Are cockers named after the cocking bird? Discussions

I'm getting flashbacks now to a dinner with my sister-in-law's rather townie mother, who asked why I was off up to Scotland the following day....

She chocked on her dinner when I replied, "blackcock"

We had a guy came in on work experience once who got everyone baffled, when he insisted his dog wasn't a 'spaniel'...it was a 'cocker'. He absolutely would not have it that a cocker is a spaniel!

love it! How bizarre, how did he explain the "spaniel" part of the cocker spaniel name?

I've equally had people tell me my dogs can't possibly be cocker spaniels - ears aren't long enough don'cha know!

I attempting to video the "cocker" action (rather unsuccesfully as they are just kicking about in the yard), but you can see Copper does it for a wee moment or two in this one:

http://s1081.photobucket.com/albums/j350/annettereid81/?action=view&current=DSC_1164.mp4

I bet there was a rare Cocking Bird strutting its stuff behind you while you were filming and you never noticed!!!

Copper is lovely! I can see the action...

Man at work actually said, "people keep calling him a spaniel - but he's not - he's a cocker! They just don't realise."

We did ask why he thought they were called Cocker Spaniels and he got very upset and said, "NO! they are not spaniels - they are Cockers.".... wonder if he's seen the light yet!

Anyway, here's what one of my old books has to say (Our Friend the Dog by Dr. Gordon Stables RN - written around 1899)

"Cocker spaniels are small sporting dogs, in weight from 18 to 25 pounds. they should never weigh over 28. they are the handiest and probably the most useful spaniels we possess, and yet, strange to say, you seldom find classes set apart for them at dog shows, so they usually have to take pot luck in the any-other-variety classes, perhaps side by side with the Blenheims or King Charleses, betwixt whom and their larger bretheren of the field they seem to form a kind of connecting link.
Right merry, clever and wise wee fellows are these cockers. They will work either covert or open, in places where, owing to their size, Norfolks or Clumbers would be of little use. "The cocker is" to quote from my 'Practical Kennel Guide', "a very game little fellow, and just as gay as game. He never wanders away too far adn when on scent, never fails to 'quest' or give notice by barking shock: )He can even be taught to retrieve and will take to the water.

The proper colour is black adn tan, or liver and tan, or puce but many good dogs of other colours are met with - black, liver, white adn liver, with mottled muzzle adn legs, &c"

Interestingly (to me because I'm an anorak ) is that he then states that the 'Welsh Cocker' is liver and white! he never mentiosn a Welsh Springer - in fact, he never mentions any kind of springer at all!

Straying off-topic now - he does a section on the Norfolk Spaniel - which is " another very useful sporting Spaniel, not so large nor grand in formation as his highly aristocratic cousin the Clumber and more leggy. Norfolk spaniels are very common - indeed, the name is given indiscriminately to nearly all liver and white, or liver and white mottled spaniels, or rarely black and white.
the colour is an advantage to them and most sportsmen prefer them with a good deal of white, so that they can beb more easily seen in cover. They are capital working dogs,are staunch adn true,and work with an immense deal of enjoyment mrgreen: understatement of the Millenium there!)..They are faithful and winning in their ways, though I have known some of the breed extremely self-willed and quite intolerant of the chastisement of his faults".

He also writes about The Black Spaniel "the most graceful adn beautiful breed met with at dog shows" This is a black, short legged adn long bodied spaniel with a setter-like head, weighing in at 40 pounds...

Here are a couple of video clips from this year's cocker and springer championships. Both dogs are extremely fast with a lovely action. The cocker's action I would describe as 'busy' whereas the springer is more rangy.

Anyone who doesn't like to see game being shot and retrieved, please don't watch.;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLMAO8rtJhg&feature=autoplay&list=ULfJzofhkyOS8&playnext=1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4Ei-EJQM9U&feature=channel&list=UL

Essentially yes, but also what it can mean for the breed in the long run. Breeding dogs purely for competition will lead to breeding dogs with increased biddability (not necessarily a bad thing) but with a lack of independent drive and stamina. The dogs form will also change in order to produce a dog that is flashy for the judges. It's such competition breeding that I feel has changed the Springer from what it was when the breed standard was created in the 20th Century: Symmetrically built, compact, strong, merry, active. Highest on leg and raciest in build of all British land Spaniels. And I don't care what anyone says - the working dog came first, then the breed standard based on the best working examples, then the showing. I'm certainly not saying the average show Springer is correct, but that those that breed for field trials (and not for the breed) are equally to blame for morphing it in to something that basically just looks like a slightly larger, white, Cocker Spaniel (admittedly a bit of an exaggeration in order to make my point!).

Which brings us full circle to the original question, I think it is most likely that Cockers are so called due to their smaller size and better ability at getting under cover to flush Woodcock (as per Leanne's findings) when you consider that the Springer of the time was approximately 20 inches at the shoulder.

It makes me sad that such a stunning breed has been turned (in the majority of cases) into a glorified queen anne legged, sausage dog in an effort to breed flashy, hard hunting dogs to win competitions, to the point where the vast majority see no problem with it and genuinely believe that this is the way the breed was meant to be! The working Springer may well be a FTCH winning, (and as we all know flashy = prizes!!!) but what is the point if it doesn't look like a Springer. You might as well have a cross breed.

Sorry bit of a rant, but I am quite passionate about my breed. ;-)

Not all working springers are bred for trials and not all trialling dogs are super-biddable. The good thing about the working world, is that there is the diversity withing the breed to make it a case of 'horses for courses'. If you do teh research, you can find a springer that suits you as a handler.

I think having that diversity is a good thing, rather than splitting it into several different breeds. It gives breeders the flexibility to mix strains and keeps a wide gene pool.

There are still working springers who look like springers out there If you get talking to the triallers, you will find quite a diversity of opinions lol: they are dog people after all!) as to what makes the ideal springer.

I totally agree with Kanie, there are springers for everyone's needs and/or aesthetic views out there. It is definitely not one size fits all.
I get the odd derogatory remark from people with regards to my dogs breeding or running in field trials. These remarks usually come from people with gundog-shaped pets who have come out to chase a few pheasants through the woods. Strangely, when those dogs use their 'ability to think for themselves' they tend to be already in the next drive or sometimes the next county while my spanner is still with me hunting her beat.
As for the queen-anne-legged glorified sausage dogs - what sort of field trial champions have you been seeing?? Racing snake Teckels?

Ah fantastic!! It's hard to describe the difference, these two videos really show it though

I can kind of see what you are saying, but equally, I have never witnessed any proof that field trial bred dogs have less independent drive and stamina than any others? My experience is the exact opposite of this :?

Like I mentioned previously, everyone I am aware of who works their dog and have no interest in competing, still source their dogs from FTCH lines (as does Rory Major), so his comment, in the context you are putting it, really make no sense at all.

I too agree that cockers got their name from woodcock, and based on their smaller stature to springers.

I also agree that there are some teeny tiny springers about, and some huge cockers about!

Not quite sure what context I'm supposed to be putting it in, I'm just quoting what he said on the day, but regardless you still seem to be missing the point. Rory stated that you can train a gundog to be a gundog and then use it for FTs, but not the other way around because the training involved to enable a dog to win trials tends to remove the independence and ability to work all day from the dog. He said that training a dog soley for FTs would ruin it as a gundog for the same reasons. He gave quite a few examples which made perfect sense. Now of course this doesn't mean that FT bred dogs can't be used as gundogs, but I feel FTs are essentially responsible changing the breed from the breed it was originally for the same reasons. Essentially if people didn't get so wrapped up in winning competitons (and then of course looking for that all important red FT bred lines when looking to breed regardless of whether the offspring will be trialled or not) then the Springer most likely would not be the shadow of it's former self that we see today.

Ok, for some reason you are dead set against trialling and the dogs that run in field trials, but I must say I am not convinced that you totally understand how a spaniel field trial actually works.
I take it you know what rough shooting is? Dog quarters in front of handler nice and tight and in shotgun range, dog flushes bird/rabbit, dog sits, handler shoots bird/rabbit, dog is sent for the retrieve.
All very straight forward and exactly the same as in a field trial, the only difference being the addition of judges and guns.
So how on earth is the training and the preparation of a dog for field trials going to ruin it for work as a 'normal' shooting dog? In actual fact working my dog IS the training for field trials.

What will ruin a young trialling dog is to take it on to driven shoots with a lot of out of control dogs in the beating line that bore 40 - 50 yards ahead stealing your dog's ground. There is nothing as frustrating as that to a young dog, and like I said it will ruin any trialling dog in no time. And please, don't make the mistake and think that these other dogs are working independently, they are just wild and out of control.
Maybe you could give me an example of how training a dog for field trials renders it useless for work in the field.

Can I suggest you speak with Rory Major, as I do feel like I'm going round in circles and as I've already said, I'm not in the habit of repeating myself.

It's becoming apparent that you'll only be truly happy until you've either tried to change my mind or prove me wrong, neither of which I can see happening anytime soon. I'm interested in a debate, not an argument or a constant challenging of my experience/beliefs/opinion. I don't need to continually justify my beliefs just because it goes against yours. You have your opinion, I have mine. My opinion not fitting in with yours doesn't make me wrong and you right, it simply means we don't agree. Make your peace with it and have a nice life.

What is apparent is the fact that you come from the show world and I come from the working side of gun dogs, and yes, it is unlikely that we will find common ground. The only thing we seem to have in common is the colour of our springers.
I, too, have an opinion on showing and what it has done to some breeds in general and the springer spaniel and cocker spaniel in particular, but at least I am honest and admit that I don't know enough about the subject and therefor keep my opinion to myself rather than deriding conformation and working ability of a whole group of dogs that obviously give a lot of enjoyment and pride to many people.

I come from a showing background? Is that so, news to me! The only thing that is apparent is that judging people based purely on forum posts over a short space of time will lead to very incorrect assumptions. Which for me is yet another reason why there is little point in trying to converse with you over the subject in hand. You appear to believe what suits you and anyone with different beliefs is either a liar or wrong!

I think I'll continue to debate the subect with open minded people and leave you to your assumptions, because quite frankly life's too short. And of course there is always the highly experienced Mr. Major to answer any more "questions" you may have on the subject. Good day.

Ok, so you haven't shown your dog(s). My mistake. Must be someone else with your username that I am thinking of.;-)

Ah so you assume because I've done some showing that I must be from a background of showing dogs and therefore not from a background of working dogs and as such not entitled to an opinion on working gundogs, but if I am, I'm only entitled to one if it agrees with yours and as a result doesn't offend you.

I'm actually starting to find your attempts to pull me down a tad entertaining, but at the same time am beginning to wonder if you're really just 12 years old?

Please continue with the judgemental attitude, if only for the amusement factor!

I am not assuming anything, I can only go by your posts. You have a show dog that you have shown, even though that is news to you, and you go for gun dog training lessons and work your dog at a little shoot. I hope i have got all of that right now.

You are entitled to your opinion but why do you have to rubbish other people's opinion and resort to personal attacks when you run out of good points to make?

If you favour a larger build springer, with a longer coat, longer ears and less drive then that is great but it wouldn't suit most people who work their dogs either for a living or as a hobby.

The breed standard that you are so fond of reciting was drawn up when people became interested in showing. If you don't judge a dog on its working ability then you have to judge it against something else - hence the breed standard. But that does not mean that dogs who conform to the breed standard are better equipped to work in the field.

People who heavily rely on their dogs' working ability are not going to lose any sleep over the breed standard.

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that springers come in different sizes and each and everyone who wants a springer should be able to get the right dog for their requirements.

I prefer fast, smaller dogs for a variety of reasons. From a practical point of view it is alot easier to pile half a dozen small dogs on the back of a quad bike or the back of a LandRover. Also lifting a small dog over stockfencing topped with barbed wire is a heck of a lot easier than a dog that weighs around 25kg. And believe me, it is something all the beaters here have to do about a dozen times every shoot day. The smaller dogs also cope better with the terrain here on Exmoor, with its very deep valleys and steep hills. They are lighter and faster and work the cover more efficiently than bigger dogs. Their intense hunting drive gives them the desire to tackle even the thickest of cover just for fun. Less driven dogs just wouldn't go through such obstacles.

So those are just a few of the reasons why I and all of my beater friends and colleagues as well as all the game keepers around here prefer small, fast, spaniels with a strong hunting drive. These dogs are not right for everyone but around here, with some of the most famous shooting estates in the country they certainly do the job.

Very occasionally I am lucky enough to get a dog that has got all of the above mentioned qualities plus a little bit extra. The X factor, if you like. And those dogs I run in trials when I have the time, just as a little bit of fun. And yes, I am picky and choosy when it comes to working them because as I have explained in a previous post it is very easy to ruin a dog for trialling. But is is absolutely not possible to ruin a dog for everyday work on a shoot by taking it trialling. Once it has retired from trialling you will still have a perfect shooting companion.

Excellent post