Should conformation dogs and working dogs be labeled as two separate breeds?

Question

Should conformation dogs and working dogs be labeled as two separate breeds?

Answer 1

I think the desired "conformation" should be closely connected with working form.

My Border Collie was bred from both conformation and working lines. His breeder concentrates on both form an function.

Why can't other breeders do the same?



Only concentrating on half of the important aspects really doesn't seem like a "full" breed to me anyways.

A Border Collie that "looks" like a BC, but has no herding drive really isn't a BC.

Adversely, a BC with great drive but looks like a Golden Retriever isn't really a BC either.







Add:

Mongrel Momma:

We'd call them "Border Collies" and "Barbie Collies"

among the ABCA, the split has already been "made"

Answer 2

Absoultely not! The ideal is for one dog to be able to do both. A working dog that does not look and act like the breed is supposed to is just as incorrect as a show dog that cannot work.



Think they can't do both?

http://rivendellbassets.com/images/dogs/happenings/Sarge_bis.jpg



Best in Show winner, National Specialty winner, son of three time National Specialty winner - and also a field trial winner. Yes, it can be done. There are quite a few Bassets on the west coast getting their dual titles.



There would likely be a lot more if field trials were more available. Right now there are only three regions in the US where trials are commonly available for my breed - and none in Canada. If I could be trialing my dogs I would, but I only have conformation to use as an evaluator (performance events like obedience, rally and agility don't count because they don't evaluate breed specific traits).



EDIT: Sorry, but no. The dogs mentioned above all come from many generations of strictly show breeding - not a field dog in sight. So unless Basset Hounds are somehow superior to all other breeds (well...actually....they are) then it's completely foolish to say that show dogs automatically lose their working ability.



EDIT: Okay, so we have ONE breed - the German Shepherd - which almost everyone agrees is pretty much a train wreck on both sides of the working/show fence. Neither one conforms to the written or illustrated standard in either appearance, structure OR temperament IMHO. So that is a reason for splitting the other 150 or so breeds that AKC recognizes?



*flame suit on*

Answer 3

I think you are missing the point on what Above Average is stating. Since there IS only one breed standard, a dog should be able to conform to that standard AND also have the ability to do the job it was bred to do. Form follows function. One thing that I have noticed is that *working* dogs* don't have the coat that show dogs do. Why is that? Isn't that coat suppose to be some sort of protection, or am I wrong there? If a dog doesn't come close to the standard, (how the dog is put together, not what you see on the outside) how CAN it preform it's job correctly? So, there is no need to split anything. What there IS a need for is for breeders to PROVE that their breeding stock CAN do ALL the breed is meant to do. JMHO. Is there something WRONG with having a conformationally correct dog that can work? I don't think so, Tim.

Answer 4

The standard for ALL breeds describes the ideal, both in form AND function. In working dogs, form can be sacrificed for greater function since looks are secondary, but there shouldn't have to be an either/or situation. There are many dogs that are titled in both conformation and working trials, proving there doesn't have to be a choice made when breeding for that ideal. Personally, I'd much rather see a dog's structure sacrificed in order for it to better do the job it was created for, than a dog with multiple confirmation titles that can't work.



It's not the job of any registry to set or altar standards, so that would be up to the patent clubs, and I doubt that would ever happen because as I stated, it's possible to achieve both

Answer 5

No!! I'm very hot on all conformation dogs being able to do the job they were original bred to do. In the UK, some years ago now, the Albany, the working pack of the BHC split from the BHC (for various reasons). Since then the two have gone in diametrically opposite directions - was a time when the Pack used, donated, show studs but from what I've seen, the Pack is now using studs that aren't even purebred while what's happened to the breed in the ring is in some cases, horrendous. So few would actually be able to run a plough, never mind hunt all day. Not all, I hasten to add, and the recently revised Breed Standard in the UK should, if interpreted as it's intended, bring the excesses being seen, back to where the breed should be.



For me, it's essential that all breeds should be able to do a day's work (be they gundogs, or hounds etc.) And I wish more breeds would insist on a test for working ability, before a Championship was won/awarded.



Splitting the two disciplines isn't, imvho, the way forward. That's simply giving in.



Add - I would say the examples you have chosen, pictures, only really show the difference in coat - heads maybe. If a working dog was presented with a coat like the show dogs have in these pictures, would there truly be that much difference? Just as, in the past, a Pack hound in my breed, fattened up, and a show hound, slimmed down, might not look a million miles apart?

Add 2 - My comments above are obviously based on my breed in the UK - we don't have Field Trial titles available here although in the past, a hound could be awarded a Working Certificate if hunted with the Pack (and good enough!). Very few achieved this as most owners of show hounds didn't risk them working with the Pack, even if their hounds had the aptitude.

Answer 6

And what of the breeds, that have no split, hmm? Should they just all of a sudden split the breed, because people in other breeds can't get along?



Show weim- http://content.breederoo.com/users/GrauhundWei/images/content/Cricket_moving_SA_Champ_show_2007.jpg



Working weim- http://www.aschfahlweimaraners.co.uk/aschfahl_weimaraners/weimaraner_ceefa/IMAG021A.JPG



see a difference?



What about Brittanys, that have the most DCs? Should the show Brittanys not be allowed to continue that tradition?



I think your mentality paints a bleak picture for the world of dogs.



Just because people can't get along between the working and show, doesn't mean us that are doing our best to keep splits to a minimum or not at all, should have to suffer. The weimaraner community highly encourages duel champions. And you are saying that shouldn't be?



Is this a working or show weimaraner?

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj224/shinosgirl18/Snow/100_8443.jpg

Answer 7

Only if one is a crook or moron.



REAL breeders use quality stock to produce quality offspring.

BAD breeders cheap out .....won't demand & use stock that CONFORMS TO THE BREED STANDARD IN *ALL* TRAITS!





YES=EXACTLY that!!!! Just an excuse for making &peddling sub-standard crap..."Oh,that's OK,they're just working stuff" is cheap&lazy BULLSHI*!!!



&you are 100% WRONG about "all breeds having a split"!

You can't see a STACKED&correctly groomed dog photo & say there's a "split".

Answer 8

In the Border Collie, there is a significant split, even if they never had a name change as they did in the JRTs. I have personally seen show BCs and working BCs training on livestock. The only show line BCs I have ever seen be close to decent herding dogs are the ones where the breeder pulled in a working line dog to stud to their female and even these have their drawbacks to the full working lines. Several generations of just show BCs that I see really lack the natural talent and ability you find in the working lines. They are losing the key signature of the BC, the "eye" that they should possess. Yes, if you breed for show only, with no real herding talent kept as part of the breeding program, you will lose that talent.



Interestingly, many AKC show BC folks constantly knock the "structure" of the working lines. And yet, it is these lines that their "show stock" originated from and that some still pull dogs from to "bring back the herding ability" lost to them. The conformation standards leave a lot of good working potential dogs out of the mix. If a BC has a "hound ear set" then it's a disqualification, but this has absolutely no affect on the dogs ability to work livestock. It's strictly a cosmetic criteria.



The working lines were long established well before they began showing BCs in AKC. Why is it that just because they are now recognized in AKC that the working people need to conform to that? The working lines have been going along as they always have, for generations, just fine (see above about where AKCs BC show stock originated) and we don't need to be condemned for not signing on to the AKC standard. We're still doing as we always have, breeding established working dogs to carry on the talent and need in our breed. If the structure was so horrible, you surely would not see these dogs doing 600+ yard outrun, fetch, driving, penning and shedding that you find in the top level of USBCHA competition. They'd be falling apart if the structure was so "awful" on the dog.



As for breed differences, there is a distinct difference in the Aussie and BC. While it's likely the Aussie came to be with some BCs in the mix, they "eye" was bred away from, as well as the stylish crouch common in BCs. Aussies are typically an upright herding dog. They don't have the same intensity on livestock either, which I imagine can carry over into the home and makes them a little more mellow than a BC and therefore more desirable.



Your videos on AKC vs. USBCHA herding nail it well too. Many AKC herding champions acquired this on ducks and/or A course sheep. Yes, it's fun to compete in these areas, great to do "something" with your dog, but if you want to be able to say you have a great working dog, you better put yourself in USBCHA and be competing at the Ranch or Open level. Oooo, and that USBCHA video... one of my dogs comes out of those lines and the talent definitely followed!



ADDED: Technically, there already is a split between show Border Collies and working Border Collies. Very, very, very few show people bother with proving their dogs in their ability to work, where the working folk won't breed a Border Collie if it hasn't proven it's worth as an established, talented and successful herding dog.



ADDED2: Regarding the coat of the Border Collie, they come in a large variety of lengths and types. Heavy rough, light rough, smooth with a heavy undercoat, smooth with a light undercoat. All of these varieties can be found in the working lines. They also come in varying degree of bone they carry, from light to heavy. But from the BC conformation people I've spoke to in the past, it's really hard to finish a dog that isn't full coat and heavy boned. You literally have to pick and choose the judges that will actually put up a working type without all that fluff and puff. The standard allows for all coat types and yet it's the Barbie collie you see winning time and again. The AKC picked one type of working BC when they decided to develope a standard (for the record, the BC parent club did NOT develop the first BC standard, the AKC did) and focused on that, leaving out all other types on the sidelines considered not acceptable. And it's accurate to pick one "type" and call that good? Really?

Answer 9

No.



There is a marked divergence between show & working dogs within some working purebreds, & people who know the breed already differentiate between real dogs bred to type, & those with the shell, but nothing of substance underneath.



The breed standard defines a working purebred & good breeders breed tightly to the original breed type, which means not only should the dog have the appearance & move like the breed it is meant to be, it should have the heart, mind, drives & temperament underneath, & the potential to be trained to do the job it was originally created to do.



Therein lies the problem.....all too many breeders are willing to sacrifice function to pander to consumers who don't want a dog that is demanding of them as owners, so perversions of what the breed was meant to be, & sacrifice as in the case of the Dobermann, confidence, toughness, resilience, steadfast nerves & the ability to work under pressure for a handler or on its own initiative.



Conformation is only a nominal test of temperament & does not test the drives & abilities of a working dog, because the dog is not expected to work under pressure while still taking direction & being responsive to its handler.



It is possible to put a conformation title on a substandard GSD or Dobermanns because the perversion of the breed standard have become the accepted norm by judges, & a dog with a marshmallow soft or shy temperament may go unnoticed, if nothing in the show environment triggers the weakness in its genetic temperament.



My preference is for a dog from proven working stock, bred to have the potential to be trained to do the type of work the breed was originally created to do. If you lose the substance of a working purebred, you lose the breed, & that is exactly what is happening with the show Dobermann.

Answer 10

No way.

People who concentrate ONLY on conformations that please show judges have lost the plot.

People who concentrate ONLY on what pleases judges at a brief "working trial" have lost the plot, although they are closer to reality than are the "show-is-all" and "pet-is-all" folk.



Go study "The Dog In Action" by McDowell Lyon to start understanding the links between various conformations and the tasks those breeds were developed for.



A breed is primarily a combination of agility, attitude, biddability, character, coat, determination, endurance, instincts, muscle type, size - all of which MUST be suitable for that breed's tasks, whether digging along an underground burrow or running down game animals or tracking a fox for hours or swimming to retrieve a rope tied to a lost net or patrolling between hungry sheep and unfenced crops for up to 14 hours a day.



Although few nowadays realise it, the lap dogs & sleeve dogs that became today's Toy breeds had several functions: attract m'Lady's fleas to itself, amuse m'Lady and pretend to listen to her, bite any fingers that attempted to grope m'Lady's "interesting" bits, bark up such a storm that the manservants arrived to firmly escort the groper off the property and later report him to m'Lord. So any Toy that is timid, or is friendly to everyone, is unfit to be a Toy!



Just as any Dachshund that is scared of badgers is unfit to be a Dachshund, any Terrier that is scared of rats is unfit to be a Terrier, any Collie that can't fly sideways through a 5-wire fence to get from one paddock to another (AND land on its feet, not its side!) is unfit to be a Collie, any Labrador that won't swim to get a wounded duck (and bring it back wounded, not dead!) is unfit to be a Labrador, any Bloodhound that can't follow a 48 hours old trail is unfit to be a Bloodhound.



And you think breeds are broken into just 2 types???

Mine has, in addition to functional GSDs:

AlsatiOns, German Crouchers, NAmerican Ski-Slope Dogs, Prick-Eared Bassets, Teeth-on-feet, Titanic Tail Tuckers, all of which The KC, the AKC, the CKC register as "GSDs" without checking more than (1) "Are both alleged parents in the same Breed Register?" (they can't imagine that any breeder would LIE about things like parentage!) and (2) "Was the right fee paid?".



Yet my breed has a standard set of certificates that real breeders require before agreeing to breed from or with a registered GSD: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/The_GSD_Source/links/Defining_a_GSD_001261993982/



Your use of The KC and the AKC for "Standards" is foolish. The only breeds for which the arrogant The KC is entitled to invent a Standard are the breeds that were created in the UK. The only breeds for which the arrogant AKC is entitled to invent Standards are the breeds created in the USofA. Both those arrogant clubs plus the CKC cannot bear to belong to the FCI - heavens, they might get democratically OUTVOTED by the rest of the world! If you want the real Standard of any breed, the Standard agreed on by the member-nations of the FCI, look in http://www.fci.be/nomenclature.aspx



[Aphrodite]: It is a breeder's task to BREED what is required, not rush to remove bits here & there. E.g.: My kennel hasn't produced a rear dew-claw since Feb.'73.



[Donna Reed]: What is "working" about the 9½ months GSD pup in my e-group having completed its UKC Champion title? What is "working" about the UKC's "White German Shepherd Dog" breed? No way is any sheep farmer going to use a white dog for HERDING sheep - the white dogs are guardian breeds that sleep with the flock and require coat & gait that resemble a sheep.

Were I interested in the unrecognised UKC I could find other examples of non-working aspects of its operation.

No - I am not in the least a fan of the AKC - the best I can say for it is that it DID, eventually, recognise the value of the SchutzHund qualification developed by GSD clubs in Europe and adopted as IPO by the FCI. But, the negotiations having been conducted by arrogant Yanks, the name was changed from SchutzHund to Working Trial, and several preliminary stages were invented to encourage pot-hunters who want lots & lots of almost-meaningless letters after their pooch's name...

Les P, owner of GSD_Friendly: http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/GSD_Friendly

"In GSDs" as of 1967

Answer 11

I understand exactly what you saying and why. And I find it disturbing that breeds "split" as you put it and sway to extremes.



But no. I do not think we should call them different breeds. We already have figured out how to specify the difference and I think it works.



Re: the BC, just recently accepted by the AKC. The "conformation" standard is rather a mockery as this breed has "been" for ages and was not bred for its looks. They were bred by farmers to do a job, not by nobility as an ornament. The standard can not describe one of the most "unique breed" features, the look in the eye. One that I see lacking in conformation BCs. A conformation show can not prove what makes a BC a BC...herding instinct.



One of the most amusing observations in notating the general difference between working dogs and conformation is the difference in the dog's "mass".... height, bone, head size, body, weight....which determines athleticism. Or ;) lack of!

Answer 12

Okkkkk...



Anyone who buys a Lab or a Golden and expects a laid back dog, should not be buying a Lab or a Golden in the first place. But a GOOD REPUTABLE breeder will ALWAYS breed for form AND function. A breeder who leaves either one out of the equation is not breeding true to the standard.



"All breeds have a split in quality- low quality puppies that come from pet stores, high quality puppies that come from working or conformation breeders, and everything in between"



I would not even consider most pet store puppies to be an example of any breed, even a bad example. Most puppies from pet stores are from puppy mills and don't even have a traceable lineage.



Every dog will differ to some degree in working ability and every dog will look different. They are individuals after all. I assure you even working breeders will have duds that do not have the drive to perform their original intended purpose as outlined by the standard. These pups are sold to families as pets and are in an environment where working abilities are usually moot.



The point of the standard of a breed is not to throw away every dog who doesn't exactly meet that standard. The standard is a near impossible to reach picture of perfection. The point is to have a dog that most closely resembles the standard, working abilities included.

Answer 13

In some cases, yes. Some working breeds have been ruined from a confirmation stand-point.



Besides the physical differences and how some show breeders have absolutely RUINED the confirmation of some breeds with these sloped backs and what not and seem to forget that the temperament characteristics should be there as well, I don't like organizations like the UKC who have deemed docking/cropping as "barbaric" and will not allow them to be a part of the breed standard and will not allow people to show dogs as they were meant to look! But the working dogs can be cropped and docked, they just can't show - how that makes any sense, I have no idea.



It is so painfully obvious that some show people don't care about why some particular breeds were created in the first place.

It is easy to say if they wanted the dogs to have pointy ears or short tails they could have bred them with other dogs to get that physical characteristic but they forget the dog was created for its temperament, drive and other such things that meant more than physical appearance.



People that breed show dogs should be able to prove that the dog can perform its original function. People who work their dogs should obviously adhere to the breed standard as well, but things like the UKC kind of prohibit that, no?



ADD: Yes it's all nice and dandy to think that breeds should look and work all the same.

But some show breeders could care less about breeding certain drives and temperaments that were meant to be there and the biggest example of conformation shows ruining a breed is the poor German Shepherd Dog. Show people have ruined that breed with their a.sses almost sloped to the ground. The dog could not perform its working job half as well as one that doesn't have such an extreme slope.



ADD2: I just want to point out that I know there are evils on both sides of the fence. There are responsible show people who care about the breed's function as much as the physical appearance.

Answer 14

I actually rather object simply because there are almost always dogs who achieve the holy grail- success in both venues. they may be only slightly more common than hens teeth (there have been 4get both prefomence champ and bench champ in my breed in 20 yr!)

Answer 15

The only dogs I think are "true" representations of their breed are the ones that do what they're originally bred for. I don't consider a conformation BC a real BC-just a fluffy, black and white shell of one.



Same goes for all other breeds.



A difference wouldn't be a bad idea, but it would be confusing. What would they call them? "Border collie" and "useless border collie"?



edit: I agree with greek on this one-when I attended dog shows a couple years back, people had CH. labs that didn't like to swim o_0.

Answer 16

Registering bodies, AKC, UKC and KC, have their own agendas, (money), they have no say so in what standards any breed has, the National breed club does, they do not enforce any laws when that standard that was handed to them changed so much that a breed now looks totally different then it was 20 years go...what good are they?



Maybe if and when working dog people decide that registering their dogs is a waste of time and money, things will change, but, to answer your question, yes, the two different dogs should be classified as different breeds. I know this will anger many AKC fans, but, I have seen the damage done to a few breeds in my time and it will continue to do so long as these registering bodies keep their heads stuck in the conformation toilet. Hope I helped.



ADD: Show people are funny...here is a good example..a direct quote from a show person I was talking to a few days a go..."A conformation show is not that place to determine the dog's temperament, if that is what you are interested in, there are other venues to do it, but, leave my show dogs alone"!!



Here is another perfect example of the conformation mentality and I cant say any names because the person who told me this is a well respected contributor here whom I love dearly...this story was not about this person, its about someone they know.

Someone imported a female Beauceron from Europe that has an outstanding conformation and the temperament of a snake, fear biter, psycho, with serious mental problems.

The dog's country of origin refused to issue papers on that doh and she was sold dirt cheap to the States where, no problem, the AKC will register that dog somehow, no idea exactly how, but, the dog is registered and she is going to shows where she hides behind her owner and wants to nail everything that moves...guess what they will do to that dog?

YES, THEY WILL USE HER AS THEIR FOUNDATION BREEDING BTCH TO make more conformation dogs...need I say anything else?



ADD: King Less...I really love you...AN EXCELLENT ANSWER...

Answer 17

They are UKC = working AKC = show

Just don't buy AKC and you will get the REAL DEAL!!

Its funny how 99.9% people on here wouldn't physically recognize a "working" dog as the same breed as its AKC show counterpart. AKC has destroyed all the breeds.

Answer 18

However we want to label them, they are effectively different breeds, based on the fact that they don't interbreed (often) and thus have distinct populations. I think, however, that the dogs would be the losers if we did so, as that would further limit breeding options.



For a good overview of canine genetics, please go to www.canine-genetics.com