Why is there a distinction between working dogs and "pets"?

My dogs are working dogs and they are also family pets. But the Border Collie doesn't do well as "just a pet" and needs a proper job in order to be sane in the home. If they didn't work, they would drive us crazy at home all the time.

Generally, in the world of true working Border Collies (and when I say true working, I mean dogs that do the job every day and/or train and compete in USBCHA trials), the general consensus is that BCs are working dogs, not pets. They live in a kennel and only come out for regular exercise, daily work and training. They don't live in the home with the handler. They are not pets. Working is their purpose and interactions with the handlers are kept strictly to working and training.

I've had many discussions with friends about the concept of not having a working dog be a part of the home life. We generally agree that there is a distinct advantage these handlers, keeping dogs in kennels and only taking them out for work, have over those of us that allow our dogs to be house pets. Dogs that only interact with their handlers on a working basis are much more likely to become successful stock dogs. These dogs, getting less interaction than dogs like mine, are more likely to aim to please. They are also more likely to follow the rules. When you have "house dogs/pets" it's common to not maintain the strict discipline in leisure time in the home. It's easier to maintain that discipline if you are only interacting with the dog on a working level and nothing else. So really, from a working perspective, you have more respect from your dog.

One myth about my breed is that working dogs don't have an off switch and therefore do not make good house pets. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are lines of BCs that are like this, but they come from some of the sporting bred lines (agility and the like). Good working lines can and will have an appropriate off switch that will kick in after a good day of working and training.

As far as taking a "companion bred" BC and having it turn out to be a good working dog, well that depends on the history of the lines really. There are many lines that have several generations of dogs that simply never did real work and not proven to be successful stock dogs. Can you get lucky and score a naturally talented working dog out of such lines? Sometimes but it is rare to find this. If you want a dog that can do the job, you need to select for that first and foremost. Frankly, lines of "pet only" bred dogs is not where I'd be looking for a good working dog.

Unfortunately, not all breeders breed "true to the standard" in the realm of BCs. As far as I'm concerned, the standard needs to include true working ability and talent for the job to an advanced level, not just instinct, which is often easily confused with stock chasing. Far too many do not prioritize true working ability which is detrimental to our breed. Thankfully, there are plenty of breeders out there focusing on true working talent in their lines.

My dogs are not likely to be the high end stock dogs that make it to national sheepdog finals every year, but that's a sacrifice I am willing to make. I personally value the relationship my family has with our BCs. They bring much joy and entertainment to my home and the bonds they have with my children is something I would not choose to miss out on by keeping them as outside kennel run dogs.

Any well bred dog can be both a working dog and a companion. This does not mean that a show bred dog can do the work that its breed was intended to do. Much of those instincts sadly have been bred out in exchange for a heavy body, excess coat, and other aspects that make a winning show dog. I know many people who have working hunting and herding dogs that are also pets. These dogs will never see competition and many of them won't be bred, but they are very sound in their temperament and drive. I have found that many owners that work their dogs will not put up with misfits. They want something that will do the work that needs to be done and that they can live with when the dog isn't working.

In my mind there is no distinction between working dogs and pets by owners who use working dogs. I find that in most cases the working lines make better pets as they are bred sounder and are more trainable.

I've noticed that as well here in Yahoo! Answers. I don't know if it is limited to here only, but this is the only place where I have encountered the whole a working dog cannot be a companion animal opinion, as if working somehow ruin the dog for normal family life. Of course it all depends on how the dog was trained, train a dog to indiscriminately attack everything on sight (although why anyone would want to do that is beyond me), and no it probably wouldn't be suited for family living.

In Scandinavia most dogs are both, and in fact all Danish police dogs live with their handler and his/her family when off-duty. So yes, they can stop a robber in the morning and play with the kids in the evening.

To turn it around, take a high-drive dog and not work in it some way, whether it's IPO, agility, obedience, dog-dancing or what have you, and chances are that it will be too under stimulated and bored to be a good companion animal.

Could I herd with my Groenendael if I decided to get a flock of sheep? Probably, she has a strong herding instinct, which I've had to train her to control, and she stands her ground when the neighbours beef cattle tries to intimidate her, plus she guards like it's no-body's business.

That said, some breeds are so far removed from what they were originally bred for that they can no longer do the job - take the Saint Bernard for example, and of course some breeds are just not suited for suburbia, but that's another matter.

There is a distinction between working dogs and pets for the same reason that there is a distinction between show dogs and pets. I would hazard a guess that the majority of "Oh, that's just a pet dog" comments come from working folk, and the majority of pet owners will jump at the chance to tell you that their dog was bred to do this really neat fantastic job and if they had a need to kill rats in the sewers of Germany than they would have the *perfect* dog.

Of course, "educated" dog people may believe a working bred dog is "over the top", "too energetic", or "hard to train". In reality, they've been getting the watered down, AKC pet-level dose of their breed, and when they meet the dog that accurately represents their breed, they are overwhelmed at the thought that Sparky might actually need to run outside once in awhile.

The reality is that a properly bred working dog can be a companion animal- but only if the companion human realizes that their dog is going to need daily exercise, mental stimulation, and a possibly consult with a trainer who knows and understands the breed *as it was meant to be bred*.

I'm siding with the "deterioration of working breeds" argument. I'll take it a step further and state that the watching CH Fluffington the Third prance around the conformation ring on national television has done absolutely nothing to better the public's understanding of what a dog is and why we have them as companions in the first place.

It depends on the job it was bred to do. With our breed, livestock guardians, they can be raised as companions, some breeds are better than others for this and all are somewhat dog aggressive. Dogs raised as companion animals don't properly bond to livestock. And dogs raised as LG's don't usually do well when separated from their charges, they tend to howl and belly ache and in some cases will become depressed and stop eating. The only case where the two intersect is when there is a human shepherd in the field with the flock and the dogs. In that case, the human is seen as part of the flock. LG's were bred for thousands of years to recognise threats to their flock and respond WITHOUT human intervention or command. Any companion owner who does not take this into account, or cannot recognise the warning signs, or for that matter, control their dogs when these tendancies arise, should not own this type of dog as with most breeds of LG it is bound to happen at one point or another.

Like I said it depends on the job. I have no doubt that working police dogs are fantastic companions to their handlers. And I also don't think that only a purebred could do this job. Same with herding dogs, they probably make fantastic companions to their owners, but I think in that case there is a certain genetic predisposition that makes them effective at their jobs. They need to have that certain instinct, which many mixed breeds don't have.

There are plenty "working" companion dogs, therapy dogs, seeing eye dogs, dogs that have been trained for soldiers with PTSD and to recognize seizures.

It depends on your definition of "pet" and of "working dog", and whether you're talking individual dogs or a breed as a whole.

If by "pet" you mean an animal that can easily integrate with the average modern family, then no you wouldn't want a "working" bred dog, because it would require far more exercise and mental stimulation than the average family will give it. OTOH, if "pet" means an animal owned by an intelligent owner/family who is committed to meeting the needs (and responsibilities of owning) of that particular breed, then a "working" dog is more likely to make a successful pet.

I'd think that a properly bred Fila, an area guard, or a trained livestock guardian would make a poor "pet" for the average family.

If you're meaning should the average family pet be able to be trained to do some sort of work, I would agree with that. I'm a big advocate of "giving your dog a job" whether it's a companion sport (obedience/agility), breed specific performance (hunting, herding), therapy dog visits, or just bringing your shoes and learing tricks.

I would say....

Yes - Most working dog breeds (that actually can work) could be a pet.

But not all pets (of working breeds) could be actually "work" as a working dog.

I hope that makes sense? (I have almost confused myself with that misnomer - sad that it has become such).

HOWEVER - If the 'pet owner' is knowledgable enough - Then I would say ALL "true" working dogs could be both.

And the reason I said 'most' and not 'all' working dogs - Is because most people just cant handle a dominant dog with strong drives (for example), so for the average Joe, they would not be good pets.

It seems the problem lies with the owners, not the dogs.

It is a pity that there is a distinction or deterioration now.

I guess people liked GSDs, Dobes, Rotties or working Border collies etc, but may not have been able to handle/cope with them.

So rather then choosing a different/more suitable breed to own as their beloved pet...

Why not 'destroy' the breed they took a shine to instead, by breeding away from the standard.

So terrible!

But that is why I think people may have bred away from original standards (also fashions etc like sloping GSDs and squashed faced Bulldogs).

But then I also think the world would be a better place if people had to pass a test or get a licence to own a dog or have children for that matter!

LOL - Not realistic or feasible, I know!!

(But there are loads of people I know who have one or the other (or both) that would fail 'said test' miserably!

So there you have it.

Thats my humble opinion of how it works.

(But what do I know).

Because breed standards are put forth by conformation clubs. Breeding a dog that is conformationally correct and one that is functionally correct are 2 completely different feats for a lot of breeds. Breeding for extremes has become fairly commonplace: extreme type, extreme drive, extreme temperament, etc. Our lack of necessity for a functioning working animal has resulted in the loss of the ability to breed an overall balanced dog. Most people do not need the drives that breeds were originally bred for, and in a lot of cases it is considered a draw back to a breed, so it doesn't even occur to them that the fact that this awesomely correct spaniel has zero drive to go out and flush birds. Having a working dog and a companion is not impossible, but it is becoming harder and harder to find because breeders are losing sight of the fact that these creatures were originally picked and bred on drive, with much less emphasis put on how they looked.

There is no distinction. A dog is a dog. Even a Chihuahua owner should have the same expectations of their animals as any working dog owner.

Also, lazy people not wanting a fully driven working dog and who want a "companion" with none of the work have helped (if not caused) this distinction.

My state hosts the Seeing Eye Foundation, where guide dogs are raised, trained, and placed with owners. All pups are raised in the houses of approved volunteers for a year before they are returned to the institution for training. So socializing and being a good 'pet' is very important before they begin working.

I had a second cousin, Jerry, who was blind, so as a teenager, I got rather close to the Seeing Eye and how their program worked, because Jerry was not the most agreeable of people and went through a few dogs before he found one that fit his personality. This shows, to me, that among the dogs in the program were those who were better 'workers', those who were more 'family-oriented', and those that were compatible with Jerry. (LOL- after 5 dogs, Logo, a Yellow Lab, finally worked out)

Anyway, the Seeing Eye uses Labs, Goldens, German Shepherds, and the occasional Belgian breed as their dogs of choice. All these are working breeds/hunting breeds. But all are also known to have temperaments suitable to familes. Why? Because when the dog is off the job, it needs to be a compatible family pet- not a guard dog, not a dog that will grab the sighted people and attempt to lead them because it can't function without working.

Even Logo and Jerry finally got along well enough that they could sit on the sofa together and listen to the ball game on the radio. (Logo liked everyone, BTW)

All the Seeing Eye's dogs are carefully bred and raised. But even then, some just aren't suited to do that particular job and are adopted to either the family that raised them or another qualified family. Their graduate rate for the program is fairly high- above 75% when I last checked. But they train only a small number of dogs a year. Anyway, in my opinion, this proves that:

A WELL-BRED and WELL-SOCIALIZED and WELL-TRAINED dog can be both a worker and a pet.

Some dogs can still succeed at both even if they are lacking one of the factors above- ie: poorly bred, but it starts out with the strike against.

Good question, Greekman. : )

Most people on here are wrong. No offense. A working dog. IE Hunting dogs, drug sniffing dogs, herding dogs, even travel dogs, (st. bernard's) and mushing dogs. They can not do one thing AND the other. The problem with having them do both, especially with multiple people, is they do the same thing that humans do. they become biased. If you spend the first 2 years training your dog to be a hunting dog. and you have to be strict with him. And you wife feeds him table scraps, scratches his belly, and does all the nice stuff for him. Who is the dog going to enjoy taking direction from more? Dogs that are TRUE working dogs need to be confined, and continually worked and almost kind of segregated. I am an avid hunter, and dog field trainer for many years, and I come across this problem all to often. People bring in a dog they want to train for hunting, and the man that wants it for hunting cant control him where as the wife he listens to half hearted. but more then the man. when I ask questions I usually find they are trying to make a dog that they want to work. into a family pet, and give him treats for reasons unrelated to rewards for good behavior, and following direction.