Crufts 'gundogs'

[Springfield Pointers]

what would do them any favours for bettering a gundog breed?

MG

For starters, selecting dogs to breed from based on the correct criteria. Selection of working bird dogs based on conformation alone was always going to go nowhere.

[Judy]

As SP with the addition of saying selection for work abilities and good conformation. Not for conforming to a breed standard but conformation as in dogs which have their bits in the right places, good angulation etc.

[trekmoor]

I bought work bred lab pups from 4 different sources and had no problems with working them. Every one of them was slightly different in physical "type" but they were all very healthy. None of them could have won a booby prize in a showring but that isn't what I wanted them for anyway ....presumably the show folk feel the same way but in reverse ?

Years ago I watched as a show bred lab gained it's K.C. working certificate . It was a farce. The dog was brought out at lunchtime during a field trial and the handler was told to sit it "there." With this big fat lump of a dog now sitting a shot was fired and a pheasant, shot that day but now cold, was thrown onto shortish grass a few yards (very few yards!) from the dog and handler. The dog was sent to retrieve it so it ambled out, picked up the bird and ambled back again with it.

That was it. The dog gained it's coveted "working certificate" or whatever they call it and no doubt gained some stud fees on the strength of that certificate. I wouldn't have kept that dog if it had fell out of a Xmas cracker.

A few years ago I described that dogs performance to a show person and remarked that the Certificate's equivalent for a work bred lab should be that it walks once around a show ring and is given a conformation prize. The dog show fan was not amused but I still think there was a lot of truth in what I'd said.

Sorry to see the Flatcoat breed go downhill as a worker. I have seen some very good flatcoats working on shoots but not for a very long time now.

Among the H.P.R. breeds one or two of the breeds seem to be splitting into "bred for work" OR " bred for show." The difference in performance between the two "types" out in the field is sometimes very marked. They still look much the same...to me anyway....but the show bred dogs lack "go."

Wullie

[Springfield Pointers]

I've witnessed a few show bred gawpers creeping from false gawp to false gawp, with no aptitude for wind, direction or range. Their owners proudly taking photos.

Smile and wave, what else does one do?

[Megsdad]

I think of this sketch every time someone mentions dog shows.
Put your drink down before playing it.

http://youtu.be/wx0lgwUFMJk

[Geoffer]

Many a true word spoken in jest!!

[Tarimoor]

I've *discussed* show vs working a few times on a Labrador forum over the years, and to be fair, it usually ends up that there are faults on both sides. I've seen working bred Labradors at a trial that have collie *type* ears, ie pointy, and yep, I've seen plenty of obese, short legged, loopy show bred Labradors. I've got one half asleep on my shoulder at the moment, hopefully not too obese or short legged, but definitely a different temperament to working bred dogs. Her sire, is (apparently) worked on a shoot, although I have my doubts about the frequency, and as it only takes 7 generations to lose ability I am convinced from my own experience that those who only show their dogs do not understand fully *how* they work and more importantly, what they are possibly losing from the breed. But conversely, *some* working people do not understand conformation and breed dogs that despite poor build, will work because the instinct is in there, but are more prone to risk of injuries because of how they are built, and/or simply do not look like the dog they were bred to be.

I didn't like the Labrador the last time it got RBIS, I think the Am Cocker people are kidding themselves if they *think* they are breeding towards a better type of working dog, when they are patently breeding away from anything functional. I've seen the videos of the working Am cocker posted on here, which I think are fabulous, but how much better would that dog work if it resembled the old *type* of American cocker, which pretty much resembled a cocker.

Flatcoats are definitely split, but there are dual purpose kennels still, I know there were a few Varingo dogs in the line up for the breed rings and a few other dogs that were definitely worked. That said, out of all the flatcoats entered, so that must be a good couple of hundred dogs, in the gamekeeper's ring there were only nine present in the bitch class, and I am reliably informed not all of them were worked.

Liked the radio clip, thought it was spot on!

[crackerd]

I've *discussed* show vs working a few times on a Labrador forum over the years, and to be fair, it usually ends up that there are faults on both sides.

Like ol' Shake'n Bake famously said, "The playing's the thing." Playing is working for gundogs. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but working's on full view for all to see, wherever and whatever that work is. And I don't see a whole lot of faults with Labs in that particular realm.

MG

[Tarimoor]

I've *discussed* show vs working a few times on a Labrador forum over the years, and to be fair, it usually ends up that there are faults on both sides.

Like ol' Shake'n Bake famously said, "The playing's the thing." Playing is working for gundogs. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but working's on full view for all to see, wherever and whatever that work is. And I don't see a whole lot of faults with Labs in that particular realm.

MG

Some folk swear by their working sprocker, or springador, there are no breed standards for these dogs, and yes, they can work, but does that make them a better sprocker, or springador? Old breed standards are often descriptive of the function of the dog, as well as the general comments for shape, and even size.

This is taken from the AKC book of breed standards in 1947 -









And the accompanying photographs, including for both the Cocker and English Cocker







Out of interest, I wonder if any of the Labradors in the US show ring are even near the ideal weight given in 1947? I would hazard a guess that they are heavier these days.

But back to the point, if you are passionate about a particular breed, for me, it's not a case of style over substance, or substance over style, it's a balance of both. There's no point in owning a Labrador that looks like a collie cross, and boasting that it works better than a Labrador that is the epitome of the current fashion trend in the show ring. The same goes for any working breed, but unfortunately some are irretrievably split down the middle, and I don't think there will ever be a day where there is a dual champion in most gundog breeds.

[Naj]

The problem with comparing show & working lines is that we can all look back at breed photos from the past in wonderment (how many modern show dogs still look the same?) but both camps have moved forward through competitive & commercial pressure. I saw my first cocker trial (and my first working cocker) around 1970 and at a period when the breed was in the doldrums with weak hunters & poor retrieving and what an odd bunch they looked. The standard of handling was also generally abysmal, & that was as compared to springers, where it wasn't much better. Contrast that with today & the cocker looks a different animal in both form & function, & much of that meteoric rise has only come about over the last 15 years. Look back in 20 years time & we'll still be having this argument in one form or another. C'est la vie!

Naj