Reputable breeders in my area?

[mbernard2424]

Cindy, do you understand at all what I was saying in the above quote? The complex combination of traits that make a good working border collie cannot be "fixed" in the breed, the way you can "fix" color or ear set. That's why not every offspring of a good working pair will be a good worker -- because they are not getting the same genes. Genes are recombined and genes are lost from one generation to the next. Therefore, if you keep breeding without testing and culling for working ability, with every new generation you move further and further away from that good combination of genes you started out with. You are literally throwing away the herding ability of the dogs you breed, generation after generation, if you do not train them and test them and breed only the good workers, until ultimately you will have nothing left.

 

Eileen,

 

What you said above is an excellent clarification of what it takes to get good working dogs. Before I got into BCs I had Aussies and to get an Aussie with good working ability is extremely difficult these days. Back then I didn't even know what good working ability is. Now, the people who are breeding good working Aussies are often breeding with COIs as high as 30-40%. Let's hope that BCs never go there.

 

Also, do you think the nature vs. nuture argument comes into play here to some extent. For example, of you take a litter of puppies, from parents who are both good workers and trial dogs. Could how the puppy was raised have any affect on how they turn out; or if they are placed with a Novice handler vs. an Open handler. There are so many variables.

[stockdogranch]

Also, do you think the nature vs. nuture argument comes into play here to some extent. For example, of you take a litter of puppies, from parents who are both good workers and trial dogs. Could how the puppy was raised have any affect on how they turn out; or if they are placed with a Novice handler vs. an Open handler. There are so many variables

 

I'll jump in here. Yes, I think that this does indeed enter into the picture. For example, if you ask many top breeders/triallers how they select a pup from one of their litters, they will often say it was the one that was left--didn't sell for whatever reason. They then go on to train this dog to be a contender. Did they just get lucky? I doubt it--I think the odds are in their favor. IF the genetics are there to begin with, then certainly the pup in the hands of the better trainer/handler will be "better" than the littermate in the hands of a novice. The top trainer can train that pup to the highest level of its full potential, while the novice probably will not. BUT, that still does not reinforce the old statement that, "My dog could have won the National Finals if only s/he had a better handler." The genetics HAVE to be there in the first place. I think if you have a good breeding program, and are making educated and informed breeding decisions, you can end up with some pretty consistent litters, genetically. Then the nurture part comes in,

 

A

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I understand that in doing this you 'may' be breeding inadequate workability(untested so unknown really) ..... that is not the point I am trying to make.

 

But that is the point we are trying to make. You are trying (from what I can understand) to defend sport breeders who breed siblings of proven working dogs - saying one is just as likely to get a good livestock working dog from such breedings, as from the cross of two dogs who are worked to a high level.

 

[sidebar: it bears repeating, there is a huge difference between pushing a few dozen sheep around a farm, and working to a high level. If there weren't, I wouldn't have to ask friends to help me move my own livestock during a fun day, a trial, or a clinic here. My dogs do not work to that level where the dog can do almost anything asked, and is willing. It's not in seeing what your dog can do, but rather in reaching that limit with your dog, and seeing where it is, that you truly learn to appreciate the dogs who have the complete package. Many people come to that place on the trial field, and it's the main reason for trials, in my thinking.)

 

#1 Breeding for whatever is all about odds. Whether it's 8 in 10, 1 in 100, 1 in 1000, 1 in 1,000,000, there will normally always be one. You (the generic you) just need to decide how important it is to you to have that one, whatever it is.

 

I believe you read this completely differently than how Denise intended it. When you are looking for a desireable characteristic, breeding is all about increasing your odds. If you need a truck driver, you are more likely to find one at a truck stop, than by standing in the middle of a shopping mall and asking people at random whether they are truck drivers. What Denise was saying was that it depends on how badly you need a truck driver. If a lot depends on it, or you need to find one fast, you'll take the trouble to go to the truck stop. If it's just an exercise in idle curiosity, you'll do it.

 

In the same way, if it's important to you that your Border Collie is sound and balanced, and has the potential that working Border Collies have always had since people started breeding them, then you will go to a breeder who works his or her dogs and has the values that you have about breeding practices. If you want to play the odds a bit more, go to a breeder who combines working lines in a more random way, without training their dogs to see the result, at each generation.

[mosstheboss2000]

In the same way, if it's important to you that your Border Collie is sound and balanced, and has the potential that working Border Collies have always had since people started breeding them, then you will go to a breeder who works his or her dogs and has the values that you have about breeding practices. If you want to play the odds a bit more, go to a breeder who combines working lines in a more random way, without training their dogs to see the result, at each generation.

 

This is exactly what I took from it...

As this thread started the person looking for a dog stated they wanted a Border Collie from a breeder for Sport. They indicated they wanted to look for a breeder who trys to maintain working traits not that they were looking for a open trial dog.

This person may be the kind of person that may do her research and decide go to a breeder who combines working lines in a more random way. I think the response to her decision to research the breeders and find the right dog for her was immediately met with negativity as most of the breeders she chose were not people who actively trial or are known to the herding world so they "MUST" not be maintaing the integrity of the breed. Perhaps in going to research these breeders she would of come to this conclusion herself? Perhaps she would of found that one of them DID in fact make a effort to maintain those traits she was looking for. As said previously while a dog may not be a top working dog it may still carry traits that would be beneficial to a breeding program.

 

I am not defending any breeder, they can defend their breeding practices themselves. Trust me I see the worst of the worst from both sides...health, workability and temperament. I have no need or desire to buy a puppy... I will always find what I want in rescue... and since I will never breed it doesn't matter what they accomplish except to me!

I am just saying let's not make assumptions.

I am saying she COULD find this without having to get a dog from a person ONLY working and promoting for herding purposes if she did her research on her breeder and their dogs. I do believe that there are breeders out there that are working to maintain the workability in their dogs and also selling to sport homes, yes there should be more and no I don't agree with breeders not doing so.

[Laurae]

most of the breeders she chose were not people who actively trial or are known to the herding world so they "MUST" not be maintaing the integrity of the breed. Perhaps in going to research these breeders she would of come to this conclusion herself? Perhaps she would of found that one of them DID in fact make a effort to maintain those traits she was looking for. As said previously while a dog may not be a top working dog it may still carry traits that would be beneficial to a breeding program.

I am just saying let's not make assumptions.

I am saying she COULD find this without having to get a dog from a person ONLY working and promoting for herding purposes if she did her research on her breeder and their dogs. I do believe that there are breeders out there that are working to maintain the workability in their dogs and also selling to sport homes, yes there should be more and no I don't agree with breeders not doing so.

 

And what everyone else is saying over and over again is that if someone is not actively working their breeding dogs to high levels (there it is again), then it is impossible to tell whether those breeding dogs are carrying traits that will "maintain the workability in their dogs."

[mosstheboss2000]

Well if a so called 'good' breeder will take a dog that 'won't' work sheep or doesn't work well and still breed that dog apparently recognizing good traits that they would want to keep or add to their breeding? How can that be accepted if it was a working home verses a home that does agility and does work their dogs on sheep to maintain workability in their lines then breeding their dog.

We then are assuming this person does not have the knowledge backing up the fact they are breeding dogs who are maybe or maybe not maintaing integrity in the breed as they have not proven themselves or 'recently' proven themselves by trialling their dogs to a open level and promoting this. When really it comes down to more then just a dog that may go and win a herding trial doesn't it....

[stockdogranch]

Well if a so called 'good' breeder will take a dog that 'won't' work sheep or doesn't work well and still breed that dog apparently recognizing good traits that they would want to keep or add to their breeding?

 

IMO, a GOOD BREEDER would not do that. If the dog has not proven itself to a high level, it should not be bred. There are really no other traits that trump working ability. Period.

 

A

[juliepoudrier]

In answer to your first question I would say that if a working breeder chose to breed an unproven dog (not quite the same as a nonworking dog, IMO, rather a dog who doesn't do well at trials and so hasn't been proven in that particular venue) because there are traits in that bloodline s/he wishes to keep, s/he's still going to test the offspring on livestock before determining the success of that breeding. Those sorts of breeding decisions are best left to the people who know the dogs so well that they know what traits are carried in bloodlines and what crosses well with what to increase the odds (there's that pesky word again) that the end result will be something better than what you started with (both sire and dam). Someone who knows pedigrees (i.e., how various lines cross) better than me could explain it better, but there are dogs known to be excellent producers of working dogs who may not have been top trial winners themselves, but the only way to know they were excellent producers would be to take the pups and prove them on stock. But if that subsequent generation is a bunch of mediocre dogs, the breeding was a failure and shouldn't be repeated. The acceptance of the breeder's choice is based on what is done to prove that next generation, even if one member of the parental generation was unproven.

 

I'm not sure I understand your second paragraph, but I for one wouldn't be breeding a dog based on proven ability being "maybe go and win a herding trial" either.

 

ETA: Anna's answer is more to the point, but I think there are people (more specifically people who have years and years of dealing with livestock and dogs behind them, which excludes most of us) who can make a judgment on the breedability of an unproven dog. For the rest of us, using only proven dogs is going to give us the best odds of getting great working offspring.

 

 

J.

[MrSnappy]

Oh but this is certainly not the case, and lots of "good breeders" (on these very boards even) have bred dogs who did not make it to Open for a variety of excu-err, reasons.

 

In my experience, lots of things trump working ability, even for the so-called working breeders. It's human nature for people to give into selfishness and justify it with a version of morality. Nobody should kid themselves that stockdog breeders are anymore immune to this than any other breeder.

 

This would be the politics that Cindy was referring to, but which do not allegedly exist.

 

RDM

[juliepoudrier]

RDM,

I agree that plenty of folks breed who shouldn't be, and excuses abound, but the fact that people, even people on these boards, do it doesn't make it any more acceptable, does it? Personally, if I'm looking for a dog that I can expect to be a top working dog, I'm going to go for a pup from a litter bred out of proven dogs that I like and that have a working style that melds well with my training/working style and meets my needs here on the farm and on the trial field if I plan to trial. The only exception I would make to that is as I explained above (e.g., if someone like Tommy Wilson, to use a local--U.S.--example, bred an unproven dog because in his judgment it would be a good producer of good dogs, then I'd take the chance on his knowledge). I think the sticky part comes in when we try to come up with a collective understanding of what it means when we say "work at a high level."

 

J.

[mosstheboss2000]

The only exception I would make to that is as I explained above (e.g., if someone like Tommy Wilson, to use a local--U.S.--example, bred an unproven dog because in his judgment it would be a good producer of good dogs, then I'd take the chance on his knowledge).

 

This isn't even a case of well maybe we could put work the dog and show it does have the ability NO this is saying that we would take a dog we KNOW doesn't have the ability and bred it to produce working dogs and it is OKAY because this is from a experienced handler/breeder?

 

So clearly LINES do have a big say in this decision to think you would produce offspring with workability from that particular dog or he would NEVER consider breeding this dog.

[Eileen Stein]

"BTW, what is your opinion about testing for hip dysplasia? Do you think it's a sign of a good breeder that they x-ray their breeding stock and have them evaluated to make sure their hips are not dysplastic before breeding them?"

 

Yes I do think this is important proving soundness in the dogs you are breeding. I also KNOW having seen it that you can have breed 2 dogs with EXCELLENT hips and still get a dog with horrible HD sadly.

 

If you know that, then by your logic you should think there's no point in x-raying the hips of breeding stock, or in buying from breeders who x-ray the hips of their breeding stock. You said it didn't matter that a breeder was not testing his breeding stock for working ability, because the untested dogs he breeds might have pups with just as much ability as the pups from breeders who test. So why x-ray hips? Why approve more of a breeder who x-rays hips than one who doesn't? After all, the un-hip tested dogs might have pups with just as good hips as the ones from breeders who do test hips, right?

 

The answer, obviously, is that you believe that breeders who x-ray hips and breed only dogs whose hips are good ARE INCREASING THEIR ODDS of producing dogs with good hips. Well, by the same token, the breeders who test their dogs on stock and breed only the ones who show superior working ability are increasing their odds of producing dogs with superior working ability. The only difference is that it's harder to produce dogs with good working ability than dogs with good hips, so those who don't test for working ability in their breeding stock have very little chance of producing good working ability in the pups they breed.

 

I think the response to her decision to research the breeders and find the right dog for her was immediately met with negativity as most of the breeders she chose were not people who actively trial or are known to the herding world so they "MUST" not be maintaing the integrity of the breed.

 

That is absolutely NOT the reason. I would not draw that conclusion just because the breeders she chose were not people who actively trial or are known to the herding world. I drew the conclusion from the way those breeders chose to portray themselves and their dogs on their own websites. If maintaining the working integrity of the breed was a real concern for them, they would have recounted what steps they take to do that. Their websites would not be all about color or all about flyball. They would have discussed, with specifics, their dogs' working ability and how they test for it. If you're not interested in that enough to talk about it on the website you've put up to advertise your dogs, you're not interested in it enough to be doing it, because it ain't that easy to do.

 

As said previously while a dog may not be a top working dog it may still carry traits that would be beneficial to a breeding program.

 

Yes, but you have to have the ability to recognize those traits and enough interest to put in the effort to train the dog to a level where the traits can be discerned if you're going to use them to breed for working ability, and you have to test the resulting offspring to learn whether you've succeeded or not. If you don't do that, you're not breeding for working ability. I will give you an example. There is a very experienced breeder, trainer and handler who had a bitch who was a little too "hot" to handle well in open trials. She ran in open trials for a brief period, so she was trained to that level, but was not easy to handle and generally didn't do well in them. Yet she had virtually all the other qualities and abilities you need in a working dog, was a tremendous, powerful worker with large flocks in a ranch situation, and when bred to somewhat milder males produced outstanding working offspring. Her owner, who is a top open handler, is skilled enough to recognize this and to take advantage of it in her breeding program. She's not just breeding out of wishful thinking and without much interest in whether the offspring will be able to work livestock or not -- she's breeding out of knowledge and out of a desire to produce good working dogs, and she's testing the dogs produced at the highest levels. To say, "Oh, she's breeding a dog that doesn't do good in open trials so she's no better than a sports breeder" would be just silly.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

You have the rule:

 

One should stick to breeding dogs that have proven themselves to a high level.

 

Genetics and practical experience both show that if we lose sight of this principle, the breed will suffer.

 

Then you do have exceptions. Some people breed "working dogs" who shouldn't, in my mind. Too young, not trained enough, not enough work to prove themselves - these are breedings I see and shake my head. The breed suffers from these breeding choices, also. But that's not what's being discussed here.

 

Then there are breeders such as Julie mentioned, who have a great deal of experience and may decide to breed dogs who aren't highly trained, because they have experience with the lines. As Julie said, these breeders will then carefully watch the result. They've got more than just future trial results riding on the line - their names are on every puppy. I heard a key breeder of North American dogs say recently that when he looked at pups with his kennel name on them, he didn't look for what was good, he looked at every fault and thought about how it could be improved next time.

 

That kind of attitude is actually more important to me than a laundry list of what makes a breeder "good" or "bad."

 

For the question the OP raised originally, as a novice to the breed, I'd stick with what we know makes a good Border Collie, or the recommendations of people one trusts. In other words, in a practical sense on the question of breeding non-working dogs, I'd either stick with a litter from proven parents, or a pup from a litter where older full siblings were working at a high level.

 

To "moss" - my example does not support sport breeding for sports, because just playing sports is not a good test of what makes a good all-around, livable Border Collie. It's highly probable that it doesn't even make good sport dogs, generation after generation. Nor does just pushing a few sheep around the farm. Unfortunately, it's impossible to explain the difference if you haven't experienced it and continue to insist that a few dozen sheep doth a working dog make.

 

Go and look again at the video of Laura Carson's pup working for the second time ever. That dog was working bred from top trial dogs. Linc, and all the other dogs in his household, does not live on a farm. In fact, if you saw Laura's teeny house and teenier backyard, you'd probably not even approve her to adopt a rescue Border Collie.

 

What makes a good working dog, makes a good Border Collie. Whether for sports, or companionship, or dabbling in herding, or running a commercial livestock operation.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

NO this is saying that we would take a dog we KNOW doesn't have the ability and bred it to produce working dogs and it is OKAY because this is from a experienced handler/breeder?

 

I'm finding understanding what you are saying very difficult, but I think you are saying that Julie's example of Tommy Wilson breeding a dog is an example of the above? No, it's not, because I'm reasonably sure (not being able to speak for them of course), that someone like them wouldn't bother to breed a dog that actually has proven itself to be useless.

 

Please note, as Eileen said above, that there is a wide difference between a dog that is utterly useless, and a dog with a weakness that a breeder might hope to improve upon. There is no perfect dog, and every generation reveals new types of weaknesses, or highlights old ones. The job of the thoughtful breeder, as the breeder I mentioned above said, is to find those weaknesses and have a plan in place to improve them next time.

 

If you don't train your pups, you cannot do so.

[Sue R]

The only exception I would make to that is as I explained above (e.g., if someone like Tommy Wilson, to use a local--U.S.--example, bred an unproven dog because in his judgment it would be a good producer of good dogs, then I'd take the chance on his knowledge).

 

This isn't even a case of well maybe we could put work the dog and show it does have the ability NO this is saying that we would take a dog we KNOW doesn't have the ability and bred it to produce working dogs and it is OKAY because this is from a experienced handler/breeder?

 

An unproven dog and a dog that is KNOWN to not have the ability are two different things.

 

While the "unproven" dog has simply not yet displayed the ability or proven itself to a high degree (for whatever reason, injury, lack of opportunity), it would not be breed by a person like Tommy Wilson without it having the background (pedigree) and strong potential to produce good pups that are a credit to the breed. This has been a common practice among experienced breeders in the UK for years, but we must always remember that breeding is more art than science, and the people that succeed at this type of breeding have knowledge and ability to make breeding decisions that most folks could never even dream of.

 

Meanwhile, the dog that we KNOW (your emphasis) does not possess the ability, should not be used for breeding by a responsible breeder.

 

To support someone in buying from breeders who are not responsible about making good breeding decisions for working ability, will only just encourage the breeding of dogs that will not maintain the integrity of the breed. There is, in my opinion, no dog sport that justifies the degradation of the Border Collie, and therefore breeding for anything but working ability can not be justified.

 

It's taken me several years to understand what constitutes a good breeder and what does not. I have to say it's been a painful learning process for me.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I found an interesting contrast.

 

From a previously discussed breeder of "modern do-it-all" Border Collies:

 

BORDER COLLIE PUPPIES SPEND THEIR IMPORTANT FIRST 8 WEEKS OF LIFE GETTING THE BEST WE CAN GIVE! IN THAT TIME THEY WILL UNDERGO EARLY NEUROLOGICAL STIMULATION BETWEEN 1 AND 12 DAYS OLD, ARE SOCAILIZED WITH ADULTS, CHILDREN AND DOGS, AND GET TO EXPERIENCE ALL KINDS OF SIGHTS, SOUNDS AND SMELLS. THEY ARE CRATE TRAINED , EYES ARE CLEARED AND THEY ARE VACCINATED AND HEALTH CHECKED BY A VETERINARIAN. WE DO NOT VACCINATE OUR PUPS BEFORE 8 WEEKS OF AGE. THEY GO FOR CAR RIDES AND ARE INTRODUCED TO CLICKER TRAINING! PUPS WILL BE AKC AND ABCA REGISTERED.

 

Our goal is to provide a head start for our puppies at being the best of the breed that we love.

 

PLACING OUR PUPPIES IN LOVING, FOREVER HOMES IS A PRIORITY. WE GET VERY ATTACHED TO OUR PUPS IN THE 8 WEEKS THAT WE HAVE THEM, AND THEIR HEALTH AND HAPPINESS IS OUR LONG TERM GOAL!

 

How nice, you say. Here's the breeder I'd go for, however:

 

Border Collie Dogs

Ready To Work

 

Ralph Pulfer

Quincy, Ohio

[Phone Number]

 

From Border Collies, May 1979

 

I think looking at the dogs the late Mr. Pulfer produced and trained says it all - the heritage he left in dogs that really could "do it all" - but he never had anything but "dogs ready to work" as his goal, nor was there need to advertise it.

[Eileen Stein]

RDM, I'm not saying that every working breeder is a good breeder. There are definitely people breeding for working ability, and even producing good working dogs, whom I would not recommend.

 

But what I AM saying is that someone who is not breeding for working ability is not a good breeder of border collies. He may do many of the things that a good breeder does, he may be a good breeder of dogs in general, but you cannot be a good breeder of border collies if you ignore the prime directive for making border collies.

[juliepoudrier]

I said:

The only exception I would make to that is as I explained above (e.g., if someone like Tommy Wilson, to use a local--U.S.--example, bred an unproven dog because in his judgment it would be a good producer of good dogs, then I'd take the chance on his knowledge).

 

To which you replied:

This isn't even a case of well maybe we could put work the dog and show it does have the ability NO this is saying that we would take a dog we KNOW doesn't have the ability and bred it to produce working dogs and it is OKAY because this is from a experienced handler/breeder?

 

And although Eileen and Becca have already addressed this adequately, since you seem bent on misconstruing my comments to support your own arguments, I'll try again.

 

I already clearly stated that I'm not talking about a dog with no ability. I'm talking about a dog that may not have proven itself on the trial field, with the description Eileen gave being one such example. It's not a situation where a dog has "no working ability," but rather where the dog has some hole (or an injury) that makes it not the best dog to prove itself at trials. But an experienced stockdog person such as the one I mentioned would be able to see the potential (the good and the bad) in the dog and know enough to know what crosses would likely produce pups without that same issue (i.e., pups that are better than the parents).

 

My point was that for most of us who don't have the experience of a Tommy Wilson or Jack Knox or Alasdair McRae or any of the well-known dog- and sheepmen in the UK to be able to judge a dog's true quality without the benefit of a stellar trial record, it make sense to breed only proven to proven (with the caveat that you still need to consider working styles, what comes through particular lines, and so on). It's the method that will get us the best odds of creating excellent working pups.

 

The people I mentioned in this example were raised with stock and stockdogs. They live and breathe it. They have more knowledge about the art of breeding dogs or livestock than most of us could ever hope to gain. They could look at a young dog like Laura's Linc, or Robin's Moss, or my Pip, or any number of other young (and therefore unproven) dogs being trained by folks on this forum and make some pretty accurate predictions about how those pups will turn out--what their strengths and weaknesses will be and what sorts of dogs they would cross well with.

 

So clearly LINES do have a big say in this decision to think you would produce offspring with workability from that particular dog or he would NEVER consider breeding this dog.

Not in the way you're trying to argue it. I can say I have a dog from MacPherson's lines and another from Dalziel's lines. Yep, folks will recognize those names as some that you can equate with good dogs. BUT (and it's a huge but) there's so much more to lines than just knowing the names of the lines your dogs come from. You need to understand what's behind those lines, what kinds of dogs were in those lines, what kinds of offspring were produced when crossing those lines to other lines (did linebreeding get the best results? Out crossing? If the latter, what outcrosses worked best? And so on.). You need to understand what strengths and weaknesses were present in the dogs of those lines. You should understand what the people whose names those lines bear were aiming for with their breeding programs and what their successes and failures were. See it's not enough just to be able to recognize a name on a line, you have to have the in-depth knowledge about those lines to be able to get the most out of breeding from them. That's the kind of knowledge people like those I named have and I freely admit I do not. That's why I would trust that when they see something in an unproven dog that they think makes it worth breeding, I'm not going to second guess it. That's not even close to the same thing as someone who happens to recognize the names of famous lines (and uses them for advertising purposes) but knows nothing about the history behind those lines and is breeding for something else entirely (i.e., sport) anyway.

 

You need to stop equating "unproven" with "lack of working ability" and any old breeder (sport breeder, average breeder, BYB, whatever) with some of the top stock- and dogpeople in the world of shepherding. They are not the same thing, and they never will be. To use the latter as the foundation for your argument in favor of the former somehow being able to retain working ability in their dogs generation after generation of breeding for something else is just ludicrous.

 

J.

[AllieMackie]

I think looking at the dogs the late Mr. Pulfer produced and trained says it all - the heritage he left in dogs that really could "do it all" - but he never had anything but "dogs ready to work" as his goal, nor was there need to advertise it.

 

Here I said I'd stay out of this, but I can't help myself.

 

I don't see what the problem is with what's being said here:

 

BORDER COLLIE PUPPIES SPEND THEIR IMPORTANT FIRST 8 WEEKS OF LIFE GETTING THE BEST WE CAN GIVE! IN THAT TIME THEY WILL UNDERGO EARLY NEUROLOGICAL STIMULATION BETWEEN 1 AND 12 DAYS OLD, ARE SOCAILIZED WITH ADULTS, CHILDREN AND DOGS, AND GET TO EXPERIENCE ALL KINDS OF SIGHTS, SOUNDS AND SMELLS. THEY ARE CRATE TRAINED , EYES ARE CLEARED AND THEY ARE VACCINATED AND HEALTH CHECKED BY A VETERINARIAN. WE DO NOT VACCINATE OUR PUPS BEFORE 8 WEEKS OF AGE. THEY GO FOR CAR RIDES AND ARE INTRODUCED TO CLICKER TRAINING! PUPS WILL BE AKC AND ABCA REGISTERED.

 

Our goal is to provide a head start for our puppies at being the best of the breed that we love.

 

I mean, it's not as simple as "border collies, ready to work" but there's also been a big uprise in popularity of dog sports. I see nothing wrong with a breeder's website informing the visitors what the pups go through during the first few weeks of their life. For someone new to the breeding scene, like me, it's information I would want to know.

 

Not necessarily defending the breeder themselves here, I just don't see how this specific situation is a bad thing, at all.

[Tassie]

Here I said I'd stay out of this, but I can't help myself.

 

I don't see what the problem is with what's being said here:

I mean, it's not as simple as "border collies, ready to work" but there's also been a big uprise in popularity of dog sports. I see nothing wrong with a breeder's website informing the visitors what the pups go through during the first few weeks of their life. For someone new to the breeding scene, like me, it's information I would want to know.

 

Not necessarily defending the breeder themselves here, I just don't see how this specific situation is a bad thing, at all.

 

 

I don't think there's anything wrong with it per se, but the problem I see in the context of working Border Collies, is that in place of 'Border Collie puppies' in the socialisation paragraph, you could substitute any breed. It's fine in relation to pet dogs - but it says nothing about ability to work. Whereas even to an Australian, with only a limited knowledge of the US Border Collie scene, that simple advertisement that Becca posted, says all that anyone seeking a working Border Collie would need to know. If a person was looking to get a breedworthy dog from someone like the late Mr Pulfer, they would no doubt be talking to the breeder about the strengths and weaknesses in the working style of the particular dog, and in the forebears, as that would be important in their consideration of building on strengths and minimising weaknesses in the dogs they would hope to produce.

[juliepoudrier]

AllieMackie,

What that first breeder says they do with the pups *isn't in and of itself a bad thing.* In fact, that they care enough to do the socializing, etc. is a *good* thing. I think the point of the contrast is where the emphasis is placed when advertising a litter. If I wanted a good working dog would I choose a breeder whose "only claim to fame," so to speak, is that they socialize their puppies well before 8 weeks old or one who's basically guaranteeing that his breeding program produces dogs that work? That's the gist of this whole discussion. If the dogs aren't properly bred to do what they're meant to do, then what comes after that doesn't really matter.

 

The big, big, big issue, and it's been said before, but I'll repeat it here for new people like you, is that people who love border collies for sports find them to be great sports dogs because of the years of specific purpose-driven breeding that went in to making them what they are today. That purpose-driven breeding was for stockwork. It so happens that the combination of traits that makes them great stockdogs also makes them superior for sports. What many people don't get is that if you stop the selection pressure for the stockwork, then the unique combination of traits that makes them superior achievers at their purpose (stockwork) --and also just happens to make them excellent sport prospects--will start to drift toward something else, and when it drifts far enough, people will find that the dogs that used to make such great sports prospects probably no longer do, because the unique combination of traits brought about by constant selection pressure for a high-level of stockwork no longer exists.

 

J.

[AllieMackie]

If a person was looking to get a breedworthy dog from someone like the late Mr Pulfer, they would no doubt be talking to the breeder about the strengths and weaknesses in the working style of the particular dog, and in the forebears, as that would be important in their consideration of building on strengths and minimising weaknesses in the dogs they would hope to produce.

 

While that's a fair reasoning, what makes you think that people wouldn't be asking the same of the breeder I'm referring to? I for one certainly asked about the work ethic of their collies, and there are brags of her breeding dogs and their offspring all over their site, for both herding and sports. I asked them a million questions before they were even able to tell me that their next few litters were booked.

 

What that first breeder says they do with the pups *isn't in and of itself a bad thing.* In fact, that they care enough to do the socializing, etc. is a *good* thing. I think the point of the contrast is where the emphasis is placed when advertising a litter. If I wanted a good working dog would I choose a breeder whose "only claim to fame," so to speak, is that they socialize their puppies well before 8 weeks old or one who's basically guaranteeing that his breeding program produces dogs that work? That's the gist of this whole discussion. If the dogs aren't properly bred to do what they're meant to do, then what comes after that doesn't really matter.

 

I understand your reasoning here, and it's true that their pups have a bold socialisation note on the website. However, as people have said on this site, websites can lie, and be misleading. Until you contact a breeder personally, you don't know squat about what they breed for, how the dog's temperaments are, how they fare in family-sized homes and yards, how their drive and impulse control is, etc. All the website does is give you names, accomplishments, and contact information. MAYBE more, if you're lucky. The website is just a way of establishing interest.

 

I only initially linked the breeders as a sample of what I was looking at, since they happened to have good websites available. I'm regretting that I posted them for the wrongful criticism they recieved, but that's in the past. Since I've linked them, I've knocked out all four of them as potentials in my book. Not because they're bad choices, but because litter plans aren't coinciding. The breeders were all better than I expected, and they never tried to "advertise" or "sell" a pup to me. They were even happier trying to help me make the right decision for a dog of my own than they were telling me about their own breeding process and their own dog's accomplishments. I've even arranged to visit one of the breeders just to gab about border collies and meet her dogs. Even though she's pretty much ruled out for getting my own puppy, she was happy just to have a fellow border collie fanatic visiting. Horrible, horrible people, I know.

 

I've found a few breeders that I've taken a strong interest in. This is both through referrals of owners of their offspring, and referrals of local working breeders that I've contacted who don't have litter plans in the next little while. I'll be pursuing them and asking questions, continually looking for my ideal pup. I'm keeping names and agruments/debates out of the public forums, but if anyone does want to discuss anything with me via PM, I'd be more than happy to chat.

[Smokjbc]

While that's a fair reasoning, what makes you think that people wouldn't be asking the same of the breeder I'm referring to? I for one certainly asked about the work ethic of their collies, and there are brags of her breeding dogs and their offspring all over their site, for both herding and sports. I asked them a million questions before they were even able to tell me that their next few litters were booked. :rolleyes:/

 

I've been lurking on this thread but I think the point being made is that most people wouldn't expect a breeder who emphasizes socialization over working ability to know the answer to those questions. Work ethic in the border collie simply cannot be tested in an agility field and while I agree that many of us do use these dogs to participate in the "sport" of sheepdog trialing, there simply is no comparison between the level of difficulty and the ability required out of the dog to compete successfully as an Open level sheepdog. A person who breeds dogs to compete in "herding", flyball or agility but who does not breed dogs to at least be trained to an Open level- if not necessarily a top competitor - will never really know what they have genetically in the individual dog or the breeding of that dog.

[Eileen Stein]

However, as people have said on this site, websites can lie, and be misleading. Until you contact a breeder personally, you don't know squat about what they breed for, how the dog's temperaments are, how they fare in family-sized homes and yards, how their drive and impulse control is, etc.

 

You don't necessarily know squat after that either.

 

Allie, you said you wanted to avoid sports breeders. I haven't a clue why you said it, since apparently it was not true. I haven't a clue why you posted asking for input, since you've done nothing but criticize people for not offering enough of it, and then criticize the people who offered it.

 

When you find a breeder you like, buy from that breeder. You don't need our approval, or our "chat."

[AllieMackie]

While that's a fair reasoning, what makes you think that people wouldn't be asking the same of the breeder I'm referring to? I for one certainly asked about the work ethic of their collies, and there are brags of her breeding dogs and their offspring all over their site, for both herding and sports. I asked them a million questions before they were even able to tell me that their next few litters were booked.

 

I've been lurking on this thread but I think the point being made is that most people wouldn't expect a breeder who emphasizes socialization over working ability to know the answer to those questions. Work ethic in the border collie simply cannot be tested in an agility field and while I agree that many of us do use these dogs to participate in the "sport" of sheepdog trialing, there simply is no comparison between the level of difficulty and the ability required out of the dog to compete successfully as an Open level sheepdog. A person who breeds dogs to compete in "herding", flyball or agility but who does not breed dogs to at least be trained to an Open level- if not necessarily a top competitor - will never really know what they have genetically in the individual dog or the breeding of that dog.

 

Now, I do understand what you're saying, and the importance of Open level for sheepdog trialing, what about someone who has no intention of doing sheepdog & herding work?

 

You don't necessarily know squat after that either.

 

Allie, you said you wanted to avoid sports breeders. I haven't a clue why you said it, since apparently it was not true. I haven't a clue why you posted asking for input, since you've done nothing but criticize people for not offering it, and then criticize the people who offered it.

 

When you find a breeder you like, buy from that breeder. You don't need our approval, or our "chat."

 

I'm honestly not trying to start a fight here, Eileen. I realize that my earlier posts got snarky. I apologize for that, to everyone who was affected by it, and that's why I initially excused myself from the thread. It's not worth it to get so upset over something posted on the internet. I sat back for a little while and thought about my reasons for coming here and asking questions. It's worth mentioning that other people seemed critical of me as well, and it gets pretty frustrating for someone who's new to looking for a BC breeder that's fit to their tastes.

 

When I said I was wishing to avoid sport breeders, I meant dogs that are bred without any sort of working instinct, dogs that have drive that's too high for a family home, and need to be kept in a big area to run around. I've met a few breeders with dogs like that. It's that kind of dog I've been trying toa void. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, initially, but I was very new to this. I've learned a great deal since then.

 

I'm not trying to start drama, nor am I trying to criticize people in a rude way. In the post I amde a few days ago, I was offering constructive criticism, with no intent to be rude. This is just what I've observed with this community. I don't expect to be welcomed with open arms regardless of my decisions, but I also didn't expect such a highly opinionated group of people. Not saying that's bad, just explaining my position.

 

I don't think "sport" breeders (combination breeders, I'd prefer to call them) are bad. Not all of them, in the very least. I've met with a few in the past week at local agility meets and at their homes, and I've been very impressed with a lot of the dogs. Friendly temperaments, calm in the house, but active, driven, and attentive when working. The reason I'm questioning everything I'm told here, is because I'm seeing valid proof that these dogs are of sound temperament, with excellent drive and control. There is nothing "wrong" with these dogs. For all that people say that's horrible about these dogs, I see something good, what I want in a dog.

 

I've spoken to a few friends, both online and local to me, that own dogs from combo herding/sport breeders. They adore their dogs, and live in simialr living situations as mine, and do the same things with their dogs as I would intend to do (agility, flyball, disc work, possibly dock diving). The best advice I've gotten so far, and this is from Amanda Milliken: meet offspring of breeders you're looking at, and talk to the owners. See if the situations match up to something you'd like in a dog. I've done that, and I've found some breeders that way.

 

Okay, this is getting long-winded, but I wanted to explain my decisions, and why I've been making them as I have. To me, the most important thing is that I have a good, hard-working border collie, and that we can be happy together.