Breeding for Ability?

Question

I've seen some people on this forum say one of the stipulations of being a reputable breeder is showing your dog to championship. But what about preserving the ability the dog was originally bred for? How about a dog who stands out in his breed, not in show conformation, but ,for example, his ability to hunt, and one who is a field trial champion? Accounting for all other things (i.e health certification, temperament etc..), would you not breed such a dog because he isn't a champ in conformation? Would you instead opt to breed the dog who conforms to the breed standard, but possibly lose working ability along the way? And finally, would you consider someone who breeds for ability, along with health and temperament, a disreputable breeder?

Answer 1

Well, a good example of the difference between form & function and AKC breed standard is the Greyhound. I have been involved with RACING greys for years. I know exactly what the body type and form can do to help or inhibit performance. I have also seen show greys and with jaw dropped watched a dog crowned breed champion that couldn't compete in the wiener dog races (well, OK it COULD beat a group of wieners, but you get my point). What the ACK deems as perfect is far from athletic structure. Probably why most racing greys do not "sport" an AKC registration. But anyone breeding Greyhounds for ANY reason other than race or show (and some of those breeders too) should be shot.

I also hunt Chessies and Pointers. I think sporting conformation and show conformation is somewhat similar to the horse industry scenario. "Halter" horses are judged at mostly a standstill for conformation (much like the dog shows). I NEVER met a champion halter horse that could jump a 3'6" fence much less 8 of them......

Answer 2

I think breeding for conformation only or breeding for ability only are both bad ideas. The ideal dog would meet the conformation standard and excell in the breed's type of work.

In the labrador, there are almost two different types -- the ones bred for the conformation ring and the ones bred to hunt. You know, I really understand why some people breed primarily for working ability. They need a dog to do a job. They don't care what the dog looks like. And I think that it's a wonderful thing when a dog can do a job well. But I also think form follows function in a some cases, and that it is best to breed for both qualities, conformation and ability. In the labrador, it's almost like people think a dog can't both conform and be good hunters. My dog's sire is a champion in the conformation ring and also a master hunter. So, it's possible. I'd like to see more people on both sides realize the validity of having a dog that can do both.

Answer 3

This is a very good question.

As someone who both works and shows their dogs, I have no trouble with someone breeding for working ability rather than conformation shows. If you want to breed your herding/agility-titled Border Collie, by all means, do the genetic testing and proceed.

I always include showing *and/or working* as a method of proving a dog worthy of breeding, when I answer those questions.

I consider showing the *least* you can do...the problem is this: If Joe BYB won't bother to get off his butt and show his dogs (in order to at least learn *something* about how they should look), what makes you think he's going to work them?

I think that many people here recommend showing as a hallmark of a reputable breeder because, again, it's the least you can do...and frankly there are a lot more people showing purebred dogs these days than there are people using them for their original purpose.

And since some of the most popular breeds (at least around here) are Toy Breeds (which have no testable functional ability), we recommend showing as a sign of a reputable breeder because it means that at least that Toy breeder is involved in their breed. Has learned about type and soundness, etc.

ADDED: To directly answer your questions:
"How about a dog who stands out in his breed, not in show conformation, but ,for example, his ability to hunt, and one who is a field trial champion? Accounting for all other things (i.e health certification, temperament etc..), would you not breed such a dog because he isn't a champ in conformation?"

Personally, I'd have no problem breeding this dog, as long as he possessed some measure of breed type. If form follows function his structure should be acceptable, but he'd darn well better look like the breed he was supposed to be...otherwise why bother?

"And finally, would you consider someone who breeds for ability, along with health and temperament, a disreputable breeder?"

Absolutely not. If the health and soundness were there. If their dogs (again) had no breed type, I'd think it was unfortunate...but I would respect them for their dedication.

Answer 4

Dogs shown in conformation should be able to perform any task that the breed is known for, so ability should come hand in hand.

There are some wonderful dogs who are field champions and throw beautiful puppies. However, a field championship does not necessarily guarantee good puppies (nor does a conformation championship).

From what I've seen, most folks who are talking about the championships and showing dogs are basically concerned about getting good breeding and not any 2 dogs.

In my opinion, reputable breeders are those folks who truly understand the breed, take the time to research good mates for the dogs, and take the time to get all the health and temperament certifications.

Answer 5

Interestingly, I know the owners of one of only THREE dogs in my breed in 15 yrs to achieve both a performance championship and a bench championship - They were not exactly trampled under the rush to use their stud (two people used him ).
Personally since I'm more interested in performance events, my sofa is occupied by dogs with breed for ability,and all other things equal I'd breed the performance dog in preference to the show champion.....
You need to keep the "value" of the title in mind too though. for example the AKC JC in lure coursing is widely scorned as a "garbage' title and I would not not consider earning that alone qualifies a dog as breedable (though not being able to earn it- well people joke JC flunkies should turn in their papers...) while the top racing titles often have not been earned by some the top 10 winning dogs in the country so I would not consider NOT earning them means the dog is not breedable.
Yes prefomace breeders often are very reputable breeders. I think the show title is most often used since it goes across all breeds and from TV coverage is familiar to even the most novice....

Answer 6

I think it is important for a dog to have the correct confirmation because the dog was bred a certain way to be able to perform the abilities is it to do a certain way. If the dog doesn't have the right structure, it may not be able to do it's job.

That being said, I believe it is important for a dog to not only have correct confirmation but also working ability if it is a working breed.

Breeding a dog for ability, such as working towards great hunters for example, is perfectly fine. I think it is a reputable venture to create a line of great working dogs as much as it is to create a line of show dogs. The dogs should compete and be properly titled in their events. (And they should still also be within the breed standard.)
.

Answer 7

I think that breeding for performance is just as valid as breeding for conformation. Either way, the breeder has a goal that they are working towards, they are not simply producing dog for the heck of it or to make money or whatever. The breeding has a purpose.

Of course, the best scenario is a dog that can be titled in conformation AND performance. But for some of us the opportunities to work our dogs in their original jobs are limited.

Answer 8

EDIT:

Carrie O'Labrador couldn't have said it better! I agree whole heartedly "Form Follows Function".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't breed my labs, nor do I show them, but I do believe that along with health and temperment, breeding for their ability to do what they were originally bred to do is just as important as conformation.

If the dog is a proven field champion and is also passed all of the pre breeding health exams and is genetically and mentally sound, as well as having an owner who is doing it to preserve the breeds working heritage (not just make a fast buck off the cuteness of puppies), I see no reason why not.

As far as I have known, conformation is to ensure that the dog is built properly to do its job.

I commend you for this thought provoking question. Thank you!

Answer 9

Honestly? Yes i would! If he is a champion in something like field trials then it is something that needs preserving for future generations. Breeding should be done for improving the breed so a working champion or anything of that sort would be improving the breed!

Answer 10

Ability breeders who breed for field trials, sled dogs, service dogs, and police dogs are AOK in my book as long as they follow all the strict guidelines the conformation breeders do. In other words, all the soundness and health tests. And all the titles associated with their sport or ability. Also, all 'pet-quality pups' sold from these breeders must be sold under strict contracts of spay/neuter/return policies.

Responsible breeders all do the same things, regardless of their field.

Good breeders are shelter workers' best friends.