Jump to content
BC Boards

Anti merle prejudice


Recommended Posts

I'm sorry if this is the wrong topic to ask in, but on the subject of Merle breeders... Sometimes I see pictures of Merle puppies on classified ads (probably 5-8 weeks) and their eyes look very pink around the edges compared to many pups I've seen.

 

Is this a pigment thing in merles?

 

Without accounting for personality of the dogs, I'd prefer a b&w, but if I were to go ahead and look at a mixed litter, I'd like to know if that pink eye is a sign of something dangerous that could affect all the pups regardless of colour, or just something to do with coat?

 

I could probably post examples if I didn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 372
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pink around the eye has to do with how much white is on the dog and where it is located. Some dogs with pink around their eyes and light colored eyes seem to be more sun sensitive as far as brightness is concerned. Dogs with exposed pink skin anywhere, eyes, nose, top of the muzzle, are more at risk for sunburn and related issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, it will often tend to fill in later as the pup matures, just like the coloring on the nose leather.

 

I do think merles have a bit more of a tendency to have sections of pink both on their noses and eye rims than solid colored dogs, simply because of the merle allele's breaking up of the coloration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would add that many years ago, maybe 18+ years, we tried to run non-dog broke range ewes for the local county fair dog trial. Only two dogs could even lift those ewes and one finally gripped off, leaving only one that made it around the course, proving it could be done. Since than while they don't use range ewes in that venue, they do use non-dog broke dorper lambs with success. I would say that the use of the tough range ewes or really any challenging sheep have done alot to improve the quality of our dogs. I heard said (yes this is hearsay) that the set out people for recent internationals who could remember the dogs of old, were dismayed at the lack of power they observed on the lift. When asked what they thought had happened, one said " we sent them all to America". I would use trial success as a beginning point for deciding about breeding quality but not before investigating the wins relative to the sheep used, the terrain, the weather, the handler and the competition. Maybe a dog who placed 12th out of 75 dogs on tough sheep in the middle of a rainstorm or a heat wave was the better dog than the 1st place dog. Many years ago I won second in a big trial having the luck of getting 5 consistent ewes from the same flock while Tommy Wilson had 4 from one flock and 1 from another flock. He placed much lower than I did, but you should have seen his run and how Roy handled the situation. To me, it was the best run of the whole trial and you would not find it on video or memtioned in an article, you had to be there in person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Yes. I remember Tommy and Roy's International shed at the Sheridan Finals. Roy and Tommy shed the five from the ten range ewes and penned them. Roy never came through, discouraging escape artists with a glance and the work was so quiet that when it was done, the shed sheep were still in the shedding ring. It was so beautiful I had tears in my eyes.

 

Roy had crossed over on his redirect and finished well down the prize list.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just thought I would add that many years ago, maybe 18+ years, we tried to run non-dog broke range ewes for the local county fair dog trial. Only two dogs could even lift those ewes and one finally gripped off, leaving only one that made it around the course, proving it could be done. Since than while they don't use range ewes in that venue, they do use non-dog broke dorper lambs with success. I would say that the use of the tough range ewes or really any challenging sheep have done alot to improve the quality of our dogs. I heard said (yes this is hearsay) that the set out people for recent internationals who could remember the dogs of old, were dismayed at the lack of power they observed on the lift. When asked what they thought had happened, one said " we sent them all to America". I would use trial success as a beginning point for deciding about breeding quality but not before investigating the wins relative to the sheep used, the terrain, the weather, the handler and the competition. Maybe a dog who placed 12th out of 75 dogs on tough sheep in the middle of a rainstorm or a heat wave was the better dog than the 1st place dog. Many years ago I won second in a big trial having the luck of getting 5 consistent ewes from the same flock while Tommy Wilson had 4 from one flock and 1 from another flock. He placed much lower than I did, but you should have seen his run and how Roy handled the situation. To me, it was the best run of the whole trial and you would not find it on video or memtioned in an article, you had to be there in person.

 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

When I first joined this board there were some who said that a dog should at least be competitive in trials before being considered for breeding, which seemed a very limited view to me. The only reason I mentioned the open success of a merle dog way back at the beginning of this thread was because of that opinion and the weight seemingly placed on tria! results. But it was the only yardstick I could use.

 

I'm told by those who know far more than I do that trials aren't the problem, breeding for trials is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Performance (the work) in trials is a means to assess a dog's ability across many venues and flocks. Those that compete frequently know that there are groups of sheep one can win with and there are groups that make winning difficult. Often the work on these difficult groups is more telling about the dog's (and the team's) ability than the more compliant groups of sheep. Additionally, these more difficult groups of sheep give us a sense of the difficulty of the tasks at each trial. Placing at one or two trials could be due to the "luck of the draw" (which type of sheep drawn for their run); consistently placing at many different trials is a better gauge of the ability of the dog and team to work many different groups of sheep. In the end, trials are one of many tools used to assess dogs for breeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Mum writes(in part): "I'm told by those who know far more than I do that trials aren't the problem, breeding for trials is."

 

I suspect this might be easier to do in the UK where many trialists rarely compete outside their immediate region on a limited variety of sheep breeds.

 

In travels in north america, I have often met local champions who simply couldn't be beaten on the courses and sheep with which they and their dogs were familiar but fared badly at our National Finals (which travel from one coast to the other).

 

If one were breeding for eastern trials where (most) courses are small and most trial sheep dog-broke Kathadins, one would seek an exquisitely biddable, softish dog with very little eye. Endurance and atheticism wouldn't matter much nor would the dog's ability to work on his own nor (since Kathadins are so difficult to shed many trials have eliminated that task) shedding ability nor - since trial broke sheep are so easy to pen, penning skills. You'd want a dog capable of great precision.

 

If one were breeding for western trials, one would want a dog that could work over much greater distances with enough eye to handle wild range Rambouiletts out of the handler's sight. These sheep are relatively easy to shed and very difficult to pen.

 

The best dogs in North America experience - those most sought after as studs - can and do handle these extremes, often better than local dogs who have never worked or trialed elsewhere. The best eastern dogs are routinely bred to top western dogs. Despite great distances and extremely different circumstances, there is one working Border Collie gene pool in North America, not two.

 

And while I'm not nearly as acquainted with UK dogs, the only decided preference I know for American buyers isn't regional Welsh/english/scottish/irish but whether the dog has had practical experience or just been trained up.

 

I have heard people bemoaning "dogs are being bred for trials" since I started thirty odd years ago. However, I've never heard anyone explain just how one would go about it.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides breed, flock management systems impact the behavior of sheep with dogs. Geography, climate, and population density have huge impacts on the management system employed. What works well on the east coast where stocking rates can be as high as 5 ewes/acre will not work well out west where the stocking rate is much, much lower (as low as 1 ewe per 2 acres).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pink around the eye has to do with how much white is on the dog and where it is located. Some dogs with pink around their eyes and light colored eyes seem to be more sun sensitive as far as brightness is concerned. Dogs with exposed pink skin anywhere, eyes, nose, top of the muzzle, are more at risk for sunburn and related issues.

 

 

And, it will often tend to fill in later as the pup matures, just like the coloring on the nose leather.

 

I do think merles have a bit more of a tendency to have sections of pink both on their noses and eye rims than solid colored dogs, simply because of the merle allele's breaking up of the coloration.

 

 

some times as the pup get's older the pink area will turn black/brown. We have a split faced female that had pink it's almost all dark now. Some with pink noses or pink spots on their noses will do the same.

Thank you everyone!

A rescue near me has had a mixed litter in and if they'd consider me, I'm not picky about colour, so knowing this about the pink bits is very reassuring. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I have heard people bemoaning "dogs are being bred for trials" since I started thirty odd years ago. However, I've never heard anyone explain just how one would go about it...

I read the snippet above to mean that, of course they are bred for trials, but who has a better way to select border collies for breeding? If I understood your entire post correctly, you see that dogs are bred for regional trial and sheep conditions, but add that the best come from an interbreeding of those regionally top dogs. Trialling remains the common denominator heuristic used for selection.

 

I want to believe that those choosing a dog or pup, as mentioned above, know how to read scorecards, trial conditions, and working/handling styles. They understand that dogs of lower trial rankings, may very well be superior/equal to those who frequently place. Perhaps excellent analytic skill is the only way to use trials for all purposes as the selection standard.

 

What if trials, in addition to ISDS style courses, contained a wider range of tasks? For examples: 1) load/unload a full stock trailer or barge, 2) ride an ATV to the work site, 3) from outrun, lift off a fence/structure/corner (or from near the top of a low/sharp ridge-line) at right angle, as well as oblique, 4) move tightly packed sheep away from a gate, 5) work for longer intervals, 6) gather without command (silently), 7) work out of sight for extended periods, 7) outrun having no fence-lines as reference, 8) move a large flock, and so on. Incorporation of tasks such as these would, IMO, improve the existing test heuristic, which as we know, has been deemed sufficient for over 100 years.

 

I believe that the standard ISDS course does not directly test all the above. It only touches on some. Direct testing would make selection for intended purposes an easier process. If those types of tasks were incorporated into the yearly cycle toward the Finals, I believe the differences between natural dogs with initiative and largely trained-up, overly command driven dogs would readily surface. -- A little guy (according to some) making a big suggestion, TEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a good suggestion.

 

Just a query ... would those who attend trials to the point of getting to national finals consider the route there a test of endurance, alike to, say, a sports team getting through the playoffs to win the championship. Really, the team that wins wins on merit and sustainable performance/durability.

 

Is the road arduous enough to merit the comparison?

 

Anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is an interesting topic. I sometimes wonder if there is a similar risk that stock dog trialing as a sport develops the way dressage has developed in equine sports, slowly over time evolving away from the original goal (in the case of dressage horses extremely so, to the point that they are nowadays completely useless for the goal that was originally tested in dressage). I think it is unlikely it would go that far, but it is not that crazy an analogy.

 

My wife once jokingly said to me that instead of the isds style trial we should just send contestants into the high land, during fall round up time, he who returns with the most sheep wins...

 

An aspect that is not directly tested in sheep dog trials is endurance/stamina. I need a dog that can be on his feet the whole day, in rough terrain, preferably several days in a row. Long outruns, drives that are tens of kilometers.

I think this should be a very important selection criterium in breeding.

I don´t care how brilliant the dog is, if he can´t walk anymore he is utterly useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This can give rise to the question - which is truly more a test of stamina, a day on the hill/farm/ranch or a 30-minute Finals run at a big trial? While the one tests innate intelligence and stock sense, and the ability to work out of sight and on one's own, along with the physical stamina to cover miles, the other tests the mental stamina to work with intense focus and tremendous precision, and biddability, while covering maybe a mile or two (or much more, if a pedometer on the dog were used to measure the actual movements)?

 

That's why many people feel that hill/farm/ranch work *and* trials are both key components in evaluating the quality of a dog and the suitability of a dog to be a breeding prospect. I don't think there is anyone here who supports trialing as a test of a dog who discounts the value of real work at home, but that those who support trialing look at it as one important aspect of evaluating a dog.

 

Most trials do not have 30-minute, double-lift, international-shed Finals or the equivalent, certainly not in the East where only a very few can offer that sort of scope. How many trials would be offered and how many (few) runs could be made if someone tried to incorporate every aspect of work into each run? Not many. How many would have the livestock for competitors to work large groups? Not many.

 

The ISDS model that the USBCHA employs is a test, and only a test, of working ability. But it is both realistic and a model that is doable. It has a certain level of consistency (the general elements of the course) combined with variability (stock, terrain, size, weather, etc.) to mean that each trial is its own test and offers a certain uniqueness in just what is required to be successful.

 

PS - As Tommy Wilson's runs with Roy that have been described have shown, it's not just enough to know who won this or that trial (even though consistency over multiple trials is helpful in recognizing outstanding dog/handler pairs) - that's why it's so beneficial to actually *see* the dogs run because oftentimes it is not the best dog or the most impressive run that wins. What wins is the team that does the job with the most precision in terms of lifts, lines, turns, sheds, and pens, and sometimes that is very dependent on getting the right draw.

 

PPS - This is the discussion that never ends and maybe we all just need to agree to disagree, but I have to say that I've enjoyed reading some marvelous posts and appreciate the time, effort, and experience that went into them. Thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I don't have an issue with additional tasks being added to trials, and in fact, at least here in the east, sometimes trials do include additional tasks specifically meant to add difficulty on sheep that are more used to being worked by dogs (in contrast to range sheep). For example, I have had to load/unload sheep from a trailer at a trial. This was in lieu of a regular pen.

 

I don't see how the suggestion of the dog working out of sight would work. Who would judge a dog they can't see? Would there be a judge at the other end of the field who could see the sheep?

 

I would add that many of these elements are included in AHBA ranch trials, but I don't think anyone considers those a more difficult or complete test than the typical "border collie trial."

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been reading about Border Collies and sheep dog trials, and the schism that some purport exists between the dog who works on a stock farm, and the dog who is a “professional trialer.”

 

It is alleged that the working farm dog labors day in and day out, long hours, in all weathers, and generally with the same stock, or generations of the same stock, and that the “professional trial dog” works lots of different places and kinds of stock, but does so in set, and to some, necessarily artificial ways. (Straight lines, same order of the same chores, usually with a rather small group of stock – be it cattle or sheep.)

 

Now, let me first be very clear about one thing. There are probably some out there, this very minute, in the act of rolling up a newspaper in preparation for smacking me on the nose for speaking out of turn. To them I say, hold on just a minute and hear me out. I don’t claim to be a sheepdogger, or anything that that entails. But I’m not stupid. I can juggle ideas in the academic sense. After all, I have some of the best minds in “sheepdoggery” putting all sorts of thoughts in front of me, and complete faith that should I repeat them back, ass-backwards, I’ll soon hear about it.

 

So. On with my notion.

 

One of the complaints I hear repeatedly “against” sheepdog trials, is that they are possibly an insufficient demonstration of stamina in the working sheepdog. I have even heard defenders of the sheepdog trial say that this might be so.

 

I have also heard the sentiment – in much longer and more involved format – that working farms get dogs to work their sheep, and that “professional trailers” get sheep to work their dogs. Some assert that there is no real difference. But of course there is, even a mutt like me can see that. A person whose livelihood depends on his or her livestock must see things at least somewhat differently. His or her life, or at least livelihood depends on it.

 

So let’s say, for the sake of argument, that the sheepdog trial, as it is generally run, does leave some components of the sheepdog untested, or at least, less rigorously tested than one might wish. What then?

 

Perhaps a “Triple Crown” approach might be employed. For instance, a dog that is well-tested and noted for its consistent high-placing in ISDS sheepdog trials, could also be entered and compete in cattle trials. Such a thing must not be unknown, yet I in my armchair station have not heard it spoken of. And what if a third sort of test were to be devised, whereby a dog would be sent into a more vertical and much larger space to gather scattered stock, relying on its own instincts and abilities to get such a job done out of sight of the handler? I understand that such a test would be time consuming, and that locating several venues would be tough. However, if a few such venues were established, I believe they would go a long way toward demonstrating the usefulness and flexibility of the dogs which successfully performed on these courses. And I believe that dogs that had success in all three types of competition – sheepdog trial, cattle trial and hill-trial would be dogs that had proven their worth in a much more comprehensive way. I believe that even the most skeptical professional stockman would be likely to take off his hat to such an arduous and far-reaching demonstration of ability.

 

Now, I do not suggest this as a way for the dog to win a title or certificate. Such things are useless in the pasture or sorting pens. But a dog that had proven its worth in all three types of trial would, I think have proven its usefulness, sagacity and stamina to anyone who cares for a good working dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An awful lot of folks I know with good sheep-working dogs would never even consider working them on cattle because of the risk involved, so I think you'd see a great reduction in the number of dogs even eligible to do what you suggest. The Working Border Collie Magazine used to sponsor (I don't think they still do but don't know) an award that was the "Stockdog of the Year" award (Lana Mockler Rowley won it one year with her Kell, I think) for the dog that placed highest in both the USBCHA National Sheepdog Finals and National Cattledog Finals. Lana's got a snazzy belt buckle she can show you for that.

 

So, where would you find a hill trial, if there was such a thing? As pointed out by Julie, how would you judge a run when the dog and stock were out of sight for a significant time?

 

I guess I like the simplicity - a dog is as good as he/she was in a trial. There are no titles, no fancy stuff, just winners or losers on the day. There is only a National Sheepdog Champion (and Reserve, and Nursery and Reserve) and the same for the National Cattledog Champion (and Reserve, and Nursery and Reserve).

 

I have limited experience with trials and trialing but when I look at the few trials with which I've been acquainted, it never ceases to amaze me how on such a basic premise (outrun, lift, fetch, turn the post, drive away, cross drive, drive to shedding ring, and pen) there can be *so much variability* - the lay of the land, the draw to setout and exhaust, dead spots, natural and other obstacles, the stock that can vary so much from one trial to the next (or one day to the next), the weather.

 

Some one once put it this way to me, when I was at a lesson and complained that I wasn't going to trial and so didn't need to be able to move sheep over a course - "On the farm, you want to be able to put your dog anywhere you want, to move the stock wherever you need them to move, with as little wasted energy and as little stress on everyone concerned as possible. That's why you should learn to work your dog like you were running a trial course." (My words but the concept as taught to me.) That's always stuck with me and as someone who uses their dogs on real stock, on a real farm, in real work situations, I have learned the value of those words.

 

I should keep my mouth shut - I don't run dogs in trials and I sure don't do that much farm work with my dogs. But I do feel passionately about the value of ISDS/USBCHA trials and farm/ranch/hill work to prove dogs.

 

PS - I know you said you were not proposing "titles" but your propositions do remind me of AKC's penchant for awarding *something* for every little thing (titles on sheep, cattle, and ducks, and BCSA titles for dogs that accomplish this plus that plus something else).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think much of the argument of what constitutes a suitable trial, or even whether trial dogs are better breeding choices than just farm dogs is predicated on the assumption that people breed only to trial winners and so breeding choices are artificially skewed in that direction,

 

I'm not saying that the above does not happen, but I know of many choices that are made for the right reasons: because the owner of the bitch wants specific traits added to their line and so seeks the dog that will most likely provide those. Educated (as in experienced with working dogs, at home and on the trial field) do recognize that winning trials isn't everything and I think they've stated as much time and again in threads like this. People who argue that winning trial dogs are unduly influencing the breeding of working dogs are not really privy to who is breeding to what, so they are simply speculating on what's happening as a result of trials.

 

What the folk who trial have also said is that trialing does test a dog, does test a dog's ability to adjust to unfamiliar terrain and stock, and most importantly, brings groups of dogs together, all doing the same work (same test), which makes it much easier for one to evaluate a number of individuals as potential breeding stock, and clearly the entire group is not winning the trial so at least some choices are being made on criteria other than who wins. Seriously, if we all only chose trial winners or big trial winners, then most of the dogs being used in this country would be related to something of Alasdair MacRae's and I think it's pretty clear that there are many more dogs being bred that are not related to his dogs than are.

 

Will some folks always and only pick trial winners? Sure. I would posit that they do so because they don't know any better. Or they think it's the best way to get puppies sold. But I also see people (well-known handlers--that is big hats--and not so well known handlers alike) choose dogs based on the characteristics they see over time at various trials and even in home work situations. Trials wins may not even factor significantly. Most of my dogs go back to the lines of a breeder who has raised sheep for more than 70 years (and did so before he ever started using dogs) and hasn't trialed in my memory, though I know he did at some point in the past. I do well with those dogs, even at trials, but they certainly aren't being bred, nor was the line developed, with trials alone in mind. Again, I don't think this breeder (of sheep and dogs) is an exception to breeding for useful working dogs. He breeds using dogs and uses them on his farm. Yet other people buy dogs from him and have success on the trial field. Does that fact automatically devalue his breeding choices?

 

So I think some of the division between trial dogs and breeding and farm dogs and breeding is false (as in doesn't have any real merit). I know as someone who sets sheep at trials I see what happens at the top of the trial field at a time when the dog is meeting the stock for the first time and those parts of the work that should come naturally. I notice how dogs run out, how they approach the sheep, how much they rely on or require input from the handler. I rarely ever see the results of the run via the score board, nor do I often know (or really even care) who won. So I form my opinions based on what I see of a dog working, not on what the trial results say, and if a trial includes 100 dogs, I see every single one of those dogs. (Where else could I go and see so many dogs, of many different lines, all trained to a similar level and all working to a pretty high level, even if we can't agree if the test is the most appropriate test?) I seriously doubt I am the only one who bases opinions on what they see in front of them and not on the actual placing at a trial. And all you have to do is look at some of the breeding decisions of folks like Tommy Wilson to know that some of the best stockmen and trialers in this country are not making breeding decisions based solely on trial wins, despite how convenient it is to argue otherwise.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, where would you find a hill trial, if there was such a thing? As pointed out by Julie, how would you judge a run when the dog and stock were out of sight for a significant time?

Don't know the answer to the first question, but the 2nd is easy - a couple of drones, GoPros could handle that, no problem.

 

And no, I don't propose any kind of "special award." Word of mouth would spread the info on how dogs did at hill trials, just as it does now. Winning all three types of trials (or just having a good run) with one dog or dogs should be reward enough, especially if you had a big ol' stock farm to use such talented creatures on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Aspiring Sheepdoggers,

 

Handlers stand in line to run in the most difficult trials. One of my great pleasures in recent years was seeing eastern dogs - dogs that have never seen a sagebrush, mesa or range rambouilette at the Kerr Ranch trial. 800 yard outrun uphill, dog out of sight within a hundred yards, sheep so wild it took Amanda, Beverly and a horseman to bring them to the spot and the effete, precise eastern dogs took a deep breath and disappeared into the brush as if they'd been born to it. When they brought those ewes down from the mesa, my heart beat fast (and their owner/handlers could breathe again).

 

Yes, the most important dogs in ABCA bloodlines are trial dogs. But if you go to the office, they are a relatively small percentage of registrations - my guess - less than 5 %. Farmers/ranchers who've got good working dogs (though often out of trial dogs) will breed them and trial men will see them work and take a pup so there is, in fact, a continual refreshing of the farm dog/trial dog relationship.

 

Too: while the trial handler's goal may be fairly simple: a blue ribbon, there are many different roads to Damascus. Some want a loose eyed, very obedient dog. Another prefers a wide running "natural" dog. What many if not all handlers look for is the dog that is "like" the dog(s) that have won for him in the past. In short, the limiting factor isn't the dogs, it's the handler's habits, preferences and aesthetic sense: what dog seems "plain" and what seems "beautiful".

 

Because without that intimate bond, nobody will put in the hours/days/weeks/months it takes to create a successful partnership. When people speak about "breeding for trials" they assume there are a subset of heritable traits we trialists seek. There probably aren't and there certainly aren't.

 

I'm looking for a dog like my first dog Pip, dead now twenty-two years. If I'd known then what I know now . . .

 

 

 

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may come late to the game but I thought I might provide a synopsis of the actual real life breeding decision that produced my youngster. The decision came after many months of discussion about a possible stud for the bitch. A wide range of people involved with sheep--some primarily triallers and some not, though all have participated in trials and competed at high levels--were consulted and the relative qualities of different studs discussed. These included (not in any particular order) stamina, health, temperament, sheep sense, biddability, strength, courage, eye, size, speed, heart, availability in time and space (eg how feasible would a breeding be given the reality of human living and working contexts). The merits of mixing the various lines were discussed.

 

A stud was chosen and people who knew those dogs and had seen them work commented on what they thought the strengths and weaknesses of the cross would be. This included someone who had spent day to day time with both of them and is a consumate stockman. You would know his name from trialling; I know him best in his work as someone who makes a living from stock AND dogs. The owner of the bitch ultimately went with the stud she had always liked best based on having watched him work sheep in a variety of contexts, not one of which included a trial. The bitch has not been widely trialled.

 

All of the components mentioned by TEC (which I agree are all good elements for evaluating dogs) were known about both dogs, except perhaps working all day long driving sheep over miles and out of sight for hours). Their trial performance did not factor in one whit. Neither would be described, I don't think, as a farm dog (both wear fancy collars :-)). The intention of the breeding was to produce a better border collie than either of the parents. That said, the pups went to homes who have every intention of trialling them. And enjoying them as companions and partners in a variety of livestock contexts that could only be described as hobby farms (not one provides the primary income for the household).

 

The pups are just starting their training and all of them are keen and show at least the basics you'd expect from a baby stockdog. Like their parents, they are unlikely to turn out to be perfect.

 

So, have at it--in what ways does this breeding pass muster and what ways not? I have thick skin and put this out there as a real life example to be pondered and discussed. I don't claim it to be representative but it is honest as far as I can make it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our breeding decisions are similar to the above. This or that trait should be encouraged and bred towards, on a litter by litter basis, to ensure the farm has a good supply of dogs best suited to the tasks to which they will be put. It takes a different temperament and type (strong eyed, willing to grip, aggressive, stamina) to deal with the island sheep, for instance, than it does for the hill sheep. And yet another type to handle the girls and their young ones in close quarters.

 

Sometimes biddability is important and other times it does not matter so much. Since a dog generally is trained to a set of specific tasks which he does his whole career some dogs are bred to this or that bitch in an attempt to gain a biddable crop of puppies who will be primarily yard dogs (working with the stock close to the farm), etc. A barge dog really just needs to be a bully with good grip restraint, as I understand it, so different parents are selected.

 

My brother claims it is not a science but an art :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where we see the most complaint about dogs being bred to trial are from folks who need dogs and then get to see the trial winners that they admired or their offspring actually try to do day to day work in high pressure or tight work situations.

I just was speaking to a feedlot owner yesterday that has a nice young dog that he took in to get some experience on cattle for his owner who trials. He says that the dog will make a great trial dog, can see the owner winning big with it, but that he can't use it, the dog is only effective on cattle that are already dog broke that know to move off a dog, if the cattle stall he just stands there waiting for them to honor his presence. This type of dog will also likely get the label of being a "sheepdog" and I could see it being sold as a sheepdog, but I do suspect that it's lack of ability to be able to gain respect and create motion on cattle will prevent it from being a top candidate for someone who needs a dog day to day to handle sheep. When it comes to day to day work we say that a poor cattle dog will make a poor sheepdog and vs. versa, poor dog is poor dog.

There are many dogs that are classified as being able to handle both sheep and cattle as using dogs but have not been tested extensively for their ability to handle livestock that is undogged. It's a completely different level of adversity which in my mind separates a dog that is a successful trial dog from one that will also be a successful using dog for someone who makes a living with livestock. Many who make their living with livestock need a dog that can easily handle lightly or undogged livestock or livestock that requires a dog to take command and demand respect.

 

Anyway, I hope that anyone representing their dogs as daily users have taken the time to get out to different livestock operations to test their dogs and their understanding as to how livestock that is not conditioned for dog training responds to dogs and that their dogs can adapt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...