"Barbie Colles Can Herd, Really!"

[blackacre]

This is really an example of why I think mixed show-working lines and dual registration is more of a problem for working breeds than just the show lines alone. It blurs the distinction between show-bred and working-bred and makes it harder for people to know what they are looking at or being sold.

 

(no abusive PMs or emails on this please )

 

Absolutely. And I would add that buying from a show breeder, even if it is a product of an outcross to a working bred dog, only encourages and justifies poor breeding practices. Much like buying from a puppy mill or a pet shop. And it becomes even more ridiculous if you contemplate the fact that you can buy a top quality working bred prospect, from working parents that you can see work, for a mere pittance.

 

Besides which, you have now provided the original breeder with a rationale to continue breeding, since now one or two of the offspring can actually do a little something.

 

Not to mention the fact that a working/show or working/sport cross, while it may by chance turn out to be a reasonably good working dog, might end up being bred to again, leading to a dumbing down of a vulnerable working gene pool, since it is highly unlikely to produce anything worthwhile, given the availability of indifferent genes in its own makeup.

 

A

 

(Not to take anything away from the un-named handler who, we are told, didn't know any better at the time, and has gone on to prove herself and the dog at the highest levels. Kudos to her)

[juliepoudrier]

Not much more to say here, except that I'm glad Carolyn spoke up because she is the one best suited to respond. After seeing that this thread had popped back up again, I was hoping that you would, Carolyn! I know this dog-handler team too, and I can tell you that on any given day all the Open handlers would like to beat them and they very often don't. The handler in question has worked very hard at it. The dog is genuine. Nuff said.......

Billy and Carolyn,

I don't think it's necessary to defend the handler or dog in question, and this thread should not be seen as disrespectful of them. I don't think anyone who has posted on this thread has had anything negative to say about either the owner or the dog, unless I've missed something. This thread isn't about them (other than peripherally because of the blogger's claims)--it's about a blogger who claims that a show-bred dog can and does compete at the highest levels in open. The fact is that the dog in question is not strictly show bred, as I and others in this thread pointed out. That has no bearing on the dog-handler team whatsoever (that is, it doesn't matter who owns or trials the dog--the point in question is the dog's breeding). What it has bearing on is the claim that show-bred dogs can be competitive at the highest levels in USBCHA, which isn't true, at least not for the example the blogger used, since the dog mentioned isn't strictly a show-bred dog.

 

Like Andrea said, condoning/promoting such breedings does lead to muddying the waters significantly when it comes time for other new-to-working-dogs people to find a working prospect. Many of us started out with dogs that might not have come from ideal breeders, but at least we can try to educate others as to why this might not be a good idea.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

I agree Julie, but I think it important that it is at least pointed out that this person who achieved this with their dog is not out touting anything. In fact, none of us would have known this, had this blogger not posted this. So, if for no other reason, for courtesy sake, it is important (imo) that we take notice of this. I know, me being too nice again....

[Eileen Stein]

She is driven to better herself and her dogs, comes out rain or shine to work sheep and presently owns three other border collies, all from Suzy Applegate's breeding.

 

I almost took note of this in my earlier post. I think it's a significant rebuttal of the blogger's point that this handler, having learned much more since she purchased this particular dog, has not chosen to get her future dogs from that type of breeding but has acquired her subsequent dogs from a working breeder who is breeding for working ability and certainly not to produce Barbies.

[C Crocker]

I almost took note of this in my earlier post. I think it's a significant rebuttal of the blogger's point that this handler, having learned much more since she purchased this particular dog, has not chosen to get her future dogs from that type of breeding but has acquired her subsequent dogs from a working breeder who is breeding for working ability and certainly not to produce Barbies.

[/quote

 

Hi Eileen,

 

And yes her ownership of these next three dogs is not a commentary on her purchase of her first border collies whatsoever. Her interest focused and she went where she saw dogs consistently winning and where she received top notch instruction. Her decisions to get these next dogs in no way detract from her admiration for the abiltity of her first dog. It proves no theory on show dogs versus trial dogs.

 

Hi Julie,

 

And while my friend did not ask to be a subject on this man's blog, nor on this tread on this list, Yes this person and this dog is being discussed, and not in a theoretical manner. I do understand that the person the thread is discussing directly is this blogger guy and his information, but it has progressed from discussing his breeding theories ( loose use of the word theory) to discussing this one dog, one person and their reasons and validity , neither of which can be known if you don't know either dog nor person. Many have conjectured why this dog was purchased in the first place to guessing what type of ISDS trials it could have possibly done well in , due to it's show breeding, to worrying about the future of the breed based on what this one person has done. So Yes it is a bit personal in my opinion. Often these treads get personal and the fact that no one knows the subject has not detered this in the past.

I believe this subject is important to many and no reason not to discuss it if one feels the need, but opinions have been based here about this situation and the focus has been this dog and this person, and not just a general discussion on the subject as you note.

 

 

Carolyn

[juliepoudrier]

I agree Julie, but I think it important that it is at least pointed out that this person who achieved this with their dog is not out touting anything. In fact, none of us would have known this, had this blogger not posted this. So, if for no other reason, for courtesy sake, it is important (imo) that we take notice of this. I know, me being too nice again....

Julie,

I think it was pointed out early on in this thread that the person in question didn't want herself mentioned in that blog and that the blogger ignored her request. It's clear from her accomplishments (even if the reader doesn't know anything other than what was posted in that other person's blog) that she's worked hard. No one gets to the finals and does well without working hard and being a great team with his/her dog(s). I just don't think it's necessary to turn this discussion into a defense of one person and her dog when the real important point of topic is the breeding of dogs for working and the false claims that show-breeders (or their advocates) make with regard to the working capabilities of show-bred dogs.

 

Carolyn has given us the low-down on the handler and her dog, and now I think the discussion should continue about breeding practices and stay away from specific people and their dogs. That's just my opinion of course--I'd simply hate to see an important topic get diverted to something else. That's all.

 

Eileen,

I think you make a very important point--choices after the initial choice were for working-bred dogs.

 

ETA (since apparently we were posting at the same time): Carolyn,

I just don't see where there's been any great discussion of this person's reasons for choosing the dog, the validity of those reasons, nor have I noticed any conjecture on why she purchased the dog in the first place, but perhaps I have a reading comprehension problem. As I said before adding this section, those who want to know more about her and her dog now know more. I still think the discussion should stick with breeding practices and not one individual and her dog.

 

I love my first ever trial dog (a rescue) no less than subsequent trial dogs, even the one who has managed to get me qualified for the finals every year I've run in open, but I can assure you I wouldn't go get another rescue if what I really wanted to do was qualify for and run in the finals. That's not a value judgment on that rescue dog, who was awesome, but a judgment on what breeding practices consistently produce exceptional working dogs. I don't think Eileen was saying at all that the handler was making a value judgement on her first dog by later choosing working-bred dogs--I think, though, that going where one saw dogs consistently winning is making a value judgment on breeding practices in that she recognized that while her first dog was/is an exceptional dog, she'd have a better chance of getting more such exceptional dogs if she went to a working breeder. Do you disagree?

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Disclaimer: this is only for the sake of discussion

 

Okay, for the sake of discussion, what IS a show bred dog- how many dogs in the pedigree make it a show bred dog? What is a sport bred dog or a working dog- same question? What if this dog was truly 50/50 show/working? It seems the line is blurred, and the subject tweaked a bit to bolster an argument. Say the dog was 50/50 show/working. Dog couldn't get around the sheep- I guess we would blame the show lines on that. Say the same dog accomplished a run at the finals, we would definitely attribute that to the working lines in the dog. Say, now, we change it to 75% working and 25% show, and the dog couldn't get around the sheep- it's those derned show lines again- but, if this same dog was not only able to get around the sheep but place at the finals, then, well, it is those 25% working lines. So, then, say, this dog who is 50/50 working/show lines is bred to a working dog. All pups show ability on stock, and several are working at open level/real farm situations. Is this not to be believed? That a 50/50 work/show line dog when bred to a 100% working dog, could actually produce good working progeny? I guess the pups would all be suspect, and continue to be, until they themselves proved themselves in real work and trial situations. Isn't that the real proof of a dog's worth? As to what many will say- that you dilute the gene pool, etc., by continued breeding to show animals, what if that isn't done? What if that 50/50 dog is bred to only working dogs, and his/her progeny is also only bred to working dogs? What of the dogs- what IF they are pretty incredible working dogs, attested to by some of the top handlers/ranchers in the country?

[blackacre]

Hmmm. Are we REALLY speaking in the abstract?

I'll say it again. Why on earth would you even consider breeding anything less than stellar to anything else less than stellar when there are so many classy proven working dogs? Yes of course some working breedings will turn out duds that couldn't work sheep out of a paper bag, and the occasional half- or quarter-bred dogs will produce something decent, as happened here. But the odds are better when you do it right.

Which brings us back to my other point, which is that supporting show and sport breeders by buying from them enables them to stay in business. Breeders that now and then can produce something half decent only by coat-tailing on the genetics of genuine and proven working dogs, dogs that were the result of breeding for the work over innumerable generations.

A

[juliepoudrier]

I think that we could spend days discussing how much working is working and how much show or sport is show or sport, but in past discussions like this, at the end of the day it comes down to stacking the deck in your favor. I think Bill Fosher has often used the analogy that if you want to field a basketball team, you don't choose a bunch of short fat people, not if you want to have a good chance of winning at basketball. Likewise, if you want an exceptional working dog, you choose from lines that have proven over time to produce exceptional working dogs. If a person wants to take their chances with something else, be it 1 percent, half, 3/4, 99.9 percent conformation (or some other) lines, that's their choice and there's no reason that I see to argue that having one drop of that "undesirable blood" makes an individual that undesirable thing. And yet, since we have not yet seen a strictly conformation-bred dog make it to the top ranks of the USBCHA and we have seen how the KC in the UK has had to lower it's standards in order to allow show champions to also achieve a working championship, I think it is reasonable to state that strictly conformation-bred dogs don't work to the same standard quality as strictly working-bred dogs, in general. The only way to prove that thesis (i.e., the thesis of the blogger whose blog started this discussion) is to take a dog that has nothing but conformation breeding in its pedigree and take it to the top. Even then, nothing is really proven unless that dog can reproduce itself. That's why we talk about lines more than we talk about individuals. I (and I'm sure others) have seen enough dogs who are exceptional themselves but who do not seem to be able to reproduce that exceptionality in offspring.

 

I gather that you're saying that no one can say for sure in crosses such as the one that started this discussion that one side or the other is to be given sole credit (or blame) for a dog's successes or failures, and you're probably right. But for me it still comes back to stacking the deck in my favor, and than means choosing dogs from working lines that have proven themselves over time. If someone makes a cross between working and show lines, does well with a pup (or more), breeds those dogs back into working lines again and again, and continues to have success with them, then I don't think whatever amount of "other" blood they have in them really ultimately matters. But the proving has to take place, and that happens over time and not just with one individual dog.

 

If we look at this whole exercise as one of hybridizing (I realize these aren't true hybrids, but bear with me), the whole point of hybridizing is to produce an offspring that has better attributes for whatever the task at hand is (and it might just be producing meat or withstanding the local environment) than either parent. Viewed that way, I don't see why anyone would bother to cross show lines with working lines, since you're not likely (notice I didn't say "not ever") to get offspring that are either better show specimens or workers than their parents. To me it's sort of a pointless exercise....

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

If you re-read my post, my question was- what IS a working/show/sport bred dog- what ARE the percentages?

 

Hmmm. Are we REALLY speaking in the abstract?

I'll say it again. Why on earth would you even consider breeding anything less than stellar to anything else less than stellar when there are so many classy proven working dogs? Yes of course some working breedings will turn out duds that couldn't work sheep out of a paper bag, and the occasional half- or quarter-bred dogs will produce something decent, as happened here. But the odds are better when you do it right.

Which brings us back to my other point, which is that supporting show and sport breeders by buying from them enables them to stay in business. Breeders that now and then can produce something half decent only by coat-tailing on the genetics of genuine and proven working dogs, dogs that were the result of breeding for the work over innumerable generations.

A

[kelpiegirl]

Julie:

I like your last paragraph it illustrates the point very well.

 

 

I think that we could spend days discussing how much working is working and how much show or sport is show or sport, but in past discussions like this, at the end of the day it comes down to stacking the deck in your favor. I think Bill Fosher has often used the analogy that if you want to field a basketball team, you don't choose a bunch of short fat people, not if you want to have a good chance of winning at basketball. Likewise, if you want an exceptional working dog, you choose from lines that have proven over time to produce exceptional working dogs. If a person wants to take their chances with something else, be it 1 percent, half, 3/4, 99.9 percent conformation (or some other) lines, that's their choice and there's no reason that I see to argue that having one drop of that "undesirable blood" makes an individual that undesirable thing. And yet, since we have not yet seen a strictly conformation-bred dog make it to the top ranks of the USBCHA and we have seen how the KC in the UK has had to lower it's standards in order to allow show champions to also achieve a working championship, I think it is reasonable to state that strictly conformation-bred dogs don't work to the same standard quality as strictly working-bred dogs, in general. The only way to prove that thesis (i.e., the thesis of the blogger whose blog started this discussion) is to take a dog that has nothing but conformation breeding in its pedigree and take it to the top. Even then, nothing is really proven unless that dog can reproduce itself. That's why we talk about lines more than we talk about individuals. I (and I'm sure others) have seen enough dogs who are exceptional themselves but who do not seem to be able to reproduce that exceptionality in offspring.

 

I gather that you're saying that no one can say for sure in crosses such as the one that started this discussion that one side or the other is to be given sole credit (or blame) for a dog's successes or failures, and you're probably right. But for me it still comes back to stacking the deck in my favor, and than means choosing dogs from working lines that have proven themselves over time. If someone makes a cross between working and show lines, does well with a pup (or more), breeds those dogs back into working lines again and again, and continues to have success with them, then I don't think whatever amount of "other" blood they have in them really ultimately matters. But the proving has to take place, and that happens over time and not just with one individual dog.

 

If we look at this whole exercise as one of hybridizing (I realize these aren't true hybrids, but bear with me), the whole point of hybridizing is to produce an offspring that has better attributes for whatever the task at hand is (and it might just be producing meat or withstanding the local environment) than either parent. Viewed that way, I don't see why anyone would bother to cross show lines with working lines, since you're not likely (notice I didn't say "not ever") to get offspring that are either better show specimens or workers than their parents. To me it's sort of a pointless exercise....

 

J.

[Katelynn & Gang]

If you re-read my post, my question was- what IS a working/show/sport bred dog- what ARE the percentages?

 

There are no percentages, it totally depends on what the breeder is breeding for. When you ask a breeder what they are breeding for, it is usually the first thing they reply with, everything else is just a side note.

 

Katelynn

[Pearse]

If you re-read my post, my question was- what IS a working/show/sport bred dog- what ARE the percentages? Since I don't breed dogs, I am not sure of your "abstract" comment.

 

 

I would say;

 

Working-bred dog = Dog from parents who both can work stock with some degree of competence

 

Sport-bred dog = Dog from parents, one or other of which, don't work stock but do participate in dog sports with some degree of competence

 

Show-bred dog = Dog from parents, one or other of which, don't work stock but do have some AKC show titles.

 

And, by "work stock with some degree of competence" I mean either capable of getting around a decent Open level course on a regular basis with a respectable score, or capable of working livestock on a farm or ranch outside of fenced enclosures.

 

Percentages? Who cares? If it isn't a 100% working Border Collie, I don't think it ought to be bred in the first place, and I wouldn't buy a pup from it.

 

But, that's just me.

 

Pearse

[blackacre]

Since I don't breed dogs, I am not sure of your "abstract" comment.

 

Good. Just wondering what your plans were for your half-show bred bitch. Happy to hear that you have no plans to breed her.

Of course, you DID buy her from a non-working dog breeder. Perhaps before you knew better?

No PM's please.

Andrea

[kelpiegirl]

Well, I guess you could say that. I wanted to do agility with her, but then started her on sheep, so that's how it worked out. I bought her from a breeder I was very very comfortable with. One who was clear about what I should and should not expect from the dog. I have been very very very happy with her, and the breeder's support. Like I said, I wasn't planning on doing anything but agility with her, but I have, much like this other lady with the BC been bitten by the bug, and will be getting a 100% working bred Kelpie in the not so distant future. This breeder has been wonderful, and guess what? She has gotten sheep- yes, she has a farm- just never had any sheep. She got sheep, because the pups from this litter have been doing well on sheep, and she wants to start working her dogs on them- she is now the proud owner of fat tails. Cool, huh? I think it's great. I won't go back to show lines, because I am just like the lady that Carolyn knows in my evolutionary process, but that doesn't reflect one iota on how I feel about my Lucy.

 

As for show lines, perhaps you would like to explain why you are spear heading the push to put the Kelpie into the Canadian Kennel club, well, I mean, full registration, as opposed to miscellaneous (which it already has). Miscellaneous classification means the dogs can compete in agility, herding, etc., but not conformation, full registration, which you are supporting and facilitating, is to allow the dogs to compete in conformation shows. Why pray tell, would you, some vehemently against show dogs, support this?

 

As for my plans for Lucy, not sure what I will and will not do with her, but I sure as heck won't send her down the road, if she doesn't pass muster in the trial arena.

 

 

 

 

 

Good. Just wondering what your plans were for your half-show bred bitch. Happy to hear that you have no plans to breed her.

Of course, you DID buy her from a non-working dog breeder. Perhaps before you knew better?

No PM's please.

Andrea

[blackacre]

As for show lines, perhaps you would like to explain why you are spear heading the push to put the Kelpie into the Canadian Kennel club, well, I mean, full registration, as opposed to miscellaneous (which it already has).

 

 

Actually, I'm not. I would certainly oppose full CKC registration, and feel pretty ambivalent about the breed's current status as a miscellaneous breed, which, as you point out, is a done deal and has been for some time.

You may be alluding to the fact that there is a club being formed, by people I know, that may at some future point apply to be recognized by the CKC as the national club for the breed. The club is called the Working Australian Kelpie Club and consists exclusively of individuals who own working Kelpies.

Yes, there are arguments for and against this. My personal, albeit reluctantly held view, at this point anyway, is that it's PROBABLY better to be the club recognized by the CKC as the sole representative of the breed, rather than leave the field open to some other group that doesn't give a rats' ass for the breed's working ability. I have by no means made up my mind yet, though. I assume from your last that you do have a contrary opinion which you are panting to impart?

Andrea

[stockdogranch]

Why on earth would you even consider breeding anything less than stellar to anything else less than stellar when there are so many classy proven working dogs?

 

That says it all. Forget percentages and hypothetical and theorizing. Just breed stellar to stellar,

A

[juliepoudrier]

Andrea,

I wonder, if the Canadian KC is anything like the AKC, would it ultimately make any difference whether the breed club cared about working ability or not? I don't have dog in this fight (no pun intended), obviously, but I can't help but thinking that if the CKC is anything like the AKC it won't matter a rat's ass what the parent club wants or believes--they will be assimilated and will do as they're told. That's how it seems to happen here anyway. It would be lovely if the CKC actually is different and allows the parent clubs to truly control the future of the breed, but is that the way it is?

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Julie

You are spot on. The CKC will not allow the parent clubs to require any sort of working ability in their conformation standards. This will only open the door for the conformation showing of Kelpies, and increase in their registration, which is the ultimate goal.

[blackacre]

Julie P.,

Yeah, I know. I worry about that too. And it may well be that I have taken the first step on that road to hell that is paved with good intentions.

Even so, my choices in the matter are curtailed by the reality that the Kelpie is already recognized as a miscellaneous breed. As you may know, the Animal Pedigree Act (Canada) will only recognize one registry for a breed. So, in order for the breed to be "saved" from the CKC, a group would have to marshall enough Canadian Kelpie owners to take over the breed registry and displace the CKC. Much like what the CBCA did many years ago.

So, in reply. First: I suggested it and didn't get the support.

Second: Even if I got the support to pull it off, would it make any difference? Sadly, as we saw recently, keeping the registry was not enough to prevent the CKC from recognizing the border collie as a miscellaneous breed anyway--which is where the Kelpie is now. So, possibly a meaningless course?

Third: the breed can stay in the miscellaneous class indefinitely, which, while I'm not enthusiastic about, I can live with. I would NOT support any move to full registration.

At least the way things are now, I feel that by forming a club with the focus being on the working dog, I and other like-minded individuals will have a say in what happens to the breed. I'm taking it a step at a time--there may well be a decision made at any time that I will be unable to support.

As I say though, I'm open to input and am by no means rock-solid in the decisions I've made until now.

A

[juliepoudrier]

Andrea,

I had forgotten about the one registry thing. In that light it does make sense for that one registry to be a working registry. I guess it's one of those "damned if you do, ..." situations, but I can understand where you and like-minded kelpie folk are coming from on this. I think your reasoning is pretty sound--it seems as if the kelpie will ultimately be recognized (as will the border collie), and maintaining some control may be better than maintaining none. You can at least give it a good fight!

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Andrea:

Hmm. I have the minutes from the meeting you were present for (held at the Scott Glenn clinic) , which state very clearly that the goal is for full recognition, and that you have offered your legal services pro-bono. I have the minutes, and updates, but, I am sure you do too.

 

 

 

 

Actually, I'm not. I would certainly oppose full CKC registration, and feel pretty ambivalent about the breed's current status as a miscellaneous breed, which, as you point out, is a done deal and has been for some time.

You may be alluding to the fact that there is a club being formed, by people I know, that may at some future point apply to be recognized by the CKC as the national club for the breed. The club is called the Working Australian Kelpie Club and consists exclusively of individuals who own working Kelpies.

Yes, there are arguments for and against this. My personal, albeit reluctantly held view, at this point anyway, is that it's PROBABLY better to be the club recognized by the CKC as the sole representative of the breed, rather than leave the field open to some other group that doesn't give a rats' ass for the breed's working ability. I have by no means made up my mind yet, though. I assume from your last that you do have a contrary opinion which you are panting to impart?

Andrea

[blackacre]

Julie

1. You're wrong.

I supported the formation of the club and the general premise that the club, once formed, should consider applying to be recognized by the CKC as the National club.

If the minutes say otherwise, they are in error.

2. Yes, I am supplying my legal services pro bono to incorporate the club.

A

[kelpiegirl]

The club that is seeking full registration of the Kelpie in the CKC. Shall I publish the minutes?

[blackacre]

I haven't seen the minutes Kelpiegirl, but then, I am only a member and wouldn't expect to. I wonder how you got them?

In any case, if you want to publish the minutes, you should probably ask the board of directors for their permission. You know who to contact?

To reiterate, alll I can say is that to my recollection, full recognition was not a topic of discussion at all, or if it was, it was made clear that there was no need for the club to apply for full recognition (ETA: of the BREED) in order to be recognized (ETA to add: as the National club). If there is a contradictory reference to that in the minutes, then I was either not in the room during the discussion and vote or the minutes are in error.

Take or leave it.

Andrea