Thanks Joy! That definitely clarifies things. It's background info much needed by me. It's good to know that not all breeds have such strong splits between working and show. So far with Corgis there doesn't seem to be a split. I'm really hoping it stays that way for all the breeds that don't have one.

For me it is completely confusing how some people think that working ability is not going anywhere no matter who you breed to who because it is "in the blood." Dachshunds short legs are also "in the blood" but if you breed them without taking into consideration we would probably have square dachs. This they can understand but for some reason they think that if they breed for shorter legs without taking care that the parents have any hunting ability, the dog will magically be even better hunter because it is even lower (forgetting that too low ones can´t be agile and fast enough in the burrow or get stuck in the moss in the woods) despite the fact that the dog wouldn´t know a fox if you hit him in the head with one. But if you tell them that, you get a blank stare or "but it is in their blood." I dubt they will ever understand or even want to. They want to believe that they are doing a great deed for the breed with breeding for the looks stated in the standard (even though going for the extremes that were never in the mind of the people that wrote the standard) and not ruining the qualities that this breed was really called into life for so I think they are just excusing themselves.

I think with us humans it's often a case of "if a little is good, more must be much better." Sadly you see this a great deal in conformation breeding, but you also see it in performance. I sometimes wonder if people even know what moderation is any more.

The extremes on both in are really sad cases. It really just depends so much on who's doing the breeding I think. There are many breeders for the breeds without the working/show split who actively train and title their dogs in a number of sports. I love that, really looking for the total package. Because I know the dogs are looking the way they do for a reason. But at the same time it's hard to judge whether or not the dogs have working ability, or if they're just seeing it all as playtime, so to speak. But I think that's more of a problem with protection sports and breeds, rather than more instinct based things like hunting and herding (though those are certainly affected by breeding dogs with no instinct). I was never trying to talk down on conformation, and after talking more we both realized we were kind of on the same page. She just put more emphasis on structure and I on temperament/drive/instinct, and in reality they're probably equally as important.

From what little I know about breeding, and believe me I know little. It's my understanding that many times trying to breed out a trait causes more problems than it's worth.
Suppose the Corgi breeders succeed in extinguishing the puff coat from the linage completely. What goes with it? What fills it's space?
If there's puff coats coming out now and then, then every Corgi in the world is carrying a gene that's puffy and that gene probably is not just puffy coat, but also contributes something else as well.

I have done extensive research (National Geographic Channel) and have proclaimed myself to be an expert on the subject

Thousands of years ago, when wolves somehow became dogs, living standards were not high enough to keep them as pets. If a human was going to expend the resources necessary to keep and feed a dog the dog had to give something back. Thus all dogs were in one form or another working dogs.

Over time humans figured out that breeding two dogs that did what you wanted them to do well was the best way to produce more dogs that did what you wanted them to do well. So dogs with good working abilities were bred with other dogs with good working abilities. Dogs that did one job well were bred with other dogs that did that job well. Over time this resulted in a large number of breeds, based on the large number of jobs that required different characteristics. I know this is true because I heard Kelsey Grammer say it on a National Geographic Channel show!

The point is that if you breed for certain characteristics by picking parents who have those characteristic, that is what you will get in the puppies. More or less. Genetic science isn't perfect yet. But in general you will get more rather than less. If you want to breed for short legs and pick parents with short legs, you'll get short legs (more or less, genetic science isn't perfect). If you breed for short legs but don't take care to make sure the parents have hunting ability, "in the blood" won't cut it, because if you didn't select the parents for hunting ability and they don't have it, there is no reason to believe the resulting pups will have it either.

Dogs with good working abilities have them because at some point in the past their ancestors were selected for those abilities. By humans. I guess you'd call it "unnatural selection" And from all I've read, apparently it isn't all that easy to do. Breeders have to be smart and know their animals and what they are trying to accomplish and understand that if they select for a desirable characteristic but don't take care to filter out undesirable characteristics they may get a dog that looks great but can't function as it was meant to way back when that breed was first developed.

I have the day off and I'm supposed to be taking a 30 minute walk 5 days a week and it is 33 degrees outside and I'm dragging this on to avoid going out in the cold. Oh well. I better just suck it up and get it over with. If you never hear from me again it's because I froze to death trying to control my blood sugar.

There's all kinds of experiments that have shown wierd unintentional consequences in selective breeding. The most famous I think was the Russian who started breeding foxes to be more tame. I believe that study is still on going. Look it up, very odd changes in the animal coming about because of breeding just on reaction from the human presence, that was the only selection.

In my mind that's why breeding is not to be taken up lightly and why I think too many people are doing it. They know not what they do.
'Oh well, I understand Mendal and his peas, heck I can breed dogs.' And some don't even understand genetics that far, but let's blast the long coat out of the breed because it costs me money when it shows up.
I say be careful what you wish for.

 Quote: randy allen

From what little I know about breeding, and believe me I know little. It's my understanding that many times trying to breed out a trait causes more problems than it's worth.
Suppose the Corgi breeders succeed in extinguishing the puff coat from the linage completely. What goes with it? What fills it's space?
If there's puff coats coming out now and then, then every Corgi in the world is carrying a gene that's puffy and that gene probably is not just puffy coat, but also contributes something else as well.

What you're referring to is called linkage. The genes (most traits are controlled by several genes, not just a single pair as in Mendelian genes.) that are right next to the genes that control the undesired trait, usually transfer with it. Since there often seems to be somewhat of a personality difference between the longer coats and short coats from those breeds that have different coat length. At least some of the genes that control personality might be in close proximity to the genes that control coat length.

In many breeds, the longer coats (whether actually long or just plush) seem to often go with mellower dogs.

Quote:
In many breeds, the longer coats (whether actually long or just plush) seem to often go with mellower dogs. end quote

Really???? What breeds?

The coat don't mean diddly, a good dog is a good dog, who cares what it's wearing.