# Breeds with the MOST significant difference between show and working lines?



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

I am bored and just pondering this question to myself with my own thoughts, and I thought I'd throw it on a dog forum! Since I just went to the AKC conformation show in Costa Mesa, I've been thinking back and forth about the various (showline) breeds that I met there.

What's your experience? What breeds (that apply) have the biggest rift between their show lines and working lines? And how do they compare?

(I think I'll reply after a few posts)


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Off the top of my mind: Border collie. GSD too. I think those are by far the first breeds one thinks of when you say 'show vs working'. 

Not well versed on borders, know a little more about GSDs, though wouldn't call myself well versed on them either. 

However, where I come from show line GSDs have what I like to call banana backs. It just fits. I don't really need to explain when I have a picture that says more than a thousand words. 








Working line GSDs are more like this:


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

I don't know if it counts since the breeds have already split, but the Fox Terrier and Jack/Parson Russell Terrier (bred to resemble the original working Fox Terrier) are pretty different in appearance. From what I understand the current Fox Terriers are too large, short backed and deep chested to work underground, the only thing they can be used for now (the majority of the time) is overground tracking or ratting, and even that is rare. The 'terrier front' that is so highly prized seems to be purely aesthetic (and possibly actually a hindrance) as well. 

(Just using photos of the most recent Crufts BOBs because I'm lazy)









Smooth Fox Terrier









Wire Fox Terrier









Parson Russell Terrier









Carlisle Tack (whelped May 1884) 'old' type Fox Terrier


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Avie said:


> Off the top of my mind: Border collie. GSD too. I think those are by far the first breeds one thinks of when you say 'show vs working'.
> 
> Not well versed on borders, know a little more about GSDs, though wouldn't call myself well versed on them either.
> 
> ...


It's funny, because I don't believe roach backs are even supposed to be desired in GSD show lines (depending on where you live and who the judge is, I guess). Roach backs are also more apparent in German showlines than American. American showlines have the extreme angulation BUT mostly do have a straight back, as they're supposed to. There are showline dogs with barely a roach, just as I've seen working lines with a roach back (though not as extreme as in that picture).

As the AKC standard states: "The withers are higher than and sloping into the level back. The back is straight, very strongly developed without sag or roach, and relatively short."


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Dogsignalfire said:


> It's funny, because I don't believe roach backs are even supposed to be desired in GSD show lines (depending on where you live and who the judge is, I guess). Roach backs are also more apparent in German showlines than American. American showlines have the extreme angulation BUT mostly do have a straight back, as they're supposed to. There are showline dogs with barely a roach, just as I've seen working lines with a roach back (though not as extreme as in that picture).
> 
> As the AKC standard states: "The withers are higher than and sloping into the level back. The back is straight, very strongly developed without sag or roach, and relatively short."


Yep, that's why I said 'where I come from'. I've never even seen an American GSD in real life. They're like these mythical creatures that only exist on the internet.  For the record, the German standard also says the back should be straight. But, I guess 'straight' is ... subjective? Because I sure as hell do not find a banana 'straight'. The dog I posted is not as much extreme around here as it is normal. As weird as that sounds. This is extreme:


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Avie said:


> Yep, that's why I said 'where I come from'. I've never even seen an American GSD in real life. They're like these mythical creatures that only exist on the internet.  For the record, the German standard also says the back should be straight. But, I guess 'straight' is ... subjective? Because I sure as hell do not find a banana 'straight'.


Haha yeah, I just wanted to expand on the subject of showline structure, since it's frequently talked about and all that anyway! 

This is a pretty typical and desirable American showline. A straight back, but exaggerated angulation due to the way GSD's are stacked. When standing normally, their hind legs wouldn't be this far placed, and so not as angled. 









http://www.geransgermanshepherd.com/reichen.htm

Yeah, the banana back/roach back is definitely not straight. I'm not sure how frequently it props up in German showlines or where you come from, but it shouldn't be something breeders are aiming for. And when I say shouldn't, I guess I mean "shouldn't be bred". I'm not trying to start a dispute, we're actually on the same side here. Just sharing info on American showlines.


----------



## Crantastic (Feb 3, 2010)

Labs look pretty different to me, but some of that is probably because bench labs look chubby. I've never understood why it's desirable for them to carry some extra weight.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Avie said:


> The dog I posted is not as much extreme around here as it is normal. As weird as that sounds. This is extreme:


I've seen this picture circulating around online! I sure hope this dog didn't win anything in conformation... I guess we can rest easy knowing she most likely didn't, though.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Crantastic said:


> Labs look pretty different to me, but some of that is probably because bench labs look chubby. I've never understood why it's desirable for them to carry some extra weight.



I don't know jack about Labradors, but the showlines I've seen online do tend to look chubby! I wonder if this really is something desirable? I missed seeing the Labradors at the show last weekend though.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

Lakeland Terrier - another breed 'supposed' to have this 'terrier front' that doesn't seem to exist or is preferred in working dogs.


----------



## Max and Me (Aug 19, 2011)

I see a big difference between GSDs, BCs, and Labs.


----------



## BaskervilleHound (Dec 5, 2015)

Avie said:


> However, where I come from show line GSDs have what I like to call banana backs. It just fits. I don't really need to explain when I have a picture that says more than a thousand words.
> View attachment 217698
> 
> 
> ...



I have an almost 15yr old GSD mix with degenerative myelopathy, and I now joke that he's starting to look like a show bred Shepherd. It's actually sad, when one considers the resemblance to a stacked example of that breed, not to mention I've personally witnessed dogs with particularly roached backs or over-angulated hocks sway on unstable legs when standing in position too long. It's a travesty what was done to that breed, not only in body, but in mind. They are useless as working dogs. I had a working line GSD years ago, and aside from the vague outward resemblance, she was _not_ the same breed as what gets passed off in the show ring.

I hear the same is true for Siberian Huskies, mainly because they are bred for coat and little else. I could be wrong, but I remember sled dog breeders complaining that too much coat could actually be detrimental to the working counterpart. 

I would also have to put in a vote for Dobermans and Labradors. I used to live in a building with a protection trained Dobe in the '80s, and she was a remarkable, noble, take no BS - but not vicious! - animal. A few years ago I encountered a few show champion Dobes, and they were not only dumber than a box of rocks, completely oblivious, one was even friendlier than my Beagles :nono: 

Labradors... dear Lord. Where to begin? So fat and thick boned, in all likelihood, they'd probably sink if they ever hit water.

Beagles seem to be relatively interchangeable between show/field, but there are a few bloodlines I steer clear of because they couldn't sniff their way out of a paper bag. However, we're fortunate, in general, because every show champion or show bred Beagle I owned actually had just as much, if not more drive than the field bred dogs; they only lacked line control. Now, UK show Beagles are actually gorgeous creatures, but not worth a ha'penny so far as rabbit hunting goes.


----------



## dogsule (Nov 6, 2013)

I think English cocker spaniels vary greatly in the show vs working lines.....My agility trainer has one of each and they are very different. These photos are not her dogs..

Working english cocker spaniel..
OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA by rzyg, on Flickr

show english cocker...
ecs by rzyg, on Flickr


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

ESS


----------



## Hiraeth (Aug 4, 2015)

It's sort of odd, but I actually *really* like the working lines way more than show lines, aesthetically speaking, in every breed that has been posted so far.

That working ESS is gorgeous.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Oh yea, also goldens


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

All of them, lol.

I never noticed the difference between show and working line mals that much until I got Toast. I have a feeling that almost any breed you became more familiar with, you'd find a difference.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Do we need to discuss poodles? Cause poodles


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I feel like BCs are a bit more complex than show vs working. I really categorize them almost 5 or 6 ways. And there's a lot of overlap/mixed pedigrees especially among sports lines. But yeah you won't generally mistake a USBCHA trialling dog for an AKC specials dog, that's for sure.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

sassafras said:


> I never noticed the difference between show and working line mals that much until I got Toast.


I think it's really interesting how Malinois have so much variation in the way they look. Everything from fine boned to heavy boned, low stationed to tall, short coupled to stretched, smooth to almost plush coated.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> ESS


I've noticed there seems to be a big difference between European and American ESS show lines as well.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

I wouldn't say all of them.
The AKC will destroy this breed before it's over with but hopefully we can continue to push back against 'the blockier the better'
But here's Ch. Sidearm They Call Me Mr. Pig, direct son of Mufasa.









vs. 

Lander's Grizz, working dog









I think one of the biggest differences I've seen in working vs. show line Redbones is the way the dogs are kept. Of course dogs that are out hunting are leaner, they have more shape.

This is GCh Sidearm Jungle King Mufasa, who in all honestly is pretty shapeless. He's a heavy built dog but you can tell he doesn't spend a lot of time in the woods.









This isn't a wonderful picture, but this is Lilah's father who hunts a lot. Still a heavy made dog but with a little more definition.









There's not really many strictly show bred lines out there of Redbones. Most breeders breed for either strict working potential (and you can tell because those dogs will usually be lighter in color which is a no no, or really really angular) or dual purpose bred dogs, which will have that athletic look but also the dog color and good set of a bench dog.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Avie said:


> I think it's really interesting how Malinois have so much variation in the way they look. Everything from fine boned to heavy boned, low stationed to tall, short coupled to stretched, smooth to almost plush coated.
> 
> View attachment 217714
> View attachment 217722
> ...


A saying is that all these dark-faced brown working dogs, particularly Malinois, have been bred with so much variety between GSD's, Tervurens, Dutchies, Malinois. (Going on a tangent here) There has been an age old argument that Dutch Shepherds and Malinois are even one and the same. Over the past several years, crossing lines made them so similar and sometimes the only thing that classifies them by name is their Y chromosome. Meaning if it is born brindle, it's a Dutchie. If it is fawn, it's a Mal. (in certain working lines)

Like how in working bred Aussies, some lines almost look like Border Collies. All these Aussie-BC-looking working dogs have probably been mixed around some time in the past.


----------



## Springer (Feb 19, 2014)

ESS are definitely different and have been for decades. The field side looks more like the Springers of the early 1900s. The show have come back some from the 80's & 90's with the overly long ears and droopy eyes etc. They have a long way to go to get back to looking like they did. I didn't realize how different they were until 1999 when I started researching them & the picture of a show ESS came up & was unrecognizable as to what I remembered in my childhood. Then I found the field bred springers & I was in love. I'm on my 3rd now. It is a shame that many show breeds are so far removed from what they did. I would love to have a breed that is dual purpose. JMHO


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Dogsignalfire said:


> A saying is that all these dark-faced brown working dogs, particularly Malinois, have been bred with so much variety between GSD's, Tervurens, Dutchies, Malinois. (Going on a tangent here) There has been an age old argument that Dutch Shepherds and Malinois are even one and the same. Over the past several years, crossing lines made them so similar and sometimes the only thing that classifies them by name is their Y chromosome. Meaning if it is born brindle, it's a Dutchie. If it is fawn, it's a Mal. (in certain working lines).


Yeeeaahhh no. Dutch shepherds and Malinois are distinct breeds. Related, yes, and the Malinois was used to bring back the Dutch shepherd after WWII. However, they are distinct breeds and under FCI rules are not crossed together. And I can tell you, as someone from the Netherlands, that the Dutch shepherd is not simply a brindle Malinois. 

The only time when color is used to describe what kind of dog you're dealing with, is in KNPV dogs, where brindle dogs are called 'Hollander X' and fawn dogs are called 'Mechelaar X'. I can imagine other working dog circles use the same kind of terminology when the breeds are so interbred. While KNPV dogs have known pedigrees behind them and the breeders keep track of the dogs they breed, the dogs are not purebred. Nothing wrong with that. But if you take this into account, it becomes clear you can't use these dogs as an example why Dutch shepherds and Malinois are 'one and the same'.  

The names Malinois and Tervuerens can be used interchangably though (and Tervueren and Groenendael too). This is because longhaired Malinois are occasionally born, just like black Tervuerens. Not that it matters, because they are all varieties of the Belgian shepherd breed. Unlike Malinois and Dutch shepherds. Unless you want to take the Dutch shepherd varieties, Belgian shepherd varieties and the German shepherd and while we're at it the German hütehund varieties too and call them all 'West European shepherd'. It's not that far off actually, and up to what, 150 years ago nobody made much of a distinction between all the herding dog types found in this general area anyway.  

Bleh, word puke. Tl:dr: Yes, in certain working lines, color is used to determine what the dog is called.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

I think in America at least for a period in some lines the brindle pups in a litter were called Dutchies and the brown masked dogs in a litter were called malinois and that was that.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

sassafras said:


> I think in America at least for a period in some lines the brindle pups in a litter were called Dutchies and the brown masked dogs in a litter were called malinois and that was that.





Avie said:


> Tl:dr: Yes, in certain working lines, color is used to determine what the dog is called.


That is basically what I meant haha...

Avie, I don't know why you disagreed, because I did say "in certain working lines" at the end of my tidbit... I did not say "All dutchies are mals" anywhere. Once again, we are on the same side. LOL


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Dogsignalfire said:


> That is basically what I meant haha...
> 
> Avie, I don't know why you disagreed, because I did say "in certain working lines" at the end of my tidbit... I did not say "All dutchies are mals" anywhere. Once again, we are on the same side. LOL


Was triggered by the 'age old argument that...'


----------



## OllieAndJake (Dec 10, 2015)

My Border Collies are both 5 months old. 
"Ollie" is from a "Working line". 
"Jake" is from a "Family home setting" 

HUGE diffrences... From Coat styles. All the working ones had a short coat when we went and all the family raised ones had Medium/Long coats... The intelligence is also way different between the two. My working one is by far more eager to learn


----------



## OllieAndJake (Dec 10, 2015)

That dogs back... Looks so so wrong.... And unhealthy...


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

ESS and ECS for sure. Huge split and lines haven't been mixed for a long time. Not sure how I feel about the UK/US show line split. Some people think they are nearly identical other than the typical color patterns and grooming, but I see a big difference in the heads. I also think the UK dogs have more of a rise over the loin while the US dogs have a very flat topline. Spaniels fell to the whims of show breeders very early on in this whole dog showing thing. People were breeding for long low basset-y looking dogs well over 100 years ago but nobody was hunting with those dogs. Some breeds were actually bred back to moderation, like the field spaniel. Welshies never split because they were such a small population in a rural separate area of the UK, and were kept for hunting purposes more than showing. They are still dual purpose.

A lot of the differences are in coat and grooming though. Like with the poodles posted, I don't see any conformational difference there. The show dogs are just a lot of coat.


----------



## MastiffGuy (Mar 23, 2015)

Don't know a breed that is not a working line or a back bred line that does not look better.
Mastiff breeds are most likely some of the worst cases of this. But I will say some American breeders are some of the best dogs when it comes to the back breeding to what some of the breeds should be.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Aussies can sure have some significant differences if you look at the super showy lines vs the working lines. The show are much heavier coated and have massive amounts of bone for the breed. Bi-colors are very common in working lines and I almost never see them in show lines. They also sometimes have those "porpoise faces" that I really hate in show lines. Thankfully, most show bred Aussies are still pretty moderate overall. 

Give me a (moderate) show bred Aussie over working bred any day of the week though. Working bred Aussies tend to look like Border Collies, and are not the personality I prefer.

Maybe I'm a bad person but there are quite a few breeds I prefer the "show bred" version to the working bred version.  Show bred Goldens when not overly heavy boned are absolutely gorgeous.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> They are useless as working dogs. I had a working line GSD years ago, and aside from the vague outward resemblance, she was not the same breed as what gets passed off in the show ring.


Horse apples.

As someone who has had *every single line* in her house, I have had useless animals from all of them. Some of them can work, some can't. Some are too freakin' insane to live with, some are slugs with legs.

I take great pride in the show lines I have bred thus far, because I know they CAN do things...they're out there doing them. Herding, agility, rally, and being pets.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Do we need to discuss poodles? Cause poodles


That is likely the cut that makes them look different, shave that show cut off that poodle, and it would likely, conformationally look exactly like that picture above.

I am one of those people who thinks there should BE no split in a breed at ALL!!! part of a breed standard is IF they can do their original form of function (or as close to it as possible)!!! Or anything, really, other than trotting around a ring carrying 10 extra pounds.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

I guess just in my own opinion, coat thickness/length, head shape, and all that jazz can come second- if a showline Aussie (for example) exhibits competitive working ability and ASCA stockdog, ranch, and farm titles alongside a stockline Aussie, I'd say there's relatively plenty overlap in the breed (not that they're the same at all, but relative to some other breeds, at least)!



OwnedbyACDs said:


> That is likely the cut that makes them look different, shave that show cut off that poodle, and it would likely, conformationally look exactly like that picture above.
> 
> I am one of those people who thinks there should BE no split in a breed at ALL!!! part of a breed standard is IF they can do their original form of function (or as close to it as possible)!!! Or anything, really, other than trotting around a ring carrying 10 extra pounds.


Agree that it's just a fancy cut making the difference! Coming back to appearance again.



ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> Maybe I'm a bad person but there are quite a few breeds I prefer the "show bred" version to the working bred version.  Show bred Goldens when not overly heavy boned are absolutely gorgeous.


LOL same, about the Goldens! 

To add, I don't think preferring showlines of any breed should make anyone a bad person or feel guilty at all. I know that some (not all!) working line people can look down on show lines. But in the end, it's all just what's the most fitting to one's lifestyle and needs and quirks and personal preference while still maintaining and breeding stable, sound dogs.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

There was no specification in the original post of it having to be structural or otherwise (temperament, etc), just which have the biggest difference.

IMO that poodle coat is a pretty big difference. Lots of people see a poodle in day to day life with a non show coat and don't even know that it's a poodle. And a poodle in show coat could never work with a hunter the way it would need to.


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

On temperament questions . . . Svartberg did some excellent multi-breed analysis based on 13,000 or so behavioral tests (most of the registered pedigree dogs in Sweden).
http://www.appliedanimalbehaviour.com/article/S0168-1591(05)00160-7/abstract
I can't find it ATM, but there used to be a place where you could download this for free. Here's a clip from the abstract (formatting added):

these results suggest that selection for dog 
*Show use is positively correlated* with social and non-social* fearfulness,* and *negatively with playfulness, curiosity in potentially threatening situations and aggressiveness,* whereas selection for 
*Working dog* use is *positively correlated with playfulness and aggressiveness*. 

Furthermore, correlation analyses show that popular breeds have higher sociability and playfulness scores than less popular breeds, suggesting that a positive attitude towards strangers is an important characteristic of a functional pet dog and desirable by dog owners. This indicates that selection towards use in dog shows may be in conflict with pet dog selection. Furthermore, these results suggest that basic dimensions of dog behaviour can be changed when selection pressure changes, and that the domestication of the dog still is in progress. A standardized behavioural test, like the one used in this study, is suggested to be highly useful as a tool in dog breeding programs.

I'm a Lab person . . . grateful that in my breed there is an old and strong tradition of dual-champions. You can find extreme divergences between competitive gun dogs and show dogs, but the water is muddy. You can find Labs who perform well in both conformation and work. Plus that 'work' has been diversified by use of the breed for everything from sniffing out truffles, lost people, bombs, drugs, arson, disease, etc., to guide dogs for the blind, to various styles of hunting. I wish more breeds were so fortunate, so accepting of diversity, and (often but not always) so tolerant of crossing between functions.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> There was no specification in the original post of it having to be structural or otherwise (temperament, etc), just which have the biggest difference.
> 
> IMO that poodle coat is a pretty big difference. Lots of people see a poodle in day to day life with a non show coat and don't even know that it's a poodle. And a poodle in show coat could never work with a hunter the way it would need to.


even a lot of poodle people hate the AKC show cut they make poodles compete in because they cant WORK in them. a good many who want to work their dogs and show them in confo usually show UKC, because they can show in a sport, or hunting cut there.

Here are some examples *disclaimer NOT my pics!*



















Here is a more functional version of the continental clip:









and after they are done showing (either finished, or whatever) the first thing they do is shave that clip off LOL:


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

In conversation with a poodle owner I was told that 'perfect' poodle fronts are too straight for working so a good working poodle wouldn't be a good show poodle. This was about agility, perhaps comparing a top agility poodle to a top shaved down show champion would be useful.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Kathyy said:


> In conversation with a poodle owner I was told that 'perfect' poodle fronts are too straight for working so a good working poodle wouldn't be a good show poodle. This was about agility, perhaps comparing a top agility poodle to a top shaved down show champion would be useful.


Interesting! I do see how that could be possible. A straighter front will give you more action at the trot, which is flashier in the show ring. It's so hard to tell what their fronts look like with all that coat.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

ireth0 said:


> There was no specification in the original post of it having to be structural or otherwise (temperament, etc), just which have the biggest difference.
> 
> IMO that poodle coat is a pretty big difference. Lots of people see a poodle in day to day life with a non show coat and don't even know that it's a poodle. And a poodle in show coat could never work with a hunter the way it would need to.


Ah yeah, I didn't mean to specify or anything- I guess it's just a personal thought for me when I think about rifts between show and working, I think about temperament and working ability first.



OwnedbyACDs said:


> even a lot of poodle people hate the AKC show cut they make poodles compete in because they cant WORK in them. a good many who want to work their dogs and show them in confo usually show UKC, because they can show in a sport, or hunting cut there.
> 
> Here are some examples *disclaimer NOT my pics!*


Oh, I like these!

Yeah, I don't doubt the show clips are a nightmare to maintain.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Dogsignalfire said:


> Ah yeah, I didn't mean to specify or anything- I guess it's just a personal thought for me when I think about rifts between show and working, I think about temperament and working ability first.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oh, yes many who have to show AKC hate it, the dogs cant do ANYTHING (cant damage the hair) as soon as they finish, they shave them down like ... that same day or the very next day, LOL. I will admit the continental clip is awesome looking, though.

As for the person who wanted comparisions on shaved down show poodles VS "working" poodles here ya go. *disclaimer, NOT my dogs or pics!*

working:


























-This is the original clip the show clip morphed into :/

shaved down show poodles:




























Hope this helps, I am sure there are some differnences, but a "show line" poodle should (and often they do) be able to work, either in hunting, or dog sports.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Also working line aussies VS show line aussies * NOT my dogs or pictures!*

working:






























show line aussies:


----------



## WhiteCrow (Dec 16, 2015)

I've been doing research on this for a few years as I've toyed with getting a dog. 

GSDs - countless types
Labs 
BCs
Aussies
English Springer
Cockers
Golden Retriever
My friend's father is a hunter who breeds field dogs. According to him most gun dogs [spaniels, pointers & setters] look quite different depending on if the breeder is pure field breeder or mixing the two types together [and there are "field" breeders who will mix show types into their pedigrees to appeal for those wanting a fancy "champion" dog]. The show types are mostly heavier / stockier than their field counterparts. You use the word "field" not "working" for gun dogs by the way. 

Neo. Mastiff - no where near the amount of wrinkles
Great Dane - the Germanic version / European version is more to the working type than show lines. Bigger, heavier dogs. 
Akita
Shar Pei - like the Neo. nothing like the wrinkles and far lighter in structure
St. Bernard - true working types are a lighter breed
English / Mastiff - working types are lighter, not so fat & heavy on their feet
Spanish Mastiff - show and working types, two completely different animals
Doberman - depends on where you're looking, some working types are no different than show and some working lines are heavier with a broader head

A few hound breeds are different, bit leggier & lighter as working dogs than show.

Beagles - field, gun and show. Three types. Difference is more in personality but apparently the more working type are slighter leggier, and oftentimes sport more hound ticking than show dogs. 

Airdale
Border terriers - working types are quite a bit smaller, they are hard to find. 
JRTs
Sealyham Terrier - what I've seen of ratting dogs [or working dogs] their coats are more tightly curled [sort of poodle like]. 

Rotti - German supposedly are more to the working types. Heavier dogs with broader skulls
Boxer - same as above


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I am glad someone mentioned neo's, here are some examples, I dont think any breed's show VS working line dogs are as dramatic as this breed:

working line neo's:
































show line neos (EWWWWW ... sorry but ew!)


When they were first accepted, most looked like this:




















how the heck did we go from that ... to THIS:




























How, prey tell are these dogs supposed to work???


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Show Neo's (btw why are they called that for short when their long name is NeApolitan mastiff?) make me so very sad. 

The working type Neo looks like an overdone Cane Corso, but I very much like how their bodies have good proportions and look athletic for their size. Unlike the show types who are often out of proportion and rump high. It just looks comical, if it weren't so sad.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

I think appearance-wise, stockline Aussies really have a wide variation and go all across the board, since they're choosing dogs based purely on working ability with cattle, usually (and health). Many are long and lean with shorter fur like border collies, some just look like variations of Aussies. Some have a long coat, some are curly, some have short fur.

These are all Slash V's dogs (and past dogs), for example. It's a big mix of appearances just from one breeder.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Love that first Neo! Working line Neos all the way. Some of the show dogs are hideous. I feel sorry for rhythm.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Love that first Neo! Working line Neos all the way. Some of the show dogs are hideous. I feel sorry for rhythm.


This is one of those rare occasions where I definitely prefer the working line to the show line. WL Neos are beautiful!


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I hate that the aussie and the MAS standards call for drop ears and dont allow for prick ears, because the foundation dogs for those breeds HAD prick ears, so its in almost every aussie or MAS line, like collies (whose requirement of 1/4 drop 3/4 up ears I think is also absurd) most tape the ears anyway, and they end up with dogs that have houndish ears, which, IMO is more desirable than a prick ear.

With that being said, let me do our other breed (my hubby's fave breed) the BC. * not my pictures, not my dogs!*

working line BCs







































show line BC




























Show line BCs look more like aussies than BC's, and they are always black and white, despite the fact that there are four accepted colors in the standard.


----------



## PatriciafromCO (Oct 7, 2012)

you know I see BC's all the time and it never occurred to me the differences in their ears being up or down being right or wrong. Do they have to tape them (all) for them to be down for the shows. I know the collie breeder that I knew glued (all) her puppies ears tips over to get a clean fold.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Show line BCs look more like aussies than BC's, and they are always black and white, despite the fact that there are four accepted colors in the standard.


At a show I went to there was one lemon and white, one red and white and two bi blue merles entered along with a bunch of black and whites.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

PatriciafromCO said:


> you know I see BC's all the time and it never occurred to me the differences in their ears being up or down being right or wrong. Do they have to tape them (all) for them to be down for the shows. I know the collie breeder that I knew glued (all) her puppies ears tips over to get a clean fold.


I dont know, but if I was looking for a BC, or any working dog, their earset would be the least important thing to me LOL, first and foremost, can the dog WORK. 

I also think that minuature and standard poodles should be in the sporting group, not non sporting, because of this:














































that's right, folks miniature poodles ... HUNTING.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I know Merle, blue, tricolor, and sable show line BCs. 

Also there are some very classic looking working line dogs. Big, burly, thick coats. Can't link at the moment but Google Red Top Riggs. He's a working dog and very classic. 

http://www.patrickshannahan.com/redtopriggsA.asp

Show breeders tape ears in many breeds. But I've seen working bred dogs with perfectly tipped ears too. It happens naturally sometimes.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

My main point tough is that I don't know that you can guess show or work or sport lines in BCs all the time. The extremes yes but there a lot more in between out there.


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> My main point tough is that I don't know that you can guess show or work or sport lines in BCs all the time. The extremes yes but there a lot more in between out there.


Good point. 

Owned, can you tell me which of the following are working and which are show line Borders, or if any are working line? Just curious, I'm not really all that knowledgeable on Borders, honestly, and I know I have trouble telling them apart often.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

IMO, the biggest difference between working line and sporting line BCs is the type of drive, a good working BC has a good off switch (or should) they WILL work tirelessly all day, but arent "on" all the time like a sporting line BC is. It for a working dog would be counterintuitive to be on all the time, lots of energy wasted that could be used for REAL work (whatever that may be).


----------



## LittleFr0g (Jun 11, 2007)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> IMO, the biggest difference between working line and sporting line BCs is the type of drive, a good working BC has a good off switch (or should) they WILL work tirelessly all day, but arent "on" all the time like a sporting line BC is. It for a working dog would be counterintuitive to be on all the time, lots of energy wasted that could be used for REAL work (whatever that may be).


But, we're not talking working vs sporting lines, we're talking working vs show lines.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Kuma'sMom said:


> Good point.
> 
> Owned, can you tell me which of the following are working and which are show line Borders, or if any are working line? Just curious, I'm not really all that knowledgeable on Borders, honestly, and I know I have trouble telling them apart often.


neither am I, but those look like european working lines to me, if I had to guess.



Kuma'sMom said:


> But, we're not talking working vs sporting lines, we're talking working vs show lines.


Laurelin mentioned it.



> Originally Posted by Laurelin
> My main point tough is that I don't know that you can guess show or work or sport lines in BCs all the time. The extremes yes but there a lot more in between out there.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I know sport bred dogs that turn off well. 

Don't get me wrong, there are some ways to make educated guesses. If it's merle and tiny, I'd bet sport for example.... but it's not a done deal... and there's some dogs you'd never ever mistake for working lines or show lines but there are dogs that are in between and crosses or bred for 'versatility' which aren't as extreme in looks.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

I havent seen ANY sport bred BC that turn off well at all, if they do the owner had to really work on teaching it to them.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

Laurelin said:


> My main point tough is that I don't know that you can guess show or work or sport lines in BCs all the time. The extremes yes but there a lot more in between out there.


Yes, really great point. To me, this is why some of the sporting breeds have a bigger split. You would have a very hard time finding a field line ESS that you would mistake for bench, or the reverse. And I have never heard of anybody mixing lines the way BC and Aussie breeders do. They are basically separate breeds now. I do know golden and lab breeders who mix lines, usually to get performance dogs. The difference is probably that lots of people use goldens and labs for sports other than hunting, but the only "performance" bred spaniels are generally field dogs, not agility/obedience dogs. I think it may be different in the UK as there seem to be a lot of working springers and cockers in dog sports so there may be a market to breed for them and mix lines.


----------



## SamiSaysRawr (May 26, 2012)

WhiteCrow said:


> Airdale
> Border terriers - working types are quite a bit smaller, they are hard to find.
> JRTs
> Sealyham Terrier - what I've seen of ratting dogs [or working dogs] their coats are more tightly curled [sort of poodle like].



Most pet-bred 'JRTs' don't look like JRTs because they're usually heavily crossed with Dachshund, Corgi or Chihuahua. I don't think there is a great deal of difference between 'working type' JRTs and 'show type' PRTs (which are still used to work) though. The only major difference is that the JRTCA/JRTCGB standard allows 10-15", while the PRT standard lists 12-15" (14" for dogs, 13" for bitches). 

With Sealyhams it's probably because those dogs are clipped short instead of being stripped. Clipping does that to a wire coat.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> I hate that the aussie and the MAS standards call for drop ears and dont allow for prick ears, because the foundation dogs for those breeds HAD prick ears, so its in almost every aussie or MAS line, like collies (whose requirement of 1/4 drop 3/4 up ears I think is also absurd) most tape the ears anyway, and they end up with dogs that have houndish ears, which, IMO is more desirable than a prick ear.
> 
> With that being said, let me do our other breed (my hubby's fave breed) the BC. * not my pictures, not my dogs!*





OwnedbyACDs said:


> Also working line aussies VS show line aussies * NOT my dogs or pictures!*



I think that googling "working line border collies" and "working line australian shepherds" and vice versa, and using the first few pictures off the google search as your examples for analysis in all the past posts is also probably going to give you some inaccurate or basic/poor representations of said lines LOL. :gossip: Just putting that out there...





OwnedbyACDs said:


> I havent seen ANY sport bred BC that turn off well at all, if they do the owner had to really work on teaching it to them.


An "on-off switch" is more a matter of training than breeding usually.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Dogsignalfire said:


> I think that googling "working line border collies" and "working line australian shepherds" and vice versa, and using the first few pictures off the google search as your examples for analysis in all the past posts is also probably going to give you some inaccurate or basic/poor representations of said lines LOL. :gossip: Just putting that out there...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


for your information, I didnt pick "the first three pics" One, there is a LIMIT to how many pics a post on this forum can have, so I limited it to three examples I thought were the best three examples of the typical conformation for a working dog VS a show line dog, and so I used google, so what?

and no, if a dog doesnt have an off switch button no amount of training will put it there, because the wiring for the switch is missing.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> for your information, I didnt pick "the first three pics" One, there is a LIMIT to how many pics a post on this forum can have, so I limited it to three examples I thought were the best three examples of the typical conformation for a working dog VS a show line dog, and so I used google, so what?
> 
> and no, if a dog doesnt have an off switch button no amount of training will put it there, because the wiring for the switch is missing.


Ah I didn't mean the literal number of pics you posted. (I also didn't say "the first three pics?", but I'm sure you just misunderstood) Just that if one knew dogs from breeders who are breeding these lines, or have seen the dogs at shows or trials, it would be more accurate basis of analysis and bold claims than using pictures off of googling "working line -breed-". Even breeder websites and using their current dogs off of their site would be ideal. 

Another reason being that just about anybody can post pictures on the internet and label them "working line" that pops up on google, even if they are not, or not ideal examples of the lines at least.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Ember's dad is sooo big and fluffy. His fluff is just pretty much the same as the more extreme BC show lines. He is pure ABCA Border Collie and is a working dog. There are a few Border Collies breeders around here that breed more moderate show Border Collies. 

Kairi is a versatile line of Aussies, pretty and functional. I wish more breeds would cross lines more often. I have seen it a little bit in Golden Retrievers, but not enough.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Show line BCs look more like aussies than BC's, and they are always black and white, despite the fact that there are four accepted colors in the standard.


Where do you get your information? Because it is highly incorrect... You see all the colors.... Black and white is dominant... So you are going to see a majority of those.. But the other colors are represented...


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> for your information, I didnt pick "the first three pics" One, there is a LIMIT to how many pics a post on this forum can have, so I limited it to three examples I thought were the best three examples of the typical conformation for a working dog VS a show line dog, and so I used google, so what?
> 
> and no, if a dog doesnt have an off switch button no amount of training will put it there, because the wiring for the switch is missing.


Where do you get your information? Missing switches? I have heard it all now....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> An "on-off switch" is more a matter of training than breeding usually.


Strongly disagree. I've had two WLs with terrible off switches. Holding still doesn't mean they are "off".

My current WL can come out of his crate, go out to potty, play with me for fifteen minutes, and when left to his own (supervised) devices, finds somewhere to lay quietly and play with a toy. 

THAT is an off switch


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Xeph said:


> Strongly disagree. I've had two WLs with terrible off switches. Holding still doesn't mean they are "off".
> 
> My current WL can come out of his crate, go out to potty, play with me for fifteen minutes, and when left to his own (supervised) devices, finds somewhere to lay quietly and play with a toy.
> 
> THAT is an off switch


I think it might be just an issue of definition of the phrase off-switch too.

I suppose what I defined an off-switch in regards to these drivey intense dogs who are constantly ready to go is simply obedience based on the certain rules established- which is training, for these dogs... so I guess we could say that learning to hold still/lie down/rest for whatever period of time until "allowed" means they are off. The dog can be constantly ready to turn "on", but it's learned that they definitely won't achieve their means until the handler gives some cue, takes out the toy, allows them to go in whatever way, etc.

In the words of Michael Ellis... with all of his WL Malinois, an off-switch is primarily trained. Of course temperament of the individual dog can affect the ease that they learn to turn off, but it's something trained and trainable.

I agree that some dogs have a tougher off-switch. 
But I mostly just disagree with this phrase right here... 



OwnedbyACDs said:


> and no, if a dog doesnt have an off switch button no amount of training will put it there, because the wiring for the switch is missing.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Strongly disagree. I've had two WLs with terrible off switches. Holding still doesn't mean they are "off".
> 
> My current WL can come out of his crate, go out to potty, play with me for fifteen minutes, and when left to his own (supervised) devices, finds somewhere to lay quietly and play with a toy.
> 
> THAT is an off switch


While I will agree that standing still does not mean the dog is off... But I strongly disagree that you cannot put a good solid off ( a real off) on a dog with "no" or a terrible off switch....


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

I have no inclination to have a dog where you have to train an offswitch. My experience has been those dogs are the kind of crazy I absolutely cannot stand. 

Rumble is ready to go and do whenever I am, but I don't have to frustrate myself with constantly putting him back on a mat or quiet spot to get him to just chill out. He just DOES it. 

Even Mikasa, who can really try my patience with her attraction to the cat, can settle. She's always had an offswitch. What I had to teach her was to relax around the cat (drive was triggered, she was already on). She can now be in the same room as the cat, he can move around, and she can relax completely (thank you herding lessons).

Loch, on the other hand, would lie down when told, but even in the absence of stimuli he would be coiled up and ready to burst into action at any second. Couldn't stand that. And it was hit or miss as to whether or not he would fully relax when I put him in a down.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Xeph said:


> Strongly disagree. I've had two WLs with terrible off switches. Holding still doesn't mean they are "off".
> 
> My current WL can come out of his crate, go out to potty, play with me for fifteen minutes, and when left to his own (supervised) devices, finds somewhere to lay quietly and play with a toy.
> 
> THAT is an off switch


Yep, same here, both of our dogs are "working breed" dogs and both have a good, natural off switch, but are ready and very willing to work when its needed, when its not, they just hang out and chew on their nylabones, or whatever.



JohnnyBandit said:


> While I will agree that standing still does not mean the dog is off... But I strongly disagree that you cannot put a good solid off ( a real off) on a dog with "no" or a terrible off switch....


Sorry, but I disagree with you there based on what I have seen on dogs who have no "natural" off switch, the most you can do is teach them to be STILL, but they are never off.



Xeph said:


> I have no inclination to have a dog where you have to train an offswitch. My experience has been those dogs are the kind of crazy I absolutely cannot stand.
> 
> Rumble is ready to go and do whenever I am, but I don't have to frustrate myself with constantly putting him back on a mat or quiet spot to get him to just chill out. He just DOES it.
> 
> ...


This. Nothing else to add other than "yep".


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

Laurelin said:


> I know sport bred dogs that turn off well.


I think you need to differentiate 'sport' from 'work'. If you're breeding to produce dogs that will win in some sport competition, you're selecting for extremes, and are likely to ignore the off-switch. If you're breeding for a dog that can do a day's work alongside a handler, you don't want a drivey maniac. (May vary between breeds . . . a drivey Jack Russell could be an ok companion for someone who had vermin control needs whilst high-drive might pose serious management problems in other breeds). 

I'm a Lab person. With Labs, 'work' has many definitions and 'working lines' can go in many directions. Love is water is not so important for a guide dog or a therapy dog or a truffel sniffer, but essential in some sorts of hunting. If you want to get your MH or excel at dock diving, it's a whole different ballgame.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sandgrubber said:


> I think you need to differentiate 'sport' from 'work'. If you're breeding to produce dogs that will win in some sport competition, you're selecting for extremes, and are likely to ignore the off-switch. If you're breeding for a dog that can do a day's work alongside a handler, you don't want a drivey maniac. (May vary between breeds . . . a drivey Jack Russell could be an ok companion for someone who had vermin control needs whilst high-drive might pose serious management problems in other breeds).
> 
> I'm a Lab person. With Labs, 'work' has many definitions and 'working lines' can go in many directions. Love is water is not so important for a guide dog or a therapy dog or a truffel sniffer, but essential in some sorts of hunting. If you want to get your MH or excel at dock diving, it's a whole different ballgame.


She was differentiating. She said the dogs are sport bred and have off switches. Bred for sports, agility specifically.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Yes I know agility bred dogs that are really high octane non stop. But others aren't. Actually one of the softest and calmest BCs I know is from a well known sport kennel. Same with working bred dogs. I can't reliably tell working vs sport bred apart. On looks OR temperament. I can guess sometimes but there's tons of overlap in looks and drive etc. 

BCs are bred for so many things I don't think you can generalize sport dogs or working dogs completely. Open USBCHA trials, general farm work, pure conformation (honestly I personally don't know any people who only do conf with their BCs even the show line dogs), 'versatility', agility, obedience, Flyball...


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

elrohwen said:


> She was differentiating. She said the dogs are sport bred and have off switches. Bred for sports, agility specifically.


The OP was about show and working lines. Work and sport are different kettles of fish. Sport breeders may or may not consider the off switch. Work breeders are more likely to do so. Of course, this depends on the nature of the work . . . some working dogs, eg., hunting hound packs, are kenneled and not family members, others are an extension of the owner and need good rapport 24/7.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

sandgrubber said:


> But the OP was about show and working lines. Work and sport are a different kettle of fish.


Yes, though the conversation in this thread has wandered to include dogs bred for performance or sport as well.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Just because it takes a lot of time and work to teach an off switch, it doesn't mean it can't be done. It took a good 3-4 years for Squash to learn to actually BE off when he was instructed to be still. 

I'm guessing it will take Toast about 20 years.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Yes, though the conversation in this thread has wandered to include dogs bred for performance or sport as well.


Well, dogs bred for performance are, in a since "working" dogs, I am sure the dogs themselves consider their sport their "job" even if we dont view it as one.


----------



## elrohwen (Nov 10, 2011)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Well, dogs bred for performance are, in a since "working" dogs, I am sure the dogs themselves consider their sport their "job" even if we dont view it as one.


Then any dog who does a sport could be called a working dog, even if they were bred for conformation or pet or whatever.

The point is that there are sport line BCs and working line BCs and while there is overlap, everyone seems to have opinions on the qualities of each. And some BC people would argue that agility is not "work". Only working on a farm is work.


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

elrohwen said:


> Then any dog who does a sport could be called a working dog, even if they were bred for conformation or pet or whatever.
> 
> The point is that there are sport line BCs and working line BCs and while there is overlap, everyone seems to have opinions on the qualities of each. And some BC people would argue that agility is not "work". Only working on a farm is work.


Personally I judge whether something is a "job" or not based on how the dog sees it (and I dont mean the word "job" in a bad way, BTW).


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

It just gets fuzzy. 

I know an unpapered dog off a farm. 
I know a dog bred from a sheepdog trialler. 
I know a dog bred for agility but whose grandparent was a CH show dog
I know a breeds who shows conformation and also agility and flyball and other stuff. 
I know a breeder that shows conformation but also does obedience. 
I know dog bred 100% for flyball. 
I know another with an agility father and heavy flyball line mother.
I know a dog that is 100% Aussie show lines but only does sport (and does it well. He's often bred to dogs that have been sport lines for a long while.)
I know dogs that are bred for agility but are all 1-2 gens off a farm. 
There's a farm breeder in Texas who doesn't seem to work as stringently as maybe a USBCHA trial but he has a mix of show and work lines. 

The pure working breeders breeding for sheepdog trials or heavy farm use won't be mixing. The people campaigning high winning show dogs will not be choosing to add in working lines more than likely. But there's a heck of a lot going on in between. 

All I know is you're pretty much guaranteed to make someone mad no matter where you buy from. Lol 

Agility isn't work. It's just a game really. Not to say it's not an important game/sport for many people. It's just not the same as selecting for work.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Sorry, but I disagree with you there based on what I have seen on dogs who have no "natural" off switch, the most you can do is teach them to be STILL, but they are never off.
> 
> 
> ".


Maybe their owner, handler, trainer has failed to teach them... But it can be done.... It can take a while. But just because you have seen dogs with no apparent off switch does not mean the dog is incapable of having one....


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

OwnedbyACDs said:


> Personally I judge whether something is a "job" or not based on how the dog sees it (and I dont mean the word "job" in a bad way, BTW).


A dog has zero concept of the term "job"..... So no way for you to know or judge what the dog is seeing. 

Dogs "do" or "not do"


----------



## sandgrubber (May 21, 2014)

It's all over the place.
There's a wide variety in both sport and work . . . and in how breeders do their selection. 
Some sport is mostly for fun. Some sport is strongly competitive. Someone breeding for national titles may be more concerned about the 'on' than the 'off', while someone breeding mostly pets who are good for agility may worry a lot more about on/off balance. Some breeders may be able to get top-rank 'on' behavior without sacrificing the 'off' switch. 

Also, work varies a lot. Some work, like herding on an Australian sheep or cattle station, means long hours and high endurance in hot conditions. Other work, eg., therapy dogs, requires being in tune with the owner/handler, while a treeing hound may only work a few dozen times a year, and that for a few hours at a time.


----------



## Dogsignalfire (Nov 17, 2015)

Just regarding the on-off thing again- it's not a problem and I totally understand if anyone simply doesn't want a dog who they need _to train_ an off, because the dog is too crazy/ready to go constantly (and I totally get it LOL). So in these types of dogs (which is what we're talking about here, not dogs with a natural on/off), it's simply a matter of training to have an off-switch, particularly in working line Malinois or Border Collies or dogs with that level of crazy.

Yeah, these dogs don't have a "natural" off-switch and won't naturally settle when you settle. It's obviously not going to be done in one training session or something overnight, but there's no "missing wire" or "missing button" or some strange thing that makes it impossible- it's primarily a matter of training for these guys. And so this is defining an off-switch as obedience and established rules/cue, not about sane calmer dogs with a natural off-switch. (ahah)

Also regarding the current discussion as a whole, I just kind of feel like we're on a different page here, but we might all agree on the same thing if we defined the terms the same... maybe just an issue of semantics...


----------



## OwnedbyACDs (Jun 22, 2013)

Dogsignalfire said:


> Just regarding the on-off thing again- it's not a problem and I totally understand if anyone simply doesn't want a dog who they need _to train_ an off, because the dog is too crazy/ready to go constantly (and I totally get it LOL). So in these types of dogs (which is what we're talking about here, not dogs with a natural on/off), it's simply a matter of training to have an off-switch, particularly in working line Malinois or Border Collies or dogs with that level of crazy.
> 
> Yeah, these dogs don't have a "natural" off-switch and won't naturally settle when you settle. It's obviously not going to be done in one training session or something overnight, but there's no "missing wire" or "missing button" or some strange thing that makes it impossible- it's primarily a matter of training for these guys. And so this is defining an off-switch as obedience and established rules/cue, not about sane calmer dogs with a natural off-switch. (ahah)
> 
> Also regarding the current discussion as a whole, I just kind of feel like we're on a different page here, but we might all agree on the same thing if we defined the terms the same... maybe just an issue of semantics...


I think a true off switch and just learning to settle are very different. Some dogs come with a natural switch, some come with the means for it to be trained, and some, well the best you can do is train impulse control and/or settle, but they will never truely be "off". Luckily those dogs are not very common in the "general" pet world (being reserved mostly to the sporting lines of breeds and working line GSDs and malinois).

It also is worth saying that there is also a difference between a nervous dog who just cant sit still, VS a dog who just needs to MOVE.


----------



## Shep (May 16, 2013)

My working-bred BC's have all had excellent off-switches without me training them. I mean, the dogs are certainly trained and can hold a down-stay for ages. But if I don't put them on a down-stay, they will still go away and lie down and nap while I do something else. If I give them any attention they're all over me, but if I ignore them, they leave me alone and chill.


----------

