Breeding Dogs

[Journey]

Now imagine that due to a major commercial organization's activity, many, many breeders are breeding out a little more of this spark with every generation.

 

Laurae said the above in a different thread .....the flip side of this is where my question comes in.

 

A couple of days ago a friend told me "I don't want to breed dogs like that I want to raise them". This coming from the fact that this particular dog was out of a dog that was just about "to hard to trial". I have had the opportunity to see a bunch of dogs lately, dogs that are too much for the trial field. However, these dogs are producing what I believe fall into the red zone on Denise's dart board, as do the sire and dam, however, they don't trial. Is the trial world too small, in a matter of speaking, to know about these dogs? Are breeding's going on with dogs that have been somewhat watered down from hard "red zone" dogs and doing well on the trial field therefore perpetuating a somewhat watered down trial dog? Do we need more "hard" dogs back in the breeding's? I know it's not about trialling but w/o these to hard to handle dogs are we watering down the gene pool as well?

[stockdogranch]

I need some clarification, please. What exactly does "too hard to trial" and "too much for the trial field" mean? Specifically.

 

A

[juliepoudrier]

I'm not sure I quite understand your question. If these hard dogs are being bred and bred from then they're not being lost to the gene pool, right? If people know they exist and where to find them, then they are available for breeding right? Are you asking what happens if these dogs stop being bred, or if trialing is selectibg against these dogs?

 

J.

[Journey]

Dogs that effect 5 sheep and cause them to flee for their life just by walking on the trial field. Dogs that you can let gather a few hundred w/o help but on a few you have to ride the parking brake so to speak. Dogs that are so mentally hard, they may listen, they don't savage stock or anything like that they simply feel no need to listen much of the time, possible lack of biddabilty to an extent, yet dog you can count on when you have to get it done. Mentally hard, it's kinda hard to explain. Very reluctant to let go of the control of the stock. The kind of dog that takes years of work to hone down to be able to trial, maybe when they are 6 or 7 years old. The type that takes really hard tough (fair and a good stockman) handler to get them to flank off balance, give up control. Like some of the original imports that worked the hills over there and then came here and made trial dogs as they were mature. Dogs that you can't really find "bottom" in, you can't beat them off, you can't make them loose their sheep, and they see no sense in off balance when they have perfect control as they are.

[Journey]

Yes, Julie - is trialling selecting against them? Is the red zone shrinking as these dogs are not out there.

[desertranger]

Laurae said the above in a different thread .....the flip side of this is where my question comes in.

 

A couple of days ago a friend told me "I don't want to breed dogs like that I want to raise them". This coming from the fact that this particular dog was out of a dog that was just about "to hard to trial". I have had the opportunity to see a bunch of dogs lately, dogs that are too much for the trial field. However, these dogs are producing what I believe fall into the red zone on Denise's dart board, as do the sire and dam, however, they don't trail. Is the trial world too small, in a matter of speaking, to know about these dogs? Are breeding's going on with dogs that have been somewhat watered down from hard "red zone" dogs and doing well on the trial field therefore perpetuating a somewhat watered down trial dog? Do we need more "hard" dogs back in the breeding's? I know it's not about trialling but w/o these to hard to handle dogs are we watering down the gene pool as well?

 

 

Since I'm not in trialing (I am in trailing get it?) I had to read that a few tims to understand.

 

If I understand the red zone dogs are ones that are hard to handle. If I'm correct I certainly hope we are not watering down the red zone dogs. That would be a crime. Fuzzer was a red zone dog hard to handle and it took a long time to get him to come into line. When he did he was fantastic. Out of him came Glynnis and Fuzzy two of the most workaholic on top of their performance dogs I ever had. Of all those dogs Glynnis was the top. An idiot savant of dogdom with no interest in sheep she was driven and her ability to solve a problem was unique. She produced two litters of really good working dogs.

[Carson Crazies]

For an explanation of what we're talking about with regards to "red zone" or "red circle" or "bulls eye" dogs, please click HERE. DR - by this description a dog is not a red circle dog unless it's a stockdog - and an exceptionally useful one at that.

[Debbie Meier]

Is the red zone shrinking as these dogs are not out there.

 

I think that the red zone may be shrinking in certain areas where hard and demanding work is not available to test the dog. I guess the thing to do is to look at the people in your area that are using their dogs hard and trialing at the top levels, are they using the local genepool, regional or are they looking nationally? I think most people will breed close to home unless they can't find what they are looking for.

 

It's amazing how many ranchers/breeders/handlers are looking for the "Miracle Cross", as long as that quest continues I think there will be hard tough dogs. Some are the counterpart of the soft weak dogs, in an effort to breed right down the middle in an attempt to hit the target you end up with some that are too tough and too hard and you end up with some that are too soft or too weak.

 

I think we will be in trouble when everyone decides to just cope with what ever they end up with.

[stockdogranch]

I'm not sure that I would agree that "hard to handle" dogs would necessarily be red circle dogs. My definition of a red circle dog would be one who is quite biddable plus has an extraordinary amount of innate stock sense. By that I mean the dog should inherently be able to adjust its pressure/energy/power, whatever you want to call it, to whatever stock it is working. That would include different types of stock (sheep, cattle), as well as numbers--from a single, to a trial packet, to a band of hundreds or more.

JMO,

A

[juliepoudrier]

I think the presumption is that everyone is breeding only from or for trial dogs, and I don't think that's the case. And if that's not the case, then the bulls-eye dogs should be doing okay.

 

And I think Anna makes a good point. The whole philosophy behind these dogs is that they can and will willingly work with their human partners.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

I wonder if in the region where this presumption evolved the lines of dogs capable of handling large numbers of stock independently were not easy to handle on small numbers on a trial field and the lines of dogs capable of precisely handling small groups on the trial field were not capable of independently handling large groups of stock.

 

Dogs and lines capable of handling both situations do exist.

 

Another possibility is limited experience for both types of dogs (or trainers); precision on small groups and independently handling large groups. Most hobbyists (myself included) do not have access to large groups of undogged stock; many professional stockmen may not have the time or desire to train for precisely handling small groups.

 

Mark

[Maralynn]

What is the opinion about dogs who will only work for a handler they respect?

 

The man who bred Kipp had an incredibly tough, driven dog at one time. The dog was imported and had been through 5-6 handlers in the US who had supposedly used every way imaginable to manage him - including shock collars and beating him. But he was very tough mentally and when he finally got into the right hands he was an awesome worker on cattle and sheep. You could see the rapport between dog and handler and that they both had respect for each other.

[sea4th]

What is the opinion about dogs who will only work for a handler they respect?

 

The man who bred Kipp had an incredibly tough, driven dog at one time. The dog was imported and had been through 5-6 handlers in the US who had supposedly used every way imaginable to manage him - including shock collars and beating him. But he was very tough mentally and when he finally got into the right hands he was an awesome worker on cattle and sheep. You could see the rapport between dog and handler and that they both had respect for each other.

 

Now I'm wondering about this too. I don't know how many dogs have this same story, but I know of a dog just like that and I'm wondering if it's the same one. Can you PM me and tell me who the dog is? I'm curious now.

 

Thanks.

[Liz P]

I understood red zone dogs to be the ones who are as near to perfect as one can get. IOW, they have the natural instincts/stock sense, AND work ethic, AND desire to partner up AND physical/mental soundness. So, wouldn't that mean the useful dogs with a fault or two (such as not willing to partner up) should fall into the orange zone; still very worth breeding but not themselves perfect?

[Journey]

From the original thread;

 

Red circle (bull’s eye) = The very best quality of working border collies. A working definition might be dogs that are exceptional enough to save a great deal of time and manpower for a livestock operation.

 

In reading this I would still place the hard ones in this area.

[desertranger]

I understand and I would still rate Fuzzer az a red zone dog by your description. I would then rate Glynand Fuzz down in the next ring.

 

That brings the question how many of these dogs are out there that have never seen sheep? There has to be a small percentage that are trained for other work because I can hardly think of them in a home. Makes me wonder how may might have been turned in for resce or worse.

[Sue R]

I understand the zones to be more like what Liz P is saying - nothing about hardness belonging in any zone but quality of instinct and ability being the red zone. The dogs that are the very best - some could be hard to work with until the handler has the dog figured out - it was all in there but needed the right approach to develop that dog that is top-notch.

 

Yellow zone are very useful dogs but lacking in some aspect or another - but still very worthwhile dogs that can be very useful farm/ranch dogs but not top quality, consistent trial dogs at the Open level at challenging venues. Maybe nice Open dogs at less-challenging venues.

 

White zone dogs are useful to a degree, not quality or consistent trial dogs. Can be handy farm dogs in certain situations. Can be useful as part of the gene pool to keep genetic diversity and health in the population.

 

Anything outside white isn't worth training or breeding.

 

That is the way I understand the zones or rings of the dart board. Denise explains it well, as it was her concept.

[Lenajo]

What a confusing thread!

 

I don't see how we can described how a dog fits into Denise's bullseye/target analogy if we keep changing her definations to make it what we personally want it to be

 

The "hill dog" has long been the foundation of this breed. These were the the tough, hard, get-it-done, dog that puts the "oomph" into this breed. Some were trialable - in the right hands with the work to satisfy them in the background. Many were trialable only late - often after being sold several times as too hard to deal with and naturally aging into a more mellow version. Many a good dog ended up here in the States because he/she wasn't trialable young and the money looked better than dealing with them. Then, believe me...the would have liked them back. I know that first hand from some, and second hand from breeders of good working collies for the last 50 years who directly purchased from those shepherds.

 

Trialing does to a degree select against the hill dog's hard independent nature. And the hill dogs keep those lines from getting so soft and biddible that they lack the bottom real work requires. It is a balancing act. Go too long, too far in one direction or the other and you can lose things impossible to get back.

 

I personally would rather err on the side of the hill dog. A dog like that can always find work. A dog that's overbred for biddibility though, can end up too soft to deal with real work.

 

Of course I want perfectly balanced - who doesn't? But reality - in life, livestock, and dogs, is that you have to pick a choose or end up with the dividing fence up your rear.

 

At both the UK nationals and our nationals, there were offspring and grandpups of such a described "hard" btch who was not trainable to trial by public (web and verbal) omission. There were also marvelous offspring of a dog in this Nationals that had his career shortened because he absolutely despises giving up control to a good handler and it simply was not worth fighting with him over it.

 

What the breed would have lost had those dogs been scrapped from breeding rights is immeasurable.

 

And if you don't know what dogs I'm talking about, don't ask me.

[Mark Billadeau]

Do you really believe that biddability to a human and tough on stock are mutually exclusive?

I don't, I've seen examples.

 

Some part of independent thinking vs. biddability is due to the training.

Training for trialing will develop biddability while training for hill work will develop independent thinking; I wonder if too much of one or the other during early training tends to make a dog one type or the other.

 

 

Mark

[Denise Wall]

I chose to define those zones in terms of work because that's the way I think it should be. The definitions had to be fairly general or else it would become too hard to follow. Obviously some dogs that are perfect on one type of stock or for certain jobs or in a certain area won't be perfect in other situations. So the definitions are flawed to some extent. If any one has a better idea I'm game. I want to keep refining the analogy over time.

 

As to the original post - personally, I've had good luck (by my standards) keeping my line going by breeding hard (too hard for trials or nearly so) bitches.

 

ETA: Sue, I think you skipped the orange zone in your last post. White is supposed to be useless for working stock, or nearly so.

[juliepoudrier]

I know soemeone who typically imports dogs that are too hard to trial, and yet when included in their breeding program produce dogs who are indeed trialable.

 

I also agree with Mark that to some agree hard or soft can be created in a dog, and of course a dog that is too hard to trial for one person may well not be for another. I disagree that only hill dogs are independent thinkers, or that conversely trial dogs are not independent thinkers. At least some of us who trial do not micromanage our dogs and do value independent thinking, even if the work we have for them at home isn't the equivalent of "the hill." In other words, it's not so black and white as some here seem to be saying.

 

As Wendy pointed out, these hard dogs are not being lost to the gene pool anyway, as the folks who recognize their breeding potential are using them to produce either more of the same or something that can be trialed, which is I think pretty much what I said in my original reply to this thread.

 

I think there is room in the red bulls-eye for the dogs who are too strong to be trialed *and* the dogs who are amazing trial dogs.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

If any one has a better idea I'm game. I want to keep refining the analogy over time.

 

I have better luck looking at it as a pendulum with ideal being in a neutral dead center location. As the dog is less then perfect the pendulum swings, left or right. You can look at each trait independently or you can look at all the traits together. Training or lack of training can effect the pendulum, and counter balance it.

 

I guess I look at dogs that are hard could be counter balanced in breeding by dogs that are softer, granted your going to have pups the will run the gamet with the litter but over time you try to refine your selection getting the pedulum closer and closer to center. If you have an ideal dog you don't want to breed it to a dog that is too far one way or the other but try to breed type to type.

 

I think you have to be willing to get an overly hard dog in an effort to find the dog that is perfect when you are breeding, depending on how soft the counter part is. I think the key is to understand how to train that dog or your line of dogs, if you can't train it you can't counterbalance what you produce and make it useful.

 

One trait that comes to mind with our dogs is sensitivity, my male is too sensitive, when we are selecting a mate we want to find something that does not swing to the over sensitive side, but we have to be careful to be sure that the dog we are looking at has not had her true sensitivity masked by training or lack of. An example is our first cross, we thought we made a mistake by picking a female that was too sensitive, when the pups were evaluated by another trainer he pointed out that one of the parents more then likely was not by nature sensitive, we had pups that were nearly as sensitive as their sire to pups that lacked sensitivity, if both parents were of like types the pups should have been more consistent.

 

Inregards to the dart board, it's going to be different for each breeder or each person utilizing it, basically each of us has a little different idea what the red zone dogs are, some may have a tighter red zone some may have a broader zone. Alot is influenced by the dogs you have worked with, used or seen used.

 

Deb

[Mark Billadeau]

Selecting to counter balance varying degrees of something (i.e. hard vs. soft) is a crap shoot. You're just as likely to get copies of the parents as you are to get the desired balanced blend.

[Debbie Meier]

Selecting to counter balance varying degrees of something (i.e. hard vs. soft) is a crap shoot. You're just as likely to get copies of the parents as you are to get the desired balanced blend.

 

Agreed, that it why you don't use the extreames, you look for simulars but on either side of center. In our case getting a copy of either parent was not a bad thing, both work, both are trainable but neither ideal. When I say my dog is too sensitive it's not in the sense of too sensitive to be useful, it's that he was more sensitive then ideal.

 

Deb

[Mark Billadeau]

Since the genetics of these herding traits are unlikely "simple", each parent also likely carries the genetics for a range of these traits and environment (experience) fine tuned the trait that the individual exhibits. For exmaple, a parent that comes from a cross of extremes could carry the genes for both extremes eventhough it "is" ideal.