Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
sandra s.

the other side (conformation)?

Recommended Posts

I also know a woman who put "super glue" on her BC that she got from good breeding. She has also excelled in obedience and herding and agility and published a few books. YET- still glues the ears.

ETA- my bad spelling :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emily,

Lark's ears actually went through a stage, at three or four months, when the tips turned backward like you describe. It truly was odd looking.

 

I posted these not long ago in a thread on ears. Lark is about four months old in these pictures:

 

 

Now that I'm showing my Aussie in obedience, I should run into these folks a lot more. I will be curious to see if the ears go back where they should be, but given that he's at least two, and I know that she had them taped and glued for a long time, I am betting they won't. I completely agree that it is too much trouble to tape ears--silly, too!

 

Emily

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
flamingcomet, I don't suppose your "Working breeder" was this one? http://www.lockeyebc.com/info.html#ears

 

Or this one? http://www.majesticbordercollies.com/PuppyEars.html

 

Ewww

1st why??

but also those ears look wrong

The 2nd ones gluing to the inside of the ear produces a look I have not seen in a natrual collie - ears (or the ones I have seen anyway) flop to the outside

and the prick ones look wrong too - out of proportion with the dog

 

I always had a wee thing for prick ears - but that is not what Ben has turned up with - and he would look wrong any other way

and his ears are the 1st thing most people notice about him

 

Nature knows best - prick ears suit dogs that are supposed to have prick ears!

It should be a fault to have ears that look so unatural

(and I know having said that someone will come on with a dog with ears that naturally look like that)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ewww

1st why??

 

 

Those were my thoughts too!!

 

I had not looked at those links until now, why would anyone want to do that to a pup.

Natural has got to look better, i personally like to see the different looks to the ears in this breed. Makes them more unique.

 

 

Oh and i quite liked Larks ears on those photo's. Funny but very cute!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holly's mom:

You best not TOUCH your boys ears!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! We love them very much- and Holly's too!

 

Those were my thoughts too!!

 

I had not looked at those links until now, why would anyone want to do that to a pup.

Natural has got to look better, i personally like to see the different looks to the ears in this breed. Makes them more unique.

 

 

Oh and i quite liked Larks ears on those photo's. Funny but very cute!! :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't notice any new activity in this thread before now either. In fact, I can't recall ever seeing an Archived Thread added to before. Anyway . . .

 

This is true in a way. There are 2 types of judges, Breeder Specialist Judges, (Who are breeders and owners of BCs themselves and know the breed very well) and Round Judges (Who know many breeds, some better than others)

Breeder specialist judges always judge specialty shows, but since there are only 3 in the entire U.S., they are obviously unable to judge at every show, and a round judge that will probably judge more on group movement (Straight front legs and back, nice flowing gait) will put up dogs that otherwise would not have won. Because this happens more, since there are more round judges, we see a lot more BCs with straight front legs and back legs, instead of being slightly cow-hocked, which is correct for a BC. Since these dogs with less correct structure are winning more, more people will breed to them, often thinking the judges know what they are doing, so they assume the dog must be nice because a judge says so.

 

What I understand you to be saying here is that most judges of most AKC Border Collie classes don't know enough to choose good Border Collies even by conformation standards. Don't you see this as a flaw that discredits the entire system? It means that most titles are awarded by unqualified people. Personally, I have never understood why I should value the opinion of someone who knows so little about border collies that they have to be "educated" at judge's education seminars. If I want an opinion about the quality of my dogs, I will turn to someone who knows more about border collies than I do, not someone who knows less.

 

I put a portion of what you wrote in boldface to contrast it with the AKC standard, which says: "Stifles are well turned with strong hocks that may be either parallel or very slightly turned in." Why then is a "round judge" wrong for putting up dogs with straight back legs, since the standard approves them?

 

And secondly, this is NO different that many WORKING BC breeders gluing up their dogs ears for prick. And yes, I know of many people who do this.

 

How many? Name them.

 

"Bone must be strong, medium being correct but lighter bone is preferred over heavy." Again from the AKC BC standard.

 

This, and several other quotes you include from the standard, is a relatively recent change in the standard. Apparently, how a Border Collie should look in order to be "correct" somehow changed. But as others have said, the point is not what the standard says, the point is what is getting put up, which sets the ideal that is held up to the world as the perfect Border Collie, and which conformation-minded people then breed for. (As you said earlier, "more people will breed to [the dogs that win], often thinking the judges know what they are doing, so they assume the dog must be nice because a judge says so.") A loose standard just permits judges to put up whatever strikes their fancy, and we can see what strikes the fancy of the overwhelming majority of conformation judges bone-wise, coat-wise, ear-wise, etc. by looking at the cookie-cutter dogs in the ring at Westminster.

 

Yes of course! So if it can't work, it's good for nothing else! Not companionship, not performance events, and certainly not conformation!

 

Who said that if it can't work, it's good for nothing else? Dogs who can't work can be fine for companionship and performance events. But the whole point of conformation is to set the standard for breeders to breed to. And a dog who can't work is not a "correct" standard for border collie breeders to breed to.

 

Not all show border collies are healthy, just as not all working BCs are healthy.

 

Then truly, what's the point? How can anyone be proud of titles awarded by incompetent people for things that don't matter?

 

according to this website, when choosing between breeders, if Breeder A does all health tests and produces sound healthy pups, but they register with the AKC, and Breeder B breeds for working ability, but doesn't preform any health tests and it is more likely that a pup will have health issues in the future, but they don't register with the AKC, a person should choose Breeder B because Breeder A registers with the AKC. That is very very sad.

 

I don't think you can have read this website very closely, if you think that. I don't know where you got the portion I have put in boldface from, but if it is true, then you should be looking for Breeder C.

 

"Blue eyes (with one, both or part of one or both eyes being blue) in dogs other than merle, are acceptable but not preferred." From the AKC BC standard.

 

Another case where the standard was changed, apparently to reflect some change in what is a "correct" Border Collie that mysteriously occurred. Under the prior AKC standard, blue eyes were acceptable only in merles.

 

"The AKC just revoked registration on a very well bred border collie because the dog looked funny. The dog did quite well at an AKC herding trial but the rep didn't like the way the dog's coat looked."

 

This is sad, but no different than the ABCA taking away a BCs herding title because the dog won a conformation title. Which HAS hapenned. Conformation dogs can't win herding titles other than at AKC events, and working dogs can't win conformation titles at AKC events. I think there is something seriously wrong with that.

 

As others have said, the ABCA does not take away a BCs herding titles. The ABCA/USBCHA system does not award herding titles, except nursery and open champion at the finals. Conformation dogs are not prevented from competing (or winning, if they can) at USBCHA trials.

 

The ABCA does de-register dogs who are awarded conformation championships. Here's a brief explanation of why that is so, taken from a previous thread:

 

The kennel club model for breeding -- adopting an appearance standard for the breed, breeding to conform to it, and judging and rewarding the dogs who conform best -- is contrary to the development of a good working breed. Working breeds which have been taken into kennel clubs and subjected to this reward system for conformation breeding have all, over time, suffered loss of their inbred working ability. We simply do not want that to happen to our dogs.

 

Entering a border collie in conformation shows, competing for a conformation title, and advertising a border collie as a conformation champion all lend legitimacy to the idea that an appearance standard is an appropriate measure by which to judge a border collie. That is a destructive idea, and one that we cannot allow to take hold in our gene pool. The more firmly the idea takes hold that the conformation ring is a valid measure of quality, the more breeders will buy into this notion and will breed to conform to the appearance standard that is rewarded there, and the more our breed's working ability will deteriorate over time. If working ability is to be preserved in our breed, the border collie must be judged by a working standard and by no other. The working standard must be our only standard of excellence.

 

Dogs shown to their championship are excluded from ABCA registration not because it's impossible today for an individual dog to possess working ability as well as an appearance that is rewarded in the breed ring, but because of the impact that conformation showing, breeding and judging of border collies will have on the descendants of those dogs in the long run. When border collies are shown in conformation they are placed on a different path, one which will make not them but their descendants a different kind of dog. Once a dog is placed on that path, and shown to a conformation championship, we believe that in the interests of preserving herding excellence in the breed he should not remain in the working registry.

 

Details about the dog de-registered by the AKC because it looked "beardie" can be found here.

 

Actually, many years ago, I believe late 1800's, it was common that after herding trials a conformation show of sorts was held. These breeders of old were perfectly fine with their dogs being judged structurally against a written standard.

 

I know of no instance of dogs being judged to a written conformation standard following sheepdog trials. It's true that there were "best-looking dog" contests which were minor and did not last long. Here is what Tim Longton had to say about that in The Sheep Dog: Its Work and Training, published in 1976:

 

[A]ny attempts to hold show classes for the breed are to be deplored, unless they are linked to working abilities. Sometimes, at the end of a trial, prizes are given for the best-looking dog, which must either have run in the trial or belong to a member of the local sheep dog association. This is just to add interest to a sociable afternoon, and to encourage youngsters to take care with the grooming of their charges. It has no connection whatever with current attempts to establish show standards for the Border collie in which height, coat, colour, set of ears and eye colour would be laid down. Such a move would do nothing but harm to the working collie. . . .

 

Enough has been written in this book to show that the best dogs have been of all colours, coats and sizes. There should be only one standard for the Border collie -- work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question about the "bearded' borders that is slightly off topic.

 

How did the beardie Turnbull's Blue get ROM by the ISDS when the registering of a beardie would be against its own rules

 

From the ISDS website- bold highlights are mine

 

2. The dog that is the subject of the ROM must be a Border Collie over two years old and have a clear ophthalmic certificate for the eye diseases CEA and PRA (CPRA) and must additionally have a DNA blood test result from Optigen for CEA/CH showing a Clear or Carrier result (this DNA CEA/CH test requirement replaces the need for parent dog eye tests).

 

4. A colour photograph of the dog seeking registration, showing colour and markings.

 

5. Written confirmation by a currently serving Director of the Society that the dog seeking registration is a Working Sheep Dog and is true to type. This means that, irrespective of its coat style, colouring or size, the dog is a Border Collie as accepted by this Society.

 

While I do not want to get into the working vs show debate a BC is a BC and a beardie is a beardie and they are two totally seperate breeds so any offspring of Turnbull's Blue would be crosses even though they may be top working dogs. I would have thought that any self respecting owner of a good working beardie would have wanted it recognised as that not a BC.

 

edited spelling

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I do not want to get into the working vs show debate a BC is a BC and a beardie is a beardie and they are two totally seperate breeds so any offspring of Turnbull's Blue would be crosses even though they may be top working dogs.

 

Today a Border Collie is a Border Collie and a Bearded Collie is a Bearded Collie. It wasn't always like that, just like a Border Collie and a Collie weren't always two different breeds.

 

Collies use to be the ISDS breed of Border Collie which we see today but shepherds put "Border" in front of Collie to put a ridge between the dogs in the show ring which could no longer work and their true working Collies, today's "Border Collie." Collies use to come in beaded coat as well as the coats we see today in the Border Collie which can and sometimes also does, till this day, include beaded.

 

There are ISDS and ABCA "Bearded" Collies. They are just Border Collies with bearded coats, just like you have rough coats and smooth coats.

 

Good ol'e Conformation. Gotta love live it, there is sooooooo much people don't know. Its sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Today a Border Collie is a Border Collie and a Bearded Collie is a Bearded Collie.

 

I would modify this to say that today, in thinking influenced by the Kennel Clubs and their appearance standards, a Border Collie is a Border Collie and a Bearded Collie is a Bearded Collie. But the ISDS certainly registers dogs that are bearded, and will register on merit a dog that the KC registers as a Bearded Collie (for example, Turnbull's Blue). Janba, look at the last sentence of what you quoted a little bit differently: "This means that, irrespective of its coat style, colouring or size, the dog is a Border Collie as accepted by this Society." Turnbull's Blue, though registered as a Bearded Collie by the Kennel Club, was "a Border Collie as accepted by this Society," and he was added to the studbook, and now his descendents are registered border collies. When it comes to "type," the ISDS is more interested in how the dog works than in how it looks, or what the Kennel Club may say it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would modify this to say that today, in thinking influenced by the Kennel Clubs and their appearance standards, a Border Collie is a Border Collie and a Bearded Collie is a Bearded Collie. But the ISDS certainly registers dogs that are bearded, and will register on merit a dog that the KC registers as a Bearded Collie. Janbe, look at the last sentence of what you quoted a little bit differently: "This means that, irrespective of its coat style, colouring or size, the dog is a Border Collie as accepted by this Society. Turnbull's Blue was "a Border Collie as accepted by this Society," and he was added to the studbook, and now his descendents are registered border collies. When it comes to "type," the ISDS is more interested in how the dog works than in how it looks.

 

When I look at the beardies I have seen working here and NZ and the Smithfields (working beardies like dogs not ASTCD) besides the difference in looks their working style is very different. They are loose eyed dogs, can bark a lot while working, and tend to move the sheep by their constant movement and barking. To me it is a different dog with a different style of working regardless of looks. This may be very different in other countries and having not seen this dog work he may have been an "eye dog".

 

I wasn't thinking of the coat type or looks but the working style.

 

ETA I can see the different interpretation of the last sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UK Beardies, especially of the past generation and before, tend to have a lot more eye and direct approach to the sheep than what you describe, which sound like KC Beardies that I've seen here in the States. KC Beardies are bred for that lovely trot, which, in my opinion, translates to a weird bouncy gait when they need to put on more speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would modify this to say that today, in thinking influenced by the Kennel Clubs and their appearance standards, a Border Collie is a Border Collie and a Bearded Collie is a Bearded Collie. But the ISDS certainly registers dogs that are bearded, and will register on merit a dog that the KC registers as a Bearded Collie (for example, Turnbull's Blue).

 

Thanks, that is just what I meant. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What I understand you to be saying here is that most judges of most AKC Border Collie classes don't know enough to choose good Border Collies even by conformation standards. Don't you see this as a flaw that discredits the entire system?"

 

So one flaw discredits an entire system? I believe this is called a hasty generalization. You are judging the entire AKC orginization based on one aspect of the system. I don't believe that this should discredit the entire system, I believe that we AKC Border Collie breeders should be working very hard to make sure that there are more breeder-specialist judges, even if that means that I have to become one myself.

It is a popular saying in conformation that meaningful judging ends at the breed ring.

 

"Why then is a "round judge" wrong for putting up dogs with straight back legs, since the standard approves them?"

 

As I have explained before, round judges base their decision based off of what moves better at group level. NOT at breed level. I never said that they were completely wrong for putting up a dog with straight back legs, but they are more likely to put up a dog with parallel hocks rather than one with slightly cow-hocked ones, even though the standard approves both of them.

 

"How many? Name them."

 

Lockeye BCs are the ones with the website explaining how to glue BC ears for prick. They do it, and I'm assuming since they have a page explaining how to do it, many other people do it also. I have seen people at my obedience classes with BCs, who have their ears glued for prick. No I don't know their exact names, I was more focused on my own dog. Apparently Wendy V and Bo Peep know people who do it too.

 

"But as others have said, the point is not what the standard says, the point is what is getting put up, which sets the ideal that is held up to the world as the perfect Border Collie, and which conformation-minded people then breed for."

 

I think you are living in a very close-minded world. Not all BC breeders breed these "westminster" dogs. The people with money are the ones that can campaign their dogs and win at big shows, like westminster.

 

"Then truly, what's the point? How can anyone be proud of titles awarded by incompetent people for things that don't matter?"

 

I think you missed my point. I was replying to the comment that conformation people think that working breeders breed unhealthy dogs. I do NOT think this. I was simply stating that there are bad and good breeders in BOTH strains.

 

"I don't know where you got the portion I have put in boldface from, but if it is true, then you should be looking for Breeder C."

 

A dog that is PROVEN to be healthy is a lot less likely to produce unhealthy pups then a dog that has not had any health tests done at all. I got that from the common sense portion of my brain.

 

"Another case where the standard was changed"

 

I don't understand why you are complaining if the standard was changed for the better. I am very glad they included that revision, otherwise I would not be able to show Ghost, since he has one blue eye.

 

"As others have said, the ABCA does not take away a BCs herding titles."

 

Yes, and I corrected myself, thank you.

 

"I know of no instance of dogs being judged to a written conformation standard following sheepdog trials."

 

Taken from http://www.bonnidune.com/info.html

 

"Many trials, including the very first one in 1873, also had a "type" competition after the dogs ran the course. The "type" competition was, essentially, what we call today a dog show. There the dogs were evaluated on physical structure to determine which was best suited to perform the job of sheepherding. The farmers and shepherds who participated in the first trials and type competitions were, above all else, stockmen. (Women did not get involved in sheepdog trialing until much later.) As stockmen, they were comfortable with the idea of evaluating an animal's physical structure against a standard based upon the animal's purpose: whether that purpose was wool production, meat for marketing or working stock."

 

 

 

Autumn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taken from http://www.bonnidune.com/info.html

 

"Many trials, including the very first one in 1873, also had a "type" competition after the dogs ran the course. The "type" competition was, essentially, what we call today a dog show. There the dogs were evaluated on physical structure to determine which was best suited to perform the job of sheepherding. The farmers and shepherds who participated in the first trials and type competitions were, above all else, stockmen. (Women did not get involved in sheepdog trialing until much later.) As stockmen, they were comfortable with the idea of evaluating an animal's physical structure against a standard based upon the animal's purpose: whether that purpose was wool production, meat for marketing or working stock."

Autumn

 

Too bad the author of those words didn't cite her source for this "information". But it does nicely support her breeding program.

 

Susan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"How many? Name them."

 

Lockeye BCs are the ones with the website explaining how to glue BC ears for prick. They do it, and I'm assuming since they have a page explaining how to do it, many other people do it also. I have seen people at my obedience classes with BCs, who have their ears glued for prick. No I don't know their exact names, I was more focused on my own dog. Apparently Wendy V and Bo Peep know people who do it too.

 

Wasn't the original claim that you knew of working stock people who glued dogs' ears to make them prick? I don't think the breeder you mention is a good source of support for the claim you are making (besides having 20 breeding dogs, which is itself alarming--her breeding goals don't seem to be working stock dogs really)--, nor are the people at your obedience classes or the many people who might be reading the lockeye BC website.

 

I'm not sure where you're getting your information about these things, but I've never seen someone who breeds working BCs glue their dog's ears (or do any other kinds of modifications toward a visual standard).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't thinking of the coat type or looks but the working style.

 

Okay, I must have misunderstood you, Janba. I never saw Turnbull's Blue working, but I would be very surprised if he bounced and barked. I don't think a bouncy, barky dog could have satisfied the working standard for ROM. I have seen a number of his descendants working, and they worked with eye, and without bounce or bark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A dog that is PROVEN to be healthy is a lot less likely to produce unhealthy pups then a dog that has not had any health tests done at all. I got that from the common sense portion of my brain.

 

A dog that has had health tests has only been proven not to have the conditions tested for, at that time. There are numerous conditions that can affect the soundness of a performance dog, for which there are no clinical tests. Examples: epilepsy, weak soft tissues, feet problems, spine problems, metabolic issues like exercise intolerance, and temperament problems.

 

There is no test for the likes of these other than simply training to a high level, and being patient before breeding, researching the lines both in terms of direct ancestors and siblings, and having a very honest subjective view of your young dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"What I understand you to be saying here is that most judges of most AKC Border Collie classes don't know enough to choose good Border Collies even by conformation standards. Don't you see this as a flaw that discredits the entire system?"

 

So one flaw discredits an entire system? I believe this is called a hasty generalization. You are judging the entire AKC orginization based on one aspect of the system. I don't believe that this should discredit the entire system

 

Have you ever heard the joke, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"? I would say that that one flaw discredits the entire AKC conformation system in the same sense that one flaw spoiled Mrs. Lincoln's entire night at the theater on April 14, 1865. If the flaw is that fundamental, one is enough. And that's even before you get to the main point -- that what's being judged is of no real significance.

 

It is a popular saying in conformation that meaningful judging ends at the breed ring.

 

If what that means is that there is no meaningful judging within the breed ring, I would certainly agree. Doesn't that fact kinda discredit the system?

 

As I have explained before, round judges base their decision based off of what moves better at group level. NOT at breed level. I never said that they were completely wrong for putting up a dog with straight back legs, but they are more likely to put up a dog with parallel hocks rather than one with slightly cow-hocked ones, even though the standard approves both of them.

 

You said round judges (do you mean all-around judges? I've never heard the expression "round judges" before, though I've seen some) put up "more BCs with straight front legs and back legs, instead of being slightly cow-hocked, which is correct for a BC. Since these dogs with less correct structure are winning . . ." If having straight back legs is "less correct structure" than being slightly cow-hocked, "which is correct for a BC," why does the standard approve both of them equally? Wouldn't that be the standard's fault, rather than the fault of the round judges? Not that it matters, of course, because none of it matters.

 

Lockeye BCs are the ones with the website explaining how to glue BC ears for prick. They do it, and I'm assuming since they have a page explaining how to do it, many other people do it also. I have seen people at my obedience classes with BCs, who have their ears glued for prick. No I don't know their exact names, I was more focused on my own dog. Apparently Wendy V and Bo Peep know people who do it too.

 

Although I'm pretty sure Lockeye owns livestock, I think of her mainly as a place that sells dogs to AKC folks. And what makes you think the people at your obedience class are "working breeders," as in "many WORKING BC breeders gluing up their dogs ears for prick. And yes, I know of many people who do this"?

 

"But as others have said, the point is not what the standard says, the point is what is getting put up, which sets the ideal that is held up to the world as the perfect Border Collie, and which conformation-minded people then breed for."

 

I think you are living in a very close-minded world. Not all BC breeders breed these "westminster" dogs. The people with money are the ones that can campaign their dogs and win at big shows, like westminster.

 

But wait a minute -- You're the person who said, "more people will breed to [dogs who are winning more], often thinking the judges know what they are doing, so they assume the dog must be nice because a judge says so." Are you now saying that conformation-minded folks DON'T tend to breed to and for what is winning?

 

A dog that is PROVEN to be healthy is a lot less likely to produce unhealthy pups then a dog that has not had any health tests done at all. I got that from the common sense portion of my brain.

 

Hmm. AKC breeders often test for CL and TNS; you are probably including them when you refer to "all health tests." Working breeders rarely if ever do. But I bet you can't name one working breeder who has ever produced either disease. I certainly can't. Seems to me it's pretty hard to say that "it is more likely that a pup will have health issues in the future" if it comes from working breeders who have not done those health tests. In those cases, the fact that they have not tested for them has NOT meant that they are more likely to produce them.

 

Don't get me wrong. I advocate testing for the testable border collie diseases which are found to any significant extent in our border collies, which means CHD and CEA. But I think you would be surprised if you delved into the science of how weakly linked CHD test results are to CHD in offspring. In any case, the failure of breeder B to do all health tests would not make me more likely to buy from Breeder A, who is doing something at least equally harmful to border collies. I would look for a different breeder altogether.

 

"Another case where the standard was changed"

 

I don't understand why you are complaining if the standard was changed for the better. I am very glad they included that revision, otherwise I would not be able to show Ghost, since he has one blue eye.

 

Oh, I'm not complaining. I don't think it makes a drop's worth of difference what the standard says. I'm just (1) explaining that in some cases the people you're correcting were referring to a previous AKC standard for Border Collies, and (2) pointing out how arbitrary these supposed determinants of quality in a Border Collie are, since they can just be changed to make a dog that was "incorrect" suddenly "correct," and vice versa.

 

"I know of no instance of dogs being judged to a written conformation standard following sheepdog trials."

 

Taken from http://www.bonnidune.com/info.html

 

"Many trials, including the very first one in 1873, also had a "type" competition after the dogs ran the course. The "type" competition was, essentially, what we call today a dog show. There the dogs were evaluated on physical structure to determine which was best suited to perform the job of sheepherding. The farmers and shepherds who participated in the first trials and type competitions were, above all else, stockmen. (Women did not get involved in sheepdog trialing until much later.) As stockmen, they were comfortable with the idea of evaluating an animal's physical structure against a standard based upon the animal's purpose: whether that purpose was wool production, meat for marketing or working stock."

Autumn

 

Oh, okay. Yes, some of the earliest trials, including Bala, included a beauty contest, but Bonnidune is putting quite a spin on it in saying that stockmen were responsible for that or had anything to do with approving of a standard, if one was even used. As Albion Urdank points out in his article "The Rationalisation of Rural Sport: British Sheepdog Trials, 1873-1946," Rural History (2006) 17, 1, 65-82, the Bala trial, and other trials that emulated it, was a result of upper-class patronage -- an event created by the gentry "freighted with elite values and notions of what properly constituted the shepherds' craft." The trial's organizing committee included the Viscount Combermere, the Marquis of Exeter, and Viscount Down of Yarmouth. Urdank notes that the trial "began with a 'beauty contest,' in which a show ring was formed and the competing dogs judged both for their good looks and how well they seemed 'put together' physically." There is no mention of a written standard being applied, although this is roughly around the time that John Henry Walsh (most definitely NOT a stockman!) published his notions of standards by which breeds should be judged in bench shows. I suppose, therefore, that it's possible a written standard might have been used, but if so, it would not have been a standard that stockmen developed or supported. The stockmen were the entertainment, not the designers of the event. Urdank traces the gradual decline of the influence of the aristocracy and gentry over trials and the growing influence of the actual farmers and shepherds, until the adoption of ISDS rules in 1906 sealed "the rising ascendancy of the farmers' and shepherds' common view that breeding for working ability alone was all that mattered."

 

BTW, Donald McCaig's The Dog Wars contains an Appendix B which relates how Walsh originated the standard for judging collies in bench shows and how it was modified by him and others over time, as the working collie was being co-opted by the aristocratic devotees of the sport of purebred dogs and turned into the magnificent but useless show Collie. It is fascinating reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Too bad the author of those words didn't cite her source for this "information". But it does nicely support her breeding program."

 

I don't know where she got this information either, this is simply where I learned of these "type" competitions. Just because she doesn't cite sources doesn't make it untrue though.

 

"Wasn't the original claim that you knew of working stock people who glued dogs' ears to make them prick?"

 

Yes it was, but since I can't prove that they are what you all consider to be "working" people that apparently makes whatever I say untrue. Never mind that two other people said they knew of people too.

 

"I'm not sure where you're getting your information about these things, but I've never seen someone who breeds working BCs glue their dog's ears (or do any other kinds of modifications toward a visual standard). "

 

This doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

 

"I don't know any working people who would consider Lockeye a working breeder. "

 

I am still new to border collies, and I did consider them to be working breeders, even if they don't meet everyone's high standards here.

Just as I would consider an AKC breeder who has one or two show champions a comformation breeder, albeit a poor one.

 

"A dog that has had health tests has only been proven not to have the conditions tested for, at that time. There are numerous conditions that can affect the soundness of a performance dog, for which there are no clinical tests. Examples: epilepsy, weak soft tissues, feet problems, spine problems, metabolic issues like exercise intolerance, and temperament problems."

 

In theory, if a breeder tests for CEA, CL, TNS, OFA's, and CERFs, and another breeder does none of these, the second breeder's dogs have a longer list of possible illnesses that could afflict the puppies in the future.

And yes, I do know that there are illnesses that cannt be tested for, but I believe that since there are some that we CAN test for, we SHOULD test for those and eliminate those from the breed, making the breed healthier as a whole.

 

"Have you ever heard the joke, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"? I would say that that one flaw discredits the entire AKC conformation system in the same sense that one flaw spoiled Mrs. Lincoln's entire night at the theater on April 14, 1865. "

 

I think that murder is a much more serious flaw than the one you are referring to.

 

"QUOTE

It is a popular saying in conformation that meaningful judging ends at the breed ring.

 

 

If what that means is that there is no meaningful judging within the breed ring, I would certainly agree. Doesn't that fact kinda discredit the system? "

 

My mistake, what I meant to say was "meaningful judging ends AFTER the breed ring"

 

"You said round judges (do you mean all-around judges?"

 

Round judges, meaning they encompess many breeds. Yes, this is a correct term. You can also call them all-around judges.

 

"If having straight back legs is "less correct structure" than being slightly cow-hocked, "which is correct for a BC," why does the standard approve both of them equally? Wouldn't that be the standard's fault, rather than the fault of the round judges? Not that it matters, of course, because none of it matters."

 

All I was simply saying was that a round judge is more likely to put up a BC with straight back legs rather than one with slightly cow-hocked ones, reguardless of what the breed standard says.

I think you are taking me to be a completely Pro-AKC person. I am not. I simply have a BC that I plan to show in conformation, and since this post asked for a conformation point of view I supplied it.

And I guess I'm confused, if none of it matters, why are you here debating?

 

"Are you now saying that conformation-minded folks DON'T tend to breed to and for what is winning?"

 

No, I am saying that not ALL do. There are plenty that do, but there are those that don't, myself included.

 

"Hmm. AKC breeders often test for CL and TNS; you are probably including them when you refer to "all health tests.""

 

I include CEA/CH, CL, TNS, OFAing and CERFing

 

"But I bet you can't name one working breeder who has ever produced either disease."

 

No I can't, I didn't claim I could. In fact I disagree with the popular theory by some conformation people that working breeders breed unhealthy dogs. I still think that the health tests should be done though, until they are completely wiped out.

 

Autumn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because she doesn't cite sources doesn't make it untrue though.

 

The point of citations is not to prove or disprove. It is to give a context to information that the writer has gleaned, so that the reader can go back to the primary source and draw their own conclusions. Not including this information (the citation), implies that the source itself may be suspect. But Eileen addressed this topic very thoroughly (with citations).

 

To touch on her point again, the inclusion of a breed show at the early shepherds' trials was the fancy of the gentry who sponsored the events. It was, in fact, a rather demeaning thing and the shepherds and farmers themselves quickly abandoned the idea when they themselves started organizing trials upon the formation of the ISDS.

 

It is incorrect to say that farmers consider structure to be important when evaluating an animal for performance, whether for milk production, calving beef steers, siring wool sheep, or mothering pigs for meat. Farmers evaluate performance only - structure only coming into play where it has a direct bearing on performance. Today I was evaluating a ram lamb I will be saving as a flock sire - I need depth of body, a nice long loin, and a particular twist in the butt - all to sire lambs which will themselves have lambs with the right frame to hang meat on.

 

Livestock shows are entertainment and very little related to the actual production of livestock. If you don't believe me, compare show sheep to sheep which are actually bred for meat.

 

Yes it was, but since I can't prove that they are what you all consider to be "working" people that apparently makes whatever I say untrue.

 

Again, it's a matter of authority. You yourself note that you are new to all this. You are trying to maintain a position that "working" breeders manipulate their puppies' earsets in a way comparable to show breeders. Many of us have said, "Not that we've noticed." Your reaction is, "You must be wrong. I am new but I saw it once on the internet, and it looked like a working breeder to me!"

 

Now, if you moved to Australia, and saw one mail carrier who drove on the wrong side of the street, you might draw the conclusion that it is common practice for mail carriers to drive on the wrong side of the street in Australia. So you mention this on an internet forum. Many Australians say, "No, that's really not how we do things here." You say, "I am new here, I have no idea if you are right, so I'm going to assume I'm right!"

 

Do you see why you are making some of us apply our foreheads to the desk here?

 

Eileen said: "I don't know any working people who would consider Lockeye a working breeder. "

 

Autumn: I am still new to border collies, and I did consider them to be working breeders, even if they don't meet everyone's high standards here.

 

*headdesk* Case in point. Being new is perfectly all right. It is not cool to be new and claim authority over those who have "done their time" training dogs, raising sheep, building fence, participating and judging trials, and most of all soothing the broken hearts of people who get taken in by slick internet or magazine ads, and end up with dogs that fall far below their expectations.

 

We don't have high standards. We have basic standards. A Border Collie that one is considering breeding should be able to do X-Y-Z, as shown on the ISDS style trial course. Very simple.

 

It is as if I were to demand the same respect for my little pet Chinese crested, as the Eukanuba winner, though I haven't put the work into her, her hair is fragile and has a curl to it that is a standard no-no. Well, you know, you people who consider Eukanuba winners to be better candidates for breeding, you are just snobs with standards that are too high. I am new to Chinese cresteds, Zhi is my first, and therefore you all can't possibly know what you are talking about.

 

I am not trying to bait you. I sincerely hope you can understand that you aren't going to make any headway trying to argue that because you are new, we have no idea what we are talking about.

 

I am going to address another point in a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think that the health tests should be done though, until they are completely wiped out.

 

I was just wondering. Have you ever even looked at the dogs names and where they are registered (as in how they are bred) who are either carries or affected with TNS? Or CL?

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is incorrect to say that farmers consider structure to be important when evaluating an animal for performance, whether for milk production, calving beef steers, siring wool sheep, or mothering pigs for meat. Farmers evaluate performance only - structure only coming into play where it has a direct bearing on performance. Today I was evaluating a ram lamb I will be saving as a flock sire - I need depth of body, a nice long loin, and a particular twist in the butt - all to sire lambs which will themselves have lambs with the right frame to hang meat on.

 

I totally agree with this statement. I have just spent the weekend training on a large sheep station (about 12,000 acres) who breed merinos. We discussed at one point how they select their breeding stock. They sample the wool and have it analyzed for micron count. strenghth etc then correlate this with the fleeece weight at shearing. Any sheep whose correlation is below a certain score is culled. Comformation only comes in if there is something seriously wrong with that sheep and then it probably would have been culled earlier.

 

As stockmen, they were comfortable with the idea of evaluating an animal's physical structure against a standard based upon the animal's purpose: whether that purpose was wool production, meat for marketing or working stock."

 

Even if they were comfortable with comformation judging how many went on to serious wroking dog breeders or beef or wool producers bred with the winners or did they still breed based on performance or production or were they comfortable with it just as bit of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even if they were comfortable with comformation judging how many went on to serious wroking dog breeders or beef or wool producers bred with the winners or did they still breed based on performance or production or were they comfortable with it just as bit of fun.

Janba,

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Janba,

I'm not sure what you're saying here?

 

J.

 

"Many trials, including the very first one in 1873, also had a "type" competition after the dogs ran the course. The "type" competition was, essentially, what we call today a dog show. There the dogs were evaluated on physical structure to determine which was best suited to perform the job of sheepherding. The farmers and shepherds who participated in the first trials and type competitions were, above all else, stockmen. (Women did not get involved in sheepdog trialing until much later.) As stockmen, they were comfortable with the idea of evaluating an animal's physical structure against a standard based upon the animal's purpose: whether that purpose was wool production, meat for marketing or working stock."

 

I am trying to say that at the time of the quote above that while they may have taken part in a "type" competition would any of them have bred from the winners of the "type" competition based on that result only or would they have still bred from dogs selected for their working ability and the same for livestock based on production. My opinion from the farmers and working dog breeders I know here it would have been a bit of fun and wouldn't have influenced their breeding decisions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×