What's the differance between the show and field dogs?
Beagles are the only dogs coming to mind at the moment but I know there are others. It does not make sense to me why there would be two different styles of the same dog. The field beagle is long and lanky and the show beagle is short and stocky (VERY Pretty). It would seem that the show beagles would be bred as close to their standard as possible which was written with there primary function in mind? Why then the need for a field line?  |
|
|
| There should be no difference between a show dog and a field working dog.
Maybe just a more glamorous coat on a show dog as they would have better care and attention to keeping coats. A standard is a standard for whatever breed, they should be similar in type, movement and construction. That's why we have breed standards  |
| Erica, I posed that question to a friend of mine in Columbia that trains Brittanys for hunting. I'll let you know. I would think that while AKC might not differentiate, the hunter that is intent on working a dog might look for certain conformation that lends itself more to the type of conditions the dog will be working in, which may differ from Show standards. |
| Here is one trainer's opinion on the subject:
"IMO there are two aspects to answer the question. 1. Temperament/genetics: Dogs that perform in the ring do not have the demands for temperament and working genetics to be demonstrated to be successful. The GSD is an example of this (why else are K9s using malinois after GSDs dominated that venue for years?) . 2. The current "fad" in the ring. Conformation may be influenced by judging bias that precludes the maintenance or improvement of conformation. Conformation winners will be bred regardless of temperament. The GSD is an example. Also look at what show breeding did to the Irish Setter: they were ruined to the point of being totally useless in the field, and thus the American Red Setter effort to at least save what was left. Ideally the dog that wins in the ring and the dog that performs in the field should be one and the same. Not all field performers are good in the genetic department either, but if I have to take a dog deviating from standard that is otherwise sound and meets breed working requirements, then to me the show issues become irrelevant. You may cross post if you wish." George [Hobson] |
A number of sporting breeds have show and field lines. I would think that Brittanies are not necessarily the prime example of this though, as those breeders, certainly in the US, have put more effort than most into maintaining the working abilities of their show dogs (oh, Dawn...  )
You see this same trend in (some) herding breeds. The Border Collie and the Australian Shepherd come to mind. The difference is in how your prioritize your breeding criteria: in both, presumably, you still breed for good temperament and health, but for working/field lines, your first question beyond that is: how well does this dog do his job? In fact, in working Border Collies, there is little uniformity in looks (i.e. type) even in the current (recently revised) AKC standard, relative to most breeds, because the definition of the breed lies within it's working style and ability. I showed a working BC in breed at a big show in Chicago for a friend as a lark. He went fourth out of four to three Aussies with tails A BC breeder ringside consoled her that her puppy would be lovely when his hair came in (he was seven years old and as hairy as he was going to get  )Then my friend grabbed him and he kicked butt over in the agility ring. She was dissapointed, but I told her: there is no way you can evaluate function in a breed ring. You can evaluate basic soundness and type, but nothing that relates to actual working ability. That's what field and herding etc trials are for.
Kristine |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|