Are cockers named after the cocking bird? Discussions

To me that is the joy of a working breed of dog
Different areas and different people perfer slightly different things from their dogs so in the one breed you get quite a variaty of looks and sizes and drive
But at the same time they are all identifiable as that breed

and imo because there is that variaty then the breed is flexable enough to be useful even as the nature of the work they are asked to do changes

It is something I still struggle to get my head round the idea that many people believe that a dog LOOKS right, if it fits the standard then it will be able to do the job

The standard was just written by people, its not God given

and the breeds look the way they do because people used and then bred the dogs who were able to do the job they wanted the best
The looks evolved based on the work

form follows function

Indeed, my thoughts exactly, was just working up to typing out something similar.

You've met my FT bred spaniels - do you think they lack stamina and drive?

FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION is such a definitve concept - sometimes I do wonder if people believe that if you breed without thinking about a specific "look" that suddenly all dogs will morph into one breed and all look the same!

lol nope your two dont lack stamina or drive
but they also have handler focus that some of the dogs bred not for working ability lack

and of course your guys could turn their paws to all sorts of other jobs - Jet will make a fantastic landscape gardner

he's a weirdo!

That's all pretty much stuff I've heard before and the standard triallers response, which is fine, but not really worth replying to tbh.

Can you show me where I've rubbished your opinion? You've tried to rubbish me and mine during this thread, but as far as I'm aware all I've done is give my opinion on working gundogs, which you disagree with and (for some very weird reason) find offensive, but at no point am I aware of rubbishing your opinion.......

To be fair to Rips, I cant see she has rubbished anyone's opinions, that pleasure sits firmly with you .

You seem to have gotten a very big bee in your bonnet because someone dared to quote an opinion given by an "expect" on A subject (I have no idea who he is) that you are involved in.

I would suggest instead of "rubbishing" her opinions, you speak to the man directly , and "rubbish" him personally.

I would have thought its fairly simple to understand, if a dog fits the standard for which it was bred, it is going to be able to do said job.

After all, those who set the standard, did not do it for the hell of it, they did it so form and function "fit" to do A.B.C.

Form does not follow function, because if the form is wrong the function wont work.

And function needs form to do said job accurately

The standard was created from the working dog.

Form follows function is all very well, until the function changes. Which is exactly the point I'm making, the working ESS's form has been changed in order to win FTs......What I find amazing is that because it's working competitions then that makes it ok??? Temperament, health, and conformation go out of the window, but that's ok because the dog is doing a job and winning shiny trophies? But if the dog is changed to win show competitions then it's wrong. Double standards perhaps.......

The breed standard ESS (and I'm talking minus the exaggerations some kennels insist on breeding in) can quite easily work as a gundog - the job it's was created for! Why? Because the breed standard was created from the working breed, so many people seem to be oblivious to that fact. I don't expect every dog of the breed to be a clone of the next (that doesn't even happen in the show world), all I expect is that it looks like said breed and not some sort of crossbreed created by the desire to win FT competitions.

Again, I don't think anyone has said they do?

As for the rest see my response above.....

I don't buy for a second the theory that because a dog has the physical conformation to perform a particular function that it will automatically be capable of it.

Yes, these things are of value, but a breed show cannot and was never designed to be a test of traits such as hunting ability; biddability; intelligence; ability to read other dogs' body language and to tolerate pretty much anything (absolutley essential when you are all crammed like sardines in the back of a landrover with a layer of wet spaniels over the top - if your dog is the least bit precious about its space, you won't be asked back!)

I know breed standards make a cursory reference to temperament, but the instinctive abilities required in a working dog cannot be tested in the show ring.

Even if they could lol: this is getting repetitive - sorry) there is a diversity in working spaniels which means everyone on every kind of shoot should be able to find a dog that suits them....and this is a positive thing. That's a doversity in physical appearance, biddability and level of instinct to hunt and to retrieve.

I'm sure from the description, Spaniel04's dogs are a very different type to my working springer - but I am equally sure if we met we'd celebrate the difference; have a damn good chat about working springers and find lots to admire in one another's dogs.

When a breed standard is drawn up, it is drawn up by people who have a vested interest in the breed. If their group favour a particular type, then that is what the standard will be based on. There may be other types out there and some of these may, at some point, be favoured by a group of enthusiasts who enjoy shows - and become a 'breed' in their own right. We know this is what happened, so why try to deny it?

I've seen some really lovely looking show springers and cockers and I know some do work and do a grand job. However, this is the exception and not the rule and I don't know any that have made the grade in Field Trials.

It's all well and good saying a Field Trial is not the only way to measure a dog's working ability - but it is a system based on testing the dog's performance on a walked-up shoot; the dog has to hunt, be steady to flush and retrieve and they are assessed by 2 judges. It's a standard system, administred by the Kennel Club.

To say it's meaningless or even detrimental, is no different from saying breed shows are pointless because you think your dog is the best fit of the breed standard and don't feel the need for him / her to be judges alongside the other contenders by your peers within the breed.

Let's not forget too, that the majority of springers and cockers are sadly bred for nothing more than making a few quid for their breeders - many in puppy farms or as speculative litters - with no effort made to find working homes for dogs that may be from working lines. Can you seriously call these 'working' spaniels? To me, a working spaniel is one that was bred with thought and consideration for the breed and its function.

I wouldn't call, say, a cocker that turns up as a puppy farm 'surplus to requirements' in the rescue system as a 'show cocker' - even if it is of that physical type (loosely!) because I consider a show-spaniel to be one that has been bred with thought too.

No I am sorry but I totally disagree
If you breed from dogs who are the best at the job you want them to do over time they will develop the best form for that function
But just breeding for a shape does not give you drive and working ability
and also you are assuming the standard was set when the dogs were evolved to the best of their working ability
Added to that how open to interpritation a standard is - because at the end of the day pertty much ALL show breeds have changed in looks vastly from when the standard was written


To do the said job correctly the dog needs the correct temprament for the work, the drive, the ability, the stamina
The 'correct' length of fuzzy ears are at best unimportant but in many cases would actually be a hinderance doing the actual job

At what point have I said anything about dogs winning trials? and for that matter I havent seen a single person on here talking about dogs ONLY doing trials, from what I have seen everyone on here is talking about the dog doing its job in the field - with the ability to do trials as an addition as well

I dont agree with anyone breeding dogs to win prizes at their hobby


I honestly dont get why people insist because a dog is the 'correct' shape then it will be able to do its job
Its like saying if I make a Farrari out of balsa wood then I will be able to compeate in F1

Show bred spanials are TOTALY different dogs, they look different (domed heads, long curly floppy ears, way too much coat) and they act differently - less handler focus, less trainability and more easily distracted

You can say the working breed has changed over time - but looking back at old fotos from the 1900's the working dog looks much closer to them than the show dog of today - so even if you still think that the form is more important than the function - breeding ONLY for form has resulted in the dogs changing LOTS more

Form does not follow funtion????

Ah well that's the entire basis for Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection out the window, I've heard it all now!

Well to be fair suggesting someone was a pre teen just cos they didnt agree with her doesnt make it sound like a rational informed discussion

Here'e what you said in post #46:

"as such I do tend to find FT kennels are bred just for that: the competition and as such don't have the stamina or independent thought that true working bred dogs need out in the field."

My dogs, and the vast majority of other working gundogs I know of are all from FT kennels and all have unbelievable stamina, drive and independent thought. I'd be interested to know what lines/kennels you think lack these traits

I don't think spaniel04 has been rubbishing anyone's opinions at all! This is a simple discussion, anyone can give their opinion :?

And also, to be fair Rip, saying someone's post "isn't worth replying to" isn't particularly conductive to a decent discussion either.

Have you even bothered to read the thread? The obsession of winning trials is what has changed the breed, that's the point I'm making which came into the debate after hearing Rory Major state that you can't train solely for FTs (and therefore have the main aim to win) without ruining the dog as a gundog. It was hearing this statement that reaffirmed that believe in my mind. Can I just ask you actually read the thread if you want to take part, as here I am (yet again) repeating myself because someone either can't be bothered or doesn't want to read the thread.

Unless of course it's working bred........did you know that working type ESS have roughly the same level of inbreeding as show Springers but with nowhere near the level of health testing. It's all that breeding to win trials that's the reason, but as long as the dog is working who cares, right?!

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. But as you say, form follows function and the breed standard was based on the function the dog was used for so yes a correctly constructed dog will be able to do the job it's bred for. Isla has won BOB on a couple of occasions at open level and can go all day in the field, so I don't understand your point really? Unless of course you're assuming that when people say this they're implying that the construction alone can ensure the dog can do it's job, which of course we all know isn't a given. But being correctly constructed certainly won't do the dog any harm!

Is that so?! I better tell Isla then and her Sire who is a fullFrench Champion (you might want to look that up to find out why it's significant).....The truth is those show breeders who breed for exaggeration do produce the dogs your describe, but even you know from the recent Crufts comparing threads that the breed is now a lot less exaggerated. Methinks you're clutching at straws to try and make your point perhaps?

Wow so you study the ESS breed then? I never knew this! So which books do you have about the breed in your shelves? How many years have you studied the ancient pedigrees, photographs, breeders etc? Or are we simply talking 30 minutes worth of Googling again? Don't answer that I think I can guess!

It's a lovely idea that the breed standard was created only from the certain type or popular type of ESS at the time and that the working breed is actually the original type, in fact it would put those working breeders on an even higher pedestal for you, but I'll tell you what I found when delving through the archives all these years shall I?

When you look back at the kennels in the early days they were dual purpose, in fact when the breed standard was first created it contained elements of the dogs original working ability. It was only later down the line when FTs and working competitons (and show competitions) became increasingly popular that the breed began to split. It was then that the breed standard was changed and a full on split between working and show types came about.

So no, the ESS was never intended to look like the working type, at least that's not what history tells us. And that is, at the end of the day, the only true way to research a breed imo. Photos alone mean nothing because you could quite easily be looking at a very poor example of the breed or even a very bad fashion era for the breed. Context, imo, is everything when truly researching a breed.

Here we go again
Yes I have read every post in this thread
However you were directly quoting me about the FT bit which I have never talked about
This thread was actually about where the name of cocker came from - not about FT/show or whatever, but I was replying to you quoting me

Yes you have quoted what you have heard ONE person say, used it to back up your belief but then got all defensive and told people to go and talk to him when questioned - when in fact it was you that brought him up in the first place

and even if what you say he says is true that is only one persons view - just saying you heard someone say something does not immediatly make you right and everyone else on this thread wrong

and from what I have seen here noone is saying having dogs ONLY for FT's - everyone is talking about working their dog - FT's is only part of that

I would love to see where you think I have said that inbreeding is a good thing? funny thing to prove your point that working dogs are bad you state they are just as inbred as show dogs - hmm that makes anything better does it? I think imbreeding is a really bad thing - end of - but where is that relivent to anything?
and OK much less health testing - can I ask tho are they much less healthy??

I can see that you will never understand the argument that the shape of the dog does not make working ability so I will just agree to disagree there, happy that my views are backed up by Darwin

A full French champ - well why dont you just tell us then - why do I care enough to look it up?? Is it something to do with some judge thinking they are constructed well and also passing some kind of FT type test?
Strange to see you are basing your argument that I am clutching at straws on hom much show dogs looks are changing again - if you have a standard that is so great and important then how can you keep changing the way the dogs look??


Oh I am so sorry, noone sent the memo that we now have to fill in a CV on the subject of a certain breed before we are alowed to comment on them
You first then

and ROFLMAO at your argument that in the beginning the dogs were dual purpose
seriously!!!! Of course they were - people wanted to show their working dogs
They were working dogs who were shown
Then some people found the showing hobby more fun for them than actually working their dogs so started to breed for winning on looks - and splits happend

Okpersonal input, one of mine was bred for trialling, and actually was handed in to rescue by a rather well known North east working/ trialling kennel, she has been bred to be showy when she works etc, however this has made her nervy and her stamina is much less than the rest of them, could she do a full days work, probably, but not as well as Meg who is the same age, would she win a trial probably if i'd carried on with her training.

Hang on a tick!

I said that breed standards were created based on the sample of dogs in favour with those who chose to be involved with the show fraternity at the time. I did not say that this 'proves' that the 'working type' are the 'original type'. Perhpas you were merging a few ideas, which is why I wasn't quoted directly (or perhaps nobody reads my posts )

I have maintained throughout that in the working dog world there has never been 1 type - and that this is a positive thing. Our dogs are all reconisable as spaniels and to me, that's all that matters. If back in the mists of time they had ended up being called Norfolk Spaniels or just Land Spaniels, we'd love 'em and work 'em just the same (just as , I am sure those who show would too)

I think it is a major positive that you are looking seriously at working ability in your dogs and that you are out there working Isla and enjoying watching her work. Even working dog people (or should that be 'especially' ) have vast differences of opinion as to what makes their ideal spaniel. That includes the top trials handlers.

What seems to unite those whose dogs are bred for work and just for work is a deep seated appreciation of the working dog as a whole and a love of shooting and playing a part in the day. I can't quite put it into words - but of the show people I've met who also work their dogs, with 1 exception, they don't really wholeheartedly roll up their sleeves and embrace the day! They seem to be doing it just to say their dog has worked - rather than working their dog for the sheer joy of working their dog.

I even had one show person whose dogs were absolutely capable workers by all accounts, say they stopped going beating after doing a 'cost-benefit analysis'

I have met working lines dogs that are so submissive and floppy that I personally would not like to own one - but that does not mean 'all' trials lines dogs are neurotic little robots - there are some trialling lines that favour a totally different type of animal.

Would still be interested to know what lines are producing dogs that can't do a days work..............

I don`t think anyone has actually said conformation ensures capability.........breed standard is more than just conformation.

BUT , without conformation for said job its going to make it harder for a dog to carry out the job he was bred for,

Not much point a dog having drive if its to big and heavy to fit in a small space, or a dog that is built like a brick house when its function is to cover ground at speed .

When those who developed "a" breed to perform "a" job, they worked out what they wanted from "said" dog, to enable "said" dog to be able to do "said" job well, hence Breed standards...

That includes drive , ability and conformation to do what is asked of them.

Suggesting function comes before all else, is like saying my Shetland is going to be capable of running the grand national, because he has the drive to do it..........he is going to be left at the first fence due to his conformation.