# show cocker x working cocker



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

does anyone have a pic or own one? met a lively pup this afternoon i remarked had it springer in it ? owner replied no, was show cocker x working cocker pup. Well it was as long in the back as Dexter and not much shorter in height at a quess maybe 20" to shoulder would such a cross produce such a length of back and height i doubted it?


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

dexter said:


> does anyone have a pic or own one? met a lively pup this afternoon i remarked had it springer in it ? owner replied no, was show cocker x working cocker pup. Well it was as long in the back as Dexter and not much shorter in height at a quess maybe 20" to shoulder would such a cross produce such a length of back and height i doubted it?


Ile try and get a picture up of charlie he is the bigger cocker with the shorter ears, bigger than some springers actually bigger than one of my springers.


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

this is charlie hes in my avatar as well


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

and another


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Working cockers have deviated a long way from the original type - don't quite know why, being as the original type were, of course, working cockers to begin with!

This is a modern working cocker:



















This is a modern show cocker:



















And this is a cocker spaniel circa 1915


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

The working cocker on that pic is very similar to charlie,just about all cockers i see are much smaller with the longer ears.


----------



## xhuskyloverx (May 5, 2010)

Wow I knew there were differences between the working cockers and the show ones but seeing the pictures together I never realised just how different they are. Sorry off topic but was quite shocked


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Working cockers have deviated a long way from the original type - don't quite know why, being as the original type were, of course, working cockers to begin with!
> 
> This is a modern working cocker:
> 
> ...


Sorry hun, have to disagree, in the nicest possible way. Working cockers are true to type, they are bred for the way they move, and flush game, and that is not apparent in any current show bred cocker I've seen, not that I've seen vast amounts, but none of them have the correct movement.

This is the working cocker that was the basis for the American cocker spaniel, which has also moved away from the original type, as that was bred to retrieve quail specifically.










And this is Miggin, who, I helped run on for a friend, and will be going part trained to a new home on Sunday I believe, and I am such a proud mum, he's a fabulous character, and I get to stay in touch 










It's a bit of an old pic of Miggin, but one with Tau, which hopefully gives an idea of his size. I've found working cockers tend to have a longer back, and they should (so I've been told) *hunt* with the shape of a suction cup, with the tail low. Miggin's only fault, is he's tail high, which is, apparently, a possible throw back to their linked ancestry with springers.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

so would a show x working have a elongated back?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

dexter said:


> so would a show x working have a elongated back?


No, not elongated, but longer than a show cocker possibly 

I didn't realise, until I posted the pic of the past champion exported to the US in the 1880's, and Miggin, they have virtually the same expression. Sorry spellweaver, I have to pic fault with one of the conformation points of the show cocker, just look at the ears, you could blinking tie them in a bow, just how on earth is a dog meant to work through cover with those? It'd be trapped in brambles in an instant. 

One of the criticisms with American cockers, is the coat, and this is something you see across the board with show versions of working type dogs, in that the coat is far too heavy. Very few of the working cockers I know need clipping at all, in the main, it's their feet that get a bit bunged up, if they have a heavy coat, it hampers their ability to work. So why is this type of coat rewarded in the ring for any working breed?

Sorry Dexter, OT I know, but a question that has always bugged me! Possibly never even occurred to you


----------



## PennyH (Dec 30, 2008)

My beloved Buffy was a show x working cocker. Everyone thought she was a baby springer!!!
She was totally gorgeous, very very easy to train and a totally loyal loving girl.
She was very sleek and longer in the back than my show cocker.
They are lovely dogs, but do need quite a lot of exercise as she never got tired and also never stopped wagging her tail.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I agree with sleeping_lion here. Working cockers have little coat. I groom some working cockers and most only need a trim of their feet. Show cockers need the full works; clipping, scissoring bulky feathers and skirt and scissoring heavy ears. Show cocker's coat would get tangled in brambles in an instant, so I don't see why show cockers have the heavy coat? It's obviously not "fit for function", as a champion show cocker couldn't work in the same conditions as a working cocker.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Sorry spellweaver, I have to pic fault with one of the conformation points of the show cocker, just look at the ears, you could blinking tie them in a bow, just how on earth is a dog meant to work through cover with those? It'd be trapped in brambles in an instant.


No need to be sorry hun - I don't write the breed standards 

Miggin's conformation certanly looks closer to the conformation of the older cocker spaniels than the pics of working cockers I posted - no idea who they are, I just googled working cockers. Just one small point about the ears though. The breed standard says the feathers must come to the nose tip and if you look at the ears on the old pic you posted, the ears would do that - so show cocker ears are actually true to type. Miggin's ears are much shorter. I take your point about them getting in the way when working through cover, so perhaps that is one reason why working cockers have been bred away from type?

ETA - having owned, bred (and walked!) show cockers for many years I can honestly say that their ears don't get tangled or trapped in brambles in an instant!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I agree with sleeping_lion here. Working cockers have little coat. I groom some working cockers and most only need a trim of their feet. Show cockers need the full works; clipping, scissoring bulky feathers and skirt and scissoring heavy ears. Show cocker's coat would get tangled in brambles in an instant, so I don't see why show cockers have the heavy coat? It's obviously not "fit for function", as a champion show cocker couldn't work in the same conditions as a working cocker.


I don't think you can have groomed many show cockers if you think their feathers are bulky and thier coat and ears are heavy! And as I said to SleepingLion, my show cockers never got tangled in brambles when out walking - and believe me, they were snuffling through the underbrush from setting off until getting back (unless they found a pond to jump in, that is!)


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I don't think you can have groomed many show cockers if you think their feathers are bulky and thier coat and ears are heavy! And as I said to SleepingLion, my show cockers never got tangled in brambles when out walking - and believe me, they were snuffling through the underbrush from setting off until getting back (unless they found a pond to jump in, that is!)


I have groomed many show cockers, and they all have bulky feathers, skirt and ears.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> No need to be sorry hun - I don't write the breed standards
> 
> Miggin's conformation certanly looks closer to the conformation of the older cocker spaniels than the pics of working cockers I posted - no idea who they are, I just googled working cockers. Just one small point about the ears though. The breed standard says the feathers must come to the nose tip and if you look at the ears on the old pic you posted, the ears would do that - so show cocker ears are actually true to type. Miggin's ears are much shorter. I take your point about them getting in the way when working through cover, so perhaps that is one reason why working cockers have been bred away from type?
> 
> ETA - having owned, bred (and walked!) show cockers for many years I can honestly say that their ears don't get tangled or trapped in brambles in an instant!


The pic you posted, definitely the working cocker ears look short, but I can assure you, Miggin's ears reach the tip of his cockery nose, which I think is just about right?

The ear set is the only thing that is completely wrong to me with the show type you posted, and in comparison with both of our photographs, it looks more like a hound, or pointer/setter ear set than a spaniel. Other than that, it's just stance and a bit of the proportions that's out visually, it's always hard to tell with dogs in a show stance I think, what they look like in a natural stance. And of course, you can't judge movement or ability from a photograph.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I have groomed many show cockers, and they all have bulky feathers, skirt and ears.


Strange that - on all the show cockers I have seen (and I've seen many!) the feathering is very light - it is, after all, "feathering"! It may be a lot longer than any feathering on working cockers, but it is neither heavy nor bulky. And whilst their ears are long, bulky just wouldn't describe them. Are you by any chance thinking of American cockers, who do have a much fuller, heavier feathering and skirt?


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Strange that - on all the show cockers I have seen (and I've seen many!) the feathering is very light - it is, after all, "feathering"! It may be a lot longer than any feathering on working cockers, but it is neither heavy nor bulky. And whilst their ears are long, bulky just wouldn't describe them. Are you by any chance thinking of American cockers, who do have a much fuller, heavier feathering and skirt?


no, its english show cockers.

Maybe cockers in the show ring have their feathers thinned out so although long, they are flowing and silky. I groom pet show-type cockers so they usually have a thick, heavy coat and the feathering is very bulky.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I agree with Julie, the skirt and feathering on show cockers does seem excessive with some of them. Even the pic you've posted, shows a trimmed dog, where the back of the legs and the skirt is trimmed, I don't know of one show cocker that requres that doing because their coat gets to that length/thickness. Yes, some need their coat stripping out more than others, and paws can be a particular problem, as I mentioned, but generally speaking, the coat of a show cocker is fit for function, something that can be overlooked with working breeds.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> no, its english show cockers.
> 
> Maybe cockers in the show ring have their feathers thinned out so although long, they are flowing and silky. I groom pet show-type cockers so they usually have a thick, heavy coat and the feathering is very bulky.


Ah, so you don't actully groom show cockers, you groom pets from show type cockers (as opposed to working type cockers)? That explains it!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Strange that - on all the show cockers I have seen (and I've seen many!) the feathering is very light - it is, after all, "feathering"! It may be a lot longer than any feathering on working cockers, but it is neither heavy nor bulky. And whilst their ears are long, bulky just wouldn't describe them. Are you by any chance thinking of American cockers, who do have a much fuller, heavier feathering and skirt?


Just out of interest, how would you describe the feathering on the dog you've posted? I would describe it as heavy, just so ya know


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Just out of interest, how would you describe the feathering on the dog you've posted? I would describe it as heavy, just so ya know


I would describe it as long - but not as heavy. Heavy to me indicates weight - and it won't be weighty at all; it will be light and - well, "feathery"


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I would describe it as long - but not as heavy. Heavy to me indicates weight - and it won't be weighty at all; it will be light and - well, "feathery"


You see it comes down to interpretation again, the way I've been led to believe the description of feathering, should be as heavy equals excessive, so any unecessary feathering is *heavy*. So in the example you posted, the dog needed trimming, and to be honest it's coat was longer still than all the working cockers I know, so it is definitely what I would call *heavy* coat wise.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Working cockers have deviated a long way from the original type - don't quite know why, being as the original type were, of course, working cockers to begin with!
> 
> ]


wow im Soooooooooooo shocked at the difference, WHY can I ask is there such a difference isnt there normally 'one' standard for adog to adear to?

I must say that I prefer the working cockers, never been a big fan of them but those pics are lovely!


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Taylorbaby said:


> wow im Soooooooooooo shocked at the difference, WHY can I ask is there such a difference isnt there normally 'one' standard for adog to adear to?
> 
> I must say that I prefer the working cockers, never been a big fan of them but those pics are lovely!


There is one standard, and in the main the show cockers have been bred more or less to that standard. However, some owners of working cockers have preferred to breed away from it in order to minimise what they see as undesirable attributes for a working dog - eg long feathers.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> There is one standard, and in the main the show cockers have been bred more or less to that standard. However, some owners of working cockers have preferred to breed away from it in order to minimise what they see as undesirable attributes for a working dog - eg long feathers.


You just know I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you 

The problem with the breed standard, is the interpretation of that can change, and, in my view (and the view of a lot of people with a working cocker) it has led to the show cocker looking nothing like it's working roots. Lovely dogs they may be, they look nowt like they're meant to.

I'll try and dig a few more pics out than the one I posted, but that is what a cocker should look like, not at all like a springer, although they are (admittedly) from the same roots, they are very different, and have a very different action. Something I've come to learn to appreciate since getting to know the breed a little better.

Admittedly, there are some people with working bred cockers, who aren't particularly bothered whether it's a good representative of the breed, as much as they're interested in it's ability to do what it's bred to. You get that with some working folk, but equally, there are those who care greatly that their working cocker, is exactly as it should be, both in looks and ability.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You just know I'm going to have to continue to disagree with you
> .


Saw your green light was on and knew it wouldn't be long! :lol:

But that's what I like about you hun - we can accept that we have differences of opinion and still stay friends!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

These are from Pietoro's helpful album showing historical pics of dogs 









1890

This one's a depiction rather than a photo, but still interesting









1900









1901









1904


















1906 (another picture rather than photo, but still interesting)


















1907









1938

And these are just a couple of modern show type cockers, which I think highlight how the showing part has separated them from their origins, and parts of the breed standard have been focussed on too much.

Removed on request of owner 

There aren't that many photos of working types, that I think show how some of the folk who breed them do care they remain true to their origins, but here's one, they're also bl**dy difficult to keep still :lol:










Perhaps also, the way show cockers are stacked and *pulled about* in the ring, and I don't mean that in the sense that they're hurt in any way, but the way they're almost stretched to show them off, makes them look less cockerish 

Just for interest, this was the American cocker spaniel in 1935, which was bred specifically to retrieve quail. Now this one really has gone in a completely different direction, to say that the original photo I posted further back in the thread, is one of the founding cockers of this breed!










To this 










It just goes to show how breed standard interpretations have changed for some show types. I know some of the working cockers I've seen, have retrieved game as large as hares and geese, not something that last dog looks capable of, because his muzzle just doesn't look as though it would be able to get hold of something like that, although that's not to say he wouldn't give it a darned good try, instincts can and do come to the fore with these dogs, no matter what their breeding.

And just for interest, here's a Labrador








1904


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I must admit I'm not fond of the American Cocker, but I have never been close enough to one to get my hand under all that coat and feel the conformation. It may be that, underneath all that, there is a cocker body very similar to the original pics - although the very pronounced stop, compared to the original, makes me think that the rest of the conformation may have altered too.

Leaving aside the American Cocker, I still think that today's show cocker is nearer to the original cockers than today's working cocker. The head of today's working cocker is different, with a less pronounced stop, a flatter and wider occiput and a more pointd nose; the coat is a lot thinner; the ears are shorter; the body is lighter and less stocky; legs are longer; and the chest is much less deep and not as barrel shaped. These may all be attributes that are preferable in the working cocker, which is probably why working breeders have gone this way, whilst at the same time show breeders have bred for coat length. But leaving coat length aside, the conformation of today's show cocker - its stockiness, its chest, its leg length etc etc - is much closer to that of the original cockers in the pics you posted.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

the dog we see if very similar to the first pic of working cocker, even the colouring although its head is not as spaneil like.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I must admit I'm not fond of the American Cocker, but I have never been close enough to one to get my hand under all that coat and feel the conformation. It may be that, underneath all that, there is a cocker body very similar to the original pics - although the very pronounced stop, compared to the original, makes me think that the rest of the conformation may have altered too.
> 
> Leaving aside the American Cocker, *I still think that today's show cocker is nearer to the original cockers than today's working cocker*. The head of today's working cocker is different, with a less pronounced stop, a flatter and wider occiput and a more pointd nose; the coat is a lot thinner; the ears are shorter; the body is lighter and less stocky; legs are longer; and the chest is much less deep and not as barrel shaped. These may all be attributes that are preferable in the working cocker, which is probably why working breeders have gone this way, whilst at the same time show breeders have bred for coat length. But leaving coat length aside, the conformation of today's show cocker - its stockiness, its chest, its leg length etc etc - is much closer to that of the original cockers in the pics you posted.


But the photographs show otherwise, this is an original cocker spaniel champion










This is a working cocker, that is bred to type (leaving aside, yes, there are some that aren't) - apols as he's lying down, hopefully you can make out most of him he belongs to a friend


----------



## Mumbles (Apr 17, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But the photographs show otherwise, this is an original cocker spaniel champion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Though my Toodles is a working cocker and compared to the one you have shown his head shape is completely difference, Toodles has a much thinner nose and shorter ears and the ears look higher on his head. So they must vary a bit to how people have bred them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Mumbles said:


> Though my Toodles is a working cocker and compared to the one you have shown his head shape is completely difference, Toodles has a much thinner nose and shorter ears and the ears look higher on his head. So they must vary a bit to how people have bred them.


They do, definitely, which is what I've said  But the type of cocker that is most true to type, if you look at the evidence, for me, has to be the working cockers that are bred to type, not the show cockers. I *personally* feel the show cockers have too much ear and coat, and too much focus is put on a dome shaped head, and that has caused problems in the past with one breed, let's hope this isn't going to be the case for cockers.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> But the photographs show otherwise, this is an original cocker spaniel champion
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right - you're changing the parameters! If you are going to show pics of working cockers that have been bred to type, then of course they are going to resemble the breed standard 

Looking at these latest two pics, if you imagine the show cocker with less coat, from what I can see of the working cocker, the working and the show cocker are actually very similar. Their skulls are similar in shape and their ears similar in length - so going on the head alone, I would say there's nothing between them and both of them have been bred to type. I can't see enough of the rest of the working cocker to assess his conformation, so can't comment on that, sorry, except to say that his back does not look as broad, but that just may be the camera angle.

However, the original point I made is that a lot of working cockers are not being bred to type - such as these, for example:




















Even without a trip to Specsavers I think we would both agree that these do not resemble the original cockers very much at all :lol:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Mumbles said:


> Though my Toodles is a working cocker and compared to the one you have shown his head shape is completely difference, Toodles has a much thinner nose and shorter ears and the ears look higher on his head. So they must vary a bit to how people have bred them.


This is the point I am trying to make - there are a lot of working cockers that have been bred away from standard - nothing wrong with that if that is what working breeders need them to be like.



Sleeping_Lion said:


> They do, definitely, which is what I've said  But the type of cocker that is most true to type, if you look at the evidence, for me, has to be the working cockers that are bred to type, not the show cockers. I *personally* feel the show cockers have too much ear and coat, and too much focus is put on a dome shaped head, and that has caused problems in the past with one breed, let's hope this isn't going to be the case for cockers.


I guess you mean cavs - isn't the problem there that the skull cavity is too small? In that case, it's more likely that producing working cockers with flatter and flatter skulls is actually not going to prove beneficial.


----------



## ratgal (Jul 14, 2010)

Hey people, I'm a HUGE cocker spaniel fan- absolutely love these dogs! We currently have this type of spaniel (see pic) but I have no idea what type it is...we were told by the breeder that it is a water spaniel but after a google search this turned out not to be true :blink: Can anyone help me out?


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I agree - he's definitely not a water spaniel. His head looks like a cocker, but his colouring is more like either a sussex spaniel or a field spaniel. Have you got a pic of him standing sideways on - it might be easier to tell from that.

Have a look on this link - if you type "spaniel" in the "breed name" box, it will list all the spaniel breeds and you can highlight each one and look at pics of them.

The Kennel Club


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Right - you're changing the parameters! If you are going to show pics of working cockers that have been bred to type, then of course they are going to resemble the breed standard
> 
> Looking at these latest two pics, if you imagine the show cocker with less coat, from what I can see of the working cocker, the working and the show cocker are actually very similar. Their skulls are similar in shape and their ears similar in length - so going on the head alone, I would say there's nothing between them and both of them have been bred to type. I can't see enough of the rest of the working cocker to assess his conformation, so can't comment on that, sorry, except to say that his back does not look as broad, but that just may be the camera angle.
> 
> ...


I'm not changing the parameters hun, even you admitted, you just googled for images, and really wouldn't know whether the person who bred that cocker, attempts to breed to type, or even thinks it's a good example of correct conformation. I know the lady who owns the cocker I posted a pic of, I think I'm right in saying he's at least a field trial winner, if not a FT CH, and I personally think, and I know I'm not alone, that this well bred working type cocker, is a closer resembling dog to the original cocker spaniel. Where as the show bred cocker, has been bred with a few exaggerated features, that make it look to *setterish* in it's head and ear set for me.



Carmez said:


> Hey people, I'm a HUGE cocker spaniel fan- absolutely love these dogs! We currently have this type of spaniel (see pic) but I have no idea what type it is...we were told by the breeder that it is a water spaniel but after a google search this turned out not to be true :blink: Can anyone help me out?


Irish water spaniels actually belong in the gundog retriever group, when competing at field trials, bizarrely, but your dog definitely looks like a cocker spaniel of the working variety.


----------



## ratgal (Jul 14, 2010)

Spellweaver said:


> I agree - he's definitely not a water spaniel. His head looks like a cocker, but his colouring is more like either a sussex spaniel or a field spaniel. Have you got a pic of him standing sideways on - it might be easier to tell from that.
> 
> Have a look on this link - if you type "spaniel" in the "breed name" box, it will list all the spaniel breeds and you can highlight each one and look at pics of them.
> 
> The Kennel Club


Here's some more pics and thanks, I will take a look at that link


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Carmez said:


> Here's some more pics and thanks, I will take a look at that link


Now he looks completely different on those pics to me, than the first one from the front. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a bit of either in there, but looks very much like a cocker still.

It is odd how some working breeds have split completely, and yet with others, the working type still do as well in the show ring.


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2011)

Ooooh sleepinglions post page three I think it is with the blue roan & tan show cocker is called Dylan :w00t: he's a stud from down south 

I have a show cocker and they are nothing like working cockers, looks wise or temperament!

To me the only thing they share is cocker in their name 

To look at, workers have much shorter ears, a lot finner furr, are a completely different shape, much slimmer longer legs and back & the ones I've met have more prominent eyes, set further apart with a much flatter head, not domed like show! Workers usually have high hunt drives, need a lot of stimulation and best suited to working/ agility / flyable etc (in my experience)

I've trimmed Hollys ears thismorning & I can tell you her feathers & ears are definitely not fine  two ears produced two large handfuls of dense furr! 

Edited to add! Above pics look very cocker spaniel to me, large show cocker I'd say! Maybe with something else in it!


----------



## ratgal (Jul 14, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Now he looks completely different on those pics to me, than the first one from the front. I wouldn't be surprised if he had a bit of either in there, but looks very much like a cocker still.
> 
> It is odd how some working breeds have split completely, and yet with others, the working type still do as well in the show ring.


I don't think cocker spaniel as my understanding of a cocker goes with the beidge curly hear on the head... I love those btw... will call this one simply spaniel lol


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

Yes Dylan is my boy, can I ask that you remove my picture please as you didn't ask permission to use it


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2011)

SharonM said:


> Yes Dylan is my boy, can I ask that you remove my picture please as you didn't ask permission to use it


I'm guessing the pic may have just been from a google search & google images! Not 100% may be worth googling to see as I think if it is anyone can use it, not 100% as I said 

Edited to add! Just had a quick look on google images and first page got 2 pics of him from Friday add & Dogs&puppies!

Mods please delete as appropriate as off topic : ))


----------



## SharonM (Mar 2, 2010)

Thanks Holly will take a look, had a pm on COL to tell me somebody had used pictures of my pups on their freeads for a litter they had, I did threaten legal action and the site owners removed them


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Carmez said:


> I don't think cocker spaniel as my understanding of a cocker goes with the beidge curly hear on the head... I love those btw... will call this one simply spaniel lol


he's definitely a cocker spaniel, looks like show type and probably pet bred. Cocker spaniels should have a smooth head, not curls. Their coat should be wavy and never curly. Your cocker spaniel looks exactly like the pet bred show type cockers I groom.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

SharonM said:


> Yes Dylan is my boy, can I ask that you remove my picture please as you didn't ask permission to use it


Done, although I can't remove them if anyone's quoted me and got the pics in there.



holly2009 said:


> I'm guessing the pic may have just been from a google search & google images! Not 100% may be worth googling to see as I think if it is anyone can use it, not 100% as I said
> 
> Edited to add! Just had a quick look on google images and first page got 2 pics of him from Friday add & Dogs&puppies!
> 
> Mods please delete as appropriate as off topic : ))


I don't know if that's the case, I think you can still retain copyright, but it all gets a little too complicated for me.



SharonM said:


> Thanks Holly will take a look, had a pm on COL to tell me somebody had used pictures of my pups on their freeads for a litter they had, I did threaten legal action and the site owners removed them


SharonM, absolutely no offence intended in the use of your pic, my own breed, Labs, is divided to an equal (some would say greater) extent, and it's a fascinating debate, one that I love to have, and can see both sides. Spellweaver and I have had many a debate about this and other topics before, and although we may not agree, we at least agree to differ in the nicest way. I do understand your concerns about people possibly using the pics, it's happened to more than one friend of mine for the same reasons you stated.

And, welcome to the forum btw. Pics of any cockers are always welcome, although I am biased towards the working side of things, it doesn't mean I don't enjoy seeing pics of all of them


----------



## Guest (Jun 27, 2011)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> he's definitely a cocker spaniel, looks like show type and probably pet bred. Cocker spaniels should have a smooth head, not curls. Their coat should be wavy and never curly. Your cocker spaniel looks exactly like the pet bred show type cockers I groom.


Ugh! Smooth head!?!....if stripped or shaved yes....If left some show cockers have very curly heads! 
I've seen tonnes or curly cockers especially once spayed/ neutered, or if they are shaved regularly then left for the full coat to return!


----------



## kirksandallchins (Nov 3, 2007)

To me feathering means light and floaty - not thick and heavy or overlong.

I assume the Cocker Spaniel standard has not changed much over the last 100 years, and to me this is what their coat should look like - and as this dog was BIS at Crufts twice I assume she was considered a good speciment 

If shown nowadays she would get marked down for lack of coat

Google Image Result for http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/39/3904/3KFXF00Z/art-print/tracey-witch-of-ware-breed.jpg


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

If you mix working types with show types you don't know what they are going to look like, I have seen a few photos and they seem to be longer in the back than show types.

Here is my girl, I think she looks more like the older photos of cockers, her coat isn't as long as it looks :001_smile:.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Cay said:


> If you mix working types with show types you don't know what they are going to look like, I have seen a few photos and they seem to be longer in the back than show types.
> 
> Here is my girl, I think she looks more like the older photos of cockers, her coat isn't as long as it looks :001_smile:.


Lovely pic, thanks for posting 

Can I just ask, as an artist, I'm used to measuring dimensions of animals using my finger and comparing them to different aspects of the animal to ensure I get the pic right. If I physically measure your girl's ears, they look, to me, like they would reach past the end of her nose. Is that the case or is it some sort of deceptive appearance??


----------



## SpringerHusky (Nov 6, 2008)

Springers are also in the same group of huge difference between working and show

Show type









Working









1903 Springer









and Then we have Barney, someone decided crossing show and working together would be a good idea (not that it's -so- bad but not the best idea)

























A very handsome lad but the way he looked still makes me laugh, a short stocky dog. He was fairly calm but ready to go anytime I wanted and his coat never grew very long. His head and feet always looked too big for his body :lol:


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Oscar is just a mammouth unclipped. The groomer maintains he has the heaviest coat of any cocker she has groomed.

Having said that even he gets through a remarkable density of scrub with no problem at all, i dont believe a working cocker goes through anything more dense.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

RAINYBOW said:


> Oscar is just a mammouth unclipped. The groomer maintains he has the heaviest coat of any cocker she has groomed.
> 
> Having said that even he gets through a remarkable density of scrub with no problem at all, i dont believe a working cocker goes through anything more dense.


Ths was part of my original point - some people denigrate show cockers because of their coat, when in fact the breed was originally much more denser coated than today's working cockers. Now I don't work cockers, but as I said in my first post, it does amuse me that suddenly a denser coat is now not suitable, despite the fact that it was suitable for many years.  How many comments do we see on here such as:



SEVEN_PETS said:


> Show cocker's coat would get tangled in brambles in an instant, so I don't see why show cockers have the heavy coat? It's obviously not "fit for function", as a champion show cocker couldn't work in the same conditions as a working cocker.


when in fact those of us who have, or have had, show-type cockers know the opposite to be true.

(Sorry to single you out Seven Pets, I know you're not the only person who said this but you stuck in my mind because of our discussion about grooming!)


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Lovely pic, thanks for posting
> 
> Can I just ask, as an artist, I'm used to measuring dimensions of animals using my finger and comparing them to different aspects of the animal to ensure I get the pic right. If I physically measure your girl's ears, they look, to me, like they would reach past the end of her nose. Is that the case or is it some sort of deceptive appearance??


Her ear hair is quite long it's the main bit we have to trim, her body has barely been trimmed in 5 years. Her ears are the correct length they just look long .


----------



## Malmum (Aug 1, 2010)

Only read the first two pages but the working cocker looks so much nicer than the show cocker imo - but then that goes for a lot of working dogs. Mals both work and show so not a great deal of difference in that breed.


----------



## Taylorbaby (Jan 10, 2009)

wow what a difference! I must say from the cockers/springers in this thread (and GSDS!!!) I prefer the working for all of them!

do all breeds have a seperate working / show breed look then? 
never raelly thought about it before, I was always told that personality wise show dogs would be more laidback? But never thought about looks!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Taylorbaby said:


> wow what a difference! I must say from the cockers/springers in this thread (and GSDS!!!) I prefer the working for all of them!
> 
> do all breeds have a seperate working / show breed look then?
> never raelly thought about it before, I was always told that personality wise show dogs would be more laidback? But never thought about looks!


I'm off on a long and boring day in a meeting in a hotel in Leeds, bonus is a free lunch, but will try and post the differences between Labs when I get back, possibly in a new thread.

The thing for me is, you have to bear in mind what a dog was bred for, and with the conformation of a spaniel, the movement is so important to anyone who competes with or works their dogs. Springers and cockers have very different movement; what the show ring does, is produce dogs that to me, don't look right because of how they are stacked, but then who's to say when they get them home they don't show the same movement? It'd be interesting to see. The coat issue is a huge issue for me, and I'm not as keen on the head and ears, as I've said; those three things are the main differences I see, and they do have huge bearing on how well the dog can work. If you take a look at clumber and sussex spaniels, these were bred to be heavier spaniels, not bred as much for speed, but to keep their head down through thick cover. But the one thing that is obviousl, is that all the cockers shown look to be happy, healthy individuals, who enjoy whatever it is they're involved with, it's just that the showing bit is not particularly my cup of tea *entirely*, although if I ever had the time I'd love to go and get involved with the game keepers ring at crufts, helping out or just as a spectator, and who knows in the future.

Now Labs, that'll get a debate going


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> Ths was part of my original point - some people denigrate show cockers because of their coat, when in fact the breed was originally much more denser coated than today's working cockers. Now I don't work cockers, but as I said in my first post, it does amuse me that suddenly a denser coat is now not suitable, despite the fact that it was suitable for many years.  How many comments do we see on here such as:
> 
> when in fact those of us who have, or have had, show-type cockers know the opposite to be true.
> 
> (Sorry to single you out Seven Pets, I know you're not the only person who said this but you stuck in my mind because of our discussion about grooming!)


I actually keep Oscar clipped because he hates being brushed and brings in so much filth but i have never considered clipping him because he cant get through the scrub, its just never been an issue for him.

Also i noticed yesterday he does cope extrememly well with the high temperatures we have currently and alot of that is to do with his coat


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

The most recent dual champion cocker as far as I know is Speckle of Ardoon who's a cross between a show type and working type Ardoon Gundogs.

I know of breeders who have used working cockers to get colours and the dogs seem to have a roach back and are very leggy .


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Cay said:


> The most recent dual champion cocker as far as I know is Speckle of Ardoon who's a cross between a show type and working type Ardoon Gundogs.
> 
> I know of breeders who have used working cockers to get colours and the dogs seem to have a roach back and are very leggy .


So this you find acceptable as it is the crossing of two strains as opposed to crossbreeding which you hate as it is the crossing of two breeds?

Whilst they are the same breed the two strains are very different both in looks and temperament- so in some ways they are comparable to being different breeds.

If people on this forum as wanting to keep their dogs pure and true to breed then IMO I think that it should also apply to not mixing the two strains.

Unless of course there are some double standards here and you don't mind some elements of crossbreeding


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

Must admit with CL, what's the difference?

Both bred for different things, both look different, different temperaments...so why is it ok to cross them when so many people on this thread are anti cross breeding.


----------



## babycham2002 (Oct 18, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I'm off on a long and boring day in a meeting in a hotel in Leeds, bonus is a free lunch, but will try and post the differences between Labs when I get back, possibly in a new thread.
> 
> The thing for me is, you have to bear in mind what a dog was bred for, and with the conformation of a spaniel, the movement is so important to anyone who competes with or works their dogs. Springers and cockers have very different movement; what the show ring does, is produce dogs that to me, don't look right because of how they are stacked, but then who's to say when they get them home they don't show the same movement? It'd be interesting to see. The coat issue is a huge issue for me, and I'm not as keen on the head and ears, as I've said; those three things are the main differences I see, and they do have huge bearing on how well the dog can work. If you take a look at clumber and sussex spaniels, these were bred to be heavier spaniels, not bred as much for speed, but to keep their head down through thick cover. But the one thing that is obviousl, is that all the cockers shown look to be happy, healthy individuals, who enjoy whatever it is they're involved with, it's just that the showing bit is not particularly my cup of tea *entirely*, although if I ever had the time I'd love to go and get involved with the game keepers ring at crufts, helping out or just as a spectator, and who knows in the future.
> 
> Now Labs, that'll get a debate going


Looking foward to it 
This has been a fascinating topic.
Not one that comes up often but is still a difference is the different types we have in golden retrievers. 
Another fascinating difference is between english goldens and american goldens.


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> So this you find acceptable as it is the crossing of two strains as opposed to crossbreeding which you hate as it is the crossing of two breeds?
> 
> Whilst they are the same breed the two strains are very different both in looks and temperament- so in some ways they are comparable to being different breeds.
> 
> ...


I have said I'm against mixing the two types already as they are so different now, here's my post http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/171365-there-ever-reason-cross-breed-63.html#post1061177566.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Cay said:


> I have said I'm against mixing the two types already as they are so different now, here's my post http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/171365-there-ever-reason-cross-breed-63.html#post1061177566.


Sorry Cay so you did- so many posts on the subject can't remember them all.

Would be interesting to see others opinions on whether crossing a working cocker with a show is more acceptable in their view in connection to the whole anti-crossbreeding debates that go on on this forum.???


----------



## Cay (Jun 22, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sorry Cay so you did- so many posts on the subject can't remember them all.
> 
> Would be interesting to see others opinions on whether crossing a working cocker with a show is more acceptable in their view in connection to the whole anti-crossbreeding debates that go on on this forum.???


No problem.

I don't see as much difference between working type and show type Labradors but then I don't know the finer points so i wouldn't want to say they are similar :001_unsure:


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sorry Cay so you did- so many posts on the subject can't remember them all.
> 
> Would be interesting to see others opinions on whether crossing a working cocker with a show is more acceptable in their view in connection to the whole anti-crossbreeding debates that go on on this forum.???


I personally cannot see either sense or reason in crossing the two - but then I'm coming from the show cocker side and, as I've argued on here already, I feel the working side is the one that has deviated from the original. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, however, working cockers and show cockers share the same genetic history, so breeding from the two is not really crossbreeding, is it? It's vastly different from crossing two entirely separate breeds.


----------



## dexter (Nov 29, 2008)

Cockerpoo lover said:


> Sorry Cay so you did- so many posts on the subject can't remember them all.
> 
> Would be interesting to see others opinions on whether crossing a working cocker with a show is more acceptable in their view in connection to the whole anti-crossbreeding debates that go on on this forum.???


 and i only asked for a picture of the cross lol


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> I personally cannot see either sense or reason in crossing the two - but then I'm coming from the show cocker side and, as I've argued on here already, I feel the working side is the one that has deviated from the original. Whether or not you agree with that opinion, however, working cockers and show cockers share the same genetic history, so breeding from the two is not really crossbreeding, is it? It's vastly different from crossing two entirely separate breeds.


Yes it is different but comparable. 

If you are crossing two strains which are different in looks and temperament then you are diluting one strain. It cannot therefore be classed as a show or working as it is bred from both strains so what is called then- a show cocker X working cocker. So a cross then 

Otherwise why are there two strains? why not just one cocker.

So a distinction has been made between a working cocker and Show cocker.

It may not be crossbreeding so let's call it cross-straining then 

Either way it's still crossing two dogs that have physical differences and temperaments.

So to the others who are against crossbreeding- you all say dogs should be bred for a purpose so what is the purpose of crossing two strains of cocker?


----------



## jo5 (Jun 22, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> Must admit with CL, what's the difference?
> 
> Both bred for different things, both look different, different temperaments...so why is it ok to cross them when so many people on this thread are anti cross breeding.


Sorry to but in on your thread being a newbie and all that, I have 2 Show Type Cockers and I like most of the Cocker owners I know (which is a LOT ) do not believe in mixing the 2 strains. Why they have become so distinct is beyond my tiny mind but the fact is they have. Neither do I believe that workers should be bred for pet homes as they are a different kettle of fish personality wise too. If you are into Gun dog training, trialing etc fine but otherwise leave the workers to those who work. I am a member of another Cocker forum and the problems with workers in pet homes is far too prevalent.
I would also say that I didn't know there were 2 strains until I joined the forum which luckily for me was before I had my first pup. A lot of people end up with a working strain or a cross between the 2 withouit realising what exactly they have got. As we have already seen there is a world of difference between the 2 looks and personality wise, to end up with the wrong type can spell disaster and dissapointment. I see no benefit to crossing the 2 and it is not recommended by ethical breeders
Sorry didn't answre CLs question,
I don't agree with crossbreeding at all , sorry but thats my opinion, neither do I agree with the crossing of the 2 strains and as I said its not really 'acceptable' amongst ethical breeders as as you say it serves no purpose. There will come a time when the 2 strains will be seperated into different breeds, I have no doubt about that, but until they are, a cross between the 2 is still a KC registrationable Cocker Spaniel. The fundamental difference though is that they are the same breed , A Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle are worlds apart in temprament, coat, colours etc so really not the same thing at all, although I am sure you will disagree.


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

I don't see anything wrong with crossbreeding certain mixes. This mix is better than some (such as bulldog x cav for example, which is just totally wrong IMO). 

Some people can handle a working cocker in a pet home. Maybe they like the show cocker look and want to mix the two. Who are we to stop them? Obviously if they were looking for specific things from both strains (ie working temperament, show look), then they'd have to pick their pup carefully from the litter, but I don't see an issue with it.


----------



## Horse and Hound (May 12, 2010)

SEVEN_PETS said:


> I don't see anything wrong with crossbreeding certain mixes. This mix is better than some (such as bulldog x cav for example, which is just totally wrong IMO).
> 
> Some people can handle a working cocker in a pet home. Maybe they like the show cocker look and want to mix the two. Who are we to stop them? Obviously if they were looking for specific things from both strains (ie working temperament, show look), then they'd have to pick their pup carefully from the litter, but I don't see an issue with it.


I don't have any issues with crossbreeding at all, providing it is done responsibly etc (as I'm sure you've seen the debates...) just curious as to what people think about "cross straining" as we'll dub it.

Curve ball, what about long haired x short haired Chi's? Or Powderpuff x hairless Chinese Crested?

Seriously, I'm interested.


----------



## RAINYBOW (Aug 27, 2009)

Have to say i agree with the whole thing about working dogs in pet homes. Clearly there will be some pet homes that are perfectly suited to a working dog but most 2.4 children family pet homes aren't. The same goes for Cockers as Labs and Collies IMO.

It is often a reason why these breeds are rehomes. "haven't got the tine they need" generally translates to "they are trashing my house and i have run out of time and knowledge" 

I would not have bought a working strain.


----------



## Cockerpoo lover (Oct 15, 2009)

jo5 said:


> Sorry to but in on your thread being a newbie and all that, I have 2 Show Type Cockers and I like most of the Cocker owners I know (which is a LOT ) do not believe in mixing the 2 strains. Why they have become so distinct is beyond my tiny mind but the fact is they have. Neither do I believe that workers should be bred for pet homes as they are a different kettle of fish personality wise too. If you are into Gun dog training, trialing etc fine but otherwise leave the workers to those who work. I am a member of another Cocker forum and the problems with workers in pet homes is far too prevalent.
> I would also say that I didn't know there were 2 strains until I joined the forum which luckily for me was before I had my first pup. A lot of people end up with a working strain or a cross between the 2 withouit realising what exactly they have got. As we have already seen there is a world of difference between the 2 looks and personality wise, to end up with the wrong type can spell disaster and dissapointment. I see no benefit to crossing the 2 and it is not recommended by ethical breeders
> 
> Sorry didn't answre CLs question,
> I don't agree with crossbreeding at all , sorry but thats my opinion, neither do I agree with the crossing of the 2 strains and as I said its not really 'acceptable' amongst ethical breeders as as you say it serves no purpose. There will come a time when the 2 strains will be seperated into different breeds, I have no doubt about that, but until they are, a cross between the 2 is still a KC registrationable Cocker Spaniel. The fundamental difference though is that they are the same breed , A Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle are worlds apart in temprament, coat, colours etc so really not the same thing at all, although I am sure you will disagree.


Hello and welcome and you are not butting in!!
We all have different opinions on crossbreeding and if people don't like it I don't have a problem with it.

I just don't agree with some unproven comments or stereotyping and sweeping judgements that get spouted time and time again on this forum.
( not on this thread).

As I have said I know it's different hence why I coined the phrase cross-straining.
Though you have said yourself that the two strains will go into 2 different breeds one day so it's a fine line at present.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

jo5 said:


> Sorry to but in on your thread being a newbie and all that, I have 2 Show Type Cockers and I like most of the Cocker owners I know (which is a LOT ) do not believe in mixing the 2 strains. Why they have become so distinct is beyond my tiny mind but the fact is they have. Neither do I believe that workers should be bred for pet homes as they are a different kettle of fish personality wise too. If you are into Gun dog training, trialing etc fine but otherwise leave the workers to those who work. I am a member of another Cocker forum and the problems with workers in pet homes is far too prevalent.
> I would also say that I didn't know there were 2 strains until I joined the forum which luckily for me was before I had my first pup. A lot of people end up with a working strain or a cross between the 2 withouit realising what exactly they have got. As we have already seen there is a world of difference between the 2 looks and personality wise, to end up with the wrong type can spell disaster and dissapointment. I see no benefit to crossing the 2 and it is not recommended by ethical breeders
> Sorry didn't answre CLs question,
> I don't agree with crossbreeding at all , sorry but thats my opinion, neither do I agree with the crossing of the 2 strains and as I said its not really 'acceptable' amongst ethical breeders as as you say it serves no purpose. There will come a time when the 2 strains will be seperated into different breeds, I have no doubt about that, but until they are, a cross between the 2 is still a KC registrationable Cocker Spaniel. The fundamental difference though is that they are the same breed , A Cocker Spaniel and a Poodle are worlds apart in temprament, coat, colours etc so really not the same thing at all, although I am sure you will disagree.


Welcome to the forum first off, and apols, as I don't want to pick on you, and I promise I'm not, but your statement (for me) really shows the problem with any breed that has a division between the show and working side. For me, the breed should always be able to do what it was bred for, looks shouldn't be at the expense of ability, because that is where you open a breed up to exaggerations.

So, for example, I know I've mentioned the ears on cockers, one of my bug bears, because, the longer they are, the more likely they are to become tangled up, even trodden on, and full of all sorts of burrs, thorns and twigs. If your cocker has ever disappeared into a hedgerow for a few mins, you'll know what I mean, so imagine a dog doing that for a full days' work. So for me, although the breed standard calls for "Lobular, set low on a level with eyes. Fine leathers extending to nose tip. Well clothed with long, straight silky hair", that should not be to the extent that it is a problem for the dog working. So longer and longer ears, with longer hair that needs trimming, shouldn't be bred for, I hope that makes sense? I'd prefer the ears slightly shorter, than too long, but that's me 

The other thing I find is this misconception that all working bred dogs are excocet missiles, and other dogs aren't. Some of the nuttiest dogs without an off switch I know, are those from breeders who haven't considered temperament, ie byb, puppy farmers, and poor pet breeders. If you want a dog that sits on your knee, get a toy breed, not a working breed, and don't take the working out of a breed to make them lap dogs. Both my Labs will happily sit on my knee, not that either of mine have much working breeding in them at all, but pretty much any dogs I've met out on shoots or at competitions, will try and sit on your or as near to you as possible, so all are *companionable*, and working dogs need to be steady, so do have an off switch, although I'll add the proviso here that some lines are undoubtedly hotter than others, but that is down to the research of the breeder/prospective puppy buyer, on the one hand to ensure the type of dogs they're breeding are suitable for where they're going, and on the other, to ensure they are buying from stock that will give them the best chance of what they want.


----------



## comfortcreature (Oct 11, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> . . . If you want a dog that sits on your knee, get a toy breed, not a working breed, and don't take the working out of a breed to make them lap dogs. . . . .


Totally agree.

This is why I have small dogs bred as companions, and am resolved to just admire (greatly) the working dogs. I was brought up with a great respect for their role.

CC


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

comfortcreature said:


> Totally agree.
> 
> This is why I have small dogs bred as companions, and am resolved to just admire (greatly) the working dogs. I was brought up with a great respect for their role.
> 
> CC


I'm chuckling away, after my *success* with Miggin, the cocker I looked after for the first few months of his life, I'll be repeating the process again in a month or so, for the same person. So watch this space, I may yet be converted to lap dogs, or just stick to the chocolate numpties for the forseeable future. Once may have just been lucky


----------



## Tollisty (May 27, 2008)

and this is the reason I don't ever want tollers to get CC's!!!

They will become just flashy show dogs :cryin: . 

At the moment there is no split and the majority of show dogs also compete in another activity, agility, obedience, gundog work, etc. Most tollers are 'gundog trained' even though they will never actually work. It's one of the big toller puppy moments, the first dummy retrieve


----------



## SEVEN_PETS (Aug 11, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So, for example, I know I've mentioned the ears on cockers, one of my bug bears, because, the longer they are, the more likely they are to become tangled up, even trodden on, and full of all sorts of burrs, thorns and twigs. If your cocker has ever disappeared into a hedgerow for a few mins, you'll know what I mean, so imagine a dog doing that for a full days' work. So for me, although the breed standard calls for "Lobular, set low on a level with eyes. Fine leathers extending to nose tip. Well clothed with long, straight silky hair", that should not be to the extent that it is a problem for the dog working. So longer and longer ears, with longer hair that needs trimming, shouldn't be bred for, I hope that makes sense? I'd prefer the ears slightly shorter, than too long, but that's me


totally agree. even my cocker treads on his ears if they get too long and that's not even with them reaching his nose tip. I keep them short to the ear leather, otherwise he treads on them when tracking a scent. So long, feathery ears are just not practical for a working dog, which is probably the reason why working cockers have such short ears with little feathering.

And just because the "breed standard" states that the ears should be that way, doesn't mean its right. IMO the working types are bred to work, so obviously the working breeders are breeding a dog for ability but also for practicality. They are not going to breed a long coat because it is just not practical. So why are show cockers being bred with long coats when clearly it is not suitable for their function?


----------



## springfieldbean (Sep 13, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> These are from Pietoro's helpful album showing historical pics of dogs
> 
> There aren't that many photos of working types, that I think show how some of the folk who breed them do care they remain true to their origins, but here's one, they're also bl**dy difficult to keep still :lol:
> 
> ...


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

This dog is direct from a farm in the wilds of the Welsh/English border, both parents were working. The dam was as soppy: I think nature rather than nurture.










The pups are similar in that they are total lap dogs, but working (pet bred, though) not show type.


----------



## gladass (Jan 6, 2011)

Horse and Hound said:


> I don't have any issues with crossbreeding at all, providing it is done responsibly etc (as I'm sure you've seen the debates...) just curious as to what people think about "cross straining" as we'll dub it.
> 
> Curve ball, what about long haired x short haired Chi's? Or Powderpuff x hairless Chinese Crested?
> 
> Seriously, I'm interested.


The Powderpuff and Hairless I believe are actually born in the same litter. Hairless carry the hairless gene. Powderpuff x powderpuff, hairless x hairless and hairless x powderpuff is already being done as they are not a seperate "strain"


----------



## haeveymolly (Mar 7, 2009)

Back tracking a little to the comments on working springers or cockers in pet homes. i really cant see the problem, ive had 3 working springers have 2 now and a working cocker and i dont find them hard at all, all ours are walked twice a day, they have travelled hours in the car over the years, we take them with us on holiday spend time outside the caravan chilling like any other breed on the site. The only difference ive found to most other breeds is when they are let off they GO!!!  get the right type of exercise and are happy then to come back and chill.
I know 2 people around us with show cockers and there is no difference whatsoever to their needs as i can see, you would not pick ours out as a working and theirs the show, maybe thinking about it tho the working might just have the edge on the show as in stamina.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

haeveymolly said:


> Back tracking a little to the comments on working springers or cockers in pet homes. i really cant see the problem, ive had 3 working springers have 2 now and a working cocker and i dont find them hard at all, all ours are walked twice a day, they have travelled hours in the car over the years, we take them with us on holiday spend time outside the caravan chilling like any other breed on the site. The only difference ive found to most other breeds is when they are let off they GO!!!  get the right type of exercise and are happy then to come back and chill.
> I know 2 people around us with show cockers and there is no difference whatsoever to their needs as i can see, you would not pick ours out as a working and theirs the show, maybe thinking about it tho the working might just have the edge on the show as in stamina.


I think the difference is, people buy a gundog, expecting it not to want to run around and flush game etc, where as if you go in with a bit of an expectation of what they may well be like, you won't be that surprised for example, if you can't quite get a recall going, and they like getting their nose down and b*ggering off over the horizon. Where as if you think a cocker is a little lap dog and doesn't need any mental stimulation at al, you may well be surprised


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think the difference is, people buy a gundog, expecting it not to want to run around and flush game etc, where as if you go in with a bit of an expectation of what they may well be like, you won't be that surprised for example, if you can't quite get a recall going, and they like getting their nose down and b*ggering off over the horizon. Where as if you think a cocker is a little lap dog and doesn't need any mental stimulation at al, you may well be surprised


But that's the same whether you buy show lines or working lines  My show line cockers would just get their nose down and into the brush, becoming selectively deaf to all calls of "here!" - and I gave up totally on expecting them to do things like retrieve tennis balls. They would run after it, pick it up, then carry it with them as they continued forwards!


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Spellweaver said:


> But that's the same whether you buy show lines or working lines  My show line cockers would just get their nose down and into the brush, becoming selectively deaf to all calls of "here!" - and I gave up totally on expecting them to do things like retrieve tennis balls. They would run after it, pick it up, then carry it with them as they continued forwards!


I haven't said it can't be the case, but I do feel strongly that the ability should be part of any working gundog when breeding, and certainly shouldn't be bred out on purpose  What I am saying is that if you want a lapdog, don't get a dog that's bred to flush game and needs mental stimulation, or if you do, then expect to do *something* with it in the way of training, or you may end up with a dog (and owner) that isn't particularly happy.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

I think routine, training and habit are very important. Brig will go all day (6 hour mountain walk in the Lakes or will do an hour in the woods or less, then snuggle up on my knee or his bed and not be a trauma. It took the pups a little while to settle, they're still full of energy, but they don't work or get huge walks yet (Zak won't ever, obviously) but they're fine, not nutty spaniels.


----------

