What has color got to do with it?

[alligande]

The only issue is that this board has a fundamental philosophy that the only reason to breed a border collie is because of its ability to work sheep.

 

I have never seen any grey areas on this board regarding that philosophy, there are plenty of people who do not agree with that opinion but people who financially support this board believe it is fundamental to the survival of the breed and that it not just become an intelligent fluffy black and white dog able to learn lots of cool tricks.

[Smalahundur]

 

My problem with the animal rights community is that they attack others far more than they are ever attacked. They show the same intolerance for a different belief that you all are showing here.

Oh come on, "Intolerance for a different belief"..?

They are just opinions, and contrary to what you seem to think not all opinions are equally valid.

[Gideon's girl]

 

My problem with the animal rights community is that they attack others far more than they are ever attacked. They show the same intolerance for a different belief that you all are showing here.

 

 

I can't even begin to believe you would come here and bother with your blather. The whole point of these boards is that this group of people BELIEVES that people like you are ruining the breed, and to educate people about why that is a bad thing to do, to educate people about what makes a real BC, and to support like minded people. Why would you come here and expect anything else.

[simba]

If you pick for pretty much anything but colour, you'll get mostly black and white for border collies (because most of them are black and white, and most other colours are recessive).

 

So to get certain colours, or to get higher frequencies of coloured dogs, you have to breed for colour as a priority. You have to actively pick out not the best working dog, or the longest-lived, or the best-tempered dog, but the one with the 'right' colour which might not be as good at any of these things. And probably won't be, because if 1 in 20 dogs is of the 'right' colour then you have only 1/20 or fewer of the dogs who are healthy or good at working etc to choose from.

 

Anyone who breeds for colour as a priority is not breeding first and foremost for things which will actually affect the dog's welfare, even leaving aside the question of breeding a collie to actually be a collie. It's like if someone was breeding dogs obsessively to have blue eyes- the priorities are not at all relevant to the health and welfare of the dogs, or their suitability for anything (even as pets).

 

It gets even worse for colours like merle, where breeding for it can actually have a directly detrimental effect on the welfare of the animals (all merle dogs are at increased risk for health problems like deafness- you can't breed for merle without breeding for that increased risk).

 

You were wondering about colour, and suggested that most dogs are black and white because people actively select for that colour: "the old herders only wanted the black/white", and made the concomitant suggestion that there are fewer dogs of other colours because people are or were biased against them ("Can't any colour be just as good"). It's an appealing suggestion, but it seems more likely it was just random genetic drift.You see similar white patterns on foxes and rats bred purely for tameness, suggesting that it may never have been actually selected for- it just happens when you select for other things.

 

It's like saying people from China or Nigeria are more likely to have black hair than people from Ireland, and assuming that that's because the Irish don't think black hair is as good so they don't marry black-haired people. No need for deliberate selection when it's more likely explained by genetic drift, dominance or otherwise of genes (black is more likely to pass on than some other colours), and chance.

 

 

It's not a question of whether people think red dogs, for example, are inherently bad. You can get good dogs of any colour, and no-one's saying "Lilac dogs are awful!" the way GSD people would talk about white dogs.

 

But for the reasons explained above, it's not considered ethical here to breed for colour any more than it would be to breed for blue eyes, or to breed for deafness. It's not being intolerant to explain that breeding for colour means breeding for dogs which aren't as good at working and in the long-term probably won't be as healthy etc, it's just fact.

 

A border collie is a dog bred for the ability to herd livestock, in the same way that a west highland white terrier is a small white dog with wiry hair. If someone was breeding for smooth-coated black westies, the other fanciers would doubtless say that that breeder wasn't a good breeder of westies, or their dogs weren't really west highland terriers. Would you have an issue with that? What if they were breeding for increased risks of deafness, or sight problems, deliberately? And this is an example where the black westie won't affect anyone's livelihood. Most dogs can be pets, so it's not such a big deal for most other breeds.

 

I'm not a collie person nor an expert in anything to do with this- I'm a total outsider and noob- but I don't think there's any intolerance here. People are passionate about breeding healthy, able dogs. That's a cause worth being passionate about.

[geonni banner]

 

My problem with the animal rights community is that they attack others far more than they are ever attacked. They show the same intolerance for a different belief that you all are showing here.

 

 

Out "Intolerant belief" is not a belief at all.

 

belief(Noun): Mental acceptance of a claim as truth regardless of supporting or contrary empirical evidence

and

Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof

 

What you have is a belief. Your contention that there's nothing wrong with having color as a criterion for breeding is an insupportable belief. It flies in the face of ordinary observation, the experience of decades of experienced breeders, handlers and stock men/women and specific, verifiable studies. Breeding for appearance is bad for dogs. It's bad for their health and it's bad for their usefulness. It's bad for their genetic viability and robustness, and it panders to the whims of a pet-owning population that knows (and apparently cares) little or nothing about what makes a sound, healthy, useful dog.

 

What the people here on the Boards have been at great pains to enlighten you about is not a belief. It is verifiable fact. Breeding for anything but working ability - including general health and soundness, which are of course imperative for a stock dog- reduces the Border Collies that are so bred. This isn't something made up to irritate people who want to breed "really pretty dogs," or "the quintessential agility dog," or anyone else.

 

You can choose any breed of dog you like, and it is clear to anyone who cares to look, that breeding for anything other than usefulness has destroyed dozens of breeds of dogs. It is further demonstrable that breeding for looks (yes, that includes color) has been directly responsible for the demise of the heath, soundness and genetic viability of every breed which has been so bred. This is true even of breeds that have never had work to do that was more demanding that being a pampered pet. We don't believe this; we KNOW it. We can PROVE it.

 

If you are enamored of the Border Collie, be aware that what you like (if it's more than the color of its fur) is the distillation of thousands of stock keeper's efforts to produce and preserve a dog upon which their very lives depended. This is the dog that can manage stock like no other dog on the planet. And the very traits that enable it to do this coincidentally made it the quintessential agility dog, and one of the most enjoyable companion animals ever bred.

 

So, you say, why can't I have this in a lilac merle package? And I say, for the same reason that makes it absurd to put a lavender bow on the Venus de Milo, or a ring of plastic flamingos around the Parthenon. It is disrespectful and misses the whole point of the creation of the thing in either case.

[Christina]

I'm thinking nobody here has paid attention to the fact that I said I would never personally buy from anyone but a stock dog breeder.

So how exactly am I responsible for ruining the breed?

I'm only advocating tolerance. Keep your stock dogs in stock dog lines and let other people have their sport lines and conformation lines. They are just as convinced that they are right as you folks are.

[geonni banner]

Christina says,

"I'm thinking nobody here has paid attention to the fact that I said I would never personally buy from anyone but a stock dog breeder."

 

No, I noticed that. My question to you is why is that important to you? Seriously...

"So how exactly am I responsible for ruining the breed?"

 

You're not - except if you take the attitude of "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem." (Which I do.)

"I'm only advocating tolerance. Keep your stock dogs in stock dog lines and let other people have their sport lines and conformation lines. They are just as convinced that they are right as you folks are."

 

Yeah, except that we have proof that we're right... I will not show tolerance to anyone that advocates the abuse of dogs. It has been proven that that is exactly what breeding for conformation does - it abuses dogs by making them unsound, unhealthy and unhealthily inbred.

 

Breeding for sports, while it may not be dog abuse per se, is unnecessary, because dogs bred for superior working ability are as good as, if not better, for sports than dogs bred by people who do not and cannot evaluate their dogs for working ability. So choosing sport dogs from working breeders is clearly the better choice for the breed.

 

Christina, I want you to get the dog you want. I want you to be happy with your choice. I just want you to understand that you may be confused in your priorities. If my efforts, and those of the Boards members who know more about this that I ever will, like Gloria and Eileen, cannot convince you, then I am sad; because we have failed you and the dogs we love.

 

Anyway I'm done trying to convince you. Good luck to you.

[simba]

Sorry for butting in again- but you're suggesting there's 'intolerance for a different belief' here. What there is is 'opinions that differ from those of other people'. It's not intolerant to discuss facts, or to point out if someone is working off incorrect information or is mistaken, otherwise every teacher in the world is intolerant.

 

When you advocate 'tolerance' what you are advocating, whether you realise it or not, is 'not expressing your opinions if other people differ on them'. Because no-one here is exactly going and picketing the doors of colour breeders, or discriminating against coloured dogs. They're just expressing opinions, and reciting facts, as to why it's wrong to breed for it. So what's wrong with that?

 

If I'm wrong- what would your version of 'tolerance' look like? If breeding for colour always involves breeding for double recessives (which come from a small number of founders and may carry other hidden problems) or potential health defects (merle), even setting aside the other problems with it, what could be wrong with saying that's an unwise practice and that people shouldn't do it?

 

Again- if someone was breeding for deafness deliberately (without the excuse of colour) would you advocate people 'live and let live'? This is breeding for human whims, at the expense of dogs' health, and at the expense of the breed as a whole. Why should we tolerate that?

 

The problem isn't people are discriminating against coloured dogs. The problem for you is people advocating not discriminating in favor or against coloured dogs at all. Of treating them like any other dog, and looking at their ability and health.

[ejano]

I'm thinking nobody here has paid attention to the fact that I said I would never personally buy from anyone but a stock dog breeder.

 

So how exactly am I responsible for ruining the breed?

 

I'm only advocating tolerance. Keep your stock dogs in stock dog lines and let other people have their sport lines and conformation lines. They are just as convinced that they are right as you folks are.

 

When you buy a dog out of working lines you get a whole dog - one with stock sense and the ability to do sports. Buying a dog not bred for work means that you are missing half the dog. If you love the breed and apparently prefer dogs from working lines, why condone diluting it? The argument has no basis in reason.

[NorthfieldNick]

These arguments remind of when I was young (and really dumb & stubborn), and argued about how livestock was raised on a vegetarian board. Someone older, and kinder, finally pointed out that, no matter how nicely/humanely, etc I thought an animal was raised, it didn't matter, because the people on that board didn't believe in killing animals for any reason.

[dogrsqr]

As a person who is mostly doing agility with my dog, I don't care about color either. I want a dog that wants to do agility and that is way more important than color. She also happens to like herding so we do that too, but I'm not passionate about it.

 

She is a rescue, and age and temperment were far more important than color. If I had it in my head that I wanted a certain color and a rescue who was the age and temperment I wanted I would probably still be waiting; and I would have missed out on the totally awesome dog I have. She happens to be a smoothie which I was never really attracted to.

 

I don't understand the whole color preference thing either, but to each his own.

 

Gina and Abbey

[Syncrope]

When I picked up Luna last year from her foster mom, she had a sweet little sister who was the traditional irish black and white coloring, easily the smallest, and a big brother who was mostly white with some black here and there- lots of white factoring- and very light gray eyes. Luna was the only one with tricolor, which at the time was... my least favorite color. I love how the mostly-white ones look. My mom was trying to convince me to pick the little sister with the traditional black-and-white. Had they all been the same exact dog with the same personality and different colorings, I'd have chosen the brother. Instead, I picked Luna, because she was the middle dog who wasn't too shy and meek, and wasn't too rowdy and crazy. Why? Well, she's my first dog and I needed the most tame choice. Aesthetically she may have been the least pleasing to me-- I always go for the runt, and at the same time I liked the male's appearance, but their personalities weren't best for me. Great dogs I'm sure- but only for the right person.

 

Everyone kind of got a little off-topic in relation to the OP of this subject I think, and my post doesn't really answer their exact question either... but I just want to get my foot in the crack to say that- had I picked the dog which was the cutest or prettiest- I wouldn't have the wonderful, happy dog I have today.

 

... As far as tricolor being the least appealing to me, it is now my favorite! And that's because my dog has become the most beautiful individual in my eyes.

 

Certainly anyone has the right to pick whichever dog they think is the prettiest, but they may be missing out on something more amazing than cosmetics. A beautiful personality and temperament will much more likely keep a dog out of a shelter than a beautiful coat.

 

My answer to the OP's question: Color has nothing to do with it!

[Laurae]

Everyone kind of got a little off-topic in relation to the OP of this subject I think, and my post doesn't really answer their exact question either... but I just want to get my foot in the crack to say that- had I picked the dog which was the cutest or prettiest- I wouldn't have the wonderful, happy dog I have today.

 

 

Those newer to the breed (or who willfully choose to remain ignorant) may not understand the relevance of breeding practices to a discussion on color selection in border collies, but I can assure you it was not off topic.

[Syncrope]

Those newer to the breed (or who willfully choose to remain ignorant) may not understand the relevance of breeding practices to a discussion on color selection in border collies, but I can assure you it was not off topic.

 

 

Apologies, I was mostly referring to the fact that people were making things personal and taking offense; comments for example "So how exactly am I responsible for ruining the breed?" and bringing up animal rights activists seemed a little off-topic in relation to the OP's question about what color has to do with herding. I certainly understand the relevance. I get the whole argument about breeding for color VS breeding for herding instinct etc. I can say that I'm not new to any of it, since I've been involved (and enthralled!) with my grandparents' sheep and border collies since before I knew my ABC's! I'm new to the site, but I'm not new to this debate... even while it is one of the most important issues concerning the breed.

 

Simba's earlier post took the words right out of my mouth, I agree wholeheartedly.

 

So yes, I understand the relevance and most of it was on-topic, but I personally felt some comments weren't so much useful contributions to the OP's question. Not that it's a bad thing, I respect everyone voicing their opinions. I try not to offend anyone. I'm always hesitant to give my piece on discussions like this where emotions are already a bit high, mostly because I'm afraid of the back-and-forth which sends my anxiety through the roof, haha.

 

Anyway sorry if I came off as dumb I'm not the best with words.

[Laurae]

You certainly didn't come across as dumb, and I absolutely did not mean to imply that at all. But you spoke to why color is not important to you in your selection of your individual dog. You spoke of choosing a dog whose temperament, rather than coat color, might suit you best. And that is admirable and I completely agree with your decision making process. But while it is wise to disregard color in individual dogs, color is an important signifier in border collies. Because historically collies chosen for their ability to work will appear in black and white, black tri, or to a lesser extent red colors, and these coat colors are predominant in the working border collie population, border collies that have coats of "exotic" colors, like lilac or lemon, have likely been bred for the purpose of obtaining/retaining such colors. Thus, they have been bred with a different standard in mind entirely. (That is not to say all black and white or tricolored border collies have been bred to a working standard--just that border collies with exotic coat colors almost certainly have not.) In the overwhelming majority of cases, the appearance of "candy colors" does not happen by accident, and because they have not been selectively bred to retain the myriad working traits that define border collies, it is unlikely they "might work just as well as any other border collie." It is not simply prejudice or personal preferences of individual dogs at play here--color is a significant clue into what a dog has been bred for, and coat color can help us tell whether that dog's makeup includes working ancestors going back hundreds of years.

 

As to why this should matter to agility folks or people just wanting active companions when there will always be working breeders breeding working dogs, the fear is co-option. Countless other breeds were once bred for their distinct working traits, but they've largely disappeared or had their natural ability severely diluted because there has been an ever-increasing number of dogs in these breeds being bred for other reasons and eventually the working gene pools of these breeds was reduced to the point of diminishing returns. If you admire the border collie for all the reasons they are unique to other dogs, you will value the breeding practices that made them this way and fight to try to ensure they do not lose the very traits that make them border collies in the first place.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

It may be worth noting that one if not the primary appeal of breeding for color is how easy it is. Anyone with a high school biology knowledge of Mendelian genetics need know nothing about a dog breed to breed for red ones or merle ones or yellow ones.

 

 

 

It takes most people 8-10 years working a stockdog to get good at it - to simply know when a dog is doing right or wrong. There are many, many top handlers and top trainers who have never bred a notable litter.To their great experience you must add an artist's understanding of which genetic qualities are relatively easy to transmit and which more difficult, which combinations might produce notable results and the opportunity and reputation to place pups with people who can get those qualities out of them.

 

I've been working sheepdogs for 30 years and can't honestly call myself a breeder.

 

Donald McCaig

[terrecar]

They’re not widgets. Color and 'refined' physical attributes add nothing to the quality of human/canine communication. And I say that as an ex show person who spent a good deal of my time studying what amounts to the equivalent of Smurfology.

[geonni banner]

There is nothing wrong with having a color preference. When someone puts up a picture of a new puppy or dog you will see lots of comments that say, "I love me some tricolor," or "Split-faces are so cool!," or "Red smoothies are my favorite!"

 

But then they go work or play with their dog that isn't a tri, isn't a split-face, and isn't a red smoothie, and they love that dog like no other, because of what's inside the skin, inside the head, and inside the soul. And that's why they chose it.

 

Cause color has nothing to do with it.

 

(Except maybe for Betty Gillis's Stella - the goddess of Border Collie beauty. Especially when she's working...)

[mum24dog]

There is nothing wrong with having a color preference. When someone puts up a picture of a new puppy or dog you will see lots of comments that say, "I love me some tricolor," or "Split-faces are so cool!," or "Red smoothies are my favorite!"

 

But then they go work or play with their dog that isn't a tri, isn't a split-face, and isn't a red smoothie, and they love that dog like no other, because of what's inside the skin, inside the head, and inside the soul. And that's why they chose it.

 

Totally agree.

 

I love ginger dogs generally, in BCs I prefer short coated b/ws. I don't like merles at all but would I have one? I wouldn't rule it out if there was something about the dog that drew me in spite of it's colour. And I'm sure I would come to love that dog just like the others.

[strychix]

I might be renewing a topic people would consider too old (is a couple weeks too old?) but I found this entire thread very interesting so I really would like to comment.

 

This reminds me a lot, as a genetic nerd, of chickens. Not so much color, but the Orpington breed of chickens (though, to clarify, a breed of chicken is based solely on it's looks and not it's actual ancestry) has a UK standard and a US standard. These chickens just look different, but people often want to segregate them into different names because they are in fact not the same.

 

One could make the same argument for working class BCs and others.

 

My opinion is rather here nor there on the topic, with the exception that everyone should be honest. A breeder should say what they are breeding for and someone looking to get a BC should be honest on what they want out of their dog, especially in the scenario they themselves will be breeding.

 

I think the insinuation that if a border collie is not black and white, it is automatically inferior is a rather harsh one. It does not take many generations to introduce a color into your breeding stock, even if it is recessive. The key to it would to really do your research and find the perfect breeding stock in that criteria, which would no doubt take a lot of patience, money, and effort. There's no doubt a lot of breeders out there for just color, but it's a rather unfair assumption that all that breed for color only breed for color.

 

What I learned with rat breeding is that you can breed for color to your hearts content, but there is inevitably a point where you have to realize you need to get new, superior breeding stock and throw it in, often sacrificing that color. If you're willing to have a lot of road blocks and frustration, then breeding for color is fine.

 

I also don't think that choosing a dog you want in a certain color is irresponsible in itself. If you'll take any dog in that color and breed, sure, but if you're hearts desire is to have a Merle border collie and you can wait until you find the perfect one based on more than coloring, by all means. I find it more ridiculous that people will reserve with a breeder based on one picture when most of the puppies look the same and they have no identifying info other than gender.

 

And if someone wants any specific quality and gets from a shelter and is willing to work with that dog and love it, I really don't hold any judgement at all.

[bcnewe2]

baaahhh

Never mind

Edited June 6, 2013 by bcnewe2

[Liz P]

You can't compare breeding pet rats to breeding a complex working animal. The second you bring color into the equation, you start sacrificing working traits. The ability to work is what defines the breed and is their sole purpose for existing in the first place. This is something you can't understand until you have worked dogs at a high level of skill for many years.

[Debbie Meier]

My opinion is rather here nor there on the topic, with the exception that everyone should be honest. A breeder should say what they are breeding for and someone looking to get a BC should be honest on what they want out of their dog, especially in the scenario they themselves will be breeding.

 

 

The point that many try to make, which is also a warning, is that those breeding for color are honestly rarely breeding for work as number 1 priority since they have to give up work in order to maintain the color. Now, it could be done, but I don't know more then a handful that are successfully doing it so we go back to the advise to new people to the breed; if you are looking for a working dog be very wary of breeders that advertise color.

 

The other issue is that people are only as honest as their understanding and knowledge. Many may honestly believe that they are producing top quality working dogs, but they lack the understanding, knowledge and experience that would be needed to truly evaluate and prove the dog.

 

Once a person realizes how much goes into selecting and maintaining a line of good working dogs they suddenly come to the realization that you can't have it all, your always giving up something for something else and color is one of those traits that is not even worth trying to fight for. We like smooth coats but also realize that we may have to accept a rough coat now and then if that rough coat truly is the superior dog, otherwise we are giving up a superior mating opportunity over coat length, quite trivial in the overall scheme of things.

 

 

[strychix]

No but I was breeding rats for certain qualities and health. I'm not saying its the same, I'm saying that if the breeding for color is done responsibly, and with the right priorities, it can be done.

 

There's a lot more to breeding than a lot of people realize, including myself. I would by no means consider myself an expert in genetics much less dog genetics and certainly not border collie genetics, but are you telling me there or not even a few viable options for other colors out there for breeding colorful, good quality working dogs?

 

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it shouldn't be ruled out entirely and looked down upon. Personally, I could care less what color my dog is, and admittedly I have no point of reference as far as herding. I just think that color on a general does not necessarily constitute assumptions.

 

Due to my ignorance, please tell me. Are there no high quality herding BCs in other colors than B/W with the aforementioned exceptions of some reds and tricolors? Are there no blues or merles or lemons or lilacs out there that could keep up with a good black and white? I could certainly understand more rare, as good black and whites for work are probably a minority when you take the whole sum of black and white border collies, and then remember that the other colors are for more rare in general. You'd be looking for a rare quality in a rare color, which sounds like a headache to me, but is it really impossible?

[Liz P]

The problem is, all the fancy colors aside from merle (which technically isn't a color, but a pattern) are recessive. Breeding for smooth coats is easy. It's common in the gene pool and dominant, so all you have to do is choose a quality smooth coated dog to start your bloodline. Half of that dog's pups will be smoothies, so it's easy to pick a quality pup from each litter.

 

With colors like blue or lilac, they are so rare that finding a good dog of that color is like winning the lottery. Then, to continue the line with that color, you have to restrict your choice of mates to such a tiny subset of the population that your odds of finding a good match that also happens to carry the color are next to zero. In the mean time, in order to get color, you have now sacrificed other traits like working ability, health or temperament.

 

We are not arguing with you just to argue. People have tried the whole color breeding thing before, and to date, I don't know of a single success story. It's hard enough to breed good working dogs without adding totally useless criteria to the selection process.