Jump to content
BC Boards

Working vs Sports bred: sucess in persuading people that working bred is best


alligande
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

Just curious... if the border collie standard is its work style and not all border collies pups in a litter will have it. By your standards is the border collie a breed? Since you can breed border collies for their working ability and end up with non herding pup aka not breeding true.

 

If you're breeding labs to a conformation standard and one of your pups is born with a sizable white spot on its chest, does that mean the labrador retriever is not a breed? Just because some of your pups don't meet the breed standard doesn't mean there's no breed.

 

And yes -- good work, Alligande. It's nice to have a success now and then. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geonni: Idk if it is just lack of coffee or allergies... what score?

 

And what other people consider a breed doesnt concern me. Ik in cats you have bengals and savannah(sp?) And it takes a couple generations for you to still get consistency. But that doesn't change the f1 f2 f3 from being Bengals or savannahs. ik, dogs are different but it seems that people just dont like them so are trying to make the dogs less and just discredit the breed no matter what. I dont like cattle dogs temperaments and ik for a bit there was issue of the breed being true since breeders were mixing in other breeds and dingos into their working lines and lying on pedigrees. Yet people are not questioning if cattle dogs are truely a breed.

 

There are also lurchers... i consider that a breed even if it is just crossing herding dogs with sight hounds.

 

Idk about labs. Not my breed. If the breeders said out of every breeding you will have a quarter of the litter being mismarked and the only way to define the breed is being a solid color. That would definitely pose a problem for them. Lol

 

Eh.. feel like im ranting which i wasnt trying to do. :/ most of these breeds dont affect me in any ways, so doesn't matter how people feel about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lurchers are definitely not a breed. They're crosses, and they can be crosses of several different breeds on each side of the equation (i.e. the pastoral or terrier not even the same family of dogs!] and the sighthound).

 

In theory at least, breeds should breed true to type. Breed 2 lurchers together -- even lurchers of the same original cross -- and you'll get a variety of outcomes, just like you would if you bred 2 labradoodles or goldendoodles. And then consider that by crossing 2 random lurchers it could be like crossing a goldendoodle and chiweenie. Dog only knows what you'd get out of that mix. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geonni: Idk if it is just lack of coffee or allergies... what score?

 

And what other people consider a breed doesnt concern me.

 

There are also lurchers... i consider that a breed even if it is just crossing herding dogs with sight hounds.

 

Eh.. feel like im ranting which i wasnt trying to do. :/ most of these breeds dont affect me in any ways, so doesn't matter how people feel about them.

 

"In the world of selective animal breeding, to "breed true" means that specimens of an animal breed will breed true-to-type when mated like-to-like; that is, that the progeny of any two individuals in the same breed will show consistent, replicable and predictable characteristics. A puppy from two purebred dogs of the same breed, for example, will exhibit the traits of its parents, and not the traits of all breeds in the subject breed's ancestry." (Wikipedia)

 

So a designer mutt is not a breed. And two or three generations of breeding “Chiweenies” to “Chiweenies” will not produce a dog that breeds true to type. And it is certainly not a breed, except in the minds of people with no clear understanding of what a breed is.

 

"In dogs, the term “breed” is used two ways: loosely, to refer to dog types or landraces of dog (also called natural breeds or ancient breeds); or more precisely, to refer to modern breeds of dog, which are documented so as to be known to be descended from specific ancestors, that closely resemble others of their breed in appearance, movement, way of working and other characteristics; and that reproduce with offspring closely resembling each other and their parents.

The Border Collie is referred to by the average person as a breed because 1, having seen mostly AKC Barbie Collies they believe that the primary proof of “purebred-ness” is uniformity of appearance, and/or 2, because they lack the knowledge of other words which differentiate one sort of dog from another. I personally see the Border Collie as a type, and believe that it is most often referred to as a breed for the reasons given by me above." (Wikipedia)

 

If you are looking at the concept of a breed from the appearance-based paradigm, then you will not see it as a breed because dogs of all sorts of appearances, including the famous “Lone”, a bearded Border Collie (and Lone is only one of several similar dogs) and because of the large numbers of coat types and colors represented in even the working population. Lone and Betty Gillis’s “Stella” would probably not be considered Border Collies by the AKC description, or by the ignorant breeders of that sales-commodity the Designer mutt. But of course they are Border Collies. They are both fine workers, which would give them the right to that name even if their pedigrees did not.

 

But as you know, or should do by now, having been on these Boards for some time, the Border Collie is a dog defined as a group by its working ability, not by its dogs’ appearances. (the “score” you asked about) That the Border Collie is referred to as a breed, is in my opinion the convention of common usage. The word may well lead many people into a false understanding of what the Border Collie is, or should be. But it is common usage, however it may be accurately or inaccurately applied.

 

"Dog types are broad categories of dogs based on form, function or style of work, lineage, or appearance. In contrast, modern dog breeds are particular breed standards*, sharing a common set of heritable characteristics, determined by the kennel club that recognizes the breed.

 

A landrace is a domesticated, regional ecotype; a locally adapted, traditional variety of a domesticated species of animal or plant that has developed over time, through adaptation to its natural and cultural environment of agriculture andpastoalism, and due to isolation from other populations of the species. Landraces are generally distinguished from cultivars , and from breeds in the standardized sense, although the term landrace breed is sometimes used synonymously instead, as distinguished from the term standardized breed in contexts in which the word breed is used expansively." (Wikipedia)

 

Dogs such as a lurchers or Labradoodles are not breeds. Whether or not one knows or cares about such things does not change the facts.

 

*"Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged. A breed is a group of domestic animals related through common ancestors and visibly similar in most characteristics, having been differentiated from others by human influence; a distinctive group of domesticated animals differentiated from the wild type under the influence of man, the sum of the progeny of a known and designated foundation stock without admixture of other blood.” (Wikipedia - My bolding)

 

If you care at all about such things, there are good discussions of the history of shepherd’s dogs here:

http://bordercolliemuseum.org/

 

And the Border Collie in particular here: http://www.bordercolliemuseum.org/BCHistory/BC_History.html

 

 

ETA - Oh, and en re: Labradors... They are mandated solid-colored by the AKC standard, but they turn up with some regularity with a white spot on the chest or the odd white toe. They are often sold w/o papers and in general swept under the rug, which is complete lunacy.

 

From the breed standard: “The Labrador Retriever coat colors are black, yellow and chocolate. Any other color or a combination of colors is a disqualification. A small white spot on the chest is permissible, but not desirable. White hairs from aging or scarring are not to be misinterpreted as brindling.”

 

Brindling, which also appears from time to time is a big, shamefull no-no. Also complete lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Border Collie is referred to by the average person as a breed because 1, having seen mostly AKC Barbie Collies they believe that the primary proof of “purebred-ness” is uniformity of appearance, and/or 2, because they lack the knowledge of other words which differentiate one sort of dog from another. I personally see the Border Collie as a type, and believe that it is most often referred to as a breed for the reasons given by me above." (Wikipedia)

 

Geonni, I assume these are your words, not Wikipedia's?

 

Reading your overall post and the sources you quote, it sounds as if you conclude that the border collie was not a breed until a kennel club recognized it and wrote an appearance standard, and then it was a breed? Before that, it was a type? Now it's a type if it's not registered by the AKC, but once someone sends their dog's ABCA or ISDS papers to the AKC and obtains registration, it becomes a member of a breed? Even though AKC registration is open to all ABCA, ISDS, CBCA, AIBC and NASDA border collies, and they have considerable variation in appearance? Or are Barbie Collies a breed, but working-bred border collies not a breed, regardless of who they're registered with or whether they're registered at all?

 

I think Wikipedia is a good source for factual, non-controversial information, but when it comes to anything that's not clearcut, I would need to consider the source, and in Wikipedia the source can be whatever anonymous person last edited the article.

 

It's common in the livestock world to have criteria other than appearance as the goal in breeding, e.g., milk production, multiple births, etc. The breeds that are bred to such a "standard" end up having a somewhat similar physical appearance (as do border collies), but that physical appearance is not what the breed was developed for or how it is defined. Yet they are considered a breed, and not just by those ignorant of other names by which to classify them. To me, the traditional border collie, bred for work, is definitely a breed, and I have always preferred the breed definition used in this article: To a geneticist, a breed is simply this: a population of animals whose breeding is controlled and outcrossing limited, so that genetic selection can be exercised on it. I don't think that "breeding true" to a physical appearance standard is a necessary part of the definition.

 

ETA: However, on further reflection, I think our negotiators may have used the "type" argument back when we were trying to fight off AKC recognition. Didn't do us any good, though. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Geonni, I assume these are your words, not Wikipedia's?

 

Reading your overall post and the sources you quote, it sounds as if you conclude that the border collie was not a breed until a kennel club recognized it and wrote an appearance standard, and then it was a breed? Before that, it was a type? Now it's a type if it's not registered by the AKC, but once someone sends their dog's ABCA or ISDS papers to the AKC and obtains registration, it becomes a member of a breed? Even though AKC registration is open to all ABCA, ISDS, CBCA, AIBC and NASDA border collies, and they have considerable variation in appearance? Or are Barbie Collies a breed, but working-bred border collies not a breed, regardless of who they're registered with or whether they're registered at all?

 

ETA: However, on further reflection, I think our negotiators may have used the "type" argument back when we were trying to fight off AKC recognition. Didn't do us any good, though. :(

Those were my words, I appended the Wiki designation by mistake to that paragraph.

 

I think the point I was trying to make was that the average Joe out there doesn't really have a clue what a breed is, except a fuzzy notion that members of a breed should more or less all look alike.

 

Before the Border Collie was infiltrated by the pet/sports crowd it was a breed and a type, since the vast majority was bred with one goal in mind - working ability. But the Border Collie was also a pot of soup with many different things in it. And many of those elements were not added in in dim antiquity. To me, that makes it more of a type. It seems to me that people who breed for working ability alone would not shrink from outcrossing to a different breed if it could contribute to the working ability of their dogs. (Not that I can think of a single breed that would do that.) but we do know that until fairly recent times that other breeds did get crossed into the Border Collie. I don't know whether or not that was because the individual making that cross wanted a dog that was good with their livestock and also good to shoot over.

 

But to me it seems that such outcrossing would produce a dog that was more of a type that a breed - depending, of course on your definition of breed - and this would seem to me to be borne out by the different working styles, and of course appearance in the Border Collie today.

 

To be registered, a dog must (usually) be perceived as a member of an established breed. (But then this is changing too, if hybrids like Chiweenies are to have a registry.) But though you (or I) might think of Border Collies as having a similar appearance, there have been numerous accounts here on the Boards of people being told that their Border Collies "cannot be purebred" because they do not have an appearance that they recognize as "correct." Unfortunately, "breeding true" to a physical appearance standard is the only significant factor many people understand in many breeds. (of dogs, at least)

 

I don't think that the breed/type status of the working Border Collie has changed since any sort of kennel club recognition. The dogs, as far as I can tell, are the same. I tend to think of them as a type, but the very good definition of a breed that you cited from the linked article you provided fits too. Whether I see it as a type or a breed has nothing to do with registration. It has to do with a visibly broader gene-pool of the working collies than that of any AKC breed. This broadness is expressed by more than just appearance (although it certainly is expressed by that) but also working style - crouch or upright worker, stylish or not, tail up, tail down, loose-eyed or not, etc.

 

As for the case of the Barbie Collie - the AKC certainly thinks it's a breed, and they seem to think it's the definitive Border Collie to boot. (which is rubbish, of course) But what I've read suggests to me that there is a widening genetic gap between the AKC Border Collie, especially the show lines, and the working Border Collie. So perhaps they are a different breed. And good riddance to them, I say, take the dogs and leave the name. The name Border Collie, as applied to the show iteration, has done more to confuse the average person about what a Border Collie is or isn't than anything else. I think the AKC/KC should give up the name Collie as well. The dogs that have worked herds and flocks for centuries were called collies, and no other should bear the name.

 

Perhaps, in the end, I prefer the term type to the term breed when thinking of the Border Collie because I grew up with the notion "breed" and "pure-bred" meaning the same thing. I also associate "pure-bred" with the dog fancy, and I want nothing to do with any of it. I know of no dog breed that has benefited from the designation "breed" (in that context), and I am delighted with any term that turns the fancy away with their noses in the air. Out of sight, out of mind - and the Border Collie out of harm's way.

 

ETA - Thanks for the link. You are absolutely right about Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that people who breed for working ability alone would not shrink from outcrossing to a different breed if it could contribute to the working ability of their dogs. (Not that I can think of a single breed that would do that.) but we do know that until fairly recent times that other breeds did get crossed into the Border Collie.

 

Actually, this is still being done in the UK. I have a friend in Wales who until recently was a contract shepherdess and both of her working collies were purpose bred crosses. They weren't registered, of course, but they were bred for a specific type of work in mind.

 

ETA: It's also a common practice there for lurchers as well. A different kind of work, to be sure, but still very carefully chosen crosses to suit the purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I suspect so. I've heard that for Belgians, FCI has allowed some opening of studbooks to permit selected cross-breedings with Bouviers, Altdeutschers, etc. Someone is taking the long view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where did the "sport dog" people get their BCs to start breeding? Did they not come from working dog breeders? Maybe those breeders should have required the dogs to be spayed/neutered if they were selling them to non-working homes?

 

I would personally agree that "wired" dogs are not so much bred as they are created by training. As a sport person I do not think my dog needs to bark and tug in order to be a good agility dog. I would rather she focus her attention and energy on working.

 

Gina and Abbey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would personally agree that "wired" dogs are not so much bred as they are created by training. As a sport person I do not think my dog needs to bark and tug in order to be a good agility dog. I would rather she focus her attention and energy on working.

 

Gina and Abbey

post-10533-0-63450700-1432942203_thumb.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But there are some dogs who are just wired. I have one. I don't and haven't treated her any differently than I have other dogs, but she's highly excitable and can go from 0 to 1,000 in a nanosecond. I've been trying to teach her to have an off switch since I got her at 6 months old, three years ago. It's having very little effect. She just seems to have very little self control in exciting situations, which for her is anything even remotely unusual or interesting (even usual and interesting, like feeding time). It's a major effort on her part to be able to hold a sit or a down for more than a few seconds and that's with me watching her intently to make sure she doesn't move.

 

I've trained about a score of dogs and none of them have been like her. I did. not. create this in her!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can make a dog crazy if it doesn't have it in it to start with. You can make it worse if the tendency exists,

and if the tendency exists the likelihood is that it is genetic. The same applies whatever the breeding of the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

We breed sheepdogs to respond to faint whistle commands at a mile. We breed them to alert to our merest intentions. We ask them to ignore their knowledge of how the world works and run under the heels of thousand pound steers. We breed for extreme behaviors. Sometimes that's what we get.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Yes. This!

 

This is why they're not the right dogs for everyone and people should really understand what they're getting into before they get one.

 

To be fair in my description of the wired dog I just mentioned, she's not a border collie. Or at least not a purebred. She's a lurcher who I think is probably at least half border collie and some unknown sighthound (maybe Saluki), so her temperament is different than a working border collie's. I'd never really stopped to consider the possibility that the border collie part might really be a sporter collie, though (she's a rescue). :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...