[Skip]

Originally Posted by JemarsSerena

For the sake of discussion, is it safe to say that even though a dogs first role is as a simple family pet it can still be a working dog even though it technically does not have a formal job other than obedience and excersize? I'm not disagreeing with either idea, I 'd just like to get a better idea of what a working dog's role is in the present day. I'd have to respectfully disagree that their role is the same as it was in the past. It is a different time even if the dog is unchanged. I am in no way implying that the standard should be changed.

So if a rott is not trained in PP/Schutzhund/herding does that make it any less of a working dog?

It doesn't need to be the dog's role, but I definitely wouldn't call a pet that has only done obedience and exercize a working dog. Every dog in the entire world should have obedience and exercize. Even most dogs that have numerous working titles do not do them as their "role". The working venues mentioned (PP/Schutzhund/herding) along with Police work are a strong part of the breed's history, and a big part of it's heritage and purpose. To me, these venues are still the primary "test" of whether a rott can work. To ignore these as unimportant in any breeding program is simply watering down the breed. As another member here posted recently: "the continuity of working temperment in each generation is extremely important, it is also important that it be proven".