I know this is a stupid question, but I'm a part of another forum for Corgis and made a statement about working vs show lines (for all breeds, and a bad idea now, I realize) and was kind of attacked about it. It was about fluffy Corgis and how reputable breeders wouldn't breed for them. Though there may not be the huge division between working/show line Corgis like there are with other breeds, isn't there still a difference?

I had just made a statement that looks should be the last thing to breed for. I was basically told that they breed for looks because function follows form, and all of the working line Corgis she had seen had terrible temperaments and didn't look anything like Corgis. I was talking about working dogs in general, but I think she misunderstood me to be only talking about Corgis only. She said that the earliest dog shows were for working dogs at agricultural fairs, and they bred for looks so that everyone would know what breed it was from across the field.

I'm just wondering I guess if some show and working lines are still kept together? I don't know anything about show lines. And I said that. But she got really upset. I know that there are reputable show line breeders who take health and temperament seriously, but do any of them actually work their dogs? I only said that it wouldn't be a huge deal to me if a show line breeder knowingly bred two dogs who carried the fluffy gene, if the sire and dam both had outstanding temperaments, health, and working ability. I said it wouldn't really matter unless the dog was going to a show home... right? I'm hoping people here can help guide me. Am I wrong at all (likely), or is there no true testing done on working ability for show line dogs of any breed?

Personally I think it often gets rather ridiculous on both sides of the question. For example, there is no way today's American show GSD could work all day herding sheep. Heck many can barely walk. On the other hand, I've seen obedience dogs whose owner/handlers seemed almost proud that the dog was dirty, ungroomed and almost unrecognizable as its breed.

Early shows may have judged the dogs on "looks" to some extent but I bet they were better at reading and interpreting standards than many are today, primarily because people back then (even city folk) lived closer to nature and were still very familiar with horse terms, from which our standards get much of their terminology. Btw, if a "fluffy coat" is not correct for a Corgi according to the standard, it is not correct for any Corgi, working or show. And working line Corgis, like any working line dog, probably do have a sharper (not bad) temperament.

Thanks Elaine. It's a good thing I'll never breed my dogs cause I just don't get it. But I understand if there are standards they are to be followed, as it's to improve the breed. My Conan's litter mate was a fluffy. Maybe that should have raised flags? But I've spoken to a number of people before and after getting Conan, and every one has a great Corgi. His sister is the only fluffy I've known of. Who knows, maybe she's a bad breeder at heart. But she's been there every time we've had questions and is certainly concerned about Conan's health status at the moment.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

Thanks Elaine. It's a good thing I'll never breed my dogs cause I just don't get it. But I understand if there are standards they are to be followed, as it's to improve the breed. My Conan's litter mate was a fluffy. Maybe that should have raised flags? But I've spoken to a number of people before and after getting Conan, and every one has a great Corgi. His sister is the only fluffy I've known of. Who knows, maybe she's a bad breeder at heart. But she's been there every time we've had questions and is certainly concerned about Conan's health status at the moment.

I don't think the occasional fluffy coat would be reason enough to eliminate a breeder from considertion. And, she sounds as if she cares about the breed. I don't know that much about Corgis but the standard for the coat probably is that way because a correct coat would protect the dog in bad weather when working cattle.

That's kind of what I said on the other board. That if you have two really outstanding parents that might produce a fluffy, should you not breed them? Her answer was no. And it's understandable. All of the puppies have a one in four chance of being fluffy. But she (Conan's breeder) had deposits before the pups were born. And I just said that a fluffy here or there going to a companion home isn't a huge deal to me if the sire and dam were proven quality dogs and producers. I'm thinking it's personal preference at that point.

Thanks again Elaine

 Quote:

She said that the earliest dog shows were for working dogs at agricultural fairs, and they bred for looks so that everyone would know what breed it was from across the field.

Huh? never heard that one before...

Me either, but I admittedly don't know anything about dog shows. And I just don't see how a conformation ring proves any sort of working ability. My main point is that I think it's better to breed two dogs who have outstanding health/temperaments/working ability that MIGHT produce a fluffy pup or two, than to breed two dogs who have no drive/working ability but don't carry fluffy genes. Maybe there are reputable show line breeders out there who put working titles on their dogs, but I haven't found any (other than show GSDs with SchH titles, but that's a whole subject on it's own). Conan is predominantly show lines and he has tons of drive and a great temperament and health for the most part. He's too big to be a show dog though. However, there is a show line Corgi in our herding group with almost no drive whatsoever. She's more concerned with eating the sheep poop than herding the sheep. Why would breeding that dog be for the better of the breed? I guess it's just a debate that will go on forever.

It is a debate that will probably go on forever--or as long as people think it's worth debating. I don't.

I don't see why there is not room enough in the world of dog-lovers to pretty much accept whatever sort of dog one is willing to provide for.

If conformation shows aren't one's cup of tea, (they aren't mine) so be it. There's no reason for some to spoil the fun of those who do by criticizing their dogs because they lack qualities that aren't important to the activity for which they were bred.

It is my opinion that any dog that is the result of an intentional breeding, lives with people who care for his health and happiness, and provide any kind of enrichment activity--including going to a beauty pagent--is far, far luckier than most dogs in the world.

You're right about that. I definitely won't open my mouth next time. I just wanted to pipe up and let the OP know that fluffies can come from reputable breeders. I certainly know better now. Thanks everyone!

She was correct when she said, "...the earliest dog shows were for working dogs at agricultural fairs,..." But incorrect when she said, "...and they bred for looks so that everyone would know what breed it was from across the field."

The earliest recorded dog shows were agricultural events. But the reason they didn't include and working tests was because the dogs were working dogs and had already proven themselves in the fields and farms. The cattlemen and shepherds already knew the reputations of the dogs, even if they had never seen some of them. They'd show off their best workers and debate which physical characteristics were important to the dogs being good at their jobs.

The next stage of dog showing was for those who knew the good working dogs and their common characteristics, to write breed standards for the breeds. But still, the physical characteristics were not considered more important than their proof of actual work. Only much later were dogs shown with no expectation of ever working from parents who were never worked.

Today, some breeds have such a difference between working and show lines as to appear to be different breeds. But some show dogs still have working instincts, if not to the degree or with the drive, that working lines do.

Hope that clarifies things generally. As for Corgis, sorry, I don't know the breed beyond some pets.