Jump to content
BC Boards

Sport Breeders


Lizmo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know most here are against the breeding of Border Collies for sport, but what about other breeds? Are you (general 'you') against other breeds being bred for sports like Agility or Flyball?

 

Just a question I've been wanting to ask for a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's really no different the Border Collie issue if the breed still has a purpose. If it doesn't, I guess it is a grey area but it comes down to whether or not you are hurting the breed's future as "the american who-what-how hound" by breeding it differently than it was intended.

 

Breeding light framed Labs that can't swim or hunt, but run fast and frantic for Agility would similar to our issues with this breed.

 

Breeding a long nosed, athletic Pug, would be the second example. The point then would be if it's long nosed and athletic, is it still a Pug?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think breed matters, however, I think that some breeds have been in the AKC system for so long that it could be difficult to bring them back to what they originally were, and I would guess that even if that did happen, that people may not like the original animal as much as they like the version they know now.

 

Breeding a long nosed, athletic Pug, would be the second example. The point then would be if it's long nosed and athletic, is it still a Pug?

 

Didn't pugs originally have longer noses?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that some breeds have been in the AKC system for so long that it could be difficult to bring them back to what they originally were, and I would guess that even if that did happen, that people may not like the original animal as much as they like the version they know now.

 

Also, some of the jobs that those dogs had way back when would now be completely obsolete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some cases I think it would be an improvement. For example, I would love it if someone bred agility Poms. However, I imagine that Pom fanciers would feel the same way about that as I feel about Sport Collies, so...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually met a nice lady on campus walking some really cool Papillons -- friendly, smart little things. I was going on about what neat little dogs they were, and she admitted that they were too big for the Pap AKC standard but she didn't care because she loved to do agility with them. It sounded like they'd been bred with agility in mind rather than whatever Paps are customarily bred for. Didn't seem to have hurt them any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breeding light framed Labs that can't swim or hunt, but run fast and frantic for Agility would similar to our issues with this breed.

 

Actually lighter framed labs are the working ones over here. We have 3 in our agility club and they are all from strong working lines.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually lighter framed labs are the working ones over here. We have 3 in our agility club and they are all from strong working lines.

 

Pam

 

Let me bold my quote out for you so it's clearer. I said "Breeding light framed Labs that can't swim or hunt,but run fast and frantic for Agility would similar to our issues with this breed."

 

The issues is you are breeding dogs that cannot do an established, existing breed purpose in order to do agility. That is the exact same issue as breeding a Border Collie for sport

 

If the breed purpose no longer exists, it's one thing. But even then, if you (the generic you) didn't want that breed for what is *is*, then why did you get it again? oh yes, to change it. And you wonder why this is not popular with people who love the breed as is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In some cases I think it would be an improvement. For example, I would love it if someone bred agility Poms. However, I imagine that Pom fanciers would feel the same way about that as I feel about Sport Collies, so...

 

They do actually do that. It's more "pet bred" that specificaly sport, but they are very popular with agility and flyball because they are larger and more athletic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me bold my quote out for you so it's clearer. I said "Breeding light framed Labs that can't swim or hunt,but run fast and frantic for Agility would similar to our issues with this breed."

 

The issues is you are breeding dogs that cannot do an established, existing breed purpose in order to do agility. That is the exact same issue as breeding a Border Collie for sport

 

If the breed purpose no longer exists, it's one thing. But even then, if you (the generic you) didn't want that breed for what is *is*, then why did you get it again? oh yes, to change it. And you wonder why this is not popular with people who love the breed as is?

 

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't intend to be as patronising as your reply appears.

I understand the issues just as well as you do.

Noone deliberately changes a breed with the aim of preventing it performing it's original function. Ability to work and ability to do sports aren't mutually exclusive. I know a fair number of BCs that do both - gundog breeds too.

A local line of BCs is bred on a sheep farm with work in mind but is quite popular with agility people too. I'm sure the litters are produced with the expectation that some will go to sports homes but the line remains a working line. They don't churn out litters but maybe they'd have even fewer if it weren't for the sport market. That's sport breeding of a sort.

Just as in the case of BCs, working traits are what makes a number of breeds good at sports too.

Unfortunately concentrating on irrelevant characteristics can have the effect of weakening working drive but it isn't inevitable - unless you're talking about breeding for appearance, which doesn't matter whatever a dog is destined to do.

We have a local breeder who is proud of producing short legged "flashy" collies for flyball. We have one in our agility club - short legs, fine body, chunky, bulbous NZ type head, and a blue merle coat thick enough to stuff a mattress. The product of mixing "working" lines (not sure what that means in this case) and show. OK as a sport dog but may be hampered by lack of height. And the owner is thinking of putting him to stud. Bad - very, very bad.

On the other hand, as others have mentioned, breeding health and fitness back into dogs that have haven't traditionally had a purpose other than as pets so they are better at sports can't be bad, surely, if you believe that those breeds deserve to be perpetuated.

Sport breeding isn't a clear cut issue - there's every shade of grey involved.

For the record, I think breeding of any sort should be a very rare occurrence as long as so many dogs need homes, and I also think that there is no need for redundant breeds either. There's absolutely no need to breed for sport as plenty of existing dogs are perfectly capable, although in the US you don't have a free choice if you want to compete under AKC discriminatory rules.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole matter is very simple.

 

If you breed 2 dogs together because they are good at their work, with full goals to make more working quality dogs, then it's "work bred". It is irrelevant where the pups go (work or sport homes) when judging this. The purpose of the breeding, the "work" put into it, is what we are looking at. These dogs are potentially a credit ot the next generation after they are proven

 

If you breed non-workers, bad-workers, or good workers with the only consideration that they produce non-wroking characteristics like markings or flyball speed, then it's "sport bred". These dogs are potential damage to the next generation, if even they are proven themselves at work.

 

Integrity in breeding does not exist because you do or don't work sheep. I agree there are sheep farmers who breed their working dogs for whatever sells locally for adequete $$. They are in my opinion, as lowly as those who prostitute these dogs for their hair and coloring for show ribbons.

 

We need good working breeding to continue. Stopping or slowing breeding of good dogs because the bad ones are out there is not the solution unless you want us to be doing the BC version of finding a workable Cocker Spanial for hunting in a few years.

 

I've made my point clear on the other breeds. If you bought a Pekingese because you liked the breed, then what right do you have to say now I will breed it too a whippet because really....I prefer dogs with short hair and greyhound physique...

 

I'm not patronizing you, I am irritated because you took part of my quote out of context. I've not head you mention what you do with your collies Pam? Or where they are from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately concentrating on irrelevant characteristics can have the effect of weakening working drive but it isn't inevitable - unless you're talking about breeding for appearance, which doesn't matter whatever a dog is destined to do.

 

In border collies, "working drive" is only one small part of the genetic package a border collie needs. Just to take one example, "balance" -- the dog's innate ability to feel exactly where he needs to be to control his sheep -- is a vitally important component that will wither away if you breed without regard to it, as agility and other sport breeders do. Power and courage are other obvious innate characteristics for a good working border collie that are disregarded in sports breeding. I would imagine -- but I don't know -- that there would be similar working traits in other working breeds that would be weakened by sports breeding.

 

But to answer your initial question, I'm not generally against breeding other breeds for sport, because (1) I don't know enough about the considerations involved with other dogs to be entitled to an opinion, and (2) the overwhelming majority of most other breeds I know are at present systematically bred only for appearance, so IMO breeding for any performance ability would be an improvement. But with regard to those few breeds that I know are engaged in the same struggle we are to preserve the abilities that define the breed -- kelpies, for example -- yes, I would be against breeding them for sport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am generaly against breeding or buying pure breed dogs in any circumstance other than a nessesary one, I.E. working dogs like BCs and Ausies who will herd sheep, a nessesary contribution to a farm who's income relies in part on the sheep. Or, hunting dogs who will be used by those who will actualy hunt to store up food out of a need, and not for sport. Other than that, there are way too many muts that die everyday to justify buying a pure breed dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually met a nice lady on campus walking some really cool Papillons -- friendly, smart little things. I was going on about what neat little dogs they were, and she admitted that they were too big for the Pap AKC standard but she didn't care because she loved to do agility with them. It sounded like they'd been bred with agility in mind rather than whatever Paps are customarily bred for. Didn't seem to have hurt them any.

 

Just putting in my input on the paps (I can't help it, I'm sorry!) I like seeing breeders breeding dogs with agility titles. Many breeders just do conformation and I like seeing breeders that do more than that (at least rally or therapy work). The most important thing in the breed in my opinion is maintaining that temperament you described as that is what makes the breed be the amazing companion that it is. If people were breeding papillons that acted like Jack Russells because dogs with those kinds of drives did better at agility then there'd be a problem. But as is the breed should be energetic and drivey enough to be decent at agility. I wish mine were bigger but they're all on the small end of average (Well, Summer is at the upper end of height but lower end of weight). They vary a bit in size though so oversized papillons are common. The largest I've seen was 16 lbs. I have never seen a breeder that breeds paps JUST for agility though.

 

So my answer is in general I don't mind sports breeding depending on a few factors. In breeds like shelties it's an improvement over what's going on now, imo. I tried looking at sheltie breeders and only found a couple that did more than conformation and that's sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about buying purebred dogs for competing in sheepdog trials, where the dogs are otherwise pets? In other words, for sport. What about breeders whose breeding program is aimed at trialing and people who buy dogs for that purpose?

Very interesting question. I suppose the dogs are still being bred for their working ability first and foremost, but still...seems there's a fine line in there somewhere,

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, my computer's being a butt!

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am generaly against breeding or buying pure breed dogs in any circumstance other than a nessesary one, I.E. working dogs like BCs and Ausies who will herd sheep, a nessesary contribution to a farm who's income relies in part on the sheep. Or, hunting dogs who will be used by those who will actualy hunt to store up food out of a need, and not for sport. Other than that, there are way too many muts that die everyday to justify buying a pure breed dog.

 

I disagree. For one thing, the world is different now than it was when these breeds were created. How big is the market for farms that need herding dogs (moderate, but made smaller by factory and corporate farming and humongous farms rather than smaller private holdings)? For people who actually NEED to use dogs to hunt so they have enough food, and would know how to train a dog to do so, AND could afford an investment purebred dog? I'd say that is a fairly tiny percentage.

 

I'm not faulting your stance, I think it is very idealistic and comes from a good place. But I see a tide of terribly bred dogs. Well-bred dogs of all breeds, IMO, need to be bred for larger and more diverse markets than the categories above to preserve them and their abilities. But, you need an educated and ethical customer base and breeders to make this work or I would think you could cross that fine line Anna is talking about - sport trialer breeding/buying? Dog breeding is incredibly serious stuff for the reasons JBlaylock points out, and I think in all breeds has an incredibly steep, slippery slope.

 

As to the original question, I think that, being a border collie enthusiast myself, I obviously admire and enjoy certain traits and abilities in a dog like BCs. Their original purpose and the fact they can still do it so well is so cool and so rare. A lot of other breeds, in my eyes, don't have any sort of similar traits or abilities. Other breeds also were bred for completely different original functions and appearance. In some cases, functions and appearance that I think are pretty lame to begin with (will not name breed names! I know lots of people I like who themselves adore breeds I couldn't stand to live with). Anyone else can be the type of enthusiast they like, and would probably disagree with me but I also agree that it would be an improvement in some cases (mainly the extreme conformation dogs) to breed with sport or other activity at least strongly in mind to improve health, hopefully temperament, and vigor.

 

I really shouldn't be spouting any opinion, though, because I don't really know any dogs specifically bred for sport yet. To me, temperament is similarly important, at least, to athletic ability. Maybe a lot of sports bred dogs have the type of temperament I'm not all that into, in which case I wouldn't really think all that highly of heavy weight on that sort of selection criteria. One of my coworkers just got a conformation/agility bred Aussie pup, though. I'm interested to see what she'll be like as she grows up, how similar or different she is to Odin. A lot of people at work keep saying "Oh, they're both herding dogs. They'll be exactly the same!" I doubt Odin's breeders were really up to the standard of breeding working dogs I should have found, but he was bred with the criteria to work goats in a useful way on a real farm, no other activities or criteria in the breeding stock touted except excellent gentle temperament. But who knows? Odin may be just like a conf/agility-bred Aussie. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting question. I suppose the dogs are still being bred for their working ability first and foremost, but still...seems there's a fine line in there somewhere,

A

 

The baseline, the ability to fetch and gather, is still being addressed and rewarded - as are all the other components - trainable temperament, feel for stock, outrun shape, drive line control, etc.

 

"Trial bred" is really no different that "cattle working bred" or "hill bred". They are all shades on the "target" (bull's eye, circular target) that Denise Wall so eloquently used to describe good Border Collie breeding.

 

Unlike sport breeding, which misses the target completely, or may not even be related to it at all anymore.

 

If a dog has the basics of good working Border Collies breeding in its genes, you can always improve it. If those basics are askew or missing, returning is virtually impossible without massive intervention and culling. It would be like taking the modern cocker spanial genepool and trying to breed back to producing 90% useful flushing and retrieving dogs. Possibly...impossible.

 

We don't want to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am generally against ... buying pure breed dogs in any circumstance other than a nessesary one, I.E. working dogs like BCs and Ausies who will herd sheep, a nessesary contribution to a farm who's income relies in part on the sheep.
(emphasis is mine)

 

This is the specific line I was referring to. This excludes an awful lot of people -- present company included. I got the dog first. Got the sheep because of the dog. I know I am one of many. I guess I don't understand the issue with someone buying a dog. I could see someone having an issue with the reason behind breeding it ... but buying it? So I suppose I need to own a sheep farm here I rely on the income from the sheep in order to buy a "pure breed" dog?

 

Dogs for sale. One black. One blue merle. Both pure breed. To professional rancher only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(emphasis is mine)

 

This is the specific line I was referring to. This excludes an awful lot of people -- present company included. I got the dog first. Got the sheep because of the dog. I know I am one of many. I guess I don't understand the issue with someone buying a dog. I could see someone having an issue with the reason behind breeding it ... but buying it? So I suppose I need to own a sheep farm here I rely on the income from the sheep in order to buy a "pure breed" dog?

 

Dogs for sale. One black. One blue merle. Both pure breed. To professional rancher only.

 

Well, no offense, but that's my stance. According to Wikianswers.com

"In shelters alone, approximately 3-4 million cats and dogs are euthanized every year."
- this was based off of recorded facts in 2007. So, again this is just my stance, until society starts taking things more seriously and spays and nueters their dogs to prevent the myriad of unwanted mutts who end up PTS each day, I will never be a suporter of breeders who breed dogs for sport or show, or just for the owner who wants a pedegree dog and doesn't mind letting the poor mutts rot away on death row. I will never ever ever buy a dog while their is a single mutt out there needing adoption or facing premature death as the alternative. Those few who actualy need them, are exceptions in my book. I'm not saying anyone here is bad, wrong, whatever, I'm just saying I don't personaly support the breeding, and I think my reasons are clear.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those few who actualy need them, are exceptions in my book. I'm not saying anyone here is bad, wrong, whatever, I'm just saying I don't personaly support the breeding.

 

So basically what you're saying is that dogs without papers don't work? That in order to have a dog help you out on your ranch, it needs to be papered, and needs to be from a breeder? And those are the only people purebred Border Collie breeders should sell their dogs to?

 

"In shelters alone, approximately 3-4 million cats and dogs are euthanized every year."

 

So because of this statistic, according to your theory, I (the generic "I" ... there's many in my boat) shouldn't be able to buy/own a purebred, papered dog?

 

I am not being snotty here. I am just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. It's a theory I've never heard before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically what you're saying is that dogs without papers don't work? That in order to have a dog help you out on your ranch, it needs to be papered, and needs to be from a breeder? And those are the only people purebred Border Collie breeders should sell their dogs to?

 

Hmmmm. Good food for thought. I suppose any dog - mutt or not - can be trained for working to some extent. But, Border Collies, Ausies, Aus Cattle Dogs, etc, have the instinct to make it easier, the brains to make the training quicker, the energy and speed to accomplish the task more efficiently. A need for shepherd dogs implies that sheepherding is a business, and the goal of a business is to be as efficient as possible, so the need for a shepherd dog may not be mutually exclusive to the need for a pure breed dog who is instinctively a sheepherder.

 

 

So because of this statistic, according to your theory, I (the generic "I" ... there's many in my boat) shouldn't be able to buy/own a purebred, papered dog?

 

No I don't think that. I think you (generic "you" - anyone) should be able to buy/own whatever they want. I think it's a personal choice. I (not generic - me specifically) will never buy if there is a dog to adopt. I also would never recommend or suggest for anyone to buy - except in the mentioned examples - and I'm constantly a little disappointed inside when I hear people talk about how they did buy a pure breed - again, except for in the mentioned examples. I do not support the actions of breeders in most cases. That doesn't mean I think anyone should step in and prevent them from doing it. I wish they would make the choice on their own to hold off a bit, limit sales to those who really have that need for the pure breed, and use that time and energy to spread the word about neutering and spaying. Then, when the dust settles, and those numbers drop - the PTS mutts - I'd support them renewing their operations. But, again, I feel that should be a personal choice, and I will continue trying to persuade, but I would never condone a regulation that imposes on the freedom they have to ignore my persuasion.

 

I am not being snotty here. I am just trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. It's a theory I've never heard before.

 

I don't think your being snotty. I think you raised some good questions that prompted me to pause, think, and evaluate the reasons for my stance. :rolleyes: Hope I answered in a clear and un-confrontational way, and I hope I didn't insult anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that, dogs in shelters or not, people have the right to breed and the right to purchase. Now, that's not saying that choosing to breed is always responsible (it certainly isn't in many/most cases, IMO) or that choosing to purchase is always the best choice (it certainly isn't in many cases).

 

I don't believe that other people's irresponsibility (in breeding, in buying, in relinquishing or abandoning) makes it my responsibility to adopt or rescue - but I certainly feel that, should I not be using my dogs for farmwork on livestock, that I would first consider rescue/adoption/shelter before I considered a dog from a breeder. If I did not find the dog/pup that suited my situation in the rescue/adoption/shelter population, then I would look to a breeder that I considered responsible.

 

I heartily admire those that choose to rescue or adopt over purchasing but we also need to realize that buying from responsible breeders is supporting responsible breeding - which is vital for the future of any breed, and especially one with a "purpose".

 

JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...