Sport Collies

[Lenajo]

Rosanne I want to believe you, I really do, but websites like yours don't indicate a breeder of only a litter "FOR MYSELF". Or does the stud service you offer below only in jest?

 

To quote from your website link

 

Drifter is available at stud to select, approved bitches. His mother and brother are OFA Excellent. His father and most half-siblings are OFA Good. As well, Drifter and his littermates all tested BAER normal at 8 weeks. He has very high toy and play drive but is very well-behaved in the house. Even temperament with other dogs, and very friendly with people. Loves kids but can be a little too boisterous for the smallest ones.

 

Drifter has sired one litter to date, with Rival's Playing with Fire "Singe". Those pups can be seen on this website. Drifter brings a lot of drive to a breeding, but also a good deal of brains. Structurally he is well-balanced, being a very powerful running and jumping dog. He is a tad short and low in the neck, and perhaps a smidge straight in the front, however his free trot is a thing of beauty with good extension front and rear, and he is a very sound dog in general.

 

You also state clearly on your website that

I was not planning to keep a puppy, but just couldn't say no to such a nice little boy.

 

So in truth you were not breeding for yourself at all after all.

 

If you must do what you will, don't lie about it. Especially if you keep a public website.

[Shetlander]

ETA: the stickiness can certainly be a training issue. Probably mostly. But some dogs just seem more prone to it than others. My dogs don't stick. They run.

 

I've never done agility at the highest levels, but the sticky contact dogs I've seen usually strike me as products of their training. I've seen creepers in many breeds and whenever I've known the handler's training method, I found it confusing (unclear, shifting criteria) or not fully thought out (e.g., not enough emphasis on driving to position).

[Root Beer]

If it is true that sports breeders are selecting for, and getting, a consistent phenotype, then they should probably call them something else.

 

This makes no sense to me.

 

If you breed two Labs you get a Lab. Even if the two parents are actually retrievers and the pup becomes a seeing eye dog, the offspring of a Lab is a Lab.

 

Breed two poodles and you get a poodle.

 

Breed two Border Collies and you get a Border Collie.

 

I get the whole thing about traits that make the dog an appropriate working dog can be weakened or disappear altogether, but you still aren't going to get a completely different breed of dog by breeding two dogs of the same breed together. I can certainly see clear "types" within the breed, but if two Border Collies are bred the offspring cannot be something completely different.

 

Even if this were to actually happen, where would the division be? There are so many different parentage scenarios that it would be almost impossible to determine which is a a Border Collie by your definition and what is part of the split off breed.

 

And how about rescue? How would dogs of unknown parentage be classified for adoption? Would a dog of unknown parentage be considered part of the split off by default?

 

I understand why many here would like to see an official split, but I highly doubt the owners of sport bred Border Collies are going to start calling their dogs by another breed name. I certainly am not going to do so. My dogs are not "Sport Collies" or anything else (except the two mutts, of course, but I don't mean them). They are Border Collies just like their parents were and that is simply what they are.

[Lenajo]

If you breed two Labs you get a Lab. Even if the two parents are actually retrievers and the pup becomes a seeing eye dog, the offspring of a Lab is a Lab.

 

This is actually a good discussion point. ACK types have trained us to believe that the offspring of a pure ABC dog, is as good as the parents - another ABC dog. Consistancy, type, purity etc. It's a great marketing ploy that's worked super well with Joe Public

 

This opened the door for some great advertising that has sold many a "hunting" Lab that was only that by name. That got done enought that now its accepted by people only that Lab means "dog, of black, chocholate, or yellow" and have to preface the breeding type in front "hunting" Lab, "pet" Lab, "show" Lab to define them further.

 

By AKC standards they are all still "Labs" but are they really? How many hunters got burned when this started and will never go back to a Lab? how many show people would be happy if they got a hunting Lab? If I go buy an "ACK Registered Lab" what does that guarnatee me besides a piece of paper?

 

If you change the Border Collie genepool so severely (the show Collie has done it) that research like Melanie's can show they are now actually a different *breed* should they have the same name as the original one? Should they both be Border Collie? When you get down to it..they aren't. Who's got copyright protection here?

 

For the purpose of identifying Rescue dogs you do the best you can. I don't see anything wrong with identifying a dog as Border Collie by physical type and temperament there - after all they are prefixed by the word "Rescue" which explains the reality of that situation.

 

Seeing eye dogs are another type - but really you never hear the Guide dog Breeders prefixing their breeds with that. In fact, the major organization down here has greater success with purpose bred cross breds like Goladors (Golden Lab). For the sake of arguement about the "name" thing lets leave them out of this discussion for now, because if they can breed their own breeds, more power to them to help people with real needs. Blindness is not a "sport".

[Root Beer]

If you change the Border Collie genepool so severely (the show Collie has done it) that research like Melanie's can show they are now actually a different *breed* should they have the same name as the original one? Should they both be Border Collie? When you get down to it..they aren't. Who's got copyright protection here?

 

Where do you draw the line, though? Is it with intention to breed for a purpose other than stockwork? Or is it one generation away? Or two? How many? Then what happens when you bring a working dog back into the line - at what point would the offspring morph into the separate "type"?

 

I seriously don't see how this could be done in a practical way. Most people aren't going to have genetic testing done on their dogs to determine whether or not the dog has the genetic pool of the "Border Collie" or the "split off type". Most people are going to identify their dogs based on physical type, temperament, and breed characteristics. And, of course, by the breed of the parents. It may be one's opinion that a given dog has actually crossed into the category of the split, but without a test, one really doesn't know.

 

The differences between working, sport, and/or conformation Border Collie as they separate into distinct types (which is very obviously happening) is very, very interesting. But where one would draw a line to indicate an actual split into a different breed isn't really clear.

 

An actual official split would require sport breeders who are willing to call their newly bred Border Collies by another name and sell them as such. I honestly don't see it happening.

 

And owners of sport bred Border Collies aren't going to start calling their dogs something else and act like they aren't actually Border Collies just because some people think they should.

 

Tone of Post: Conversational.

[Rosanne]

Honestly I should probably remove that from my site, but would I breed him to a bitch that I personally approved of owned by a person with what I considered ethical breeding practices and a healthy pedigree? Possibly.

 

Wendy, I really don't care that much what you think. My MOTHER owns the bitch, so no, I didn't originally plan to keep a puppy, but I wasn't going to get paid anyway since she paid for much of my expenses out at USDAA Nationals last year and my Steeplechase winnings didn't cover it.

 

I am not breeding to your standards, but I am breeding to standards. I don't breed much at all, once so far and probably no more than a few times in the next 10-20 years. None of the pups would be marketed as "working" pups and thus would not be even seen by working people, let alone bred to. If you didn't want to hear the answers to the topic's questions, then why read the topic? Someone asked what the justification behind sports breedings was, and I answered as I see it. Most people on here believe there is no justification at all, and I know that some were actually curious, so I answered, since no one else on this board competes or is interested in agility to the level that I am.

This topic is not supposed to be about whether I personally "lied" about something. If you feel deceived that's too bad. But I am what I am, and that is a very opinionated person who doesn't form those opinions willy-nilly, and thus will not be swayed by name-calling.

[Lenajo]

Actually Rosanne I was addressing what you posted. You answered the question of the original poster, but you also openly lied about breeding just for yourself. If you lie about that how can we possibly believe what you say you are breeding for in the rest of the post? You are advertising agility dog stud service for gosh sakes! How exactly is that breeding for yourself?

 

And you are a grown women, leave your Mother out of it. If you say you are breeding for youself then posted publically "I never planned to keep a puppy" the whole thing is a complete 180. Make up your mind.

 

I've appreciated the online help in Agility you've given me in the past. I also immensely enjoyed and appreciated your posts that supported the fact that "working bred dogs make the best agility dogs". Even if you didn't support Rescue for top agility dogs, you were fair and respectful to those that did succeed at all levels.

 

Your website was an eye opener and a sad one. Tto say it didn't fit with the tone and topics of your previous posts would be quite the understatement. I may be a nobody, but at least I'm consistant.

[jdarling]

Roseanne, thank you for posting your response to all of this.

 

I see you talk, first and foremost, about OFA testing. With that as a concern, do you ever buy "started" agility dogs whose hips have already been tested?

 

Do you only buy from people who health test and will sell you pups with no S/N contract? Or is it a given that those are only people who breed "proven agility dogs" ... if there is such a thing?

[SoloRiver]

This makes no sense to me.

 

I don't see why not. I've also said exactly what I'm about to say about a million times already on the Boards, but I'll say it again.

 

The word "breed" implies common ancestry, but it also implies consistent phenotype. The entire point of dog breeds is that they exhibit "type," or a set of traits considered to be desirable and characteristic of that breed. If one buys a Chihuahua puppy, for example, one expects that the animal will remain small as an adult. Someone who looks for a Chihuahua as a pet likely wants a dog that will remain small. It may go oversize, sure, but the expectation that it will remain small is eminently reasonable and good Chihuahua breeders produce dogs that are consistent in size.

 

Most dog fanciers define "type" in terms of "appearance," but Border Collie people define it in terms of behavior. The entire point of this breed is that it works livestock. The set of traits that are considered desirable and characteristic of this breed all exist in the context of working livestock. There are plenty of breeds out there that are generically athletic, focused, and drivey, but they are not Border Collies. Border Collies exist because they were and are selected to be working dogs.

 

When you stop selecting for working ability and start selecting for something else ("sportsability?") you are actively selecting for a different dog. In not very many generations, your dogs will not consistently demonstrate the traits considered desirable and characteristic of Border Collies. Some of them might, but most of them probably won't. You will not know this unless you train them on stock (which is why so many conformation breeders remain under the delusion that their dogs somehow retain useful working ability when they do not). Over generations fewer and fewer of them will exhibit Border Collie characteristics. Outwardly they may look like the average Border Collie (whatever that looks like), but at best they will be poor examples of Border Collies, because they will lack the essence of what Border Collies should be.

 

At some point, if they become consistent in this other phenotype that sports breeders insist they are selecting for (something they consider different and better than their foundation stock) then they will be qualitatively different dogs. Many sports breeders seem to think they already produce this different better dog, and their customers seem to think so too, otherwise they would not be paying $1200 per puppy unless they just like spending money. I think those dogs should be called Sport Collies.

 

I guess if sports breeders keep adding back working dogs, then they will be producing either hybrids, or just bad examples of Border Collies. And before anyone starts freaking out about "bad examples," keep in mind that my heart's dog is not what anyone would call an ideal Border Collie, so let's not take things personally that don't need to be taken personally.

 

Most people would agree that someone selecting for giant Chihuahuas was missing the entire point of Chihuahuas. The Border Collie is a stockdog. When you don't select for that, you are missing the entire point of Border Collies. When you select for something different, you end up with a different dog. I don't care what the sports breeders want to call their dogs; the fact remains that if they are not breeding for working ability, they will not get it, and if they are breeding for something else, they are creating a different dog altogether.

[Root Beer]

I don't see why not. I've also said exactly what I'm about to say about a million times already on the Boards, but I'll say it again.

 

The word "breed" implies common ancestry, but it also implies consistent phenotype.

 

I don't think those two can be neatly separated. If two Chihuahua's happen to produce a remarkably oversized Chihuahua, nobody is going to classify that dog as something entirely different. The phenotype might be distinct, but the ancestry can't be disregarded altogether. If a Chihuahua purist came along and proclaimed that the large dog was not actually a Chihuahua and was in fact something different, that would not change the fact that the dog is, in fact the offspring of two Chihuahua's and is therefore, actually a Chihuahua.

 

Most dog fanciers define "type" in terms of "appearance," but Border Collie people define it in terms of behavior. The entire point of this breed is that it works livestock. The set of traits that are considered desirable and characteristic of this breed all exist in the context of working livestock. There are plenty of breeds out there that are generically athletic, focused, and drivey, but they are not Border Collies. Border Collies exist because they were and are selected to be working dogs.

 

So, would you say that a Border Collie that had been bred from working parents which were carefully selected by a top level stockdog trainer happens to end up with very little working ability (just like many of the sport bred Border Collies), that this particular dog is not a Border Collie, either?

 

If not, why not? If the definition of a Border Collie is what you define above, then any Border Collie born even of top level stockdog parents that did not display the desirable and characteristic working livestock traits would be something else.

 

Let me be clear - I'm not trying to be snide here. I'm trying to understand this apparent contradiction. It can't be both ways. Either a dog born of two Border Collies that has little working ability is a Border Collie, or it is not, regardless of the intentions of the breeder.

 

At some point, if they become consistent in this other phenotype that sports breeders insist they are selecting for (something they consider different and better than their foundation stock) then they will be qualitatively different dogs. Many sports breeders seem to think they already produce this different better dog, and their customers seem to think so too, otherwise they would not be paying $1200 per puppy unless they just like spending money. I think those dogs should be called Sport Collies.

 

I guess if sports breeders keep adding back working dogs, then they will be producing either hybrids, or just bad examples of Border Collies. And before anyone starts freaking out about "bad examples," keep in mind that my heart's dog is not what anyone would call an ideal Border Collie, so let's not take things personally that don't need to be taken personally.

 

I hope you don't think I took anything personally - I certainly didn't. My tone is totally conversational here, whatever it might seem over the internet! I've never heard you refer to your own dog as Sport Collie, but if you classify him as such, I certainly have no objection. I guess if some sport folks want to do that, it's their choice.

 

What I would object to is a random classification of any specific dog (or litter) based simply on the intent of the breeding. That is messy, at best, and could be completely inaccurate. Unless the genetic testing were done on an individual dog (or litter), or if the dog were trained on stock by a competent trainer and found to be lacking working ability through a true test, one really doesn't know which "category" a given dog would fall into.

 

Until sport breeders start calling the dogs by another name, I respectfully disagree with you about what the dogs should be "officially" called. Just to use an example, if you were to refer to my one of dogs as a "Sport Collie", I would ask you to please refer to my dog by his proper breed, which is Border Collie. Again, I'm not taking this personally, just using myself as an example since I'm the only person I can really speak for.

 

Tone of Post: Conversational

[SoloRiver]

Hi Kristine, I don't think you are deliberately trying to be obtuse, but I am getting frustrated. Please go back and read my post again. It really is not that complicated.

 

Just because something is not bred for work does not automatically make it a Sport Collie (I am not sure how you got from here to there, but anyway). Solo is not a Sport Collie. He is a carelessly-bred Border Collie. His breeder started with fairly decently bred dogs but wasn't selecting for working ability. Solo does work, and he is quite good at some things but also has major holes, both from the perspective of someone who would need a practical working dog, and someone who is interested in competing in trials. He is physically unsound, and has temperament issues. This has nothing to do with his worth as an individual, or to me. But he is not a good example of a Border Collie, and he certainly isn't a dog who should be bred.

 

Breeding well is about bettering your odds of getting what you want. If you breed two stellar individuals of a given breed, you will probably get some range of variation in the offspring in terms of quality. Some of them may even be poor examples of the breed, for example, the pup from two working parents who won't look at sheep, or who will but utterly lacks talent, or what have you. The more carefully you breed, the less likely you are to get bad examples, but it can still happen. So you'd end up with Border Collies, but they would not be good examples of the breed, and they would not be breedworthy.

 

If you are either ignoring type when you choose individuals for breeding, or purposely selecting for something different, then you are probably going to get mostly bad examples of the breed you started with in the pups, although you may get some decent ones too as flukes. This is why sometimes dogs from sport litters don't totally suck on sheep.

 

If you are purposely selecting for something different, and you are getting it, eventually you are not going to have bad examples of the breed you started with, you are going to have good, consistent examples of whatever you have turned them into. This is what has happened with Australasian type Barbie Collies. I personally have no problem with considering those dogs an entirely different breed. The results of the analyses I have worked on, which are very preliminary (i.e., we need a lot more data to confirm them, a lot more dogs, a lot more analyses) suggest genetic differentiation, but they are almost secondary, really. The phenotypic differences are so stark and consistent that I personally believe, by any practical standard, that Border Collies and Barbie Collies should really be considered totally different dogs.

 

The same thing will happen with the sport dogs if sport breeders are as focused and rigorous about selecting breeding animals as they say they are. The resulting Sport Collies might LOOK more like working Border Collies (whatever they look like) because they probably won't be big and poofy with stuffed animal faces, but since we all know that what a Border Collie is has nothing to do with what it looks like, that won't matter. They'd be different dogs between the ears, in terms of the phenotype that DOES matter. I'm a systematist; I think taxonomies should be descriptive, useful, and that they should reflect biology. The dogs won't be Border Collies anymore, they'll be Sport Collies, and if the sport breeders truly believe they are producing something different and better they should not be offended by that name. If they have no interest in preserving the working heritage of Border Collies, logically, why should anyone be attached to that name?

 

And if they aren't being as focused and rigorous as they say they are, well, then they're just breeding poor quality Border Collies in fancy spotty colors.

[herdcentral]

I get the whole thing about traits that make the dog an appropriate working dog can be weakened or disappear altogether, but you still aren't going to get a completely different breed of dog by breeding two dogs of the same breed together. I can certainly see clear "types" within the breed, but if two Border Collies are bred the offspring cannot be something completely different.

 

I find this quite interesting so from the point of view of an person that is not involved in working stock but has a long association with herding breed dogs:.

 

Long long ago I had an association with working bred ACDS while mustering cattle in outback Australia. I liked what I saw and when it came time to choose a breed to suit my lifestyle and work which involved weeks of travelling and camping out in tough, isolated conditions often on my own this is the breed I chose. Now apart from my first working ACD the rest were from ANKC conformation lines.

 

I had no idea of their working ability apart from a built in heeling instinct, but they were all true to what I expected. Tough in the harshest conditions, athletic, easy care with uncompromising loyalty, intelligence and protective instincts. Nowadays they also make handy agility and obedience partners and continue to share ACD characteristics with the working dogs I knew.

 

My BC came to me by accident. She is an Australasian barbie border but is long, lean, fast, athletic and angular in body type and is not big and poofy. Again no idea of her herding ability on stock but she is super smart and loves to run and hike and will go all day, but is also very mellow and a pleasure to own. I lend her to my sister to take on her long training runs as her own dogs ( whippets) are fed up after the first couple of kilometres. Although one sight of a kangaroo or rabbit and these suburban whippets, running totally on instinct as a sight hound, would be over the hills and far away which has actually happened.

 

She is what I would expect from a BC and has many similar features to a farm bred BC from working parents owned by a friend who I train with, except this farm bred dog is quite an aggressive flighty dog.

 

I also do agility and there are a range of working, barbie and unpapered BCs competing. The main determining factor of success seems to me to to be the skill of the handler and most of the BCs seem to be black and white or tri. I certainly dont see many candy colours competing.

 

I understand this is very important to the working breed to maintain the working ability as a defining feature of the BC and do agree, but I struggle with the concept that a loss of working ability results in the loss of other features of these breeds. It seems to be a bit of a conundrum and is not altogether black and white to form new breeds.

 

For those of us that dont live on the land the joy and strong partnership one can achieve with a dog doing agility and other dog sports is great. My older ACD really started to thrive when I took up agility with her and we both get great fun from training. If we win occasionally it is an achievement that we did together and I value that, even if it is only a local show.

 

Caroline

[stockdogranch]

Great post, Melanie. I think your explanation is very clear.

 

I understand this is very important to the working breed to maintain the working ability as a defining feature of the BC and do agree, but I struggle with the concept that a loss of working ability results in the loss of other features of these breeds.

[emphasis mine]

 

The problem with this statement is that the cluster of traits that comprise "working ability" is extremely complex. For example, take biddability. I would think most folks, including sports people, would consider biddability a trait that that is part of the "temperament" package. i.e., easy to get along with, willing to work with a partner, etc. But how can you say this is not part of the working ability package? This is just one example, but I think it's really an important one as far as working ability goes, and one that is rather unique to the working-bred BC. I've worked with virtually every other "herding breed" over the years, and while some individuals may have varying degrees of it, as a breed, I really haven't seen it consistently (or as consistently as we do in the working-bred BC) in any other breed. So, without the ability to totally separate out the genes that make up "working ability," we really can't say that the loss of working ability results in a loss of other traits. And, once again, this is why it is so important to only breed those we want to call Border Collies for their exceptional stock working ability. Melanie is right--once you start breeding for other clusters of traits, you are making a different breed of dog.

 

A

[Root Beer]

Melanie is right--once you start breeding for other clusters of traits, you are making a different breed of dog.

 

A

 

I'm still not clear, though, on where the line is drawn.

 

Say a working breeder had two dogs with exceptional stock working ability and he decides to start selling "left over" working bred puppies to sport homes. In that case, it's clear (I think) that the pups are not a different breed of dog.

 

But suppose the same breeder happened to sell those exact dogs to a sports breeder (suppose there was some compelling reason for the stockdog breeder to do so). Say the sports breeder chooses to breed them to try to produce sport dogs. These are the exact same puppies as the example above. How could those same dogs would be considered a different breed simply because the intent of the breeder is not to produce working dogs?

 

I totally understand how the qualities of the dog can change through breeding over time, but in the example above, the exact same puppies would simply not be two separate breeds. They are the same. So, where does one draw the line?

 

That's what doesn't make sense to me.

[juliepoudrier]

Caroline,

I think the point Melanie is making is that when you take a breed and then start selecting for only certain characteristics in that breed you are, in effect, creating a new breed. Yes, there will likely be a continuum from one type to the next, and they will certainly share some characteristics, but over time they will become more and more genetically separate. I don't know the exact breeds the silken windhound was developed from, for example, and don't have time to go look, but at some point early on in the development of the breed I'm sure they shared a lot of characteristics with their foundation breeds. They probably still share a lot of characteristics with their foundation breeds, and with sighthounds in general. But they are no longer the exact same thing as the breeds from which they were created.

 

In the case of working dogs like border collies or ACDs, the nonworking types may actually retain a lot of characteristics in common with their working-bred counterparts, but the one defining characterstic--the ability to work stock to a high degree of effectiveness--will likely be lost or changed greatly. I've seen it in AKC border collies and in AKC ACDs. Does it mean that some of these nonworking bred dogs won't be able to work at all? No. There may even be one or a few stellar workers among the nonworking population as a whole. But will you be able to breed two of those nonworking dogs and have good odds of creating a working dog? No. The usual counterpoint to that is that not all working breedings produce whole litters that are stellar workers. But in general, a litter produced by two working-bred dogs will have greater odds of producing working puppies than a litter from two nonworking-bred dogs. And when the change has gone that far, then the two types are, for all practical purposes, different breeds.

 

J.

[Shoofly]

I'm still not clear, though, on where the line is drawn.

 

The line is drawn when you remove a dog from the gene pool because it's not a good enough working dog to be bred.

 

Say a working breeder had two dogs with exceptional stock working ability and he decides to start selling "left over" working bred puppies to sport homes. In that case, it's clear (I think) that the pups are not a different breed of dog.

 

Right. As long as those left over puppies are working dogs, worthy of being bred by a working standard.

 

But suppose the same breeder happened to sell those exact dogs to a sports breeder (suppose there was some compelling reason for the stockdog breeder to do so). Say the sports breeder chooses to breed them to try to produce sport dogs. These are the exact same puppies as the example above. How could those same dogs would be considered a different breed simply because the intent of the breeder is not to produce working dogs?

 

The fact that a dog has been bred doesn't change ITS OWN working ability, now does it? If the chosen mate is a working dog and the next generation of puppies are working dogs, they're all by definition BCs (working dog=the standard). Breed to a non-working dog and produce non-working puppies, and the puppies aren't BCs by the working standard. It's not about intent, it's about ability.

 

I totally understand how the qualities of the dog can change through breeding over time, but in the example above, the exact same puppies would simply not be two separate breeds. They are the same. So, where does one draw the line?

 

The line is drawn based on what the dog can do and how it does it, not the piece of paper that has its name on it. Win the USBCHA National Finals with a poodle and we'll start seeing curly coated mutts going for a Register on Merit with the ABCA. And that's how it should be. THE WORK IS THE STANDARD. That's how this breed came to be, by shepherds breeding based on improving the abilities of the offspring, and that's what it should still be. The reason Wiston Cap had the crap bred out of him is because he was such a spectacular working dog that brought vast improvements to the ability of the breed to work sheep.

 

Hmm, i think i see a new tagline in the making for my profile.

 

ETA: BTW, the possibility of adding in an unregistered dog to the BC gene pool (say, the poodle above ) is a very real possibility with ABCA working bred dogs. If the dog can do the work, to a very high level that will improve the breed, it's possible to be Registered on Merit. Do you think that would ever happen with conformation or sport collies? If you could add whippet to speed up a Sport Collie, would the AKC let you? No, because it's all about the paper and the parents. Not so when you have a PERFORMANCE (working) registry as ABCA. We don't give dogs registrations (ILP or otherwise) based on how they LOOK.

[MaryP]

So, what about a typical backyard-bred border collie? What are they to be called? I believe that my dog is likely a byb dog. I have no idea, though, since he was a rescue and they didn't have his papers. I don't think he was sport bred, even though he does sports, because he doesn't really fit the descprition that Rosanne gave of what a sport bred bc is supposed to be like. My dog is very tall and has the problem with creeping on contact obstacles (though I believe that is my training issue and not his genetics, IMO). My dog has been on sheep, but didn't show much promise. So, what do I have? My dog shows what I believe to be very typical border collie behavior in every other way, but he will never be a working dog. He'll likely never be a top agility dog either, which is OK with me since we do it for fun. What do I call him?

 

Note: My tone is also meant to be conversational. I'm also not sure where you would draw the line.

 

Just in case there was any confusion about the dog I am referring to, it's this guy, Charlie. My other two are most assuredly mixes.

 

[Shoofly]

I actually don't care if they're called border collies, right up until you start talking about breeding them. If you breed dogs based on anything other than working ability, you're not breeding border collie puppies, you're just breeding dogs.

 

There's a reason why, when someone comes on this board and sticks a picture up of a dog of unknown parentage and asks "is my dog a border collie?", we answer with - take it to sheep and see.

[MaryP]

I actually don't care if they're called border collies, right up until you start talking about breeding them. If you breed dogs based on anything other than working ability, you're not breeding border collie puppies, you're just breeding dogs.

 

I don't think anyone is arguing that point here. I think this is something that most of the board members here would agree on.

 

There's a reason why, when someone comes on this board and sticks a picture up of a dog of unknown parentage and asks "is my dog a border collie?", we answer with - take it to sheep and see.

 

But, then you are sort of contradicting yourself above. It's OK to call a dog that looks like a border collie and acts like a border collie a border collie as long as you don't breed him. But, if he does not work stock, he's not a border collie, and presumably you are not supposed to refer to him as a border collie.

 

How about just adding a qualifier to the breed name? You could call border collies that have proven themselves on stock, border collie stock dogs and call border collies that haven't proven themselves on stock, border collie dogs.

[PSmitty]

I'm not trying to be obtuse, either, but I don't get the whole "they're not border collies, so call 'em something different" deal. I agree that they may be poorly bred border collies, they may be non-working border collies, but they are still border collies.

 

So, say I have two rescue dogs of unknown parentage, and one of them works and one of them doesn't. I'm "allowed" to call the one a border collie and the other is a what?

 

And maybe I missed this part, and I'm not trying to be confrontational, but again to the question of drawing the line...how well do they have to 'work' before you decide they're a border collie or not? If a dog works, but can't make it in Open, are they still a border collie?

[Shoofly]

Maybe it would be easier if you exchange the word "Border" for "Working Border".

[Shoofly]

How about just adding a qualifier to the breed name? You could call border collies that have proven themselves on stock, border collie stock dogs and call border collies that haven't proven themselves on stock, border collie dogs.

 

I don't really care what you call them. I know a border collie when i see him on sheep. If i see one on the sidewalk, it could just as easily be an aussie with a tail. Call it Border Collie-like.

 

For me, it's not about papers, or parentage, or color, or coat, or looks, or owners. The work is the standard.

[MrSnappy]

I think it might be an easier concept to grasp if some folks stop focusing on semantics and one-by-one case scenarios. What the working folk are advocating for is the preservation of the (working) breed as a whole and how, as a whole, the breed will change if you start breeding for new criteria. When you take a subset of the working breed and breed for something other than ability, you are in effect changing th(at subset of the) breed. This has little to do with individual dogs. Big picture.

 

RDM

[Shoofly]

So, say I have two rescue dogs of unknown parentage, and one of them works and one of them doesn't. I'm "allowed" to call the one a border collie and the other is a what?

 

Mixed breed.

 

And maybe I missed this part, and I'm not trying to be confrontational, but again to the question of drawing the line...how well do they have to 'work' before you decide they're a border collie or not? If a dog works, but can't make it in Open, are they still a border collie?

 

You're trying to quantify something that isn't easily quantified. The WORK is the standard. If you have the work and the dog does it, and you're breeding to get the WORK done, then the WORK is the STANDARD by which you measure your dog. The work is stock work, be that cows, sheep, pigs, whatever. You're breeding to produce a useful dog that can do your work. Not one that LOOKS LIKE the dog down the road that actually does the work, so therefore must be the same breed.

[PSmitty]

RDM, I get that, and I think Mary and Kristine do, too. I get that the work is the standard and that alone should dictate breeding. I'm just curious about the whole "it's not a border collie, it's a different breed" argument when it comes to dogs who aren't working bred.

 

ETA: However, I can see that I'm probably better off just dropping it.