Jump to content
BC Boards
mum24dog

Anti merle prejudice

Recommended Posts

Julie wrote: "IMO, novices with ideas are great. Novices with attitude are not."

 

I can only speak from a dog sport point of view, sport being non working related activities. The same can be said for some of the "elite" as well.

 

Interesting thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey CMP, sent you a PM. Just a heads-up. I do not think my new PM icon is working, so made the assumption for others. Hope I'm wrong. -- Kind regards, TEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you know about his background and the extent of his knowledge that would make him an authority on whether trials are a good test of working ability?

 

I am not going to do your homework for you. Check it out yourself.

 

I think it's better to let you continue to reveal yourself in your own words.

 

The studied also studies. He observes, forms opinions, and draws conclusions. You forget it's a two-way street. -- TEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In another thread a while back someone mentioned that merle colored dogs are harder to see at a distance. This could be one reason for the cultural preference for black and white working/trial dogs. Just what I read......carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't looked at the videos in the link that the OP posted, but I have looked at the pedigree. The dogs on this seem to be mainly Killiebrae ones.. In fact one Killiebrae bitch appears on both sides of the pedigree as the paternal granddam and maternal great granddam.

Killiebrae is Derek Scrimgeour's kennel prefix, but the breeder of the dog actually mentioned by the OP is not Scrimgeour himself.

So basically, is the OP just asking, do Scrimgeour's lines breed good dogs even if there is a bit of Merle in the mix?.

Only the person who decided to introduce the Merle originally into the cross can answer whether this dog was introduced with the intent to enhance the work ability of the offspring or whether it was introduced to improve dog sales to those who may want coloured working/trial dogs.

 

Sorry for coming backback to this thread so late - haven't had time for time consuming arguments.

 

Rachel Scrimgeour told me they had had just one merle litter a while ago and I seem to recall seeing somewhere that Joss was the sire. She didn't say why, but she didn't say why they had made any other breeding choices either. If the base motives imputed by some for doing so were true you'd think there would have been more merle litters to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one likes anyone with attitude but when you don't really have experience and knowledge, it comes across even worse. At least someone who knows what they are talking about is just rude if they have attitude (and I don't think getting tired of answering the same old questions that are asked over and over by people who think they know better is attitude but frustration). Someone who doesn't know what they are talking about is more than rude if they have attitude.

 

There's some saying about that but I can't recall it right now...

 

I guess I'd ask if someone should walk up to a conductor of the symphony and tell him/her what they are doing wrong because that someone has gone to concerts, played in the high school band, and listened to recordings? Would that someone tell a national-level athletic coach how to do their job because that someone has been to some games, played a little touch football, and watched some videos?

 

Sure, that novice could have some good ideas but what's the likelihood that those tried-and-true methods don't work better, and that's been proven by years of trying and testing?

 

Julie wrote: "IMO, novices with ideas are great. Novices with attitude are not."

 

I can only speak from a dog sport point of view, sport being non working related activities. The same can be said for some of the "elite" as well.

 

Interesting thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'd ask if someone should walk up to a conductor of the symphony and tell him/her what they are doing wrong because that someone has gone to concerts, played in the high school band, and listened to recordings? Would that someone tell a national-level athletic coach how to do their job because that someone has been to some games, played a little touch football, and watched some videos?

Thanks, Sue. Now I find myself trying to remember the Holiday Inn Express commercials. (Sorry, I get your point. I just couldn't resist.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opened this topic obviously too late. It was an interesting discussion, how trialling relates to farm work, and I intended to add some of my views on it.

But the discussion seems to have derailed in a rather strange way, untypical for this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I can't believe that a lawyer cannot distinguish between first-hand knowledge and second-hand knowledge. It is all too common for people to believe they know something to be true because someone told them it was true. I appreciate Maxi's distinction. [ETA: Since Maxi was going on to question the logic of what Goutte was quoted as saying, he didn't want to state that Goutte had actually said it without knowing for a fact that he had said it. So he said that Goutte had apparently said it. Seems reasonable to me.]

Wrong, the above.

 

Rule 801(c ) of the Rules of Evidence for United States Courts and Magistrates states: "Hearsay. 'Hearsay' is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."

 

The reason behind the rule is that hearsay statement should not be offered in court unless the person who made the original statement is present in court to be cross examined on the witness stand about the statement's truth, so the trier of fact can observe his/her demeanor in order to determine credibility of testimony.

 

In other words, second hand statements (hearsay) in documents cannot be offered in evidence to prove the truth of the statement, unless the opposing party can test the statement's truth by cross examination of the author of the statement on the witness stand.

 

One fallacy of the moderator's 11/6/14 comment is that this discussion group is not a recognized trial or hearing. Further, assuming for the sake of discussion only, that the "trial or hearing" part of the rule can somehow be overlooked, if you follow the moderator's reasoning to its logical conclusion, no statement within a book or periodical could ever be placed in quotes, unless the speaker/author of the quote itself accompanied his/her written material to be cross examined by the reader. Because the book/periodical containing the quote is within the definition of hearsay, as well, the author would also have to accompany it everywhere to subject himself to the readers' cross exam. Effectively books could not be written, nor newspapers published.

 

Fortunately for society no such rule exists. Authors routinely publish written material containing quoted language from other sources, citing to the original author and publication. By placing an outside source's words in quotes, the author certifies that the words are verbatim. Anyone who wishes to view/study the full context of a quote is able to locate the original. Should a reader doubt that the quoted material is verbatim, he/she can verify the quote from the source. This well established protocol puts the burden on the reader to disprove the quote. Thus, the reader, by way of public mutterings regarding whether a quote is verbatim, is relieved of embarrassing himself and possibly falsely impugning the accuracy or honesty of the author of material containing quoted words . Publicly questioning whether a quote is verbatim without having already disproven it, is lethargic scholarship, as well as the sign an argument is grasping at straws. First the reader does his homework, and only after locating evidence to disprove the author's verbatim certification does he come forward with his findings.

 

Nice try. -- TEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'd ask if someone should walk up to a conductor of the symphony and tell him/her what they are doing wrong because that someone has gone to concerts, played in the high school band, and listened to recordings? Would that someone tell a national-level athletic coach how to do their job because that someone has been to some games, played a little touch football, and watched some videos?

Sue, I wish you would discontinue your series of inapposite analogies.

 

Sheepdog stockwork is not so arcane that you can't just make direct references to your meaning. Analogy in this case does not clarify, but confuses. You have again made no mention of who the "someone" is. Me, you, someone else?

 

If you, your music and sports experiences, IMO, are not typical of the general public and might be considered above average. Good for you. Where I live symphony conductors change overly frequently. If you met the current conductor at a downtown street corner, for instance, it would be expected to express your feelings about what you have liked about his performances, as well as to ask for your favorite pieces at the Christmas Concert. You could mention the acoustics where you sit, and just about anything -- more Mozart, tinny brass, you name it. All for the sake of improvement. This is a good market with a first class symphony hall, and conductors/music directors want to be responsive to symphony goers, in order to keep their jobs. Same with a struggling team you have been rooting for. On the elevator, you would tell coach how much you admire certain players, and talk about good wins, and let him know your thoughts on how to have a successful season, all before reaching his floor. They are used to it. Nothing different about friendly dog handlers. Your comparisons reflect more on your personality than on mine.

 

If about me, the comparison to sport/music backgrounds is weak viewed against mine in sheepdog related matters.

 

People in positions of influence did not get there by insulating themselves from the world. They want to hear compliments, and suggestions for improvement. Openness is a sign of healthy leaders and organizations.

 

You and the others are getting repetitive on the topic of qualifications a person must have, in your opinions, to make suggestions for improvement, based on articulated reasoning. It's getting old. All that has a chilling effect on good people like Smalahundur, and no doubt others, who may wish to add to the discussion. In America nobody is gatekeeper of the free flow of information. That is what they do in repressive regimes, where the citizenry is feared. That is where women were before obtaining their current rights. Questionnaires and polls have become commonplace. Information flows up, as well as down. Leaders have obligations to those who put them there. -- TEC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TEC, whilst I have sympathy with the views expressed in the last two paragraphs of your post, your combative and browbeating style is only likely to alienate those who might agree with you. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Do you really think that sneering at contributors is conducive to the free speech that you claim to support. Reasoned discussion shouldn't be an "I'm better educated and more intelligent than you" competition. Why the need to prove your superiority?

 

But in the interest of fairness I have to say that you aren't the only one guilty of giving that impression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to those who wrote informative posts and shared their time. There is a lot of good material here if anyone wants to sift through the irrelevant parts for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things I really enjoy about many of the discussion threads in this BB is the way that ideas ebb and flow through a variety of topics . The passion that individuals have for their dogs and their stock comes across time and time again.

Not only that, but individuals bring their own perspective to the discussions. These different viewpoints are usually based on each contributor’s previous experience and/or beliefs. Because the BB welcomes folk from very diverse backgrounds, the wealth of information that can be obtained from reading these threads is immense.

This particular thread is no exception. It has has covered a range of fascinating topics relating to working border collies

These include (apologies if my list has missed out someone’s ‘pet’ point - it just gives an indication of the wide diversity covered.)

-whether a talented dog should be counted as ‘second rate’ as a worker just because of the colour/pattern of his coat.

-why a specific breeder may choose to introduce colour into his breeding programme (and do candy coloured dogs primarily originate from puppy farms?)

-does trialling encourage individuals to breed from specific dogs

- whether trials are a good way to determine ‘working' ability

This last point then evolved to cover further ideas including

-the possible advantages of trialling in different locations and how this can test a dog/handler (different types of sheep/terrains and weather)
-the fact that every trial does not test every aspect of daily farm work
-the concept about precision and non-precision work in farm work
-the place of the “hobbyist” versus “active” farmers/shepherds in sheep dog trials
-issues relating to “over-commanding” a dog and whether this encourages individuals to use ‘soft’ dogs which may not be suitable for ‘real’ farm work
-the criteria that judges use when awarding points
-whether people who run their dogs in trials as a sport really properly consider the welfare of the stock they are using

Other topics also discussed in this single thread include

-could a better trial format be devised
-would running more pro and amateur trials help develop the genetics of the working Border Collie
-whether the views and ideas of individuals with less trial experience should be listened to by trial hosts and the "Bighats" (called "Bigwigs" in the UK..no doubt indicating the different histories in the two countries!)

 

There have been times in this thread when some comments have been misunderstood or misinterpreted by others. This has been unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising given the vast diversity of the participants.

However IMO, one over-riding concept that has run throughout much of this discussion (and many others) is how to ensure that the working ability of BCs is maintained (and perhaps even improved) for future generations.

Is there one single ‘correct’ answer? No, probably not

Does everyone have to agree with everyone else? No, of course not

Does any one individual need to be seen to ‘win’ the argument and have the final word? Again, probably no. The advantage of this BB (and the internet in general) is that it provides a written record that others can access, review and think about.

JMO YMMV

ETA.. I also completely echo CMP's sentiments in the post below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stopped participating because it takes a tremendous incentive to get me involved in an argument/heated discussion which must be conducted with people I do not know, in a venue which I consider myself to be a guest at and only with typing. Too many things can go wrong. :/

 

However, I have been reading carefully.

 

Shame that some of the great ideas, as outlined by Maxi, got lost in the tempers and chaos. Sun Tzu has an expression for that but I doubt anyone needs reminding of it :)

 

Either way, there is value in reading the discussion because it provides a very good overview of the passion which the dogs inspire in people and a good reminder not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

Namaste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was on facebook I would use the (y) right about now

 

I had to go on facebook and see what that was - LOL!!

 

Thumbs up!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is great!

 

One of the things I really enjoy about many of the discussion threads in this BB is the way that ideas ebb and flow through a variety of topics . The passion that individuals have for their dogs and their stock comes across time and time again.

Not only that, but individuals bring their own perspective to the discussions. These different viewpoints are usually based on each contributor’s previous experience and/or beliefs. Because the BB welcomes folk from very diverse backgrounds, the wealth of information that can be obtained from reading these threads is immense.

This particular thread is no exception. It has has covered a range of fascinating topics relating to working border collies

These include (apologies if my list has missed out someone’s ‘pet’ point - it just gives an indication of the wide diversity covered.)

-whether a talented dog should be counted as ‘second rate’ as a worker just because of the colour/pattern of his coat.

-why a specific breeder may choose to introduce colour into his breeding programme (and do candy coloured dogs primarily originate from puppy farms?)

-does trialling encourage individuals to breed from specific dogs

- whether trials are a good way to determine ‘working' ability

This last point then evolved to cover further ideas including

-the possible advantages of trialling in different locations and how this can test a dog/handler (different types of sheep/terrains and weather)
-the fact that every trial does not test every aspect of daily farm work
-the concept about precision and non-precision work in farm work
-the place of the “hobbyist” versus “active” farmers/shepherds in sheep dog trials
-issues relating to “over-commanding” a dog and whether this encourages individuals to use ‘soft’ dogs which may not be suitable for ‘real’ farm work
-the criteria that judges use when awarding points
-whether people who run their dogs in trials as a sport really properly consider the welfare of the stock they are using

Other topics also discussed in this single thread include

-could a better trial format be devised
-would running more pro and amateur trials help develop the genetics of the working Border Collie
-whether the views and ideas of individuals with less trial experience should be listened to by trial hosts and the "Bighats" (called "Bigwigs" in the UK..no doubt indicating the different histories in the two countries!)

 

There have been times in this thread when some comments have been misunderstood or misinterpreted by others. This has been unfortunate, but perhaps not surprising given the vast diversity of the participants.

However IMO, one over-riding concept that has run throughout much of this discussion (and many others) is how to ensure that the working ability of BCs is maintained (and perhaps even improved) for future generations.

Is there one single ‘correct’ answer? No, probably not

Does everyone have to agree with everyone else? No, of course not

Does any one individual need to be seen to ‘win’ the argument and have the final word? Again, probably no. The advantage of this BB (and the internet in general) is that it provides a written record that others can access, review and think about.

JMO YMMV

ETA.. I also completely echo CMP's sentiments in the post below.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did the same, even though Christine had already said, "Thumbs up!"

I had to go on facebook and see what that was - LOL!!

 

Thumbs up!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know how to find it --- (y) --- on Facebook. Please explain for this computer-challenged mind.

 

Just go to the place where you would type a post and type (y) . When you hit enter it will come up as a thumbs up.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...