So what is a "working" dog anyway?
A few weeks ago we had what I thought was a very insightful discussion about the ethics of breeding away from a standard or creating a new breed. One of the many directions of that discussion had to do with Shikoku being working dogs.
In that discussion, I put forth the following definition of working dog: "a working dog has a job that requires them think and to act autonomously to achieve a shared goal."
According to this definition, a service dog, hunting dog, or guardian would be a working dog, but a mushing dog, pack dog, or show dog would not be. You may be thinking, "BUT, a mushing dog *IS* a working dog!" And perhaps you are right. Perhaps a mushing dog is a working dog. But there is something substantively different between the work a mushing dog does and work a guardian does: autonomy.
I will admit, that part of my motivation for drilling down on this comes from the characterization of show/pet lines being good companions whereas working lines are not companions. I'm not saying this is true or not true. But, if you think about taking an LGD and putting her in a companion home where she won't get to work and taking a service dog and putting her in a companion home where she won't get to work, you can see there is likely to be a notable difference in the experiences of the owners.
So, my question to all of you is: "What is a working dog?" It may be useful to first define a working breed before you define a working dog. Or it may not be. I leave it up to you. I'm just curious to hear what everyone's take on this is.
In that discussion, I put forth the following definition of working dog: "a working dog has a job that requires them think and to act autonomously to achieve a shared goal."
According to this definition, a service dog, hunting dog, or guardian would be a working dog, but a mushing dog, pack dog, or show dog would not be. You may be thinking, "BUT, a mushing dog *IS* a working dog!" And perhaps you are right. Perhaps a mushing dog is a working dog. But there is something substantively different between the work a mushing dog does and work a guardian does: autonomy.
I will admit, that part of my motivation for drilling down on this comes from the characterization of show/pet lines being good companions whereas working lines are not companions. I'm not saying this is true or not true. But, if you think about taking an LGD and putting her in a companion home where she won't get to work and taking a service dog and putting her in a companion home where she won't get to work, you can see there is likely to be a notable difference in the experiences of the owners.
So, my question to all of you is: "What is a working dog?" It may be useful to first define a working breed before you define a working dog. Or it may not be. I leave it up to you. I'm just curious to hear what everyone's take on this is.
Comments
I don't like your definition of a working dog. It paints independent breeds like the NK and CO very favorably, but it give it no credit to gun hunting breeds that work *under* the direction of the human hunter, or the herding breed that work *under* the direction of the human shepherd, or the police dog that that is absolutely *under* the control of the police officer.
I don't think a working dog must be based solely on autonomy. You bring mushing up as an example. While mushing dogs follow their handler, not every dog is built to mush, & not every dog or dog breed can mush. So I think a dog that can mush is still a working dog, since not every other dog can fulfill that role.
I also think a working dog need not work alone. For example, a Hunting Dog works with the Hunter. a Police Service Dog works with a Policeman. It's a partnership, not the dog working entirely alone. [ with the exception of Guardian Breeds, I think most working dogs worked alongside humans ]
I think, a Working DOG tho happens regardless of breed. For example, a Pit Bull can make a pretty good Police Service Dog, as can a GSD, Belgian Shepherd, Dutch Shepherd, Cane Corso, etc. etc. Sometimes, a working dog is a mutt, with no idea of what it's lineage could be.
I'd say, if I had to list, Mushing, Guarding [ PPD & LGD ], Hunting Dog, Police Service Dog, Narcotics Detection Dog, Bomb Detection Dog, Seeing-Eye Dog, etc. etc. I list these because they are a job that must be specifically be trained to do said "work," but likewise, not all dogs can do it.
Showing, Packing, Hiking, Agility, Flyball, Shutzund, etc. are not work. They are "sport" or "hobby."
More later, I'm off to eat! ~
A working dog is any dog that can be utilized as a tool to augment or assist humans of a physiological need.
Jesse
Personally, any job given a dog will make it a "working dog", each job being a different facet in the working community. This would also include show dogs, as you can't throw just any dog in the ring and expect them to perform well. To me, "show dogs" are "working dogs" that have a higher rate of producing "failures" (failure being a dog that can not perform the intended job, in this case being shown) than other "working dogs", thus why more pups from these dogs are made into companions.
PS: Mushing dogs are working dogs that do require an ability to think for themselves as they need to keep from blindly running into dangerous footing.
Edit: I gotta find the story about this mushing team. They were running and running and suddenly they stopped. The musher shouted the command for go, yet they stay. He screamed and cursed and eventually walked to the lead dog to make the dogs go. When he reached the lead dog, he heard the ice start to crack and noticed that they were at the edge of a poorly frozen lake. It was a face palm moment for him, so he gave the command to turn at which the dogs finally listened
A working dog is any dog that is utilized as a tool to augment or assist humans of a physiological need.
*There may be "working breeds", but not all dogs that fall under the "working breed" label are "working dogs".
I have always just assumed a working dog was a dog that had a responsibility to perform for their human counterpart, and so, show dogs do fall under my definition of a "working dog".
Dave and I discussed this at length over IM back when it originally came up, and I think its one of the few things we never came to agreement on. While I would love to say "a working dog has to perform a job they were selectively designed to perform and that job must be one that requires them to act autonomously; this is what makes them a true working dog", I just can't get passed all the examples of breeds/dogs that do a job that doesn't necessarily require them to perform the task they were selected to perform or act autonomously. For example, think of a dog that performs in a circus, he performs in front of a crowd with his handler and performs tricks on request from his handler... Not a lot of autonomy there, but it would be hard to say that he isn't a "working dog", right?
Then their is the "show dog" thing, due to the stigma of the show ring and the stigma of the working world I am sure its painful for some people to agree that a "show dog" can also be a "working dog", but I really do feel that dogs who are used heavily in the show ring do in fact have a job.
Where I think a lot of people, especially very logically minded individuals, have issue accepting what I just wrote is in the specific selection that went into the creation of a working breeds, and in the grouping of a "working breed" vs. a "working dog". Let me explain...
A working breed can produce a working dog, just as a non-working breed can produce a working dog too.
A CO is a working breed, and was selected to preform a (autonomous) task (flock guardian). There are owners with companion CO, working CO, and show CO. If you have a CO that is exclusively a companion dog, your CO is still a "working breed", but he is not a "working dog".
Same applies in reverse if you have a poodle. A poodle is a "non-sporting breed" but was selected for hunting/retrieving water fowl. If you have a poodle that you hunt with you have a "working dog", but you do not have a "working breed".
I might even argue that dogs of today who perform in the show ring are selected to be "show dogs", and so they are just as specifically selected as, say, the hunting dogs Gen uses to hunt his pig. Generations and generations have been produced in both examples, and each generation was selected to perform their specific function, whether showing or hunting, better than (or on-par with) the previous generations. Without that selection process neither example would meet their intended task. Both sound like working dogs to me.
I am a breed history enthusiast. I'd love to romanticize the history and evolution of the great working dogs of past. I'd love to only call the dog today that still preform those roles "working dogs", and dismiss all the rest as companions, pets, or beauty contestants... but I really don't think that's right.
Things change, people evolve as do our dogs, many of the roles dogs performed in the past are not needed (or even legal) now. If we don't let some of these other jobs constitute "working dogs" then we will not have any "working dogs" left eventually.
----
I also like Jesse's well-thought out definition:
"A working dog is any dog that can be utilized as a tool to augment or assist humans of a physiological need."
It doesn't try to define a "good working dog" but just a working dog. Depending on the wielder of a tool or their level of necessity, they can either utilitize only excellent, well-honed tools, or they just use what they got.
Mushing has a purpose; Travel. PPD / LGDs have purpose; Protection. Bomb Sniffing dogs find bombs, narcotic dogs find illegal drugs, Seeing Eye Dogs lead & assist the blind, Police Service Dogs help detain criminals. Hunting dogs hunt. All these dogs have a purpose, they have a JOB. If they loose these dogs, they will need to be replaced.
Showing is a hobby. If all dog shows were disbanded, there is no real loss. If Shutzund was banned, there is no loss. If agility is banned, there is no loss. Are the dogs fulfilling a purpose? Yes, they fulfill the need for a hobby / fun. But it is not work. If Narcotic dogs vanish off the face of the earth, something will need to replace them. If a farmer loses an LGD, something will need to replace him. Showing is not a "need," it's done for "fun" & for "competition."
Working dogs are a "tool." Show / Agilitly / Etc. dogs are more like "toys." One you use for work, one you use for fun. Neither is better than the other, they just have different uses. But they are not the same.
[ note; I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Showing / Sport Work / Agility / etc. It's just that these are not "jobs" they are "hobbies" done for entertainment or exercise. ] ~
I may be a little biased given my family's history with showing and breeding, but I certainly think that showing, agility, therapy dogs are working dogs. Before someone says that it's not a job, then I think that you should get a puppy, train it, and try doing it. Once you have gone through the process to really train a good show dog then I think some of you might change your mind on that one. It's work!
Sorry Osy didn't mean to pick on you you were just the last to answer, so I used yours as an example.
Now, one can argue that agility is considered "work" because dogs are used as tools to force humans to get off their fat asses to run around and direct their dog through obstacles, which then justifies my earlier definition of physiological need.
Jesse
That's like if I had an LGD to protect my land from predators, & the LGD has never encountered a Bear, Coyote, Eagle, etc...it's still doing it's job, it's just never had to physically act on it, that isn't the LGD's fault, it was just never presented with a situation where it would need to physically act. The difference is, if something should arise, a dog trained to protect [ land or person ] will act on it, as they've been trained to do so, vs. a dog who isn't trained.
& I would never say PPD training is something one should do for a hobby. I've been told REAL PPD involves a dog getting kicked, beaten, thrown, etc. to build drive to ensure the dog will handle real-life pressure if ever faced with a threat. [ kind of like extreme boot-camp for humans, I guess ] Not something I would do as a "hobby." [ & let's be honest, who really NEEDS THAT kind of protection? IMHO, get a gun to protect you, & a dog to warn you. After realizing what real PP training involves, I would never ever do it ]
My point with Showing / Agility / Mondio Ring / Etc. is not that they aren't hard work. Of course they are! & Not any person or any dog can do it. My point is that there's no real need for it. If these events disappeared off the face of the earth we would not really suffer a loss, other than entertainment value. If we lost the ability to use SAR dogs, Bomb-Sniffing Dogs, Narcotics Dogs, etc. there would be a loss that would need to be replaced by something else.
One is done for fun, it is optional. One is done as work, it's a necessity. There are plenty of hobbies that are hard work, & require effort, for both human, & canine, but they're still just done for fun
No worries Tara
In the sport world (hunting trials, PP Sports, Agility, Fly Ball) dogs, just like the show world, prove their ability to preform. That ability to preform increases the dog's value, which increases the value of their bloodlines, and that increases the value of what the kennel produces.
If the value of what a kennel produces isn't proven via titles of some form then you have no guarantee of what you will get from that kennel. Without a guarantee of what you get from acquiring a dog from a specific kennel then there is no reason to have "working kennels" or "show kennels".
I'll be the first one to say I couldn't care less about titles, I think a good dog is where you find it, but I'd be a moron to pretend that titles, whether show, sport, or work, don't add value to a breed - and that value is mos def something a breed steward works toward - and the dogs that help them get there are performing a job just as much as the bomb sniffers are preforming a job. There are many roles a breed steward may focus on when helping their breed, it doesn't have to be show titles or sport/work titles but I think its silly for any breed steward or enthusiast to pretend those titles don't hold a lot of value. Lets face it, a true "working dog" gives very little to their breed.
I mean, there are people who play sports for a living, and people who clean floors for a living, as well as people who save lives for a living - they all have jobs and all do work. I'm not sure its fare to say one job is "real work" while the others are not. To me, by saying agility is not work, but bomb sniffing is, you are doing exactly that .
Also, keep in mind, to the dog prancing around in a pageant or sniffing for a bomb holds the same level of importance. It's not like a dog knows its sniffing for a bomb and potentially saving a life vs. prancing around in front of a judge, its' just running a routine its been rewarded to do.
----
You cannot say the dogs that are earning titles for a breeder's program, and producing dogs that may or may not go on to be police dogs, are not "working dogs", can you? Seems their job is just as important as the police dog that produced.
----
First off, I am not discrediting titles or showing or obedience or agility or Shutzund or Mondio Ring, etc. If I somehow managed to imply that, that wasn't my intent, & I apologize.
Second, I am not stating a dog with a certain task is more important than a dog who does nothing all his life. All dogs are great, whatever they do, even if all they do is provide companionship, & no one is more important than another. All dogs are equal, just as all people are equal, regardless of type / work / breed / hobby / gender / etc.
I don't think by calling "showing" a "hobby" I am discrediting it, but simply placing it into another category alongside "working." I see them as equal, but different. Some dogs work, some dogs do other things, some dogs get the label of "couch potato," but it doesn't make one better than the other. It just means each dog has different skills / attributes / etc. that can be utilized in different ways.
Everything about owning a dog involves hard "work," even just potty training it & raising it.
But lets face it, the days when dogs were utilized solely as tools, for a specific job, are long since gone. At one point, the vast majority of dogs were working dogs, now the majority are companions. Now dogs have the option of being companions & participating in some fun sports / showing / etc. IE: They don't NEED to work, just be a good friend.
I don't compare A person Mopping or a Soldier or a Doctor to each other, all have work to do & they all contribute to society, & it's important & someone's got to do it. I'm comparing a Beauty Pageant Contestant with a Policeman.
- A Beauty Pageant is a Hobby, Police Work is a job.
[ Showing vs Police Service Dog ]
- Hiking is a Hobby, SAR is a job.
- Marathon Running is a Hobby, Bodyguarding is a job.
[ agility vs PPD / LGD ]
I guess we're getting into semantics. For me, IMHO Working Dog = Job, Non-Working = Hobbies / Sport / Fun.
Is Showing Important? Sure, it's not something I'd do, but I respect people who do it. As I respect people who do Mondio, Shutzhund, Agility, Obedience, Flyball, Hiking, Packing, etc. but these are done for fun, to test handler & dog skills, etc. They are hard work, but they remain "tests" not a job.
Also, someone can work & have a hobby. I knew a policeman a long time ago who used his k9 in agility for the fun of it. Nothing wrong with that either. ~
Do titles prove something? Sure. But I'd rather take a healthy dog that doesn't meet standard or can't get any title [ working or show ], over a dog who meets perfect standard / workability with shit for hips but amazing titles.
For me, Temperament & Health will ALWAYS come before Titles, whether it's from work / sport or show.
But as you know Brad, Working Dogs seem to be closer to the "orginal temperament" the dogs had at it's creation vs most [ NOT all ] show dogs that are continually being softened. Obviously, you know this or you would not have bothered to get Tai [ & Chupa? ] from working lines.
[ ETA: This working kennel has just gotten 2 FCI Mallinois to breed. I think that's how it should be done, a nice mix to increase variety & genetic diversity. As I said, I see Show & Working at an equal level, & see no reason why they can't be bred together. ] ~
It's like saying because the dogs are producers they have a "job" because they produce puppies. Just like a Stay At Home Mom [ or Dad ] has a job; raising the kids.
But, to me, showing / agility / etc. are just tests. It's like if we put humans into beauty pageants, and whichever ones won were the ones that got to marry each other & have kids. The Beauty Pageant part isn't a job, the producing & rearing of children is.
That's how I see it anyway. ~
There are too many words being thrown around. "Work" "Job" "Purpose" "Hobby" "Sport" "Show"
Each person's definition of each word is different. & depending on your definition, the criteria changes.
I think we're all on the same page, just arguing which words to use, which is very tiring
[ also, that troublemaker Dave started this thread & never came back to it!!! I'm calling you out Dave! LOL ] ~
I guess it's easier to classify the things that people do as hobbies or professions, making them amateurs or professionals, but generally that's based on whether you're paid or not right? I don't think you can really draw the same lines when it comes to canines.
To me working breeds have always been protection dogs, narc/bomb dogs, LGD, sled dogs, and etc. I dont think I have ever thought hunting dogs as working dogs. I always thought that was two separate catagories until I joined this forum.
I picked on you and you DS breeder because I actually think he has a great program and was a good choice. I would buy a dog from them, and I would consider them to be producing "working dogs"... but their dogs don't work. So how can that be? How can they produce working dogs from dogs that do not work? TITLES! That's how.
----
I disagree that all dogs owned by people are working dogs, I know many dogs that do nothing all day but sleep, eat, and poo. those dogs do not provide any "work", they are simple companions/pets. They may fulfill some emotional or intangible need the human has but that requires no extraordinary skill or instinct or trait.
We all have friends, its not our friends job to be our friend. They are our friend because of a relationship between 2 people, both get something out of the equation. Same applies to a companion/pet.
In a working relationship, the dog is doing a task of x amount of value for the human and not getting the same amount x amount of value in return. They give more than they get.
----
And, you did! Well, at least Shigeru and Gen did. :-)
"Working" is a term, like "aggression" or "dominance" that gets thrown around a lot in the dog world without a real precise definition. When I got to thinking about what it means to be a working dog, I realized there are so many different kinds of work that *EVERY* dog is a working dog. So, calling a dog a "working dog" is actually a meaningless statement. Brad and I argued in circles over this for quite a while. Brad was arguing in favor of an inclusive definition of "working" (e.g., show dogs are working dogs, etc.). I was arguing for a more exclusive definition until I realized that all dogs work and really what is important is to talk about the type of work they do.
Take a "service" dog for example, a dog selected for instincts to help people and trained to help handicapped people function in society. Perhaps this is a seizure detection dog who alerts her owners to an oncoming seizure before it sets in. If you take that "working" dog and place it in a "non-working" home where she doesn't get to use those instincts and learned skills, will she still be happy? I would guess yes because those instincts and skills learned to do her job make her people focused and family oriented.
Now, take a "mushing" dog for another example. A dog selected for instincts to acclimate to cold weather, to run endlessly, and not to chase prey. If you take that "working" dog and place it in a "non-working" home where she doesn't get to run, will she still be happy? Perhaps. But, leading a family-oriented life without the extra effort by her owners to run/jog/rollerblade/etc. with her might lead to frustration and anxiety---she would not be exercising those instincts she was bred to have.
You can do these thought experiments for all types of "working" dogs. PPD dogs who don't get to chase and do bite work. LGDs who have no property to guard. Hunting dogs who don't get to stalk, chase, and bay/catch. For each of these "working" dogs, the needs they have to live a fulfilling non-working life are different.
So my conclusion is that the term "working dog" is useless. Rather than talking about work, we should be calling dogs by what they really are: hunting, guarding, protection, mushing, show, companion, agility, flyball, etc. When we do this, we can talk about what a dog was "bred to do" (as in what, historically, the breed was selected for) and what an individual dog does. We can also start to characterize the types of things that might be fulfilling to a dog bred to work that is in a non-working home.
------------
So, to answer the question about the two day a year hunter, I would say "yes, that is a hunting dog" because it's breed was selected for hunting. And "yes, it is a working dog" because *ALL* dogs are working dogs.
Where we get a gray area is when we talk about mutts. In that case, you can still look to lineage if it's known (e.g., a hunting and mushing dog) or you can look to the life it leads (e.g. an agility dog). Either way, it's still a working dog because all dogs work.
I picked on you and you DS breeder because I actually think he has a great program and was a good choice. I would buy a dog from them, and I would consider them to be producing "working dogs"... but their dogs don't work. So how can that be? How can they produce working dogs from dogs that do not work? TITLES! That's how.
Oh...Ok, I understand what you all are saying now
---
& Dave...you will forever be a troublemaker in my book! But I agree, working is too "broad" a term. ~