The individual vs the entire breed (gene pool)

[Denise Wall]

I hesitate to even start this topic but someone directed me to a thread here where several people expressed their disappointment in some of the members of this list based on discussions in the "sport collie" thread. I think I know why.

 

In truth, I'm a huge softy. I love my dogs and it is extremely difficult for me to get past thinking about the individual to consider the breed as a whole. Some of the things I've been saying lately on this list come from my questions about where the breed as a whole is going. It's not comfortable to think about it or bring up sometimes. Especially when one kinda has their own ideas about how things should be done so they can sleep at night. Or the current politically correct trends. But the fact is, breed after breed has been ruined -- some by losing their still needed original purpose, and some even more sadly by health issues so severe and widespread in the breed that there is no way to recover short of desperate measures if then. I don't think anybody ever purposely intended these things to happen. For whatever reasons, not enough people had a good enough grasp of where the breed as a whole was going. In each of these ruined breeds, some had plans that sounded like they would work but didn't. Some were only thinking of their own short-term success. Some only wanted money. Some just didn't care. Some didn't know. There were lots of reasons.

 

So I ask here, what is working to keep the breed what it should be according the the mission of this board and what is not working for our breed? I don't know the answers but I think as many people as are on this board, we could get some good input. Can we get past the individual dog? I know it's hard but I think it would be a good discussion.

[Root Beer]

Can we get past the individual dog? I know it's hard but I think it would be a good discussion.

 

I think that to get past the individual dog, it might prove helpful to avoid making objective proclamations that sweep individual dogs up into specific categories.

 

In a discussion about specific traits that are observed to be lost through breeding for specific purposes, it's one thing to say that dogs bred for purposes other than working are seen to be losing particular working traits, or that there are health problems cropping up in certain circumstances, etc. It's quite another to proclaim that all dogs bred for purposes other than work aren't Border Collies. When statements like that are made, people speak up for their individual dogs for many reasons.

 

Does that make sense? I hope so.

 

Let me be clear that I am not telling anyone what to say or what not to say. I'm just giving input as one who respects the mission of the boards, but is not necessarily invested in every aspect of it.

 

You can ask people, "don't make it about your individual dog", but when proclamations are made that sweep individual dogs into an arbitrary category, people are going to speak up even if asked not to.

 

Also, it might be very good to keep in mind that sport/pet Border Collie owners are here to stay and that we are just as passionate about these dogs as those of you who do stockwork with them. There are specific traits that Border Collies have that make them important to us the unique type of dogs that they are as sport and pet dogs. We also do not want the breed to be ruined even though our purpose for the dogs in our lives is different.

 

Just some food for thought. My intention is not to offend, just to offer input as to why the individual dog remains a factor in many of these discussions.

[Laurae]

I think the border collie can still mostly be recognized as such, regardless of how s/he is bred. On these boards and with other border collie owners everywhere, people who have randomly bred border collies, purpose-for-stock-bred border collies, sport-bred border collies, and mixes thereof can recognize and bond over what has come to be known as common border collie traits. That desire to share and bond is what brings many of us here, to these boards.

 

But if the breed as we know it continues to go in the direction it is clearly headed, for whatever reason (border collies excel in sports so they are being bred specifically for this, or they've just become so popular as a result of that success or because of their recognition by the AKC that they are being overbred by people who don't share the working values of many here, etc.), we will of course begin to lose the working ability that defines the breed. Most people here understand and can agree on this, I think. It is not difficult to see this on a systems level.

 

On the one hand, it is difficult to see where exactly these lines between retaining enough of the working package and beginning to lose some of it blur. After two generations of breeding for anything other than working ability? Five? One? If one rigidly working bred border collie shares many of the same traits as another carelessly bred border collie, except on stock, does that matter to the owner of the carelessly bred dog if s/he has no interest in working stock? People who work stock and make careful breeding decisions based on that work can perhaps see how that loss of working ability affects other traits in the makeup of the dog, but these distinctions may be lost on the non-stock-working owner. So does it really matter? Is the carelessly bred dog any "less" a border collie? If the work is what defines the breed as a whole, and the ability to work is not there anymore, is that still the same border collie?

 

Some have argued that people should try not to take these distinctions personally by thinking about how to define their particular dogs. But how do you take it from that big picture down to the individual, actionable level then? I am not surprised some people feel defensive and alienated when they are told their non-working-bred dogs are now less than working border collies, or even no longer considered border collies. Such a designation does leave rescues of unknown parentage completely out of the picture. The question is how to marry the theory with the practice without alienating the many border collie owners who care for the breed but may not have strictly working bred dogs.

 

Sorry, I might be just rambling now. Can't offer any solutions, I'm afraid, just more clarification as I see it...

[Shoofly]

I think trialing and sheepdog training is one thing that works in this country to protect the breed. As much as it makes it more difficult to be able to get into a trial, i'm glad to see the numbers growing. Exposure brings "converts". Are trials perfect tests of the original purpose of the breed? Of course not. Maybe some of the hill trials overseas are, but not here. But they are a good test of many of the skills needed to do those kinds of big hill jobs. I think they fail as a test of some qualities (stamina comes to mind immediately) but hopefully breeders take into account more than a dog's weekend performance in breeding decisions.

 

On a personal level, i try to help people get into stock work as much as i can. Again, i feel exposure brings understanding and find people typically look in different places for future dogs after getting into stockwork. And i know it's not very PC, but i point people to good working breeders for dogs and puppies rather than rescues. I'm a big softie too, and love dogs on an individual basis regardless of where they come from. But, i feel good working breeders need our support, both on a conceptual and a financial level. I would like to see more well bred working pups crowding out the poorly bred BYB pups, the puppy mill pups, and others, to bring up the mean level of herding ability in the breed.I know that's probably a pipe dream and unattainable, and why i tend to go more towards protecting the ability in a subset of the breed, rather than trying to "save the breed" as a whole.

[SoloRiver]

I think that to get past the individual dog, it might prove helpful to avoid making objective proclamations that sweep individual dogs up into specific categories.

 

[...]

 

You can ask people, "don't make it about your individual dog", but when proclamations are made that sweep individual dogs into an arbitrary category, people are going to speak up even if asked not to.

 

No. Sorry.

 

(1) Pussyfooting around people who insist on having hurt feelings when there is no reason for them to have hurt feelings is not the way to have an objective and substantive discussion about an issue.

 

(2) The categories we are discussing are not arbitrary in the least and the fact that you characterize them this way to me means you have not read for content.

 

The point is to address the issue, and to have a frank discussion about it, not to hold hands and say "I'm OK, you're OK, and it's OK to talk about this as long as you don't say this, or this, or this."

 

Look, I AM a sport/pet person who happens to work my dogs on sheep when I can. If I wanted to, I could get all bent out of shape as part of this discussion, considering my heart's dog, myonce-in-a-lifetime dog, my canine soul mate, whom I love MORE than probably ten or twenty of you love your own dogs put together (yes, I feel TOTALLY confident saying that), would be called a "good example of a Border Collie" by exactly no one, including me.

 

But I am not, because I recognize that what he is worth as an INDIVIDUAL and TO ME have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.

 

Dragging in needlessly hurt feelings from another discussion is not going to help this one move along one iota.

 

As for what would be best for the breed as a whole -- I'll take a stab at it. It would be for the gene pool to be broad and deep and for every good dog out there (and by good I mean the entire package of working ability, physical soundness, and mental soundness, not that these things are entirely separable) to be bred, and for all the pups to placed in a context where their breedworthiness could be evaluated, and for all of the good ones to be bred, and so on. But obviously that is not feasible, because there aren't enough homes out there, and because the fallout due to overpopulation and its attendant effects on individual dogs would be unacceptable.

 

I am a weekend warrior who has owned exactly three Border Collies in her life -- the ones I own now -- so I am happy to amend my opinion as different points and counterpoints are made during this discussion. I think it will be an interesting one too.

[Denise Wall]

On the one hand, it is difficult to see where exactly these lines between retaining enough of the working package and beginning to lose some of it blur. After two generations of breeding for anything other than working ability? Five? One? If one rigidly working bred border collie shares many of the same traits as another carelessly bred border collie, except on stock, does that matter to the owner of the carelessly bred dog if s/he has no interest in working stock? People who work stock and make careful breeding decisions based on that work can perhaps see how that loss of working ability affects other traits in the makeup of the dog, but these distinctions may be lost on the non-stock-working owner. So does it really matter? Is the carelessly bred dog any "less" a border collie? If the work is what defines the breed as a whole, and the ability to work is not there anymore, is that still the same border collie?

 

Just as a point of interest, there was what I thought a very good argument made on the CANGEN list a couple of years ago that these dogs bred for function are only stable when the complete package is being bred for, which for our breed would be working ability. Working ability encompasses a lot of traits, including physical and temperamental traits, as well as ability to work stock. This person went on the give examples of breeds whose temperaments, health, and suitability for basically anything was severely compromised as soon as they stopped being selected for the entire functional package. A couple of the examples he used that I can think of off the top of my head are cocker spaniels and German shepards.

 

I don't really know about the sport dogs. I hear they are too this or that but I really don't know. Could this be happening in our breed? That to keep the breed stable, it needs to be bred to keep all the parts together in the right combinations, as it was originally bred?

[jdarling]

It's quite another to proclaim that all dogs bred for purposes other than work aren't Border Collies. When statements like that are made, people speak up for their individual dogs for many reasons.

 

Can we please not drag this over into this thread? I still have a headache from the last thread. Thanks.

 

Since the previous thread, I have been thinking a lot about my definition of "the breed as a whole." There are really 4 very different "types" within the breed.

 

1. Working Border Collie

2. Sport Collie

3. Show Collie

4. BYB Collie

 

To me, the "breed as a whole" is going in four different directions, and I think the sooner, the better.

 

I love my dogs and it is extremely difficult for me to get past thinking about the individual to consider the breed as a whole.

 

Denise, can you expand on this thought a bit? Are you talking about how your dog measures up to the breed as a whole? Or how your dog can contribute to the breed as a whole? Or ...?

 

Jodi

[SoloRiver]

I am nothing like a serious sports competitor, so the sample size of sport-bred dogs I have seen is probably pretty small.

 

It does seem to me that the most obvious difference, other than the number of merles, is that many seem to lack impulse control. Many also seem to be easily overstimulated. Obviously this is not something that is limited to sport dogs, but it is striking.

 

When I was practicing flyball, Fly was always the only dog at practice who could be off-lead when she wasn't running. I would tell her to lie down and she'd stay there. She was obviously HIGHLY excited by what was going on around her, but she could be counted on to keep her shit together. I have started Jett in agility, and at 10 months she has no problem with lying quietly and relaxing when she is not being asked to do anything, but is go-go-go when asked to do something.

 

That said, Solo, who was basically randomly bred, also has a wonderful ability to relax and indeed look practically asleep at agility classes and trials if nothing is being asked of him, while being 150% once he hits the start line. His pedigree is about 75% nice breeding with a bunch of unknowns, random farm or BYB dogs thrown in the mix. I doubt his breeder had any aims beyond producing red puppies and making money off of them.

 

Some of the sport bred dogs I have seen on sheep were the most likely to be dangerous of any I have seen. They were very, very keen and appeared to be operating mostly on prey drive, dirty grippers, going for the neck, that kind of thing, hard and resistant to correction. This is in contrast to the conformation bred dogs I have seen, which simply had no interest.

[Denise Wall]

I love my dogs and it is extremely difficult for me to get past thinking about the individual to consider the breed as a whole.

 

Denise, can you expand on this thought a bit? Are you talking about how your dog measures up to the breed as a whole? Or how your dog can contribute to the breed as a whole? Or ...?

 

Jodi

 

Well, to be specific, people have thought (and told me) I was stupid to have a six dog limit, and, if I insisted on it, I should be making space to breed more dogs by getting rid of older or not as useful dogs. But, I love them, so except on rare occassions I just let them live out their lives here if they're happy that way. And I wait until I have a spot for a new pup. I don't need to have "everything right now." My individual dogs themselves are the most important things to me. For the record, I have had more than six dogs on occasion but it's something I try to avoid because I feel I can't really give them the care I want to give them if I have more. They are my pets too, and live in my house. Also, as my long suffering friends can attest to, I cry and act like a total baby when I do breed a litter and have to place the pups ... agonize endlessly over the placements, etc. And I am totally consumed with them while they are here, and after. I really don't have the emotional energy to breed very much.

 

I don't feel guilt over the dogs I've bred as far as their contribution to the breed as a whole. Maybe they wouldn't be everybody's choice for best dog ever, but I consider myself lucky and fortunate in the quality of dogs I've produced. The dogs I run in trials are the dogs I happen to have. I don't go through a bunch of dogs. I can't do things that way. I'm not cut out for it. That's why I try so hard to make the right breeding decisions when I rarely breed.

 

My dogs are out there for people to see at trials and elsewhere. Or, look here for a quick snapshot:

 

http://www.stilhope.com/stilhopemain.htm

 

or here for videos:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/StilHope

 

I usually try to keep these things off a personal level but I don't have anything I don't want people to know. Does that answer your question?

[Root Beer]

No. Sorry.

 

(1) Pussyfooting around people who insist on having hurt feelings when there is no reason for them to have hurt feelings is not the way to have an objective and substantive discussion about an issue.

 

Melanie - I honestly don't know how to get you to hear what I am saying. I never suggested "pussyfooting". One can be objective and substantative and still remain courteous.

 

Putting words in my mouth like "pussyfooting" is a good example of what I'm saying, actually.

 

(2) The categories we are discussing are not arbitrary in the least and the fact that you characterize them this way to me means you have not read for content.

 

The point is to address the issue, and to have a frank discussion about it, not to hold hands and say "I'm OK, you're OK, and it's OK to talk about this as long as you don't say this, or this, or this."

 

Again, I never suggested "I'm OK, you're OK". But, again, one can address issues and have frank discussions without making sweeping conclusions that have implications for dogs that may appear on the surface to fall into those categories.

 

Look, I AM a sport/pet person who happens to work my dogs on sheep when I can. If I wanted to, I could get all bent out of shape as part of this discussion, considering my heart's dog, myonce-in-a-lifetime dog, my canine soul mate, whom I love MORE than probably ten or twenty of you love your own dogs put together (yes, I feel TOTALLY confident saying that), would be called a "good example of a Border Collie" by exactly no one, including me.

 

I really wish you could recognize that I am not getting "bent out of shape", but am instead offering an honest perspective that happens to differ from yours.

 

I think you mistake my passion for the subject for being "bent out of shape".

 

But I am not, because I recognize that what he is worth as an INDIVIDUAL and TO ME have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION.

 

Your yourself could recognize, I'm sure, that using an individual dog as an EXAMPLE can be very appropriate in making points in a discussion.

 

Dragging in needlessly hurt feelings from another discussion is not going to help this one move along one iota.

 

I wish you could see beyond feelings here. Offering a perspective different from your own, or from the norm of the board is not "hurt feelings". My feelings have not been hurt by any of you. I very strongly disagree with some of your positions and I don't hesitate to argue them because I feel it is appropriate on a discussion forum such as this, but I assure you - my feelings are not hurt.

 

And my suggestion that one take the comprehensive audience of the board into account in these discussions to avoid making it about individual dogs is not due to hurt feelings on my part.

 

My intention in responding in this thread was to give suggestions that might help keep these discussions from becoming about individual dogs. Take them or leave them. I can say with confidence, though, that simply telling people not to discuss individual dogs within these discussions isn't going to work. People are going to relate their individual dogs and experiences to the conversations when statements are made that one feels a need to refute on a personal basis.

[juliepoudrier]

Is there any way for us to move on and stick to the topic at hand--what is good for the breed as a whole? Enough already!

 

Denise,

In answer to your question, I think the only thing keeping the breed what it's supposed to be are the people who actually use the dogs for their original purpose. That doesn't mean they have to be trialers--any farmer/rancher who finds working stockdogs helpful on his/her operation will have a vested interest in keeping the dogs suitable for their original purpose. The question to me is at what point all those dogs bred for something else overwhelm the genetic base of the breed to the point where the working gene pool becomes too small to be viable.

 

J.

[PSmitty]

The question to me is at what point all those dogs bred for something else overwhelm the genetic base of the breed to the point where the working gene pool becomes too small to be viable.

 

J.

 

I really don't feel that I can contribute anything to this thread, but what Julie said is what I was thinking. It seems the majority of border collies out there aren't coming from people who are breeding to preserve the working ability, they're coming from BYBers, conformation & sport breeders. So, if the gene pool is constantly getting diluted with the dogs who aren't working bred, how does the gene pool recover? I have no idea.

 

I'll never be a breeder, so I don't know what to suggest might work or what might not. On a personal level, I don't think I'd ever be able to not rescue and instead support a working breeder by buying their pups. Even though I have thought about it, buying a dog just isn't something I ever see myself doing. *shrugs* I would love to have a well bred dog with all the right pieces to feed my "herding addiction", but I can make do with my rescue dogs.

 

(Oh, but if I were going to buy a dog, Denise, you sound like just the type of breeder I'd go to.)

 

Anyhoo, nothing helpful in here, but as much as I love border collies, I hope there is still hope left.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Breed for the dog that is useful. Be realistic as to what you yourself can be responsible for (I really appreciate Denise's verbalizing what's been rolling around in my mind for a while now). Evaluate each generation against an objective standard (not necessarily every dog).

 

I'm not a breeder but I've seen the result of both good and bad breeding here on my farm. Good breeding, and the maintenance of a useful and consistent breed, directly affects my day-to-day work.

 

I just happened to be leafing through an old mag I've got and thought I'd share this, since it strikingly addresses this very point:

 

The author of the article starts out by noting that stock people had recently been dazzled by the arrival of dogs from overseas, and longed for one of these dogs to to the chores. He points out that their own chore dogs came from the same stock, and when their ancestors first arrived in the country they had the same "inherited working ability" and "inborn instinct" to cooperate with people just like them.

 

"They were totally unaware that they [had themselves] witnessed [the] gradual demise of Old Shep's working ability, by not keeping his blood pure."

 

He then goes on to explain what he means by keeping his blood pure.

 

The trials we know today were largely standardized by the first secretary of the ISDS in 1913. He worked with the first secretary of the NASDS to encourage similar trials over here. Trials preceded studbooks and formal pedigrees in both countries.

 

"The principles that were the guiding hand developed the brainiest working dog in the world. . . .By all means do not let us be led astray by some johnny-come-lately that advocates discarding all the tried and true principles that [have] proven successful . . .

 

"The Border Collie is not a myth. He was not developed as a fad; he was a necessity."

 

- Arthur Allen

 

The magazine was printed in 1979. This was a volatile time for trialing here. It was just catching on, but the argument was arising over whether judged trials or timed trials were best. Several articles in this magazine note that breeding for anything other than the ISDS trial course will change the breed.

 

These savvy old stockmen realized quite clearly that the direction they ultimately chose would substantially change the breed. They did not argue that point at all - the question on the table was what the breed would turn to and whether that was suitable for American livestock work.

 

By the way, just as a note of curiosity - the best argument for points trials I saw in the publication was that hosts would be more willing to host points trials - fewer gripes about judging, no need to bring in skilled judges, etc. Thus, more trials would lead to increased quality of dogs overall, up to a point. He was afraid that insisting on judged trials would lead to trials being too elitist. This was Pope Robertson.

 

All material quoted or adapted from Border Collies February 1979. Editor, Jim Varnon.

[stockdogranch]

I have no answers. Just maybe a few observations. And I'm not even sure now if this response belongs on this thread or on the other one. But here it is. First, if everyone is not clear on my position: I train dogs to work stock. I breed occasionally, based on what I think and hope are sound decisions regarding working ability (temperament and soundness are part of that package to me). I do OFA and CEA on everyone before breeding. I try to place my dogs in working homes, which I define as homes that will at the very least use the dog for "hobby herding." If one of my pups does end up in a sports/pet home, I have a "non-AKC" contract (meaning, don't dual register), and, in the future, will use the N/B status for those dogs as well. Even though I am very confident in the working ability of any pups I breed, I am kind of a control freak, and don't trust others (without a fairly serious working background) to make good breeding decisions with those pups. I don't want my good pups bred to some POS, producing so-so dogs, and have that reflect back on my breeding. Anyway, I will take back (or buy back if necessary, if the dog has had some training) any pup of mine, no matter how much I really don't have room for it because I know I can put a few months' training on it and sell it to a rancher somewhere who needs a dog to work stock.

 

Ok, so my observations: This morning I had a gal and her husband bring 2 pups for evaluation ("instinct testing") on stock. The pups are almost 5 months old, one female, the other male. Littermates. They've had them a month. Both pups were fairly cute little slick-coated things. Both struck me as a bit more shy than I would like in pups that age; the female especially was pretty hang-back, with a not-go-near-the-new-person sort of attitude (and most dogs, even those with issues, usually find me pretty non-threatening). So I take the pups, one at a time, in on my 3 "school sheep." They both showed some interest in working, although the female was a bit more mature than the male (to be expected). But while they showed some interest in the stock, and kind of went round them, something was just a bit "off." These people will probably come for some lessons with these pups, and the pups will probably be trainable to some level. They want them to eventually work cattle--not sure that will happen.

 

So, what does this all have to do with this discussion? These pups are not well bred, and it shows in both their temperaments and in their work. Sure, they are still recognizable as "border collies," as they had some interest in stock, and are black and white, and so on, but several parts of the package are missing, big time. They bought these pups from someone with a slick website from TENNESSEE (red flags, anyone?), and they said they had papers, but they "only show the mother and father." No pedigree any farther back. They are IBC registered. 'Nuf said?

 

I had just been reading this thread before I went outside to meet with these folks, so it was all kind of stewing around in my brain. Where do you draw the line? At what point is a poorly-bred (as in, not bred for a high level of working ability) border collie no longer a border collie? I think I have to come down on this one fairly hard, as others have: the very minute you breed for anything other than a high level of stockworking ability. Now, these pups I'm sure have working dogs in their ancestry. And they're nice enough dogs. But these pups were not bred carefully, and to me, it was very evident in the 2 hours I spent with these folks. But, to Jane or John Q., they look like perfect little examples of border collies. To even someone with a bit of background in working BCs (like the average "weekend warrior" I see out here, who dabbles in Pro-Novice or whatever), they might even look OK. But to someone used to working with "the real thing," there is no comparison.

 

How does this affect the breed as a whole? I think as long as we have people breeding for useful stockdogs, we are doing what we can to keep the breed as it has been, as it should be. But I also agree that we're being "outnumbered" by the conformation breeders, and the sport breeders, and the BYBs, as well as the just plain crappy breeders who breed working dogs with little or no real thought behind it.

 

What to do about that? As I said, I have no real answers. I could breed lots more often, still carefully, still producing good solid working dogs, and hope to try to "meet their numbers" with "ours." But, of course, I can't do that, as that would just make me one of those people who produces way too many dogs, when are are already too many out there. I guess all I can do is to keep on truckin', breeding occasionally, and educating folks as much as possible. I did, BTW, tell the nice people this morning, in no uncertain terms, what exactly they had bought. Nicely, but I was very clear.

 

Enough rambling for now,

 

A

[Journey]

So I ask here, what is working to keep the breed what it should be according the the mission of this board and what is not working for our breed? I don't know the answers but I think as many people as are on this board, we could get some good input. Can we get past the individual dog? I know it's hard but I think it would be a good discussion.

 

Actually, I was surprised and somewhat pleased with the previous thread and what Robin said. PC or not, it's true. Not that rescues don't deserve a home but they are for the most part "unknowns". I think people get caught up in either being able to say "I have a Border Collie" or having the papers. It's the work that makes the dog.

 

The breed is split already and splitting more with every litter bred with other functions in mind, not stockwork. I think anyone who knows what they want in a working dog knows where to go to get one. However, the "entire package" or the "essence" if you will is what made them so alluring to others. Without the entire package you have the sport collies - the one we have around here are freaking NUTS. They have no impulse control, no mental control, no mind. To be fair though some of it is how they are raised. They are stupid enough to run fast and jump with complete abandon for self preservation. I don't consider that the whole package but their owners do, they win in agility. No thought process, no mind, blue ribbon - breed it. That type of dog will not generally make a stock dog.

 

IMO, part of what is working is the hard line that ABCA and owners alike have taken toward other registries and non working owners. Sure, you may loose a few great homes but you may also convert ones at the same time. I can't get my head around why someone would want a Border Collie and will not take it to sheep? I don't necessarily agree with telling people what they can and can't do once they buy a pup but NB papers are an option if one has doubts. That or no papers - which leads back to people being caught up on papers.

 

Karen

[mjk05]

Something I've noticed here is that when people come into sheepdog trialling as a sport from a background with pet dogs or sports dogs, they do get particularly hung up on their own particular dogs and aren't very objective about them. If they breed them, they don't tend to be very objective about that, either. I think potentially that could be an issue for the breed if the number of "pet people" keeps increasing, and the number of people who keep dogs because they make a living off livestock keeps decreasing.

 

The "professionals" of the sheepdog world, the people who are in it for the trialling or producing tools for work, rather than the individual dogs, often seem to turn dogs over faster, "cull" more ruthlessly, and are just harder about it. They are probably better for the breed.

 

I include myself as a"pet dog person", I have a lot of trouble moving dogs on, so I'm not having a go at anyone here, its just something I've been thinking about.

 

I think the top triallers will continue maintaining the standard, but maybe the mediocre masses will increase in size, if you know what I mean. I think Denise used a dartboard analogy a while ago, and I'm probably suggesting that the outer rings could get larger, at the expense of some of the next-to-centre rings. Maybe.

 

And I'm not qualified to comment on ISDS trials, but I think any move away from sheepdogs as all-round farm dogs as well as trial dogs could be detrimental. I've heard/read comments from the UK along the same lines. I guess while trials are a great test of a dog, they are a different test to daily work as a commercial farm or shepherd's dog. Ideally a good number of dogs will be doing both. But I don't know what can be done about that, with modern day changes in agriculture.

[laurie etc]

Is there any way for us to move on and stick to the topic at hand--what is good for the breed as a whole? Enough already!

 

Denise,

In answer to your question, I think the only thing keeping the breed what it's supposed to be are the people who actually use the dogs for their original purpose. That doesn't mean they have to be trialers--any farmer/rancher who finds working stockdogs helpful on his/her operation will have a vested interest in keeping the dogs suitable for their original purpose. The question to me is at what point all those dogs bred for something else overwhelm the genetic base of the breed to the point where the working gene pool becomes too small to be viable.

 

J.

 

 

WOW- It's a good thing I have a hurricane day to catch up on all these posts - I still haven't read every single one in all the threads, but I think I have the gist of what's been discussed.

Here's my take on how to preserve the working border collie - from a personal and overall standpoint. This opinion is based on my limited knowledge - from 8 years of owning and training ABCA registered Border Collies for: lower level USBCHA style trialing (hopefully I have an OPEN prospect coming along), general farm use, AHBA trialing; and being deeply involved in the sport of Dog Agility (teaching, competing) for over 12 years.

1) I agree with Melanie's point that ABCA Border Collie Breeders greatly need to utilize the "non-breeding" option for registration. It's easy, cheap, and can be quickly reversed. The breeder just needs to register the pups in his own name to start with, and then transfer pre-registered non-breeding pups to the buyers. And if the breeder is selling to known working homes, a litter can have some non-breeders and some breeders sent in at the same time - just by designating which is which. Then, any time the breeder wants (for instance, when/if the non-breeder pup shows acceptable working ability and has gotten any requested clearances), that pup may be turned into a card-carrying breedable Border Collie. The responsibility and decision rests with the breeder. The breeder may not be able to keep a buyer from breeding, but can keep a buyer from registering pups. I'm not positive, but I would think that AKC would only register these pups as "limited" as well, since that is what is listed on the ABCA papers that must be sent in with an Open registration request. IMO, a better option if you're selling to sports people who desire AKC registration, is to also register the pups yourself as Limited (non-breeding/non-conformation showing) or have a contract in place that requires AKC registration only after neutering. Other that Rosanne, I haven't heard of too many Agility competitors who want the responsibility and hormonal challenges of intact dogs - they are going to spay/neuter when the growth plates close anyways.

2) ABCA should become more proactive educating breeders in the "salvation of the working Border Collie" project. They should encourage non-breeding registration for other than "genetic defect puppies". They should educate breeders about how simple it is to reverse the non-breeder status for dogs that demonstrate working ability. They should make it seem "the norm" so that buyers don't think they are getting an inferior product when they buy a non-breeder puppy. Maybe they should simply add a "check box" next to each puppy's slot on the back of the form instead of requiring a separate piece of paper for each puppy. That's how AKC does limited registration - the breeder simply checks a box.

3) Stud dog owners should require bitch owners to do the same.

4) Get some figures before you blame "sport collie breeders" for the breed's slippery road downhill. I probably know (or know of) almost all of the reputable "big price tag" sport breeders in this country and some in Canada. They are FAR OUTNUMBERED by the "pet breeders", who have jumped on bandwagon to make a few bucks. Check out puppyfind.com - there were over 300 Border Collie puppies listed there today- anywhere between $200 and $800. And where did most of the pet breeders get their "breeding" dogs? Not from the high dollar sport breeders - who mostly have iron-clad spay neuter contracts, or keep other types of control over those pups for life. We have Border Collies in our agility classes who wouldn't know a sheep if it hit them in the head (mostly from byb's) - and some very talented "sports bred" agility dogs who also have proven that they could just as well be working sheepdogs if their owners were inclined that way. But, the agility bug bites worse than the herding bug, so mostly people with the top level agility dogs don't advance much in sheepdog training.

5) Personally, I wouldn't buy a pup from anyone I considered a "Sports Breeder". I want it all - the whole border collie package, with an emphasis on above average stock work and natural (not mechanical) talent. The sports breeders I know (with one exception) ARE concerned with keeping the working dog in the puppies they produce. They know that's where the talent, drive and ability from. They mostly do not intermingle Barbies into the mix. And if they do, obviously those pups can't be ABCA registered. They are concerned for the breed's health, longevity, soundness, temperament and work ethic. They maybe don't have the knowledge to adequately test their dogs on stock, but they look for pedigrees that have produced stock dogs consistently and recently, and many of them are well acquainted with people who can test their dogs, or know the working pedigrees. Maybe the "average" working breeders should take notice of this and become more concerned and educated if they want to keep their piece of the pie in the marketplace. (I probably wouldn't buy a pup from a farmer who raises pups in a dark, damp barn, doesn't socialize them, doesn't check healthy on the parents; no matter how fantastic the parents "work". )

 

 

I have more thoughts, but having a hard time typing since I snipped of the tip of one finger trimming hooves on Wednesday. Enough for now. Flame if you like.

Laurie

[PSmitty]

Where do you draw the line? At what point is a poorly-bred (as in, not bred for a high level of working ability) border collie no longer a border collie? I think I have to come down on this one fairly hard, as others have: the very minute you breed for anything other than a high level of stockworking ability. Now, these pups I'm sure have working dogs in their ancestry. And they're nice enough dogs. But these pups were not bred carefully, and to me, it was very evident in the 2 hours I spent with these folks. But, to Jane or John Q., they look like perfect little examples of border collies. To even someone with a bit of background in working BCs (like the average "weekend warrior" I see out here, who dabbles in Pro-Novice or whatever), they might even look OK. But to someone used to working with "the real thing," there is no comparison.

 

Ok, so these dogs, if they came from that TN breeder with a slick website, were obviously not bred for a high level of stockworking ability (uh, or any level, for that matter). So, they are NOT border collies? I just can't wrap my head around that. I would say they are poor examples of border collies, or poorly bred border collies, or puppymill border collies, or any number of things, but I just can't get on board that they are indeed NOT border collies.

 

 

Actually, I was surprised and somewhat pleased with the previous thread and what Robin said. PC or not, it's true. Not that rescues don't deserve a home but they are for the most part "unknowns". I think people get caught up in either being able to say "I have a Border Collie" or having the papers. It's the work that makes the dog.

 

Most rescues are of course, unknowns. Are you saying that you agree with Robin when she said she prefers people not rescue, but buy from working breeders? Why is that, so that the person has a "known" border collie? I do know plenty of people who are caught up in having papers, but those people don't rescue to begin with. As for a person with a rescued border collie getting caught up in being able to say "I have a Border Collie", I think, as RDM mentioned yesterday, that if someone has a rescue dog who sure as hell appears to be a border collie, it's kind of silly to tell them they should call it a mixed breed (or Rescue Collie or whatever). JMO, of course.

 

And before anyone accuses me of making this about *my* individual dogs, I'm not. Of my two border collieish type rescues, one is most definitely a mix and the other very well could be, too. I'm not talking about them.

 

I can't get my head around why someone would want a Border Collie and will not take it to sheep?

 

Me, too! Well, unless they physically weren't able to.

[stockdogranch]

Well, I didn't say that these 2 pups shouldn't be called Border Collies; like you, I would call them piss-poor examples of what could have been or should have been or ought to have been Border Collies. They were intended to be bred as BCs, just sloppily/greedily so. The breeders know that the average public, like the lovely couple this morning, has no idea what the difference is. I'm not even sure what my point was, other than the incident this morning seemed very connected to the ongoing discussions. As I said, I wasn't even sure which thread it belonged in. But two thoughts occur to me: 1) it's a good example of how quickly we can move away from the idea that "the work is the standard," which means that even though I might concede we can still call these two pups border collies, deep in my heart, to me, they are not what a true Border Collie is, and 2) I think for me, the distinction is when we start to intentionally breed for other things, that's when we start to have something other than a BC. So if we are breeding for speed and quick turns or whatever else is important in agility (I honestly have no clue and would have to look back at Roseanne's post), we are breeding for something other than a BC, since I think we all agree that what made the BC a BC in the first place was stockwork. As mentioned earlier, I'm not sure it actually occurs "in one fell swoop," but the first step down that road (to something other than a BC) is in breeding for other traits, the first time you do it. And as I've seen (beginning years ago with conformation-bred "border collies"), the change happens pretty darn quickly. Even "in nature" (without intentional fiddling about) we seem to think evolutionary processes occur so gradually over such long periods of time, but The Beak of the Finch (Weiner, 1994) shows that this notion just ain't so,

 

A

[juliepoudrier]

I can't get my head around why someone would want a Border Collie and will not take it to sheep?

 

Karen,

I think it's because in our largely non-agrarian society most people (JQ Public) don't even recognize the border collie's origins as a stock dog. They see them in the show ring, in agility, as frisbee dogs, etc., but they don't often see them working stock, so it's really not even within their realm of knowledge that a border collie should be able to work livestock. It's not even at the most remote edges of their radar. This is where we differ greatly from the UK, where I believe border collies are still recognized for the most part as stockdogs or sheepdogs.

 

I'll use myself as an example (and forgive me, I know I've told this story before, but it is relevant to the question). I got a border collie mix through a rescue because of a herding breed dog I had as a child. I wasn't specifically looking for a border collie or mix thereof--I was looking for a herding breed, period. I ended up with a border collie mix through an odd set of circumstances. What I decided once I had him was that I really liked his border collie characteristics (the other half is Aussie), and so when I went to get a second dog, again through rescue, I went spefically looking for a border collie. Ultimately, that dog became one of my first trials dogs, BUT I got her mainly as a companion for me and Indy and as a jogging/rollerblading partner.

 

As I said to Robin the other day, I didn't think about border collies in terms of working stock (and I was at least raised on a farm, which would imply that I would have had a better chance of knowing about stockdogs than other non-farm-raised folks). Of course agility was only a vague concept to me then as well, and I had never even heard of flyball. (So maybe I lead a very insular life....).

 

Anyway, it wasn't until I got the third rescue, privately, that anyone mentioned the idea of taking my dogs to stock. The suggestion came about because I mentioned the new dog (whose pedigree I was given by the former owner) and his breeding to the person from the rescue where I got Willow. She recognized his bloodlines as coming from a local, well-known breeder of good working dogs and suggested that I take him to someone she knew who lived a little over an hour from me and gave lessons. That's how I got my start.

 

The kicker is that this particular rescuer was/is herself involved in working dogs on stock and trialing. If I had gotten Willow from some other rescue, perhaps in a more urban area where stockwork wasn't a given, I would never have gotten that push to try my dogs on stock because the breeder's name might not have been recognized or the rescuer simply might not have had any personal connection to working dogs. And frankly, at that time in my life, I don't know if I ever would have figured it out myself.

 

So, I think the problem is that people get border collies NOT because they are the world's premier stockdog, but because they see these cool, intelligent, beautiful dogs doing all sorts of other things and they want a dog like that. If someone doesn't come along and say, "Hey, these are stockdogs, you should see what yours will do on stock," the thought will never[/] cross their minds to do so. How many people on this forum alone have we influenced to try their dogs on stock who probably never would have even considered it otherwise? And it's not that they wouldn't consider it because they think stockwork is meaningless, but simply because stockwork isn't within their realm of knowledge or experience.

 

Oh, and in response to a question someone asked in the sport thread, when someone from the public asks me what my dogs are, I almost always say "working border collies." And I don't stop and differentiate the nonworking rescues or anything like that. I find that by using that term, I can often open a dialog as to what the differences are. In general people seem very receptive of that information.

 

J.

[PSmitty]

Well, I didn't say that these 2 pups shouldn't be called Border Collies; like you, I would call them piss-poor examples of what could have been or should have been or ought to have been Border Collies. They were intended to be bred as BCs, just sloppily/greedily so.

 

<snip> which means that even though I might concede we can still call these two pups border collies, deep in my heart, to me, they are not what a true Border Collie is <snip>

 

OK, got it, Anna. And I agree.

[Shetlander]

The breed is split already and splitting more with every litter bred with other functions in mind, not stockwork. I think anyone who knows what they want in a working dog knows where to go to get one. However, the "entire package" or the "essence" if you will is what made them so alluring to others. Without the entire package you have the sport collies - the one we have around here are freaking NUTS. They have no impulse control, no mental control, no mind. To be fair though some of it is how they are raised. They are stupid enough to run fast and jump with complete abandon for self preservation.

 

I agree that sports bred Border Collies generally seem to be a different package for working ability than truly working bred Border Collies. We live in different areas of the country, but I don't look at majority of the sports bred dogs I know and think stupid in any particular way at all, though. Then again, I'm only on the periphery of dog sports right now so I could be missing an influx of stupidity .

 

I can't get my head around why someone would want a Border Collie and will not take it to sheep?

 

Because they simply don't want to take it to sheep or it isn't a reasonable activity for them to pursue, but they love having an intelligent, athletic, fun, willing to do what you ask dog as a companion. Border Collies came to the notice of sports people originally because they excelled in sports due to that whole "package" of the working bred dog. Isn't that why sports people are urged on these boards to go to working breeders if they insist on a pup? Or to quote the Read This First thread:

 

"Border collie owners who don't use their dogs to work livestock are not second-class citizens. Because border collies have been bred for a very demanding job, they have the physical, mental and emotional traits to be good at almost anything a dog can do. They generally don't make good pets for people who have little interest in a dog and little time to spend with it. But for people who are prepared to devote a lot of time and attention to their dog(s), border collies can be excellent companions, and excellent partners for a variety of activities, both formal and informal. If you love your border collie, and give him/her a good home, you are doing right by your dog. Just leave the breeding to those who do train and work their dogs on livestock, and who have the knowledge to breed to the working standard."

[Kyrasmom]

I can't get my head around why someone would want a Border Collie and will not take it to sheep? I don't necessarily agree with telling people what they can and can't do once they buy a pup but NB papers are an option if one has doubts. That or no papers - which leads back to people being caught up on papers.

 

Karen

 

Hopefully there are many people who want a Working Border Collie and don't necessarily care about taking it to sheep as it would appear from current threads that pet homes are desperately needed/wanted for working litters as well. Or isn't that the gist of what's been argued about/discussed previously. Truly, it gets very confusing here, on the one hand sheep are required to "want" border collies and on the other pet homes are required so working dog breeders can put puppies on the ground. So which is it?

 

Maria

[Eileen Stein]

Maybe different people have different opinions? Then too, you're not exactly representing what was said accurately. I don't recall the word "desperately" being used, for example. Or even the word "required." And nobody said sheep are required to "want" border collies; someone expressed the opinion that she couldn't understand why people would want a border collie if they weren't interested in the outstanding characteristic of border collies, the thing that mainly makes them unique among dogs. But for various reasons good and bad, people do.

[Kyrasmom]

Eileen,

The term "desperately" is said with the same tongue in cheek that other "opinions" have been expressed. What is very evident is that even among people who work/breed what many appear to consider the "real border collie" there are differing "opinions" which make it very easy for people to misunderstand and end up arguing or feeling disillusioned or hurt or whatever. For the record I feel none of those things, I just find it very "amusing" that on the one hand pet homes are seemingly needed and yet someone can infer that without putting them on sheep, why want them. And as the thread did not say anything about desperately, I don't recall reading "the outstanding characteritic of border collies". I'm sure that how they work livestock is the thing that makes them unique but it is also one reason they make good pets and the reason that many want them regardless of the availabality of sheep. They are biddable. They are intuitive. They are intelligent. They are driven but aren't on speed.

 

You can't try to endorse the breeding of well bred working dogs from hopefully ethical breeders and then turn around and infer that to want them any person should want them on sheep as well. That would bring us back to square one where only working dogs can go to only working homes and what about the excess?

 

I'm all for differing opinions but some are whiplash causing. That is also tongue and cheek.

Maria