Are there more working cockers....

[happydog]

I think you need to look in to the history of the breed going back a hundred years or more. Springers, cockers, and all of the other spaniels came out of original working field spaniels. They were just selectively bred for their various traits according to how they were to be used at work. Some to flush out game, some for retrieving , that sort of thing. Dont forget that these were all working dogs at this time. I'm no true expert and stand to be corrected. I remember reading an article on this several months ago. Its in the house somewhere and will dig it out if I can find it later and re-post on this. So working lines continued selectively breeding for desired working traits  and show lines continued for desirable show traits. It's the same for all breeds that still have a useful working purpose. Hope i'm not ruffling any feathers here but the working dogs were being selectively bred before the existence of the KC. Perhaps they should consider splitting them in to two separate breeds? Just a thought I have an open mind on it myself. As I said I am no expert.

[silkstocking]

I think you need to look in to the history of the breed going back a hundred years or more. Springers, cockers, and all of the other spaniels came out of original working field spaniels. They were just selectively bred for their various traits according to how they were to be used at work. Some to flush out game, some for retrieving , that sort of thing. Dont forget that these were all working dogs at this time. I'm no true expert and stand to be corrected. I remember reading an article on this several months ago. Its in the house somewhere and will dig it out if I can find it later and re-post on this. So working lines continued selectively breeding for desired working traits  and show lines continued for desirable show traits. It's the same for all breeds that still have a useful working purpose. Hope i'm not ruffling any feathers here but the working dogs were being selectively bred before the existence of the KC. Perhaps they should consider splitting them in to two separate breeds? Just a thought I have an open mind on it myself. As I said I am no expert.

You are right ofcourse about the history, spaniels were out in the field flushing and retriving long before anything else. I can kind of see how seperating them ino two seperate breeds would make sense, ofcourse they are both Cockers, but maybe if they were registered as English Show Cocker Spaniels and English Working Cocker Spainel, it would be more obvious for those people who think they are buying a shocker but they infact have a working cocker and vice versa, but there again I guess that have to do that with every breed that has show and working strain. Also if they are mixed where would they fit!! If they were half working cocker and half shocker!!

I need to stop thinking about this so much I! Its not like by me sitting mulling it over anyhings going to change is it!!!! ha ha ha

Rachel sorry for the slight OTness of my questions, your thread just got me thinking!!!

[Jane S]

Do we have to call show-type Cockers "shockers" - I've seen this term used in a derogatory fashion on other sites and would hate to see it become common place on this forum (even if it is used tongue in cheek ).

Anyway that apart, Happydog is right - all the land Spaniels descend from the same stock originally with breeders selecting for different types & size depending on what kind of work they wanted them to do. When the breeds were first being developed, you could have different breeds registered in the same litter depending on how big they were so those under a certain weight were registered as Cockers and those over a certain weight were Field Spaniels. When the Kennel Club breed standard was first laid down for the Cocker Spaniel, it was drawn up by those actively working their dogs as well as showing them. It's a common misconception that the breed standard description is only concerned with show dogs but the orginators of the breed who drew up the standard had a working dog in mind not just a show dog (the breed was dual purpose in those days - there were not two distinct types). As time went by, the breed evolved into two types as have most of the Gundog breeds but I can't see anything wrong with this - nothing stays the same, particularly in the modern world where many owners have no interest in their dogs doing the job they were originally intended for Anyone interested in reading about how the breed has evolved should get a copy of Peggy Grayson's History of the Cocker Spaniel which is full of info & photos of Cockers from the early days upto recent times. As for the breed becoming officially two separate breeds, that will never happen and would be a total nightmare to administer anyway (there are many Cockers being registered with a mixture of show & working lines). As for people ending up with the type of Cocker they didn't expect, then the answer is for more homework to be done before buying a puppy and for breeders (both types) to spend more time educating their buyers.

Jane

[Cob-Web]

  As for the breed becoming officially two separate breeds, that will never happen and would be a total nightmare to administer anyway (there are many Cockers being registered with a mixture of show & working lines).

It would have to be applied to almost every breed too; there are working and show strains of almost every breed now; all the different spaniels, collies, shepherds etc - and in most cases the differences are as obvious in those breeds as the working cocker/show cocker differences are 

Am I right in thinking that in other countries there are not the distinct differences between the two types of ECS as there are in the UK? 

[silkstocking]

Apologise Jane, I wasn't meaning to be derogatory using the term "shockers", I have show cockers so I wasn't meaning that at all, it was just a way to distinguish the two in my rambalings.

Thanks for the information, you are right about people needing to do more research so they know the differences between the two

[Top Barks]

Does the Peggy Grayson book cover the development of both Working and show lines Jane?
Is it easy to get hold of a copy?
I would love to learn more.
Mark

[silkstocking]

Does the Peggy Grayson book cover the development of both Working and show lines Jane?
Is it easy to get hold of a copy?
I would love to learn more.
Mark

#

I have a Peggy Grayson book although not that one I must admit and I got it from PAH.

[Jane S]

Apologise Jane, I wasn't meaning to be derogatory using the term "shockers", I have show cockers so I wasn't meaning that at all, it was just a way to distinguish the two in my rambalings.

No need to apologies Lisa I just find the term really irritating and it can easily be misused by people who do not like show-type Cockers as of course it has a double meaning

Am I right in thinking that in other countries there are not the distinct differences between the two types of ECS as there are in the UK? 

No, the distinction exists in plenty of other countries too - those who are interested in competitive field trials will always prefer Cockers from Field Trial lines and UK Working Cockers seem to be much in demand overseas going by the exports listed. That's not to say that show-type Cockers aren't worked in other countries - some countries demand a working qualification before a show-type Cocker can become a Champion (France for one)

Does the Peggy Grayson book cover the development of both Working and show lines Jane?
Is it easy to get hold of a copy?

It's privately printed Mark so sometimes you have to order it - you should be able to get a copy at Crufts somewhere though. It covers the early days (before the split) in some detail and there are 2 chapters on Field Trial winners from the 19th Century upto 1990. It's not an easy book to find anything as there is no index but very interesting none the less

Jane

[Annette]

As far as meeting the breed standard for showing is concerned, am I right in thinking that sometimes the two strains are mixed to improve a certain feature for showing? I appreciate that this would be done with a long=term view as the first or ?second generation pups are unlikely to meet show standard.

Or am I just talking out of the top of my head?

I must admit that although Buddy's breeder told me that he was 1/4 working coker, it actually meant little or nothing to me at the time. But perhaps the working features have been diluted to some extent by now because he certainly isn't high energy! His sire is owned by a very reputable show breeder (if that's the correct term) so I don't think the decision to create this litter was taken lightly.

I must say Buddy looks pretty good to my untrained eye. His ear set isn't as bad as was feared, but his back is way too long, I'm told. As a pet he's perfect and we love him to bits!

[Helen]

good site for working cockers is here.....www.felsteadgundogs.com/

i can understand show cocker owners ensuring they do a lot of work into their dogs pedigrees so they have best lines/health etc but what about field trial standard??  there is so much work involved in training a dog to field trial standards that equally owners will look for fully proven lines

 - so although appearance may not up to show cocker standards, a bit of working cocker isn't a bad thing.   a good line wasn't important to us when we got jarvis (and as we bought off a breeder who is very proud of his gundogs, we did get a dog with proven lines) - but now, as with show cockers, it would be (for intellect, shape, eye, health, biddability)....unless (and this is bound to happen if people are breeding working cockers for profit) more turn up in rescue (which they will if people don't know what type of dog they are getting), in which case i'll be twisting the thumbscrews on my o.h

at the moment my high energy working cocker is passed out on my feet dreaming of flushing pheasants and bouncing in muddy puddles - and all those who meet him are surprised at how laid back he is...so not all are completely manic!

[workingcockers]

I dont know if there are more numerically although there well could be now they are being taken seriously as a rival to the springer in the field but I think they are maybe better known about due to the internet, more people having PCS/access to internet esp in the last few years, forums such as this one etc etc. And, I suppose the same goes for advertising as it is more accepted to advertise working cockers and springers on certain sites than it is to do the same for the show strain so maybe people are more aware of them. I just wonder if there is such confusion with the springer. To see a show bred springer outwith the the show ring in this part of the country is unheard of - I have never seen one!! If I was to answer an ad offering springers, I would expect it to be working bred unless otherwise stated..People buying springers as pets would think it odd if their pup grew long ears up here. There doesnt seem to be the need for springer breeders to make sure that the new owners know exactly what type of breeding they are buying. Whereas with cockers, the 'default' strain is show, so I always make sure I make it clear what my pups are.

[Cob-Web]

  To see a show bred springer outwith the the show ring in this part of the country is unheard of - I have never seen one!! If I was to answer an ad offering springers, I would expect it to be working bred unless otherwise stated..People buying springers as pets would think it odd if their pup grew long ears up here. There doesnt seem to be the need for springer breeders to make sure that the new owners know exactly what type of breeding they are buying. Whereas with cockers, the 'default' strain is show, so I always make sure I make it clear what my pups are.

But presumably, if there are show springer breeders in the area, then many of the litters they breed are homed to pet homes though, aren't they? 

[Jane S]

As far as meeting the breed standard for showing is concerned, am I right in thinking that sometimes the two strains are mixed to improve a certain feature for showing? I appreciate that this would be done with a long=term view as the first or ?second generation pups are unlikely to meet show standard.

I've never heard of this Annette and don't think you will find one successful show line that has any Working Cocker breeding in the pedigree (although of course both types go back to the same dogs if you trace back far enough). Some pet breeders are happy to mix the types & I know of several commercial breeders who have used Working Cocker lines, presumably to get a particular colour or because they too don't understand the difference. Also there are serious breeders like Kirsten (workingcockers) who have done mixed breedings but not for showing purposes, correct me if I'm wrong there Kirsten

To see a show bred springer outwith the the show ring in this part of the country is unheard of - I have never seen one!! If I was to answer an ad offering springers, I would expect it to be working bred unless otherwise stated..People buying springers as pets would think it odd if their pup grew long ears up here. There doesnt seem to be the need for springer breeders to make sure that the new owners know exactly what type of breeding they are buying. Whereas with cockers, the 'default' strain is show, so I always make sure I make it clear what my pups are.

That's true - it's mainly Working Springers in my area too although I did see a very nice show-type Springer boy the other day. There are far fewer breeders of show-type Springers than show-type Cockers so this probably explains why you don't see too many as pets and when you do, they stand out


Jane

[workingcockers]

Hi Jane - yes - I have tried one mixed breeding - although I do breed my workers with the breed standard in mind as well as the other things needed in a worker, so therefore in the main I dont have overlong backs etc, my reason for bringing show blood (parti-colour - strong Normanview breeding) was to try and keep the 'cockery' type (i dont like the springery type of working cocker that I see so often - we wont even go there!!) and put a better head on. What was interesting was that physically they all looked like show cockers but with less length of coat. 2 had totally correct ear sets, the other 2 were passable. They had lovely silky hair, very little puppy coat (my workers have no fluff to strip out) but more glamorous than the working strain. One esp was a very nice dog pup. On seeing them now, they are like show cockers of the 50s/60s with coat, but not as much as todays. However, Stella only gave me one girl and she wasnt good enough to keep as I felt she lacked bone - I like them v sturdy!! I ran her on for 8 months and homed her with a known home who have Stella's sister. I dont know if I will try it again though, the pups are as bright as buttons with a couple doing obedience. If I could have kept the best dog pup I would have, but having a v dominant male setter who doesnt like another boys on his patch, it was a no go.

[SULKY MISS]

Hi, intresting topic,

 I believe Loki to be a show cocker but was told he had 'worker' blood in him, he is KC registered,  Last year a women told me she thought he might have worker in him, though to me he looks like a show!?

 I have posted a photo of him (somewhere! as I have problems posting photo's, any help appreciated!),

So what do you think?

It doesn't really matter too much as I love him to pieces!!