Article About Show vs. Work

[spidey]

Rosettes to Ruin

A friend sent me this article, it's by a terrier person, but I think what he has to say applies to any breed originally intended to do a job (working, herding, sporting, etc). Personally, I think there's room for having a physical standard as well as working ability, and indeed I think the ideal situation is one where both the physical appearance of the dog (comparison to the breed standard) and the ability or instinct of the dog (can it do what it was bred to do) are considered equally (form follows function, so a breed standard ostensibly describes a dog physically suited for the task it's been bred for, with the inclusion of colour and markings descriptions). I see little point in even HAVING "breeds" without a standard to define them (otherwise why not just have generic "types", rather than breeds?), but equally, it's very distressing to see breeders concentrate so heavily on EITHER side of the equation that they ignore the effect on the other side of the equation, so you end up with distinct working and showing types (being a former English Springer fancier, I'm very aware of this situation, since the working and showing types of ESS bear so little resemblance to each other that they are different breeds to all intents and purposes).

[mmgy]

I personally don't think there should be *working* and * showing* types of ANY breed, though I know nearly all are now that way.

I read this article yesterday, and was planning to post it myself ;) , it must be making the rounds!

[Muckdogs]

I tend to agree ... for the most part. But I see a part of that as a little backwards. I tend to think that function follows form, more so than the converse. Personally, I think that the greates disservice to the working breeds today is not necessarily form, but dillution of what lies between the ears and in the heart. I'm not big into showing, but am glad others are so we can keep the physical standard. And, at the risk of beating a very dead horse, I think that most of the working breed problems come from breeding out drives that should be there. Maybe it comes from different interpretations of the standard or maybe it comes from select breeders not really caring about keeping the psychological characteristics intact, or maybe a bit of both. That is why I realy feel it important for breeders of historic working dogs to actually go and see how the dogs should work, or at the very least know how to differentiate between the various drives and nerves. Not saying that they should compete or dedicate their lives to the working aspects, but a level of understanding would help out a lot. I can't tell you how many people we run across that wouldn't know prey drive from defense from aggression, weak nerves from sound nerves, fear biters from dominant aggressive dogs, etc... hard dogs from soft dogs.

I'd be willing to bet that a lot of breedings would change if only the proper knowledge got out.

[lblax]

Originally Posted by spidey

Rosettes to Ruin

), but equally, it's very distressing to see breeders concentrate so heavily on EITHER side of the equation that they ignore the effect on the other side of the equation, so you end up with distinct working and showing types (.

i agree alot with that article you posted and i agree that both sides of the fence needs working and i know that there are breeders that are only breeding working lines but compared to the breeders breeding strictly show lines the number only breeding working lines are very few in comparison....
something that i have always noticed is this(and i wish someone cvould explain this to me) for the most part people that show seem to think that because there dog is proven in the show ring that there dog is worthy of breeding and most (not all) could care less if they could do the breed specific work. and they continually breed to other show stock to get even a prettier dog.... where as for the most part (not all) working people that breed strive for working abillity but also know that without conformation you dont have a whole dog

[samanthac]

Originally Posted by lblax

i agree alot with that article you posted and i agree that both sides of the fence needs working and i know that there are breeders that are only breeding working lines but compared to the breeders breeding strictly show lines the number only breeding working lines are very few in comparison....
something that i have always noticed is this(and i wish someone cvould explain this to me) for the most part people that show seem to think that because there dog is proven in the show ring that there dog is worthy of breeding and most (not all) could care less if they could do the breed specific work. and they continually breed to other show stock to get even a prettier dog.... where as for the most part (not all) working people that breed strive for working abillity but also know that without conformation you dont have a whole dog

VERY well said Larry. You hit the nail right on the head!

[spidey]

working people that breed strive for working abillity but also know that without conformation you dont have a whole dog

This is EXACTLY the point, I think, and very well said, too.

Muckdogs, I'm not sure if I'm teaching my grandmother to suck eggs here (;)), but I first heard "form follows function" in the horse world (although it's originally from architecture) and it fundamentally means that appearance comes from purpose (which I think it also what you mean when you put it the other way around). Basically any given dog breed that was created to do a job has been bred to have the physical traits required to do that job, and a good representative of the breed has the correct "form" (i.e. conformation) to perform the "function" (i.e. the work). The mental traits and ability are of course equally important, which is why conformation ("form") AND working ability ("function") should be assessed.

[Muckdogs]

ON the form/function thing, I was referring to the fact that I think nowadays, a lot of folks in the show rott world allow the form to become so that the dog can't propery perform the function. The only time I see ribs at an AKC show is at the bbq pit.

[work-n-show]

Everyone posting on this thread has made some good points.

I'm not particularly excited that the majority of people breeding Rottweilers are not COE breeders, but beyond that, the majority of COE breeders are breeding to win in the ring with little regard for the dog's ability to work. I think a great deal of blame could be placed on the ARC for presenting an arena of competition that is so heavily weighted toward one end of the scale.

I really like the concept of a required BST/Ztp for breeding purposes. IMHO they are at least a minimum test that can be performed to examine a dog both physically and mentally. I would like to see the ARC implement something similar as a requirement for registering a litter. But of course this is unrealistic. The ARC/AKC would see 1/10th of the current registrations and the money associated with them.

Education is key. If we can first educate the average puppy buyer on how to correctly purchase a puppy from a COE breeder instead of out of the back of a pick-up at Safeway then we will make dramatic improvements on the average quality of Rottweiler. If we can then drive behavior of these breeders through minimum breeding requirements we would definitely be on the right track.

[lblax]

Originally Posted by work-n-show

I would like to see the ARC implement something similar as a requirement for registering a litter. But of course this is unrealistic. The ARC/AKC would see 1/10th of the current registrations and the money associated with them.

http://germanshepherddog.com/regulat...istrations.htm
http://germanshepherddog.com/regulat...egulations.htm
http://germanshepherddog.com/regulat...gistration.htm
it is not unrealistic the above is not without faults an is far from being complete but it is a good start to get the gsd back on track and eventually you will see just usa registered litters in the working world of gsd... this could be done with rottwielers also and once the akc cash flow starts to suffer or the akc registered gsd are known as junk then they will set up take notice and reform.. please resurch the whole site for breeding and testing not just thwe links ive posted

[work-n-show]

lblax,

There are already organizations doing just what you describe.

Both the USRC and the ARV have fairly rigorous breeding standards. Very much like what you posted from the USA. The problem is, only a few enthusiast will actually take the time to register a litter with these organizations. If I had to venture an educated guess, based on breeding statistics, I would say that fewer than 1% of all registered rottweilers last year were registered with either of these organizations.

Neither organization has a biug enough base to make much of a difference. ANd if the ARC were to switch it's breeding standard to match these organizations, people just wouldn't register the pups at all.