Philosophical thoughts on Hi-Volume Working BC Breeders

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

After a recent discussion involving Lockeye BCs (edit: descendants) needing rescue, I started thinking. I do rescue and find that most dogs in shelters listed as BCs are generally BC mixes and dogs that have no BC in them at all. Not that there aren't any in shelters but that most PB BCs are owner turn ins to rescue with just a few of them coming from shelters as strays. Of course I suppose this varies some by area. If any of you rescuers that do way more volume than me find that I'm way off the mark, I'd like to hear from you.

 

I have been wondering, with all the Barbies and back yard breeding going on and all the "panic" about the ruination of the working Border Collie and these dogs turning out in such high numbers in such a short period of time:

 

Is it possible that the high volume breeders, who breed working dogs and prove their breeding stock either as every day "serious" workers on a large farm with every kind of stock (broke/non broke/sheep/cattle/goats) or by trialing them (or both) are indeed a help to the breed? Can the few responsible small volume breeders get their dogs to the people who need and want them (with proper screening of course)? Say I need a farm dog on the west coast and most of my choices are cattle dogs that are too hard for my personality and I'd like an east coast dog because the general temperaments are what I consider better for me to live and work with? None of these guys do any advertising and I'm not attending trials in VA. How does a person go about making a contact so they can check out all their options? (this situation is purely hypothetical) Should we be concerned with poorly bred dogs vastly outnumbering well bred ones. Could the genepool of well bred dogs become very restricted over time, leaving breeders to look for new blood to avoid breeding themselves into a corner? Where would they go to to get that? The UK? Is that done routinely now? Are their health screenings as good as ours? Are they better? I know that breeders never sell their best breeding stock and just because a dog trials well, doesn't mean it will breed well. How can we be sure we aren't importing the UKs castoffs- or very well trained dogs that trial well with dimished instincts?

 

Is it possible that in order to dissuade the general public that BCs are not lapdogs with the general intelligence of a human and dressed as a butler (or maid)- that they must experience what a real BC is and that hopefully in time, the popularity of the "world's smartest dog? will die out leaving the BC in a better place than cockers and labs and goldens (temperaments not stable, not suited to the work for which it was bred-not that a few specimens have not been saved).

 

I was REALLY tired when these thoughts crept up on me and I squashed them because the reality is that I have a dog in foster right now that needs placement- and then there will be another, and another. I also own a dog from a high-volume working BC breeder on the east coast (who have really slowed down their breeding as of late I noticed so they must have had their reasons for doing that to begin with). I wouldn't trade my Buffy for all the diamonds on the planet- what is in this breeder's heart and mind (regarding how she breeds dogs and the qualities she must have) is very dear to me. They also do their part of rehoming BCs as well-which IMO is extremely responsible on their part since they breed dogs period -regardless of how many or how few litters produced.

 

I would like to hear from rescuers but also from breeders and trialers and farmers. There are lots of 10 gallon, high speed brains here (we all own BCs so we get more mental exercise than the shih-tzu owner). Rebecca, you seem like you are a very inquisitive person and a fairly deep thinker-I'd like to hear from you too.

 

This is the thought process that refused to allow my brain to shut down last night. Hopefully, you guys have answers because I lack the first hand information to reach a conclusion (other than the overpopulation problem of dogs)

 

Hopefully, you find my questions/thoughts semi intelligent and not tedious

 

Thanks

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

I'm not sure volume is the deciding factor between responsible and irresponsible

I agree. It appears from a recent post (if I have my facts straight) that it's BYBs who acquire dogs from other people who purchased dogs from those labled as high volume breeders. Sometimes this relationship is more than just twice removed.

[juliepoudrier]

My take on high-volume working breeders: As I see it, alhtough these breeders may have proved *their* breeding stock on livestock, they can't possibly sell all their pups to working homes, so many go to other types of homes, from sport to pet and everything in between. Those offspring are often not proven as far as working goes, so (a) it's difficult for the original breeder to prove/know that the breeding being done is indeed good for the working dogs, because many of the offspring just aren't being tested in any venue, be it trial or farm work and ( there's nothing stopping the puppy buyers (and there has to be lots of them since the breeder is producing lots of pups) from breeding their dogs, which may or may not, and more likely not, be a benefit to the working breed as a whole.

 

I think if one looked one would find many poorly bred dogs out of good working lines (I have one of them) that were created by backyard breeders who happened to buy dogs from working breeders and then proceeded to do the wrong thing as far as breeding is concerned. But as long as there's a market for these dogs, such breeders (BYBs) will exist. And by their very nature, high-volume breeders contribute to this market.

 

So, I know some folks won't like to hear this, but in my opinion, high-volume breeders are contributing to the overall problem simply because of the high numbers of puppies produced. You can have the best breeding program and philosophy in the world, but if you're producing lots and lots of pups, then in the end you are contributing (albeit once or twice removed) to the BYB explosion on down the line.

 

As to your question about finding a suitable dog from another part of the country,I think your best bet is still to get involved with people who trial or people who really use their dogs to a high working level on farms. The advantage to getting to know the trialers is that it's a pretty small world, and so once you know folks on one coast or region, they can tell you about bloodlines, temperaments, etc., from breeders in other locations. Of course, it pays to be informed since human nature means that even in these kinds of conversations, personal prejudices will color the information you receive.

 

I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but that's the way I see it.

 

J.

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

None taken by me Julie. I posted this because I really want to hear others thoughts on the topic.

 

Thanks for the advise.

[Debbie Crowder-BaaramuLuke]

Wow, this is a touchy topic, but I'll be brave.

 

Unfortunately, we all know there are not enough working homes for these dogs. That is a fact. Bottom-line, a lot of sheep producers don't use dogs if a bucket of grain, a handling system and an ATV will get the job done without knowing how to train or handle a dog. Border Collies also do extremely well in a number of other activities, by nature of their intelligence and desire to please. We all know they aren't great pets for average dog owners.

The market exists for Border Collies. If breeders had no buyers, they would not produce the puppies, not good breeders anyway. That is the issue, I guess. I am grateful for breeders who do their homework and breed the good dogs and thank God, when I wanted one, I was allowed to buy one. My "breeder" does her homework, produces as many good dogs as she can sell. That sounds ugly to some people. Why, when all the rescue dogs are out there, would she continue to breed them, and why would I go buy one when I can get one from rescue and save a life, supposedly? Because I like her dogs, now that I know what I like, and need (want) to have the best dogs to be able to do what I need (want) to do with them. I know it isn't politically correct, but I want to enjoy the blank slate of a well-bred dog (even if I end up messing it up!). I will always keep any dog I get til it's days are up. I am fascinated by the genetically programmed behaviours I see in certain lines.

I do worry about the number of dogs out there. I know my breeder takes back any she knows about that aren't working out and goes to great lengths to re-home them. She is extra careful about who buys her pups, declining to sell to some folks, who might go get one from somebody else anyway. She believes in spaying and neutering pet dogs, but what people do with them is clearly their business, unless you state it in a contract when you sell, and then follow up. Hopefully, all these steps will result in successful dog/owner relationships from the start, so there should be fewer needs for rescue.

Personally, I have fewer "working" dogs than I have dogs who I took because they needed a home (3 out of 9). To me, that's my way of helping out the situation. That, and educating people who might become backyard breeders about how seriously they must take breeding their dogs. I do think the people who ought to breed dogs are best left to that, and I will continue to get dogs from them as I need them, and I will also take in what comes my way, if I have a space and the income to support them. If I were purely in it for the good of the dogs, I guess I would only have rescue dogs period, any breed, but I only get to live once, and I enjoy what I'm doing with my dogs.

[Howdyjabo]

I wonder if the high volume breeders are actiually getting good feedback about their breeding program.

 

How many of those pups are actually getting the opportunity to proove themselves???

A great working dog or dogs are wonderful-- but its what they produce that is proof of breedability.

 

There is a point that even good and great lines become terminal crosses.

 

If there is not enough WORK available to keep testing large numbers of puppies- there really is no point in breeding even larger numbers of dogs.

 

The working breeders can only breed half(???) above the number of working homes available for pups or they are BYBreeders or even down to puppy mills.

 

I would never buy a pup off a litter that wasn't bred becasue the owner needed a new pup for themselves.

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

KillerH & all who care to read,

Then my question to you is this. If breeders only breed for themselves then they breed very infrequently-I'm guessing the average might be once in 3 years at the earliest and 5 years at the latest. How far in advance can you plan when you will need a new working dog- barring accidents that would make your dog not available for work? And what would you do if your working dog was fatally injured? Could you get a replacement in a reasonable amount of time? One that was truly suited to you? Not just settling?

 

I guess I'm trying to understand exactly how many pups are produced by "the truly responsible" and how is it that with limited stock in their gene pool are they able to not breed themselves into a corner (what do they do to keep themselves from this)? Also how many pups need to be produced and tested before declaring them as breedable stock?

 

I know that for other breeds, often dozens of dogs must be produced to harvest the truly great specimens for further breeding. If say, breeding for herding instinct breeds more true than selecting for several other characteristics and only half the number of pups need to be produced to get a handful of good working dogs- that is still alot of dogs!

 

I would love for someone to tell me that I'm way off the mark and that a good trial dog with good instincts can be produced in one sole liter.

 

I'm not trying to be smart or anything at all. I'd love to hear from breeders of top trial dogs - if they would share their insight with me. I'm sure that all of this has been thought of by them and I'm sure they have the answers. Since I'm clueless (and perhaps overly curious), I'm asking.

 

Debbie also makes a point. And I will say again that as a person who rescues -high volume anything bothers me. My incessant thinking however has me facing a brutal reality. There is a market for these dogs- no matter how much I get blue in the face informing the misinformed. Therefore, rescue will still be necessary-as it exists it is a much larger bandaid on dog overpopulation than any of our private social efforts to end world hunger (gee, logic that makes me feel better certain days when there are those I can't help).

 

I'd rather have working BCs in rescue than Barbies I suppose. I prefer to live with non-barbie BCs and I find them no harder to place than any other dog.

 

Alas, the other reality is that people may be producing many nice litters out of good working dogs- but if breeders do not educate their buyers and screen them properly then these nice litters can go on to contribute to the overpopulation problem-even if the irresponsible party is 2 or 3 generations down the line.

 

I guess I'm trying to see all sides as objectivly as possible.

[Miztiki]

Alot of what you all are talking about is beyond where I am at this point, but I did wonder how big the gene pool is and if there is the risk of it being too small.

 

I'm with Debbie. I would prefer a well bred pup to work with from scratch and hope to do that when my farm (not my yard here) becomes a reality.

 

edit: pup after I know what I'm doing with the help of a started dog.

[Howdyjabo]

I NEED three solid dogs here-- and during the summer I would love to have four.

 

What I used to do was breed a litter every year or two and keep two pups.

 

I need to have one solid young dog coming on ALL the time as a replacement- Injuries,permanent burn out, old age , upgrade, breeding layouts, ect.....

Most of the time I won't end up needing them permanently - so I sell them as started dogs. And get a new litter on the ground for my next backup.

 

I like keeping two pups out of a litter- I always end up liking one better

 

another reason to keep bringing on pups is to keep me in form (training wise) and progressing- hard to do unless you stay at it.

 

And I have found that I have burn outs by the end of the summer and bringing in fresh blood of a young dog helps gear up the older now stale dogs.

 

I backed off on breeding the last few years--- and I have worked myself into a corner and need some new dogs NOW. The pup I kept off the last litter isn't going to work out for me(its not going to be good enough- should have kept the other pup ).

 

I like bringing on two out of a litter- and I usually get 2 or 3 more sold to where I at least get to see that they are started.

 

So even a small operations like mine can support breeding every year or two.

[juliepoudrier]

Debbie and Miztiki,

This isn't about whether a person should get a well-bred pup vs. a rescue. I don't think anyone here has implied that a person should first go to rescue to find a working dog. I wouldn't, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so either.

 

The questions is: How much breeding is too much, even if the breeding is taking place from well-bred working stock? If you have well-bred working dogs, are you justified in producing 10 litters or more a year? Five to ten litters? One or two litters?

 

I am in a different situation than Karen. I am trying to buy a farm and have a few sheep and chickens now, but not tons of work to keep several dogs busy, so I haven't been in a rush for a replacement pup. My two working dogs (not counting the one semi-retired) are relatively young at 5 and 3 years. Unlike Karen, I don't regularly work with cattle, so my dogs are less likely than hers to be injured seriously while working (though I am currently working to dog break my neighbor's Devons so she can eventually work her dog on them). So my need for a larger number of new youngsters to bring along would be less than hers. Still, if Karen needs a litter every year or so in order to get suitable replacements, is she justified in producing 5 or 10 litters instead simply because people want border collies?

 

The problem is, I think, that the high-volume breeders tend to somewhat flood a market (and they are just being business people after all, supply and demand means that they can sell those pups), which probably does make it a bit harder for responsible small-volume breeders to place dogs. But even that isn't as big a problem in my mind as the fact that many of the dogs produced by high-volume breeders aren't being tested in any sort of working venue, by the very nature of the real market to which they are catering, which isn't working folk (simply because there aren't *that many* working folk out there).

 

As Karen and I have both stated, you can't very well prove that you are producing good working dogs if few or none of the dogs you produce are actually doing any sort of farm work, let alone trialing. And if a breeder's dogs aren't being used to do the work they were supposed to be bred for, then that breeder's claims about breeding for working ability become a bit hollow.

 

I, for one, would prefer to buy a pup from a small-volume breeder whose dog(s) I had seen work in multiple situations (trial and at home or someone else's farm, for example) and whose breeding goals/judgments I agree with. It is not in my nature to run through a bunch of dogs trying to find the "perfect" dog for me. So my recourse is to research carefully and be very picky about the litters I might choose from. I am well aware that I could still end up with a less-than-stellar worker, but by being very careful and paying close attention to the work of the parents, parents of the parents, siblings of the parents, offspring of the parents (important if you want to know what kind of dog you might get from a potential cross), and especially any existing siblings to the proposed cross (i.e., when a repeat breeding is being done), I can at least push the odds a bit in my favor.

 

Conversely, I would be leery of anyone who has great working dogs with great bloodlines who are breeding the heck out of those dogs to satisfy a market that isn't mainly working folk. Getting on the puppy lists of small-volume breeders means I may wait longer for my pup, but at least I know that many of the closest relatives of those proposed pups are working to a level that I desire.

 

J.

[Sue R]

Originally posted by juliepoudrier:

...many of the dogs produced by high-volume breeders aren't being tested in any sort of working venue, by the very nature of the real market to which they are catering, which isn't working folk (simply because there aren't *that many* working folk out there)...[if]few or none of the dogs you produce are actually doing any sort of farm work, let alone trialing...if a breeder's dogs aren't being used to do the work they were supposed to be bred for, then that breeder's claims about breeding for working ability become a bit hollow...

Julie, I think you may have explained the crux of the matter. I know you and I have had some discussions about this before, but I think your explanation here has made several very good points, and allowed me to understand your viewpoint much more clearly. Thank you.

[Debbie Crowder-BaaramuLuke]

I do get it too, and I agree, but I will continue to get my dogs from my breeder because I have seen the parents work and I have met them, and I like what I see. I have purchased a dog from another breeder, same result. I took in a dog from a BYB situation because she couldn't sell her puppies. YAY. Maybe she will not breed again if she can't sell or give away 3 out of eight pups. My breeder can, and she hears from her buyers all the time, because she is just like that. She wants to know. My dogs from her breedings have at least kept me in sheep work and they are friendly, easy going dogs that I can live with. I don't doubt she sells pups that end up in BYB situations. I know she doesn't like it. If my dog who is three, working out okay for me, has seven littermates, at least they all hopefully have the potential to be as good as he is. Some of the other posts mention having pups from their breedings and keeping two, hoping one will work...same thing. WHat happens to the other pups? Do they all go to other farmers and work the rest of their days successfully?

I doubt I can really contribute much to the topic because my breeder of choice, ONE of them anyway, is probably defined as a high-volume breeder, and I have no problem with her doing what she does because she's good at it, and breeds for the demand (and is breeding fewer as the demand dictates). I still worry that the Barbie and the agility only dogs will breed to their own and lose working ability anyway. At least these dogs started as potential working dogs.

I think we're all lucky to be able to define what we want , and will do what it takes to get it. I am grateful we all have the best in mind for the breed, and I will continue to keep at least 8-9 dogs to have the three I need in training or work to do what I like to do with them. No dog ever leaves me once I get it, working out or not, so I try hard to decide WHAT to get or at least what I need to do to get it working or having a decent life.

[juliepoudrier]

It's a shame this had to turn into a discussion (and defense of) a particular breeder. It would be nice to hear from some other folks on their thoughts about the topic in general as I think it's an important one. Oh well.

 

J.

[Debbie Crowder-BaaramuLuke]

Julie, I hear you! I guess I am just used to defending My breeder from the git-go to people who didn't have the whole story. Do you know I got this whole attitude from my obedience instructor in 1994 "OH my God...she's a puppy mill!!!" (this from a woman who had German Shorthair Pointers). Once the instructor got to know Calvin, she said that if she could have a BC like him, she'd hove one too. Long story short, I went back to Karen, told her the whole thing, told her how I was concerned about the allegations, and then and now, she reassusres me by our talks, and by my seeing firsthand how she operates. And, the GSP person...she got a BC from Karen once she got to know her and does agility with it (spayed/neutered) and is a devoted BC person. Big step for her, a person with pretty high strung attitudes about the dog world.

I'm sorry if I end up on this line of defense, but it is one I feel strongly about, and you are right, the topic deserves other input. I give you a big ol' hug for being you. Hope we see each other soon.

I have a GOOD question I thought of last night when going over this whole thing...do you think instinct that goes unused desolves from the dog genetically?

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

Hi Julie,

 

I agree with you. It's important to me that everyone's thoughts are voiced here. I'm learning quite alot. I do not think that anyone in particular needs defending but it's good that their philosophy was brought to the table-sadly not by them personally. Also, it's good to keep in mind that Karen isn't representative of other High Volume breeders, she is representative of herself, whether we agree or disagree with her philosophy is a personal thing. She may need 10 new dogs a year for all I know. It is the comparison of philosophies that interests me and if there are indeed strengths and weaknesses to each-not bad people versus good people. KillerH has posted valuable information also from the smaller operations standpoint as well and has cleared up some questions for me as to how one would go about keeping themselves in dogs for the work they have at hand.

 

Further to this I would ask how a small operation goes about planning crosses so they don't inbreed within say 3 generations? And how old are the dogs you are considering "older and stale"? I'm guessing, your up and coming dog is around 2 when they are starting to work full time?

 

Julie, you explained very well something I'd not given perhaps enough weight to when doing all my thinking and that is for breed integrity, as many pups produced should be tested as is possible, and that should be the vast majority. If you have way more pups than you can test then you cannot be sure that your stock breeds true on a high percentage of pups.

 

Conversely there would be non-tested pups of aptitude and instinct that would not be accounted for. So the answer (ideal)is to either keep all dogs to test or make sure they get good working homes that would update you on the dogs progress?

 

Again, let me know if I'm not tracking here.

 

One of my dogs was bred by a small operation farmer and he used a trial dog as her sire-he only bred because he needed a new dog for himself. She was then sold twice over to 2 different ranches by 6 months old because she wasn't a good enough worker! IMO, maybe these people had farms but had no sheep dog sense at all. I rescued her at 9 months old-she was starved nearly to death. When I contacted her breeder he was surprised because he thought she was 40 miles down the road, not 4 or 5 states over.

 

I'm presenting this to illustrate that not only large volume breeders make mistakes in placing their dogs, and that small operation produced pups can end up in rescue following a mistake in the placement of those pups-even to working homes. I do realize that these incidents are more likely to happen in a high volume situation but I think that correct placement (by either the high volume or low volume breeder)might be a key factor in home retention for the resulting pups.

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by Annette & the Borderbratz:

Further to this I would ask how a small operation goes about planning crosses so they don't inbreed within say 3 generations? And how old are the dogs you are considering "older and stale"? I'm guessing, your up and coming dog is around 2 when they are starting to work full time?

Annette,

I should preface all my comments by saying that I am not a breeder--I have never bred a litter, though I am now considering breeding my young bitch to get a pup for myself. I am very hesitant to do so simply because I don't want to risk my best farmhand and trial dog, but so far the planned breedings I liked have not produced enough pups to make it down to whatever number I happened to be on the puppy list. Since I have been thinking about this, I have been thinking long and hard about what dog I might breed her to. It's easy enough to get copies of pedigrees on studs you're considering, so avoiding inbreeding as you describe isn't hard. It also helps to simply know (and if you're in trialing/working circles, it's not hard to find out) what lines people are breeding from and to. For example, if I say that my bitch is an Imp. Mirk granddaughter (Henry Kuykendall's lines), then most people would know that this means she's line bred back to John Thomas' Don and Craig on her top side and could probably even name many of her working characteristics. If I don't wish to breed back into that line, it's easy enough to avoid doing so.

 

I'm not sure if that adequately answers your question so ask more if you wish. As for choosing a suitable cross for my bitch, I know the traits that come from the Kuykendall lines and I know what I'd like to try to keep and what I would want to try to enhance (or avoid). Some of this can be done through pedigree research (and believe me, I have done some brain-picking of others on that score) as to how certain lines might cross and what characteristics seem to stay in a line down through generations (that is, what characteristics certain prepotent dogs in a pedigree seem to consistently pass on to offspring or offspring of offspring). For me, additional research involves actually seeing the potential stud working and also knowing something about the dog's personality in general. I have had a number of studs recommended that I just wouldn't feel real comfortable choosing because I haven't actually seen the dog working firsthand. And a couple that I have actually dismissed after seeing them work firsthand (that's not necessarily meant to denigrate those dogs; it's just that after seeing them work I realized that certain work characteristics they had would not be a good cross with my bitch).

 

Anyway, it's important to look at the parents of a potential stud or bitch and to like the stud or bitch enough that you would be happy with a pup that turned out *exactly like* one or the other (since you rarely get a blend). I could, for example, get a pup out of my bitch that is nothing like her and very much like the sire (or even the grandsire), so if I don't like the idea of living or working with the sire, it probably wouldn't be a good idea to breed to him.

 

Julie, you explained very well something I'd not given perhaps enough weight to when doing all my thinking and that is for breed integrity, as many pups produced should be tested as is possible, and that should be the vast majority. If you have way more pups than you can test then you cannot be sure that your stock breeds true on a high percentage of pups.

 

Conversely there would be non-tested pups of aptitude and instinct that would not be accounted for. So the answer (ideal)is to either keep all dogs to test or make sure they get good working homes that would update you on the dogs progress?

 

Again, let me know if I'm not tracking here.

Well the ideal world would see all of the pups in good working homes (that is, homes you know will give the dog every appropriate chance to develop properly as a useful working dog) so you can see how well the cross really worked, or to keep as many pups from the litter as you can so you can evaluate that yourself. Some people do one or the other. Others just look for good homes. I am not opposed to either scenario, but obviously if as a breeder you choose the latter option you will have a much more difficult time judging the result of your breeding.

 

What worries me most (and relates back to the original topic) is that if you place pups in nonworking homes and then those homes turn around and breed for whatever reasons, you really are losing control of what's happening to your breeding and the working ability you hoped to improve, presumably, with the cross you made.

 

 

I think that correct placement (by either the high volume or low volume breeder)might be a key factor in home retention for the resulting pups.

I agree. And at least for placing pups in working homes, this means knowing the new owner well enough to know what is likely to happen to that pup on down the line (i.e., will it be sold if it isn't the exact kind of worker the buyer was hoping for?) and even if possible being willing to help the new owner to start and/or train the pup so you can be sure it is getting the best chance to shine. Obviously this latter will be easier if you've got just a few pups and owners to deal with....

 

J.

[kajarrel]

which isn't working folk (simply because there aren't *that many* working folk out there)...

I think the number of "working folk", and thus the need for working dogs, varies by region. I think this needs to be taken into account when looking at volume as a measure of reputability.

 

I live in a very rural area of Central NY, between Syracuse, Utica and Albany. Recently, I have noticed that a significant % of the farms (dairy and sheep) in my area have border collies or other working breeds. Most sheep farmers I know (I meet/know quite a few) have at least one dog. So, at least in my area, there is a market for working-bred dogs.

 

I have about 70 adult sheep now, but have had over 100 at different times, and help out at an adjoining farm with a flock that varies between 300 - 500 ewes (and 3 border collies of their own).

 

Handling equipment and fencing is expensive and may not be practical to use in all situations. Likewise, there are so many things we need to do that can't be achieved with a "bucket of grain" or 4-wheelers and, indeed, may require more than one dog to achieve. For example, we occasionally have to move the flock(s) down the county road to access new pastures. Often (especially when moving several hundred sheep), to do this, we'll put a vehicle in front with flashing lights, a vehicle behind, people/signs at blind areas in the road, a dog in front to keep the sheep from running ahead, and 2 dogs behind to keep the sheep moving forward and from flowing off the road. People today, who are removed from animals and rural life, don't understand that they can't drive by animals at 55 mph and expect them to behave predictably and aren't willing to wait until the sheep arrive at their destination. The dogs are *necessary* to keep the activity controlled and safe. Another situation where dogs were the preferred handling method occurred the other day. We (up until the last couple days) were without rain- the spring in my pasture actually went dry! With temperatures in the 80s - 90s, and sheep not shorn, I decided to graze the sheep outside our 20-acre, fenced pasture, in the brush/woods. I used the dogs to gather and bring the sheep back into the paddock at dark.

 

Like all athletes, the dogs get sore/hurt from time to time and when that happens, since I often need multiple dogs, it can be problemmatic. As many of you know, I have 5 dogs, 3 of which work well - my rescue and GSD can herd, but only in contolled situations. My oldest dog is now 10 and the youngest working dog is 7. I'm starting to worry about what I'll do when Zoe "retires", but am loathe to bring another dog (or heaven forbid, a PUPPY) into the household.

 

This was a little rambling but my main point is that I think that the "correct" volume can vary depending upon demand. I just don't think there's some number that can be used as a rubric to apply to all breeders. In some areas of this country, and some situations, dogs are the preferred method of handling sheep. If the breeder is concientious, uses good breeding practices and produces pups that work (implicitly this requires that they place some, not all, of the pups in working homes so that this can be assessed), then I think they're "reputable."

 

Kim

[MarieJ]

I've been thinking a lot about this, and for me the crux of the matter is, can high volume breeders consistently produce quality pups over a period of time? If they can't, then they are harming the breed.

If I have a bitch that I work daily, know inside and out, good and bad, and think is truly exceptional, and I breed her to the dog I believe suits her best, and keep a pup or two for replacements, I'm going to find out a year or so down the road if it was a good breeding. Since I believe very strongly in the cross, I'm going to keep in touch with owners of the other pups to see how they are doing. Since I kept a couple of the pups, and I'm lucky to have even one exceptional bitch, I won't be breeding any other litters in the meantime. Depending on how the pups turn out, I might repeat the cross in a couple of years, I might try a different stud, or I might get my bitch spayed. Meanwhile, a high volume breeder might have already produced 6 or more litters in that time. How can they know all their bitches (let alone keep track of the pups)that well?? Even most people who have very large operations don't work that many dogs on a daily basis. I guess that's what troubles me the most about high volume breeders.

 

 

Marie

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

Hi Again Julie

 

Alas, my Delta wasn't one of the lucky ones who's owner was either offered training or offered to let the breeder know what he would do with her if it didn't work out. Worked out ok for me I guess because I got a nice dog for no money albeit with trunkloads of baggage. And the only way her breeder will know if she has any ability at all will be if I look him up again.

 

Most BCs I know are dogs bought for sport from working parents - or rescues (my own included). The vast majority of these dogs are altered and because as dog lovers who are active with our dogs, most of us end up putting our dogs on stock with trainers. Because our dogs already have a good working relationship with us, they will try their hearts out to get things right by the time we start herding lessons. As we learn things about our dogs in the course of this training, we do report this back to our breeders (those of us who have breeders anyway). Although the likely hood that we could train these dogs to trial level is slim since most of us are novice stock people we can make useful farmhands out of them. Is this not enough feedback for the breeder? Is the fact that the dogs are not trained to (perhaps) their full potential a hindrance to evaluating a particular cross?

 

I do know of a couple of sport people who have bred their bitches (and resold to sport homes who alter their pets generally-or under contract) but it generally takes way too much time away from competing for the vast majority of us to consider-besides well bred working BCs are much more biddable and generally more relaxed workers.

 

I'm not saying that sport breeders don't contribute to pet overpopulation or even the ruination of the BC as a breed because they don't breed for herding ability. I am saying that in general sport homes for working bred dogs are usually quite happy to take dogs to sheep and I don't think that is where the BYB is booming from.

I could be wrong, but if a sporting breeder is a puppy mill then they are not out proving that their dog is the hottest thing in the sport and 4 months out of a year is a long time for a dog to be out of competition. That dog that keeps coming in second place to yours will rack up lots of first place ribbons and nationals qualifing points.

 

I do think that BYBs stem mostly from high volume breeders or low volume breeders who do not ensure that the dogs sold won't be bred (either by contract or by selling the dogs altered or by maintaing legal ownership of the dog)-whether their market could bear it I guess not the purpose of the discussion . Not to mention that anyone can buy a puppy from a pet store...

 

Make sense? Maybe I'm ramblin now.

 

PS. To clarify, I will own a farm and have plans to make it so- so I need to learn from this discussion-and I have.

 

Annette

[kajarrel]

The breeders don't necessarily need to keep in touch with every pup's owner, they just need to keep in touch with enough to get an idea of how the pups are performing (like sampling in research). In a rural community, like our's, or in trialing circles, this is pretty easy to do - people talk. I guess the problem occurs when too many dogs are sold to pet/sport homes (so that working ability cannot be assessed), or when a large number of pups are sold over a large geographic area. But, at least around here, farmers seem to buy/sell their dogs locally. Just the other day, at the dump, I had Zoe in my truck and someone came up to me and asked if she is a border collie (she's a little atypically marked). When I told him yes, and where I live, he told me that he had seen my dogs work and wanted to know if I knew anyone selling pups. His dog is 11 and he's in the market. I imagine this type of conversation is common.

 

But back to your other point - unless the breeders spay/neuter their pups, a certain percentage will be bred. Of these, some will be poorly bred. In this case, high-volume breeders will certainly contribute more to the problem than low-volume. But the probability of producing pups without working ability is greater when the dogs come from performance/non-working homes than working homes. But then again, what is a working home? I personally don't think that the person who trials their dog at the novice level, takes a few herding lessons or owns a few sheep (chickens, ducks, etc.) can get a good enough idea of their dog's strengths and weaknesses to make wise breeding choices.

 

Kim

[Howdyjabo]

Some dogs burn out completely around 6 or 7. Its mostly that they just got tired of being beat up and over heated over the years and quit trying as hard.

 

They make a great farm dog for someone that doesn't need to grind them into the ground every day. They get to looking forward to working again.

 

As far as control of dogs and pups sold--

I learned one lesson fairly quickly--- Not everyone needs a Border Collie- even if they think they do. So I started talking everyone OUT of getting a Border Collie-- If they still wanted one- Oh well I tried.

 

The other lesson took a little longer.. but after a few bad long term outcomes of selling dogs or pups. I have now started trying to sell them ALL without papers. Its amazing that EVERY person you offer a discount to for "no papers" will take it(Unless its a person already involved with the breed)

They aren't thinking about breeding when they buy a pup or dog. It doesn't stop them from breeding latter-- But at least they won't have papers .

[kajarrel]

It doesn't stop them from breeding latter-- But at least they won't have papers .

Boy, I like this idea! Is there any way people can get the "papers" on their own?

 

Kim

[Annette Carter & the Borderbratz]

Kim you make some solid points about the definition of a working home being a home that will solidly put a dog through it's paces daily and pushing a dog to it's limits to see indeed what it's made of. I still wonder though if neutered progeny sold to people who have either small farms or only worked part time could not give the breeder some idea of the inherited talents passed on to the dog from it's parents.

 

KillerH, You're right. Not everyone needs a BC. I've talked prospective applicant of a rescue I have to check out grayhound rescue instead. I will need a farmhand some day but honestly I can't live with anything other than a BC. My sheltie drives me nuts! I'd never rehome him! But I won't own anything but BCs from here on out-So I NEED BCs at this point or I'd rather not have a dog. And yes witholding papers can be effective so is collecting your whole fee for the dog and offering to register it and return the amount that you would have discounted initially along with the papers to the owners, when they present you with a spay/neuter certification letter from their vet.

 

So you are saying that buying an older burned out dog might be the best choice for someone like me who will own something like a flock of 50 max? Versus buying a started dog or perhaps buying a started dog concurrently or within a year of the older dog purchase? (The older dog to teach me something, well lots of things:) in preparation for working with a started dog?)

 

I don't think that there is a way to transfer registration or even obtain a copy of registration to change it without the dog owners signature and the parents information. Not that they couldn't make this happen by having a litter of their own and stating that the bitch whelped more puppies than she actually did. They'd have to know how to get around registration and be pretty unscrupulous. I only know of this from a big scandal that the AKC busted in shelties in the 80's. I also worked for someone in Ohio that did this sort of thing and I tell you, this person was a piece of work.

[juliepoudrier]

Kim,

Regarding regional differences in need for dogs, I sincerely believe that if you had one high-volume breeder in your region selling working dogs, whether proven or unproven, the market would soon be saturated. I can't imagine too many regions that could absorb, say, 40 pups a year from *just one* breeder. That was my point.

 

I do agree that you don't need to have a lifetime relationship with every owner of your pups. But I do think that when you're producing large numbers of pups, but only sampling the few that might actually be going to working homes, your results may be a bit skewed vs. those of the small-volume breeder who is able to place a higher total percentage of pups in working homes.

 

Annette,

Again, I have to state the caveat along with the fact that I'm not a breeder, I also have not been in trialing and working dogs for a long time. I was introduced the working dogs nearly five years ago, starting with a rescue I had and another middle aged, barely started dog that was given to me. I just moved to open a year ago with someone else's retired open dog, and then moved my own self-trained youngster up to open last August. By virtue of the fact that I lived very near to a friend's farm and was allowed to do pretty much what I wanted there, I have been able to do lots of practical stockwork over those years, though.

 

So, I believe that an experienced dog/stock person *can* look at a young dog with an inexperienced handler and quite easily assess that young dog's potential or abilities (i.e., raw talent). The breeder might miss the mark on occasion, but in general ought to be able to tell if the qualities s/he was breeding for are there. So, no, a pup/dog doesn't need to be trained (or trialed) at a top level for a breeder to be able to assess the worth of a particular breeding.

 

Although this is an entirely different subject than high-volume breeding, I think it's absolutely insane for a novice handler to be breeding novice dogs (i.e., ditto to what Kim said). I just don't believe that such folks have enough experience to really know what to breed for, and so they risk breeding for the wrong things, if they even consider any "things" beyond how much they like their novice dog when they breed. Plus I simply don't believe that a dog that's only ever been around a novice course or has only done that level of work at home has proved that it needs to contribute to the working gene pool.

 

When I started out, I was told that the dog I liked as a novice would not likely be the same type of dog I'd want to run in open with. That was largely true. So novices breeding the dogs they like really risk breeding dogs that no one else but perhaps another complete beginner would even consider.

 

And yes, neutered progeny can give a breeder a fine idea about the success of a particular cross. In that case, the breeder obviously wouldn't be able to follow generations, but s/he should certainly gain insight into the good and bad things that came from a particular cross. And a dog doesn't have to be trialed to be assessed either. Someone who knows dogs and livestock should be able to look at a dog working on the farm and see if the talent/potential is there.

 

As for buying an older, burned out dog, I think you could certainly do well buying an older dog (someone's fully trained retiree, for example), but personally I would steer clear of any dog I thought was truly burned out because you risk the dog not really wanting to do the job you need done either. But you really can learn a lot from an older dog that is already trained.

 

J.

[Howdyjabo]

What I would concider "burned out" for me- would still be a great dog for a less stressful job somewhere else. They have just lost the enthusiasm to carry them thru being worked to(or past) their limit sometimes- day in and day out.

Kinda like us as we age-- I'm not game for alot of things that I was in my youth

But when given the chance to not be beat up and over worked most days that they go out they regain their enthusiasm.

Although I have noticed that the dogs that have burnt out on me were not ones I had selected as breeders- so even young I was seeing something that wasn't up to top snuff.

 

Nice thing about a dog like htis is you don't need to know anything and there won't be any train wrecks to worry about while you are getting a handle on whats going on.

Might not be mentally up to stopping 80 head taking off at a dead run or turn a calf thats trying to kill them- or the worst trying to get a bull that could care less to care-- all in 90 degree weather--day in and day out. But how many people really need a dog like that anyhow?