Just to clarify, this is NOT going to be a post about what is more important, physical attributes or working ability. There are a lot of people who know a whole lot more about dogs than I do to fight that fight every day. I don’t care to. I think both are important. And besides, I’m not a fighting kind of gal.
What I do hope to accomplish is to sort through some of my own thoughts on the subject as it pertains to breeding decisions I might one day make. And then you, lovely readers, can tell me if I’m way off base, or said something semi-intelligent, or have no earthly clue what I’m talking about (because, let’s face it, I don’t).
At herding class on Saturday the topic came up, as it always seems to when you get a group of very serious dog people together, whether it is more “right” to breed for working ability or for “show dogs” (please see the post right before this to understand what my definition of a show dog is). My herding instructor said, “I don’t care if you want to show your dogs, that’s fine, but it absolutely has to take a backseat to working ability or you can’t be breeding a good dog.” I think this statement dovetails nicely into something that was on Ruffly Speaking this morning, and that’s where I want to go into a little more depth.
To me, having a breed of dog that is meant to do a certain kind of work, actually be able to do that work, is an important part of preserving a breed. So, for Australian Shepherds, I want to be able to keep herding instinct, or I think I lose some of what is the Australian Shepherd. But to say that this is always the most important attribute, even at the cost of other parts of the dog, I just can’t see that. I think that is just as dangerous as saying that you must always breed for coat or head or any other singular attribute above all else.
Imagine I have a dog with a gorgeous head. His head is the epitome of what a dog of his breed’s head should look like. When you see his head in silhouette, you immediately know what breed he is because his head is that perfect. He has a pretty bad front, but his head his so amazingly wonderful that when judges see it they are taken aback and they love him. I think heads are an important part of breed type and if you lose that nice head, you might as well just have any old dog, so I breed him to a bitch with the nicest head I can find. She kind of has a bad front too, but her head is to die for. I keep the puppy with the best head, even though she inherited that bad front from both of her parents.
I continue this cycle of breeding decisions for generations. The heads on my dogs are the envy of the breed world. But I’m starting to notice that some of my offspring are breaking down young. They are getting arthritis. The ones competing in agility get injured a lot. After a couple of generations I have the prettiest heads, but winning in the ring isn’t so easy anymore because the structure of the body has taken such a backseat in my priorities that my dogs no longer have the body to move nicely or stand square. My dogs can’t compete in the veteran classes of conformation because their poor bodies have usually given out on them by age 7 or 8.
How ludicrous would I be if I bred dogs like that?! People would be telling me left and right to stop the madness and balance my priorities. That to breed for heads, and only heads, was hurting my dogs. A lot of people, especially working dog people, DO say this about dogs in the conformation ring. Now stop for a minute and think. How is that any different than saying I should only be focusing on breeding for working ability?
If I am breeding solely for working ability above everything else, what is to stop me from breeding in structural faults? Or rather, because no one would intentionally breed an unsound dog, what is to keep me accountable for making sure my dogs are structurally sound? Just because a dog can mentally do its historical job doesn’t mean that its body structure has been maintained in such a way that the physical makeup of the dog allows it to do its job in the most efficient way possible. I don’t think that you can elevate working ability above everything else and say that is the one and only way to breed the best dog. Now, because breeding for working ability usually dictates that dogs do work, they will probably have structure at least good enough to be able to get the job done and not be injured every other day; but if the breeding decisions are made with no thought to anything but working ability, can you really say that the dog has the most efficient, sound structure possible? Probably not.
Again, this is all my opinion, and I may look back after 30 years of breeding and say to myself, “Oh boy, did I have it all wrong.” But I really think that to be getting the dog most true to the breed, the best possible dog you can, you have to be breeding for multiple things. You have to have priorities, and I think you have to be able to juggle those priorities sometimes.
The order of prioritizing and the act of juggling is where I start to have a lot of doubts, and where my opinions truly become my opinions, so I’m not going to go into that here. More on that tomorrow…
Like what I think I am getting from you, I feel there needs to be balance. I have seen working dogs with really poor structures. They can work because the desire is there, but for how long? How soon does that dog break down? Were those poorly structured dogs bred and passed on that poor structure to the offspring before they actually broke down?
A dog needs to be able to live in its world. Rescues are filled with dogs that cant live in the world they are in, so they are sent away. Often, especially in the herding breeds it seems like the issues that the families cant live with are related to that instinct and drive. The dog has no off switch and without that job to do, can’t live in its world.
I have never been to the local shelter and seen the reason for giving up the dog was becasue they were too quiet and calm. Or for that matter, too pretty.
Show breeders may not be breeding for the same intensity as working dog breeders, but the majority I have seen and met are breeding for a livable temperment along with the prettiness and soundness.
And of course within either breeders plan, they may get pups that are not exactly what the intent was. Some pups may be more driven, others more laid back, some are more typey others may be downright ugly. Its always a mystery what may result, but I think good breeders of either type should be considering the whole package and the ability for that pup to live in its world.
I like what you have to say, Dawn. I like it because that is exactly the point where I start to get a little shaky, and I think it’s because my newness to this whole world of breeding dogs really sets in right about here. Where herding ability is concerned, I don’t know where that point comes in that I am still preserving the true nature of the breed, and where I am watering it down so much that I have a nice couch dog that looks like an Aussie and wouldn’t know a sheep if it kicked them in the face (I’m not implying that’s what you were suggesting at all, this is just my own argument in my head). I want to, and think I have an obligation to, preserve the herding instinct in a herding dog, but at the same time, the best intentions do no good if my dogs can’t fit into their world, like you said. Where is the point that I have a responsibility to my breed to preserve that ability, and where do I just have to tell people “this is an active, drivey dog and if you can’t handle that, you need to look at another breed?” I honestly don’t know yet. I hope to explore that a little more in the future, and get lots of good feedback to add to my “education” with!
I think, where the argument gets touchy, is that you will see very few high-quality working dogs (notice I said quality working dogs, not just some backyard dog that happens to work a little) with truly poor conformation that actually leaves you with an oft-injured dog.
You do see lots and lots of show-lines that have no working ability left whatsoever.
So while I agree with you 110%, and I know that you strive to work your dogs so I would be very surprised if you ever went too far one way or the other, when we look at dogs on the ground we see entire breeds that no longer have any working ability whatsoever.
I don’t see too many field champions (dogs with working titles in front of their names, as opposed to behind them) who are actually structurally poor.
Remember, it takes a dog about 3 years after puppyhood to be truly good at working. So no one wants to put 3 years into training a dog (and serious training doesn’t start til age 1) to have it end up too sore to work by age 6.
I have said before and say still that I really admire the clubs who actively encourage their members to do BOTH. Check out the number of dual champion Brittanies out there. It can be done.
I certainly don’t want to imply that all working dogs have bad conformation, because, as you said, if a dog is horribly unsound, they aren’t going to be able to work for long. However, it does happen. I have seen it occasionally, and since I have not been involved in this dog world long, have talked to others who have seen it a lot, at least in the herding breeds. That is my concern in saying you should only be breeding for one thing, and that is literally what was said to me: you can compete in whatever you want, but if you breed for anything other than working ability, you are not just wrong but your dogs are bad. I just can’t agree with that. I think that is just as wrong as saying I am breeding my dog for flash and type and nothing else.
I too like to see dual champion dogs, I think it says something important about the breeder, but not everyone values that (on both sides, and trust me I get every bit as frustrated with people who think instinct isn’t important). I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve heard snide remarks about such and such person who works their dogs, but they also compete in conformation (often said with an eye roll).
The Border Collie is an example. To the best of my understanding, the American Border Collie Association (or at least its members) adamantly advocates breeding for only working ability, and a dog who can work stock is good enough to be bred regardless of health issues, unsoundness, or mental instability. If a dog registered with ABCA gets an AKC CH, their papers are revoked. Revoked! How is that encouraging sound, multi-faceted dogs?
I know that is an extreme example, and repercussions and not so severe in most breeds, but the same attitudes are at play often enough. And I am not trying to pick on working dog people or say they are bad breeders. Heaven knows there are plenty of people who breed for all the wrong things in the show ring at the detriment of the dog. All I’m saying is that you have to acknowledge that breeding for one single trait, no matter what that one single trait is, above all else, and at the cost of all else, is wrong.
I do agree that some of the field people can get nutty too. I think the comparable example in horses is Thoroughbred racehorses; winning was the big thing, the thing that drove up stallion prices. There were some horribly built and horribly tempered horses who won because of raw ability.
Now, the American Thoroughbred is riddled with soundness problems. Moreover, their stallions are so nasty that few can be handled by an amateur, compared to say some of the warmbloods where adult stallions compete at the highest levels next to other stallions and mares with very few problems.
I can’t speak with authority to the Border Collie groups. I do know, though, that a large part of the body did not want to join AKC at all, and so I think you are seeing a turf-war there. Similarly, a Jack Russell terrier is NOT a Parsons Russell Terrier, and while I don’t know whether or not you can have dual registration there, I know that they came from the same stock but the Parsons Russell is the “show-type” and the Jack is the non-show type.
But again, I agree both are important. If a dog is great on rabbits but is solid yellow and shaped like a sheltie, then no one would recognize it as a beagle. On the other end of the spectrum, if a dog looks like a perfect beagle but neither he nor anyone in his family can follow a track worth a darn, then you don’t have a beagle, you have a beagle-looking pet dog.
Those are extremes. However, in the middle it worries me when people who write a standard don’t work the dog, because how can you tell if, say, a little more slope in the shoulder REALLY gives you better speed over the ground if you don’t watch how it impacts real dogs in the real world.
In case your head isn’t already spinning from the in-fighting in the dog world, let me warn you that there is a further split between trial people and “working” people. For example, people who hunt beagles say some of the trial rules result in a dog too slow to be really good in the field. And some people who work herding dogs say that trial dogs are too keen and lack enough of an “off” switch for the often seasonal nature of actual farm chores.
And so it goes…. 🙂 My unasked for advice is to try to keep your feet planted squarely in more than one world, to avoid getting the blinders. Listen, hear where the concerns come from, understand the emotion behind it as well as the logic, and then do what you feel is best not only for your own dogs, but for what you want your chosen breed to be like 50 years from now.
Hello, I followed you here from Ruffly Speaking and have really enjoyed your blog! I have little dog experience yet and no plans to breed anytime this decade, but I still have opinions on things!
I think one difference between breeding for working ability and breeding for good heads is the broadness. Working ability is a very broad goal. I don’t know specifics about herding, but I’m fairly sure you can say “This dog is weak in this working skill so I need to find a bitch that will strengthen that without hurting his really awesome go-outs” or whatever. So I think when breeding for working ability you have a broader view than just breeding for the show ring. Even though breeding for the ring is also a broad goal, somethings are going to be more important that others in that breed. Side gait in GSDs, heads in Collies, etc.
I think another thing to keep in mind is the difference between work and sport. While I’m not at all belittling dog sports, they’re my very favorite thing and I think they’re an important test since the opportunities to do real work with dogs is diminishing, when you breed for sport you get extreme dogs as well. You’re playing to the rules, not the dogs. In field trials you get dogs that run big and fast and would be useless to an actual hunter. The different ring sports produce different dogs. Lord help anyone breeding for flyball. I don’t know about herding, but I imagine the greater the stylization of the work, the greater the difference between actual working dogs and dogs that trial.
I’m NOT saying that dog sports are ruining dogs, I think they are incredibly valuable evaluating tool and they’re a heck of a lot of fun. But anytime you go to extremes or breed for just one thing at the detriment of everything else you’re going to run into trouble down the road. Priorities are one thing, ignoring half the dog is another. You have to go for the whole package, a steady, instinctive brain inside of a body that will hold up and is physically capable of the work.
Oh, and Erin, if I could wave MY non-existent magic-wand, how we evaluate dogs for breeding stock would be entirely different. 🙂
For example, the conformation ring is a fine thing for evaluating stock, but in my world if a dog has good working ability and the judges look at her in the conformation ring and say “she’s a nice, sound dog with no serious faults”, that would make her breeding-worthy (assuming no health/temperament issues, of course!) even if she could not win the class. The conformation differences between a dog who consistently wins and one who consistenly is in the “also-rans” can be so minor as to have no impact on the dog. Chasing conformation points is a sport, just like any other, and the idea that you need 15 to get a CH in front of your name is an arbitrary rule.
Similarly, if a dog is winning in conformation and is pretty good, but not the best ever, in her chosen field then that’s great too. Many amateur handlers cannot handle the “best” performance dog, and breeding ones that are serviceable but not flashy should not be a sign of a bad breeder. To go back to horses, I could put you on a quiet packer of a trail horse and you could have a pleasant ride. Put you on a Grand Prix dressage horse and you’ll have trouble maintaining a straight line because he’ll read every body movement as a signal.
I think dogs should be evaluated on lots of criteria, but they don’t have to win at all those things to be considered good breeding stock. If you read the link to the warmblood info I gave you, a horse is accepted if it averages a certain score, and it can’t get below a 6 out of 10 on any one area. They are looking for balance.
I think conformation people would be horrified at suggesting we breed dogs who are 6’s. And field trial people would be aghast at breeding dogs who are consistently unable to win a trial. Yet if we want a truly balanced dog, we must recognize that if we only breed dogs that are a 9 or 10 in one category, chances are we are losing something else along the way. Soundness, sanity, brains, ability or something else will be lost if we focus on breeding a dog who is going to be a near-10 in one aspect (looks, movement, drive, etc).
Beth, I absolutely agree with you here, and this is exactly what I’m hoping to talk a little about next. It’s just that before I could talk about looking at balancing all these very different aspects, I had to make the point that you can’t look at only one thing, even if that one thing was working ability. And even though we don’t see exactly eye to eye on what exactly balances means or how to best evaluate it, I think we both agree that choosing any one aspect is wrong when and if it has the potential to harm the other parts of the dog (or horse or cat or cow or anything).