# Should all KC Breeders Show?



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

I was looking through a breeders website earlier today, a number of breedng bitches , 2-3 litters a year, a couple of stud dogs, but dosent seem to show any of them.
When we were looking into finding a stud for our girl I never considered using a stud that hadnt done well in shows, went for a stud with his KC Stud book number, crufts qualifier etc.
I just wondered what people's thoughts were on this, when breeding should at least one parent have gained some recognition in the show ring?


----------



## 912142 (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree at least one should have. My Denver recently obtained his stud book number and place at Crufts in his first time in the ring and I intend to continue showing him to see just how well he does.


----------



## pearltheplank (Oct 2, 2010)

Not really a cut and dry question from my point of view......

I don't agree with chucking so dogs together at all but.....take my girl for example. Although I did show her, she really isn't show material and we usually came last  however when choosing a stud, I picked a boy who had done well in the ring and more importantly had the qualities she fell down on. Between then they produced my boy who when I finally get him out in the ring, should do quite well

So given the amount of knowledge one has when pairing up a mating, then I don't believe it's essential for show credentials and hell, it's so expensive these days!!!,


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

There are a lot of KC breeders who breed for working dogs though and in some breeds they would never win in the show ring especially the spaniels. Ideally all breeding dogs should have to pass some kind of working test, even the toys and companions should be able to prove fitness ability to breathe and move freely etc and all should at least pass a conformation assessment. But breeders on either side of the debate will throw tantrums about that.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

No. A good working dog wouldn't necessarily win a beauty contest, there's many more important things to consider than if a few "Judges" like your dog


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

I think dogs that are going to be bred should be proven in some competitive venue yes. Doesn't have to be conformation necessarily, but I do want to see that the dog has been evaluated favorably by an outside source on more than a couple occasions.

For one, it shows how their temperament holds up under the stress of a strange environment, around strange people, and strange dogs with a handler who may be nervous as well.

Secondly, with so many unwanted dogs, why breed unless you are improving upon what is already out there? How do you know you are improving on anything unless you get out there with your dog? Competing is also a great way to network and find the best mate to compliment yours.

That said, just because a breeder shows/competes does not automatically make them a good breeder. IMO showing is just one of the many pieces that make up the puzzle of what is a good breeder.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I was looking through a breeders website earlier today, a number of breedng bitches , 2-3 litters a year, a couple of stud dogs, but dosent seem to show any of them.
> When we were looking into finding a stud for our girl I never considered using a stud that hadnt done well in shows, went for a stud with his KC Stud book number, crufts qualifier etc.
> I just wondered what people's thoughts were on this, when breeding should at least one parent have gained some recognition in the show ring?


It would not be important to ME if the breeder of my dog showed their breeding stock or not as I purchase a dog on the basis of its working ability, so whether or not they would win in the show ring is immaterial to me under the KC system in the UK.

I prefer the FCI system where ALL dogs are graded so that you can demonstrate whether or not your dog is a good example of the breed. This also happens in the GSD world and others re Sieger Shows and Koerungs which demonstrate that a dog meets both the conformation and working standards for the breed.

I also think that all dogs should be temperament tested before breeding.

At the end of the day the majority of dogs which are bred are destined for pet homes, so temperament should be actively bred for IMHO.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

rona said:


> No. A good working dog wouldn't necessarily win a beauty contest, there's many more important things to consider than if a few "Judges" like your dog


Working dogs have Ftch's etc, surely their should be something in place to keep KC reg dogs looking like the 'breed standard'...KC showing is by far a beauty contest. You could end up with a fab 'working dog' that looks nothing like it should, not that looks are so important if the working side is what's important. But as a Kennel Club I would of thought they would want to have litters registered that conform to some judged breed standard.

Obviously for us temperament was upmost on our list along with being health tested. I just wonder why people choose to stud without gaining some kind of recognition. You could have the most amazing well tempered dog with the worst head, conformation etc.


----------



## ballybee (Aug 25, 2010)

I would certainly be more comfortable knowing any pup i chose has parents deemed "good examples" of their breed, whether it's working or showing but i can also see where pearltheplank is coming from, it's also about admitting the faults in your lines and seeking to improve them.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

no why should they? i've seen some crap dogs get top awards as i'm sure alot of others that show have. I've also seen some dogs who've never been near a show ring sire some lovely pups


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Many working dogs never compete at field trials, they are proven in the working field only, for which there is no *qualification*. Some would argue with some breeds there is even a difference between field trialling bred dogs, and working bred dogs, not just the show/working split so often thought of. 

I would say no, I don't think dogs have to be shown to be bred from, but I do think that you need to have a good knowledge of conformation, and what makes a good example of your breed(s), so you can make an informed decision about breeding, and not just bung two dogs together as so many do. Having said that, I have in the contract of sale for pups that they need to be proven in some way, with a higher bar for dogs than bitches, as they are capable of producing so many more progeny. 

I don't understand why people use dogs that aren't proven and/or too young to see how they will *pan out* as they mature. One stud dog I know of has sired over 1000 pups, and at less than 3 is a grandsire. Not only has he been used prolifically, and possibly irresponsibly by so many, he was being used before 12 months of age, prior to any health tests being completed.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

someone has to prove a dog Sl


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dexter said:


> someone has to prove a dog Sl


But there isn't always an associated award. A proven working dog isn't necessarily competed with, so there is no certificate to say that dog has achieved a set standard, it's what the owner makes of the dog, and what people see of it that they like enough to consider using it. There are plenty of people with working bred bitches, that use a dog from a local shoot because they've seen them working and like how they work.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Working dogs have Ftch's etc, surely their should be something in place to keep KC reg dogs looking like the 'breed standard'...KC showing is by far a beauty contest. You could end up with a fab 'working dog' that looks nothing like it should, not that looks are so important if the working side is what's important. But as a Kennel Club I would of thought they would want to have litters registered that conform to some judged breed standard.
> 
> Obviously for us temperament was upmost on our list along with being health tested. I just wonder why people choose to stud without gaining some kind of recognition. You could have the most amazing well tempered dog with the worst head, conformation etc.


Breed standards are down to an individual judges interpretation, therefore you don't get the same criteria under one judge as you would another anyway


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

As somebody who is currently looking for a puppy, I don't think "showing" is the be all and end all of what makes a good breeder.

What I am looking for is somebody who is very knowledgeable when it comes to the breed in general and their dogs in particular. I want them to be able to explain to me what they are hoping to achieve with the litter and why they have chosen the particular stud dog (all health tests being in place is a given, obviously). I don't think showing is essential, but I would like the breeder to know what else is "out there".

Also, there are some people who show who I personally wouldn't touch with a barge pole and can't agree with their ethics at all. So showing in itself doth not a good breeder make.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

i'm sure there are some stunning dogs who've never graced a show ring for one reason or another , on the other hand i've seen some crap dogs used as some people are kennel blind and don't or won't pay out for a stud fee  or are not prepared to travel any distance for a decent dog.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Many working dogs never compete at field trials, they are proven in the working field only, for which there is no *qualification*. Some would argue with some breeds there is even a difference between field trialling bred dogs, and working bred dogs, not just the show/working split so often thought of.
> 
> I would say no, I don't think dogs have to be shown to be bred from, but I do think that you need to have a good knowledge of conformation, and what makes a good example of your breed(s), so you can make an informed decision about breeding, and not just bung two dogs together as so many do. Having said that, I have in the contract of sale for pups that they need to be proven in some way, with a higher bar for dogs than bitches, as they are capable of producing so many more progeny.
> 
> I don't understand why people use dogs that aren't proven and/or too young to see how they will *pan out* as they mature. One stud dog I know of has sired over 1000 pups, and at less than 3 is a grandsire. Not only has he been used prolifically, and possibly irresponsibly by so many, he was being used before 12 months of age, prior to any health tests being completed.


Wow, sired 1000 pups?  How can the owner keep track of and know that all those bitches were suitable? Isn't it unwise for such a large portion of the gene pool to be so well connected?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dexter said:


> i'm sure there are some stunning dogs who've never graced a show ring for one reason or another , on the other hand i've seen some crap dogs used as some people are kennel blind and don't or won't pay out for a stud fee  or are not prepared to travel any distance for a decent dog.


But then there are also some show dogs I've seen that I don't like, and some working dogs that I very much do like that will never be shown. Showing isn't always the ultimate proof of a dogs worth, it can be (as has already been posted) quite fickle, and depending on the individual taste of those involved, your dog(s) may or may not get placed.

Showing can be just as blind as any other dog activity, and can lead to dogs that are not good examples being rewarded because that's the fashion of the show ring. If everyone had to show to breed dogs, and the show ring rewarded some aspect of conformation that is unhealthy, then all dogs within that breed would possibly be unhealthy.

There was an interesting quote in another thread posted by JAChihuahua, regarding a health condition which has come about from breeding for what's rewarded in the show ring, one breeder has tested their dogs and spoken out, surely more should do the same and act before they end up with as widespread a problem as with CKCS. Unfortunately not all of those within showing are aware of just how corrupt some individuals are, and what they will do to stay with the *in* crowd


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Phoolf said:


> Wow, sired 1000 pups?  How can the owner keep track of and know that all those bitches were suitable? Isn't it unwise for such a large portion of the gene pool to be so well connected?


The simple answer is you couldn't possibly. Not everyone involved with showing thinks of the wider picture unfortunately. There are some who are in it just for themselves, which spoils it unfortunately. And I do enjoy showing my girls, but knowing there are people like that out there takes some of the shine off it for me


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I remember someone saying about Yogi that lovely viszla that he is basically father or grandfather to most of the puppies being born or at least related. It seemed that Salty that american lab was the father of a lot of the show bred litters I saw advertise too :nonod:. As I understand it some countries have restrictions on how many litters can be sired by one dog it seems like a good idea, who knows what could come out a generation or 2 down the line.

There are some breeds where it's normal to use a dog at 8 months or so, so he knows what to do and then he's not used until he's an adult. But it's a small breed with small litters.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> I remember someone saying about Yogi that lovely viszla that he is basically father or grandfather to most of the puppies being born or at least related. It seemed that Salty that american lab was the father of a lot of the show bred litters I saw advertise too :nonod:. As I understand it some countries have restrictions on how many litters can be sired by one dog it seems like a good idea, who knows what could come out a generation or 2 down the line.
> 
> There are some breeds where it's normal to use a dog at 8 months or so, so he knows what to do and then he's not used until he's an adult. But it's a small breed with small litters.


Funny you should mention that Vizla, the dog I refer to is bred by the same person 

Edited to add link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...nnel-Club-over-threats-to-dog-show-judge.html


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> Wow, sired 1000 pups?  How can the owner keep track of and know that all those bitches were suitable? Isn't it unwise for such a large portion of the gene pool to be so well connected?


He hasn't actually sired 1000 pups. 
From August 2010 to August 2012, there are 18 litters by him that are registered. I have a list of all the offspring by him, but can't be bothered counting how many puppies there are exactly. However, this is still an atrocious amount of puppies by a dog that is 3 years old, which ever way you look at it.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Funny you should mention that Vizla, the dog I refer to is bred by the same person
> 
> Edited to add link:
> 
> Crufts champion breeder banned from Kennel Club over threats to dog show judge - Telegraph


I remember seeing that disgraceful behaviour :nonod:


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Funny you should mention that Vizla, the dog I refer to is bred by the same person
> 
> Edited to add link:
> 
> Crufts champion breeder banned from Kennel Club over threats to dog show judge - Telegraph


What a plonker.

***

All very interesting.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

terencesmum said:


> He hasn't actually sired 1000 pups.
> From August 2010 to August 2012, there are 18 litters by him that are registered. I have a list of all the offspring by him, but can't be bothered counting how many puppies there are exactly. However, this is still an atrocious amount of puppies by a dog that is 3 years old, which ever way you look at it.


I haven't counted all the pups and I'm not sure if they are all listed on the database I have access to, but I did ask if this dog had literally sired over 1000 pups, and was told yes. Possibly a misunderstanding though, but still, after a quick peek of the number on the database I've got access to that's a lot of pups produced from one dog in such a timescale. I think my own worry would be using such a young dog, with no health tests although, and although obviously doing well in the show ring, who's to say what he'll be like in four or five years time?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I haven't counted all the pups and I'm not sure if they are all listed on the database I have access to, but I did ask if this dog had literally sired over 1000 pups, and was told yes. Possibly a misunderstanding though, but still, after a quick peek of the number on the database I've got access to that's a lot of pups produced from one dog in such a timescale. I think my own worry would be using such a young dog, with no health tests although, and although obviously doing well in the show ring, who's to say what he'll be like in four or five years time?


I just counted o) and there were 133 pups on my list (and I believe we are accessing the same database ). I believe some people refer to him as the "Dog of the 1000 puppies", but more to highlight the problem (or so I sincerely hope).

Obviously, I agree with all your other concerns.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

Off topic I know but it is in Our Dogs this week that Yogi has died.


There are many dogs that do not make it to the show ring that go to pet homes that would be perfectly capable of making their mark in the show ring. It would not bother me using an unshown dog if I thought it had something to offer to the bred. I know someone who had a male who was very late maturing she stuggled when he was younger to get him to keep weight on. She has recently started showing him as he has now matured and put weight on but he has been used as a stud and has sired some super pups that are in the ring.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But there isn't always an associated award. A proven working dog isn't necessarily competed with, so there is no certificate to say that dog has achieved a set standard, it's what the owner makes of the dog, and what people see of it that they like enough to consider using it. There are plenty of people with working bred bitches, that use a dog from a local shoot because they've seen them working and like how they work.


Very true, but still problematic IMO. A novice puppy buyer is left taking the word of whoever they are talking to. Left to trust the opinion of someone who may or may not have the qualifications to make an assessment.
It's not a problem for those who are already "in the know" but what if you're not? 
If so much of the problem with BYB is that people who don't know any better keep them in business, how do you educate folks on what to look for without having certain concrete criteria like health testing and titles?


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

ouesi said:


> Very true, but still problematic IMO. A novice puppy buyer is left taking the word of whoever they are talking to. Left to trust the opinion of someone who may or may not have the qualifications to make an assessment.
> It's not a problem for those who are already "in the know" but what if you're not?
> If so much of the problem with BYB is that people who don't know any better keep them in business, how do you educate folks on what to look for without having certain concrete criteria like health testing and titles?


But similarly, people can be mislead by titles into thinking some people are holier than thou when they really aren't.
I agree with you that it is very confusing for a new puppy buyer. I have done nearly a year's worth of research and feel more confident now to make an informed decision about whether I like the look of a litter or not, but frankly, I think your average Joe kinda puppy buyer just isn't *that* bothered where their puppy comes from. (Not in my experience anyway  )


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

There are certain areas of dog breeding that keep their own records and know the history of their breeds without ever having to refer back to the KC at all. 
They know which are the best workers, the longest lived lines and probably have more of a working knowledge of health than the *average* show breeder ever would


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Why should they have to show?

There are many dog orientated disciplines far more important.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Darth said:


> Why should they have to show?
> 
> There are many dog orientated disciplines far more important.


Having correct conformation is vital for many "more important" dog disciplines.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Having correct conformation is vital for many "more important" dog disciplines.


A lot of working dogs have been bred precisely for the discipline in which they work and wouldn't be much use to anyone if that conformation prevented them from having a long healthy working life 

Why is what the KC and breed clubs want, the be all and end all of dog breeding? 

The KC was set up by people who were more interested in a beauty contest than using their dogs for what they were initially intended

Admittedly in recent years it has developed into more than that, but what makes it "the" only point of reference?


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Showing has exaggerated certain points of many breeds for example, the coats on cocker spaniels and the eyes on rough collies to name just two.

Good working dogs are judged on their ability to do the job both out on the field and in the ring.....not their confirmation. 

We should be breeding for dogs to be fit for function, not aesthetic looks preferred by judges.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

The showring has exaggerated some breeds generally the most popular but just look at say the HPRs or the rarer retrievers perfectly capable of winning both show and field titles. Like I said a working assessment for the show dog and a conformation assessment for the working dog would help a lot.

The breed I'm looking at barbets, the breeders in this country want them on the KC register but they're trying to get as many dogs as possible to at least take the natural instinct test for water dogs.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rona said:


> A lot of working dogs have been bred precisely for the discipline in which they work and wouldn't be much use to anyone if that conformation prevented them from having a long healthy working life
> 
> Why is what the KC and breed clubs want, the be all and end all of dog breeding?
> 
> ...





Darth said:


> Showing has exaggerated certain points of many breeds for example, the coats on cocker spaniels and the eyes on rough collies to name just two.
> 
> Good working dogs are judged on their ability to do the job both out on the field and in the ring.....not their confirmation.
> 
> We should be breeding for dogs to be fit for function, not aesthetic looks preferred by judges.


Which is why I said CORRECT conformation! 
Not flashy, over-exaggerated conformation.


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

No I don't think they should.

I fail to see how it makes them a better breeder because they show, there are some unhealthy dogs still winning crufts BOB as proved last year where several were disqualified for best in group... 

Working Labradors are bred to work, not to look pretty (although they do that too - they actually look prettier than their show bred cousins imo), so why should they be judged upon looks?


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Darth said:


> Showing has exaggerated certain points of many breeds for example, the coats on cocker spaniels and the eyes on rough collies to name just two.
> 
> Good working dogs are judged on their ability to do the job both out on the field and in the ring.....not their confirmation.
> 
> We should be breeding for dogs to be fit for function, not aesthetic looks preferred by judges.


interested you named my breed and their eyes. how do you think the eyes have changed?


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Whatever your views about hunting, foxhounds are not shown, apart from hunt shows, (nor are they routinely x rayed for HD) yet their conformation appears to be admirably suited to fulfilling their function of running hundreds of miles per week.

Wonder how they manage it without some KC judge running the rule over them?


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

dexter said:


> interested you named my breed and their eyes. how do you think the eyes have changed?


Same here...how has the cockers coat been exaggerated? 
Most pet owners I know have their cockers groomed to look like a 'show' cocker (as I do to mine, myself)


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Same here...*how has the cockers coat been exaggerated*?
> Most pet owners I know have their cockers groomed to look like a 'show' cocker (as I do to mine, myself)


Show cockers have much more coat than the working types. Ears are much more pronounced (i.e. longer hair), too. There threads about this on here.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

Which is why I said CORRECT conformation! 
Not flashy, over-exaggerated conformation.

But who says what's CORRECT conformation, in who's opinion is it CORRECT.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Darth said:


> Which is why I said CORRECT conformation!
> Not flashy, over-exaggerated conformation.
> 
> But who says what's CORRECT conformation, in who's opinion is it CORRECT.


If I'm not mistaken, breed standards were originally devised by working folk (at least for the Retrievers), so I'd go by that. Mind you, the individual interpretation of the standard can be, ahem, "interesting". :blink:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

smokeybear said:


> Whatever your views about hunting, foxhounds are not shown, apart from hunt shows, (nor are they routinely x rayed for HD) yet their conformation appears to be admirably suited to fulfilling their function of running hundreds of miles per week.
> 
> Wonder how they manage it without some KC judge running the rule over them?


Because they have stud books that go back long before the KC was conceived


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The coat of English Setters which work and those that in the show ring is also vastly different.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

interested you named my breed and their eyes. how do you think the eyes have changed?

Rough collie eyes have got a lot smaller than they were just a few years ago.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> Show cockers have much more coat than the working types. Ears are much more pronounced (i.e. longer hair), too. There threads about this on here.


Show & workers are bred for completely different things? ((Although the KC breed standard is the same for both)) 
They may have once come from the same foundation stock but are now poles apart as breeds of dog, along with the coat.

Seems to be turning into those who love v hate KC / showing.
So, people genally think the KC need not have any influence on the type/ look/ conformation of what's being produced & registered.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> *Show & workers are bred for completely different things?* ((Although the KC breed standard is the same for both))
> They may have once come from the same foundation stock but are now poles apart as breeds of dog, along with the coat.
> 
> Seems to be turning into those who love v hate KC / showing.
> So, people genally think the KC need not have any influence on the type/ look/ conformation of what's being produced & registered.


See, but that's why people have an issue with some folk who show. A Cocker should be a Cocker, or a Lab a Lab in many people's minds. They shouldn't be different, they should look the same, and the dog going round the ring should be just as fit for the original function as the dog who goes out in the field all day.

(I am somebody who loves a dual purpose dog, i.e. one that can do well in both the field and the ring)


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Show & workers are bred for completely different things? ((Although the KC breed standard is the same for both))
> They may have once come from the same foundation stock but are now poles apart as breeds of dog, along with the coat.
> 
> Seems to be turning into those who love v hate KC / showing.
> So, people genally think the KC need not have any influence on the type/ look/ conformation of what's being produced & registered.


But the Cocker Spaniel is/was a working dog and should still have conformation to allow it to fulfill it's function surely?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Surely the show dogs should be able to work . There are some show cockers that are worked, heck there are even american cockers that are worked but they should all be capable of it.


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> *Surely the show dogs should be able to work* . There are some show cockers that are worked, heck there are even american cockers that are worked but they should all be capable of it.


Yes, they should. Some aren't though. Too much coat isn't exactly helpful when they are trying to flush out birds and go through the thicket and what have you.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> See, but that's why people have an issue with some folk who show. A Cocker should be a Cocker, or a Lab a Lab in many people's minds. They shouldn't be different, they should look the same, and the dog going round the ring should be just as fit for the original function as the dog who goes out in the field all day.
> 
> (I am somebody who loves a dual purpose dog, i.e. one that can do well in both the field and the ring)


In todays world the breeds have diverged completely to do different jobs (rightly or wrongly) they require very different traits in a dog & are bred in accordingly, because we can! I agree completely with the splitting of the two.
Eg) I don't need or want my pet dog to have a high hunt drive etc


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

terencesmum said:


> Yes, they should. Some aren't though. Too much coat isn't exactly helpful when they are trying to flush out birds and go through the thicket and what have you.


I have had an American Cocker here get stuck on my land in thorn bushes. I had to cut her out.

Yes . . . she loves to flush birds still, but she has to be shaved to do so.

CC


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> In todays world the breeds have diverged completely to do different jobs (rightly or wrongly) they require very different traits in a dog & are bred in accordingly, because we can! I agree completely with the splitting of the two.


How do you require different traits?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

comfortcreature said:


> I have had an American Cocker here get stuck on my land in thorn bushes. I had to cut her out.
> 
> Yes . . . she loves to flush birds still, but she has to be shaved to do so.
> 
> CC


There was a photo on their breed club site for the club show. Best of breed dog and bitch in full coat, the winner of the working class very little coat.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I disagree they should be split.

What's the benefit of having two lines of the same breed?

Kind of makes a mockery of what the KC is aiming for, especially "fit for function"


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

Darth said:


> I disagree they should be split.
> 
> What's the benefit of having two lines of the same breed?
> 
> Kind of makes a mockery of what the KC is aiming for, especially "fit for function"


Couldn't agree more!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> In todays world the breeds have diverged completely to do different jobs (rightly or wrongly) they require very different traits in a dog & are bred in accordingly, because we can! I agree completely with the splitting of the two.
> Eg) I don't need or want my pet dog to have a high hunt drive etc


This is one of the saddest posts I have ever seen on this forum, and why I'm so against the show world as a whole  

This is what it's aims are


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

rona said:


> This is one of the saddest posts I have ever seen on this forum, and why I'm so against the show world as a whole
> 
> This is what it's aims are


Whilst I agree that the statement you quoted is sad, I do not believe tarring everybody who shows with the same brush is very helpful either. I know some lovely people (in Flatties) who work and show (they work first and show as a little added extra) and I believe that is the way to go if you want to show.

Obviously, there are some nasty people in showing who don't give two figs about their dogs, but not everybody is like that.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

The reason there is a split is because the VAST majority of ALL dogs bred in the UK are used SOLELY as family pets.

Therefore when such households acquire a working bred specimen of (insert relevant breed) they are often surrendered because they are unsuitable as pets

This is how the military and police etc acquire many of their GP and sniffer dogs, from those pets which have been relinquished to shelters due to them being too hot for a domestic situation.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

terencesmum said:


> Whilst I agree that the statement you quoted is sad, I do not believe tarring everybody who shows with the same brush is very helpful either. I know some lovely people (in Flatties) who work and show (they work first and show as a little added extra) and I believe that is the way to go if you want to show.
> 
> Obviously, there are some nasty people in showing who don't give two figs about their dogs, but not everybody is like that.


No not everyone I know that, but there is an underlying bad lot at the helm of many breeds I believe.  

Winning seems the pinnacle and not the dog


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

rona said:


> This is one of the saddest posts I have ever seen on this forum, and why I'm so against the show world as a whole
> 
> This is what it's aims are


I don't show! I own show type dogs...I don't blame showing for the split, I dont blame 'working' owners for the great divide!

People have purposely split the breed for their own purpose & gain! 
Traits such as herding, driving, flushing, characteristics & traits which have been strengthened within working dogs - Fit for purpose! It would be completely impractical to have these in a 'family unworked pet'.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> The reason there is a split is because the VAST majority of ALL dogs bred in the UK are used SOLELY as family pets. . .


. . . and if that is the case they should be getting dogs from amongst the breeds that have been bred for THAT purpose and we should be PROMOTING that in education around the subject, not ruining the working breeds.

I LOVE working dogs . . . I LOVE the beauty of a sighthound etc., but at this age what I do best with is a companion and therefore THAT is the 'type' of dog that I look for . . . not a working dog bred in a manner that doesn't represent the breed.

CC


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I don't show! I own show type dogs...I don't blame showing for the split, I dont blame 'working' owners for the great divide!
> 
> *People have purposely split the breed for their own purpose & gain!*
> Traits such as herding, driving, flushing, characteristics & traits which have been strengthened within working dogs - Fit for purpose! It would be completely impractical to have these in a 'family unworked pet'.


And not necessarily for the benefit of the dogs. 
I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't like the characteristics of a breed, choose a different one.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

terencesmum said:


> And not necessarily for the benefit of the dogs.
> I don't mean to sound harsh, but if you don't like the characteristics of a breed, choose a different one.


As should the owners of the working strains 

I have got 'all' the characteristics I want in the breed I have chose!


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

There are a number of breeds I like but wouldn't own because I know they wouldn't be right for my lifestyle, that's why I went out and found a breed that fits in with what I do.

Maybe I should have set about breeding a line that doesn't fit the breed characteristics then I could sell them to other like minded people!


----------



## terencesmum (Jul 30, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I have got 'all' the characteristics I want in the breed I have chose!


Maybe, I misunderstood you then. Sorry.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

LOL! How did I know this was going to turn in to an argument around the show/working divide? 

Face it, both sides and those in between, all of us are manipulating breeds to suit us the humans.
Left to their own devices, dogs end up medium sized, medium coat, medium temperament. It's all extremes when it comes down to it. 

We create a dog to work for what WE want him to work for.
We create a dog to look for what WE find attractive. 

All of it, working and showing, is centered around human wants and needs. But I love how self righteous we get about how what *I* select for is more worthy than what *they* select for


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Before conformation shows, working dogs were shown against each other, to compare how they stood up to each other against the perceived breed type, pre breed standards. 

As breed types were developed, and as conformation showing developed, some people who weren't inerested in working dogs, picked up on the working breeds and bred to win. It's there in black and white from the beginning of the breed types, there are criticisms in many old books of those who breed for substance over ability, coat over conformation. There are still people in showing who compete to win, rather than compete to have the best dog


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

My question was nothing to do with show or working......walks off in a cream puff


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

rona said:


> No not everyone I know that, but there is an underlying bad lot at the helm of many breeds I believe.
> 
> Winning seems the pinnacle and not the dog


There are people in any discipline willing to sacrifice the animal so they can win awards not just the show ring


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

My question was nothing to do with show or working

Apologies....I thought your subject was "Should all KC breeders *SHOW*


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Surely part of the response will be whether people think *all* those involved with showing are above doing anything that will be of detriment to a breed, and that clearly isn't the case. And so you then start to look at other breeders, and where there is a show/working split, you will always make that comparison.


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I admit I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but I do feel that "working" dogs require particular carachter traits to do that job of work. Surely that's implicit? What's a collie that won't herd, a terrier that won't dig? 

I've had collies all my life and I get really pissed off with people who ask me where they can find one that "doesn't have unlimited supplies of energy" or that (I swear I was asked this!) doesn't show any interest in sheep. They don't want a collie, then!!

I really do think there is a market out there for healthy, well bred mutts. Dogs which will make good comanion animals- nice temprament, meduim size and coat no exaggerations!) and healthy. I won't hold my breath:nonod:


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> There are people in any discipline willing to sacrifice the animal so they can win awards not just the show ring


Yes but they aren't normally breeding away from the essence of the dog to achieve this.

They may not treat them right but generally it's only the show world that changes whole breeds


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

What about the american lab breeders breeding for hard dogs that can take a shock collar and force retrieve over retrieving ability. Or the people breeding for trials that amp up the drive more than the breed originally was or breeding for very slender dogs when the breed should be stocky as they were bred for Canadian waters (not fat stocky and muscular)


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Nicky10 said:


> What about the american lab breeders breeding for hard dogs that can take a shock collar and force retrieve over retrieving ability. Or the people breeding for trials that amp up the drive more than the breed originally was.


The OH's brother lives in Wyoming, he won't have a Labrador, in his words, they're so heavy in the states, they'd break their legs doing the job of a normal retriever.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

................................................


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

rona said:


> Yes but they aren't normally breeding away from the essence of the dog to achieve this.
> 
> They may not treat them right but generally it's only the show world that changes whole breeds


But what is the essence of a dog? Is it to breed away a sense of self preservation to such an extent that the dog will jump in to icy water to retrieve a bird he didn't kill and won't get to eat? Is that the "essence" of a dog? Or is the "essence" of a dog one who scavenges easy pickings and doesn't share them?

Is it the essence of a dog to herd sheep or guard livestock and never snack on them?
Is it the essence of a dog to guide blind humans or guard prisoners?

It wasn't the show world that changed the beauceron to create a doberman pinscher.
It wasn't the show world that changed the bullenbaiser to create a boxer dog.
It wasn't the show world that changed the cordoba dog to create a dogo argentino.
These breeds were created by humans for the capricious needs of humans.

A breed itself is not mother nature's creation. It is our creation, we humans have made this animal we call dog.

FWIW, I'm not arguing for or against showing or trialing. I've spent enough time in both the dog world and horse world to not be naive about the human motivations behind the ribbons or the breedings. 
I just find it irrational to presume either side holds any monopoly as far as regard or respect for the dogs go.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But what is the essence of a dog? Is it to breed away a sense of self preservation to such an extent that the dog will jump in to icy water to retrieve a bird he didn't kill and won't get to eat? Is that the "essence" of a dog? Or is the "essence" of a dog one who scavenges easy pickings and doesn't share them?
> 
> Is it the essence of a dog to herd sheep or guard livestock and never snack on them?
> Is it the essence of a dog to guide blind humans or guard prisoners?
> ...


No self respecting person who shoots birds would shoot a bird that could land over ice. Because they know they need to send their dog to retrieve, and no self respecting dog owner would send a dog to retrieve in those conditions. Not the *done* thing, at least in the UK.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> No self respecting person who shoots birds would shoot a bird that could land over ice. Because they know they need to send their dog to retrieve, and no self respecting dog owner would send a dog to retrieve in those conditions. Not the *done* thing, at least in the UK.


Icy as in temperature - unpleasantly cold, not icy as in literally frozen.

In any case though, glad to see you took the message of the post in its entirety instead of nit picking one tiny portion of it


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

Darth said:


> My question was nothing to do with show or working
> 
> Apologies....I thought your subject was "Should all KC breeders *SHOW*


Yes....nothing to do with working dogs or show dogs! BOTH can be shown!


----------



## swarthy (Apr 24, 2010)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I was looking through a breeders website earlier today, a number of breedng bitches , 2-3 litters a year, a couple of stud dogs, but dosent seem to show any of them.
> When we were looking into finding a stud for our girl I never considered using a stud that hadnt done well in shows, went for a stud with his KC Stud book number, crufts qualifier etc.
> I just wondered what people's thoughts were on this, when breeding should at least one parent have gained some recognition in the show ring?


I certainly think that breeders should be familiar with the conformation of their breed and their required temperament yes. They should know what their dogs weaknesses are, and what sort of sire could improve them.

That comes through showing, watching shows, attending breed seminars and eventually moving onto the first rungs of the judging ladder.

Where realistically possible, when looking for a sire, if you like the son, go to the father, because there is no guarantee the son will produce the same qualities you are looking for.

Obviously, every sire has to start somewhere, I admired a dog who was no longer with us (and wouldn't have been a viable mating anyway) - so I went for his son - when I used him, he didn't have his stud book number.

He now has his stud book number, 1 CC with Best of Breed, and several Reserve CCs. His son got Best puppy at Crufts and has 1 reserve CC.

You haven't alluded to the sire being "red" which I am glad about, however, because a dog doesn't necessarily do well in the ring, doesn't mean he won't have qualities he passes on to his progeny.

In the very early days of me showing, I went on to a breeder because I'd fallen in love with her chocolate girl - she has been breeding for years, has some superb dogs, and judges at the highest level. When I asked her about the bitch, she said, I have a chocolate dog at home that produces far better than himself.

I picked the dog I liked because it felt right for my bitch - on the basis of what you've posted - if we all thought like that - then I would have overlooked him.

Dogs mature at very different rates - in recent times, there have been many dogs in our breed made up to SH CH before they are out of Junior or Yearling, then in the same breath you have dogs getting their first ticket when they are fast heading into Veteran.

My eldest show-girl did OK for me as a pup - her best puppy result was a Best Puppy in Show at 9 months, where she swept the board in all her classes and got down to the final 8 in Best in show - from 13 to 19 months she did nothing, when she injured her leg, she was knocking on the door for her stud book number making the final cut of 8 out of 37 in a Limit Bitch class, and going on to get more than a few reserves and VHCs in Limit and Open bitch at CH show level - and was just a few points of gaining her Show Certificate of Merit.

I didn't quality her for Crufts until she was 2.5 - I couldn't breed from her because her hip-score was too high - but she was a fabulous show-dog who rose to the occasion every time the little madam set foot in the ring.

Had her hip-score been lower, I would probably have taken a litter from her during the summer I qualified her for Crufts, or the following spring when I qualified her for the next year.

I think people should know as much as possible about a pedigree - we often see people talking about "red" on a pedigree - coming back to my yellow girl again - her parents are prime examples.

On paper, her mother is "black" - i.e. no Junior Warrant or any other visible awards - however - she has 2 CCs, 7 RCCs and her show dog working certificate - her dad took BOB Crufts 2003 and the reserve ticket the year before - he is a full CH.

My girls dad has his Junior Warrant, 1 ticket and 1 Reserve ticket - his dad got BOB at Crufts in 2004 and 2005 and got into the final 7 in 2004.

The point I am making is that achievements may not necessarily be shouted about, or, as in the case of my youngest girls father, they hadn't been achieved when I used him - but it didn't take anything away from him as a dog.

==================================

If everyone focussed on only dogs with stud book numbers, tickets, SH CH, FT CH, FT AW etc - you can just imagine how tight some gene pools would get (when some of them will already be tight).

Some dogs HATE the show-ring, my yellow boys mother wasn't keen but was a lovely girl with good health results, his dad also took BOB at Crufts.

On paper, some of the most prolific producers in our breed, taken at face value would be "black" on paper - or may have excelled in some other area maybe not typically associated with that breed.

The point I'm trying to make is that yes - pedigrees and what you can shout about look nicer when there is lots of red and lots of achievements - but certainly some of the most prolific producers in our breed remained "black" on their pedigrees, whereas others got to a relatively mature age before they got their stud book numbers, tickets and possibly titles.

Knowing the breed conformation and temperament, being aware of your dogs faults, and believing that the dog you are using can improve on those faults are what are important, and that can take time to learn - so along with attending breed seminars, it wouldn't hurt people to sit around show-rings not only to see the dog, but also (where applicable) what he produces and see what they can learn.

The first sire I used was a veteran dog, a good 16 hour round trip for me - he got his stud book number when my babies were 5 weeks old (a week or so too late to go on their paperwork).


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Darth said:


> My question was nothing to do with show or working
> 
> Apologies....I thought your subject was "Should all KC breeders *SHOW*


No need for you to apologise - that was indeed the subject of the original post. Sadly, however, there are posters on here who will use any excuse to denigrate showing, laying at its feet all sorts of ills from altering characteristics of dogs to causing the death of Princess Diana - and, not surprisingly, these are the people who have little or no actual knowledge of the show world. You can tell who they are - it's the ones who post "I know people who ..." or "I believe that ..." or "I used to know a lot of show breeders in the past ..." and such phrases, and who tar all show breeders with the same brush.

Sure there are bad show breeders, but there are a hell of a lot of good show breeders - just as there are bad and good breeders in the working world and bad and good breeders in the pet world. Trying to pretend that everything that is wrong with dogs springs from the show world is just plain ridiculous.

Less than 40% of all dogs bred in this country are registered with the Kennel Club, and of that 40% who are registered, only a small percentage are shown. So how can the show world be responsible for all the ills that befall dogs? Go figure the math - it's not rocket science.

People who breed working dogs have changed them just as much, if not more, than people who breed show dogs - look at some working cockers who look nothing like the original cockers - but the self-righteous working dog fanciers praise this whilst at the same time denigrating the same thing happening in the show world. The abilities of working dogs were created by man and bred for by man, just as a dog with a longer coat was created by man and bred for by man. Why try to pretend that one is wrong and the other is right? Both are man-made; neither is "natural".


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Icy as in temperature - unpleasantly cold, not icy as in literally frozen.
> 
> In any case though, glad to see you took the message of the post in its entirety instead of nit picking one tiny portion of it


I think you miread my post, in the UK, wildfowlers, and on shoots where frozen water is involved, they do not shoot unless the bird is above ground, because they do not want to risk a retrieve over ice. I'ts simply not done here.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No need for you to apologise - that was indeed the subject of the original post. Sadly, however, there are posters on here who will use any excuse to denigrate showing, laying at its feet all sorts of ills from altering characteristics of dogs to causing the death of Princess Diana - and, not surprisingly, these are the people who have little or no actual knowledge of the show world. You can tell who they are - it's the ones who post "I know people who ..." or "I believe that ..." or "I used to know a lot of show breeders in the past ..." and such phrases, and who tar all show breeders with the same brush.
> 
> Sure there are bad show breeders, but there are a hell of a lot of good show breeders - just as there are bad and good breeders in the working world and bad and good breeders in the pet world. Trying to pretend that everything that is wrong with dogs springs from the show world is just plain ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Well you've met me and know my feelings, if you think I'm any different from what you met, then by God I'm good at covering things up


----------



## chaka (Feb 19, 2012)

I had a litter from my bitch earlier this year and she has never been shown, mainly because I no longer have any interest in showing. Having bred and judged the breed for many years I think I was able to assess her and decide her she was good enough to breed from, and more to the point she has a good temperament, 0 elbow and 7 hip score. 
The dog I used is successful in the show ring, and V rated, he also had his Sch H 1 working qualification and has since gained SchH (IPO) 2. If I happened to see a dog that I thought was good enough to use at stud but had never been shown, I would use him, but he would still have to have excellent health test results and show working ability.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

No working dog breeder that I've ever known has bred a dog that can't breath, can't see, has a deformed back end, has a heart problem covering a whole breed or has so much skin it needs it's folds cared for every day!!!!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Or, I would hazard a guess, needs stripping and combing, trimming to within an inch of it's lile, or needs the white parts chalking to prove dit can work?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Well you've met me and know my feelings, if you think I'm any different from what you met, then by God I'm good at covering things up


Don't know how you got from what I posted to what you wrote above - I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote my post. You certainly have not come across as tarring all show breeders with the same brush - quite the opposite, in fact!

You also know my feelings - I won't stand for bad breeding in any section of society and, just because I show dogs, it does not blind me to the fact that there are some bad breeders in the show world - but, as I said, there are many good ones - and the same goes for the working world and the pet world.

Anyone who blames only the show world for all the ills that have befallen dogs is short-sighted at best and downright stupid at worst.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Don't know how you got from what I posted to what you wrote above - I wasn't thinking about you when I wrote my post. You certainly have not come across as tarring all show breeders with the same brush - quite the opposite, in fact!
> 
> You also know my feelings - I won't stand for bad breeding in any section of society and, just because I show dogs, it does not blind me to the fact that there are some bad breeders in the show world - but, as I said, there are many good ones - and the same goes for the working world and the pet world.
> 
> Anyone who blames only the show world for all the ills that have befallen dogs is short-sighted at best and downright stupid at worst.


Pretty straight forward post really, like me, if you want to read something into it, feel free. But you've met me and my dogs, I don't hide a thing.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

> ouesi said:
> 
> 
> > Icy as in temperature - unpleasantly cold, not icy as in literally frozen.
> ...


Dude... are you even reading what I wrote??

Replace the word "icy" with cold.

Or you know what? Forget the whole example. Let's try this. Is the essence of a dog to scavenge easy pickings for himself, or is it to go on a shoot with a human and retrieve food he did not kill himself and will not get to eat?

My point being, that simply selecting for a dog who will retrieve to a human is in a sense changing the "essence" of a dog.
Selecting for a dog who will herd sheep for the purposes of the humans instead of the purposes of a pack hunt is in a sense breeding away from the "essence" of a dog.

IOW, we humans have already selected and altered dogs tremendously before anyone ever even thought about setting foot in a show ring.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Or, I would hazard a guess, needs stripping and combing, trimming to within an inch of it's lile, or needs the white parts chalking to prove dit can work?


But then no show breeder has to mutilate their dog by choppping bits off their tail so that it can function - ie a function man deliberately bred it to do - properly


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But what is the essence of a dog? Is it to breed away a sense of self preservation to such an extent that the dog will jump in to icy water to retrieve a bird he didn't kill and won't get to eat? Is that the "essence" of a dog? Or is the "essence" of a dog one who scavenges easy pickings and doesn't share them?
> 
> Is it the essence of a dog to herd sheep or guard livestock and never snack on them?
> Is it the essence of a dog to guide blind humans or guard prisoners?
> ...





ouesi said:


> Dude... are you even reading what I wrote??
> 
> Replace the word "icy" with cold.
> 
> ...


Check your first post, jump into icy water. If that is water that has ice on the top, I stand by my posts, no self respecting wild fowler would shoot a bird that would land where it needed retrieving over 'Icy water'


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Pretty straight forward post really, like me, if you want to read something into it, feel free. But you've met me and my dogs, I don't hide a thing.


Ok, stopping this converation now - for some reason you feel I'm attacking you and I'm not, nor am I reading anything into anything.

Have a lovely christmas and a happy new year - and maybe I'll see you at ones or two shows next year.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But then no show breeder has to mutilate their dog by choppping bits off their tail so that it can function - ie a function man deliberately bred it to do - properly


Nor does a border collie need primping or preening, nor chalking up to round up sheep. But then that doesn't happen?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ok, stopping this converation now - for some reason you feel I'm attacking you and I'm not, nor am I reading anything into anything.
> 
> Have a lovely christmas and a happy new year - and maybe I'll see you at ones or two shows next year.


I never felt such a thing, but I am honest about what I see.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nor does a border collie need primping or preening, nor chalking up to round up sheep. But then that doesn't happen?


A border collie has its feet trimmed - the hair around the pads - if you are telling me that working border collies magically don't get the hair between their pads matted up if it gets too long then I don't believe you. You were next to us with our border collies - you will have seen that happening, and you will have seen Quinny and Leon having their coats sprayed with water and then brushed straight. You will have seen Xia having the hair around her pads trimmed and her coat brushed.

Some people also use a chalk spray to dry the legs when it is wet - but, as you are so observant, you will also have seen them brushing it well out of the hair before they go in the show ring.

If you are ever lucky enough to see us with Tarot then you will see he has the hair between his pads trimmed and his coat brushed.

Yeah, how cruel is all that? At least none of my dogs will have been mutilated just so that they can do what man has bred them to do.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Second time posting, you can blame the single malt if you like. 

I don't see why dogs should have problems around other dogs, too often when I've seen dogs shown, and even when there have only been a small number shown, and dogs are placed despite their bl**dy awful temperament. Even more so, you see when going around the ring, [email protected] temperament and people making excuses?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> A border collie has its feet trimmed - the hair around the pads - if you are telling me that working border collies magically don't get the hair between their pads matted up if it gets too long then I don't believe you. You were next to us with our border collies - you will have seen that happening, and you will have seen Quinny and Leon having their coats sprayed with water and then brushed straight. You will have seen Xia having the hair around her pads trimmed and her coat brushed.
> 
> Some people also use a chalk spray to dry the legs when it is wet - but, as you are so observant, you will also have seen them brushing it well out of the hair before they go in the show ring.
> 
> ...


I was very observant thank you

I trim my flatcoat girl in accordance with what the judge needs to see, or perhaps you hadn't noticed that?

My OH has and I have posted before on here about him trimming the hair beteween the pads of his dogs, I have never said this didn't happen with working breeds.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Check your first post, jump into icy water. If that is water that has ice on the top, I stand by my posts, no self respecting wild fowler would shoot a bird that would land where it needed retrieving over 'Icy water'


Okay... You're stuck on the icy thing. 
That's not the point. Never was.
Let's back up...


> Nicky10 said:
> 
> 
> > There are people in any discipline willing to sacrifice the animal so they can win awards not just the show ring
> ...


Are you with me so far?

I was simply trying to point out that retrieving (in icy water or not), is a trait that has been BRED for by humans wishing to select for traits that benefit humans. 
You could easily argue that the "essence" of a dog would be to eat a fallen bird, not give it away to the guy holding the gun.

We like to think that "working" dogs have not been altered from their true nature, but every single breed out there is the result of humans selecting for what they find desirable and in effect altering dogs to such an extent that we now have everything from a great dane to a chihuahua and everything in between. It is ALL altering the "essence" of a dog whether you are breeding for a "job" or for the show ring. 
When one group thinks their breeding efforts are more worthy and noble than the other is the part that amuses me.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Okay... You're stuck on the icy thing.
> That's not the point. Never was.
> Let's back up...
> Are you with me so far?
> ...


Hen, back right up, no b*gga would breed a dog to retrieve over ice.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Second time posting, you can blame the single malt if you like.
> 
> I don't see why dogs should have problems around other dogs, too often when I've seen dogs shown, and even when there have only been a small number shown, and dogs are placed despite their bl**dy awful temperament. Even more so, you see when going around the ring, [email protected] temperament and people making excuses?


I've only ever once seen bad temperament rewarded in the show ring - years ago at Driffiield show (when it was held at Doncaster) a DDB went for Gabby and was ordered out of the ring while Gabby was showing - but Gabby was shaken up and wouldn't show properly so the judge gave her second place and the DDB 1st place. The judge was reported by several people around the ring (me included) and the KC reversed the decision.

Perhaps you could point out all these dogs with bad temperaments being placed the next time we are at a show together?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I've only ever once seen bad temperament rewarded in the show ring - years ago at Driffiield show (when it was held at Doncaster) a DDB went for Gabby and was ordered out of the ring while, Gabby was showing - but Gabby was shaken up and wouldn't show properly so the judge gave her second place and the DDB 1st place. The judge was reported by several people around the ring (me included) and the KC reversed the decision.
> 
> Perhaps you could point out all these dogs with bad temperaments being placed the next time we are at a show together?


Unfortunately, you don't always know the dogs, particularly at benched shows. I've seen dogs lunge out at benched and open shows, not nice.


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Hen, back right up, no b*gga would breed a dog to retrieve over ice.


Okie dokie then.

You win. I'm out.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I was very observant thank you
> 
> I trim my flatcoat girl in accordance with what the judge needs to see, or perhaps you hadn't noticed that?
> 
> My OH has and I have posted before on here about him trimming the hair beteween the pads of his dogs, I have never said this didn't happen with working breeds.


Ah, so trimming the hair between a working dog's pads is ok, but trimming the hair between a show dog's pads is unnecessary "primping and preening"?

Trimming a working lab for the show ring is ok, but trimming a border collie's feet for the show ring is unnecessary "primping and preening"?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Okie dokie then.
> 
> You win. I'm out.


I'm not sure why you think I differ? It's really a simple rule, you don't shoot birds over frozen water, or it is here


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ah, so trimming the hair between a working dog's pads is ok, but trimming the hair between a show dog's pads is unnecessary "primping and preening"?
> 
> Trimming a working lab for the show ring is ok, but trimming a border collie's feet for the show ring is unnecessary "primping and preening"?


Are you on something?

Where did I say that?


----------



## Guest (Dec 23, 2012)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm not sure why you think I differ? It's really a simple rule, you don't shoot birds over frozen water, or it is here


Oh for Pete's sake!!!!
Get over the darned ice thing will you?! 
I don't give a flying flamingo if you shoot over water or ice or a hot tub.

I was simply trying to point out that breeding a dog to RETRIEVE is a form of changing the essence of a dog. That's it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh for Pete's sake!!!!
> Get over the darned ice thing will you?!
> I don't give a flying flamingo if you shoot over water or ice or a hot tub.
> 
> I was simply trying to point out that breeding a dog to RETRIEVE is a form of changing the essence of a dog. That's it.


I'm a stickler for detail, and you never breed or train a dog to retrieve over ice


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Are you on something?
> 
> Where did I say that?


Yeah - benylin and codeine - got an awful cold.

You said you had obseved what happened at shows, and that



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Nor does a border collie need primping or preening, nor chalking up to round up sheep. But then that doesn't happen?


which you aobviously felt was wrong. I pointed out that the only "primping and prenning" that went on was trimming the hair around the border collies' pads, and wondered why you felt that was wrong when you didn't feel it was wrong to do it to working dogs.

Anyway, sorry all - got to go to bed - up at six and working a 13 hour shift tomorrow (on Christmas Eve! and with a stinking cold! :cryin: ) so need to sleep.

It's going to be after christmas now before I will have time to catch up and by then this thread will probably have been locked or removed - so everyone have a merry christmas!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Yeah - benylin and codeine - got an awful cold.
> 
> You said you had obseved what happened at shows, and that
> 
> ...


I am willing to admit within my own breeds, they go further than what is required, in attempt to get placed. If you think it doesn't hapen within your own breed, you're either blessed or naieve.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Whatever your views about hunting, foxhounds are not shown, apart from hunt shows, (nor are they routinely x rayed for HD) yet their conformation appears to be admirably suited to fulfilling their function of running hundreds of miles per week.
> 
> Wonder how they manage it without some KC judge running the rule over them?


You are wrong foxhounds are shown they don't often have class but do at the hound association champ show and crufts and at a few other champ shows. I have a friend who shows both foxhounds she has bred herself and also hounds that have worked with the hunts. On the same note some of her foxhounds have become hunt dogs both drag hunting and before the ban hunting foxes.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

MaisyMoomin said:


> I was looking through a breeders website earlier today, a number of breedng bitches , 2-3 litters a year, a couple of stud dogs, but dosent seem to show any of them.
> When we were looking into finding a stud for our girl I never considered using a stud that hadnt done well in shows, went for a stud with his KC Stud book number, crufts qualifier etc.
> I just wondered what people's thoughts were on this, when breeding should at least one parent have gained some recognition in the show ring?


poor you ....................all you asked was a straight forward question. bet you never quess the anti showers would come out with their same arguments lol.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Freyja said:


> You are wrong foxhounds are shown they don't often have class but do at the hound association champ show and crufts and at a few other champ shows. I have a friend who shows both foxhounds she has bred herself and also hounds that have worked with the hunts. On the same note some of her foxhounds have become hunt dogs both drag hunting and before the ban hunting foxes.


Yes I should have been more explicit in my post.

WORKING foxhounds are not shown at Crufts ie those that go on hunts and belong to them.

There are the odd kennel that breeds them such as Dazzleby but they are in the VAST minority as Foxhounds do not make good pets. There are very few entries of Foxhounds in shows and certainly not from hunts.

Crufts 2012 Results |

Foxhounds are also not ONE type, they have been bred specifically for the type of ground they work on so when you hunt all over the country you will see different TYPES depending on the terrain; some are stocky, some are more racy and even their coats differ.

If you compared the number of KC registered Foxhounds to those bred by the hunts, it would be an infinitesimal amount. In fact they have only reached double figures in a couple of years so 14 is the most that has ever been registered by the KC in any one year!

http://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/download/5668/10-yearly-Breeds-Stats-hound.pdf

So whilst Foxhounds may APPEAR at Crufts and the odd show, they remain a breed for the extreme specialist due to their genetic disposition.


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

dexter said:


> poor you ....................all you asked was a straight forward question. bet you never quess the anti showers would come out with their same arguments lol.


Wasn't as straight forward as I thought 

I've enjoyed reading everyone's views  wishing everyone a very Merry Christmas Eve & hope the Big Man brings you all what you wished for x


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Who's anti showing? I'm anti people exploiting dogs, and unfortunately showing isn't free of it, I doubt if any *activity* is. As long as humans are involved there will be people involved who are selfish, and in it for what they can achieve. Some of them willing even to breed unhealthy animals in the hope they will *win*. Showing your dog doesn't prove you're better than other people who own or breed dogs in any way.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Who's anti showing? I'm anti people exploiting dogs, and unfortunately showing isn't free of it, I doubt if any *activity* is. As long as humans are involved there will be people involved who are selfish, and in it for what they can achieve. Some of them willing even to breed unhealthy animals in the hope they will *win*. Showing your dog doesn't prove you're better than other people who own or breed dogs in any way.


who said it was? not the showers for sure thank god we all agree on people exploiting dogs in any shape or form be it working or showing or breeding!


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Spellweaver said:


> Anyone who blames only the show world for all the ills that have befallen dogs is short-sighted at best and downright stupid at worst.





dexter said:


> poor you ....................all you asked was a straight forward question. bet you never quess the anti showers would come out with their same arguments lol.


Oh my Oh my

I'm so anti show that my next dog will probably come from Tashi :yikes:

A show Judge!!!!


----------



## MaisyMoomin (Mar 14, 2012)

rona said:


> Oh my Oh my
> 
> I'm so anti show that my next dog will probably come from Tashi :yikes:
> 
> A show Judge!!!!


 But all your posts come across as anti show  isn't that a little double standard 

You see it as a beauty contest, you are 'so against the show world as a whole'???

If I had views like that I wouldn't be buying from a show judge, buying into everything you say your against. Although Im sure you will be able to validate your reasons accordingly.

*


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MaisyMoomin said:


> But all your posts come across as anti show  isn't that a little double standard
> 
> You see it as a beauty contest, you are 'so against the show world as a whole'???
> 
> ...


I'm against the blinkered people and the cruelty that is involved in many of the breeds.
I said hello to a little shih tzu the other day and I could have cried for him, he couldn't breath and his eyes were weeping copiously, making his little face sore.
How can anyone create a dog to suffer like that?  
So many breeds have been exaggerated by the show people, for what reason I cannot fathom, but they seem unable to admit to the suffering of tens of thousands of dog for there hobby :cryin:
Also talking to one of my neighbours the other day about her Cav. No more needs saying on that one!!!

I'm also against changing a breed, so that it can no longer perform what it was intended to do.

I would not go to a show breeder who bred huge white Goldens that wouldn't have a hope of working a full day without injury, no matter how many titles they'd won. They wouldn't have the best interest of the breed at their heart, just winning rosettes.


----------



## Guest (Dec 24, 2012)

rona said:


> I'm also against changing a breed, so that it can no longer perform what it was intended to do.


Oh, many backwoods American dogmen would wholeheartedly agree with you. They are very much against breeding dog aggression and high prey drive out of pitbulls and still insist that the only true pitbull is the one that has been "tested" if you know what I mean. That breeding anything less than a tested pitbull is destroying the breed, making it so that it can no longer perform what it was intended to do.

It's not that black and white.

Purposely creating a dog such as an English Bulldog that can no longer reproduce naturally or, breathe even, is clearly wrong.
But is it wrong to breed goldies and labs to retrieve dropped objects to a paraplegic instead of retrieving birds in the field? Is the "job" of hunting more valid than the "job" of being a service dog?

There are vast areas of grey on this topic, and there is more to the conversation than the absolutes being presented.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Oh, many backwoods American dogmen would wholeheartedly agree with you. They are very much against breeding dog aggression and high prey drive out of pitbulls and still insist that the only true pitbull is the one that has been "tested" if you know what I mean. That breeding anything less than a tested pitbull is destroying the breed, making it so that it can no longer perform what it was intended to do.
> 
> It's not that black and white.
> 
> ...


I don't know how it affects the economy for you, but in the UK shooting sports are very beneficial to the economy, not to mention beneficial to the countryside as a whole, and part of that comes from the success we have with working gundogs. People buy them from all over the world, in fact I was just reading a thread earlier about someone in the States interested in an English working type cocker.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

rona said:


> I'm against the blinkered people and the cruelty that is involved in many of the breeds.
> I said hello to a little shih tzu the other day and I could have cried for him, he couldn't breath and his eyes were weeping copiously, making his little face sore.
> How can anyone create a dog to suffer like that?
> So many breeds have been exaggerated by the show people, for what reason I cannot fathom, but they seem unable to admit to the suffering of tens of thousands of dog for there hobby :cryin:
> ...


All dogs should be bred to be healthy and able to do their job, I love pekingeses but could never justify owning one. There are plenty of show breeders who do care but of course there are also plenty willing to breed dogs like that shih tzu or bulldogs that can't breed or whelp naturally.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Who's anti showing? I'm anti people exploiting dogs, and unfortunately showing isn't free of it, I doubt if any *activity* is. As long as humans are involved there will be people involved who are selfish, and in it for what they can achieve. Some of them willing even to breed unhealthy animals in the hope they will *win*. *Showing your dog doesn't prove you're better than other people who own or breed dogs in any way*.





dexter said:


> *who said it was? not the showers for sure* thank god we all agree on people exploiting dogs in any shape or form be it working or showing or breeding!


Yes, the showers HAVE said it over and over and over and over again . . . I know where I live it gets shoved into pet buyers faces at every angle when they are attempting to research 'how' to buy a pup and who from. We have show venues rarely and registered dogs are few and far between and yet are being told that unless a breeder 'competes' they are unethical.

We end up with people IMPORTING pups sight unseen from the web from someone with a fancy sight and that parades a Ch stud or two . . . cuz they believe they have done the 'right' thing by seeking out a 'competing' breeder according to this shite list of rhetoric. Some of those sights are mill fronts and the first one I ran into was a very involved handler . . . Still sticks in my craw the number of people who get pups from this person (she breeds small registered popular breeds) who believe she is 'better than' the neighbor banging two dogs together due to her ties and credentials . . . when she is not.

One example that is on websites and that gets passed around on 'forums' by those who show - and there are many examples like this and this was one 'gifted' to me by my sister who owns and occasionally showed imported Papillons (no health testing behind) after I chose my mixbreed girl . . . as she thought I did wrong. It made the rounds in 2006.



> GOLDEN RULES FOR BREEDING
> 1.The only reason to be breeding purebred dogs is to preserve the best qualities of the breed. Breeding to supply any market is not a justification.
> 2.You need to do all of your breeding with the best interests of the breed in mind. Never your pocket book.
> 3.For this you need to be a serious student of the breed and devote years of your life to it. Not "in one day, out the other".
> ...


just because you love your dog you don't have to breed it! - Page 4

Breeding « Shadow Mountain Saint Bernards

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

rona said:


> I'm against the blinkered people and the cruelty that is involved in many of the breeds.
> I said hello to a little shih tzu the other day and I could have cried for him, he couldn't breath and his eyes were weeping copiously, making his little face sore.
> How can anyone create a dog to suffer like that?
> So many breeds have been exaggerated by the show people, for what reason I cannot fathom, but they seem unable to admit to the suffering of tens of thousands of dog for there hobby :cryin:
> ...


Whilst I whole heartedly agree, I do think there are plenty of show people who aren't blinkered. And I don't agree with a lot of the breeding that goes on where people just hope for the best, either with pedigree breed types or cross breeds.


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

I suppose if the dogs with exaggerated points didn't win or get placed they wouldn't be bred so exaggerated.

Maybe it's the judges who place them at fault?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Darth said:


> I suppose if the dogs with exaggerated points didn't win or get placed they wouldn't be bred so exaggerated.
> 
> Maybe it's the judges who place them at fault?


The judges are usually people who are rather influential in breed clubs unfortunately


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Darth said:


> I suppose if the dogs with exaggerated points didn't win or get placed they wouldn't be bred so exaggerated.
> 
> Maybe it's the judges who place them at fault?


Whilst wearing my tin hat, you are so so right.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Going off topic slightly,a very wise lady once told me in regards to showing,it doesn't matter if you win or lose you always take home the best dog at the end of the day.


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Yes I should have been more explicit in my post.
> 
> WORKING foxhounds are not shown at Crufts ie those that go on hunts and belong to them.
> 
> ...


I have known the Dazzleby breeder Rosemary for many years and she does show working foxhounds at crufts or she has done as she had a retired hunt dog.Also as I said in my previous post some of her dogs have gone on to work at the hunts. I don't know when she last had a litter but I do know some of her litters have been sired by one the the hunts stud dogs.


----------



## tashi (Dec 5, 2007)

Same as the bloodhounds, lady I know works her dogs and shows them. 

I grew up with foxhounds and they were fab, yes they were shown but before they were recognised to be shown at KC shows. Sadly not that many in the show ring but I would love to have one and show him.


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Quite a few very good Mal breeders don't show, they work them instead. Some show and work them. Lots of people who buy Mals want them for the fun of working and I've known a few who've given up showing because of the nastiness that can go with it by some competitors. I think health testing is more important as a good breeder will know what standards their breed needs to meet and don't need a rosette or certificate to confirm that.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Freyja said:


> I have known the Dazzleby breeder Rosemary for many years and she does show working foxhounds at crufts or she has done as she had a retired hunt dog.Also as I said in my previous post some of her dogs have gone on to work at the hunts. I don't know when she last had a litter but I do know some of her litters have been sired by one the the hunts stud dogs.


Yes I know she shows her dogs at Crufts (you can her dogs in the link I posted) and she would have to use a hunt's dog to sire her litters as where would she find one otherwise? 

You are missing the point.

The exception does not prove the rule.

Foxhounds do not make good pets.

Most people cannot control an elderly/overweight/show bred pet dogs (_as can be seen by the posts of such individuals and the posts of those complaining about the dogs that belong to such inviduals_); having to take them out with both head halters and harnesses, biting them and/or the lead, with lunging, barking etc; trying to cope with a large, powerful dog which has been bred to run hundreds of miles a week using its nose would be a disaster.

those that own them cannot trust their recalls etc etc.

So I repeat, Foxhounds are

bred to work
are not hip scored
are not judged on their show results (although a MICROCOSM of them are shown)

and yet are incredibly fit, healthy in both mind and body.

Go figure!


----------



## Freyja (Jun 28, 2008)

smokeybear said:


> Yes I know she shows her dogs at Crufts (you can her dogs in the link I posted) and she would have to use a hunt's dog to sire her litters as where would she find one otherwise?
> 
> You are missing the point.
> 
> ...


No you missed my point you said foxhounds are not shown my point is yes they are whether they be show bred or working bred they are still shown. I know they are bred to work all I did was correct the fact you said they are not shown when they are.

The question was Should all KC breeders show? The foxhounds belonging to the hunt are not KC registered.


----------



## smokeybear (Oct 19, 2011)

Freyja said:


> No you missed my point you said foxhounds are not shown my point is yes they are whether they be show bred or working bred they are still shown. I know they are bred to work all I did was correct the fact you said they are not shown when they are.
> 
> The question was Should all KC breeders show? The foxhounds belonging to the hunt are not KC registered.


Some huskies are let off the lead.................. 

As I said, the EXCEPTION does not prove the rule.

The genetic pool of the foxhound does not lie within the remit of the KC fortunately as the vast majority are registered with the MFHA who manage to keep the health and functionality of their dogs without recourse to KC/BVA testing etc.

Much like racing greyhounds........................

There are a few others that have not been interfered with so much that health testing is required but not many.

When animals were tools they either fulfilled their function or were taken out of the gene pool.

The dog population was thus a lot healthier in terms of many conditions.


----------



## sskmick (Feb 4, 2008)

This is an interesting point, but if they don't show how can they be sure their dogs meet and KC breed standard.

Some people look for the red names on the pedigree (any champions in the line used to be in red). 

Personally I don't think it is necessary, certain features in some breeds have been exagerated over the years for a title, I much prefer a healthy, well proportioned dog.


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

MaisyMoomin said:


> Obviously for us temperament was upmost on our list along with being health tested. I just wonder why people choose to stud without gaining some kind of recognition. You could have the most amazing well tempered dog with the worst head, conformation etc.


You could also say the same about bitches that are used for breeding, I personally think that health and temperament are far more important than whether or not they have a ch, or sh ch in front of their names. I've used Crufts winning dogs at stud and have had the most nervous of pups born, but have used a family dog that a friend owns, with a great pedigree, stunning dog, all health tests clear and have had my best litter ever, with all owners saying what wonderful temperaments they all have.


----------



## JulieNoob (Oct 22, 2008)

Malmum said:


> Quite a few very good Mal breeders don't show, they work them instead. Some show and work them. Lots of people who buy Mals want them for the fun of working and I've known a few who've given up showing because of the nastiness that can go with it by some competitors. I think health testing is more important as a good breeder will know what standards their breed needs to meet and don't need a rosette or certificate to confirm that.


I would say however that MOST good Mal breeders DO show and most also aim to produce good workers too...

Although numerically they are far outnumbered by the commercial/ pet breeders who neither work nor show nor Health test


----------



## Old Shep (Oct 17, 2010)

I didn't know that ANY hounds were KC registered. I thought the packs kept to hunt were completely different form the ones shown (and different from other packs--being specifically bred to hunt the local ground).


I've learned something new today!


----------



## catlove844 (Feb 15, 2011)

ID rather have all health tests done and a knowledable breeder than one that shows, some show breeds look awful


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

In Dog World a few weeks ago, they had an article about Working Clumber Spaniels and they appealed to me more than the show dogs.

They were longer legged and less heavily built than the show ones but they were still recognizable as Clumbers. They must be good dogs as even Princess Anne breeds them for work. This is one she bred - I think he is stunning

http://www.workingclumber.co.uk/images/stud/1334835716Frank%20-%20Tinglestone%20Sparkler%20-%20compressed.jpg


----------



## JulieNoob (Oct 22, 2008)

catlove844 said:


> ID rather have all health tests done and a knowledable breeder than one that shows, some show breeds look awful


But the breeders most likely to health test ARE the show breeders, so many people think that it just doesn't matter for pet dogs


----------



## Darth (May 18, 2011)

But the breeders most likely to health test ARE the show breeders, so many people think that it just doesn't matter for pet dogs

Ooh.....this is a sweeping statement!


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

kirksandallchins said:


> In Dog World a few weeks ago, they had an article about Working Clumber Spaniels and they appealed to me more than the show dogs.
> 
> They were longer legged and less heavily built than the show ones but they were still recognizable as Clumbers. They must be good dogs as even Princess Anne breeds them for work. This is one she bred - I think he is stunning
> 
> http://www.workingclumber.co.uk/images/stud/1334835716Frank%20-%20Tinglestone%20Sparkler%20-%20compressed.jpg


That is Frank, my friend's dog!! And yes, you are right, he is bred by Princess Anne.

I was at the field trial mentioned in the article and yes, the working Clumber spaniels look different compared to their show bred cousins. In my eyes they are actually the better looking and healthier dogs than those seen in a show ring.

But I am biased, I have a working Clumber myself.  Here he is.









He is hip and elbow scored, just like his parents, with very low scores (3:4 hips, 0 elbows) and beautiful clear eyes, none of those droopy eye lids so common in show Clumbers. And he has fantastic working ability!! :thumbup:

So it is not just the show breeders who do health tests. In fact the Working Clumber Spaniel Society will only advertise stud dogs and litters of puppies if they are fully health tested.


----------



## spaniel04 (Nov 27, 2011)

kirksandallchins said:


> They must be good dogs as even Princess Anne breeds them for work. This is one she bred - I think he is stunning
> 
> http://www.workingclumber.co.uk/images/stud/1334835716Frank%20-%20Tinglestone%20Sparkler%20-%20compressed.jpg


And here is the gorgeous Frank again alongside my lad after a long day's work looking very dirty and very happy!!


----------

