"Types" of dogs

[Jumpin Boots]

A top handler once told me that the best thing you could do is know the faults and short comings of your dog, that way you can know where they need help and handle them to the best of both of your abilities.

 

Absolutely, I agree. I think that is true with most animals, and people too, for that matter.

[Sue R]

Good comments! I wonder, though, as someone mentioned - different human sports seem to require different body types. Compare baseball players to basketball players to football players. Or sprinters to marathon runners.

 

What caused me more thought was not so much the concept of "a dog of that type never amounted to much of a worker" but rather more that a rangy, leggy dog didn't hold up so well over time. I was wondering about that since Dan is a rangy, leggy, large dog (even at 8 months, he was 47#). Do I have more to worry about in terms of soundness with a dog like him, or is it really just an individual dog issue? As in, a dog of any type within the general Border Collie framework can have hip problems, joint problems, back problems and so on, or do problems tend to occur more often within a type (stocky, compact, leggy, long- or short-backed, etc.).

[kelpiegirl]

Hi Sue

 

The long lanky dogs I see out on the fields are kept nice and lean, which can mitigate wear and tear on their bodies. That said, I think it's just hard to predict, and you can generally see how the dog moves/runs around at home to see how he covers ground in the field. There are loads of Kelpies who are long, tall, and lean. They are supremely athletic. The typical working BC I see is moderately sized, and lately, I see smaller dogs popping up. I am sure your Dan will be fine. Once he hooks on sheep, he will float anyway

[juliepoudrier]

# 2 "Deep Chest" not only provides good lung capacity but better holds a big HEART...a must!

Yep, I should have mentioned the heart too.

 

J.

[Ooky]

Two things two different old timers have told me they look for in dogs:

 

1. Broad head: "More room for brains, though that doesn't mean they'll use them."

 

2. Deep chest: good lung capacity.

 

#2 makes sense to me, but I personally have to believe #1 is a crock. My test scores were always 95-99% percentile, but my head size is freakishly small - like 5% percentile. When I was in marching band they actually had to order a special helmet to fit me - 6 5/8. It's the density of synaptic connections that matter! Of course, I would agree with the "doesn't mean they'll use em" part - I for sure don't always use mine, lol.

[Liz P]

I used to say I prefered a smaller dog (well proportioned, just smaller). Now I don't say that anymore because my small (30lb) bitch was so hard on her body that she is retired already. By hard I mean she never stopped or slowed down in the face of rough terrain and hurt herself at least once a year. This culmonated in her nearly dying of water intoxication while swimming and suffering from brain damage as a result. I joke and tell people she lacks the self preservation gene. In contrast, I've had much larger dogs who held up longer because they didn't rush headlong into danger.

 

All things being equal I looked for a balanced dog. I don't want any extremes in size or structure and I value temperament as highly as structure. A dog who is built for work will not stay sound if it is overly hard on it's body.

[Wendy V]

I like a certain type of dog but can get on with others of different styles. I know my preferences but also know that dogs with different methods of work or body types can certainly get the job done. One thing that is certain in this discussion is that people will love their own dogs but hate yours. I agree with the "rubbish" comment.

[Brandi]

I would imagine that dog conformation is alot like horse conformation. Horses can do alot more than look pretty in an arena. I barrel race and my horses have to be able to get in the ground, turn quick and accelerate. Just like the BC's do.

For this kind of work you MUST have a structurally sound animal. Meaning if they are cow hocked, have too long of a back, are not balancedfrom nose to tail they will break down sooner than an animal that is balanced. A leggy horse/dog can do anything a smaller animal can do if they are athletic and ballanced, meaning the rest of their body matches their long legs, They can cover more ground but may not be as "quick" as a smaller dog.

I have a small mare that I use for small patterns because my larger horse just cant get in and out of the barrels like she can, I use my larger mare for larger patterns because that stride really covers the ground and makes up time. To set them up for sucess you have to know what they are best suited for.

[Lenajo]

more "rubbish" <sigh>

 

Dogs are not horses. The comparisons essentially stop at the 4 legged part.

[Brandi]

more "rubbish" <sigh>

 

Dogs are not horses. The comparisons essentially stop at the 4 legged part.

 

Im sorry but your kidding yourself if you don't think conformation plays a role in longevity of an athlete. Regardless of species.

[juliepoudrier]

Brandi,

I don't think anyone is denying that conformation plays a role, but it's a bit of a stretch to compare body structure of a 800-1,200 pound horse with that of a 40 pound dog.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

Im sorry but your kidding yourself if you don't think conformation plays a role in longevity of an athlete. Regardless of species.

 

My comformationally "incorrect" stockdog just died at the age of 18. She was sound to the last - died of complications of an inoperable tumor. She was long backed, long pasterned, roach backed, and camped out as well as cow hocked. Never had a lame day in her life, and worked *hard*. No arthritis.

 

We have 3 more comformationally "incorrect" mature stockdogs here - ages 16, 14, and 12. They each have their own variation of cow hocks, short legs, leg longs, long backs, short backs, cat feet, splay feet, short pasterns, and long pasterns. All 3 of them worked a full life, including one 5 time top 20 National Cattledog Finals dog, multiple open wins on cattle and sheep, thousands of hours of farm work, plus some agility.

 

All sound minus accidents. Aggie's deaf now, and Bonnie at 16 is a little feeble at speed and on steps.

 

These dogs are not rare Border Collies - rather typical actually.

 

We lost the dog everybody admired physically - quite a "horse" of a guy - at 12 because of a back injury working cattle. I suppose the hole he stepped in could be a genetic flaw...

 

You don't ride a dog - so back length within the bounds of "normal" canid (we aren't breeding dachshunds or deliberate morphological defects) is not an issue.

 

You can take any typical willing Border Collie straight from normal fitness and have him jumping twice his height in a matter of a few training sessions. Got any horses doing that? (I have the number for Guiness here somewhere if you do)

 

In my horse days (which seems long ago sometimes LOL) I could sit just about any horses my trainers could throw at me. Typically (and why I hurt now) if a horse was going to throw me, he was going down with me. No bragging - it was what it was.

 

I could *not* stay on one of my agility dogs over fences or while working stock back then. These guys have flexibility and strength of body that a horse just can't emulate. I've seen dogs, both on stock and in sport, have their body doing so many different things that it boggles the mind. The level of flexibility, the ratio of muscle to light bone is amazing.

 

Horses can be tremedous athletes I agree. Hands down though, the dog is better. Why would you judge the better one by the lesser's standards? Doesn't make sense

[kelpiegirl]

Wendy,

Do you have any pics of these dogs? Just curious if their horrendous conformation is actually horrendous to me

My comformationally "incorrect" stockdog just died at the age of 18. She was sound to the last - died of complications of an inoperable tumor. She was long backed, long pasterned, roach backed, and camped out as well as cow hocked. Never had a lame day in her life, and worked *hard*. No arthritis.

 

We have 3 more comformationally "incorrect" mature stockdogs here - ages 16, 14, and 12. They each have their own variation of cow hocks, short legs, leg longs, long backs, short backs, cat feet, splay feet, short pasterns, and long pasterns. All 3 of them worked a full life, including one 5 time top 20 National Cattledog Finals dog, multiple open wins on cattle and sheep, thousands of hours of farm work, plus some agility.

 

All sound minus accidents. Aggie's deaf now, and Bonnie at 16 is a little feeble at speed and on steps.

 

These dogs are not rare Border Collies - rather typical actually.

 

We lost the dog everybody admired physically - quite a "horse" of a guy - at 12 because of a back injury working cattle. I suppose the hole he stepped in could be a genetic flaw...

 

You don't ride a dog - so back length within the bounds of "normal" canid (we aren't breeding dachshunds or deliberate morphological defects) is not an issue.

 

You can take any typical willing Border Collie straight from normal fitness and have him jumping twice his height in a matter of a few training sessions. Got any horses doing that? (I have the number for Guiness here somewhere if you do)

 

In my horse days (which seems long ago sometimes LOL) I could sit just about any horses my trainers could throw at me. Typically (and why I hurt now) if a horse was going to throw me, he was going down with me. No bragging - it was what it was.

 

I could *not* stay on one of my agility dogs over fences or while working stock back then. These guys have flexibility and strength of body that a horse just can't emulate. I've seen dogs, both on stock and in sport, have their body doing so many different things that it boggles the mind. The level of flexibility, the ratio of muscle to light bone is amazing.

 

Horses can be tremedous athletes I agree. Hands down though, the dog is better. Why would you judge the better one by the lesser's standards? Doesn't make sense

[Lenajo]

The shots you would need I don't have- those "stacked" poses like a halter horse/show dog.

 

Like most working stockdog people I favor the working pics (which coincidentally show them as functionally correct workers) and portraits. And even the portraits are usualy 3/4 view or face shots - more about the individual personality than structure.

 

Sorry.

[kelpiegirl]

Are we talking Border Collies or Aussies?

Okay Wendy. You don't have one single photo of a dog standing normally, without being "stacked". Got ya.

I just think that if you are going to assert just how bad your dogs are built to bolster an argument, you ought to have pics to show this.

I think my dog is straight in the shoulder, and I have pics to show this And, she isn't "stacked" either.

 

 

The shots you would need I don't have- those "stacked" poses like a halter horse/show dog.

 

Like most working stockdog people I favor the working pics (which coincidentally show them as functionally correct workers) and portraits. And even the portraits are usualy 3/4 view or face shots - more about the individual personality than structure.

 

Sorry.

[Lenajo]

The 18 year old was Aussie, and the rest are Border Collies. We are talking about stockdogs right? Because if this is a breed specific stockdog conversation....

 

anyway...

 

My point was that proposably "badly buit" working dogs, based on that horse based conformation standards" are being erronously judged.

 

Normal pics really won't help you - not if you want to judge by "comformation" standards. The movement of the dogs (ours and so many others you can see at any trial or farm) was lovely and functional at work - which in my opinion is all that counts.

 

I could provide you with pics of working movement - but so could google, and I think they might enjoy making the effort for you more than I ever would.

 

I know you don't believe that work alone is the basis for judging a dog. You've made that patently clear. You want to believe that in the end a certain look, a certain structure, has some greater guarantee of success in the field. Sorry. Not true. You can gnash your teeth at it all you want - click, clack, or cluck 'em - it's the work that proves what's functional and what's not. And thank goodness most of our past working breeders have believed that as well, otherwise we'd be parading the "American Working Collie" around a ring while chasing our sheep with flags around the pasture.

 

 

 

Are we talking Border Collies or Aussies?

Okay Wendy. You don't have one single photo of a dog standing normally, without being "stacked". Got ya.

I just think that if you are going to assert just how bad your dogs are built to bolster an argument, you ought to have pics to show this.

I think my dog is straight in the shoulder, and I have pics to show this And, she isn't "stacked" either.

[kelpiegirl]

Huh? Did I miss something here. How did I make that judgement patently clear? What are you talking about? Seriously.

Maybe I have amnesia. Please direct me to where I wrote anything of the sort.

 

Save your ire for the BCSA....

 

 

"I know you don't believe that work alone is the basis for judging a dog. You've made that patently clear. You want to believe that in the end a certain look, a certain structure, has some greater guarantee of success in the field. Sorry. Not true. You can gnash your teeth at it all you want - click, clack, or cluck 'em - it's the work that proves what's functional and what's not. And thank goodness most of our past working breeders have believed that as well, otherwise we'd be parading the "American Working Collie" around a ring while chasing our sheep with flags around the pasture"

[Brandi]

Time out. No one said that a dog with bad conformation can't work, or work for a long time. 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. If doing the same exact work for the exact amount of time. Not saying the dog will be lame, crippled but that cowhocked dog WILL develop arthritis faster than a dog w/ good hocks. Thats all.

[Debbie Meier]

You want to believe that in the end a certain look, a certain structure, has some greater guarantee of success in the field. Sorry. Not true. You can gnash your teeth at it all you want - click, clack, or cluck 'em - it's the work that proves what's functional and what's not. And thank goodness most of our past working breeders have believed that as well, otherwise we'd be parading the "American Working Collie" around a ring while chasing our sheep with flags around the pasture.

 

 

Actually Wendy, you believe that people feel or think that way.

 

 

And as far as "past working dog breeders", how many have you polled over the past century and a half?

 

Here is a quote from an interesting book I have here...A Way of Life

 

"Do not take too much notice of people who say that it does not matter what a sheepdog looks like as long as it works---there has never been a first-class dog yet which did not look good, and always remember that, if your dog or bitch is used for breeding at some time in the future, you will want both looks and brains."

 

Then it goes on to the next page to a section called "What to look for", first of many suggestions has to do with conformation:

 

"Straight back legs Watch the puppy as he moves about, particularly as he moves away from you. His back legs should be nice and straight, there should be no signs of cow-hocks (hocks turned in and toes turned out) and his hips should move smoothly and freely."

 

Of course you could be willing to argue that this particular book/author/handler is one of the exceptions to your claim that "most of our past working breeders have believed that as well"

 

This whole anti relate to horse mentality get's quite old, they are all mammals, structures are simular, breakdowns are going to be simular when stresses on the structure are simular. Reminds me of the trainers that are adimate that there are no simularities between how horses are trained and handled compared to working dogs.

 

As to a cow hocked dog, I have a female here that is a cow hocked decendent of Moss, isn't that who some of your cow hocked dogs go back to? Granted she is many generations removed but she sure maintained the cow hocked attribute, everytime she get's up it hurts, she has arthritis in the hindquarters, she is short legged in front, long backed and she does not have fluid motion. Yes, she works and still wants to and tries her heart out, but at the age of 10 she is retired to staying in the house and hunts soft places to sleep. So, is it possible that many generations of not taking into consideration structure is what she is suffering from. I suppose it is not, there are plenty of other things that could be blamed for her pain and discomfort.

 

Then there is a line of dog that is talked about in our area as the "Send them out on their outrun, go get a cup of coffee, and when you get back they might have made it to the sheep". So, could the lack of concern to structure now be hurting later generations? Is it possible that over time and generations that their speed and agility began to erode?

[Sue R]

Time out. No one said that a dog with bad conformation can't work, or work for a long time. 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. If doing the same exact work for the exact amount of time. Not saying the dog will be lame, crippled but that cowhocked dog WILL develop arthritis faster than a dog w/ good hocks. Thats all.

I think we need to realize that what is "good hock conformation" in one species does not necessarily equate to "good hock conformation" in another species. How many working dogs have you had, trained, worked, and brought to old age to be able to evaluate how they held up?

 

There is such a thing as good and bad structure, and there are characteristics that *in general* lend themselves to soundness and longevity (or unsoundness and a short useful life), but I'm not sure anyone has been able to quantify just what those are in the working Border Collie. There's a lot of variation in the dogs that do the work, stay sound and healthy, and hold up well into old age.

 

Some aspects of structure that benefit a working Border Collie in the demands of its job may not be obviously "good" conformation. And that is one place where working breeding differs from show breeding, where standards are imposed that are generally arbitrary with regards to accomplishing real, demanding work. And that's visible in many show-bred dogs of many breeds.

 

The loose shoulders of the working dog and the somewhat-cow hocked hind end are not part of what show/conformation breeders seek but they appear to be essential to a hard-working Border Collie, and the demands of its athletic endeavors. It's too easy to say all animals need to meet certain "standards" to be sound, when that's not really the case. That's not necessarily the case within species or breeds, and it's not the case between species or breeds. A certain level of variability is a good thing with regards to genetics.

 

JMO.

[kelpiegirl]

Good points Sue. In Kelpies you will occasionally see very long backed dogs- so long that they are actually sway backed. That just cannot be good for a dog. I don't like extremes of anything in my dogs. I saw a GSD doing a herding test on youtube- the dogs hind legs were so bad, he was barely able to do more than a walk- his hocks were hitting eachother.

 

The GSD is a great example of a breed gone down the tubes due to abnormal, extreme conformation points.

 

Border Collies though, from what I see, you just want a "working" conformation, meaning a conformation that allows said dog to work- same with Kelpies. Trying to quantify that is hard, like saying what's nice about the ocean.

[Sue R]

"Do not take too much notice of people who say that it does not matter what a sheepdog looks like as long as it works---there has never been a first-class dog yet which did not look good, and always remember that, if your dog or bitch is used for breeding at some time in the future, you will want both looks and brains."

 

Then it goes on to the next page to a section called "What to look for", first of many suggestions has to do with conformation:

 

"Straight back legs Watch the puppy as he moves about, particularly as he moves away from you. His back legs should be nice and straight, there should be no signs of cow-hocks (hocks turned in and toes turned out) and his hips should move smoothly and freely."

I personally think that this is an unfortunate quote because I have seen it used to justify show ring breeding - and not only for "correct structure" or conformance per se, but also for coat, color, and so on.

 

There have been a lot of first-class dogs that "look good" and there have been some that have been very unimpressive in appearance - when viewed off stock. But when on stock, the good ones are beautiful to see, whether they might be physically homely or handsome in one person's eyes.

 

However, I do believe that extremes of structure are not good - however, I think one has to evaluate the entire package and not just any one single aspect of it, to determine if a dog (or horse, or other animal) is going to hold up and be sound as well as be suited to their work.

 

Another most interesting conversation, aside from the occasional sniping.

[Ooky]

Then there is a line of dog that is talked about in our area as the "Send them out on their outrun, go get a cup of coffee, and when you get back they might have made it to the sheep". So, could the lack of concern to structure now be hurting later generations? Is it possible that over time and generations that their speed and agility began to erode?

 

Ok, I realize I know basically nothing, but this seems like much more of a functional statement to me than a structure statement. Perhaps the dog can't go get the sheep in adequate time due to it's structure, but isn't the main point that it can't go get the dang sheep, regardless of what it looks like? If you select for good work and work record (including longevity), and complimentary matches then I really doubt you are hurting future generations regardless of whether you are making a conscious effort to evaluate structure *by itself.*

 

Longevity is proven over time too - again, regardless of what a dog looks like if it does work well and long enough to get to a ripe old age on the trial field or out on the farm, then it is sound, no?

 

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".

 

And, since Julie has pictures of her straight-shouldered dog, why not post them? I don't know what that looks like and would like to see. What problems can it cause? Thanks!

 

ETA - while I have been composing my post, Sue has said a lot of what I was getting at much better than I could!

[kelpiegirl]

Hi there

I will Just lazy with photobucket

 

Ok, I realize I know basically nothing, but this seems like much more of a functional statement to me than a structure statement. Perhaps the dog can't go get the sheep in adequate time due to it's structure, but isn't the main point that it can't go get the dang sheep, regardless of what it looks like? If you select for good work and work record (including longevity), and complimentary matches then I really doubt you are hurting future generations regardless of whether you are making a conscious effort to evaluate structure *by itself.*

 

Longevity is proven over time too - again, regardless of what a dog looks like if it does work well and long enough to get to a ripe old age on the trial field or out on the farm, then it is sound, no?

 

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".

 

And, since Julie has pictures of her straight-shouldered dog, why not post them? I don't know what that looks like and would like to see. What problems can it cause? Thanks!

[Journey]

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".