Sue R Posted November 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Seems to me many folks are still in line with a picture to say that "form follows function" though that has been debunked...I had no clue so many agreed with AKC and a "standard" for the border collie. There's many "types" and to each there own "preference". Am I reading this backwards? I thought that "form follows function" is valid - that the physical attributes will develop over generations with regards to what the work demands. In other words, selection for those "types" that function well will result in a breed that has thus-and-such characteristics. That is opposite to "function follows form" which means that if you breed something to look a certain way, it will be able to perform a certain way. Or am I just getting it backwards? I am feeling quite confused right now! I am also wondering if you are saying that many here are agreeing with AKC and with a "standard" for the Border Collie, because (generally) I believe I'm seeing the opposite. As I said, I'm feeling confused. Must be the switch to Standard Time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Long neck, shortish back, tall legs Seems to move okay here Crouching Tiger.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Where's the hidden dragon? Seriously, Lucy is beautiful and, yes, she seems to have straight shoulders but they contribute to that pretty Kelpie stride and don't seem to hold her back from a good crouching stalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandi Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 As for Brandi's assertion that cowhocks always leading to a higher degree of arthritis and lameness than the same amount of work in any straight-legged dog, I'd have to say prove it beyond just that blanket assertion, or else it is just an unsubstantiated opinion. Perhaps the cow-hocked dog is more flexible or has superior musculature and ligaments, who are you to say without using the actual (not presumed) work record as your evaluation? Scientists know better than to look at the structure of an animal and decide its fitness based on degree of cowhocks or basically any other physical attribute beyond severe morphological defects. What counts is the reproductive success of the animal, and that is determined by the interplay of many characters, not all of which you can see. I have to think its the same for stockdogs, and the "working success". ETA - while I have been composing my post, Sue has said a lot of what I was getting at much better than I could! I work for a veterinarian (equine) and prior to working here I worked for a small animal vet. I was in charge of taking the x-rays. EVERY older dog that was "conformationally unsound" as a younger dog HAD more arthritis and issues in it's body than an older dog that was "conformationally sound" it's just the way it works. There is no 2 ways about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandi Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Seems to me many folks are still in line with a picture to say that "form follows function" though that has been debunked...I had no clue so many agreed with AKC and a "standard" for the border collie. There's many "types" and to each there own "preference". Im not saying there is a "Standard" Im just saying a dog w/ out crooked legs is going to have better joints when it is 18yrs old vs a dog that is crooked. THATS ALL im saying. Im not saying every dog that is herding HAS to be perfect, because no dog is perfect. Im just saying from a medical standpoint that a dog with "better confo" is going to not have as many issues down the line. Period... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 Lucy says Thanks you Auntie Sue. The hidden dragon is hidden! It's in the form of another suspecting (as in not unsuspecting) dog, who's about to be um assaulted Lucy gets those straighter shoulders from her dad- he's athletic as can be. I am amazed at BC and Kelpie ability to crouch. My knees- Lordy, I would be on the stretcher... I can't even go three flights of stairs. Crickle crackle go the knees. I guess I am built more like an Aussie... Where's the hidden dragon? Seriously, Lucy is beautiful and, yes, she seems to have straight shoulders but they contribute to that pretty Kelpie stride and don't seem to hold her back from a good crouching stalk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ooky Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 I work for a veterinarian (equine) and prior to working here I worked for a small animal vet. I was in charge of taking the x-rays. EVERY older dog that was "conformationally unsound" as a younger dog HAD more arthritis and issues in it's body than an older dog that was "conformationally sound" it's just the way it works. There is no 2 ways about it. If you are talking about severely "conformationally unsound" dogs, such as they were showing symptoms of joint issues at an early age, I'd believe you. But if you are talking about simple differences in joint structure, for example mild cow hocks vs no cow hocks, I can't believe this statement. It means that there would be NO effect, over the lifetime of any of these dogs, of differing diets, excercise and activtiy levels, confinement levels, injuries incurred over a lifetime,or other issues with other joints, or immune system problems (can NO straight legged dogs get the equivalent of rheumatoid arthrtis, which is due to an immune system issue)? Do you see what I mean? It doesn't make any sense. By the way, I spoke to several vets, some ortho specialists, none of whom could tell me how sound my dog would be in 10 years following treatment for OCD. They claimed some dogs make such a full recovery that you can't tell the functional difference between them and a normal dog 10 years later, given appropriate joint supplements, excercise, etc. And some dogs have bad arthritis in 2 years. This could not be foretold from the structure now. ETA - I like Lucy too - her long neck is like a nefertitti bust! Pretty dog! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandi Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 If you are talking about severely "conformationally unsound" dogs, such as they were showing symptoms of joint issues at an early age, I'd believe you. This is what im talking about, a mild cowhock is no big deal and the dog may or may not ever have a single issue. But when your talkin' hocks that never seperate, your GOING to have issues in the stifle, hock, hip and possibly the cervical spine. By the way, I spoke to several vets, some ortho specialists, none of whom could tell me how sound my dog would be in 10 years following treatment for OCD. Yep, some dogs do great, some don't it's all up to how the dog is taken care of after the sx or tx They claimed some dogs make such a full recovery that you can't tell the functional difference between them and a normal dog 10 years later, given appropriate joint supplements, excercise, etc. And some dogs have bad arthritis in 2 years. This could not be foretold from the structure now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Meier Posted November 4, 2009 Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 But if you are talking about simple differences in joint structure, for example mild cow hocks vs no cow hocks I have a question for everyone, when someone says that a particular dog is cow hocked and the dog is not there to be seen do you visualize severe or mild? Personally I visualize severe, imo a mild case is not enough to worry about. Sorry to bring horses back into this but it is what I have dealt with from a performance stand point, I didn't mind a horse that was a little over at the knee, we didn't mind a horse that had a steeper shoulder then ideal, it was the extremes we were concerned about, the extreme that would create soundness issues in the future or prevent the horse from performing to the level we were trying to acheive. Just like offset knees, typically resulted in splints, cosmetic problem that I have been informed by many professionals was a result of the body compensating for a structure problem, could be considered minor compared to offset needs that are so far out that the body can not compensate. In the post about JJ and his goofy way of lying down I mention that he is cow hocked, but when he travels he lands straight, where as the elder severely cow hocked dog I have does not, her feet point out and the top of the bone on her legs are twisted out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2009 This is what im talking about, a mild cowhock is no big deal and the dog may or may not ever have a single issue. But when your talkin' hocks that never seperate, your GOING to have issues in the stifle, hock, hip and possibly the cervical spine. But you never specified this. You stated, "Just simply said that a dog with cow hocks will have hips and stifles go "bad" (arthritis etc) faster than a dog with good hock conformation." I don't think there's anyone here who would argue "for" any extremes - cow hocks, straight or posty legs, and so on. People who have been not critical of cow hocks have, I am sure, not been advocating *extreme* cow hocks, either. For many, a mild cow hock is preferred for athleticism. So, perhaps we've been arguing in circles because of lack of communication. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandi Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I have a question for everyone, when someone says that a particular dog is cow hocked and the dog is not there to be seen do you visualize severe or mild? Personally I visualize severe, imo a mild case is not enough to worry about. I too visualize severe. When I was comparing a dog with cowhocks, I was picturing a dog standing with it's hocks together, toes pointed out etc... And was completely baffled by how people could think a cow hocked dog (a real cow hocked dog) could last as long as a "normal" dog.... Thanks for chiming in Debbie you are a breath of fresh air! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I guess it's a matter of opinion, but when the OP makes a blanket statement "cow hocks are bad" and doesn't say "severe cow hocks are bad" then I don't see how you can take offense when people disagree vehemently. There have been numerous discussions on this forum regarding hip dysplasia and hip laxity and how cow hocks (not severe) might actually *contribute in a positive way* to the necessary athleticism of a dog. I personally consider anything inside of straight up and down as cow hocks, so I would certainly mention degree when discussing whether it's a problem or not. FWIW, the long lanky dog isn't generally having to turn barrels or beat some extremely tight time standard--it has to be able to control livestock in an efficient and workmanlike manner. For example, the dog who can turn on a dime isn't necessarily going to be a better or more sound worker than the dog who requires a little more space for turning. My dogs who are extremely fast actually seem to unsettle stock more than the more deliberate dogs, so compactness and speed may or may not be a positive attribute when taken together with other working characteristics. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 A couple of things come to mind while reading this. This interests me alot! A race horse carries weight in front so the jockey sits over the center of balance, in front. In classical riding the rider trains the horse over a period of years to carry weight over its hindquarters, this is to make the horse manuverable. So the rider sits back over the repositioned center of gravity. (Something that if you do not give the horse enough time and gymnastic excersises they will break down.) In three day the horse must do both, Carry weight back as over a tight turn to a big upright, or forward as over a steeplechase brush. In my old work there were horses with problems that we knew as pros that would not hold up to work. It mattered to us as this is how we made our living. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- On an aside comment-(One of my old coaches asked me once 'Which horses always win the Grand National? I replied, Uh..the fatest ones? He shook his head, He then answered, No the ones with no riders.') ------------------------------------------------ BUT- When I started working with the ponies from the rez alot of them were cow hocked, but none were tied in below the knee. Very few of these horses went lame. I guess the reason was in the wild they get eaten. They never had suspensory problems. (However I never competed them. To be honest they could go all day but were pretty slow. Although they worked pretty hard.) I had someone once comment that one of the rescued non-releasable wolves was very cow hocked, Most wolves are. (This woman I found out later bred german shepherd dogs.) Most wolves are close in front and toe out. She told my intern that they were very poorly put together and why were they like that? The intern said something to the effect that they were like that as nature designed them that way, the ones that did not stay sound died. I shall have to think about my sled team and what I have learned through the years with their soundness Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 You make some very good points, Tea. One thing I think is that the show ring sometimes makes assumptions that if a certain angulation is "good" in a certain species or breed, that it will be good in others. On the other hand, I think that sometimes the assumption is made that a certain appearance has merit, whether it truly does or does not (like the squished faces on certain breeds). That is why the work proves not only the dogs' abilities in terms of stock sense, but also in terms of soundness, temperment, and health - dogs don't hold up if they don't have what it takes. And what it takes isn't always obvious or intuitive to humans, especially those that "judge" animals on appearance and with often arbitrary "standards". What you said makes me think of my Thoroughbred mare, who is conformationally not well-built in certain aspects. But, she ran for six years on cheap tracks, and the only time in her life (of which I am aware) that she was unsound was the time she spent in a stable, muscled up, stalled for most of her days and nights. As the vet said when I bought her, "I'm not sure which three legs she's lame on." She's now about 26 years old, and hasn't had a lame day (except for minor hoof injuries) in the years I've had her out on pasture year-round and, now, living with the cows. And our pastures are uneven and require a horse to watch where she's going. But, for her flaws, she's eager, athletic, and beautiful in motion - rather like a good Border Collie at work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thank you The thing is about TB race horses, is they are not getting any faster? Although standerbreds are, I read somewhere. And I know this seems off the OP but in the TB racing world to do well do you have the fastest sound horse? Or the one who sells for the most money at the sales as a yearling? Would a three-day horse stay sound on the rez chasing buffalo, as in the old days? Would it have the guts? My upper level three day horses were were crossbreds, mostly TB with 1/8 Irish Draft, none were reg. But one of them was an Anglo, and he did not stay sound, but he did well because he had courage. Then I retired him before he broke down. He was a gelding. Should he have been bred if he were a mare? The Alaskan sled dogs, everyone just keeps track of which musher is breeding fast sound sled dogs. Some are known to produce gee haw leaders. Although I asm told many mushers don't use real old time leaders anymore because they don't need them the way the races are set up. I don't race mine but I always tried to have one good leader as they are useful in the bush. I am throwing thse things out there because this is stuff I know. I could talk about the stockdogs I knew as a child, but this was long ago, And they never competed. I don't know enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Love it Sue...just a few tweaks "One thing I think is that the <people who forget the poor history breeding for form has> sometimes makes "assumptions" that if a certain angulation is "good" in a certain species or breed, that it will be good in others." Then add: "What makes this worse is that these people then get rewarded in the show ring by other confused people, or by uneducated buyers of their pups and dogs that they teach to follow the same thought process" I never thought I'd see the day when terms of conformation show dogs would be part of the "argued for" catagory on these Boards by people who profess to have primary interest in the work of the dogs. Someone said "save it for the BCSA" to me when I objected to this, and again, you're wrong. The enemy that will destroy this working breed is within. It's each and every one of us who assumes we can cast an eye upon a dog's exterior and know what sort of work its suited and good for. That fallacy that we can, with the flick of an "educated" eye, know what dogs will last to old age working and who won't. And those that uses species comparison - I don't get it at all. The people that are/have worked both species to a high level tell you why it won't work, but you persist. It's not even about being right and wrong here, it's about getting back on the same page. That is, if your interest is really what working dogs *do*, and not what they look like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thanks, Wendy. I appreciate your tweaking. Racehorses - that's an issue. How many fast horses that have produced fast offspring have also passed on unsoundness? Speed may be paramount and without it, the breed would be going nowhere, but soundness is right there with speed as a necessity. Except, in this day and age, when a horse is sold for bunches of money as a youngster, based on breeding; trained to race as a youngster; considered successful if it wins as a youngster; and moved quickly into the breeding pool while it's still a youngster, without ever having the chance to prove it has real soundness and longevity. And then who is surprised when a Ruffian is produced, is outstandlingly fast, but is unsound (cracked/broken bone as a two-year-old) and breaks down (as a three-year-old)? Some pre-eminent sires have produced some fast, classy, but unsound offspring. One good reason for limiting the number of offspring a Thoroughbred sire may have and be registered but still, his influence may persist for generations, for better or worse. And with regards to mares of any breed, I used to work at a stable. Three mares that I know of were "retired" for unsoundness issues. All three were "retired" with the idea of using them for breeding. Now, where's the sense in that? Back to my original question - I think the comments made were based on personal experience. People who did not find certain types of dogs to "hold up" for them or to "work out" for them. I was concerned about soundness being a possible issue in a longer, leggier, lankier dog like Dan is compared to a more compact dog - all other issues being similar. I also wondered why a person with extensive knowledge and experience would feel a certain type of dog would not amount to much in terms of a working/trial dog. What was that based on? Or was it a groundless prejudice? I'm glad I asked. It's been a thought-provoking discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthfieldNick Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 If I had the chance to buy a horse with conformation like Nick, would I? No way! Nick is long-backed, high behind, and cow hocked, and he cross-canters almost 100% of the time. Recipe for an uncomfortable ride and a lame horse. Also a recipe for a really nice stockdog, with the addition of brains, of course (which Nick has plenty of). I wonder if environment has something to do with people's preferences. In a hot climate, it seems like a longer, leaner, smooth coated dog would do better, whereas in a cold climate, a stockier, heavier (but not overweight-heavy), rough coated dog would be a better choice. I know a lot of this can be controlled through management, but if you'd had a stockier dog overheat in a hot climate, and a lanky one not, given the chance to replace one with a dog of equal working ability, you'd probably take another smoothie. Even though this is based on a sample size of two, people go by what they know, what's right in front of them. I prefer to look at a longer, leaner dog, but if it can't work, I'll take the short, stocky dog that can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 People who did not find certain types of dogs to "hold up" for them or to "work out" for them Who was that? I heard a bunch of preferences based on assumptions and cross species comparison, most of which were from people who haven't actually worked multiple physical types of dog from pup to old age. In fact some of the most adament opinions were from people who haven't even trained a stockdog to completion (Open or comparable) yet at all. They are certainly welcome to their opinions - it's a free world - but somebody telling long term stockdog people about how a dogs hocks and topline should look for working soundness when they haven't actually managed to train an open or comparible farm dog even once better expect disagreement. We just aren't a passive group.... Those that voiced they had little to no preference for these conformational "essentials" (as defined by those mentioned above) in their dogs appear to the people that have been working them the longest and the hardest. Everybody has superficial preferences in dogs. I've said it before and will again. It's human nature. If I could walk into a little of pups that were equal and know I'd get a smooth tri with big ears like my old Lena I would grab it with both hands. But things are rarely equal, and basing your dog selections on what the lineage or individual is functionally *doing* well at what you plan to do, and whether that suits you is a proven better bet. Doing, not viewing, proves stockdogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Back to my original question - I think the comments made were based on personal experience. People who did not find certain types of dogs to "hold up" for them or to "work out" for them. Sorry, I must have been confusing in the way I wrote this. It was not with reference to anyone who posted here, it was the comments of the people who raised the questions/thoughts with me elsewhere originally. In terms of the comment made to me or read by me elsewhere, it was a well-known and respected UK handler/trainer (with decades of experience) who commented on the long, leggy, lanky build of dog not holding up over time and work. The comment made to me about a particular type (again, long, leggy, lanky, and with a long tail - just like my Dan) not generally being up to the job, was made by a nationally-known and respected trainer (with decades of experience, too). So, I wondered if anyone here had experience or something to share with regards to both these opinions. Which, I think, are just that - opinions based on individuals' experiences or prejudices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lana Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Sue, i would not worry about Dan. Kell is as big and lanky as they come. He can trail cows 20 miles or sort sheep all day and never take a lame step. You can NOT judge the heart/desire/drive of a dog from his build! Blue is cow hocked and has the worst hip my vet had seen in 20 years, and at almost 10 he can still do a days work well. I would also not discount the effect a strong bond between dog and handler has on the dogs ability to carry on through tough conditions, day after day. Lana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenajo Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I too would be interesting to question him further. Like my (granted much less than his) experience with red dogs from a particular line, he may have found a line in which the LLLL type did not suit him or matched up with other faults (lack of stamina for one) Most of the experienced handlers have preferred lines - and after a while they get really good at spotting what parts of the line the suit them come packaged as. It works enough that people keep trying it (or are we just hard headed? LOL), but it's also why you also meet a number of old handlers that have spent many years searching unsuccessfully by looks for a repeat of the dog they adored. Remember the farmer with the good dog Pete, and was featured as part of an AP show on Border Collies selecting "Repete" from a litter based on his similarities to his sire Pete? Emotions rule us all at times - more even then proven success of opposite ideas. (I asked about Repete years ago...and got a shrug from local handlers about how he turned out. "Nothing much" I was told (and if you know differently I would love to hear - it was a cute pup) Emotional selection aside, there is validity to superficial selection based on experience within a bloodline. Definately more likely to suceed that than window shopping stockdogs by turn of hocks and lay of shoulder compared to horse standards. Sorry, I must have been confusing in the way I wrote this. It was not with reference to anyone who posted here, it was the comments of the people who raised the questions/thoughts with me elsewhere originally. In terms of the comment made to me or read by me elsewhere, it was a well-known and respected UK handler/trainer (with decades of experience) who commented on the long, leggy, lanky build of dog not holding up over time and work. The comment made to me about a particular type (again, long, leggy, lanky, and with a long tail - just like my Dan) not generally being up to the job, was made by a nationally-known and respected trainer (with decades of experience, too). So, I wondered if anyone here had experience or something to share with regards to both these opinions. Which, I think, are just that - opinions based on individuals' experiences or prejudices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 Thanks, Lana, I would never discount the heart and work ethic. Plus there are the less tangibles, like a fit dog that compensates for physical attributes (like hip issues) with muscle and fitness. Without heart or desire, the best dog otherwise will never even be a mediocre dog. Can you guess we are getting closer to getting Dan started and I am getting to be a bundle of nerves? I feel like a backstage mother who's child is about to start dance lessons or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelpiegirl Posted November 5, 2009 Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 I think we need more pics of Dan!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2009 My getting photos of Dan with my slow camera (I do need a new camera) is like trying to herd cats. It doesn't produce very good results. But I try... And how about your Dan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.