juliepoudrier

To me a working home means the dog will be working stock, at least some of the time. I understand that folks who do sports, especially agility and SAR, sometimes (or often) refer to what their dogs do as work, but if I'm looking for working homes or at "working bred" pups, I take that to mean stockwork. Note: This is not meant to be an opinion on other things people call work. It's an answer to T's question, which to me is that if someone is looking for a working home, they likely mean a home where stockwork is THE work. If I were going to sell a puppy, "working home" would still mean a home where stock is being worked, but I'd still choose a GREAT sport/SAR/whatever home over anything I considered to be a mediocre working home, because at the end of the day I would want pups going where they are loved, cared for well, and kept for their lifetimes, and honestly, more often than not, many non-working homes will fit that bill better than a lot of working homes. Just my opinion. J.

Well, Liz, not everything is perfect and if you can point to just one litter, then I don't think Handler's Post is suddenly not reputable. I think we tell people to do their research. Handler's Post is a good place to start and probably better than many other places a person could look. Then again, do you have any BETTER ideas? I'm sure folks would like to hear them, J.

Handler's Post is reliable. The person who runs that page is a well-known working handler and in general I'd expect her to know the people posting ads. J.

Yeah, it was more of a rhetorical question. I know full well that the AKC herding types don't blink at paying $$ and plenty of it in order to get all those nice letters around their dogs' names. I wouldn't want to keep anyone from making a living, but if you choose to make your living that way, I don't think you need to judge the USBCHA finals. I can't imagine what USBCHA pays could possibly make up for any loss of income incurred by being away from an AKC clientele in order to judge our finals. J.

No Roxanne, I wasn't taking your comments that way at all. Besides you weren't the only one to make the diet/color connection. I was just pointing out that it's entirely possible for coats to fade even when dogs live indoors and are fed well! People who know me were used to hearing me complain about my orange dogs! (Because I love the deep liver color too.) J.

The argument from the USBCHA BOD side seems to be that they are having a hard time getting folks who are willing to judge the finals. As someone who has been involved in organizations that rely on volunteers, I can completely understand this problem. I do think there are ways around it though. Yes, people want to qualify and run their dogs in the finals, Who doesn't? But then Alasdair judged last year, didn't he? So even though he has a good chance of winning when he runs, he still gave time to judge a finals. If it's that hard to get judges then maybe there's a way to make judging the finals more appealing. I don't know what that is; I'm sure it's a mostly thankless job, but for people who run in a lot of USBCHA trials and attend a lot of finals, maybe there's a way to appeal to their sense of giving back to encourage more folks to step up. I agree with those who say that it's one thing to be involved in AKC and to give lessons, etc., but I do think it sends the wrong message to allow someone who is an AKC judge to also be a USBCHA finals judge. It's not personal (I don't actually know the person in question, but the website says a lot), but I do think it's not really possible to have "two masters" and this is a case where I think USBCHA needs to draw a line. To me, anyone who is that involved with AKC and who doesn't (can't or won't) acknowledge the harm that AKC does to working (purpose bred) dogs isn't someone who needs to judge our finals. If a person wants to be a part of that organization, fine, but if they're doing that and are also running in USBCHA open and doing well enough to be considered a judge for our finals, I have to wonder how they can be unaware of the damage the one organization's overall philosophy, policies, and practices are to the very traits that are being tested for within the USBCHA trialing system. How do they reconcile that? I don't think one can ethically support two such diametrically opposed philosophies, and offering them up the bragging rights just strikes me as misguided at bes. My opinion. J.

Well my red dogs, who were also working dogs, but who lived in the house and were well nourished and well cared for all were a more orangey color. When they shed, their coats would come in darker, but over time they would fade. Maybe being outside more than the average pet made a difference, but they were by no means outside dogs or poorly nourished. (All three are in my sig line.) J.

Hmmmm...as a scientist I have always believed/understood that environmental factors can be triggers for expression of genetic tendencies. Isn't idiopathic epilepsy another example? The genetics for a tendency toward seizures are there but it often takes a trigger to actually cause the seizure to occur. (And if you happen to believe in a genetic propensity toward addiction, which I do, then one could argue that avoiding an environmental factor, say alcohol, is one way to avoid expression of the genetic tendency for addiction--in this case, alcoholism.) J.

I've had three red dogs (one a red tri) and would have another in a heartbeat. I know of one who's breeding is very like most of my dogs. I'm waiting for his owner to breed him.... J.

Somehow I have a mouse that keeps getting in my feed bin (it must be squeezing through the tiniest of holes). Twice I've tossed it out to Pip, but he has yet to catch it. He sure is excited to go into the tractor shed where the feed bin is now. The hunt/chase is on! J.

I'm so sorry. It's hard letting go, even when you know it's the right thing to do. I hope your memories of healthier, happier times will help you through your grief. Godspeed Aleuu. J.

I agree that if someone wants to raise livestock and they find what they want, there's no need to wait for a dog. I also don't see anything wrong with having the dog first and then getting stock. Sure, some folks keep stock only for dog training, but many of us raise stock because we enjoy raising stock. I keep my ewes for fiber and their lambs go for meat. Ewe ambs that are being kept as replacements (or wethers saved back for butchering for personal use) are worked by dogs until they enter the breeding flock after their first year (this provides me with a fresh set of sheep for dog training and is a means of making those young sheep "productive" while I support them until breeding age, which for me is the fall after they turn a year old. Nothing stays that's not productive, with the rare exception (there's always a special old one or similar). But I also can't imagine managing my flock, or the other flocks here (including poultry and goats) without the help of dogs, especially this time of year when we're putting out hay and feed. I recently helped a local farmer get her sheep and goats up for worming. They were kept on a large pasture (40 or 60 acres) and she was experiencing losses because she was unable to reliably bring them up for checking and treatment, She was ready to get out of raising small ruminants because of the difficulty she was having managing them (they also raise cattle). We found her a good trained dog and her outlook has changed completely. She's a prime example of someone whose farming life was turned around by a good dog! Anyway, I guess the problem with getting a trained dog now if you're (BPoint) not retiring for another 5 or 6 years is that the dog could be approaching retirement itself at that point. Also, depending on what sort of livestock you raise and how you set up your farm, you might be able to manage with a less-than-talented dog until you can get a trained dog. That is, you could work with what you have while you're starting out, then add a started/trained dog later. The problem with a pup is that you just really have no idea if it is going to be a useful worker or not, and of course by the time you find out the youngster is 2 or 3 years old and you then you have yet another who can't help you do what you need to do. J.

Sue's whole post bears repeating, but for me this part truly resonated. I, too, have seen and heard from eyewitnesses and it's just mind boggling that the working dog community doesn't step up and police our own, but that's another thread I suppose. J.

Emily, The bitches aren't retired from work; they're working elsewhere. As I said in my previous post, I am not a spokesperson for Karen. I simply live here and reported my observations in answer to your question. For some people the breeding of border collies is a business. In this case, although I may disagree with the business, I can't fault the care or placement of the dogs or puppies. I suppose If you really wish to understand her philosophy, you'd need to ask her directly. Eileen, At least on Facebook it's not just those on the list who are referring to it as a blacklist, FWIW. J.

But doesn't the ethics statement beg the question of why ABCA takes money from registrations of dogs/breeders who don't meet that ethics of breeding standard? Is it a policing issue? Or simply an issue of needing the registration money for the registry to be able to continue to function? To me, it's something like saying, "I don't want you to do this, but if you do, we'll take your money to register your dogs anyway." It's seems a very fuzzy, grey way of operating to me. J.

I'm confused about the registration vs membership thing. Can someone clarify? Toy can have a registered dog without being a member, but you can't register a dog without being a member. Pulling membership would prevent registration of puppies, but not sure how that would affect the agility dogs. And if ABCA can't track show dog's except for champions, how wound they track sport dogs? And what about dogs like Kristi's? J.

He's cute and will likely have prick ears! Squeee! J.

I think it would be easy enough to sell pups to nonworking homes on NB status, though probably there would be people who wouldn't want to take a pup under those circumstances. As I stated on one of the FB threads, though, as a breeder (of two litters) my main concern is that the pups end up in loving forever homes. I don't want pups I produced passed from handler to handler because people or so anxious to have nursery dogs that they push too hard too fast. Fortunately I don't breed much, but honestly, even when I bred Twist and had interest in pups from some big names, I chose to place the pups with people I knew rather than working dogs folks I knew of because I could be sure that the people I knew (who maybe wouldn't burn up the trial field) would at least love and care for those dogs for their entire lives. That's just me, but I have often said on this forum in response to the folks who say that working dog people won't sell to sport people that I would choose an excellent sport home over a mediocre working home (and by mediocre I mean one that doesn't meet my personal standards on how a dog should be kept, trained, etc.) because I know the sport home is the one who is unlikely to pass a dog on, repeatedly. Limiting those sorts of homes would be unfortunate for those of us who really want to make sure pups go to permanent homes. J.

Emily, I really don't want to be a spokesperson for Karen, but I will try to answer your question since I do live here and see what goes on. She generally has maybe one or two breeding bitches here. (Right now she has a bitch from Kevin Evans, one from Bobby Ford, a pup that was with Amy Yoho and is now living with Karen [neutered], and Imp. Mick.) She has two close friends who she lends dogs to, one for a goose dog business and another who has a farm, but the dogs live in the house. Both of those people will breed the bitches that they have at times. Since the bitches are still registered in Karen's name, all registrations also end up in her name and she does help place the puppies that result from those breedings. She also sometimes gives dogs to friends but retains breeding rights. For example, Mary Williams who does a lot of agility (Nationals level) but is completely new to stockdogs has a young dog from Karen (K. Evans' Caleb x Freck, imported in whelp) she's trying to train for stockwork. Karen gave her a started dog (also from Kevin, though I don't know if he produced her or bought her and trained her) to learn from. The only caveat was that she get a couple of litters from Patch. So Patch lives in a house, is working stock here with me helping Mary, does demos with us, and has even worked on the set of Turn. But Patch is still in Karen's name, so any litters from her will also be registered under Karen's name. Karen is something of a different case, I think, because she has a lot of repeat buyers of her puppies. She will take any pup back, temporarily to work on an issue or permanently to find a new home. Her long-time friends and multi-dog buyers regularly come out to help socialize litters. The pups are raised in beautiful conditions on a raw diet, receive all the vet care/health checks they need, are dewormed regularly before they go to their new homes. I will also note that Karen does not sell every puppy she produces. She will give pups to people (people she knows and trusts) if she feels the circumstances warrant it, no strings attached. She also spends a great deal of time helping *anyone* with a border collie (not necessarily her breeding) who contacts her seeking help with behavioral or training issues. And she does all the genetic testing on her dogs and has hips read (through Cornell, I think?). If there are issues in a litter or she doesn't like a dog's temperament or temperaments produced, she will not breed those dogs again. As for the dogs she's using, they come at least started, if not fully trained, mostly from the UK, though she has a young American bred bitch now as well (not producing pups). I think her plan is to send that youngster off to be trained. But every single one of her breeding dogs has been trained to work, whether they continue with that work when they get to the states or not. The downside to the clientele is that many of them are dog sports enthusiasts, so the number of pups who go on to work stock themselves isn't huge. That said, I do know of a bunch since I've been living here that are in working homes, even if it's just hobbyists. Note that I am not defending numbers here, but as far as I can tell, Karen does right by the dogs, the puppies, and the puppy buyers. Of course this is just one example and certainly not universal by any means. I think that a good number of her puppy buyers don't even bother to transfer the papers to their names, which is interesting, but I guess if they don't plan to breed they don't really care. So this is my observation in the short time that I have lived here at the farm. She is definitely a high-volume breeder, but my observation is that she stands by her dogs and the pups produced are well cared for, well socialized, and well placed. J.

Tea, I think that part of the discussion was about not allowing them to register because they dogs are not working stock, but I've kind of gotten lost in this discussion because I haven't been on the forum for a few days. J.

Karen, I think there are plenty of breeders out there who have already (long before a list was even considered) taken steps to make it appear as if they are not breeding large numbers of puppies. Five or six years ago I knew of one well-known breeder who registered dogs under family names, presumably for just that reason. I have no idea if they're still breeding a lot, but at least some folks might be surprised by the name, which I will not divulge because it's really immaterial to the discussion. It's another reason I find this list problematic. At least the folks on the list are being honest about their breeding practices, FWIW. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of them didn't end up doing something similar. Easy enough to transfer a registration and let someone else register a litter. J.

Roxanne, I'm also part of BRBCR so can keep an eye out for you. I also have other contacts and sometimes hear/know of young purebreds (older puppies) looking for placement. I will keep you in mind and also let my contacts know you're looking. It's a shame about males being more problematic WRT allergies. My males are my most outgoing, easygoing dogs. My females can be quirky and snarky, but as I said in my earlier post, that seems to be a trait of their breeding.... J.

One argument that Sue didn't cover was the one regarding preservation of the working border collie. The reasons for why high-volume breeders, in ABCA's viewpoint, can't also be preserving the working border collie have already been stated in this thread, so I won't repeat them here. My concern about pointing out these high-volume breeders as being antithetical to ABCA's stated mission to preserve the working border collie is the number of dogs registered each year, from any size breeder, who clearly aren't being bred with any regard to ability to work stock. So the ABCA is pointing out these particular breeders but essentially ignoring all the others who also aren't breeding for working ability (and per some of the FB discussions I saw, at least some of the breeders on that list are working farms breeding and selling working dogs to other farms, mainly cattle operations). As was mentioned earlier in this thread, ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, but it seems a bit unfair to me (and I am NOT saying I agree with breeding lots of pups, just pointing out what I consider to be a disconnect in this way of going about pointing out who is NOT preserving the working border collie) to point a finger at these breeders and not at others. I would personally would be much more comfortable with the list if ABCA simply stated that they are opposed to high-volume breeding and left the comments about preserving working ability out of it, because as far as I can tell looking at what's being bred and sold just in my part of the world, a majority of those dogs, no matter how many litters the breeder has produced in a year, are NOT being bred or sold for stock work. J.

Luxating patellas are a fairly common issue in smaller breed dogs. I have a friend with a rescue chihuahua who has luxating patellas--fairly severe--but was told by her vet that she doesn't necessarily have to do surgery right away, if ever. I'd get a second opinion and then just go with how Cricket is doing on a regular basis (e.g., how it's affecting his quality of life). J.

He looks so happy! Just goes to show that even dogs who don't seem to stand a chance of making it can do so with the right loving foster care and permanent placement. Kudos to you and his adoptive family. J.