them he'd picked a bitch who was clearing coming into season.  She certainly knew what she was about and so did Harvey - only his ability was aimed at something rather different 

For me I wouldn't expect a dog to jump a high gate with fowl in its mouth. I would expect it to be able to retrieve from the water not be agile enough to jump a gate. The Lab wasn't created for field work though they are now used in this capacity but they are water dogs so water retrieval would be more important to me.

I think this is driving the divergence in breeds like labs and goldens.
They were bred to retrieve only, not be athletic energetic dogs doing everything. There were breeds like spaniels and the various HPR’s already filling those niches. What was wanted was a steady quiet dog who watched what was going on, marked where the game fell then retrieved it cleanly either by scent or sight with no damage to the bird. No need to have them looking like the various HPR’s, just a robust dog that could go all day retrieving through cover, water and rough ground. So they needed to be strong looking with plenty of bone, at home in the water and well coated so they didn’t get chilled when waiting around for the next retrieve.
I sometimes feel that some working labs and goldens are being bred to be HPR’s rather then retrievers.

Nail on head Jodi.

> I would expect it to be able to retrieve from the water not be agile enough to jump a gate. The Lab wasn't created for field work though they are now used in this capacity but they are water dogs so water retrieval would be more important to me.

The 1950 breed standard (amended 1968) says that the labrador should be 'very active', as does the current standard. If a shot bird falls in water the dog is required to retrieve it, whatever obstacles (such as walls, fences and gates) are in its path. If it can't then it isn't fit for purpose.

>They used to do both so why the massive change in the working type away from the standard? Genuine question on this because working ability for the breed shouldn't be about speed, it's doing the job well.

Obviously I wasn't alive 100 years ago, but I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a dog holding a line for 200 yards and then casting and handling accurately at the end of it, 100 years ago - because dogs weren't even handled then.

Breeders are breeding for improvement all the time.

The difference is that those breeding working lines are breeding solely for performance and (on the whole) allowing whatever phenotype happens to occur as a result.

Those breeding for only show are tinkering with superficial surface appearance, often with little to no appreciation of the job the dog is supposed to do. (WOuldn't it be nice it the head was wider? Or if the body was heavier? Just because.... it looks better....in their eyes or in the eyes of the fashion of the time.)

And those trying to breed for both, can't do that very effectively because there is so much divergence that if you breed for one, you select against the other. If you want to breed the very best working litter you possibly can, you simply don't look at any show bred dogs - even if they work (to some degree) in the field. Because they will never be 'as good' as the best working bred dogs.

Equally if you are trying to breed the very best show litter (meaning - in keeping with the current fashions in the ring) show bred dog, you wouldn't breed to a working bred dog, because that's not going to get the result you want.

The end result is that 'dual purpose' comes to mean 'compromise on both sides'... and, as I said far above... who wants mediocrity?

A friend kept Championship show winning English Springers, and also Field Trial winning working Springers. I once asked whether she fancied the challenge of breeding a Dual Champion. She insisted that they were in effect two completely different breeds, and as 1234 states, any attempt to cross the two types could only result in a doubly mediocre type. A waste of good bloodlines.
She did qualify more than one show spaniel to a full title, but a decent trainer can produce a spot qualification with almost anything. Completely different to spending full days in the field - week in, week out, throughout the season.

>The end result is that 'dual purpose' comes to mean 'compromise on both sides'..

On the contrary, 'compromise on both sides' means the end of extremism, with the result that the breed stays fit for purpose as a good steady all-round working dog, that's also suitable to be an active companion. You have the best of both worlds and the worst of neither. Competitions - both field trials and conformation shows - are equally to blame for this divergence. Not just in labradors by any means, but in all breeds where there is competition involved everything is tweaked to be bigger, or faster, or hairier, or whatever, and the original purpose is lost.

That's a lovely Labrador JG - I agree the show ones are tending to be too heavyset - they may or may not be fat, but they certainly look it! And I'm less keen on the whippety working types either. I wish they still looked like your link!

I like the Scandinavian system.

In my own breed most breeders and owners are work orientated.

A dog cannot become a Field Champion (and therefore likely to be used at stud if male) unless it gets First qualty/excellent at shows.

A dog cannot gain it's show title without gaining sufficient points at working tests.

We import regularly and dogs several generations removed have travelled back and worked well.

There is no split in type.