The working dog came first. Let us not forget this. Before there were dog shows, field trials, agility trials, herding trials, obedience trials, etc., dogs were either working dogs or they were companions. These were the only two functions that any dog served. They worked...they guarded, they herded, they hunted, or they provided companionship. This was all. No breed in the history of breeds was created with the intention of “winning dog shows.” This has simply never happened. There is not a breed standard in existence which states, “This dog was created to appear beautiful in subjectively judged competitions.” All breeds started with the goal of working or being companions. Then, because humans are human, at some point it was decided to bring their working dogs together and have a competition of sorts. Why? Because to be human is to have an ego and it’s not enough to have a good dog; one must have the best dog. And thus, we started to have dog shows. The first dog shows that we are aware of seem to be hound shows held in England in the early 19th century. These were an exhibition of working dogs, there being no such thing as “a show dog.” The first truly official dog show, as far as my research can indicate, was held in 1859 and consisted of 23 pointers and 27 setters. 50 entries total. By 1863 when the Grand National Exhibition of Sporting and Other Dogs took place, that number had risen to 1214. This means dog shows have been around for somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 years. But working dogs go back much, much further. All the way back to the earliest days when wolves crept close to campfires and humans realized they might provide companionship and protection. It’s believed dogs were domesticated *at least* 14, 000 years ago and perhaps twice as long ago. That’s a very long time where dogs were only working dogs and companions. The measure of a dog was in the quality of his work, and his temperament and his hardiness/health. I say all this to come to a very important point. Today, we have a few working dogs and a lot of companion dogs, and we also have a handful of dogs whose “job” is to win dog shows in conformation competitions. Add to this the new and novel job description of “sport dog,” a dog whose job is to compete in various competitions, often testing either athletic ability or other talents. The sport dog as an independent construct that is separate from “work” is relatively new and seems to have been driven predominantly by agility and obedience competitions, though we now have several other sports that have been added to the list. Now, the original purpose of conformation competition was to assess a dog’s movement and structure in relation to his ability to work. I don’t know where we diverged from that, but there can be little argument that divergence has happened. “Show dog” is now its own job title. Dogs are bred “to be show dogs”. They have traits that have little relation to their original purpose or breed standard and may often be directly in conflict with the original standard. We need not look far to see dogs winning dog shows who have never worked a day in their life in their breed’s chosen field. The same can be said for sport dogs (lest anyone think I’m not being fair and accuse me of hypocrisy). Those who still work their dogs will often tell you that the dogs winning in the conformation ring (or sport rings) are not ones they would have as working dogs. Perhaps they are too large, too heavy, have too much coat, have too soft a temperament, lack drive/ability, etc. In the case of sport dogs, perhaps they have too much drive, not enough bone, or some other consideration. Regardless, there is divergence in a great many working breeds. Often there is an overlap between the sport and working worlds, but not always. Border collies, for example, represent a breed where there is a contentious three-way split. I would suggest that Aussies and MAS are headed this direction as well. Though there is currently significant overlap between working/sport lines in the breed, sport breeders are setting out on their own in a fashion to capitalize on dogs that can be successful in sports. Now many will tell you that there shouldn’t be such a divergence. Some of those people are working dog people, and I understand why they feel that way. The entire historical purpose of dog shows was to compare working dogs to other working dogs. It is their belief that there is one correct type of dog, and he is the working dog. However, what I find infinitely ironic is that many people who claim there should be no split have dogs who are not in fact of true working type. Some may claim their dog has a minor herding title or hunting title, but very few dogs are winning in the show ring and also living as a working dog day in and day out. Very few of these winning show dogs are identical to the dogs which founded their respective breeds. These founders had a vision of what the breed should look like; it was never their vision for it to change drastically from the foundation stock. No one develops a breed and says, “Gosh, I sure hope it looks 30% different in 50 years!” No, these changes happen because a certain trait impresses judges (or perhaps leads to sport ring success) and becomes a fad, then the fad becomes a norm, and then the original appearance of the breed falls out of favor despite being true to the standard as written. This is especially apparent in breeds whose founders are still alive and well (such as Aussies and MAS). Jeanne Hartnagle, who helped write the original ASCA Aussie breed standard, has been very vocal about not approving of the modern interpretation of the standard as presented by the AKC conformation crowd, to the point of writing books explaining quite plainly what the writers of the standard meant.
The working dog came first, and we can’t object to those who hold true to the value of maintaining the breed type as it was originally intended for a working dog. However, if one is not breeding a working type dog, then the conversation becomes a bit more complicated. Can one breed away from working type and still claim there should be no split? If one doesn’t believe there should be a divergence, then why are they continuing to breed dogs who lack proper working type? Why are they breeding dogs that are too heavily boned? Why are they breeding dogs with too much coat? Why are they breeding dogs who are unproven in their field of work? Why are they breeding dogs that lack proper working temperament? Are they oblivious perhaps to the fact that their dogs lack working type? Perhaps they mistakenly believe their dogs to be correct? Perhaps what they actually mean is, “the working type shouldn’t exist.” After all, I’ve never seen a conformation person say, “the split shouldn’t exist” and then go neuter their entire kennel of conformation champions and replace them with working dogs. I believe this statement against “the split” is in fact a statement against the true type that is correct for a working-type dog. They want to see these older type dogs ceasing to be produced at all. They want to see the conformation type *become* what is considered “correct”. Unfortunately, we cannot change history. If the type is not what the breed founders envisioned in their working dogs, the type is not “correct.” Now none of this is to say that there aren’t people who show working dogs in conformation or that there are no conformation champions capable of working. I myself enter my working/sport style dogs in conformation! However, I am also not one to preach that the split shouldn’t exist. I actually don’t have a problem with some degree of split. There is enough room in the breeds for everyone. A dog’s place in the universe is no longer exclusively that of a working animal. We now have MANY uses for dogs, and to specialize is not inherently unethical, even if it means re-interpreting the breed standard in a direction that isn’t identical to the founder’s vision. We grow and we change. I myself do not breed entirely true to working type as I have gone a little more extreme in the other direction to excel in sports. I do make sure my dogs have working drive/ability, but I will be the first to admit that isn’t my primary goal. I come from an equestrian background and this scenario is not unlike that which we’ve seen in horses. Horses also were originally bred to perform a function (some to pull carts, some to work cattle, some as general transportation). Though shows of horses have a much longer history than shows of dogs, in the mid 20th century we saw a very similar trend of “specialization” occurring in horses. No where is this more true than the American Quarter Horse, which is a horse originally created as an all around ranch horse and racing horse. In the early days of the breed, you could take one horse and run him in a race this week and work cattle on him next week, and win a conformation show the week after. By the 80s, this had started to change with specific bloodlines being highly specialized for different competitions and events. The was so extreme in nature that a racing quarter horse looks like a different breed from a conformation quarter horse (“halter” horse would be the correct term in the equine industry.) This is very different from a cow horse who is different from a reiner who is different from a western pleasure horse. A similar thing has happened in many working dog breeds. Though there is overlap, we have lines of dogs bred to work, bred to do shows, bred to be companions, bred to do agility, bred to do other sports. Some people don’t like this; I personally have no issue with it. They are all different needs and functions. Some dogs may be a jack of all trades but master of none. Others may be masters in one specific trade, and this is fine in my opinion. I say all this just to emphasize that one can’t claim that there shouldn’t be a split between working type and show type and then breed against the working type. The working type came first. Everything else is inherently off standard. If one wants to choose to breed slightly off standard for success in competition,, that’s a valid choice (I myself have made such a choice, as I said). I am not saying to breed AGAINST the standard (such as unapproved colors), but there is room for interpretation. However, be honest about it. An aussie that is heavily coated, square headed, heavy boned with extreme rear angulation and a soft, low energy temperament who loves strangers is an OFF STANDARD DOG. Just as an aussie with a very short coat and a snippy head and light bone with insane, neurotic energy that can only be tamed in the sport ring is also an OFF STANDARD dog. There will always be those who believe that breeding off standard at all is inherently wrong, and I can't fault them for being purists, but I would say that most of us are breeding to our chosen clientele and field of competition. This may mean being slightly off standard in some aspects. The MAS breed standard calls for a dog who is reserved with strangers. How many of us are cutting dogs from our program for being “too friendly?” No one that I know of, because while a friendly dog may be a liability on the ranch where he’s used as a guard dog and never leaves, it’s a boon in modern society to have a dog that is friendly. Especially if we are selling our pups to average pet homes who won’t know how to handle a dog who is prone to not being fond of strangers. The standard was written for working dogs in our breed; it was not written for pets or sport dogs or show dogs. However, in modern times, only a very small percentage of our dogs are being used exclusively for work and we have to adjust. Times change, needs change, values change. In summation, either you believe a split is valid or you don’t. Neither is inherently a problematic opinion. However, if you don’t believe a split is acceptable, one must commit themselves to removing from the gene pool any dog who is not of proper working type. You must commit yourself to ignore the fashions and fads of the show and sport rings even if it means you never earn another title on your dogs. You can’t have it both ways; you can’t say you don’t want a split and then breed away from the origin of your breed. These are incompatible beliefs. Of course, I suppose someone could just state openly “there is no place in modern society for a working dog and that type needs to cease to exist” but that feels very disrespectful. The working dog came first. This makes any “split” the fault of conformation breeders (and possibly sport breeders, though I feel we all agree that the conformation split came before the sport split) as the working dog is the one who is correct to the standard as it was written. This means that those whose main focus is conformation or sports cannot in good faith complain about a split. We caused it, did we not? (And again, let me clarify that these are not blanket statements; surely there are dogs who are BOTH conformation champions or sport champions as well as being working dogs). However, if we only bred this small number of dogs who excel at both, we’d quickly find our breeds destroyed. Those of us who don’t exclusively breed for working dogs must either accept the split or scrap our programs. I don’t feel the need to scrap my program when the current state of the dog world means that there is far more call for sport dogs and pets and show dogs than there is for working dogs. This is the reality we live in; dogs rarely work in modern culture. But we must always remember and respect that the working dog came first.
Comentários