Jump to content
BC Boards

Sympathy for the Devil


Recommended Posts

You won't get any argument from me that breeding for anything other than working ability is bad, but in the course of my research prompted by recent threads, I see how it can happen, even with the most well meaning breeder.

 

You're a breeder of working dogs with a line you're proud of.

 

You breed carefully planned litters for working ability alone but obviously not all will end up working for a living so you sell a few to agility homes and even have a go yourself.

 

You breed good dogs - they do well - more agility handlers want pups from you and do well with them.

 

At this point you are still breeding for working ability.

 

Then a top handler/breeder wants to mate your stud dog to her sport bitch.

 

You think "Where's the harm? It's not affecting my line."

 

All those pups go to agility homes and again do well.

 

People are knocking at your door for more and your farm could do with an injection of cash. What if you tried a litter from your own best performers in agility? It's not as if you've gone out deliberately to exploit an opening in the market after all.

 

And so the dilution begins - slowly at first but the snowball gathers pace.

 

It must take a really determined person to resist the temptation to take advantage of the demand. Maybe we should cut some of them a bit of slack? I know many of you won't agree but I'm in a fairly tolerant mood today. probably won't last though.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I totally understand how it could have been easily be diluted around the time when agility was just starting to blossom and I think it would be hard not to get sucked in by it all. For me, the first few breeders who went through this, I can sorta of understand their "dilemma" if you would call it. This being at the time when no one bred for agility and no one knew the consequences and where the gene pool was basically all working bred. It's the newer breeders who go into the "business" breeding for agility or conformation or whatever that have caused the problems we're dealing with today. It's them that we won't "cut the slack" on because they are going in, ammo in hand to ruin the breed (whether or not like they to think so). I do think about those breeders who were and still are around from the time agility was first starting, it would have been very easy to dilute your working Border Collie, and they probably got to a place they didn't think they would end up. And for most of the agility/conformation/whatever else breeders out there, I don't even know how to comment.

 

I'm sure others will chime in who are most educated in the history of this breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must take a really determined person to resist the temptation to take advantage of the demand. Maybe we should cut some of them a bit of slack? I know many of you won't agree but I'm in a fairly tolerant mood today. probably won't last though.

 

Pam

 

 

I'm going to take a stab at some ruin it for the many.

 

From my personal expereince I know that Purebred dogs can be found for sport and pet homes in rescue including pups.

 

Places like Astra which may have started out as well meaning with hearding dogs then switched later sold to unscrupulous buyers in the US promoted those dogs that were now in the US to US buyers who count afford that cost of a european pup but, guess what the owner was one M Harrison. Nice dog but, not worth the money paid for it esp without bc papers.

 

Heck I can even say I know for certain that the amish have purchased some dogs that have decent breeding on paper. I'm guessing they bought the pet sold to a person who on a whim didnt return the dog to a breeder. probably didnt even let them know. Once your name is out there it's impossible to control your end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally understand how it could have been easily be diluted around the time when agility was just starting to blossom and I think it would be hard not to get sucked in by it all. For me, the first few breeders who went through this, I can sorta of understand their "dilemma" if you would call it. This being at the time when no one bred for agility and no one knew the consequences and where the gene pool was basically all working bred. It's the newer breeders who go into the "business" breeding for agility or conformation or whatever that have caused the problems we're dealing with today.

 

It's not just dating back to the beginnings of agility, though, it can happen to any breeder of working dogs today who accidentally gets sucked in by the sport success of some of their pups.

 

I agree completely about those just hopping on the bandwagon.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, rescues have dogs available to sporting and pet homes, as well as working even. However, I don't think rescue was very prominent, or even existent when agility was first invented. People still bred their dogs for a job and sold them or gave them to farms or people who needed them. So when agility was starting to become popular, these working breeders couldn't just say "go to your local rescue and find your sporting partner". People bought Border Collies and other dogs that are popular for agility today, because of how focused, smart and athletic they are in working and bought them from working breeders because that was really all that was around. Eventually word gets out, people start buying your working dogs with no intention of working but for agility because they've heard that your offspring does well.

 

And then it happens, a breeder either sells out to the demand and says, "I'm going to keep breeding the dogs who are producing great athletes, as well as keep my working dogs for my farm" or worse "I'm just going to breed for agility now" and there were the breeders who just kept breeding only for work, to keep the breed as it was, and if someone bought it for agility and it did well, then that's great.

 

Good for the latter guys and even better the people who have remained to do that until this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there were the breeders who just kept breeding only for work, to keep the breed as it was, and if someone bought it for agility and it did well, then that's great.

 

Good for the latter guys and even better the people who have remained to do that until this day.

 

I was prompted to raise the question by looking at the site of a breeder who has been one of those - but I can see a little crack developing.

I just hope they hold firm.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do not agree with breeding for agility or sport, I do wonder about breeding for herding first and something else second - which I'm sure is a slippery slope.

 

I researched this board for a while before picking Odin's breeder, but now I think many here would not appreciate their philosophy. They told us that they breed for herding first (working goat farm) but that they will not breed dogs, even good herding stock, that do not have good even tempraments, especially with children and people in general. They have foster children and want all of their pack and the pups they breed to be trustworthy and capable of being a great companion animal "after the work day is done". They had picked their stud for this exact reason - he was great on the goats but also had an exceptionally wonderful, sweet personality with people.

 

I am not sure now whether I totally support this approach either, although I will say that it took me months of reading posts here to feel I truly understood the position of "breed for herding and NOTHING else." It does seem that dilution of herding ability would very easily occur if one was not hyper-vigilant about making SURE that was by far your primary consideration.

 

But if you were this hyper-vigilant, would it not be possible to breed dogs with a "major" and a "minor", as it were? Natural selection has shaped population gene frequencies via a number of co-occuring pressures - truly "fit" animals must be proficient in many different characters simulataneously to reproduce successfully in the wild.

 

As an aside, aren't certain herding techniques or "talents" more suited for sheep vs. geese, for instance? What if a breeder specialized in ability on geese but not sheep? How does that factor in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I'll take a bite of this issue and try not to ruffle to many feathers in the process.

 

First of all you have to break this down into what your really talking about.

 

Who are the devils in this issue?

 

You can place the Rescue organizations as a whole on the sideline here, they are not in the buisness of breeding animals.

I don't have actual statistics to support the numbers but I believe it is evident that Rescues account for a relativly small percentage of the total numbers of Border Collies being produced in the present breeding population.

 

This site clearly advocates what it sponsors as the best path by which the breed should be bred.

I personally may not 100% agree with that philosophy but I do however respect it and believe it to be a sound breeding regiment that has the ability to maintain the intergrity of the "working" Border Collie.

 

So where are the devils? well i believe they can be found in two camps so to speak.

 

Breeders for purpose

Breeders for profit

 

Now of course breeders for purpose can be broken down into various catagories but this is the group where I place the most ethical breeders.

 

Breeders who produce soley for working ability are in a fairly limited niche and anyone in this class of breeders who didn't/doesn't measure up would/will soon be boycotted and have no outlet for their surplus dogs and therefore discontinue putting litters on the ground.(if they are ethical)

 

Breeders oriented towards the sports,agility,service and conformation of the breed are a debatable group as far as dilution and evolution of the Border Collie breed and in my opinion are not all bad and not all good.

Are they producing Healthy stock that is satisfactory to their purpose? of course they are and will continue to take the breed down that path as long as there is a desire for the specific results.

 

Breeders who are producing stock for profit,well in my opinion this is where the bulk of the devils reside.

I am not saying that this entire group of breeders are all bad, I am sure that there exsist a certain number of them that are producing good healthy stock and they are ethical in their pratices,But I believe those are the minorty in this group.

 

The bottomline here is the breed we know as the Border Collie has long since left the hands of strickly working class breeders.

The volumn of the Border Collie population in todays world clearly indicate that fact.

Personally I have no issue with any breeder who does so in a manner that supports health and the well being of the animal/s they produce with a positive and fulfilling life for those animals.

 

Any breeder doing less,well those I do have a very intense issue with and they can rot in hell with the rest of the devils.

 

What shall be the evolution of the breed over the next 50 or so years? well time will tell but the cream always rises to the top and what its used for shall be determined by the desires of the time.

 

JMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who are the devils in this issue?

 

Simple - those who start off breeding for working ability and are seduced into gradually sliding into relaxing their standards to supply the sport market - possibly so gradually that they may not be aware it is happening until it is too late.

 

They are the ones I have some sympathy for. "Devils" in the sense of having slipped over to the dark side.

 

Anyone breeding deliberately for sport I have none.

 

As long as there is stock to work there is no need for the breed to evolve - other than to improve performance and physical soundness for that purpose.

 

No need to divert from that.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simple - those who start off breeding for working ability and are seduced into gradually sliding into relaxing their standards to supply the sport market - possibly so gradually that they may not be aware it is happening until it is too late.

Sorry but this statement just does not hold water.

Breeders for working ability are very percise and demanding in their breeding practices and the only ones who could be "seduced" as you word it are those who really weren't breeding with working ability as the paramount objective.

 

As long as there is stock to work there is no need for the breed to evolve - other than to improve performance and physical soundness for that purpose.

 

No need to divert from that.

 

At some point in the past perhaps this statement was theoretically conceivable.

The diversity of the breeding population of Border Collies has expanded far beyond the farm and ranch and the breed shall evolve into the future as surely as it has evolved from the wolf it once was.

The merit of such evolution, well the devil's in the details and time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No sympathy here. I understand the money aspect but its not worth selling your soul for.

 

Every BC I have purchased in my life has been from very strong and proven working lines. My Koda's Grandpa and Uncle have both been world finalists in herding trials with win records as long as my arm. BUT, Koda is due to be fixed next month as I have with all of my dogs.

 

The reason I wont breed them is because I am adamant about the dogs themselves and what has made them this way. The high drive, intelligence and herding instict are all important to me and thats what make them the wonderful dogs they are. If it wasnt for the breeding standards behind them they would be something else and Koda wouldnt be Koda.

 

Ryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but this statement just does not hold water.

Breeders for working ability are very percise and demanding in their breeding practices and the only ones who could be "seduced" as you word it are those who really weren't breeding with working ability as the paramount objective.

 

I think that's a very rigid POV.

People come in all varieties and putting them into boxes isn't really helpful in understanding them and how they find themselves in a particular situation.

Judging from the outside is easy. Life is rarely that simple.

 

Pam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a very rigid POV.

People come in all varieties and putting them into boxes isn't really helpful in understanding them and how they find themselves in a particular situation.

Judging from the outside is easy. Life is rarely that simple.

 

Pam

You are correct that my POV is rigid in this matter.

I don't see there being any waffle room on this paticular issue.

If a Breeder of working ability wavers in their objective to produce the best working dog by catering to potential alternative markets in their breeding decisions then they risk the prime objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok so I know that I am young, ignorant, and still learning the ways of the BC herding world, but shouldn't a dog that has been bred to work from an established working line be able to do agility/flyball/sports with ease? I agree that BCs should only be bred for working ability. But isn't a working dog bred for working/athletic ability? Stamina? as well as instinct and drive? So, isn't it safe to assume that a working line would be suited for agility and other sports anyway? Would that not stand to reason??

 

Maybe I'm way off base, or I couldn't get my question worded right... :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rachel,

That's exactly the argument that is routinely made on this forum. Dogs bred strictly for working ability will excel at doggy sports and other activities. There is no need to breed border collies specifically for these other activities. The qualities needed for those activities are inherent in well-bred working border collies.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's exactly the argument that is routinely made on this forum. Dogs bred strictly for working ability will excel at doggy sports and other activities. There is no need to breed border collies specifically for these other activities. The qualities needed for those activities are inherent in well-bred working border collies.

 

ok, so, how does the 'devil' alter these breeding goals? What's different about breeding for agility/sports instead of working? (besides focusing on instinct/drive, or did I hit the nail on the head?)... is it more of a body style thing? colors? something else?

 

Maybe it's just me, but I guess I don't understand why you'd change your breeding goals if what you're producing is already what you'd 'want' for the 'new goal' (which would be what, btw?) or what the agility/sport people want...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are knocking at your door for more and your farm could do with an injection of cash. What if you tried a litter from your own best performers in agility? It's not as if you've gone out deliberately to exploit an opening in the market after all.

 

I'm a marketing profesor and I can tell you this is exactly what this hypothetical person has done/is doing (exploiting an opportunity). You're implying that this is a problem of semantics and I'd suggest that it's really (whether you want to admit it or not) a matter of ethics . . .

 

Simple - those who start off breeding for working ability and are seduced into gradually sliding into relaxing their standards to supply the sport market (my emphasis)

 

The other misguided aspect of your argument is the implicit assumption that "relaxing standards" is necessary to supply the sport market. We're talking about how you breed, not who you sell the dog to. Many dogs bred for working ability make fine agility dogs that are demanded by the this particular niche.

 

Kim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, if someone is doing well at a sport with a particular dog and decides to breed that dog to another dog that is also doing well in a particular sport (and both dogs originally came from working stock), then suddenly you have a sport breeding and not a working breeding. In the first generation, the pups may well retain all the working characteristics that their parents had, but genetic drift will occur in subsequent generations (as breeders intentionally or inadvertently select for parts of the total original working package that seem most important for the sport at hand, say, small size and great speed for flyball). As that drift occurs over time, you end up with dogs that aren't the same as what you started with, and the complex set of genetic traits that make a great stockdog and great stockdog and also enable such dogs to excel at other things is irrevocably changed or lost altogether. Breeding dogs for conformation showing is one extreme example of this phenomenon. The conformation dogs started from working stock, but selection pressure over time was for a particular phenotype (structure and look) and as that was achieved, other aspects of the dog (namely excellent stockworking ability) was subsequently lost.

 

ETA: As Kim notes above, it's an ethical thing. I think the problem lies in owners of the dogs who come from working breedings who then choose to breed their dogs who are unproven on stock (their sports stars). The Catch-22 is that the ethical working breeder has to decide whether to sell pups into sport homes knowing that they might subsequently be used for breeding practices that are not in keeping with the original breeder's ethics (working breeding only) or not, and if the breeder chooses to do the latter, then the sports breeders are justified in their own breeding choices because "no working dog breeder will sell to them." If the working dog breeder tries to sell pups into sport homes with S/N contracts or non-breeding status, s/he might find s/he has difficulty finding buyers for the pups, since the folks who think they are buying future sports stars will of course want to have the option of breeding their dogs should they prove the be stellar in their owners' sport of choice.

 

I think that what happens with some breeders is that they start out with good working dogs then find that they have a huge sport market for their pups, so although they continue to breed from good working stock, they no longer prove the value of those dogs as working dogs (that is, the pups from the good working crosses are not themselves worked, so there's no actual proof of the good working cross, just perhaps that the parents were good working dogs) and just keep churning out pups for the sport market because that's where the money is. I personally wouldn't call these breeders working dog breeders, but you see quite a few of them out there, touting their breeding dogs as working dogs but no longer bothering to prove them on stock....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Breeding to produce better culls, I don't mean any disrespect, but it is the best way I can describe it. There are dogs that just don't pan out and selling those dogs as sport dogs I don't see a problem with. The non herding sporting events have given working dog breeders a nice place to send dogs that don't meet their working standards, or basically a home for their culls. There are two things as a breeder you can do as far as breeding culls, breed the culls to a good working dog in hopes of bringing the pups up to your established working standard, and in turn improving the line, or you can breed a working dog to the cull with the intentions of producing more culls specific to a sport. IMO, it comes down to intent, the second being the road you don't want to go down, which is adding to the problem of dogs being bred with little to no ability with no intentions on improving the line.

 

There is another entire can of worms when you have breeders that have unproven working dogs from so called "established lines" breeding them together just to produce registered dogs. They are selling them as working dogs when they really don't know and have no intentions of finding out, they are just producing puppies. It is a further digression of the breeding to produce better culls.

 

Deb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that the confirmation people sell their non competition dogs on spay/neuter contracts. I almost wonder if that should be considered a practice when selling a substandard working dog into a pet or sport home. But I also have tough time telling a person what they can and can't do with a dog they pay for, but then again, if they want my dog the sale is contingent on my conditions and if I want to protect my line by disallowing the breeding of my dogs that went to pet/sport homes it's within my right.

 

Deb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is another entire can of worms when you have breeders that have unproven working dogs from so called "established lines" breeding them together just to produce registered dogs. They are selling them as working dogs when they really don't know and have no intentions of finding out, they are just producing puppies. It is a further digression of the breeding to produce better culls.

 

This is what Jade comes from... I love her to death but I wish I would have been more aware of the 'breeding ethics' issues and essentially the above statement before I got her. I don't yet know the extent of her herding ability, I haven't been able to really seriously commit to it yet, but she is learning quite a bit, I'm always shocked to see what she remembers from our previous lessons that were usually a few weeks ago. Who knows how she'll turn out for workability... hopefully good... at the very least I can learn from/with her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you call breeders who are very well known and well respected and well established in the stockdog community who routinely stud their dogs to unproven and/or sport dogs, as long as those dogs are CBCA registered? Because one of our most kickass and beloved stockdog people does this *CONSTANTLY.* The folks who then have the pups go on to tell everyone they are from working stock (which technically they are) even though in almost all cases the bitch of the breeding has only "worked" at flyball or agility, or in some cases at NOTHING ... but has a nice working pedigree behind her. And frequently these matings and the pups are advertised on this persons' website as well, so people can contact the owner of the bitch to buy one of said pups.

 

I'm being serious. Where does this person slot into the overall scheme of ethical stockdog breeding? This person is really highly regarded, and no one says "boo" about the fact that they produce a serious portion of the area's "working bred" sport and companion dogs.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debbie,

The problem with the idea of selling culls to sport home is that my definition of a cull is a dog who didn't cut it as a stock dog. The dog would have to be a young adult before I'd know it wasn't working out and decided to sell it. Now consider all the folks who come to this forum stating that they're looking for a puppy to raise for dog sports. Despite the number of people who will come along to such a discussion and point out that an adolescent/young dog would be a better choice because one would be much better able to assess its suitability as a sports prospect, most of those puppy buyers protest that they absolutely must raise the dog from puppyhood in order to ensure that they end up with the best possible sports competitor. That's the number one reason such folks won't accept the suggestion to go through rescue for a sports prospect and they would give the exact same reason for not wanting someone's working cull--it's not a puppy and therefore it couldn't possibly have had the right start (all those unknowns in it's past for doG's sake!) to turn out as a sports champion....

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm being serious. Where does this person slot into the overall scheme of ethical stockdog breeding? This person is really highly regarded, and no one says "boo" about the fact that they produce a serious portion of the area's "working bred" sport and companion dogs.

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you asking whether because this person is "highly regarded" does this make it OK for them to breed for reasons other than to improve working ability? The answer to that should be pretty obvious . . . Or are you suggesting that the people who have posted that it's not OK to do this are a bunch of hypocrites?

 

Kim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. My real question is - if the stockdog community is really so concerned about preserving the breed, why does this person get a pass for their breeding activities. It's kind if rhetorical, so I left off the question mark. Is it because this person is really nice (true) and breeds and trains up/sells really nice working dogs when they do this internally (also true) and places impressively in lots of trials (also true) that the whole "other" breeding thing is just invisible?

 

What I'm saying is, this is what is frustrating for people who are learning about stockdogs and trying to figure out what a good stockdog breeder. If you ask ANYONE around here in the trialling community who a good person to get a working dog from is, this individual's name comes up more often that not. Nobody acknowledges that every year half a dozen suspect breedings go back this person's studs, and lots of the time when you go to this breeder, you get directed to one of those litters (the person in question breeds their own bitches / raises their own puppies infrequently so redirects you to a litter one of their dogs has studded). Are you getting a working bred dog? Technically, I guess so. Reputation good - check. Breeder trials successfully and impressively - check. Breeder has registered dogs with impressive pedigrees - check. But are you buying a well bred stockdog? Well ....

 

When this person breeds their own litters, it seems to be to "improve working ability" (an overused phrase I think) but I cannot in good conscience suggest that all breedings involving this person's dogs would fall into that category. So ... ethical breeder of stockdogs .... sometimes ...?

 

I dunno. I think this where the system falls down under its own ethical load. It's really hard for people - especially noobs - to figure out who is and is not a good stockdog breeder. It's such a convoluted "ethic" that noobs get really frustrated, throw up their hands, and go buy a dog 'somewhere.' I just don't think it's as easy to find one as we tell them it is.

 

Honestly, the person in question - I adore them! I think they are wonderful peeps, done me good turns etc ... but I still don't know how to feel about those half a dozen breedings a year to sport or non-working bitches, and I wonder where and when it's okay to relax the standards of "breeding to improve ability" and still call that person a good stockdog breeder.

 

RDM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...