Well, I think I am getting a puppy.....

[Maja]

Why do you think that changed, the priority to get a certain look over the work in the dog world in general? The Dog Wars touches on this, but I am curious about what changed in people's minds, or was it really good marketing, or class consciousness or urbanization happened, or more nefarious things like eugenics, to contribute to this shift. (Feel free to send me to the library, someone must have unpacked the history of this!)

 

Apparently some breed clubs profess to aim to 'keep the work in the breed' as part of their mission. I asked my friend if this is the priority, then why go with an arbitrary appearance standard that directly jeopardizes that aim, why not not then support the non-akc registered working lines of her favorite breed? She said "they are not as pretty." (She won't watch the BBC documentary, she is afraid it would be too upsetting. Sorry I keep alluding to that conversation, it's the only one I've got to go on at the moment.) B.

 

1. Having an appearance standard does not directly jeopardise the aim. The breeding priorities do. If the appearance has a higher priority, then the working ability suffers. I think this should be the focus of working BCs people in the discussion with the conformation people - about changing the priorities, not about giving up the fun at the shows. Otherwise, one really gets the impression that a beauty champion is a bad working dog by virtue of being beautiful. As though you looked at a beautiful woman and decided she can't be a mathematician because of the way she looks.

 

If you take show beauty as secondary and subservient to function there is nothing wrong with showing as such, if you have hierarchy, you are not serving two masters. E.g. I listen to my boss and do what she tell me as long as it does not infringe on my religious beliefs. If that happens, the boss loses.

 

2. However, I think that in many cases the discussion is doomed to failure for a simple reason - the majority of people have dogs for other purposes than the originally intended (and this is a very simple answer to your question), so they don't care if they retained their original abilities. Should you want a beagle, would you care if it hunted, if you yourself would not hunt?

 

People like border collies the way they are without/regardless oftheir ability to work stock. Total stock-dummy BCs are very nice dogs. People like these very nice dogs. And since they have the character they want - that is a "nice dog" character then they can happily dedicate themselves to breeding for appearance. And this is I think the core of the issue - the people must care about the working ability, if they don't, it's hopeless.

 

Maja

[geonni banner]

But you raise one other issue here - the "imperfect" body. The type of dogs that win in the show ring have the body that has been determined *by people* to be the "perfect" body. The type(s) of dogs that actually can do the work have the type(s) of bodies that have been determined *by the work* to be the right kind(s) of body. (And I'm using the plural very deliberately because if you watch dogs that can accomplish long and complex trial runs or work long and hard days, there is no one body type, but you don't tend to see heavy-boned, tight-shouldered, straight- and shorter-legged ["show type"] dogs being successful at strenuous work that requires stamina.)

 

I wasn't clear here - I didn't mean to suggest that a conformation type other than the one described by a breed standard was "imperfect," but rather, I was thinking of individual dogs that I have heard described. I remember reading a few posts about dogs that had some physical issues but still had their working ability and drive - one poster described a dog that was an excellent worker, but was discovered to have rather advanced hip dysplasia. Despite a condition that would have rendered many dogs immobile, the dog was working well. The dog was neutered, and not permitted to breed to avoid passing the dysplasia on, but was still used - with discretion - on stock.

What I was trying to say was that it seems that if the dog has the right "mind," that is, a full complement of working ability, instinct, (and of course, training) that variations in body conformation are irrelevant. (Except that one type of conformation may have a slight edge over another on a specific type of terrain - just as one coat type may be advantageous over another, depending on the climate that the dog routinely works in.)

 

Of course a balanced dog is generally a good thing, regardless of type, but unless the dog is really "crooked," it can probably do well if it's got the right "skill set."

 

These dogs were originally bred for ability, and it didn't matter what shape they came in, as long as they were canny and tireless workers. Cow-hocks be damned - the dog works well! Nobody told her she couldn't work stock all day because she was cow-hocked, so the durn fool went out and did the job!

[Sue R]

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. When you add additional, irrelevent criteria to your breeding decisions, you are automatically reducing your breeding choices and the gene pool available for breeding options. In that way alone, you are placing limits on breeding decisions that have no relevance to working ability (and remembering that working ability includes mental, physical, health, and temperment contributions).

 

No one has ever said that an animal can't be easy on the eyes and useful in the field. It's just that appearance is not important and the ability to work is. "Fun at the shows" is not important with regards to working dogs - the ability to work is. And the ability to work well makes an otherwise unremarkable-looking dog beautiful. Beauty is as beauty does.

 

I expect we'll just have to disagree on this, and I do understand that the system in your country is what you have to conform to. Thankfully, that's not what the working Border Collie people in the UK or North America have to conform to.

[Sue R]

I wasn't clear here - I didn't mean to suggest that a conformation type other than the one described by a breed standard was "imperfect," but rather, I was thinking of individual dogs that I have heard described. I remember reading a few posts about dogs that had some physical issues but still had their working ability and drive - one poster described a dog that was an excellent worker, but was discovered to have rather advanced hip dysplasia. Despite a condition that would have rendered many dogs immobile, the dog was working well. The dog was neutered, and not permitted to breed to avoid passing the dysplasia on, but was still used - with discretion - on stock.

What I was trying to say was that it seems that if the dog has the right "mind," that is, a full complement of working ability, instinct, (and of course, training) that variations in body conformation are irrelevant. (Except that one type of conformation may have a slight edge over another on a specific type of terrain - just as one coat type may be advantageous over another, depending on the climate that the dog routinely works in.)

 

Of course a balanced dog is generally a good thing, regardless of type, but unless the dog is really "crooked," it can probably do well if it's got the right "skill set."

 

These dogs were originally bred for ability, and it didn't matter what shape they came in, as long as they were canny and tireless workers. Cow-hocks be damned - the dog works well! Nobody told her she couldn't work stock all day because she was cow-hocked, so the durn fool went out and did the job!

Absolutely!

[Ooky]

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. When you add additional, irrelevent criteria to your breeding decisions, you are automatically reducing your breeding choices and the gene pool available for breeding options. In that way alone, you are placing limits on breeding decisions that have no relevance to working ability (and remembering that working ability includes mental, physical, health, and temperment contributions).

 

No one has ever said that an animal can't be easy on the eyes and useful in the field. It's just that appearance is not important and the ability to work is. "Fun at the shows" is not important with regards to working dogs - the ability to work is. And the ability to work well makes an otherwise unremarkable-looking dog beautiful. Beauty is as beauty does.

 

I expect we'll just have to disagree on this, and I do understand that the system in your country is what you have to conform to. Thankfully, that's not what the working Border Collie people in the UK or North America have to conform to.

 

Couldn't agree more with this!

 

And at the risk of sounding repetitive, I do think that people, especially KC people, are fooling themselves if they think they can "see" what a good worker should look like. It is such a complex set of traits, so many of them purely behavioral and not physical in the least. The actual limiting factors are often NOT physical, too, but behavioral. ISTM that most in-shape medium-sized canines have the ability to physically do it!

[Maja]

I respectfully disagree wholeheartedly. When you add additional, irrelevant criteria to your breeding decisions, you are automatically reducing your breeding choices and the gene pool available for breeding options. In that way alone, you are placing limits on breeding decisions that have no relevance to working ability (and remembering that working ability includes mental, physical, health, and temperament contributions).

 

If you were to make the decisions the way you describe, I agree, but I don't think you fully appreciate the idea of subservience. Let's say you have a choice of three Supreme champions to use as stud, and you chose the one you like the look of the best(assuming you grade the three dogs equally in respect to working ability and health) how are you limiting the gene pool or compromising the working ability? Note that in any other configuration of preferences you'd be reversing the priorities I mentioned.

 

E.g. in the litter of puppies from my bitch, I selected the one I liked the look of the best. All else was equal at that stage. Of course, maybe she's not the best sheepdog in the bunch, but my chances would not have been any better had I chosen the least appealing one. On the other hand, I chose a stud which I believed was the best available (considering the situation where the originally carefully selected German stud refused to mate and we had to go back to Poland for mating)even though there were much better show dogs at the same breeder's who would not cause the risk of lighter eye (a bad thing for show) in their progeny as the father of Bonnie's did.

 

No one has ever said that an animal can't be easy on the eyes and useful in the field. It's just that appearance is not important and the ability to work is. "Fun at the shows" is not important with regards to working dogs - the ability to work is. And the ability to work well makes an otherwise unremarkable-looking dog beautiful. Beauty is as beauty does.

I agree with you to a large extent. I mean that to me border collies are the most beautiful when they work - their beauty unrolls like scroll on the field. However, the BCs are also beautiful to me when they take a nap, or run around like idiots playing with each other or sit in the passenger seat and watch the world in a way that nothing escapes them. And I agree that it's not important, but it does not mean you are committing a grievous sin if on the list of priorities under point 17 you have "preferably tricolored, light built".

 

Julie gave a good example of hunting dogs which were bred for a certain uniform look and for hunting ability, where the hunting ability was paramount. I saw an old photograph of beagles and they looked different from the KC beagles but they all looked very much the same among themselves.

 

Nonetheless please note that most of my post was trying to show you the situation from the point of view of an KC person by choice, point to problems in communication, help communicate, try to find a starting point for a discussion, show why a KC person may be put off by your attitude. In point 2) I pointed out why they largely will become unconvinced and why the priorities changed in my opinion, answering the question by topnotchdog. However, I have seen many people in Poland who changed their attitude, so it's worth while to talk and most of all to show a BC working.

 

If I lived in the US I would not go to shows.

 

And at the risk of sounding repetitive, I do think that people, especially KC people, are fooling themselves if they think they can "see" what a good worker should look like

I never said anywhere that they can . The show judges appearance not the athletic soundness or working ability and only very, very little of temperament.

 

Maja

[Maja]

P.S. Yes, greyhounds are different, particularly their angles in the rear legs, which are for speed in the racing hounds and for looks in the show greyhounds.

[topnotchdog]

Maja and all,

 

If I understand correctly, the crux of your first point was to give some suggestions about opening a dialog with those who enjoy dog shows. Point well taken. At this stage I am still gathering information about why those who enjoy showing enjoy it, and how they understand its effects. I made made no attempt to convince my one discussion partner of anything, I was mostly asking questions as a way to understand better. I know some people ask a question in order to set someone up to pounce on them, or they are trying to prove a point by asking the question itself. This was a pretty good friend, who knows I ask questions that can be taken at face value, and who I could adopt a tone at times of "help me understand how you make sense of what seems batty to me." But I hear what you are saying, and I take your point as a helpful hint as I move forward.

 

1. Having an appearance standard does not directly jeopardise the aim.

 

For clarity's sake, my wording was to "go with that standard" (as in, to prioritize it) rather than support lines bred for working who do not show. Agreed, the mere existence of the standard would not jeopardize much, if anything. However, choosing to breed based on a beauty standard instead of working ability certainly does, as I think you agree based on my reading of your posts. Where breeding is concerned, I can't imagine who would hold being beautiful---in a show dog way---against a dog, as long as/particularly if that dog was a proven stockdog.

 

My understanding is that dog shows themselves, however, elevate in overt and subtle ways a beauty standard that should be taken into account for a breeding decision.

 

If the appearance has a higher priority, then the working ability suffers. I think this should be the focus of working BCs people in the discussion with the conformation people - about changing the priorities, not about giving up the fun at the shows. Otherwise, one really gets the impression that a beauty champion is a bad working dog by virtue of being beautiful.

 

What I wonder is if they would think the shows were much fun anymore if their dogs were mostly deemed to be not pretty enough. So would they not then be motivated to include beauty in their breeding decisions? I think just making it secondary does not help (right, like I think Sue R was saying?) as presumably the pool of good working dogs who are also beautiful in a show dog way is much smaller than the pool of good working dogs in general.

 

Choosing which dog to keep based on appearance once the litter is on the ground seems as good as picking the last one left (or some other relatively arbitrary selection criterion). I don't know what harm could be in that. It's not a breeding decision any more, right?

 

There was a reference to things being different in Poland, it may be that I am missing something important for this exchange. Please explain or point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. I know pretty much squat about kennel clubs, here or abroad.

 

2. However, I think that in many cases the discussion is doomed to failure for a simple reason - the majority of people have dogs for other purposes than the originally intended (and this is a very simple answer to your question), so they don't care if they retained their original abilities. Should you want a beagle, would you care if it hunted, if you yourself would not hunt?

 

I think doomed is too strong a word from my POV (but give me a little time ). More to the point perhaps than "they don't care" might even be the opposite. It might be that they do care that the beagle (allegedly) hunts, and presumes he does, because he's a beagle, and the history and romanticism of that captivates them. It might just be that excellent marketing (think of the voice over on a televised dog show) perpetuates the idea that the hunt is still in the dog, along with the qualities of a nice family pet. And how cool to have a snoopy whose ancestors hunted (or maybe even parents, depending on the KC titles he has, don't know if they have that for beagles). And this can purportedly help someone enjoy and understand and admire their dog even more.

 

People like border collies the way they are without/regardless oftheir ability to work stock. Total stock-dummy BCs are very nice dogs. People like these very nice dogs. And since they have the character they want - that is a "nice dog" character then they can happily dedicate themselves to breeding for appearance. And this is I think the core of the issue - the people must care about the working ability, if they don't, it's hopeless.

 

Maja

 

I am not trying to be a smarty pants, but which border collies or people you are talking about when you say "people like border collies?" At least in my area, there are not a lot of average pet owners seeking a show type border collie as a pet, but that may not be what you mean.

 

B.

(mea culpa, edited for less punchiness and hopefully more clarity)

[juliepoudrier]

Let's say you have a choice of three Supreme champions to use as stud, and you chose the one you like the look of the best(assuming you grade the three dogs equally in respect to working ability and health) how are you limiting the gene pool or compromising the working ability?

 

All three studs could be equally good dogs in and of themselves, but you're leaving out the part where one stud may, above the other two, be the best *match* for your own bitch (that is, the dog whose own strengths and weakenesses are the best complement to your bitch's in your attempt to produce puppies that you hope will be *better* than either parent--what folks often refer to as "nick"). If that one particular stud happens to be the one whose looks you like least, and you make looks a criterion at all, then you've already compromised your breeding by not using only the *best possible match* between stud and bitch (because you chose another stud based on his appearance after his working qualities).

 

On the other hand, I chose a stud which I believed was the best available (considering the situation where the originally carefully selected German stud refused to mate and we had to go back to Poland for mating)even though there were much better show dogs at the same breeder's who would not cause the risk of lighter eye (a bad thing for show) in their progeny as the father of Bonnie's did.

 

So it sounds to me that you chose the stud who would be the best working cross for that mating, *even though* you risked a conformation attribute (eye color) that might mean the pups wouldn't fare as well in the show ring. How many others, with an eye to winning a conformation championship, would have done the same thing? And how many would have chosen the stud who would produce better eye color, even if it meant that the working aspect of the match wasn't as good? Unfortunately far too many people (in the KC culture here in the US) would make the latter choice, and in fact that's how the working ability gets watered down.

 

 

I agree with you to a large extent. I mean that to me border collies are the most beautiful when they work - their beauty unrolls like scroll on the field. However, the BCs are also beautiful to me when they take a nap, or run around like idiots playing with each other or sit in the passenger seat and watch the world in a way that nothing escapes them. And I agree that it's not important, but it does not mean you are committing a grievous sin if on the list of priorities under point 17 you have "preferably tricolored, light built".

 

It's not a big deal at all when it sits at point 17, unless of course you start choosing your mating pairs to try to obtain that characteristic. It's no secret that I like tris. I also like smooth coats and big prick ears. But when it came time to breed my bitch, color, shape, coat length, ears, etc., had absolutely *no place* in my decision beyond the obvious ones that might result in health issues. The sire of that litter is not a dog I consider at all attractive (though I'm sure his owner does), but what he looked like *did not matter* because what was important to me--in fact the *only thing* of importance--was whether he could bring working characteristics to the match that would build on my bitch's strengths and minimize her weaknesses. Some of the pups did turn out to have smooth coats and prick ears (there were no tris), but that was a happy "accident" and not something I ever even considered when I chose a stud. I personally believe that if I had added looks criteria to that choosing of a stud, then I automatically limit my choices and perhaps even automatically discard the potential best choices because of it. Heck, my Lark is the cutest little prick-eared tri-colored, smooth-coated dog on the planet, and I picked her because she was smooth and a tri, but that was after the fact of her birth (as Barbara pointed out), and neither parent was tri and there was *no* expectation of tri in that litter.

 

Julie gave a good example of hunting dogs which were bred for a certain uniform look and for hunting ability, where the hunting ability was paramount. I saw an old photograph of beagles and they looked different from the KC beagles but they all looked very much the same among themselves.

 

Sure, but part of the point I was trying to make was that those same old timers still put work first, and I'd be willing to bet that if one beagle in a pack didn't have the exact same stop as the other beagles in that pack, but was the best hunter of the bunch, it likely still would have been bred from. The classic horse example is Seabiscuit. Nothing to look at, but a hell of a racehorse. These folks weren't throwing animals out of the breeding pool based on appearance characteristic first, whereas that seems to be exactly what's happening in the KC world, at least here in the US. That's how breeders are able to sell *puppies* as pet quality vs. show quality. You won't find many folks who are breeding for a purpose tossing pups out of the breeding pool because there's *no way* to know if the pup can live up to the working potential that is being bred for. That is a HUGE difference in approach to breeding.

 

Nonetheless please note that most of my post was trying to show you the situation from the point of view of an KC person by choice, point to problems in communication, help communicate, try to find a starting point for a discussion, show why a KC person may be put off by your attitude.

 

I have an interesting situation in that I have a student who wants to do stockwork and trial. His wife wants to show border collies in conformation. She bought a conformation-bred dog, which he then brought to me for lessons. It soon became evident that if he wanted to have a farm and a dog to work it, not to mention trial, this dog was not going to be the dog he'd do it with. So he got a Welsh import and the two of them are doing great as a team. His wife has come out and watched training sessions (she also came out when we were working the show bred dog). She says she can see the huge differences between the two dogs, and yet she can't or won't make the connection with how breeding for that perfect show look has in fact played a huge role in why the dog she bought (for three times the price of a well-bred working pup no less) is incapable of being even a useful farm dog. I don't know if she's simply been completely indoctrinated by the "other side" or what, but even after coming to lessons, seeing the differences between the dogs, having me explain the purpose of the dog for the work, and so on, she still told her husband that first, she didn't want the show-bred dog working because she got too dirty (it was a very wet spring) and might hurt herself (doG forbid then she couldn't be shown), and second, that the stock training was making her show dog *aggressive* (and this observation was based on rough play among their own dogs, something that had occurred in the past, but which was now apparently attributable to the one dog being trained to work stock). So while I can appreciate your attempts to point out where we might be failing on our attempts at communication, I think when the thinking on the bench show side is so entrenched, it's such an uphill battle as to be virtually unwinnable (the arguments the wife presented were ones I've heard before in other places and from other people). And I also think that every time you says "sure, it's okay to have an appearance standard in place" such folks will sieze on that and never hear the remainder about how that appearance standard needs to come *after* a work standard. (And I don't know how many times I've heard folks who want only to show react to the idea of working their dogs with something akin to disgust because it's dirty, hard, requires the human to move A LOT and so on--in other words, it's not easy--when of course if you have a "perfectly built" dog per the KC standard--it's really not so physically difficult for the human or the dog to get in the show ring and strut their stuff.) Maybe it's different in other cultures, but here I think it's safe to say that many people want to take the easy way out, and proving a dog's working ability--no matter whether the task is stockwork, hunting, sled racing, etc.--is much more difficult and takes a lot more time, so if they've already been indoctrinated in the KC culture of appearance then getting them to change those attitudes will take a whole lot more effort than what you're suggesting.

 

As for the comments about pretty mathematicians, the problem with such comparisons is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. And American culture has a different standard of beauty than, say, Samoan culture. Who chooses which standard is the better one? I heard on the news the other day that thin women earn on average something like 14 percent more than heavier women (not obese, mind you, but just not the thin that our culture prefers and considers beautiful, and which of course has led to self-loathing, eating disorders, etc., among our young girls). Conversely heavier men earned something like 16 percent more than their thinner counterparts. It doesn't matter if the heavier woman is kick-ass at her job compared to all the thin women on the planet; she's going to earn less by virtue of appearance alone. Appearance-based standards--aconowledged or not--are pervasive in our society. In the KC world, the KC (or more aptly, the judges' fancy du jour) chooses, without regard to the fact that beauty is *subjective.* Even though I prefer a smooth-coated prick eared dog, I'm not tossing out my rough coated airplane-eared dog because he seems to be a good worker so far. But under an appearance standard, my smooth-coated, prick-eared dogs would never have gotten past the breeder's choice for retaining for breeding as pups, and that makes no sense for an animal with a purpose (beyond appearance). And since we accept appearance-based standards in the rest of our lives, why wouldn't most people find it very difficult to comprehend an argument that says appearance shouldn't be considered, no matter how that argument is delivered? We get news stories about it all the time, and yet those stories don't seem to have changed our culture to any noticeable degree.

 

J.

[njnovice]

I don't know if she's simply been completely indoctrinated by the "other side" or what, but even after coming to lessons, seeing the differences between the dogs, having me explain the purpose of the dog for the work, and so on, she still told her husband that first, she didn't want the show-bred dog working because she got too dirty (it was a very wet spring) and might hurt herseld (doG forbid then she couldn't be shown), and second, that the stock training was making her show dog *aggressive* (and this observation was based on rough play among their own dogs, something that had occurred in the past, but which was now apparently attributable to the one dog being trained to work stock).

 

I've encountered a couple of people who have been completely indoctrinated by the "other side."

 

Back when Mick was doing lessons, the one day I ran into a former boss of mine with her Border Collie. She had decided her dog needed a job, and started up herding lessons. Her dog was a rescue, a pretty little tri with ticking, and according to the trainer, she definitely had potential. A few months later, I saw her at a coffee shop and I asked how I dog was doing on the sheep. I was completely shocked when she told me she stopped doing them at the advice of her dog's obedience trainer. The "trainer" told her that working sheep makes dogs obsessive and aggressive and generally unsuitable as pets. I told her that I found that getting out and doing a lesson once a week actually seemed to make Mick a better dog in the house, but no, she was going to listen to the advice of her dog's "trainer." Honestly, no matter what the situation, I couldn't imagine that dog becoming obsessive or aggressive. She was a bit shy with strangers, but was probably one of the sweetest, most laid back Border Collies I've ever encountered. On the other hand, her Westie was pretty obsessive and aggressive and had never seen a sheep before in it's life.

 

The other one was the vet that did Mick's neutering. It wasn't his regular vet, since I went with a cheaper vet to get it done. Afterwards, I asked him how long before I could take Mick back out on sheep. He gave me a big lecture that he wasn't going to give me a time frame, because it was irresponsible of me to let a pet dog work sheep, because they might get injured. Well, Mick has hurt himself in a bunch of stupid ways, but never once did he ever get hurt during a lesson. I can not say the same for myself. I did once incur a sheep-related injury.

[geonni banner]

If you want a truthful answer to the question of why someone from the dark side could be so indoctrinated – and unable to see things any other way…

 

For many years I aspired to have a “good” Rough Collie. (Read: show quality) I had had Collies most of my life. I got my first show bred pup in 1975. He grew out with “low ears” and was only shown once in a puppy match. He placed third in a class of three.

 

My second show bred pup came in 1979. She got prick-eared and I didn’t have the heart to tape her ears. She was never shown. She was stolen from my yard in 1980.

 

Eventually, I got into rescue. I was helped quite a bit by the local show breeders with bags of kibble and other things. I got the Breed magazines and read articles about “responsible breeding,” the evils of BYB (as opposed to show breeders), OFA testing, screening for responsible buyers, puppy socialization, getting involved in rescue, and “breeding for soundness.” They sounded like responsible, caring, and knowledgeable people – so I believed what they said. They cared passionately about their dogs - and they absolutely believed in what they were doing. It’s very convincing if you have nothing else to go by.

 

The one breeder I was closest too bred roughs and smooths. She had all normal-eyed dogs. Wouldn’t breed to dogs that weren’t normal-eyed or had bad OFA tests. Her dogs were obedience winners, service dogs, agility dogs and show dogs. She charged the same price for a pet-quality pup as she did for a show-quality pup. Some of her pups went to (AKC) herding homes. Her dogs had rock-solid, fabulous temperaments and good, balanced running-gear. (They also had the show Collie’s head, and as often as not – “natural ears.”) She showed in conformation extensively, and it was not uncommon for her to finish a dog in four to six shows. She did not hire handlers. I admired and looked up to this woman.

 

I never thought much about the AKC. They just register show-dogs, right? But after 12 years of Collie rescue, seeing the dregs of poorly bred litters with bad eyes, hips, temperaments and WAY too much coat, I began to become disenchanted with the show world and the average show breeder. I started seeing the ugly side of things.

 

After waiting three and a half years for a particular bitch of my breeder friend’s to whelp, (She rarely put more than one or two litters on the ground per year.) I finally bought a pup from her. He was a joy to be around from day one until he drew his last breath at 13 years of age. He was registered with the AKC. He was even shown once – at the Golden Gate Kennel Club Show at the Cow Palace in San Francisco. He came home with a blue ribbon. (He was the only dog in his class)

 

But by this time I had learned a lot about puppy mills, heritable diseases and conditions, and the sheer number of unwanted dogs – purebred and random-bred. I started asking questions.

 

And I started meeting Border Collies. I rescued a dog that was advertised by a “rescue” as a Border Collie mix. I asked more questions and ended up here. Now the world looks very different to me. But it took years of Collie rescue (and a crash course on the Border Collie Boards) to open my eyes completely. Up until 2004 I was telling people that their best option for getting a puppy of sound mind and body was to go to a responsible show breeder. (Oh! The SHAME! )

 

Bottom line – I’m not stupid or even particularly gullible. The AKC breeders I knew could walk the walk and talk the talk. And it all made sense until a saw another point of view, carefully and thoroughly explained. Oh, and I also read “The Dog Wars.” If I had any lingering ambivalence, that destroyed it.

 

By the way... I'm moderately thick-skinned about most things. But some of the more strident members here nearly scared me off with their responses to my, (admittedly poorly informed) first posts. If I was a bit more sensitive to that sort of thing I might well be the owner of a PAL numbered dog, blissfully unaware of the extent of the rotten heart of the AKC, and totally convinced that a show-bred Border Collie was a perfectly harmless phenomenon. And THAT would really be a shame...

[D'Elle]

Bottom line – I’m not stupid or even particularly gullible. The AKC breeders I knew could walk the walk and talk the talk. And it all made sense until a saw another point of view, carefully and thoroughly explained. Oh, and I also read “The Dog Wars.” If I had any lingering ambivalence, that destroyed it.

 

By the way... I'm moderately thick-skinned about most things. But some of the more strident members here nearly scared me off with their responses to my, (admittedly poorly informed) first posts. If I was a bit more sensitive to that sort of thing I might well be the owner of a PAL numbered dog, blissfully unaware of the extent of the rotten heart of the AKC, and totally convinced that a show-bred Border Collie was a perfectly harmless phenomenon. And THAT would really be a shame...

 

Very well put, Geonni. I would say the

same.

D'Elle

[Maja]

Where breeding is concerned, I can't imagine who would hold being beautiful---in a show dog way---against a dog, as long as/particularly if that dog was a proven stockdog.

I can't imagine either, but you would be surprised. Inwardly I go ballistic when I hear the guilt ridden show-people "I actually like they way those ugly working border collies look". I even have a standard reply to it.

 

What I wonder is if they would think the shows were much fun anymore if their dogs were mostly deemed to be not pretty enough. So would they not then be motivated to include beauty in their breeding decisions? I think just making it secondary does not help (right, like I think Sue R was saying?) as presumably the pool of good working dogs who are also beautiful in a show dog way is much smaller than the pool of good working dogs in general.

Probably not. Again, I think that thinking the way most show dogs people think I think you are absolutely right. But, i made a mistake in writing what I think without clearly making a divive with what most show dog people probably think. Subservience of "beauty" means for me just that - subservience - that means that you would have to agree to put up with a lesser show dog in favor of a greater working dog. ALWAYS.

 

It's not a breeding decision any more, right?

It depends on the purpose of the pup. If it is going to be considered for future breeding - yes, it's a breeding decision, in my opinion.

 

There was a reference to things being different in Poland, it may be that I am missing something important for this exchange. Please explain or point me in the right direction, I'd be grateful. I know pretty much squat about kennel clubs, here or abroad.

Among other things, in Poland there isn't and has never been an ISDS branch, the Polish KC was the only organization where one might find pedigreed purebreds and thus the only place for a person to use as an avenue for breeding if one wanted to do a good job. And now if you are a member of the FCI in Poland you cannot be a member of ANY other canine organization whatsoever, and that includes ISDS (this refers only to the Polish KC). Additionally, in order to get a breeding license a BC has to attend three shows and receive a high enough mark. Also, KC herding in Poland is not like the AKC herding.

 

 

More to the point perhaps than "they don't care" might even be the opposite. It might be that they do care that the beagle (allegedly) hunts, and presumes he does, because he's a beagle, and the history and romanticism of that captivates them. It might just be that excellent marketing (think of the voice over on a televised dog show) perpetuates the idea that the hunt is still in the dog, along with the qualities of a nice family pet. And how cool to have a snoopy whose ancestors hunted (or maybe even parents, depending on the KC titles he has, don't know if they have that for beagles). And this can purportedly help someone enjoy and understand and admire their dog even more.

I agree with you absolutely. The Mickey-mouse herding activity would be a means to support such a view.

 

which border collies or people you are talking about when you say "people like border collies?" At least in my area, there are not a lot of average pet owners seeking a show type border collie as a pet, but that may not be what you mean.

The KC poeple of course.

 

 

All three studs could be equally good dogs in and of themselves, but you're leaving out the part where one stud may, above the other two, be the best *match* for your own bitch (that is, the dog whose own strengths and weakenesses are the best complement to your bitch's in your attempt to produce puppies that you hope will be *better* than either parent--what folks often refer to as "nick"). If that one particular stud happens to be the one whose looks you like least, and you make looks a criterion at all, then you've already compromised your breeding by not using only the *best possible match* between stud and bitch (because you chose another stud based on his appearance after his working qualities).

Exactly. But then you are indeed reversing the criteria of course, and beauty is not longer subservient to function. The situation is hypothetical, so in reality it rarely happens, and it was just for illustration.

 

So it sounds to me that you chose the stud who would be the best working cross for that mating, *even though* you risked a conformation attribute (eye color) that might mean the pups wouldn't fare as well in the show ring.

 

How many others, with an eye to winning a conformation championship, would have done the same thing? And how many would have chosen the stud who would produce better eye color, even if it meant that the working aspect of the match wasn't as good? Unfortunately far too many people (in the KC culture here in the US) would make the latter choice, and in fact that's how the working ability gets watered down.

Those with an eye to win conformation would not, but they would not then make a decision with appearance subservient to function.

 

 

 

So while I can appreciate your attempts to point out where we might be failing on our attempts at communication, I think when the thinking on the bench show side is so entrenched, it's such an uphill battle as to be virtually unwinnable (the arguments the wife presented were ones I've heard before in other places and from other people). And I also think that every time you says "sure, it's okay to have an appearance standard in place" such folks will seize on that and never hear the remainder about how that appearance standard needs to come *after* a work standard. (And I don't know how many times I've heard folks who want only to show react to the idea of working their dogs with something akin to disgust because it's dirty, hard, requires the human to move A LOT and so on--in other words, it's not easy--when of course if you have a "perfectly built" dog per the KC standard--it's really not so physically difficult for the human or the dog to get in the show ring and strut their stuff.) Maybe it's different in other cultures, but here I think it's safe to say that many people want to take the easy way out, and proving a dog's working ability--no matter whether the task is stockwork, hunting, sled racing, etc.--is much more difficult and takes a lot more time, so if they've already been indoctrinated in the KC culture of appearance then getting them to change those attitudes will take a whole lot more effort than what you're suggesting.

Julie, I agree with what you say. I don't think you can do anything to those entrenched. But maybe there are some misguided people, well, not maybe - but certainly there are. I have not meant to say that the standard is ok. It's not ok, because it's misleading. What is on paper is true (it gives a very nice description of BCs, really) but the reality of shows is different, obviously the working dogs don't win shows. The standard then is a myth really.

 

However, maybe you're right.

 

 

 

geoni banner,

A very good post.

Maja

[dexter]

{Edited to remove post quoted from early in this thread, with no content or comment added]

[ChantalB]

I know this must of been An accidental quote or something that brought up this old treAd, but I just read the whole thing And the discussion was one of the best I've read here yet. Hands down. Although Ive never been KC sided and know function is better thAn looks this threAd answered a lot of questions I've had, as an agility enthusiast, on BC breeding standards in the herding side. Yes I'll buy from reputable working breeders only, but I never fully understood the fine points of the why. For the most part it was a very polite discussion, i loved the chiming in on the AKC side, and the classification you guys brought to dismiss all AKC points.

 

I know thAt BC=herding, therefore their breed standard is work, but as A logical person who likes to debate And thoroughly conprehend all sides this thread was superb in educating me even further. So many questions were answered and doubts dismissed.

 

I suggest a Sticky be made!!!