AKC vs. Other Herding (Working) Breeds

[border_collie_crazy]

no..its wasnt on purpose. I was naive and was told by many people that her lines were highly dual purpose. I bought her with the intention of feild trials. heck when I contacted the breeder giving all my intentions with the dog, she is the specific dog I was offered, supposedly fitting my intentions. she grew up very pretty, but completly and utterly usless for anything I wanted to do. beleive me she is my first and last dog with show breeding behind her lol. at least at the retriever classes I learned about some REAL working Toller breeders so I have somewhere to start next time.

 

as for why I show her? quite simply? she loves it. I have tried a lot of things with her, she not only isnt good at them, she doesnt enjoy them. I enjoy competing in whatever my dog happens to enjoy. I dont like Agility, but Rusty loves it so much that I love to do it with him. I dont find obedience fun, but Misty LOVES it, and that makes it fun for me. I dont enjoy conformation showing, but Electra adores it, and that makes me enjoy doing it with her. none of these are things I would go out of my way to do with a dog, but I enjoy doing them with the individual dog.

 

I also wanted to mention that I dont activly show her, I am not activly persuing anything in regaurds to conformation..she is not even CKC registered, I show maybe once a year as "Listed" so she has points but they are not even attached to her name lol

[DTrain]

On the opposite end of the scale and if you go and search out pictures you are liable to find that champions ( real herding champions ) for the past ten years or so would not qualify or most certainly would not win an AKC event based on looks alone. If you check some of the websites of top breeders of real herding BC's you will find many beautiful dogs but not one of them conform to AKC standards. Many of them do however lead the way in developing real herding dogs to the highest possible standards. Thankfully, while AKC is bringing the world the perfect looking working breed these breeders are attempting to bring us the perfect working dog. AKC has had another negative effect. They have helped to make the border collie quite popular as pets and play things or TV commercial trick dogs and they have helped the world understand what a border collie looks like. I have been asked by people what my dogs are. When I tell them BC's many people object because they have seen BC's and what they should look like and I must be mistaken, they must be some sort of cross. I like to say these are working BC's. These are the guys that get out there in any weather and work. Sure, they don't look right but they are real working dogs.

[mum24dog]

One of the complaints of the working JRT people is that the show JRTs now generally have rib cages too wide to permit the dogs to negotiate tunnels.

 

True up to a point, but it depends on the work the dog is intended to do - rats, rabbits, foxes, badgers.

 

This is my JRT - 15 ins or so at the withers (not a Parson - it takes more than leg length to look like a Parson) -

 

 

He definitely has a rib cage too wide to go to ground except after large prey. However, he is typical of the type used to run with the hounds (before the hunting ban) in the north of the Lake District in England.

 

A friend has a tiny JRT from a working litter - half had long legs, half short.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

In England we have met a number of dogs who did not look as we expected from the name: Labrador retriever, golden retriever, cocker spaniel come to mind. When we noted that, we were told, in each case, that,"This is a working dog. Of course you wouldn't recognize it. It's not one of your AKC dogs."

 

We have always told them that the AKC sure isn't "ours". And we have found the working version way more attractive than the AKC version. The cocker spaniels were the most unlike what we call that. The head is small and way more rounded. The whole body is smaller and tighter. And they couldn't step on their ears if they tried. But they can work well with hunters and wardens.

 

There isn't such a battle with our KC with those breeds though. They don't have rival registries (as far as I know) and purebred dogs from working lines are registered with the KC without any pressure to barbify them. The huntin' shootin' and fishin' types have a lot of influence in the KC and wouldn't allow them to be ruined, I'm sure. Their dogs just wouldn't get anywhere in the show ring. I'm sure they cry themselves to sleep about that.

 

As for working cockers - they vary a lot in size. They're popular in agility at present - many are tiny but some are 16 ins + at the withers. Know what you mean about the ears. Less coat and a longer dock too in the working type. Same applies to Springers.

 

Pam

[blackNwhite]

They believe that they are breeding towards "perfection" which includes standardization not only of skeletal and muscular characteristics but also of coat, eye set, ear set, color, etc. (and all those so-very-important surface and cosmetic features); don't believe that working instincts are diluted or lost when one is not breeding for them (although how anyone could think you could or should or must breed for these other characteristics, but working ability will take care of itself is beyond me);

 

I guess one problem is getting people to understand what working ability means. I recall watching (I believe) Westminister one year and the top BC owner was talking about how their dog was a 'real working dog' who helps out on the farm and they showed a short clip of the dog working. I personally thought the dog worked very poorly and did not reflect what I would expect in a good working dog (And I mean any working dog, not just a BC). It did not seem to have much instinct and flopped around a great deal causing the sheep to be disturbed. I would have been embarrassed to have my own dog represented in that way, regardless of it's breed.

 

As someone in the loose eyed world who trials in AKC I talk to a lot of people who adamantly believe their dogs have working ability, myself included. My sheltie can gather out of a 20 acre field unassisted, do blind outruns, load trailers, sort and we're working on shedding (because he'll shortly be required to do that for higher working levels in the big field). Does he have working ability? Of course he does. But it took about 3 years to train him to that level and he's still not as good as my yr old working bred BC. He's not as good because he doesn't have a lot of instinct to find and hold balance, he doesn't have the speed and drive to cover. So while he certainly is a good working dog, it's certainly not a standard i'd want to be breeding for. So by one standard you might say he's got 'working ability' but if you look at what's really possible with a dog with great instinct, he doesn't.

 

And i think, with AKC, if BC owners watch herding being done and they kind of fit in with the rest of the group, they can convince themselves that the dog has not lost anything. If their dog did fairly well on the A (arena) course and qualified and possibly even beat some other folks in the ring, they could believe that this is indicative that their breeding has not lessened the herding ability of their dogs. And i find that there is (sadly) very little crossover between venues for most people. The folks i see in AKC, I generally don't see in USBCHA (and I can say the same for ASCA and AHBA - although I'd have to say the AHBA folks seem to be the most interested in just herding and not in a particular venue) and vice versa. So it's easy for the folks in one venue to blind themselves to any learning (or teaching) that might go on in the others. It's not until you have a dog that comes with natural behaviors that fit a good working model (a dog that naturally has a great outrun or a great walkup) or you see a working dog doing a double lift and international shed that you see what 'working ability' really means and how very much can be lost in a short time. And I think, until that matters to the breeder, they can continue to convince themselves that the dogs won't lose much by being bred for other purposes.

[juliepoudrier]

BlackNWhite,

It's a shame that you are in the extreme minority in your beliefs in the world of AKC herding. Too bad more folks in that world don't think or understand things the way you do.

 

J.

[Angie H]

BlackNWhite,

It's a shame that you are in the extreme minority in your beliefs in the world of AKC herding. Too bad more folks in that world don't think or understand things the way you do.

 

J.

Yeah, what she said...

 

I enjoyed your explanation.... well put.

[ziggzmom]

If you check some of the websites of top breeders of real herding BC's you will find many beautiful dogs but not one of them conform to AKC standards.

 

Is that really the case, or is it that the 'Barbie Collie' is what is presented to the breed judges the majority of the time, so that 'must' be what a 'real' BC looks like?

 

Janet

[Janba]

Is that really the case, or is it that the 'Barbie Collie' is what is presented to the breed judges the majority of the time, so that 'must' be what a 'real' BC looks like?

 

Janet

 

I think a lot of working bred BCs would conform to the show standard, they would just never win in the ring because they don't conform to the current fashion. A lot of what you see in the show ring is fashion not in the standard like the perfect classsic markings - the standard here just states that they must have some white and the solid colour must predominate.

[juliepoudrier]

Is that really the case, or is it that the 'Barbie Collie' is what is presented to the breed judges the majority of the time, so that 'must' be what a 'real' BC looks like?

 

Janet

Janet,

I think it's actually somewhat opposite to what you stated. A judge (or several) puts up a particular type (look) of dog and the next thing you know everyone is trying to breed something that looks just like the winner. So the judges have influenced the breeding by choosing a particular look early on, which then became the standard you now see in the ring. (A non-border collie example is the borzoi--color is allowed by the standard, but you almost never see anything but a white dog with spots put up. People take into the ring the dog they think they can win with, and if judges generally put up mostly white dogs, the average competitor isn't going to show up with a black borzoi in a Don Quixote-esque attempt to change the system, so to speak. They're going to show up with the dog that looks the most like what has won in the past, and for a borzoi that means mostly white with some spots. For the border collie, it means something that looks like the typical barbie collie.) The actual breed standard allows for a lot more variability, but the reality is that the judges are going to put up the dogs that look like Barbie collies because that's what the judging has created as the de facto standard in the ring. We needn't even delve into the politics, etc., behind the judging....

 

J.

[blackNwhite]

I think a lot of working bred BCs would conform to the show standard, they would just never win in the ring because they don't conform to the current fashion. A lot of what you see in the show ring is fashion not in the standard like the perfect classsic markings - the standard here just states that they must have some white and the solid colour must predominate.

 

A lot of them do conform to the standard but don't look like judges expect them to look so they are not put up in the placings. A friend of mine (who is an AKC judge) was asked to judge their national specialty for one class. Now this person does not own BC's but does own herding dogs and sheep and does herding so the expectation when presented with a herding dog is to have a dog that looks like it can herd along with proper conformation. This judge knows that short legs, lots of bone and over fluffed hair does nothing to help the dog work. So the dog this judge put up (gave the winning ribbon to) was the dog she thought best fit the BC standard and could probably work all day. As it turns out, it was a working bred dog, not a conformation bred dog. Let's just say that all concerned (the winners and losers) were shocked. All the fluffy conformation dogs (who were the dogs that normally win) went home empty handed and very unhappy and I suspect this person may not be asked to return. I suspect that most judges would not rock the boat (1) because they'd like to be invited back and (2) they have no idea what herding requires and so the dog with lots of bone, fluff and short legs looks just fine to them.

Aussies are in the middle of a schism right now where in AKC, the conformation dogs are being put up (winning) but in ASCA shows, they're looking for a dog that looks like a working dog so the conformation dogs are not doing so well. I do hope the working bred dogs hold their own in this.

[Lenajo]

You're missing the whole point.

 

The point is that the Border Collie should *never* be judged on superficial appearence - or conformation as it "appears" to be in a non-working situation such as a show ring.

 

Not if we want to keep this breed what it should be.

 

It's just as wrong to say a dog can't work because it's short legged and hairy, as is to say it can work because it's long legged and bald.

 

You have to work the dog. That's the only way to really know. The rest is just speculation and empty observations.

 

Regarding showing the whole premise is wrong - the judging preferences are just the scapegoats (willing ones, but still) for a bad system.

[SoloRiver]

The AKC Border Collie standard is very, very vague. This is the result of a schism within BCSA and fairly recent changes to the standard. Those in BCSA with working bred dogs theorized that the types of squat, fluffy dogs rewarded under the "old system" would never stand up to a hard day's work, and protested that a good working dog comes in many different forms (yes, there is an apparent contradiction here, see Wendy's post above). So they pushed for, and got, a standard worded broadly enough to encompass the variation present in working Border Collies (for the most part).

 

What they got was something that came back to bite them in the ass, since the entire point of dog showing is to compare the animal before you to a very specifically worded standard -- a Platonic ideal. A standard that basically says "anything goes" is not actionable under this paradigm. It gives you no real criteria by which to prefer one animal over another. All that a vague standard did was really and truly give judges carte blanche to put up what they personally liked. It opened the field big and wide for fashion to totally take over. And the squat, fluffy dogs still win.

 

It doesn't matter what judges put up in the ring because no matter what they reward, it has nothing to do with what the breed should actually be judged by. You can "educate" judges all you want about what Border Collies are supposed to be, but the venue still makes it impossible to put up the best dog on a particular day. The greatest sheepdog trainer and handler in the world is not going to be able to evaluate a row of Border Collies standing in front of him, or trotting at the end of a lead, and tell you which dog is the best dog there. The entire enterprise is totally nonsensical.

[MrSnappy]

as is to say it can work because it's long legged and bald.

 

OMG! Sport must be the World's Top Herding Dog then!!

 

RDM

[Lenajo]

He may have that very title if he would just eat. You tell him that.

[blackNwhite]

The AKC Border Collie standard is very, very vague. This is the result of a schism within BCSA and fairly recent changes to the standard. Those in BCSA with working bred dogs theorized that the types of squat, fluffy dogs rewarded under the "old system" would never stand up to a hard day's work, and protested that a good working dog comes in many different forms (yes, there is an apparent contradiction here, see Wendy's post above). So they pushed for, and got, a standard worded broadly enough to encompass the variation present in working Border Collies (for the most part).

 

What they got was something that came back to bite them in the ass, since the entire point of dog showing is to compare the animal before you to a very specifically worded standard -- a Platonic ideal. A standard that basically says "anything goes" is not actionable under this paradigm. It gives you no real criteria by which to prefer one animal over another. All that a vague standard did was really and truly give judges carte blanche to put up what they personally liked. It opened the field big and wide for fashion to totally take over. And the squat, fluffy dogs still win.

 

I'm aware of the schism and believe that a dog that no longer works is not really a BC. I'm totally in favor of a separation of dogs where the AKC bred dogs are known by a new name. But even under that new name with a separation, I'd prefer to see the 'new breed' dogs judged on a criteria based on a (even though it is still physical standard) herding heritage rather than having them go the way of the GSD. Don't get me wrong, I am also not against the AKC disappearing and instead being replaced by an organization that judges dogs only on working criteria. I don't think it's going to happen though.

[SoloRiver]

I'd prefer to see the 'new breed' dogs judged on a criteria based on a (even though it is still physical standard) herding heritage

 

 

Why? What would be the point?

 

Have you ever been to a sheepdog trial? If you got a good look at the range of variation present in the working dogs, you might have a better idea of why trying to judge "herding potential" by looking at a dog stacked in the ring is a total waste of time.

 

I could care less what the Barbie Collies look like. They can put up all the fluffy black and white couch cushions they want. As far as I'm concerned, they have zero to do with my dogs, and the bigger the schism, the better.

[mjk05]

It's just as wrong to say a dog can't work because it's short legged and hairy, as is to say it can work because it's long legged and bald.

 

You have to work the dog. That's the only way to really know.

 

Exactly.

 

The problem isn't the content of the standard, or judges' interpretations of the standard- it's the fact that the standard exists, and is used to define or judge sheepdogs. Sheepdogs are defined and should be judged by their work.

[DTrain]

I have never given AKC much attention until I moved east. The more I look into this situation the more I am ticked off. I have been doing some research on the web and have reviewed the standards AKC has set for working breeds and I am gaining a much better understanding of what has happened in the decline of the Aussie. I am disgusted to find that what has happened to the Aussie is the same direction the border collie is taking. Have located a number of sites of conformation breeders and although they are working very hard to produce the right look very little is mentioned on their sites about herding or training. The attached is a picture of a conformation bread border collie from a top breeder. I understand now when people approach me on the street and ask what kind of dogs mine are and then give me an argument when I make the wild claim that they are border collies. Something must have gone wrong in their breeding, they don't look right and they act like crazy dogs doing 600 yard outruns on sheep and working cutes with cattle. Apparently I am also incorrect in calling my dogs just border collies and making the wild claim that they originated ( although they must be a different dog ) on the border between Scotland and England by nice farm people who were determined to build the perfect herding dog for real life work. I should correct myself and gain a better understanding if I am going to claim to be a knowledgeable border collie owner, these are American Border Collies, when did that slip in to the big picture. My guys were bread in Alberta but go back to some great Briton lines, I am uninformed. I feel badly my guys don't look like the latest fashionable standard and that they need to be toned down considerably if they are going to qualify by AKC herding standards. The more I research the more I discover that AKC has in fact set the standard for what the border collie or American border collie is for most people. I wonder if my guys are ashamed of themselves when knowledgeable people on the street point out that they look terrible. I am beginning to understand perhaps why my young dog Dave barks at people. Perhaps he is not fear aggressive at all, perhaps he is attempting to defend the real stock dog, ranch working border collie. He is a farm boy from southern Alberta and perhaps has a cowboy opinion.

[Sue R]

I could care less what the Barbie Collies look like. They can put up all the fluffy black and white couch cushions they want. As far as I'm concerned, they have zero to do with my dogs, and the bigger the schism, the better.

 

The problem isn't the content of the standard, or judges' interpretations of the standard- it's the fact that the standard exists, and is used to define or judge sheepdogs. Sheepdogs are defined and should be judged by their work.

 

My sentiments, also. Make them so different that folks who don't know any better can tell them apart, please give them another name to make it even more obvious to the oblivious, and don't support an organization that promotes conformation showing/breeding of the Border Collie (or any other breed with a purpose).

[ShoresDog]

I've already had several people say, "Yeah, border collie mixed with what?" about Juno. Well, she certainly doesn't look like the dog in DTrain's post!

[Pearse]

I am also not against the AKC disappearing and instead being replaced by an organization that judges dogs only on working criteria. I don't think it's going to happen though.

 

It happened long before the AKC ever took an interest in Border Collies. The ISDS in the UK and the USBCHA here in N. America hold competitive events (called stockdog trials) in which the dog is judged by its ability to work livestock.

 

The problem for most people used to the AKC (or most of the sport dog organization) way of doing things is that there are no "titles" for the owners to parade around and use for bragging rights or breeding excuses. You are either that year's champion, or you aren't (although champions do get a #,##, or * by their name in a pedigree to denote UK National Champion, International Champion, or USBCHA champion, but that is 4 or fewer dogs per year).

 

Titles serve two purposes; stroke the ego of the owner/handler, and stoke the coffers of the organization handing out the titles. It's great when someone who knows something about stockdogs compliments your dog at a trial, but you can't go waving that in the face of a potential customer. So much the better and long may it continue that way.

 

Pearse

[kelpiegirl]

Don't forget- the origin of show Border Collies started overseas- not in the USA, and people still import these special border collies. I am aghast at that picture- truly.

 

I have never given AKC much attention until I moved east. The more I look into this situation the more I am ticked off. I have been doing some research on the web and have reviewed the standards AKC has set for working breeds and I am gaining a much better understanding of what has happened in the decline of the Aussie. I am disgusted to find that what has happened to the Aussie is the same direction the border collie is taking. Have located a number of sites of conformation breeders and although they are working very hard to produce the right look very little is mentioned on their sites about herding or training. The attached is a picture of a conformation bread border collie from a top breeder. I understand now when people approach me on the street and ask what kind of dogs mine are and then give me an argument when I make the wild claim that they are border collies. Something must have gone wrong in their breeding, they don't look right and they act like crazy dogs doing 600 yard outruns on sheep and working cutes with cattle. Apparently I am also incorrect in calling my dogs just border collies and making the wild claim that they originated ( although they must be a different dog ) on the border between Scotland and England by nice farm people who were determined to build the perfect herding dog for real life work. I should correct myself and gain a better understanding if I am going to claim to be a knowledgeable border collie owner, these are American Border Collies, when did that slip in to the big picture. My guys were bread in Alberta but go back to some great Briton lines, I am uninformed. I feel badly my guys don't look like the latest fashionable standard and that they need to be toned down considerably if they are going to qualify by AKC herding standards. The more I research the more I discover that AKC has in fact set the standard for what the border collie or American border collie is for most people. I wonder if my guys are ashamed of themselves when knowledgeable people on the street point out that they look terrible. I am beginning to understand perhaps why my young dog Dave barks at people. Perhaps he is not fear aggressive at all, perhaps he is attempting to defend the real stock dog, ranch working border collie. He is a farm boy from southern Alberta and perhaps has a cowboy opinion.

[JaderBug]

to the picture of the Barbie Collie...

 

Aaaagh!! My eyes!! They burn!!! It's so ugly!!!! haha...

 

I agree, there needs to be a separation of the two breeds. They are no longer one and the same (they haven't been for quite a long time either...)

[JaderBug]

Do Aussies disown their AKC counterparts as much as BCs do?? or other split breeds?