Just pick up our marbles and go home eh? No point even lobbying to the AKC for improvement?
Honestly, I don't think there's a lot wrong with many of the show dogs not having a lot of working experience. Most people who buy Labradors and Goldens don't hunt. Hunters shouldn't pretend they are the only market.
What I don't like to see is the show type and the working type divergine radically in how they look. Either the standard is wrong, in that case, or somebody's not breeding to the standard.
Working German Shepherd Dogs do not walk on their hocks the way the cartoonish specimens in the show ring do.
Labradors should be neither the stubby fat sausages with legs of the ring, nor huge leggy monster dogs of the field. They should be a gentleman's hunter, strong and muscular but compact enough for a hunter to haul back into a small duck boat after a retrieve :~D
I don't think the AKC ruins dogs necessarily, I think that's an over-simplification. What I think happens is there seems to be a competitive resentment between working and show breeders, and while some of us might think they ought to have the same goal, they don't necessarily. Goldens with big poofball feet and glorious long blond hair is of no value to the field trial people, but the pet buyers love it. The purposes of dogs change over time sometimes, I guess.
There is a BIG difference. Shelley's just about half way in between. My only real criticism of Tori (she is a splendid dog and one of the best hunt test dogs I've ever seen. I have seen her NO-whistle a 250 yard blind) is that she's lost the typical "otter tail" of the Lab, which I think is an endearing and totally necessary attribute. She has a long, almost hound-like "whip tail" which you really can't see in the picture.
My point exactly. People have so many options these days, it's easy to research a breeder and pedigrees. By and large the public is more informed (I find this true of most of the people who contact me for a puppy, they have already done at least some homework and most know the basics to ask). Certainly people are free to petition the AKC to change their ways (good luck!) and if AKC sees fit to do it, I applaud (for the most part). I just have not seen a logical plan suggested, that would change the system as we have it.
Of course for field dogs you could add the requirement that they pass something like the golden retriever's WC test (not a very difficult test, I might add, I got a pass on my very first show dog with virtually no training. She had seen a duck before, and she was trained through novice obedience so she knew what sit and stay meant.) However, a basic obedience requirement such as a CD doesn't make sense, if your goal is to make sure the breed is fit for it's original purpose. Does a CD tell you if a bird dog will hunt? If a sheltie will herd? If a whippet will course? No, you would need different tests for each breed (and frankly, I don't think a lab and a golden were intended to be the same exact sort of hunting dog, just like a spinone and an English pointer hunt VERY differently, and for good reasons!). And what of the breeds that are only bred to be lap dogs?
However, it's all academic, because I doubt AKC will go that route. Their postition, I suspect is the same as mine. A conformation championship only says that a dog adheres to the standard, according to what a judge can see and feel in the show ring. If you want more titles, they are available as well.
susie