Bridging division between Working Border Collie Tradition vs. “Working” Agility Dogs+Other Disciplines

[ejano]

.... my experience has been that dogs bark excessively when they are either having fun or getting frustrated. A working border collie, one that is on livestock, does not (this has been my experience, those with more, please correct me if I am mistaken).

 

 

I admittedly have little experience, but as a witness, I can offer that Robin barks up a storm when I'm teaching him a new trick or we're playing fetching games. See, I did it! Bark! Bark! Bark! It's a pain in the neck. DH gets mad at us because he can't hear the TV. The first time he saw an agility course, it was "ROOO! ROOO! Let's party!" Brodie is a little quieter - he "talks" -- singing, yipping, occasionally letting out a punctuating bark when he thinks it's his turn to play.

 

On sheep they are both deadly quiet. Their entire posture relates, "This is serious business, folks."

[juliepoudrier]

NOT what I said Julie, you only took sections of my quotes. If any sheepherder took what you wrote about me, they would get upset...That is not! what I wrote! If you keep cutting out essential parts of my quote I will get upset because people will definitely misunderstand what I'm saying....

Serena,

Your comments about working dogs comparing and contrasting them to agility dogs make NO sense to me. I honestly can't figure you what you are trying to say, and I'm not a stupid person. It doesn't matter if I quote parts or whole, your arguments still don't make sense. I believe the reason for that is that you really don't have a clear understanding of what working dogs are, what they do, how they do it, and how they came to be. I know you've looked at lots of working videos. I remember the conclusions you drew about various breeds and their build as it relates to work based solely on videos, your ideas about movement and structure based on your knowledge of ballet, and how your conclusions were way off the mark. It's impossible for you to argue for preserving working genes within sport dogs when you have no clear understanding of work and the genetic complexity that's involved in that work. Looking at the movements with a ballerina's eye won't tell you anything about the genetics behind working dogs, let alone how those somehow relate to agility.

 

I quoted just a part of your comments because that was the part that made it clear that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to working dogs. The only way you can change that lack of knowledge is to actually take the time and make the effort to actually work your dog on stock. People are not going to find your arguments credible when you clearly have so little understanding of the genetics behind working bred dogs and how those genetics actually translate to the work.

 

I find the comments from folks who do both agility and stockwork to be credible. That's because they have experienced *both* and so have a real basis on which to make their comparisons and draw their conclusions.

 

You can disagree with me all you want, but every time I read your comments about working dogs, all I see is someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about, and as long as I believe you don't know what you're talking about, you'll be unable to convince me that there's some sort of advantage for the working dog gene pool to be used to "refresh" the sport dog gene pool. And I don't think it's just me that feels that way. You need to argue from a point of knowledge, NOT supposition, and worse, supposition that is somehow informed by your own experience in the human endeavor of ballet.

 

What you're doing here is the equivalent of me, who has essentially never done agility with a dog (beyond a tiny bit of dabbling) trying to convince all your MACH friends that I know something about the genetic requirements of dogs who do sports. No one would take me seriously because I'd be arguing from a place of no real knowledge or experience.

 

J.

[alligande]

No breed can touch the border collie in agility?

 

AKC Agility Invitational

 

 

The AKC invitational is the top 5 dogs of each breed, and has been stated before you do NOT need to win to get a MACH just be consistent and attend a lot of trials. Papillons are a top choice of agility dog if you want a small dog, people who want a medium dog go with a shelltie and for the large dogs there is the border collie. The points to get to the invitational are based on clean runs, not wins. For the popular breeds getting to the invitational is based on how many trials you attend.

 

Rather than look at the invitational to see the top agility dogs, look at what dogs make the world teams (both AKC and alternative) and what dogs are on the podium at National competitions.

[Root Beer]

You can disagree with me all you want, but every time I read your comments about working dogs, all I see is someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about . . .

 

I can't say her statements on the Agility side are in conformity with what I know from my own experience of Agility, nor from what I have seen and learned from the fellow competitors (many of them have top titles in several venues, in addition to the MACH) in real life.

 

I'm not saying that to be mean or contrary - I just don't want those who are not involved in Agility to get the impression that Serena's point of view is the norm among Agility folks. It is not. In fact, a lot of what she says is more typical of conformation people that I've known.

[juliepoudrier]

This was posted on Facebook this morning (thanks, KathyF). This to me is true poetry in agility (have your hanky handy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wb0VQAOEw&feature=share

 

J.

[RoseAmy]

Serena how often do you see these top agility bred puppys even as young as 3 months, climbing over, digging under, squeezing through a fence to go run the agility course? How many of the grown dogs if left alone will run through the agility course by themselves??

 

I'm asking truthfully cause I do not know and I'm trying to learn. If agility is instinct and not training then you should see that alot.

 

The stockdog people here will tell you it gets rough with puppies and youngsters..you could have the sheep in Fort Knox and they would worm their way in.

 

BTW though not what you want I never cease to be amazed at a 3 or 4 month old pup that has wormed it's way in with the sheep start to work them!

 

Also Serena fYI a well trained border collie does not chase down runaway sheep. For one it's very costly to have a sheep ran headlong into a fence and break its neck. And two you can' stop something by chasing it.

[terrecar]

This was posted on Facebook this morning (thanks, KathyF). This to me is true poetry in agility (have your hanky handy):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74wb0VQAOEw&feature=share

 

J.

 

 

Oh God. Yup, I'm sentimental. I was tearing up before I even realized it.

[juliepoudrier]

The very skills that Agility uses - except for weaving - are instinctive to many dogs, and, in a unique way, particularly natural to the typical Border Collie.

 

Take an off leash walk in the woods with your dog sometime. You may get to observe him or her jumping over tree limbs, crossing fallen logs across creeks, even arcing and turning and doing many of the things that dogs do on the Agility course, climbing up and over and down, etc. Not according to Agility rules, of course. But racing through a series of "obstacles" - yes, I have seen dogs that are not trained to do this, do it without training.

Although you add the caveat "in a unique way" with regard to border collies, the fact is that *any* dog that is physically capable of doing so (excluding breeds like English bulldogs, etc.) will jump trees, cross logs, and all the things you see dogs do on an agility course. I grew up with a Belgian tervuren and a three-legged wire haired fox terrier. Those two dogs went everywhere we went on horseback and did all of the things you describe, without us girls directing them to do so. It's not a behavior unique to border collies by any means. Ask anyone who foxhunts what the hounds do while traveling cross country at a high rate of speed on the trail of a fox. For that matter, the fox is also doing those same things: jumping, crossing creeks on logs, walking along the tops of stone fences, scrabbling over obstacles like chicken coops (a type of jump that is essentially an A frame) set in a fenceline....

 

I do agree that a border collie's ability to read and react to intention of movement is somewhat unique to the breed and can be used to the advantage (or disadvantage, for handlers who give mixed signals) of the handler on an agility course, but the athletic aspects of jumping, climbing, etc., are certainly not exclusive to the border collie.

 

Geonni's point makes perfect sense when you think of all the dogs who are capable of doing agility and doing it well. Border collies may be the "best" for many reasons, but those reasons largely have to do with things that are also present in many breeds of dog, but perhaps refined in the border collie as a result of generations of being bred for the athleticism and thinking required of a stockdog.

 

J.

[stockdogranch]

Serena, your continuing to try to convince us that agility and stockwork are similar boils down to the fact that you apparently really are not comprehending the fact that there is something GENETIC in a stockdog that makes it a stockdog. It does not just have to do with the way it moves (athleticism), or its ability to think quickly (intelligence?), or any of the other wonderful things you try to point out in your agility videos. The thing that is totally missing is the genetic component that has to do with the dog's STOCK READING abilities. I tried to get you to address this back on page 8, and finally, at some point, you claim to be doing so, but instead, you went off on another tangent, never addressing this point at all .

 

I agree with Julie when she says:

You can disagree with me all you want, but every time I read your comments about working dogs, all I see is someone who doesn't really know what they're talking about, and as long as I believe you don't know what you're talking about, you'll be unable to convince me that there's some sort of advantage for the working dog gene pool to be used to "refresh" the sport dog gene pool.

[emphasis mine]

 

In the field of classical rhetoric, Aristotle discusses three components for a persuasive speech/argument to be effective. What's missing here is the element of ETHOS--the credibility of the speaker/author. If your audience does not see you as knowledgeable on the topic about which you are writing (in this case, working dogs on livestock), they will never be convinced, and your argument will never be effective,

A

[juliepoudrier]

Thank you Anna for saying so eloquently what I tried to say in a recent post.

 

J.

[terrecar]

Aristotle's "ethos" only works if your argument is a legitimate appeal to authority. Otherwise it could degenerate into the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem or poisoning the well.

 

It is generally more appropriate to analyze the validity of a person's argument before weighing in on their credibility. That makes for a stronger counter argument.

 

Having said that, I think the above criteria has been met here, since most of you stockdog folk have years of experience with the breed AND have made cogent arguments to support your case.

[bc soul sista]

I would have to disagree with RB that agility is somehow instinctual....most people I know who train for agility start foundation training with there pups immedietly, to teach them the skills that will help them be successful agility partners....or people who get rescue it takes them TIME to TRAIN the skills necessary to play the GAME...most people want to set themselves up for success and although I could take my neighbors dog in the ring and get him to have fun jumping over a few obstacles or running through tunnels he surely would be able to Q in any kind of trial for quite sometime without alot of training...

 

On the other hand...you can take a young border collie who is seeing sheep for the first time and might have a good chance at seeing the lovely sight of a border collie gathering/working sheep(maybe a little to enthusiasticly for there first time) with little input from the trainer....BIG DIFFERENCE...

 

I also have a friend who is quite succesful in agility and her best dog was actually NOT a natural jumper..agile maybe but many dogs are....she said for the first couple weeks of training the dog would run UNDER the jumps!! But through training and understanding the game...she is now quite succesful and is getting better and better!!!

[OurBoys]

The very skills that Agility uses - except for weaving - are instinctive to many dogs, and, in a unique way, particularly natural to the typical Border Collie.

 

Take an off leash walk in the woods with your dog sometime. You may get to observe him or her jumping over tree limbs, crossing fallen logs across creeks, even arcing and turning and doing many of the things that dogs do on the Agility course, climbing up and over and down, etc. Not according to Agility rules, of course. But racing through a series of "obstacles" - yes, I have seen dogs that are not trained to do this, do it without training.

I have to disagree with you. It's true a dog, any dog, will jump a tree limb or creek but it's to get on the other side. I do not believe any dog will go out of it's way to jump a tree limb or creek because it sees it as something to do with agility. Same with the series of "obstacles".

 

If a dog slips out of it's harness and starts running across an agility course, trust me, it's not to jump hurdles or run through tunnels. But if that same dog saw any sheep and slipped out of his harness, you better make sure he has a solid "lie down" or you're going to end up with a lap full of sheep.

[Maralynn]

 

In addition - and even more important - I consider the most foundational of training to be one of the most key components of the start of the working relationship between dog and handler. I want to experience that with each of my dogs as fully as possible - that is a very big part of the work that my dog and I do together. In addition, the very experience of training those things has an impact well into the dog's performance career. At least that has been my experience. I simply would not want to miss out on that.

 

Then you treat the dog like a blank slate

 

I enjoy watching your videos of Tessa. She looks like a fun dog to work with. But I can't see how she is more of a blank slate than a dog that had a recall and had been discouraged from jumping. You said that she's not quite comfortable yet with you walking behind her. That is not normal. That shows major learning (distrust of humans) that needs to be relearned. Hardly a blank slate IMO.

 

A good dog solid with solid temperament and drive is highly adaptable and trainable. I taught a dog who been discouraged to bark to be an enthusiastic incessant barker. In about two weeks. My dog who had been corrected (ie, yelled at once) for stealing food off the counter left it alone for years - until she did it once and was highly rewarded for it. After that I had to block off the kitchen when I left because she's retrained herself

 

Once again, I wholeheartedly agree with the idea of to each his own when selecting an adult vs puppy (I myself might am hoping to get that elusive puppy next time) and I certainly don't begrudge people a well-bred puppy. I just think that the "blank slate" idea has as much to do with a persons preferences as it does with the dog.

[shysheperdess]

Root Beer, I know I've heard you mention you don't do live competitions with a certain dog because he is to anxious..or has some other reactive problems..or that you have not been able to get to higher levels of performance sports because of your dogs distractibility/anxiety or something of that nature...

 

If your dogs were blank slates then wouldn't you be suggesting that you made them that way?? By maybe encouraging certain behaviors or not making training adjustments, etc..

 

I am just baffled by this "clean slate" thing...I have never known a rescue to be a clean slate. Wonderful dogs they may be but most certainly not a clean slate, if anything LOADS more work. The thing about dogs is even if they are not doing anything they are alwasy learning SOMETHING..wether it be good or bad..

 

Even a dog that has been roaming the streets or chained up has been learning LOADS of things...not to trust people, self rewarding behaviors, instinct guarding, a more assetive or submissive attitude, fear of humans, etc. etc...and if in a home earlier with owner who maybe let the pup get away with everything that pup is learning LOADS of bad behavior and developing a general bad attitude, etc...

 

Even brand new pups, getting one from a breeder, there upbringing up to that point is greatly influenced by there environment, there mom, how much socialization they get, etc....they are always learning SOMETHING..no such thing as a clean slate.

[Root Beer]

I enjoy watching your videos of Tessa. She looks like a fun dog to work with. But I can't see how she is more of a blank slate than a dog that had a recall and had been discouraged from jumping.

 

She had no previous experience with anything that I set out to train her. Blank slate.

 

Yes, she had a lot to overcome, and we had to allow a lot of that to happen before we could get into the nuts and bolts of training for sports, but she was still very much a blank slate when it came to what I am actually teaching her now. That it is new for her is part of the joy of the experience for me.

 

She even had to learn how to learn. It was an awesome experience.

 

You said that she's not quite comfortable yet with you walking behind her. That is not normal. That shows major learning (distrust of humans) that needs to be relearned. Hardly a blank slate IMO.

 

Yes, she had learned that. In the process, though, of her training, she has made major strides in overcoming it. I can actually use her sport training (and regular household training) as a means of building that trust because she has no prior experience with it. It is something brand new. A format where she has learned that she can trust.

 

A good dog solid with solid temperament and drive is highly adaptable and trainable.

 

And that has been one of the greatest joys of Tessa.

 

I just think that the "blank slate" idea has as much to do with a persons preferences as it does with the dog.

 

Yes, it does. My own preference would cause me to be unlikely to consider purchasing a herding washout, as opposed to getting an adult from rescue. But for others the opposite will certainly mesh more with their preferences.

 

That's why it would be imprecise to think that all sport buyers are looking for the same thing in a training and sport prospect. One size will definitely not fit all.

[Root Beer]

Root Beer, I know I've heard you mention you don't do live competitions with a certain dog because he is to anxious..

 

Yes, Dean.

 

or has some other reactive problems..or that you have not been able to get to higher levels of performance sports because of your dogs distractibility/anxiety or something of that nature...

 

Anxiety. Not "distractibility". There is a big difference.

 

Distractibility can typically be helped through training. Generalized anxiety is a mental condition that cannot be trained away.

 

If your dogs were blank slates then wouldn't you be suggesting that you made them that way?? By maybe encouraging certain behaviors or not making training adjustments, etc..

 

No, I'm not suggesting that at all.

 

Brain chemistry is brain chemistry. It is not trained. And while training can, over time with a lot of work, actually change brain chemistry to some extent, a dog - or a human, for that matter - who has an anxiety disorder has that because of brain chemistry.

 

The way that I trained Dean did not cause him to have severe noise phobia or generalized anxiety. Those are not caused by training. They are caused by brain chemistry.

 

Good training is, over time, helping him develop more skills to cope with the disorder, but training did not cause him to have it in the first place.

 

I am just baffled by this "clean slate" thing...I have never known a rescue to be a clean slate.

 

Nobody else taught him to sit, to lie down, to stay, to spin, to leg weave, to get up and off on cue, to wait at the door for a release, to come when he was called, what a reinforcer means, how to earn a reinforcer, how to focus for a certain duration, that the correct behavior near a counter is four on the floor, etc. etc. etc.

 

No dog is a "blank slate" in the sense of knowing absolutely nothing. I guess I took for granted that people would know that. Even an 8 week old puppy knows quite a lot.

 

I mean "blank slate" in the sense of training the kinds of things that I have listed above and much, much, much more.

 

I guess one could argue that Dean was not a "blank slate" because he came with an anxiety disorder, but that would really be the same as saying that a dog is not a "blank slate" because he or she is deaf, or has a joint problem, or is red instead of black and white.

 

He was completely untrained (other than being housetrained). That's a blank slate by my definition. It doesn't mean the he knew absolutely nothing about anything. Of course he had habits that we needed to use training to change. All the same, he had no training.

 

Wonderful dogs they may be but most certainly not a clean slate, if anything LOADS more work.

 

I never said they weren't a lot of work, although I have to say that being a rescue is not necessarily an indicator that the dog will be a lot more work. Speedy, my breeder dog, was far more work than Maddie, who was a rescue.

 

But yes, some rescues are a lot of work. Dean certainly took the most work I've ever put into a dog. A "blank slate" can take a great deal of work to "fill".

 

But that was part of the joy of the experience for both of us. I'll never forget the look in his eyes when things started to make sense to him. I wouldn't trade that for all the "easier" dogs in the world.

 

....they are always learning SOMETHING..no such thing as a clean slate.

 

So, we are using the term different.

 

I use "blank slate" as "untrained". Again, that doesn't mean the dog knows nothing, nor that there aren't training challenges to overcome. I mean "untrained".

[Root Beer]

I do not believe any dog will go out of it's way to jump a tree limb or creek because it sees it as something to do with agility. Same with the series of "obstacles".

 

I didn't say that.

 

I said that Agility uses skills that are actually instinctive and natural to the dog, not that the dog thinks that using those skills outside of Agility cause him or her to think that has something to do with Agilty

 

If a dog slips out of it's harness and starts running across an agility course, trust me, it's not to jump hurdles or run through tunnels.

 

Really? I've seen it happen.

 

All dogs, of course not. But yes, I've seen it happen.

 

Of course they aren't going to go out and run the course in order or anything, but I have seen untrained dogs run out on their own and try to interact with the equipment - sometimes successfully and sometimes not so successfully. We tend to be careful to try not to let that happen since they can get hurt that way. But I've seen it happen, certainly.

[jdarling]

Really? I've seen it happen.

It's the exception, not the rule, as I'm sure you know.

 

If I put one of my untrained dogs in a small arena with some sheep, he's going to try to bring me the sheep.

 

If I put one of my untrained dogs in a small arena with agility equipment, he's going to go piss on the equipment.

[Root Beer]

I would have to disagree with RB that agility is somehow instinctual....most people I know who train for agility start foundation training with there pups immedietly, to teach them the skills that will help them be successful agility partners....or people who get rescue it takes them TIME to TRAIN the skills necessary to play the GAME...

 

Of course they do.

 

All the same, for some dogs, there are instinctual elements to it that are not there for other dogs. And there are some types of dogs for whom elements of it are instinctual that other dogs need to be taught from the ground up.

 

Of course, one must train a foundation. Of course it takes time. Of course no dog knows Agility inside and out instinctively.

 

At the same time, instinct is part of the picture of what an individual dogs brings to the team.

 

To say that every dog has to be trained every aspect of the discipline of Agility would be incorrect.

 

I also have a friend who is quite succesful in agility and her best dog was actually NOT a natural jumper..agile maybe but many dogs are....she said for the first couple weeks of training the dog would run UNDER the jumps!! But through training and understanding the game...she is now quite succesful and is getting better and better!!!

 

I had that experience myself. Maddie was no natural. We had to work, and work hard, to train just about every aspect of Agility. And she became quite good. So, I certainly made no implication that a dog to whom Agility does not come naturally can't attain a high level of proficiency.

 

All the same, there are some dogs that simply don't need that amount of training. Some do pick up on parts of it instinctively (of course, for those dogs there are other parts that need to be trained thoroughly)

 

I'm experiencing the difference and it's plain as day now that it's in front of my face. And the difference is the instinct that this particular Border Collie brings to the team. It's something in her that I don't need to train because it's already there. In those aspects, this game is tapping into her instinct.

[Root Beer]

If I put one of my untrained dogs in a small arena with agility equipment, he's going to go piss on the equipment.

 

So, do you really think that implies in some way that your untrained dog is leaving all of his instincts outside the ring when he goes in to do Agility? To me that is simply nonsense.

 

Should you choose to pursue the game, those very instincts are going to come into play in a lot of ways throughout the process of training, practicing, and trialing, most likely in ways you don't realize if you have never gone through the process firsthand.

 

That doesn't mean the Border Collie thinks he is doing stockwork when he is doing Agility. It simply means that if the instinct is there, it is going to come into play in some way within a performance sport, even if that is not evident to the observer.

[Eileen Stein]

The prevailing method for starting a young sheepdog's training is to take the dog to sheep, let him go, see what he does, and use our body movements and pressure to shape that toward what we want. That is the most effective way of going about training, because what we seek is dependent on the inborn instincts and abilities of the border collie.

 

Is that the preferred way of starting an agility dog (substituting agility equipment for sheep, of course)? I kinda doubt it. And the reason it's not points up the distinction some people are trying to draw here -- the overriding importance of breeding in stockwork, and the overriding importance of training in agility.

[Root Beer]

Is that the preferred way of starting an agility dog? I kinda doubt it.

 

Of course not.

 

But, again, that does not imply, in some way, that a Border Collie leaves all of his instincts outside the ring when doing Agility and that they don't come into play.

 

They absolutely do. The fact that Agility training is not started in the same way that stockwork is started has nothing to do with that.

 

Of course Agility is not stockwork. But a Border Collie is the total package of what he or she is. The dog doesn't leave that behind when working in a performance sport.

 

And the reason it's not points up the distinction some people are trying to draw here -- the overriding importance of breeding in stockwork, and the overriding importance of training in agility.

 

I don't disagree with that. Breeding is essential to stockwork, of course.

 

What I disagree with is the point that training is the single determining factor in an Agility dog's performance, aptitude, and skill in Agility. Training is crucial - no dog can do Agility without it. But it is not everything. In fact, what the dog brings into the sport in the way of instinct particular to the dog's breed, can be incredibly significant.

 

Yes, there are excellent Agility dogs of other breeds. But nobody is calling for an "anything but a ______________ (insert name of any other breed here)" divisions in the Agility world.

 

There's a reason for that and it's not training.

[Eileen Stein]

But, again, that does not imply, in some way, that a Border Collie leaves all of his instincts outside the ring when doing Agility and that they don't come into play.

 

Yeah, but that's a straw man.

 

I don't disagree with that. Breeding is essential to stockwork, of course.

 

Yeah, and that's the point.

[Diana A]

There is absolutely such a thing as a dog with an inborn talent for agility. I used to own a dog like that, back in the day before handling skills were sophisticated enough to duplicate through handling/training what she did naturally. She was amazing. I swear she could read my mind out on the course, or had taken a sneak peek at map ahead of time. She could slither over jumps full speed while turning without touching the bar, go from flat out full speed to a stop to turn on a dime and still nail a weave entrance or angled contact upramp with the sure-footedness of a cat. She could look ahead at the course and read all the possibilities coming up and perpare her body for any of them, but at the same time was always 100% aware of where I was, how I was moving, where I might be headed next and she could process that information at top speed and make it look effortless. She was a blast to run and made me look good years before I had a clue about all the handling stuff I know today. I could almost swear she was some great agility dog re-incarnated and I wasn't really training her but just reminding her of stuff she used to know, that's how quickly she caught on to things. I have had several border collies and never had another like her. I can see how agility competitors would want a dog like that and someone owning a dog like that would want to breed it to pass those traits on. In theory you could throw in some working lines from time to time and have the best of both worlds.

 

Reality and theory are not the same thing however. Now this particular dog, she wasn't much as a stock dog. I thought she showed some early ability, but the thing was, as soon as I made it HARD for her (asking for something off balance for example, or putting any kind of pressure on her to do something counter to what she wanted to do) she'd just quit on me, then sneak back to the sheep to work them on her terms. And she was prone to take cheap shots at the sheep if I frustrated her by interfering too much with what SHE wanted. There was a certain element of biddability and adaptability missing in her stockwork, but just based on her agility work I would have had NO clue that deficiency was there because in agility she was quite happy to go along with what I wanted - after all, one agility jump or obstacle was just as good as another to her, so she was giving up nothing to follow my plan. On the sheep she had her own ideas. I think she also was a little bit afraid of the situation with sheep - more tending to close her eyes and throw herself in and grab something than to calmly think it through and read what was happening in front of her. She wanted to do things with the sheep but maybe wasn't that confident she really could control things, so she would get in a panic about it.

 

Now if I had not at the time been trying to set my goals for upper level stockdog work, it would have been very easy for me to look at this dog at the basic beginning level of showing 'interest' and some 'cool moves' on the sheep doing basic balance work and other things she wanted to do, and think "wow, I have a dog who is a brilliant agility dog and has 'working instinct'". And if I was a breeder, it would have been tempting to want to breed a dog like that. I'm sure some of her offspring would have inherited her agility talent. But I would have been producing 'lesser' border collies in the sense of stockwork by breeding her.

 

So let's say agility talent is genetic and you can breed for it (I do think that is true to a certain extent). The question then is, SHOULD you do that? And what is the long term impact on the true working border collie likely to be? Is that a road we should even start to go down?

 

Now I am sure there is the rare individual out there with the skills to identify, train, and handle that one in a million agility dog (90% of agility handlers out there wouldn't be able to make full use of that dog if they had it or would just frustrate it or hold it back with poor handling skills and incomplete training)and who also has time and knowledge to fully train that dog in stockwork and determine that it's also a worthy stockdog. So you assume that one 'right' dog who is truly talented in BOTH fields gets into the hands of that one 'right' person who is in a position to really know what they have in BOTH fields, THEN I would say it's okay for that dog to be bred.

 

But now comes the hard part - who do you breed that dog to? Is there another one-in-a-million dog out there also owned by that one-in-a-million owner who has worked the dog fully in both fields. Chances are, probably not, or your choices would be very limited. But let's say you find that dog. He's brilliant in both stockwork and agility. But now we have to look further, do the working traits match up? Are both dogs overly wide working on stock - and breeding them will produce a less than useful dog? Do both have a lot of eye and breeding them may produce a dog who's just too sticky to be an effective worker? What are your chances of finding two 'one-in-a-million' dogs talented on both stock and in agility and having their working traits be a good match?

 

So this puts the would-be breeder in a tough spot - since you are unlikely to find a dog equally talented and fully compatible and fully proven in both fields, you have two choices. One, breed to a compatible working dog who may not have that agility talent. Or two, breed to a talented agility dog but one who may not be compatible from a live stock working perspective. Given that the person in question is on the other side of that bridge wanting to establish an 'agility line' what choice do you think will be made? And what will be the long-term impact of a 2nd, 3rd, etc generation of similar choices?

 

I just do not seeing it happening that there are sufficient numbers of people truly invested in both activities and sufficient numbers of dogs truly talented in both activities that you could ever establish a line of dogs that are equally talented and amazing in both areas.

 

So then, really what you're talking about is a split into a separate agility line, accepting that the stockworking talent will be dimished, but wanting to borrow from the working line in order to keep the PERSONALITY and TEMPERAMENT traits the agility dog needs while discarding full consideration of actual stock talent.

 

So the offer to 'bridge the gap' becomes one side taking what it wants at the expense of what the other side holds valuable. So now if I have to make a choice - scenario (1) preserve extreme stock working talent and have dogs who do can do real work and have a decent chance of being 'very good' at agility and good for 90+% of agility competitors out there and who will produce the agility genius some percentage of the time, or (2) dilute the working talent, risk losing the working dog genes, but have a high probability of producing agility geniuses that 90+% of competitors won't really be able to fully use or appreciate. People who's philosophy puts them on the side of option 2 are not going to be very good bridge builders with those firmly on the side of option 1.

 

The true reality of what's happening? The lines are diverging. There are agility lines starting. They may or may not preserve all the essential personality and temperament traits once stock work is removed from the picture - time will tell. Possibly crossing back to real working dogs will keep that in them and a good agility line will be established. They most likely won't be good stock working dogs. But the true stock working dog will survive because they have numbers on their side - as long as enough of the real thing is being bred, the population can afford some bleeding out of the line to other divergent lines (like what happened with the conformation border collie) and still survive. But just because they will survive does not mean those causing the split will be welcomed with open arms or that those on the other side will want to build a bridge to contribute to that divergence.