Breeding pet border collies

[sogj]

Now, before you all draw your long swords and prod me off the plank know that

 

(1) I have no desire or plans to breed any dogs, and

(2) I am asking this from purely a biological/genetic/anthropological point of view.

 

Assuming that I am not talking about dogs bred for conformation or specialty color, which is obviously a terrible reason to continue a breeding program...

 

Why is it such a bad thing to breed dogs for good companionship/agility/frisbee while ignoring or possibly weeding out herding/sheepdog instinct? Isn't that how all dog breeds are eventually formed, a need is seen (modern competition homes that don't own sheep or cattle but want agility/frisbee dogs who can also be good with kids so that herding instinct is only a detriment and not an advantage) and then the dog is modified to meet that need? Isn't that what created dog breeds, including the border collie, to begin with?

I guess my question is, why all the hate on "designer" breeds of dogs, or breeders who are trying to change (as opposed to maintain or improve) the breed, when isn't that what humans have been doing for thousands and thousands of years?

[GentleLake]

Ummm, because then they won't, by definition, be border collies anymore?

 

What defines this breed is it's exceptional and particular ability to herd sheep and other livestock. It's what made these dogs into the unique breed we've come to know and love.

 

If you want something other than a border collie, there are plenty of other breeds that make perfect pets for the average pet owner. Why change something that's already perfect for what it's meant to do into something else entirely?

 

That's the short, and, well, emotionally detached answer. Good thing I'm extremely tired or it would have been more passionate. I'm sure others will rectify that post haste.

[Gloria Atwater]

Good evening!

Well, I can't speak for all breeds, but the border collie was absolutely not created as a pet, first. He was created to fill a need, that of being the farmer's work mate. For generations, the collie was indispensable on the farm and no shepherd could do his work without one. The same held true for drovers moving flocks and herds to market.

It's likewise for other purpose-bred breeds: malamutes were bred to pull load where no other "draft" animals could work, hounds were bred to track meat for their owners' tables, other hunting dogs were bred to flush birds or game for their owners to harvest for meat, terriers were bred to hunt out crop-damaging,/chicken-killing varmints, and guardian dogs were created to protect livestock and warm off intruders. And so forth. "Pet" dogs were actually the providence of the rich and noble, and as such were possibly not the majority of dog breeds for a very long time. The working classes needed their dogs to perform useful tasks, not just eat groceries and lay around. And for that matter, the nobility also needed useful dogs for myriad tasks on their lands.

Thus, turning such working dogs into pets is actually a step backwards. It's diluting them from their purpose and watering down the qualities that made them so desirable in the first place. A few generations on, and we have witless Irish setters who can't point birds, fat, flabby labs who can't retrieve, basset hounds who can barely walk, let alone track a scent and German shepherds so deformed in the hindquarters that they can't walk straight around a breed ring, never mind scaling walls, patrolling perimeters or taking down a bad guy.

And yes, we have pet border collies in whom the working instinct is either missing or drastically reduced. That loss occurs in just three or four generations of bad breeding, rendering them as much a border collie as I am a Viking, and that is a whole topic unto itself.

The reason people tend to "hate on" the designer breeds, though, is a little simpler. Many of these "designer" breeders appear to be in it for one reason: the money. They take two random breeds, for example say a sheltie and a poodle, cross-breed them and call them "shootles" or some other cutesy thing - and then charge exorbitant sums for the pups. I'm not even sure they put much real thought into these cross-breedings. I mean, do the temperaments of the sire and dam complement each other? Have they been screened for any known health problems within the proposed pair's respective breeds? Have the breeders done research into possible health problems that could arise from crossing these two breeds? (Hip problems, joints, epilepsy, eyes, etc.) Are the sire and dam the best possible examples of their respective breeds, or just any "AKC papered" intact pair? What are the breeders' goals in creating this "new" breed, other than making money?

Nor have today's pet breeds been created in one generation by simply taking two breeds, crossing them once, and giving them a fancy name and a fancier price tag. Breeds evolved through generations-long selection for certain qualities or traits that the breeders were striving to achieve.

In sum, it's not a "breed" when one simply crosses two different breeds of dogs. A "breed" is able to reproduce itself true to type, and that is not what these people are doing. Now, if they were to take the pups of that sheltie/poodle breeding and crossed them on other sheltie/poodle crosses, they'd end up with something a little different, and if they crossed the 3d generation of shootles and got a fourth generation of whatevers, they'd get something that was neither sheltie nor poodle nor shootle. If they kept at it until those dogs developed a recognizable and reproducible type, then there you'd have a "new" breed.

But given that these designer breeders are interested only in those first-generation pups with the cutesy names, no, it is not what humans have been doing for thousands of years. They're not changing or improving a darned thing. They're not creating true breeds. They're just making single-generation crossbred puppies for cash.

My thoughts, anyhow. And note I'm adding smileys, so you know that any sharpness of tone is not aimed at you or your inquiry! I'm only cranky when it comes to designer breeders.

 

If you should want my rant on breeding for "pet" border collies, I can do that one later.

Merry Christmas to you and yours!

~ Gloria

[Maralynn]

The Border Collie that is highly intelligent, hard working, highly trainable, intuitive and more became such a dog because of selectively breeding for stockwork. If you don't breed for stockwork then you start to loose pieces of the puzzle that make the Border Collie a Border Collie (for instance, did you know that BCs bred for confomation are as genetically different from real BCs as another breed is?). Besides if you don't care about having the entire package then why not just get another breed or a rescue dog?

[Maralynn]

And a Border Collie is a type as much as it is a breed. They have a distinct style of work and form followed function. It's not a some aesthetic standard. If you're not breeding with that in mind then you're not breeding Boder Collies. If you want to create another breed then so be it. But call them sport collies or something, not Border Collies

[sogj]

I don't think people are understanding my question.

 

I don't need reasons why I don't need a border collie.

 

I'm not asking for advice on owning a dog or breeding dogs.

I am asking a BIOLOGY and ANTHROPOLOGY question.

 

Border collies came from something. Border collies, dachshunds, yorkies, pyrenees, malamutes, golden retrievers: they did not always exist. They were bred to fill a need.

 

My question is, why is this any different?

 

Yes, if someone breeds herding instinct out of a border it's not really a border anymore, just like if someone bred retrieving instinct out of a retriever it wouldn't be a retriever anymore. But I don't understand why it makes the breeder a bad person, and why it makes the dog an undesirable dog.

 

Isn't alteration of traits to meet a new need something humans have been doing for thousands of years?

 

Just because the need is urban, why is it considered "lesser"?

[sogj]

The reason people tend to "hate on" the designer breeds, though, is a little simpler. A very great many of these "designer" breeders are clearly in it for one reason: the money. They take any-which breed, for example say a sheltie and a poodle, cross-breed them and call them "shootles" or some other cutesy thing - and then charge exorbitant sums for the pups. I'm not even sure they put much real thought into their breedings. I mean, do the temperaments of the sire and dam complement each other? Have they been screened for any known health problems within the proposed pair's respective breeds? Has there been any research into possible health problems that could arise from crossing these two breeds? Are the sire and dam the best possible examples of their respective breeds, or just any random intact pair? What are the breeders' goals in creating this "new" breed, other than making money?

 

Nowhere in history(that I know of) have pet breeds been created in one generation by simply taking two breeds, crossing them once, and giving them a fancy name and a fancier price tag. Furthermore, most breeds evolve through selection for certain qualities or traits that the breeders are striving to perfect.

 

In sum, it's not a "breed" when one simply crosses two breeds of dogs. A true "breed" is able to reproduce itself true to type, and that is not what these people are doing. Now, if they took the pups of that sheltie/poodle breeding and crossed them on other sheltie/poodle crosses, they'd end up with something a little different, and if they crossed the 3d generation of shootles and got a fourth generation of whatevers, they'd get something that was neither sheltie nor poodle nor shootle. If they kept at it until those dogs developed a recognizable and reproducible type, then there you'd have a "new" breed.

 

This is an excellent answer, thank you.

[sogj]

I should add: Assuming the breeder isn't a complete idiot.

Assuming the breeder has a wealth of information about biology and genetics, and specifically breeds a particular trait out of or into a particular dog. Crossing a cocker with a golden with some poodle mixed in so that, in 10 or 20 generations, they have a medium sized, intelligent, calm, mostly hypoallergenic dog that reproduces itself according to a standard and that meets an immediate need - that of service dog to children.

 

I've seen breeders like that lambasted (not on this site, just in general) for "messing with the breed" and I just don't get it. What if that person is selectively breeding OUT the herding instinct in borders while attempting to keep their agile and driven nature? In 10 or 20 generations, maybe its something else. Maybe it's an "urban collie" or something. But is there anything really wrong with that?

 

Or is people's problem that they are still trying to call them "border collies" and they don't necessarily have a problem with the practice in the first place?

[Jescano]

I feel like if you breed out the herding instinct though you're also breeding out it's drive and biddability.

 

You can make a good, working bred border collie into an agility/frisbee/pet dog, but you can't make a conformation collie into a good working border collie. So why bother. They already have border collies with less drive. They're bred for conformation. Have you seen one trying to work sheep? They don't think for themselves, they do what their handler tells them too, but I doubt they would solve any problems on their own. (I've only seen video though, so how would I know.) I'm sure much more knowledgeable people will chime in.

[sogj]

I feel like if you breed out the herding instinct though you're also breeding out it's drive and biddability.

Okay, this is interesting. Speaking specifically of BCs and not of general breeding theory, you're saying the herding instinct and the dog's drive/athleticism are linked? That's interesting. I wonder how much of the dog genome has been mapped?

[TEC]

It is widely believed that the border collie is the finest most versatile stockdog in the world. Shepherds and thoughtful breeders have worked hard for centuries to produce this wonderful dog. It's hypothetically asked whether it would be a good idea to have a dog somewhat related to a border collie, but intentionally bred to remove the instinct to fetch, drive, and control stock. To me it's wrong for the same reasons that, for example, the original painting of the Mona Lisa should not be modified to give her a toothy smile, or the Notre Dame Cathedral of Paris should not have its French Gothic architecture redesigned to suit modern whim. All three have original functions and purposes, and are things of beauty as they are. A person's good heart or motive do not make his/her act any the less destructive. IMO, the fundamental healthy gene pools of dogs such as stock (herding), hunting, pulling, digging, guard and other dogs of practical or commercial function should not be tampered with. For BCs, breed for performance on the farm, and stay true to the original design. -- Happy Holiday Season, TEC

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

One can turn a convertible into a pickup truck. It won't be a particularly good pickup truck and it has become a very poor convertible but one can do it. One can play Brahms German Requiem at double time. It won't be fun to dance to and you wouldn't want it at your funeral service but one can do it.

 

One can invent a currency with no connection to the faith and credit of any soveriegn nation and one can design a dog whose primary attribute is the number of wrinkles in its skin.

 

Lots of things one can do and there's always someone to do it.

 

Merry Christmas to you and your dogs.

 

Donald McCaig

[Sue R]

A "border" is a band or margin around something. A "collie" is a distinctive type of dog that has been bred to work livestock. The AKC show, pet, and sport world folks often call these dogs "borders" (nicknames are prevalent in that world). The people who developed this useful breed and who maintain it call them "collies". Of course, "collie" has come to mean "Lassie collie" in the USA but that's not the origin of its meaning. Just a point being made.

 

The vehemence with which most people here will support the breeding for working ability is the desire to maintain (and even to improve) the suite of characteristics that make this dog both unique and useful, and at the same time, do mean it is certainly not the dog for everyone and every circumstance. Anything less and you no longer have the "Border Collie" but rather just dogs descended from Border Collies. Nothing wrong with those animals as "dogs" but they are certainly no longer "Border Collies" with the suite of attributes that make the breed what it is. They may be more honestly referred to as "Barbie Collies" (show dogs), "Sporter Collies", or even "Golden Retrievers in Tuxes" by those who don't like to see the name of their useful breed pre-empted by people referring to a dog that is really now something else.

 

I actually know a man who has produced a breed based on the Border Collie and a couple of other stockworking breeds. He has produced dogs that breed consistently, that work, and that are useful. But he has also done this with a background in breeding Border Collies and Australian Shepherds (as well as being a long-time stockman) and with rigorous culling to keep the characteristics he wanted in the dogs he produced. He did not produce willy-nilly like so many modern "pet" and "designer" breeders do. He was producing for a particular use and to fulfill a particular need. On top of that, he gave his new breed a new name.

 

It's rather like my Mom's old expression - throwing out the baby with the bathwater. You will lose something beautiful and irreplaceable - just look at multitudes of breeds (as Gloria said so eloquently) that are no longer what they once were and once capable of doing because they have either been bred into ill health or forms that no longer hardly resemble their original, healthy form (popular cancer-prone lines in Golden Retrievers, hunting dogs that can't hunt, GSDs that are cripples, Cavalier King Charles Spaniels whose skulls are too small for their brains, "wrinkly" dogs with skin problems, English Bulldogs that can't breed naturally or give birth naturally).

 

Everyone else has said it much better than I ever could but I still couldn't resist throwing in my disjointed and rambling opinion.

 

A very Merry and Blessed Christmas, and a Happy and Healthy New Year to you and yours!

[mum24dog]

Now, before you all draw your long swords and prod me off the plank know that

 

(1) I have no desire or plans to breed any dogs, and

(2) I am asking this from purely a biological/genetic/anthropological point of view.

 

Assuming that I am not talking about dogs bred for conformation or specialty color, which is obviously a terrible reason to continue a breeding program...

 

Why is it such a bad thing to breed dogs for good companionship/agility/frisbee while ignoring or possibly weeding out herding/sheepdog instinct? Isn't that how all dog breeds are eventually formed, a need is seen (modern competition homes that don't own sheep or cattle but want agility/frisbee dogs who can also be good with kids so that herding instinct is only a detriment and not an advantage) and then the dog is modified to meet that need? Isn't that what created dog breeds, including the border collie, to begin with?

 

I guess my question is, why all the hate on "designer" breeds of dogs, or breeders who are trying to change (as opposed to maintain or improve) the breed, when isn't that what humans have been doing for thousands and thousands of years?

 

 

Just so you don't feel lonely, I agree.

 

I'd prefer everyone who just wants a pet to consider rescue but it isn't going to happen.

 

Being a pet is the job of most dogs nowadays. If someone wants to try and create a perfect niche type why should anyone whose interests lie elsewhere feel superior about it? There are lots of bad reasons for breeding but there is nothing intrinsically bad about trying to create a dog that would suit a huge section of society.

 

People on here are very defensive about preserving the working instincts of the BC and say that people generally just don't understand the difference between breeding for working ability and breeding for anything else. I can buy that given that sheep are relatively rare in the US and many people have never even seen one.

 

However, I live in a country where there are sheep round every corner. I'm sure that there are far more people who don't know that BCs can be seen in the show ring, or have never heard of agility and the like, than are not aware that BCs work for a living. And all but the most delusional sport dog owner accepts that their dog is not going to win any ISDS championship. We do know the difference and there are so many that there are enough of different sorts and enough knowlegable people to go round.

 

I do wish the KC had chosen a different name for the breed when it recognised it but it's done now.

[mum24dog]

A "border" is a band or margin around something. A "collie" is a distinctive type of dog that has been bred to work livestock. The AKC show, pet, and sport world folks often call these dogs "borders" (nicknames are prevalent in that world). The people who developed this useful breed and who maintain it call them "collies". Of course, "collie" has come to mean "Lassie collie" in the USA but that's not the origin of its meaning.

 

 

If anyone says "Border" to me I think Border Terrier. Lassie collie is a Rough Collie. Smooth version of a Rough Collie is a Smooth Collie. If anyone says Border Collie I think breed snob or internationally ambitious agility handler. If anyone says collie they mean BC or WSD. Some working people I know tend to call them the dog or it.

 

But that's in the UK (where the breeds originated).

[alligande]

The arguments against have been well articulated, I compete in agility but not in AKC so you get both versions, plus some sports bred ones and you can see the difference between the two types of dog, spend some time around both and you will see that the AKC version is different. That for me is the reason not to breed for pet homes specifically, the dog has changed.

 

Mum24dog is in the UK and she is completely right that nearly everyone there knows what a collie does, it's even been a prime time tv show, their show collies still look like their farm brethren.

[Sue R]

And, as pointed out by Alligande, that's in the UK where people are in general already well aware of the difference. Not always, not everyone, and maybe less so for some of the younger generation, but generally so.

 

I use the name "Border Collie" because, over here, if you say "collie" to anyone but those within the working collie community, "Lassie" will automatically spring to mind. So it's not "breed snobbery" for me to use that phrase to a largely North American public but rather being clear in what I am talking about in the context of our society.

 

If anyone says "Border" to me I think Border Terrier. Lassie collie is a Rough Collie. Smooth version of a Rough Collie is a Smooth Collie. If anyone says Border Collie I think breed snob or internationally ambitious agility handler. If anyone says collie they mean BC or WSD. Some working people I know tend to call them the dog or it.

 

But that's in the UK (where the breeds originated).

[Tilly's Handler]

There have been a number of articles on the unpredictable nature of designer breeds do to the mixing of strongly ingrained instincts such as herding dogs and retrievers. Growing up on a farm all the neighbors had dogs when asked it was a "border collie" Border Line Collie would have been a more accurate name. Once you have seen the real thing there is no doubt in your mind which is the real deal. The one thing which I think is important with dogs that have a long standing tradition of how they have been selected for specfic purpose is that it gives you a general idea of what to expect from that breed once you start to change the nature of it you step off into a unknown direction.

[Liz P]

From a biological standpoint, the moment you start breeding Border Collies for pets, you are no longer breeding Border Collies. The breed is DEFINED as a dog bred to a high standard of work. Because you are not selecting for work, you will alter them into another breed (through both purposeful selection and genetic drift).

 

From an anthropological standpoint, it's not wrong to create pet dogs. However, see my comment above. Breeding Border Collies for anything other than work and selling the resulting pups as Border Collies is morally wrong because it is false advertising. You are lying about the product you are offering to people.

[stockdogranch]

You ask why not specifically breed "Border Collies" to essentially NOT be Border Collies? The shortest (and nicest) answer I can give is that there are PLENTY of nice family-pet type dogs out there readily available--just go look at your local shelter. Or even get one of the many other breeds that USED to be useful for something but no longer are (because that's been bred out of them), that are now popular for being lovely family pets.

 

A Border Collie IS a Border Collie because IT WORKS STOCK (or should at least have been carefully bred to do so, whether or not it ever sees stock in its life). That is why the breed was developed, and why so many of us are fighting HARD to keep it that way. Despite what the average (American; as Pam points out, it's very different in the UK) citizen thinks or believes, there is still a very big NEED for such a useful dog with livestock.

 

And as Sue more eolquently pointed out, they are NOT "Borders."

A

[Maralynn]

A few things - the "you" I used was meant to be a collective, generic you. Sorry that it came across as more personal. The *need* for urban pets - truthfully, it's more of a want. This may sound a bit blunt but, if you can't handle the breed then why get the breed? Why would a person need a dog bred down to the level they can handle? It sounds like wanting a Porshe that only can get as fast as 70mph and comes with an automatic transmition since "I can't drive at fast speeds and don't know/want to learn how to drive manual". Active, drivey non herding dogs from other sources are plentiful. And well bred, well trained dogs don't herd the kids and are pretty darn adaptable provided the owner knows what they're doing. People wanting an active suburban pet don't *need* to create a new breed. They need to be honest with themselves and get a dog they can handle or become a person that can handle the breed they desire. Creating a new breed - Does one have clearly defined goals? is one willing to cull heavily to create said breed? that's how it was done. breed, cull the that didn't turn out right. And in the process of creating your non herding border collies, what are you going to do with the throwbacks that inherted the herding insticnts but not the self control? the biddability but not the courage? the reactivity without the ability to stop and think? There is no easy way to go about removing just the pieces you don't want and hope that the ones you want remain intact.

[Root Beer]

If anyone says "Border" to me I think Border Terrier. Lassie collie is a Rough Collie. Smooth version of a Rough Collie is a Smooth Collie. If anyone says Border Collie I think breed snob or internationally ambitious agility handler. If anyone says collie they mean BC or WSD. Some working people I know tend to call them the dog or it.

 

But that's in the UK (where the breeds originated).

 

The experience you would have if you referred to your Border Collie as a "Collie" in this country would be a very interesting one for you.

 

You would most likely be informed, in a polite, but educational manner, that your dog is not a "Collie", but probably a mix of some kind. It would be very clear that the person is convinced that you have no idea what a "Collie" is, nor what kind of dog you actually have. A "Collie" is Lassie among 95% of the population here. There is no getting around that.

 

After experiencing this a few times, the idea that saying "Border Collie" is snobbish would likely change.

[Smalahundur]

 

 

 

And as Sue more eolquently pointed out, they are NOT "Borders."

 

On a side note, border collies are usually referred to as "borders" in Germany.

For people that think up acronyms for anything I have always found this touchiness about how people dare to shorten a breed name this particular way a bit strange.

[GentleLake]

Yes, we do understand your question. We've been collectively answering it for about 30 years.

 

Did you watch the Nova episode posted in the Boards recently about Chaser, the BC who knows over 1,000 words? Did you see the part at the end where they say that a gene sequence has been identified that accounts for the kind of intelligence she's demonstrating and that BCs have been selectively bred for this sequence? There's your genetics answer. That sequence came about as a direct result of selectively breeding for a working dog above all else, and it can be lost by not breeding for that same characteristic, as has been demonstrated both by the many examples of other breeds and in BCs as well. (And, yes, I believe that canine genome has been completely mapped.)

 

As for the anthropological answer, you can't remove the border collie from the context of generations of people who developed and used them for sheep herding in the border country of Scotland & England. They exist together and without these useful dogs vast areas in this region would have been agriculturally useless. The title of a Welsh sheepman's book, A Way of Life (H. Glyn Jones) says it all. This culture still exists and had evolved in other areas of the world, including here, where these dogs are still used for what they were bred to do.

 

So, no, there's no ethical or practical difference between breeding border collies for sports or colors or as placid pets.

 

If you want a watered down border collie, you don't really want a border collie at all. You want something that looks like one, but is not, since (as has already been pointed out) by definition they are working dogs.

 

If you want a border collie that you know will be a suitable pet, then, again, you should look to rescue where you can evaluate the temperament of an adult dog before you adopt it.

 

Wishing you and yours a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

[urge to herd]

I should add: Assuming the breeder isn't a complete idiot.

 

Assuming the breeder has a wealth of information about biology and genetics, and specifically breeds a particular trait out of or into a particular dog. Crossing a cocker with a golden with some poodle mixed in so that, in 10 or 20 generations, they have a medium sized, intelligent, calm, mostly hypoallergenic dog that reproduces itself according to a standard and that meets an immediate need - that of service dog to children.

Genetics is a very, very complicated thing. It's not currently understood how genetics forms character, drive, personality at this point. That it does affect these things is undisputable.

 

If a hypothetical breeder were a canine geneticist with years of experience in working border collies, and could pin point on the dna strands what genes affected bidability, ability to read sheep, stamina, etc, then maybe that person might do a decent job of 'breeding out' certain characteristics while keeping others.

 

It might (and I lean to this opinion myself) also be discovered that a lot of traits depend on a bunch of other traits to 'blossom' in an individual dog's behavior/personality. You might not be able to poke one with out affecting a lot of them.

 

Basically, put a real scientist into the scenario and I'd have less objection. I'd still not like it, because living things are being tampered with for someone's whim, but maybe we'd get some real knowledge out of it.

 

This complexity of genetics and heritability is why even two proven dogs, carefully matched by knowledgeable, experienced folk, don't produce 100% good stock dogs with every litter.

 

Ruth and Agent Gibbs