If your first instinct is to say we can breed for a dog that can do both, you could make a better argument by saying, if we all clapped Tinkerbell will come back to life. Therefore for the sake of accuracy, given the large percentage of show dogs that can't or won't, accept that a dog that can win consistently at an AKC show and also perform its function and be of use to its handler to be so few, they are meaningless in substantiating the position that we can have both. By show I mean a dog that is first selected because of its phenotype and by work, I'm speaking about a dog that is actually preforming its function, not just showing an instinct for that function as instinct and actual performance are worlds apart.

I am re-posting an earlier reply of mine to Kistrin, because it speaks to this subject.

Kristin this, bigger is better syndrome is not only prevalent in the aforementioned breeds but in all working breeds. The reason is, that all working breeds, for the most part, are not bred for there intended function but for the market place. Unfortunately the show world of today now dictates the phenotype and genotype of most working breeds, therefore what wins and what sells is what is bred for. That is why the sooner your breed splits into show and working the better. Please understand I am not saying that working breeds should not be bred for the pet owner, they should as most of them end up as pets anyway. It is just, these bred for pets only, are in fact a sub-specie of that breed and should be recognized as such. FYI the definition of sub-specie is: under the appearance of. Norman

call me an idealist, but whether or not it's consistently possible, at its heart, the idea is still a good one. in theory, a breed standard was written to describe the basic structure of a dog who could successfully fulfill a function - no more, and no less. a dog is supposed to be evaluated against his standard when assessing his conformation - nothing more, nothing less.

don't get me wrong, i would bet against 99.9% of the show dogs in my breed when it comes to their original "work;" but that's the fault of generations of breeders, not the dogs, and not of the standard.

http://www.akcchf.org/pdfs/whitepapers/Biennial_National_Parent_Club_Canine_Health_Conference.pdf

Look for the section titled "Measuring Behavior and Temperament in Dogs" (page 46).

What is the point of this article in relation to this thread?

Not sure the thread has one, either. perhaps I need some more coffee.

Kirstin I agree that the standard should be written to describe the *basic* structure of a breed. This is especially true for a working breed whose conformation should not be standardized due to its varied duties and the topography in which those duties are preformed. Moreover because the most crucial aspects of a working dogs ability is what you can't see, they therefor are unsuited to precise description in a breed standard. Unfortunately standards are often changed and the changes are implemented not to improve there ability they are implemented, with the approval of their breed club, to satisfy the market place and show judges. No one can take the raw material of a canine and construct that breed using just their standard. The Bull Dog once so agile it was used for bull baiting, now reduced to a dog that can no longer breed or breathe without assistance and must be kept out of hot weather or else it will fail. The mental and physical cripples are to there standard, nothing more and nothing less.

I don´t want to believe that you can´t have both in a dog. I have to face that even in our little country, there are clearly two different lines- one doesn´t look so showy and purebred at first glance but can work really well, the others that have lush and beautiful red coats, long flowing trots (not so flowing when sudden changes of direction are needed though) and are so glamorous in the show ring that you just have to stop and take a longer (even if thorough my eyes some look like they left their cruches and wheelchairs by the ring to jog a couple of rounds and then look flashy again) look BUT have problems with passing a breeding test that a GSD, as I see it should be, should pass with ease. And this is sad.

I mean relly sad when I think that even though here we don´t really have this kind of separation in dobermanns but generally in Europe you can find litters with parents that whould have to visit ALOT of shows and have ALOT of luck to get a Ch title but have working results list a mile long. I whould like to slap people who claim that they don´t care if the dog has ZTP or IPO results as long as the dog looks pretty even if the "pretty" is so heavy and has a chest so deep, that it probably has problems getting over an A-jump.

Does it have to be like this? Is it really so impossible to pick a non-working breed if you have no intention of ever going to offer it even a simulation of the work it was actually bred to do? Or can´t a person leave a great working or sport dog to be just that without breeding it because it has a head of a collie and bone of an italian greyhound? Isn´t there a possibility of meeting half way when it is ONE breed that was bred for ONE purpose and was not supposed to split in two different ones that might soon not even look similar? I am a beginner and probably an idealist but I don´t want to believe just yet that there is really no other way...

OK, after reading the entire other thread, this makes more sense...
(more coffee helped too, long day yesterday)
but really, I think the only way you get both is to stop listening to either camp, search until you find what you're looking for, and work with that, no matter what the opinions on both sides are.

It can be done, it's just getting harder every day!

You ask Jaana does it have to be like this. There is an old saying in my country and it is you can't serve two masters. Therefore in breeding you get what you select for and if you choose in your breed stock, type over temperament thats what you get and vise versa. Every breeder makes a choice and what he chooses to breed has a direct correlation to there goals. If there goal is to win at shows then they breeds tightly for the type that wins, as temperament and character are nice, but they are not necessarily a prerequisite in order to win at shows, but mirroring the prevailing standard is. So if a show breeder is given an option of what to breed, a dog that has a more correct phenotype over one that has a more correct genotype they, if there goal is to win, will choose the one with the correct phenotype. And if a working breeder is given the same choice he will *always* choose the dog with the more correct genotype. The result in time of these choices are two district types, the original and a sub-specie.

I think that it should be pointed out that there are two different ways of looking at this. One party is thinking about how it should be, and the other is thinking about how it is. How is should be in the world of GSD's is that the dog shows should reflect the dogs working ability, and be grading on how structuraly sound and close to the standard the dog is. Im sure we all agree on that.

THe other is thinking about how it is and how near impossible it is that that will ever happen, so coping with it and sticking with the line that is bred for working ability is what their talking about. Im sure we all agree there (unless we like to show dogs,somehting of a job in itself though not the original prototype, in which case we probably still agree)

Obviously, no working dog person is against shows, in their original context. After all Von stephanitz held them and found them useful. But I think it would be useful to understand where each party is coming from, and why there is an eternal and gigantic rift between the two arguments.

PS I dont mean to speak for anyone who doesnt agree, after reading so much on this subject, It seems that this is the problem in the argument, one is talking about a perfect world, and the other is talking about this world. Not a problem unless someone understand that. but please correct me if someone doesnt agree

Mary how about this, take only the dogs that have proved themselves in there function by work or test, and show them. Why in God sakes do we need an example of a working breed that only looks like it could, judged by someone who in most cases has never trained or worked that breed. If I hear one more time that a working breed was picked for the most part because he had that "pick me look" I'll vomit.