Jump to content
BC Boards

"A Football Field of Dogs"


Recommended Posts

Genetic diversity would be the point of the article. If the most ideal match was a dog with similar bloodlines, and a less ideal but still good match was unrelated for multiple generations, would you select the former before the latter? If you have a great working dog, would you consider breeding litter mates each once (assuming they have working ability) vs breeding the initial dog multiple times. Do you take that kind of thing into consideration? If no, do you have any concerns about COI over time?

 

 

That article is about the importance of maintaining as big a gene pool as possible while in pursuit of winning dog shows based on the dog's expression of a breed standard - or, at least, to maintain the characteristics of that breed that set it apart from other breeds - based on a physical breed standard.

 

Breeding working animals to have the ability to work at high levels is not the same. Breeders are bound to select for the work. The work is the only thing. Choosing dogs that don't work (or who are awful at it) in order to increase the gene pool would be counter productive. Also, "work" is not as straightforward as a particular height, ear set, color, etc. Some of us want tough cattle dogs, some of us want dogs that work in a refined way, some want less eye, some want a lot of it - and we breed for, and buy, what we like in working style. That's a lot more diverse than aiming for a cookie cutter appearance.

 

I can't answer your questions, because in the scenarios you put forth there are way too many variables that would have to be taken into consideration. In some cases, I would choose the similarly bred dog - in others I would not.

 

Personally I would not breed a poor littermate of a good dog. Some people do it and have good results. I just think, "why"?

 

Keep in mind that the great majority of working border collies in North America do NOT come out of "breeders" like what you have in the AKC. Most people who are breeding these dogs don't really have a breeding kennel; they have some dogs they think are great and once in a while produce a litter. People who are known for breeding working border collies are ACTIVELY developing their own line, based on the esteemed traits of their dogs - and it would be very counterproductive to just abandon that for a bigger gene pool.

 

Yes, we do have the "popular sire effect" to a degree, and most of our dogs do have Blwch Taff in their extended pedigrees. We are not going to get rid of him unless we start breeding to a different breed altogether.

 

Personally I haven't had a litter in 4 years. When I do again, I am going to aim for the best possible match to produce fabulous working (which includes sound mind & body) sheepdogs. If I don't see that as a possibility, I just won't breed. There are plenty of great dogs and puppies out there to choose from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh. Could you express it better so I might be able to understand it please?

Not really, I commented on a specific analogy made by someone on these boards (it has circulated for years), your reply makes it clear you are not familiar with this analogy (for instance the "non bulls eye dogs" in this analogy are not bred by sports breeders as you assume, the analogy is only about dogs bred for stockwork).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really, I commented on a specific analogy made by someone on these boards (it has circulated for years), your reply makes it clear you are not familiar with this analogy (for instance the "non bulls eye dogs" in this analogy are not bred by sports breeders as you assume, the analogy is only about dogs bred for stockwork).

I have read it. I didn't say that "non bulls eye dogs" were bred by sports breeders. I said that they may be USED for breeding by sports breeders, and thus their genetics are not "lost from the working gene pool" as you said in your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you insist.

 

Those genes are lost to the working dog gene pool, because no serious breeder of stockdogs is going to try out untrained dogs (of whom he has no idea of working quality) from the sports breeding world. Those dogs or their offspring are very unlikely to get back into the working dog breeding programs (though nothing is impossible of course).

 

It does not matter where those pups go, sports- pet- or even conformation breeders, they are as good as lost for the working dog population. Hence my remark that they are virtually culls (in regard to working dog breeding).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if you insist.

 

Those genes are lost to the working dog gene pool, because no serious breeder of stockdogs is going to try out untrained dogs (of whom he has no idea of working quality) from the sports breeding world. Those dogs or their offspring are very unlikely to get back into the working dog breeding programs (though nothing is impossible of course).

 

It does not matter where those pups go, sports- pet- or even conformation breeders, they are as good as lost for the working dog population. Hence my remark that they are virtually culls (in regard to working dog breeding).

 

 

I imagine it is vastly different in your country because of the small population of working dogs and people who breed and work them. I'm not even sure that your idea of what a working border collie is and mine would align.

 

In North America plenty of orange and even yellow zone dogs are being bred all the time, for better or worse. Many breeding choices are made based on convenience and perceive potential, since not very many good dogs are EVER going to be trained, shown or used to their full abilities.

 

Sure many orange or yellow or whatever dogs are sold to pet or sport homes. There are still thousands of them being bred and their offspring registered with the ABCA and CBCA every year. They're not lost to the North American gene pool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breeding working animals to have the ability to work at high levels is not the same. Breeders are bound to select for the work. The work is the only thing. Choosing dogs that don't work (or who are awful at it) in order to increase the gene pool would be counter productive.

What about dogs that are "just OK" at it, .instead of the best?

Also, "work" is not as straightforward as a particular height, ear set, color, etc. Some of us want tough cattle dogs, some of us want dogs that work in a refined way, some want less eye, some want a lot of it - and we breed for, and buy, what we like in working style. That's a lot more diverse than aiming for a cookie cutter appearance.

Which might explain why there seems to be less of a genetic bottleneck in working dog populations.

I can't answer your questions, because in the scenarios you put forth there are way too many variables that would have to be taken into consideration. In some cases, I would choose the similarly bred dog - in others I would not.

 

Personally I would not breed a poor littermate of a good dog. Some people do it and have good results. I just think, "why"?

Well, I think my question was not a "poor" litter mate, but ensuring that the litter was not removed from the gene pool and choosing a litter from each good dog, vs several litters from the one. Its a subtle comparison, but one to consider.

Keep in mind that the great majority of working border collies in North America do NOT come out of "breeders" like what you have in the AKC. Most people who are breeding these dogs don't really have a breeding kennel; they have some dogs they think are great and once in a while produce a litter. People who are known for breeding working border collies are ACTIVELY developing their own line, based on the esteemed traits of their dogs - and it would be very counterproductive to just abandon that for a bigger gene pool.

 

I don't think it was suggested to "abandon" that criteria, but to consider the big picture. Working ability is very important, but of the gene pool narrows to the point you have issues then a dog with great working ability and auto immune problems might happen.

 

If you are selecting the best of the best, regardless of what you define as the best, you will narrow things. Clearly for dogs without the working issues the traits selected for are often arbitrary and cosmetic, whereas for working dogs the traits have more value. But every dog who is removed from the gene pool affects the outcome of the gene pool, doesn't it?

 

I'm primarily playing devil's advocate here, just musing. But I think its something to think about.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure many orange or yellow or whatever dogs are sold to pet or sport homes. There are still thousands of them being bred and their offspring registered with the ABCA and CBCA every year. They're not lost to the North American gene pool.

 

I think you're missing the point. Those dogs are indeed lost to the North American working border collie gene pool, which is the only gene pool in question here with working border collies. No one breeding for excellence in stock work is going to be breeding to those pet and sport bred dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What about dogs that are "just OK" at it, .instead of the best?

 

I don't know anyone who generally breeds just to "the best." Most people who produce great crosses are choosing complementary dogs. I don't, however, know anyone personally who is going to actively seek dogs who are "just okay" in order to keep the gene pool bigger.

 

 

Well, I think my question was not a "poor" litter mate, but ensuring that the litter was not removed from the gene pool and choosing a litter from each good dog, vs several litters from the one. Its a subtle comparison, but one to consider.

As I pointed out, not that many of us are breeding a large quantity of dogs. If we are moved to breed, it is with one idea in mind: that this cross might produce great dogs. Or at least produce a kind of dog we really want. We are not working to "preserve the breed," as it is expressed in "the purebred dog fancy."

te class="ipsBlockquote">

 

I don't think it was suggested to "abandon" that criteria, but to consider the big picture. Working ability is very important, but of the gene pool narrows to the point you have issues then a dog with great working ability and auto immune problems might happen.

 

Do you honestly believe that those who are breeding top tier working dogs aren't considering the big picture? People who are breeding an identifiable line of dogs will certainly be seeking to outcross regularly. Where my view diverges from yours is here: they are not going to look for an "okay" dog or less proven littermates of some accomplished dog when they are choosing their outcross, in pursuit of widening the gene pool of working border collies. They are going to choose the best dog they can find THAT WILL BE COMPLIMENTARY to their line, and expresses what THEY value most highly in working border collies.

 

If you are selecting the best of the best, regardless of what you define as the best, you will narrow things. Clearly for dogs without the working issues the traits selected for are often arbitrary and cosmetic, whereas for working dogs the traits have more value. But every dog who is removed from the gene pool affects the outcome of the gene pool, doesn't it?

 

Of course it does. And, of course we are "narrowing things." Real working border collies exist in a pretty small niche. That's fine.

 

From my perspective, there are thousands of mediocre (or worse) breedings going on every single day; in fact, lately it's been in my face in a big way and that's the reason this is kind of a hot button for me. There is a whole world of self professed "working border collie breeders" who wouldn't know a good dog if one bit them in the face (which would be nice :D ) who are producing mountains of puppies, selling them and promoting their lackluster stud dogs on the Internet - ALL registered by the ABCA. They are not hurting for customers. I am sure that the preponderance of ABCA registered border collies come from exactly that scenario. That "just okay," or worse, part of the gene pool is multiplying just fine.

 

Meanwhile, people making conscientious breeding choices are not blindly breeding to the International Supreme Champion or whatever happens to be the flavor of the month. They are making thoughtful decisions which include selecting away from genetic defects. IMO we don't need to be producing more border collies just to grow the gene pool. There are plenty of people doing that out of sheer ignorance.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it is vastly different in your country because of the small population of working dogs and people who breed and work them. I'm not even sure that your idea of what a working border collie is and mine would align.

Sure, let´s just keep it at that, I am just an ignorant foreigner who has no idea what is going on the US.

You probably use em to round up the bisons each fall don´t you...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're missing the point. Those dogs are indeed lost to the North American working border collie gene pool, which is the only gene pool in question here with working border collies. No one breeding for excellence in stock work is going to be breeding to those pet and sport bred dogs.

 

I really don't think I am.

 

Those yellow and red dogs being sold to sport or pet homes, or bred by sport breeders is a red herring.

 

People who are "breeding for excellence" would, in many cases, not choose to breed to those dogs no matter who owned them.

 

They are not "culls," they are simply not what many people would consider worthy of breeding. Breeding for excellence means to try to produce the best dogs you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just re-read that article. Some of it makes a bit of sense to me and I disagree heartily with much of it, but that's beside the point. I really think you can't apply the concept of breeding to sustain a BREED of dog which is identified by a physical standard, to the concept of breeding to maintain innate working ability in dogs with no physical standard to conform to.

 

That whole issue aside, though: We humans have proven that without a doubt we are not the best stewards of dogs. Whether it's better for the size of the gene pool or not, it's ridiculous to suggest that MOST dogs, barring terrible faults, should be bred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether it's better for the size of the gene pool or not, it's ridiculous to suggest that MOST dogs, barring terrible faults, should be bred.

 

That's funny, because that's not the main message I got from the article. In a few select breeds that might be true (breeds with tiny numbers) but I am pretty sure it was more about the real usefulness of genetic testing and not excluding dogs on the basis of cosmetic faults alone.

 

I also think its not the whole solution, for example in some cases there really needs to be crossbreeding back to foundation breeds. But its interesting that a person in "the fancy" had such a common sense perspective which I normally find to be lacking. As a person who owns a second breed that no one breeds for "work," I had an interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I imagine it is vastly different in your country because of the small population of working dogs and people who breed and work them. I'm not even sure that your idea of what a working border collie is and mine would align.

 

In North America plenty of orange and even yellow zone dogs are being bred all the time, for better or worse. Many breeding choices are made based on convenience and perceive potential, since not very many good dogs are EVER going to be trained, shown or used to their full abilities.

 

Sure many orange or yellow or whatever dogs are sold to pet or sport homes. There are still thousands of them being bred and their offspring registered with the ABCA and CBCA every year. They're not lost to the North American gene pool.

 

Sure, let´s just keep it at that, I am just an ignorant foreigner who has no idea what is going on the US.

You probably use em to round up the bisons each fall don´t you...?

 

I think that people in Iceland and the US are frequently just breeding what they have. Some of them are probably thinking about the big picture, some want a tough, hardy dog that can thrive in a rough climate - whether it be desert or icy mountains - and some just want a dog that will help them bring the cows to the milking shed twice a day. Some search high and low to find the best stud to compliment the qualities in their bitch. Some just put their male to their female and hope they get lucky. Some put surplus pups into the bucket. Some sell to pet homes. (In both cases the extras are culls, some are just dead culls.)

 

I think everyone posting on this thread wants the same thing. Namely, for Border Collies to be bred for a high degree of working ability. Those show dogs and sport dogs, by and large, aren't even Border Collies - if you define a Border Collie as the best stock dog for an awful lot of jobs. (Something with a little pit bull in it might make a better hog dog.) We won't even think of them as fit for breeding, so they aren't any sort of loss. At least not when it comes to breeding. There's no use wringing our hands about loss of genetic diversity as far as those dogs are concerned. We haven't lost anything that we wouldn't have thrown out any way. And there are a lot of Border Collies that are very fine workers. Enough to save us from the genetic train wrecks that the AKC is peddling. Maybe we will do a little "outcrossing", to ROM dogs with a different genetic profile. But that will be the work of very serious, far-seeing breeders. Much like the ones who created the Border Collie in the first place.

 

We will need to be watchful that the popular sire effect doesn't become too widespread. I think breeding away from Wiston Cap will be one of the ways that far-seeing breeders do this. Does anyone know if the rough-coated (wire-coated?) dog, Lone has been bred? I'd be interested to see what his get could do.

 

In the meantime, let's be friends. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for the experienced BC/stockdog breeders (and I simply ask because I'I'm curious):

 

The scenario is you have a youngish BC that excels working sheep at such a high level, it consistently outshines all your other top performing stock dogs.

 

But...

 

It also has the familiar but undesirable BC traits...x2. For instance, when not focused on work the dog is highly fixed on motion and re-active with little impulse control.

 

Do you breed this dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Depends on how it works when It's a little bit older. If, at 3 years, it wins a trial I'd be inclined to consider it.

Very very few North American handlers (like myself) have BREEDING at the top of our todo list. Some, like two time ISDS International winner Raymond McPherson wouldn't breed his males until they were retired from the trials (8? 9?). He believed having enjoyed sex, his males might be focused on THE WRONG THING.

 

In my experience with trial/companion dogs, once they're regularly trained for stockwork their offstock manners improve so "fixed on motion" and "little impulse control" are a non-issue.

 

Their world makes sense.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question for the experienced BC/stockdog breeders (and I simply ask because I'I'm curious):

 

The scenario is you have a youngish BC that excels working sheep at such a high level, it consistently outshines all your other top performing stock dogs.

 

But...

 

It also has the familiar but undesirable BC traits...x2. For instance, when not focused on work the dog is highly fixed on motion and re-active with little impulse control.

 

Do you breed this dog?

 

If the dog doesn't have a great temperament, it would have to be pretty stellar for me to breed it. And I would have to really see the ways in which it was stellar. There are very many dogs that are beating a lot of teams at sheepdog trials that will never produce puppies.

 

It might be wiser to go back to that dog's parents and get one that's the same way bred.

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...