Dumb question

[PSmitty]

Does size matter? In working border collies, that is.

 

I hope I can phrase this properly...As far as working stock goes, all other things being equal, would a larger dog have an advantage over a smaller one? Do the sheep respond better to a bigger dog, feel more intimidated? Or does size have nothing at all to do with it?

 

Please forgive if this is a stupid novice question...

[Sue R]

No question is a stupid novice question, except the question that the novice thinks of but hesitates to ask, and therefore never learns an answer. We are all novices sometime, and some of us remain novices for a long time, like myself!

 

How does it go? It's not how big the dog is - rather it's how big the dog thinks he is, or something like that.

 

A dog with power (presence, confidence, assertiveness) can get the job done. A dog with power knows when to push the stock and when to back off. A dog without power can't and won't get the job done if and when the stock don't fully cooperate.

 

As dogs read the stock, so do the stock read the dog, and they know when the dog is hesitant, frightened, or reluctant and similarly, when the dog has power. Power is not biting - but it includes the ability to grip when needed, to not grip when it's not appropriate, and the ability to know the difference.

 

Many folks like a smaller dog, feeling that (all other things equal) it may be more agile.

 

I may well be ignorant on this subject but it's the nature of the dog more than the size that counts, I believe.

[Shoofly]

I think the expression you're looking for is

"it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog".

 

That said, i think most working dog folks prefer a dog that isn't really big and clunky. Not that all big dogs are clunky but an agile, well built, more medium sized, athletic dog would be preferred. That's my preference anyway, though it doesn't always work out that way when you're starting off with puppies. I think they tend to get hurt less and last longer.

[Carson Crazies]

but an agile, well built, more medium sized, athletic dog would be preferred. That's my preference anyway, though it doesn't always work out that way when you're starting off with puppies.

 

That's my preference typically - a smaller or mediumer sized dog. Yeah, but sometimes they swallow a ladder when you're not looking.

[Sue R]

You got it, Robin!

 

A physical average is often best and for good reason - it avoids the extremes in either direction.

[PSmitty]

"it's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog".

 

That's what I was thinking!

 

Thanks, everyone.

[Bill Fosher]

Hi Paula,

 

I think I would also tend to vote against large dogs, having had two of them now (both of which I love dearly and have worked their hearts out for me). Molly is a big bitch, coming in at about 45 pounds when she was in working condition. She's retired now, but I always had to watch out for her overdoing it, especially in the heat. Tweed is also a big guy, at a lean 45, and I have the same issue with him at time, although with proper conditioning his stamina is truly astonishing.

 

My sense is that smaller dogs would be more "durable" than a bigger dog, all things considered. As to their effect on stock, I think their size has very little to do with it.

[stockdogranch]

As dogs read the stock, so do the stock read the dog, and they know when the dog is hesitant, frightened, or reluctant and similarly, when the dog has power. Power is not biting - but it includes the ability to grip when needed, to not grip when it's not appropriate, and the ability to know the difference.

 

Very nicely put.

 

I, too, prefer a smaller dog...not for any really logical reason, but probably because the best dog I will ever have is smallish,

Anna

[hillfarm]

My smallest dog, a 35 lb female is also the dog my sheep respect most, she has the presence of a giant! And endurance, I think she could go forever, not like my larger males who even in top working condition wear out alot faster, so in my experience smaller is better!

[PSmitty]

Thank you, Bill, Anna and Hillfarm. Just the kinds of things I was wondering.

[nancy]

Meg, on a farm where we love to stay in Yorkshire, is about the size of a fox. She is also incredibly shy with people.

 

We saw her move a bunch of large sheep into a lorry on one visit. And we watched her move two bullocks (my husband was taught by the preteen daughter that them ahn't cows; thehy's bullocks between fields.

 

We have also seen working dogs that are about the size of lurchers.

 

All that counts is the talent.

[red russel]

I like a bit bigger dog for, perhaps, a different reason... not quite the attractive target for local coyotes.

[Moss]

I have a large dog (one the largest, leggy collies I have ever seen!) and two medium sized males. All have power and presence on the sheep and can work tirelessly. I do however think that Moss (the large dog) may not be able to work for as many years at the smaller, short-coupled males.

 

As others have said, it is all about presence and power - rather than size and strength.