Sport vs Work

[Camz]

Due to another conversation on another forum, I have a sort of question:

If you have a breed of dog that's specifically meant to do a certain job- like border collies w/ herding, would you consider the dog's excelling in a sport, such as FlyBall, as a way to prove breed worthiness?

Especially considering that Flyball has nothing to do with any kind of herding ability?

Or, say you have a golden retriever that really excells in agility, but has not been tested in conformation or in hunting trials- would you consider breeding her?

BTW- I do use the term "sport" loosley. I realize that for some breeds, hunting/sporting IS the work they were bred to do.

Or, would you purchase a dog from a working dog breeder that had no titles to speak of, such as a flock guardian?

If you would, how would someone unfamilliar determine the working potential of a pup?

The last part of my curiousity involves those of us with pooches in the non sporting group (and possibly the toy group)-

Say you have a breed of dog that used to have a job- like Dals being carriage dogs, or Keeshonden being used as watch dogs for the barges that drifted along the Rhine River- what would you to do ensure that that breed is remaining true to its original purpose?

The only "work" left to a non-sporting dog is to compete in agility, if the breed is able to compete.

I'm just curious about the responses. These questions have been bothering me for quite some time- not just due to the other debate.

Thanks for any and all replies!

~C

[Cassiepeia]

What's your opinion on it? We'll need that to start a debate.

My opinion is that a working breed should be worked in the job it was bred to do in order to prove breeding quality. However, this is not always possible and in the absence of the chance to prove itself in its own job, other things must be used to test it instead.
IMO, this means a combination of sport and conformation.

I don't believe sport is a fantastic alternative though...for the dogs fitness and mental health, yes of course it's wonderful, but not as proof of it's workability. Not as I understand it anyway.

For non sporting & toy breeds, I would look highly on someone who competed and titled their dogs in sport as well as conformation. I absolutely belive that dogs bred for companionship only or dogs who no longer have a job (and have no way to test the workability) should be shown in conformation as part of the selection process for breeding quality.

Livestock guardians, I don't believe showing is neccessary at all. But proof of genetic health tests (of course) and proof that they can do their job (and have the correct temperament) is mandatory. These aren't the kind of dogs your average person should get a hold of, however those buying for companionship may buy from people who show the dogs, I see nothing wrong with that. I just don't think conformation is essential for this type of dog. They're not in the same class as other dogs, IMO.

EDIT: Forgot to add - Dogs who are used for what they were bred, such as hunting dogs and herding dogs, IMO don't need to be shown. But only if the breeder is GENUINELY working the dogs and only if the breeder has all dogs tested for genetic problems (and selects stock accordingly).

Cass.

[Ritz459]

IMO, I wouldn't think that a dog bred to do a certain job should have a "sport" be a part of its "breeding worthiness" so to speak.

A dog can have awsome ball drive but be a God-awful herder. Just take a look at Chloe. She has no idea what to do around cows, but if you throw something she is by golly going to chase it!

However, doing agility and flyball and such with dogs is very good. Not only does it show that you are taking your time to compete with your dog, it shows what else your dog can excell at. You might have a great herder (let's say an Aussie) who is extreamley aggressive when it comes to people aside its immeadiate family. While it may be an excellent working dog, having agility titles or a CGC shows that the dog can excell in other areas.
Am I making sense?

Rose would be an awsome agility dog if she was younger....let's say for a moment she was a purebred Lab. Just because I have a dog that likes to run and jump doesn't mean that she should be bred. In fact, Rose hates to retrieve.

Chloe, as another example, can jump bushes a bit taller than herself from a standstill (pretty to watch too, if I do say so myself). Just because she can run and jump doesn't prove her ability to do any kind of herding activity.

As for the dogs in the non-sporting group, I suppose it depends. I guess I would think of breeding for their individual breed temperment (which, in my opinion, is what sets the nonsporting dogs off from the others - you can't really generalize with their temperments! Most all terriers are going to have the same quirks and downfalls, as well as the working breeds, but the non sporting breeds are so different you can't generalize like that) and then having the sports showing what all they CAN do and using the sports to help show that they are capable excelling in different areas. Of course, a Bulldog isn't going to excell in agility or flyball, but if it gets a good title in Obedience, then more power to it!

LOL Cass, I was going to edit for the same reason you edited!

EDIT: Forgot to add - Dogs who are used for what they were bred, such as hunting dogs and herding dogs, IMO don't need to be shown. But only if the breeder is GENUINELY working the dogs and only if the breeder has all dogs tested for genetic problems (and selects stock accordingly).

[Camz]

I guess that I have complicated feelings on the matter, and am having some trouble sorting them all out.

It seems to me that if you have a dog bred for retrieving waterfowl, that you should be able to test that ability in some fashion and that test should be a partial indicator of breedworthiness at least.

If your dog is a herding dog, then in order for it to meet breed standard, it should at least have one of those preliminary herding tests that looks at raw potential only- rather then any trained responses.

Conformation in itself is a controversial subject- in some breeds (like mine) it's pretty much the only way to prove breedworthiness. I think that all breeds should look like what they are supposed to look like. It bothers me when I see keesies that look more like grey collies then keesies.

Then again, I think it's wrong for a breeder to focus on only ONE aspect of the breed, such as color or size.

In regards to the molossers- truthfully, I don't know much about them. Why is it ok for them to be bred with out the same constraints as other breeds?

I understand that they are not like most dogs. But then again, every breed is a breed apart.

Another aspect is that every breed is different. Some breeds are unable to compete in anything BUT conformation, such as bulldogs.

Anyway- another conundrum I've been considering is the way the AKC classifies dogs:

Samoyeds no longer do any kind of work. They're like keeshonden- all purpose, family oriented dogs. Yet, they're still in the working group, while keeshonden are in the non-sporting group.

Poodles were originally a water fowl retriever, and many still use standard poodles for hunting purposes. Why are they in non-sporting?

***the debate is more internal, I suppose. Mods can feel free to move this thread where they deem***

ETA- my breed, for example (sorry guys, she's the only dog I've ever really owned, so I can't speak for other types of dogs!!!) is supposed to be wary of strangers, not shy to sound the alarm, is KNOWN for (but not in the standard of) being able to buring off mass amounts of energy in a small space by bouncing around or having "pants on fire"

Is there a test for watch dog ability? Not schutzhund, they aren't THAT kind of dog...

I feel the doing agility is enough of a test for the burning energy in a small space (because they worked on dutch barges, not known for their huge size)

[Cassiepeia]

In regards to the molossers- truthfully, I don't know much about them. Why is it ok for them to be bred with out the same constraints as other breeds?

Not all molosser, just Livestock Guardians (LGD). The term 'molosser' covers a huge number of breeds.

LGD were never bred to be companions. They were bred to live with their livestock and have little contact with humans other than their owner/shepherd. I consider them different because primarily this is still their purpose. Even people who have them (successfully) as pets know this and know they are not your average pet.
Whereas I would normally say that every breed of dog in existance today is a pet first and foremost, I cannot say this about a LGD (even though many are pets). From everything I've read about them, they're working dogs first, second and third and companions fourth. LOL
Therefore, they are not the kind of dog one breeds to produce pets and conformation shows aren't a big deal for a pure working dog. Their workability and temperament is what counts, and of course their health (which is most important, but we all know that already).

If you're breeding (for example) a herding breed, but have no access to herding trials, I don't see a problem with competing is several different kinds of dog sports in addition to conformation in order to prove the dog is breeding quality. I do agree with you Ritz that this, however, does not prove the dog can do what it was bred for. But if the dogs are being bred for companionship only (not selling to working homes) it may not be such a bad thing.
But then again, we could start talking about (for example) herding dogs with no herding ability being bred and bred and bred until you find that herding ability is uncommon in that breed in a certain area. That would be worrying.

This topic has so many sides. Glad you started it Camz, it's an interesting discussion.

Cass.

[Camz]

LOL! You're welcome. This is something that's honestly been bothering me for quite some time.

I wish I could compete with my girl in a trial of some kind that allows her to do the job she was bred to do. I suppose that after her Ch. is complete that we will move on to agility.

Cass- in regards to your post, I had another thought- my BF and I were discussing this last night, and here is what we were thinking about:

The preservation of the breed in general. I think there are two ways of preserving the breed-

A) To be a historian- to keep the breed as it has been since it was established, doing what it was bred to do
B) To modernize the breed- to cater to current trends of the breed, allowing it to slowly evolve and thusly remain in existance

Which is right? I personally can see both sides of the coin. Is a border collie really a border collie if it cannot herd and work?

And again with my AKC question- I think that the groups need to be updated to reflect the current status of whatever breed is being discussed.

[Ritz459]

Originally Posted by Camz

The preservation of the breed in general. I think there are two ways of preserving the breed-

A) To be a historian- to keep the breed as it has been since it was established, doing what it was bred to do
B) To modernize the breed- to cater to current trends of the breed, allowing it to slowly evolve and thusly remain in existance

Which is right? I personally can see both sides of the coin. Is a border collie really a border collie if it cannot herd and work?

And again with my AKC question- I think that the groups need to be updated to reflect the current status of whatever breed is being discussed.

Hm. I think I would only agree with point B.) if what the dog was originally bred to do was unethical. Take the Bulldog for example. They most definitally started out as a different dog. They were bred down for a more gentle temperment and most definitally aren't as athletic as before. While they are much much more suited to live in todays society and would have most likely died out if they hadn't been changed, I still consider the "old Bulldog" extinct. The Bulldog today is just so different than what they were, the old "type" just isn't around anymore. So while the breed is technically still around, in my perception it is so different than what it used to be the true breed isn't around any longer.
There are people trying to re-create the old Bulldog by the Olde English Bulldogg and other such breeds, however.

Technically, if it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, and it walks like a duck it is a duck. But what if the duck hates water, doesn't eat fish, and doesn't fly? Would it still be a duck?

to cater to current trends of the breed

The only problem I see with this is that it is indeed a trend. If we did that, all Chis would be under a pound, all Labs would be huge, all Pitties would be wide and short, and all of the breeds wouldn't have qualities that make them ill-suited for the Cheerio family - working mom and dad, a boy and a girl child, a house in the suburbs with a white picket fence, and a dog and a cat.

[GSD]

I can't really comment on other breeds, I don't know enough about them all or their history.

But for GSD's I absolutely think they have to be performance tested, and that test is Schutzhund. I think the Confromation side of things gets carried way out of line, and in fact the founder himself warned against allowing the GSD to become a breed for the "dog fanciers" and shows. he notes how the Collie used to be a fabulous working dog, but were an early target of dog shows and their coats became too tough to keep clean and their heads were elongated and made pointy by breeding for show, not work. they lost their drive, tempement and nerve for work as well.

Schutzhund isn't sheep herding, but everything that makes the GSD a good herder is tested in Schutzhund. This breed wasn't meant to just herd sheep, it wasn't meant to be a livestock guardian either, it was meant to do both. It was supposed to help the herder, protect against animal and human predators, and protect the home.

This testing of breeding stock is what created an very athletic, loyal, intelligent, strong, great tempered dog.

The bite and grip is important, as it is in herding, these dogs had to take on a dominant ram twice their size and win, to keep the herd together. Their temperment and nerve was very impt. in that scenerio as well. I think the conformation was kept very much in line by the work they did.

Conformation today is such a narrow definition, i'm sorry, but i'm sure i'll be stepping on toes, but it really irritates me. The conformation guidlines are just that to me, GUIDLINES. any dog that fits those guidlines is good to me. The big problem is sometimes those guidlines aren't followed, and extremes are the name of the game.
This link has a small illustration of their breed standard for the AKC.
http://www.akc.org/breeds/german_shepherd_dog/

Now look at this, does this look "ideal" to you?
http://www.totana-at-piperhill.com/i...kodachrome.jpg

besides those pictures, a large male should be 88lbs, that is the standard (SV definition anyway) Most of the GSD's I see on the streets that don't come from working lines, are huge, way oversized, cumbersome, i'm sure very loveable, but overly large GSD's. There are a lot of "V" rated GSD's that are over the standard, how they got "V" ratings i'll never know.

and it doesn't stop there, the whole "black and tan" look we're so used to seeing on a GSD, isn't even the dominant color. Sable is, in good breedings you'd expect to see more dominant genes show up, why are the sables so few and far between in the show line dogs??? they certainly aren't hard to find in working line dogs.

Anyway, I don't want to make this a working show debate, but I feel more my breed, I believe testing your dog in a legitamite test of physical and mental strength is the ONLY way it should be done.

I feel very lucky that a breed test is in place for the breed I love. I wish more people would follow it, and follow it honestly. There are a lot of politics, and shady things going on, but those are bad people, not a bad test. The test is very good when used correctly.

as for other breeds i'm not so sure, I don't think flyball, or agility are "breed" worthy tests. They're fun and take a lot of training, but i don't think they are a good all around test. In my breed alone, there are a lot of dogs doing agility that are doing very well, that should have been spayed or neutered long ago.

I think it is up to the parent clubs to devise a "test" that can be done today to test the "original" drives and temperment of the dog in respect to their breed. But that would take a huge grass roots movement. The AKC has just introduced its Working Dog Sports program to give an actual working title similiar to schutzhund. We'll see how that goes or if they're just paying lip service to what I consider a huge fault.

They're modeling it after a program that has been in place and successful around the world for a hundred years, and it took them this long to even offer it as a choice, its still not a requirement for breeding. So you can see what other breeds would be up against trying to devise that "test" and incorperate it into breeding.

Too many people just dont' care. They want a GSD, or border collie without every knowing what one really "is", as long as that dog comes when its called, doesn't chew things up, and doesn't run away, they don't care. and if it does any of those things, or barks or pees on the carpet, or sheds, they get rid of it.

[Agile PAWZ]

Ok I'll jump in because I have breeds that were created, bred and still do what it they're suppose to do- just not in my house. In my opinion a dog should be able to perform the task it was originally bred to do - if it still exists and is able to be performed... ie to the best of my knowledge there not a big demand for coach dogs or dogs as barge guardians, prior to being bred. Temperment is a big must also, 99.9% of the breeds are designed to work alongside man and potentially with another animal. If temperment is such that a dog cannot perform its intended job - border collie much rather EAT a sheep than HERD it, and this flaw cannot be corrected through training then it should not be bred. Within the border collie work a good portion of working farms/ranches do not test hips or cerf eyes, from their prospective if a dog works and works well without breaking down then it has the potential to be a good dog to breed. Confirmation is third man on the totem pole for me although good confirmation is nessicary for a dog to do its job it s a case of form follows function. If a dog is ment to run fast after prey then a dog with short legs just isnt going to cut it. A dog with poor hips, or elbows or whatever is going to break down alot faster than a sound dog and a farmer or hunter isnt going to breed that dog. In my opinion a dog should have a working title of the open level at least before setting toe one into the confirmation ring. Earning a confirmation title would affirm the belief that this dog is worthy of being bred. All that said for those breeds whos jobs no longer exist or were bred specifically to be a companion then alternate methods of proving their worthiness of being bred are needed be it agility, flyball, freestyle, therapy dog, sar...whatever these dogs should also have a title of intermediate level at least before being bred. Companion dogs get off lightly they get away with temperment and confirmation, temperment being the predominate requirement. However with all said and done breeding is a crap shoot, inevitably the bc that cant herd a turnip let alone sheep, the retriever who runs at the sight of a gun, and the borzoi that trips over its own 4 feet will still show up in a litter here and there. They should be neut/spayed and sent on to a wonderful loving family for the rest of their lives

[Kuchi]

Well out of A and B, not sure what to choose, with Keeshonden the closest dog to the standard was about 30 years ago, so if you keep going away from it, you're not going to get there. I disagree that non-sporting dogs cannot compete in sporting events to show their character. Kuchi does conformation, agility and obedience at once. And he seems to like all of them. And I believe all of them test his ability, soon I'll try Rally-O. Keesies may get beat out by border collies in agility because of speed, but they do very good with the sport.
I feel that hunting dogs should hunt and working dogs should work. Hound dogs should be "hounds."
Conformation is for breeding stock, but before breeding the tempermant should be looked into as well as with health examinations.
And you don't have to wait for championship to do agility, Kuchi does very well with knowing the difference especially with different collars. I ignore that keeshonden are non-sporting dogs, my dog is very athletic he even fetches, (not common with the breed), but he fits the standard, watch dog, family orientated, and stubborn at times.
And if you are showing with grey collies then you shouldn't take long for your champion, if their skulls are really like that.
You are competing your girl in what she was bred to do, didn't you ask for a show prospect? Now if you want to add, do agility, obedience, dance, etc.

[Camz]

Wow, you do all three at once? Nice! I'm going to focus on one at a time, although I am tempted to get her CGC here soon. ARe you thinking of doing Therapy work? That's something I'm curious about, as keesies are usually so people oriented.

I know that we could do agility. Orchid's run around the agility course at training class a few times and caught on pretty well. She barked the whole time, so I can bet that agility is going to be a very noisy past-time for the both of us.

As for the gray collies, those were some pet dogs we ran into on a dog trail at a park. They were clearly keesies, but didn't have much of a stop, and their noses were longer and more slender then typical, and both were nearly black (typical in byb keesies). Of course, their owner was proud that they were "AKC Champions." I didn't bother to correct her.

I didn't mean we saw any like that in a show ring. The area that I'm in is very competitive. We've got breeders like Klassic, IKON and A*Starz West in the surrounding areas, so getting a Ch title is competitive.

BTW- off topic, but Orchid took a group placement at a fun match. We didn't get any points, but it was still fun to collect the big pink rosette.

I think she's finally mature enough to really turn some heads.

Anyway, I guess what I was trying to get at is that I wish there was a better indicator of keesie-ness then agility. I'm not demeaning agility- it looks like its going to be alot of fun and rewarding. It's just that I'm not sure that it tests everything that makes a keeshond a keeshond- sort of like DSchaferhund suggested that Schutzhund was for German Shepherds.

Maybe a combination of different things is as good- like doing therapy work, agility, obedience, and conformation.

And I do agree that just because a dog is "non-sporting" doesn't mean that its not athletic. Orchid is a very athletic dog, as so many keeshonden are. One of her relatives just got her MACH 15. I hope that eventually we'll be as sucessful.

PS- Orchid also fetches, and many people are surprised at that. I think she kind of taught herself, because it wasn't something we deliberately tried to teach her, being told that keesies usually aren't interested in games. Oh well, I'm not going to be the one to tell her that she can't do it, LOL!

[Kuchi]

I guess there could be a smiling competition. Congrats on your fun match. We're currently in a CGC class, he's gotten much quieter. I wanted to do all at once so I don't forget or loose my talent in one. As for therapy work, no. I don't think I can fit that into my schedule.
But with the debate, if a herding dog doesn't herd, I don't think it has the "right stuff" to pass on its genes. But on the other hand if a old english dog wasn't raised on a farm and its herding instincts weren't tested but its tempermant and was shown well, I wouldn't disagree with it. I see a lot of sides on this one.

[Camz]

LOL! Usually when our group sponsors a puppy match, they have a "best smiler" class, along with "best spectacles" and other joke classes! Someone brought their dog into the ring with an old pair of grandma glasses on, and "won' the competition.

BTW- Saw some pics of Kuchi- he's really turning out!!! Maybe we'll get to meet at nationals this year in San Fran.

I'm sure that a show breeder of border collies would argue that herding is secondary to whether the tail set is correct (or some such). The working breeders will argue that looks aren't important in a working dog- which is what the BC is supposed to be for.

I think that conformation has destroyed many breeds, I'm just glad that mine isn't one of them.

~Cam