| Archive for workinghprs.myfastforum.org Chat forum for owners of working HPR and Versatile gundog breeds. |
| Blue |
Question for the breedersThis is a hypothetical question and i hope I'm not being vague.If you had a dog/bitch that was the absolute epitome of your chosen breed in terms of function but was not even close to breed standard as far as conformation goes, would you breed from it and continue its' line? |
||||||
| weima |
I probably would if it was a bitch as you can mate it to a dog to try to improve on the bitch. If it were a male then probably not.
Breeding is a gamble anyway 
|
||||||
| Mike |
Re: Question for the breeders
Yes, without doubt. Form follows function. Most standards are sufficiently vague that a top notch performer is unlikely to be that far removed from the standard. If a dog isn't built correctly (i.e. moderate and well balanced front to rear) it simply wouldn't be able to perform its function for prolonged periods of time (both in terms of an individual days hunting and the years I would hope to be able to hunt over a dog). As Weima says breeding is a gamble and all you can hope for is that you load the dice in your favour, there aren't any guarantees. |
||||||
| MC |
Not even close to breed standard as far as conformation?
Not even close? No. |
||||||
| A van der Sluis |
Why breed with a dog/bitch who is not even close to breed standard.
Why breed with a dog who has a pedigree then if he/she does not look like it. I want to breed a dog who is looking like the standard and acting like the standard. |
||||||
| Blue |
Thanks all.
Let's say this dog/bitch is healthy, strong and as close to perfect in function as one could hope for but the topline is wrong, the head too square, perhaps an undershot/overshot jaw, too short/tall etc. Since it is functionally excellent none of these faults affect its' performance in any way....now would you breed him/her? |
||||||
| weima |
Yes although you need to be aware that any problems although may not become apparant in the offspring could rear its ugly head in future generations. You obviously need to find a mate that can counter balance the 'faults' |
||||||
| Mike |
Still a yes from me. Healthy and working well IMHO are the top priorities, slight variance from a nominal breed standard IMHO isn't a big deal. I find it hard to believe that a pure bred dog that can perform its function well will fall out side of a breed standard for anything other than a relatively trivial reasons (for example colours or markings) IF it can perform its function well. Having said that it may very well look not a lot like what is winning in the show ring at the time though...
In our breed standard for the Weimaraner (in the UK) it says "Hunting ability of paramount concern", IMHO everything after that is secondary, unfortunately a lot of dogs that look correct for one interpretation of the breed standard don't necessarily work right. 
There is no such thing as a perfect dog, they all have faults. |
||||||
| guy |
Dr Cattenach managed to introduce the tailless gene into the boxer and have the resulting progeny back to standard within 5 generations (from memory). Whilst i have to ask why breed a poorly conforming dog when so many others are around the most precious thing is the ability to hunt, point and retrieve with a soft mouth.
Do you add conformation to a capable dog or add working ability to a conforming dog. My money goes with putting conformation onto hunting ability. |
||||||
| MC |
Undershot or overshot bite, absolutely no. It comes back to haunt future pup owners.
There is often a variance in head type on lines of dogs, it would depend on just how untypical a head the dog had. Topline: A poor topline is caused by other factors. It would depend on what the factors were that caused the poor topline. Some dogs can have a vast improvement of topline by being exercised and gaining muscle tone. A slightly roached back is preferable to a weak back. Too small or too tall, you would need to know what the parents size was to get an idea of what you might get in pups. You also would need to view others from the same litter and find out if they are exceptional hunting dogs and sound specimens, or full of faults which wouldn't be too good for your breeding plans. Another thing to ponder would be, is this dog naturally a brilliant worker or did it have a very good trainer? Apart from the bad bite which would rule out the dog from breeding at all - with a good choice of mate you might well find a big improvement in the progeny BUT what might the pup owners do in future breedings? Lots of homework and soul searching. |
||||||
| JR VIZ |
I think if there is any defect then i would not breed from any dog because
all you will achieve is poor looking dogs. We still get poor looking dogs from quality breeding's every now and then so why would any body take the risk on a poor looking dogs.Most breeds have some sort of problem so don't be the person who makes things worse. This is only my opinion so i would go back to the breeder and see what they have to say All the best JR |
||||||
| josie |
I would for sure, because there are too many breeders out there who are breeding entirely for looks and not taking working ability into account at all. To counteract what's going into the gene pool from that, I'd see nothing wrong with a breeding based entirely on working ability and not at all on looks. | ||||||
| countrygirl |
Well I have to say as somebody who works my dogs, yes I like a good looking dog who fits the standard(bearing in mind everybody understanding of the standared is different) but at the end of the day I want one with working ability and the vast majority of dogs being shown are never tested(with a few exceptions like Sharon) so I would say yes breed if its a good natural worker, it is vital that this part of any breed isent lost for the sake of fashion and looks or we will end up with alot pf pretty looking dogs unable to do a days work, we are lucky in hpr's that at present we dont have a great split but it could happen all to easy
Caz |
||||||
| Linda W |
Whose interpretation of the standard is being used? As we all know different judges (and breeders) are looking at different things in each dog so although one person may say that the dog/bitch is nothing like the standard then someone else might say there is nothing wrong with it.
In the HPR breeds, more than the other breeds, I think we should be taking more account of the working ability when looking to breed. Why have a beautiful looking dog that doesn't know what it is supposed to do in the field? I have a bitch in my house just now that wouldn't do any good in the showring, but I found a good dog and her son won his first CC this year, along with BIS at the breeds club show. So yes, I would would breed from a bitch that doesn't fit someones idea of the breed standard. |
||||||
| tashap |
Would depend on the fault but I wouldnt't just breed a dog based on hunting ability. There has to be a combination of both form and function. | ||||||
| JR VIZ |
I also have a dog that is a top class falconry dog he is also a great picking up dog , very good when rough shooting and very staunch on point but I'm not going to use him for breeding because he has a smooth coat when he should have a wirehaired coat.
I feel that if, us who breed dogs start adding imperfections all breeds will end up like the German Shepherds ect ect. How can something be so wrong but still be right ??????? 
|
||||||
| munstyman |
It may surprise many of you but I would err towards not breeding from this hypothetical dog, as there are two many negatives
Working ability is of course very admirable in a working breed and should always be sought after when considering breeding, but not at the expense of bad or poor genetic traits which we have a duty to continue to diminish where ever possible. A dog such as this should be `enjoyed' in its lifetime but I would look towards its siblings to find a better `overall package' if I was concerned about loosing a line. For any of us to turn a blind eye to conformation and breed standards in favour of pure working ability ( especially working ability judged to our personal requirements), would put us on the same level as those that breed with no regard to working ability and purely on the `look' of the dog
When you breed a dog IMV you should have the wellbeing of the breed first and foremost in your mind, and what the breeding of any individual animal is going to contribute to the breed as a whole, and you should be honest enough to consider wether there are better potential dogs who meet this criteria 
Peter |
||||||
| Mike |
I am sorry but the two are not the same, we are talking of about a dog that is close to perfect for working ability and healthy with minor conformation faults, in what way is that similar to breeding only based upon the look of the dog? |
||||||
| josie |
Yes, I'm talking about a FT Ch in terms of working ability, with multiple minor conformation faults. Perhaps we are talking about different things here. I would want the working ability to be proven in competition, not just to be someone claiming their dog is a good working dog. | ||||||
| BritAnnie |
No! Undershot/overshot can be a problem in working gundogs for carrying game, erratic topline indicates poor spinal structure therefore poor longterm stamina. Again, NO! I would not breed from such a hypothetical dog, you run the risk of carrying these undesirable traits forward to future generations. The aim in all breeding is to breed better than previous generations. To do that one must breed from the best that one can, not from mediocre stock in either bench or field. JMHO BA |
||||||
| kiwi |
interesting, i would look at the full picture myself, if the dog is healthy and works well but has a few minor issues for conformation then yes i would. | ||||||
| BritAnnie |
I do not consider a bad mouth and incorrect topline minor issues I'm afraid.
BA |
||||||
| kiwi |
yes your right 
such things like coat and slightly over size is what i would call minor. rereading the thread again i wouldn't breed from it, there are plenty of correct and as good and even better working dogs around. |
||||||
| BritAnnie |
Yes, I can agree with that. In a FT Champion I would forgive some less than perfect conformation issues, just as I would forgive some lack of working ability ina Sh Ch, although more and more I ma coming round to believeing that we really ought to have more working qualifications in order to encourage Show owners to use their dogs in what they were bred for. Perhaps Working tests should have more value.
BA |
||||||
| kiwi |
i still think FT don't offer much to the hpr breeds, unless they are field trials designed for the hpr breeds......confused
natural ability testing and working tests should be designed and valued so even show hpr breeders can use them to keep the working ability balanced with the conformation standards they breed too. |
||||||
| josie |
Kiwi, yes in the UK we have FTs specifically for HPRs.
I agree with Annie that we need more working qualifications... |
||||||
| kiwi |
got a link for them josie, would be keen keen to see how they work. | ||||||
| josie |
I don't really know of a good description online, but here is a brief one from the LMC website:
http://www.largemunsterlanderclub.co.uk/field_trials.html There is also a list of judges' reports and other articles on the Spin website: http://www.italianspinone.co.uk/i...ctionid=6&id=26&Itemid=31 |
||||||
| DesO'Neile |
I haven't even read the breed standard for the pointer and I have been breeding them for twenty years. Until such time as somebody tells me I can't run my dogs in Pointer & Setter Trials I won't waste my time reading it either. "The Breed Standard" isn't carved in stone and while some standards are still more or less in their original form there are other breeds that have been changed to either lead or follow fashion, and there are even some breeds where the standard varies from country to country.
There is however a vast difference between a dog that doesn't conform to standard and one that is deformed. In the great majority of breeds an undershot jaw is a deformity and such a dog shouldn't be bred from. In the great majority of breeds cow hocks are a deformity and that dog shouldn't be bred from. I won't breed from a dog that "throws a leg". While this is a movement issue it makes it harder for the dog to turn away from that side and I am convinced that some dogs that back cast regularly on one side do so because the have difficulty turning the other way. This has all been about the conformation of the dog and I will put it to you that all the perfection in this area isn't worth a hill of beans if you don't have temperament. |
||||||
| munstyman |
Mike wrote:
I think Annie has summed up my thoughts on the `hypothetical' dogs problems as put forward in this thread. To me these are not minor issues, and are very much inherited. Now you may argue that you could choose a mate to `improve' these traits, but this is the same as the show breeders who say that they can improve the working ability by mating to a working mate, after changing the overall conformation away from a working structure, yes or no? It is important to remember that just as nutrition and upbringing can effect the finished conformation of the adult dog, so can `training and experience ' effect the working ability of the adult dog. In this way how do you seperate out the genetic `working' ability of this hypothetical dog form its training and experience  If this can not be done with certainty, then you would be at risk of putting those poor conformation traits into future generations with no net gain of working ability.
As I said previously I would look at this dogs litter mates and choose a better `overall' package if this line was so important. ( Assuming their owners were thinking of breeding of course )
Peter |
||||||
| Claire |
Big difference between breeding from a dog with minor faults to breeding from a dog with the faults mentioned in this thread. No matter how good the dog is on the working side, even the best of stud dogs would have his work cut out to try and improve on those faults
I really don't think that qualifications in the field and the showring should be the be all and end all either in deciding on whether to breed or not. Field qualifications can be achieved if the dog has a damn good trainer and whilst to some extent the dog does have to have some natural ability, the expertise of the trainer from day 1 will bring that dog up to a level that a novice trainer is unlikely to achieve. The show champion status can be achieved in ways not always ethical or honest and don't necessarily mean the dog is a worthy champion either. That is not to say that these qualifications should be mocked, but they should not be the main factor in deciding on whether to breed or not. JMVHO
|
||||||
| Blue |
Really excellent replies everyone, thanks very much for the interest.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used under/overshot as an example as I recognise it to be more serious than what I had intended to make my point. Basically I'm trying to determine how people view their breeding "stock" . Do they want a field only champ, a show dog or a dual field and show champion. In what order --health - temperament -- field --conformation-- ? |
||||||
| Mike |
Seems the correct order to me. |
||||||
| kiwi |
no order for me, all four should be what we get in a wellbred working dog
|
||||||
| josie |
I'm with Des on this one! | ||||||
| Linda W |
In my own stock then I would have assessed them over time as they developed and everything would be taken into account. No one particular thing, but a combination of it all. If looking for a stud dog I suppose the first thing I look at is the dog itself, and to see if I like the look of him before going any further. I then check out his pedigree to see if it suits my bitch. Then I will go and speak to the owner and meet the dog. If at that point I don't like his temperament I won't go any further. If I do like his temperament I would ask about his health tests, and take it from there. If he is worked then so much the better, but wouldn't pass him over just because he doesn't. So I suppose I would look at conformation first in a stud for one of my bitches.
However, if a dog/bitch shows no working ability (eg gunshy) then it wouldn't even get a second glance. |
||||||
| DesO'Neile |
I am amazed that there is a belief within this thread that you can't change/improve aspects of a breed. Of course you can. You could improve the conformation of working dogs by an infusion of "Show" blood and you most certainly can improve the working temperament of show dogs by an infusion of "working" blood. The only thing is nobody has the time to work through the generations to sort out the problems. The main problem is that now a days culling is no longer as acceptable as it was before and there are inherrent costs in placeing unwanted animals that are substandard.
You can even take a breed that until recently had a mean hip score of 42 and many other conformation problems like haw eyes and by judicious selection produce a creditable working dog with hips scores now in single figures. The Clumber. |
||||||