Another question about breed standards?

Question

If breed standards exist to ensure that the dog is able to perform whatever job they were originally bred to do, why do the "show" and working lines often look so different?

Answer 1

That is an EXCELLENT question. The breed standards were abondoned a long time a go by some people because show animals are worth a lot of money compare working line dogs.

Working dogs are bred for working purposes and show dogs dogs are bred for what pleases the eye.

I could go on here, but, I am a little busy and I will add more as I see fit!

Answer 2

Because just like in anything there are those that tend towards the extreme at either end of the spectrum.  The ideal the standard refers to is of a dog that could do the job it had and look good while doing it in it's country of origin.  When the breeds started expanding outside of those borders there were some that wanted a dog that could do more based on the working conditions where they lived (larger more open tracts of land, livestock that were more scattered, different 'game', etc) so they started selecting offspring that had more run, more size, were smaller - whatever their conditions required - then as others saw what great working dogs these were (based on the ancestors genes and not necessarily on the new look) they wanted one just like it and breeding away from the standard became more the norm in that group.

We have a sporting breed that does well in the ring and puts in a full day of work with my husband during hunting season.  Thankfully there are several others who do the same with their dogs.

The above is a very over simplified view.

Answer 3

Showing is about looks, and trends, even for working breeds and those dogs which belong to owners who exercise them accordance with their original jobs. The show lines are different to working lines usually, and really the only people who breed a dog which is adept at its traditional role is a person that actually works them, not just to keep the dog happy but as their hobby or their pastime, e.g people who go hunting, Police dog handlers etc. They will sacrifice looks and end up with a dog with a boring coat colour, or an imperfect topline if it is the best worker. People in the show ring breed winners, and they win on looks, so even if they do an ok job of say herding or guarding like they were supposed to do they're not as good or as sturdy or athletic as their true working counterparts.

  

Answer 4

Primarily because 'working' dog people don't know or care about structural capabilities.  I know a lot of 'show' people that also 'work' their dogs but hardly any 'working' people who show or know what their breed standard even is.   The standard is set up as a blueprint for OPTIMAL structure to perform their work.  Any dog can, if trained correctly, perform most any work but for a dog to OPTIMALLY perform it and be less likely to break down, specific structure is needed.  Yes, a 'working' line dog that is meant to run and jump over obstacles CAN have soft pasterns and a sloppy top line and straight angles and still be able to do what is demanded of them, at least for a while, but it will suffer from the lack of proper shock absorbing capabilities from the proper angled pastern and can suffer injuries and break down from spinal issues as well as not be capable of doing their job AS WELL as a dog that is structurally sound.  

I have both 'lines' and my 'show' line dog can do as good in her duties as my 'working' line dog but the 'show' line one can make tighter turns and not slide out and can cover ground better and a number of things than the 'working' line one.   People use these sorts of 'descriptions' in some attempt to sell their dogs to people who don't know any better.  A GOOD breeder breeds for the ENTIRE dog not just some part that happens to make their egos inflate.

Add:  It is obvious there are some people who are limited enough to think that one is mutually exclusive of the other -- sad but I have only found that coming from ONE side of the coin :)   It is sad that some people can't do more than one thing at a time.  It really isn't that much more difficult to care about the ENTIRE dog ... health, temperament, breed type and structural soundness.

Answer 5

There are a few possibilities, depending on the breed involved.

One is that the show breeders are not actually FOLLOWING the standard. For example, the American Cocker Spaniel standard states: "The ears, chest, abdomen and legs are well feathered, but not so excessively as to hide the Cocker Spaniel's true lines and movement or affect his appearance and function as a moderately coated sporting dog."  This is a clear case of breeders NOT following the standard.  This tends to occur in the extremely popular breeds, because the majority of breeders in these breeds are only in it for a very short time and there is not the heavy percentage of long-time, knowledgable breeders that there would be in less popular breeds.  The other problem with very popular breeds is that the majority of breeders/owners have never actually seen their breed working in the field, and don't have a good understanding of what is required of the dog.  This is one reason why many breed clubs stress education on the history and purpose of the breed.

Another reason is because often the field breeders are interested only in how well a dog performs.  I've seen some pretty unsound specimens that run on "heart" alone.  But imagine how well that same dog could do if he were conformationally sound.  Again, this tends to be more of a problem with more popular breeds.  Good breeders will consider the WHOLE dog, not just a facet.

There is also the fact that in many cases the original job has changed.  Hunting in different terrain, or hunting different game, changes the requirements for the dog.  In the case of the Afghan Hound, hunting snow leopards in the mountains of Afghanistan is a whole different thing than chasing a real or artificial bunny in a field in the US.

On the west coast, a number of Basset Hound kennels are getting together to prove that a Basset can be conformationally correct AND a good hunter, and they have produced many Dual (show and field) Champions already.

Answer 6

Working dogs are bred from dogs who are good at the job they are being bred to do and show dogs are bred for looks, a working labrador is leaner and has longer legs it is also more active. Some show labradors would be unable to work in the fields.  I have a working dog who is an assistance dog and I was told that crossbreeds like a labrador golden retriever cross or like my dog a labradoodle make better working assistance dogs because they are more likely to be successful. I have seen a lot of people say they are just mutts however in the UK a lot of the assistance dog organisations use crosses.

Answer 7

There are a number of reasons, but frankly, the biggest reasons are:Time, Money, and politics.

It takes time and money to breed, select, and train a working dog to high levels of competitive ability, in addition to the time it takes to prepare for the show ring. Since the only standard to which the dogs are being judged is conformation, most breeders will ditch the time and cost to achieve real performance titles. Why is conformation the over-riding standard? Because performance trials are time (and space) consuming, and interfere with the generation of money - Only so many dogs can compete at once in one place. On the other hand, conformation judging can be compact, and you can have a LOT of dogs all in one place, with each and every one of them generating an entry fee. Further, the judges need not be trained in the specialized working trial world - They only need be able to read a standard and look at a dog.

Politics? Where does that come in? Well, when one judge picks a dog, all the breeders look at that dog, and try to see why it won. They then breed towards what they perceived as the judge's preference. Then later, if a judge picks a dog that doesn't follow the trend, that judge is never asked to preside again.

Answer 8

In an ideal world they wouldn't! Labradors are the obvious example.

My opinion - and I'm not a gundog sort of person - is that many of the show Labs are far too heavy & short on the leg but I've seen many working Labs that only bear a passing resemblance to the breed, presumably because their parents may not have looked very good but were exemplary workers &,obviously, for dogs which actually are bred to carry out their original function, that is of prime importance.

It's a question of priorities I suppose.

For breeds which do still work, there are dual championships which is why many Labs are Show Champions not full Champions.

Must be really satisfying to breed a dog who excels in both the show ring (as a typical example of the breed) and also in the field (or wherever) as a working dog.

(Of course, many pet Lab owners would be horrified at the thought of their dog carrying a dead bird around!!)

Answer 9

Competition.

As human beings, with no natural predators and plenty of time on our hands, we always turn things into a competition...thus, everything has to be bigger, better, faster, harder.

In my breed, the dogs running races today did not exist when the breed was imported to N. America in the early 20th century. There were few races, no goretex booties to protect otherwise crappy feet, and no $50K prizes. There were large, mixed breed dogs, chosen to pull because they had the muscle and coat for it -- they could do the job, which was to ensure delivery of mail, policing of traplines, hunting, etc.

Enter the Siberian -- smaller, lighter, quicker. The dogs upon which the Standard was based. These dogs did everything better than their larger mixed counterparts, including winning what races existed.

As times changed and racing became popular, people began breeding smaller, sleeker, faster mixed breeds, and inventing coats and foot protection for them. The people who wished to keep their Siberians changed the form of their dogs to match those of the dogs now beating them.

The modern racing Siberian looks nothing like the original import. It does not do the original job of the breed.

The modern hunter does not hunt like someone in the 1800s. The modern hunting dog has changed, as well. Those competing in field/hunting competitions have different goals, and their dogs reflect that.

Same with herding trials. Same with Belgian Ring Sport. Note the word, "Sport". The average Belgian farmer in 1875 did not have the same requirements of his Belgian herding dog that someone in the NVBK does.

Someone wanting to dominate Schutzhund does not have the same requirements in a GSD that the breed's founder did. They change the dogs to fit their goals.

The same is true of people breeding "for show"...exaggerating traits in order to catch the judges' eye. More coat. More mass. A more domed head and pronounced eyes to make that "baby face" even more obvious.

But -- I'm sorry. The Standard should be the basis for breeding decisions. Not how you can win in your venue of choice.

People are now breeding dogs specifically for Dock Diving and Agility performance. How is THAT going to warp their breeds?

I am proud of the fact that my dogs can work happily and efficiently in front of a sled, as well as place and win in the show ring. This is as it should be, and I wish all Siberians had to do both prior to being bred.

Answer 10

It really depends upon a few things.

When each breed was created it was designed for a certain set of circumstances.  As we have become more mobile, dogs no longer live in isolated areas and are used in ways that have changed as time has gone on.  Take, for instance, the Lab- a breed designed to retrieve ducks and geese out of cold water- they did very little running and a lot more swimming - so were short and stocky with thick, powerful legs.  They were often hauled into the boat by the scruff of the neck and tail- so they had to have a very thick, sturdy tail, they couldn't be too big or too heavy or they'd never be able to get into the boat  --- does this sound like any of the "field bred" Labs of today or more like the show dog?  The purpose of the breed has evolved - hunters now use their Labs in the field for pheasant etc and need a longer legged rangier dog - Same is true for Springers.  Historically, those who hunted kept large kennels of a variety of dogs.  They had one dog for retrieving, one for pointing, one for springing, one for scent work etc etc... now, dogs are more widespread and the few (percentage wise) who work are called on to be multi-purpose animals- pointing Labs???

Then there is my own breed of choice, the Samoyed.  As a whole, in the US, they remain much the same as the historical photos.  In fact, they remain much the same as the dogs still living with the reindeer herders in Siberia.  It is only when you look at them in England and Australia that you see an extremeness of type (cute fuzz-balls)-- as a whole, the breed has always had a divergence of type because of its use as a multipurpose utility dog.  There have always been the shorter, stockier, hairier dogs and the longer legged, leaner dogs... and then there were the dogs that were moderate between the extremes and THESE are the dogs breeders strive for while knowing you must have some of all the types to create the dog in the middle.  Other breeds do not have this issue and are more uniform--- but then again other breeds do not have the diversity of purpose that the Samoyed has.