Picture of Turbo

[SoloRiver]

There might even be a book in it. The fact remains that it is a sensitive issue for many people and for the good of the dog is best approached with some sensitivity if you want the owner to change their way of thinking.

 

I merely pointed out that my own male Border Collie, who is the same height as the OP's and quite large-framed (as my fellow posers who have met Solo in person can attest to), weighs nearly 20 pounds less. To me this statement is neither sensitive nor insensitive, but is straightforward, reasonable, and speaks for itself.

 

I don't see how it's possible to pack 20 more pounds onto a dog this size -- in any form -- and have him be in the correct condition for agility.

 

To the OP -- when you have a large Border Collie, and you plan on a long career in competitive agility with that dog, it is crucial that the dog is lean because he is going to be much harder on his own joints than a smaller dog would and every ounce matters. The difference between my 50 pound male and my 35 pound bitch is extremely striking in this context: she floats, he pounds, muscular or not, he's a big boy. And he's been overweight in the past, so I know what a big fat Border Collie looks like. Still he was never even close to 60 pounds. Also, a dog at that weight at only one year of age says to me that he may have put on too much weight, too fast, and that's not good for developing joints either. I would be really surprised if none of your agility coaches pointed this out; multiple trainers reiterated to me the importance of keeping Solo lean, due to his size and large frame, and as I said, he's never been anywhere near as heavy as Turbo is.

 

I love that Solo is big and masculine and handsome and studly-looking, and I bet you feel the same way about Turbo, but don't let your pride cause you to confuse fat with muscle. There's nothing wrong with big, but big doesn't have to mean really really heavy.

[Guest LJS1993]

I am going to leave this thread alone after this, but think on this for a minute fella - what you just said, in so many words, is that you'd be more than willing to listen to what people have to say if they said it nicely. Which I think is just the most hilarious way of justifying your obvious unwillingness to listen to anything at all! Because people said things to you very nicely and you refuted them, ignored them, belittled them, twisted their words and accused them of insulting you - even when they weren't! ... You even went so far as to call the entire community backwards and out of touch with reality.

 

So what you're really saying is that you don't want to hear anything at all if it's different from what you already think or what you want to hear. Because it's been said to you in several different ways and each time you have reacted with a volatile temper tantrum; each time you've ignored legitimate questions and suggestions and focused on what you perceive to be insults, even if they weren't. You seem to get a lot more out of being defensive and spitting mad than you do from well worded thoughtful posts. I've still not seen you respond to any of Eileen's questions or comments other than to repeatedly accuse her of calling your breeder a puppymill.

 

So I disagree with Shetlander. I suggest that no matter how something is told to you, you hunt through it looking for the possibility of an insult, much like how I pick peas out of rice in Indian food. In fact, your very negative response was in response to Alaska's thoughtful post, which IN PART read:

 

Oh man, I just saw this. Dennis, why don't you simplify your life and edit that sentence out of your last post? The subject of which border collies should be bred is about the most inflammatory topic on this board. You won't have to search very long to see all kinds of strong feelings on that subject. Read for a while and consider whether you really want to have that discussion right now. Go ahead and keep Turbo intact if you want. Just think twice, for now at least, before saying the rest of what you wrote above.

 

and all you appeared to have read was one sentence, because your response was I haven't been on this board for very long, so maybe there are some things I don't know about. You should at least explain what the problem is, and not just tell me to edit my post. That would be helpfull.

 

Alaska was being quite helpful - you simply chose not to see it. And LJS1993 probably did not help, since his comment definitely kick started your temper.

 

So when the conversation turned to reasons why an unproven, non working, extra large dog may not be the best candidate for breeding, you got irate. You didn't hear anything when it was said nicely, you didn't hear it when it was said bluntly, you didn't hear it when it was said rudely. All you heard wuz fightin' words - because that's what you want to hear.

 

I suggest you got as good as you gave, and then some.

 

RDM

 

 

Heh, don't pin his hostility towards anyone on me. Perhaps it was the personal statements and lack of tactful advice that got him on the defensive so to speak. Man, some of you guys need to lighten up for starters, quit acting like the Jedi counsel of Border Collies or something of the sort. And I agree with another poster talking about the cult like atmosphere that overtakes this board from time to time. Personally I'm on the fence about the whole breeding issue, however I disagree with being flat out rude and elitist when it comes to responding to opinions opposite of the "norm" of this board. This place is a great place to talk and learn about Border Collies, but sometimes it turns into a very hostile environment for those who are not in the "in" group.

[Guest LJS1993]

Are you looking for a fight? It regularly seems as if you're trying to spur on more negativity from new OP's whom we discuss breeding, weight or whatever. (OP's...as in not just this post). It seems like you enjoy disagreeing with the board and trying to entice arguements so you can disagree more.

No one said he/she had intentions... but breeding for something other than working ability does change the breed...hence destroy it.

For the bajillionth time, the board has NO issues with someone USING a BC for something other than stockwork. The issue is *breeding* In fact, the "Read this First" says this...

By the way, hybrid is a nice way of saying mutt. My husband is a mutt as am I....as are most of us... Im sure not everyone of us has only one single race bloodline. "Hybrid" makes mixing dog breeds seem exotic. Breeding mutts is NOT exotic and it is *FAR* different from HUMAN races mixing. Mixing human races does not deplete humans from what humans are. It does however deplete dog breeds, and put tons of unwanted dogs in shelters every year.

 

 

Okaaaaaaaayyy, now we are getting into human genetics? I assume your comment on "Hybrid" is in reference to my reply to Shelby'smum? I don't know how to say it but, it was a joke? You know, sense of humor? Having fun with another forum member? Trying to lighten up the atmosphere and have some fun with another member about her BorderJack. Sheesh.

[Eileen Stein]

Some times I read posts on here and it takes on almost a 'cult like atmosphere'.

 

You know, I think you'd find the same type of advocacy for spay-neuter on a rescue board. If a great majority of posters argued for speutering all pets when/if someone posted arguing against it, would that seem cult-like to you? There are also passionate advocates favoring positive training and disparaging "old-fashioned, harsh" (i.e., anything but positive) methods. When the subject comes up on these Boards, there's usually a balance of views expressed, but I bet on obedience boards there's near unanimity pro-positive. If somebody signed on there advocating the Koehler method and they posted their strongly-held views in opposition, would that be cult-like? How about advocacy of genetic tests before breeding on KC breeder boards? Is that cult-like? I guess I'm not clear on what makes our advocating breeding for working ability "cult like" -- is it that so many people on these Boards feel that way, or is it that we take it seriously?

 

To me the bigger issue here is the arbitrary breeding, and I point the finger at people breeding dogs for stock work as well. I think you all know people who are breeding dogs that they have no business breeding Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

 

I agree -- just because you can doesn't mean you should. But why is that the bigger issue HERE? You apparently agree that border collies should be bred for working ability. This OP would not be breeding for working ability; the dog he is offering at stud is not a working dog. That is so clear-cut that it seems to me to be No. 1 on the checklist. Why in this case would you even get to No. 2? If someone was breeding for stock work, but was breeding inferior dogs, that's when that issue would come up, not here. I don't understand why this discussion would have been more productive if you'd said "Don't Breed! just because you can!" The OP would simply say he wasn't breeding just because he can, but because his dog is a beautiful example of the breed. Where do you go from there?

[Turbo4go]

"Quote" - Heh, don't pin his hostility towards anyone on me. Perhaps it was the personal statements and lack of tactful advice that got him on the defensive so to speak. Man, some of you guys need to lighten up for starters, quit acting like the Jedi counsel of Border Collies or something of the sort. And I agree with another poster talking about the cult like atmosphere that overtakes this board from time to time. Personally I'm on the fence about the whole breeding issue, however I disagree with being flat out rude and elitist when it comes to responding to opinions opposite of the "norm" of this board. This place is a great place to talk and learn about Border Collies, but sometimes it turns into a very hostile environment for those who are not in the "in" group.

 

LJS1993 - you seem to be one of the few here that I would listen to. From the first post telling me to "Edit My Post" with no reason given, then followed with "Dennis is going to be BLACKBALLED", I immediately get very angry. Then I am called narrow minded, my dog is called FAT, I am "Helping Distroy a Breed", my dog came from a puppy mill, and on and on and on the insults continue. Quite frankly, if that is ment to help preserve the breed for "Working Only" Border Collies, you lost the battle long ago. I have to wonder how many others have you driven off this board, probably many. Wake up and smell the coffie people, Border Collies are being used by the majority of owners for activities other than herding damn sheep. If you want a good sheep herding dog, I understand an Australian Cattle dog is excellent, but be quick, because they are also showing up at agility competitions.

For me, I've herd enough s--t. I'm going to another web site , where people are not so opinionated and insulting, and I can get good tips without the politics. Good luck with your losing battle ! GOOD-BYE

[smileyzookie]

Wake up and smell the coffie people, Border Collies are being used by the majority of owners for activities other than herding damn sheep. If you want a good sheep herding dog, I understand an Australian Cattle dog is excellent, but be quick, because they are also showing up at agility competitions.

Why can people not get it through their thick skulls that using a BC for something other than herding is not the issue here....

 

 

without the politics

It isnt politics, its responsiblity. If you read the "read this first" sticky, then you should already know what our opinions are. Why act so shocked when we restate them? This is something close to us and our love for the breed. Having passion about our beliefs, in a forum for our beliefs is not being "opinionated".

 

Okaaaaaaaayyy, now we are getting into human genetics? I assume your comment on "Hybrid" is in reference to my reply to Shelby'smum? I don't know how to say it but, it was a joke? You know, sense of humor? Having fun with another forum member? Trying to lighten up the atmosphere and have some fun with another member about her BorderJack. Sheesh.

 

You know dang well human genetics was not the point. The point was hybrid is a fancy name that covers up something completely irresponsible and stupid. I said it is not the same as humans for Freckles benefit.

 

There must be a careful way of breeding non-working Border Collies? There must be some type of safe breeding for all enthusiasts.

-- sorry I find nothing funny about it... doesnt sound like you were joking to me. I understand you were joking about them being evil, but not about the important thing of mixing breeds.

[Brandon M]

This is the first post I've made on this thread. I just thought I should mention that there are a lot of people who haven't posted on the thread that think this is all really a waste of time. Quit the arguments. No body is teaching anybody anything. (Not anything people dont already know at least). That much was long ago apparent. so.. Dont turn this into another 5 page flame fest over something trivial like 1 person thinking they may breed their dog.

[Brandon M]

[smileyzookie]

Deleted

[Brandon M]

deleted by BorderC

[Brandon M]

deleted by BorderC

[Brandon M]

deleted by BorderC

[smileyzookie]

What about it went over your head anyhow, JC.

 

Nothing went over my head, I was making sure it wasnt a joke.

[Brandon M]

deleted by BorderC

 

Im sorry all. If I could fully delete my posts I would. I made some stupid comments about the OP and some not so well thought out stuff about the topic. I had a bit much to drink at my brotherss 22nd birthday party and got carried away and I feel bad about that. Many of you all know im usually one of self-restraint and reticence. I apologize; For that and all the deleted posts.

[mbc1963]

I'll try not to fall into the "pick posts apart and debate them word for word" trap of Internet conversation. I've been on the "bad guy" side a few times in my life, and learned diplomacy the hard way. I think one of the big problems on here is that we CAN quote people to themselves, word for word, and then dissect their meaning. It's sort of like carrying a tape recorder to a party, and playing people back to themselves time after time, to prove that they said something dumb, or wrong, or insensitive. Kind of takes the enjoyment out of conversation!

 

But... I do have pretty strong "anti" feelings about pet dogs being bred, period. It's not about breed or preserving working ability, but about the thousands and thousands of dogs who are put to sleep every year because people buy cute puppies for their families instead of going to the pound to get a rescue. I have a most excellent dog who came to me at 18 months and is as strongly bonded to me as any dog could be. There are thousands of BCs needing rescue throughout the world. Most of these dogs will be put to sleep. And most of them came from breeders who bred to make a profit, or from owners who bred through thoughtlessness or because they thought it would be a cool thing to do.

 

All rescue dogs were sweet puppies once, but sweet puppies (regardless of genes) become adults, and lots of them end up in shelters. So... until there are no unwanted rescue dogs being put down, I think dog owners should avoid producing more puppies. I hear that in Europe, dogs are left intact and owners simply take care that puppies are not produced. That's as good to me as having dogs fixed, if it really works... though I wonder how many litters are just put down by any means available. (I know that when I was a kid, the stereotypical unwanted litter was "taken care of" by drowning... so there weren't feral dogs roaming the streets, and shelters weren't full, but it wasn't exactly a high point in our culture!)

 

Regarding breeding for working ability: I agree that there should always be a line of dogs available to farmers and others who need them to work their livestock.

 

But I also think that dog breeds have been constantly changing - in both breeding and usefulness to humans - ever since we took wolf puppies into our prehistoric caves. Border collies have been around for centuries, but that's not a very long time in dog/human history. As our culture changes, our needs change, and we'll produce dogs that meet our needs. If agility and flyball are new human "needs" for dogs, it only makes sense that exceptional dogs would produce puppies with good "working ability" for flyball and agility. Again, I'm big into rescue, but breeding for agility, if people feel the need to have good agility dogs, doesn't seem any less logical than breeding for herding. If agility stays popular, in 100 years they could be talking about "Old Jumpy," the great-grandfather patriarch borderjack of the best working lines in history!

 

One of my big concerns is our modern push to desire "purebred" dogs as family pets. First of all, closed gene pools and strange body types specific to different breeds have brought on a lot of health problems. With some interbreeding, these health problems would be much ameliorated. Secondly, many purebred dogs make lousy family pets. Border collies, for one, are frequently not a good match for small children, as we all know. Beagles are notoriously difficult to keep in a setting where they can't run loose and scent the ground for hours. My nieces' Westie, at about six, became a grouchy little nipper, with her own definite mind, just as the breed descriptions said she would.

 

I read a book once that suggested most dogs should be bred ONLY for the "working ability" of being a family pet. The vast majority of dogs in the world now have only that job. The author's contention was that we should be breeding calm, easygoing dogs, maybe in three sizes, to meet the modern needs for the species. I do think we'd have a lot fewer dogs ending up in shelters if people were buying dogs based on their genetic temperament rather than how much they look like the breed ideal. We'd lose particular "looks," but the looks we fancy only exist because we humans jump in and tinker with things. My dog wouldn't be a good candidate for breeding, because he's spooky and reactive. But my neighbor's Jack Russell/beagle mix (talk about bouncy!) would be a great candidate for "active family" breeding - she literally lets children sit on her, tug her ears, and bowl her over - and smilingly comes back for more!

 

I love my border collie - but I loved equally the mutt we had when I was a kid. And every other family on the block loved their own mutt just as much. Dogs were just dogs.

[zebedee]

This whole damn board just gives me a headache.

 

So what if this person wants to breed from his beautiful dog, its his dog, let him do what he wants with it!

 

I live in the UK and there are very few 'working' dogs here, very few farms use 'wokring' animals at all! Theres still alot of BC's around though, and as long as they are cared for in the correct way then who gives a s##t what they are used for???

 

I don't care what anyone says, BC's make lovely pets, as well as being very intelligent, and if you are lucky enough to have the oppertunity to 'work' them then good for you! I for one doubt very much i'll ever get that oppertunity.

 

 

I just think that some of you on here should get off your high horse! I mean ffs, i joined this board thinking i would be able to learn alot and make friends etc, somewhere we could all chat about our much loved pets, but instead you just get pounced on if you say one thing wrong. Its rediculous. Why can't people just get on?

 

You know, some things that are said are very hurtful, cos despite what you think, these dog owners aren't out to hurt anyone, they are purely doing there best for their animals.

[Eileen Stein]

This is the first post I've made on this thread. I just thought I should mention that there are a lot of people who haven't posted on the thread that think this is all really a waste of time.

 

Then it is very appropriate that they haven't posted on the thread. There are others on the Boards who think that photos are a waste of time, or descriptions of cute things one's dog did are a waste of time. They don't post on those threads, which is also very appropriate.

 

Quit the arguments. No body is teaching anybody anything.

 

This whole damn board just gives me a headache.

 

It's up to you to decide whether you enjoy the Boards or not, and stay or go accordingly. If you wish to stay, it's up to you to decide what threads you want to read and what threads you don't. It's not up to you to tell people what they can and cannot post. Discussions about ethical considerations in the breeding of border collies are always going to be welcome on these Boards.

 

I live in the UK and there are very few 'working' dogs here, very few farms use 'wokring' animals at all! Theres still alot of BC's around though, and as long as they are cared for in the correct way then who gives a s##t what they are used for???

 

You would have a very hard time finding any post from anyone who has said that border collies should not be used for things other than farming. The issue is breeding.

 

So what if this person wants to breed from his beautiful dog, its his dog, let him do what he wants with it!

 

He WILL do what he wants with it. The question being discussed was what he SHOULD do. Puppy millers who breed their bitches on every heat also say "It's my dog, I can do what I want with it." (NOTE: I AM NOT CALLING YOU, OR HIM, A PUPPY MILLER. I AM USING AN ANALOGY.) And they're right, they can. I hope, however, that most people on these boards would disagree that they SHOULD do so. I think most people here feel that it is NOT right to do anything you want with your dog just because you own it. So the question becomes what things are okay (right, ethical) to do with your dog and what things are not. These Boards exist as much for discussion and disagreement about questions like this as they do for "chatting about our much loved pets." I trust that is made clear in the Welcome/Read This First announcement. That will not change.

 

I am the moderator of these Boards. I could, if I wanted, tell everyone they have to talk about what I want to talk about, and can't talk about what I am not interested in. I don't do that. Neither should you.

[Eileen Stein]

mbc1963:

 

I strongly agree with nearly everything you say here. Totally agree with your points about rescue. Totally agree with your point that mixed breeds make great family pets and there is no particular reason that a pet should look a certain way or be a certain "purebred" breed. People who have dogs as pets often attribute how wonderful they are to their breed, when really it's just an attribute of dogs in general. I particularly agree with this: "I love my border collie - but I loved equally the mutt we had when I was a kid. And every other family on the block loved their own mutt just as much. Dogs were just dogs."

 

The things I'm not sure I agree with are these:

 

So... until there are no unwanted rescue dogs being put down, I think dog owners should avoid producing more puppies.

 

If you're saying NO pups should be bred until there are no unwanted rescue dogs being put down, I disagree. Not all dogs are fungible. Although there are sometimes dogs with good working potential in rescue, you can't just go to the pound to get a dog to work your stock. Working stockdogs (and very likely other kinds of working dogs, although I'm not competent to speak about that) need to be bred, even if there are unwanted dogs in shelters.

 

Regarding breeding for working ability: I agree that there should always be a line of dogs available to farmers and others who need them to work their livestock.

 

Why a "line" of dogs? Why not a breed of dogs? It would be bred to have the abilities that farmers and other livestock producers need. By being a breed, it would have a more diverse gene pool, and an identifying name. We wouldn't keep non-farmers from owning those dogs if they wanted, but because they were all being bred for the same specific purpose, and to have the traits needed for that purpose, non-farming people would have a way of knowing what the dogs of that breed are like, and could decide whether those are qualities they want in a pet or not. We could call them "Border Collies."

 

But I also think that dog breeds have been constantly changing - in both breeding and usefulness to humans - ever since we took wolf puppies into our prehistoric caves. Border collies have been around for centuries, but that's not a very long time in dog/human history. As our culture changes, our needs change, and we'll produce dogs that meet our needs. If agility and flyball are new human "needs" for dogs, it only makes sense that exceptional dogs would produce puppies with good "working ability" for flyball and agility. Again, I'm big into rescue, but breeding for agility, if people feel the need to have good agility dogs, doesn't seem any less logical than breeding for herding.

 

But agility is not a "need" -- it's a fun thing to do with your dog. Add in athleticism (which many pets have), and the traits that make a dog a good pet are the same traits that make him a good agility dog. There is no particular genetic component to agility. Neither of those things are true about stockdogs. There is a huge genetic component to being a good stockdog -- most dogs, of nearly all breeds or mixes, just don't have the inborn traits to become useful stockdogs. And stockdogs are actually "needed" -- they do real work. If they weren't available to do it, people would have to be paid to do it, and in many cases wouldn't do it as well. So I think the answer to whether it is right to breed pups when there are dogs in pounds and rescue who need homes would be different if those pups were being bred for agility than if those pups were being bred for stock work.

 

But in the real world, people do breed even though there are dogs in pounds and shelters looking for homes. If they are going to take a breed that had been created to be a working stockdog, and stop breeding it for that and start breeding it instead for its suitability for agility (or suitability as a pet), wouldn't it make sense to call it something else -- like Melanie's suggested "Sport Collie"? Wouldn't that make it easier for people to "buy dogs based on their genetic temperament," because it would provide a better indication of what that pup's genetic temperament would be? If dogs change when they begin being bred for something different, doesn't it make sense for their breed designation to change too?

 

If you agree with that, maybe we don't disagree at all.

[Kyrasmom]

mbc1963:But in the real world, people do breed even though there are dogs in pounds and shelters looking for homes. If they are going to take a breed that had been created to be a working stockdog, and stop breeding it for that and start breeding it instead for its suitability for agility (or suitability as a pet), wouldn't it make sense to call it something else -- like Melanie's suggested "Sport Collie"? Wouldn't that make it easier for people to "buy dogs based on their genetic temperament," because it would provide a better indication of what that pup's genetic temperament would be? If dogs change when they begin being bred for something different, doesn't it make sense for their breed designation to change too?

 

If you agree with that, maybe we don't disagree at all.

 

I agree that it should have a different name if bred for a different purpose but, and I'm just thinking out loud, if we start to breed for every purpose, aren't we just ensuring that even more dogs end up in the pound? Especially a purpose which serves nothing beyond amusement and includes the need for very driven dogs that may or may not fit into a normal pet lifestyle. And what of those driven sport dogs who are not good enough....we would end up with yet another excess of puppies being bred who can't run fast enough or jump high enough but that also aren't happy being couch potatoes. What becomes of them?

 

I agree that as the world evolves, needs evolve, and one day there may not be sheep but do we really need sport dogs? Doesn't this just become about human ego when at the end of the day no purpose is really served if a dog wins at agility...beyond the victory?

 

And I like agility, I think it's fun, and I have a girl who does really well, but it's not a purpose. It's a hobby and I don't agree that lives should be brought into this world, and others sacrificed, for a hobby.

 

Maria

[borderlicious]

I agree that it should have a different name if bred for a different purpose but, and I'm just thinking out loud, if we start to breed for every purpose, aren't we just ensuring that even more dogs end up in the pound? Especially a purpose which serves nothing beyond amusement and includes the need for very driven dogs that may or may not fit into a normal pet lifestyle. And what of those driven sport dogs who are not good enough....we would end up with yet another excess of puppies being bred who can't run fast enough or jump high enough but that also aren't happy being couch potatoes. What becomes of them?

The way I see it, these dogs are already being produced; they just go by the same name as their working counterparts. I think the amount of "pet quality" sport flunkies would remain about the same, mind you I think the number still would remain quite low, considering that most pet dogs can do agility.

 

I guess I don't understand why a plain ol' working border collie wouldn't be just as good at agility as one that's bred for the sport. I run a sport bred dog and have a working bred pup, and I don't note much of a difference between them as far as athletic ability goes. If anything, I think it speaks positively about my 7 month old, 23lb puppy who can outrun and outlast conditioned sport dogs.

[Kyrasmom]

The way I see it, these dogs are already being produced; they just go by the same name as their working counterparts. I think the amount of "pet quality" sport flunkies would remain about the same, mind you I think the number still would remain quite low, considering that most pet dogs can do agility.

 

I guess I don't understand why a plain ol' working border collie wouldn't be just as good at agility as one that's bred for the sport. I run a sport bred dog and have a working bred pup, and I don't note much of a difference between them as far as athletic ability goes. If anything, I think it speaks positively about my 7 month old, 23lb puppy who can outrun and outlast conditioned sport dogs.

 

In essence I agree with you, I think the sport bred dogs are detimental to the breed and to dogs as a whole...regardless of the breed. Agility is something ANY dog can do and I find the practice of breeding faster border collies in a smaller frame so they can enter different classes to be completely ridiculous...and it happens all the time. If all of a sudden it becomes acceptable for a dog to be bred for agility, or flyball, and it becomes a trend, then there will be that many more dogs who end up homeless because they're too wound up to be good pets and not fast enough to play sports. The purpose of having the dog will be so skewed, I'm not sure where to look for it.

 

Which brings back the point that well bred working dogs can fill that market...there is no need for sport bred dogs unless one is created, which I know is already being done so most of this is redundant.

 

Maria

[mbc1963]

EIleen says:

 

"If you're saying NO pups should be bred until there are no unwanted rescue dogs being put down, I disagree. Not all dogs are fungible. Although there are sometimes dogs with good working potential in rescue, you can't just go to the pound to get a dog to work your stock. "

 

Yes, I agree. I was talking about pet owners who want to breed their pet dogs to produce more pets - not working dog breeders who are breeding for stock ability. I know that there aren't many working-type dogs young or gifted enough to be trained well in the shelters.

 

"But agility is not a "need" -- it's a fun thing to do with your dog. Add in athleticism (which many pets have), and the traits that make a dog a good pet are the same traits that make him a good agility dog. "

 

I don't think any of the things we've bred dogs for were originally needs, until we humans defined them as such. There were no herding dogs, racers, hounds, retrievers, miniatures, etc., until someone somewhere got the radical idea to produce dogs for those purposes. I'm not sure agility is a less worthy purpose than, say, chasing rats, or fitting in a handbag. In fact, owning Buddy has sort of thrust upon me the uncomfortable opinion that somewhere in history we enslaved dogs... and we owe them a pretty big apology. Too late. I'm not pulling a "Born Free" with Buddy. He's too soft.

 

Mind you, I'm not into agility - my knees and hips wouldn't take it and my dog is lazy - but I think it's kind of a cool sport, if the owner is dedicated to the dogs and takes good care of them. (And if the owner isn't and doesn't... well, then we're in the same place we are now with border collies and greyhounds and all the other poor breeds we've created.)

 

I also think athleticism - especially jumpy, quick, turny agility-type athleticism - is separate from good pet temperament. My dog doesn't seem to be quite energetic or driven enough to do well in agility. If you had a border collie who WAS that way, he'd make a much better agility sire than mine would have in his intact days. So, I'd say there probably is a genetic component to being GOOD at agility. (Border collies and Jack Russells do well - I don't think Bassett hounds would probably take any medals!) If we spent a couple centuries, we could produce a new breed that had strong agility ability, just as we have produced good herders. Again, I don't particularly care to see that we do - I just wouldn't dismiss this reason for creating a breed as less rational or needful than a lot of other reasons we have created breeds.

 

" If they are going to take a breed that had been created to be a working stockdog, and stop breeding it for that and start breeding it instead for its suitability for agility (or suitability as a pet), wouldn't it make sense to call it something else -- like Melanie's suggested "Sport Collie"? Wouldn't that make it easier for people to "buy dogs based on their genetic temperament," because it would provide a better indication of what that pup's genetic temperament would be? If dogs change when they begin being bred for something different, doesn't it make sense for their breed designation to change too? "

 

Sure, I don't care what you call my hypothetical agility breed. Wait... on second thought... let me name it. If I'm going to foreshadow a breed, I should at least get to name it. How about... Sproingensprintzenhunds? You can call them SSH for short.

 

Mary

[Eileen Stein]

"But agility is not a "need" -- it's a fun thing to do with your dog. Add in athleticism (which many pets have), and the traits that make a dog a good pet are the same traits that make him a good agility dog. "

 

I don't think any of the things we've bred dogs for were originally needs, until we humans defined them as such. There were no herding dogs, racers, hounds, retrievers, miniatures, etc., until someone somewhere got the radical idea to produce dogs for those purposes.

 

I agree with your second sentence, but not with your first. The need was there to hunt one's food, and to tend livestock once we transitioned from hunter-gatherers to keeping our food on the hoof. The need came first; breeding and training dogs to fulfill the need came later. It's the other way around with agility. The whole idea of agility came about to have something to do with your pet dog, not because those tunnels needed to be run through or those tables needed to be stood on or those jumps needed to be jumped. In the first case, the dog was made for the job; in the second case, the "job" was made for the dog. Which is not to say that agility is not a cool sport, because it is.

 

I also think athleticism - especially jumpy, quick, turny agility-type athleticism - is separate from good pet temperament. My dog doesn't seem to be quite energetic or driven enough to do well in agility.

 

Well, a dog can certainly be a good pet, especially for a sedentary person, without having jumpy, quick, turny agility-type athleticism, and many are. But there's nothing about pet temperament that is inconsistent with that type of athleticism. Surely the demands of agility are not beyond the athletic abilities of most dogs, including pet dogs, unless they've been bred to be an odd shape, as in your Basset Hound example. Young dogs generally rejoice in their speed and physical prowess, and love to run and jump. Watch two young dogs of any breed or no breed at all playing with each other -- the zoomies, the leaping, the cutting this way and that. I just don't believe the physical demands of agility are so extraordinary that special dogs would have to be bred to meet them. Any enhancement in ability that came from "breeding for agility" would be marginal at best, because the genetic component is tiny at best. (And I agree with Maria that it would come with a great and unnecessary cost.) I would bet that if you bred ten generations of dogs with the aim of making them "good at agility," at the end of that time they would not be measurably and reliably better at agility than ten generations of border collies bred for stock work.

 

Unfortunately, we'll probably soon be able to find out whether I'm right.

[Alaska]

Surely the demands of agility are not beyond the athletic abilities of most dogs, including pet dogs, unless they've been bred to be an odd shape, as in your Basset Hound example.

 

I just knew I'd seen a basset doing agility out there on the internet someplace, and here she is. Go Lucy go!

 

 

The Basset Hound Club of America wants you to think about getting a basset as your next agility dog:

 

 

The Agility Bassets say, "There's no limit to what you can do with a versatile breed like this!"

 

 

Thank you for your interest in in agility bassets. We now return you to your regularly scheduled border collies.

[Pat W.]

Turbo - I will say this your boy is very handsome. As someone that had two oversized bc's one 23 inches and 50+ lbs with a very lean build (Rush) and Ashe 22 inches and until his 7th bday I never worried about his weight but now ranges between 43-45 lbs. Both dogs competed in agility sadly Rush crossed over the bridge last year and Ashe retired from agility at age 13.5 An over weight dog doing something that requires repetitive heavy impact on hips, elbows, and shoulders can do real damage to those joints. There is a trend among alot (NOT ALL) of vets to overlook dogs carrying more weight than is good for them. Your dog should have a "waist" and ribs should be felt.

 

As to the idea of breeding, first of all anything we say here isnt going to stop you from breeding your boy if you have your mind made up. However, here is some food for thought before doing so, sit down and list what your boy brings to the breeding table so to speak. What is his linage? Does he improve the breed? Not just in looks but temperment, structure and ability to work combined. What is in his background genetically? HD? CEA? Epilepsy? He's not old enough to have his eyes CERF'd or Hips done not everyone does them but I stronly suggest that you do. What type of bitch would you want to breed to? A smaller girl? What does she bring to the table. What are your goals in breeding? Will your boy's breeder be willing to guide you in the selection of a bitch?

 

In case you havent noticed the people on this are passion about this breed and its preservation. As someone involved in rescue I cringe when I hear someone say they have a young dog they want to breed. There is alot to consider yes you will be the stud owner and wont have to worry about whelping and initial care of the the pups but, as a border collie owner you do have a stake in the future of the breed and should be concerned as to where it is going. As a breeder would you be willing to take back any pup that the owner was no longer able to care for at ANY age? Sadly there are hundreds of border collies and border collie mixes in shelters and rescue needing new homes. PLEASE PLEASE consider these things before you breed