Sympathy for the Devil

[Lenajo]

Out of the many of you who work your dogs on stock on a daily or almost-daily basis, how many of those dogs are from purely working-bred lines?

 

all of them.

 

I have had numerous dogs here over the years belonging to clients, friends and students who were not pure working breeding. While liking many of those dogs as individuals, I also had to deal with limits in the performance department. A few I suspect could probably have made open level dogs with daily work, but that will never be known because of their home situation.

 

I wouldn't bet the barn on it.

[kelpiegirl]

With all due respect, just because a dog is "working" bred, doesn't say a dang about how it works. You can have a stellarly bred dog, and have garbage, and a garbage bred dog and have it be the best worker you have ever had. I have been told of folks importing dogs from top of the heap lines, and said dogs would not work sheep- first hand knowledge of this. It is almost like a badge of honor- that gets thrown around a bit much for me. I don't think anyone on these boards has ever posted " one of my working bred collies just couldn't work, even though he was wonderfully bred". It's almost like it would be sacrilege- as it would skew the message that is driven home. Breed for working only, and then you some how protect the breed. Breed for GOOD working, and you protect the breed, but to effectively have a waiver, that you are doing good for the breed, because you breed "working" bred dogs, doesn't wash in my humble opinion. The proof is in the pudding, and I think to some extent some folks may rely on pedigree a bit too much when selecting who to breed do, and when the majority of the pups don't make muster, it is not talked about, or blamed a long back relative which had the same problem.

 

Track records speak volumes. When I see a 9 year old dog still competing successfully along with his son and grandson, that's when I start believing in those lines. My feeling is 1) see the dog work 2) see the parents work 3) see the pedigree

[Lenajo]

I think the best thing I could suggest to you here is that *patience does pay off* You would be better off waiting 2 years for a purprose bred pup than getting one from the people who keep steady litters of pups for sale.

 

That said, have you asks the breeders you like who don't have pups if there is a litter they can recommend?

 

 

Fair enough. And my question was mostly posed because, yes, I do have a bit of trouble finding good working breeders. Rather, I have found several good, reputable, amazing stockdog handlers (you Ontario/Canada locals know the names - Amanda Milliken and Werner Reitboeck are two), but they have no litter plans for the next few years. I'm heading up to the Kingston trials this week, hopefully for a whole day depending on my work schedule. I'll be introduced to a handful of folks who also work stockdogs and breed every so often. It'll be nice to get into the local crowd, as I do want to try my future dog on stock, for fun if nothing else. (I knit compulsively, so a sheep farm isn't out of my realm of future possibilities...)

In the meantime, you get a noob hanging out on your forums and drawing pics of your BCs.

 

Thanks for the answer(s) and the tips!

[bcnewe2]

All but the ones that don't work.

 

I've have lots of friends who got their dogs before getting into the work, They struggle way more than the good working dog owner, they have to train in what is not bred into their dogs. IMO way harder to do without near the success. The serious ones are already thinking about getting different dogs. They will keep the dogs they have but have learned if you want to dabble in this art you better have the right tools or you're never gonna get it.

 

 

I did not mean to imply that I was breeding any of my dogs. I have not, am not, and will not be breeding any of them at this point in time… perhaps down the road it will be in the cards. Who knows how far down the road but hopefully the opportunity presents itself. And no, I won’t breed for anything less than herding ability.

 

Jaderbug

that is what I eluded to before. Almost all beginners will say the same thing. But knowing when you are qualified to make those decisions is the hard part. Why do we feel so drawn into breeding our special dogs? I say we because I feel the same way, but won't because it's just to easy to buy what I'm looking for rather than build it.

 

Kristen

[Lenajo]

Kelpiegirl says nobody will say "one of my working bred collies just couldn't work, even though he was wonderfully bred".

 

I don't recall anyone implying that...but if it makes you feel better....

 

.....I have several working bred dogs, including one Aussie and one Border Collie of my breeding, that aren't worth a poop on sheep. They work, but one is untrainable at any distance (not to mention has a bear of a temperament with strange dogs and many people) and the other is horribly weak with a tail set to make a Scots shepherd gag. I love them though, and they have made excellent pets who bring us a lot of joy. The BC is also introducing me to Flyball (don't faint Becca, I'm really trying it...can't believe I'm attempting the noisy sport ) The Aussie is getting old and holds down the foot of the bed.

 

I also have 2 other dogs, one had run Open for me for several years pretty well and the other is coming up to it, who for varying reasons I don't feel are breeding quality. (I was the breeder of both of them - so I guess "kennel blind" isn't my current problem.) One is neutered and the other will be soon. I have no plans to "dump" either of them and they will work and trial until retirement, then play until they die in my arms...hopefully as very old and very happy dogs.

 

They are good work dogs, good trial dogs, well loved dogs........... they are not breeding dogs. There is not shame in anything about that. Not all dogs should have pups.

 

You will always get working "failures" even in purpose bred, 100% work lines. Considering that, what do figure the failure rate will be in lines that are only 50% purpose, and 50% whim? how about lines who are purpose bred for one thing - speed, or maybe retrieve, or better yet their form over jumps? Just because someone ignores 99% of the genetics in the dog doesn't mean they stop working and combining based on the cross made!

 

Breeding is a crapshoot at best. Trying to breed Border Collies without purpose (or from "garbage" lines - to borrow you phrase) for high level work is like trying to play darts blindfolded in a room full of balloons full of nuclear waste. Mostly pointless and senseless, with huge potential fall out!

[bcnewe2]

Hey Julie I have one of those dogs. She has nice papers, but I bought her when I was under the impression (or didn't know any better) that papers would give me the dog I wanted.

She's wonderful at what she does and looks good out in the field but I would never take her out when I needed to count on a dog for work.

 

So now there's 2 of us that have admitted to the "sacrilege" and FWIW I didn't breed her.

 

Kristen

[Debbie Meier]

Jake - Working Lines

 

Riley - Unknown, result of a byb, parents did not work a lick, but I would'nt give her up for the world at lambing time

 

Bee - Working lines bottom, top, well sire is a trial dog everything behind him is local Iowa breeding, who knows if they worked or not.

 

Bandit - No real line, just a border collie, there's a couple that produced sport dogs on his pedigree.

 

There are a lot of farm border collies in our parts that are being bred because they have ABCA or AKC papers, are just nice farm dogs, stay out of trouble and alert when strangers arrive. They are not being bred to work livestock, though a person looking for a pup will be told that the pups are from good working lines.

 

Of the four, Jake would need a handler with expirence to train or a lot of support from a trainer, if you left it up to him, he would leave you marooned while off pirating the ship. Almost too much dog for small little Iowa farm lots.

 

Riley, Bee and Bandit, all rescues, have lesser talent and raw drive then Jake but are still useful on the farm, I don't know that Bee and Bandit would make it out of the arena trial world. Riley has the scope but it is yet to be seen if she can be convinced to apply herself to my wishes rather then her own agenda.

 

 

Deb

[kelpiegirl]

What I am getting at Lenajo, is NOT that there IS a comparison between breeding work/non work- as you alluded to, what I am getting at is the work/work some how validates that is is automatically a good working dog, worthy of some higher respect on those premises alone. As I said, the proof is in the pudding.

[Debbie Meier]

It is easy to also forget that the dog falling into the right hands has a lot to do with what the dog does, both Riley and Bee are here because trialers could not get them to work, they just needed a different approach, I'm using them to proof my training. Will they make open dogs, don't know, wouldn't bet on it, it is to early to tell but they do work, if anything else I can salvage them to be small acrage farm dogs with a lot of "Bells and Whistles" trained into them. My dog Jake in the wrong hands could have been dead, but I do think he could be open caliber if I don't screw him up. Is he one that I will be able to trust to make the right decisions when I'm not able to monitor him....maybe....Riley, yes.

 

Deb

[juliepoudrier]

With all due respect, just because a dog is "working" bred, doesn't say a dang about how it works.

 

Did anyone make this claim? AllieMackie's question was whether those of us who work our dogs have dogs from strictly working lines. She didn't ask whether, nor did anyone claim, that the dogs are exceptional workers. She simply asked if those of us who worked our dogs had dogs that were strictly working bred.

 

You can have a stellarly bred dog, and have garbage, and a garbage bred dog and have it be the best worker you have ever had.

 

Is this supposed to be some revelation? How often in these breeding discussions (and even in discussions where we encourage someone not to get a pup if they really want some sort of guarantee of temperament, ability, etc.) do we state that pups are a "pig in a poke" and that breeding is a crap shoot, which of course leads into the discussion about why it makes sense to breed the proven to the proven--to increase the odds of getting a good worker. No one has ever claimed on this forum to my knowledge that proven working breedings will always produce exceptional workers. In fact, the claim is always that doing so will increase your odds of getting good workers. (I think it's Bill Fosher who has often used the analogy that if you were trying to produce a winning basketball team, you would choose your breeding stock from short, fat guys and gals.)

 

I don't think anyone on these boards has ever posted " one of my working bred collies just couldn't work, even though he was wonderfully bred".

 

Hmmmm....in my post previous to this one, I mention a dog I have who is from working lines (good ones) on both sides who is a "working washout." I guess you just didn't notice that comment (or chose to ignore it).

 

It's almost like it would be sacrilege- as it would skew the message that is driven home. Breed for working only, and then you some how protect the breed. Breed for GOOD working, and you protect the breed, but to effectively have a waiver, that you are doing good for the breed, because you breed "working" bred dogs, doesn't wash in my humble opinion.

 

You've been on these boards long enough that I can't even believe you're saying this. Let me refer you back to the numerous discussions in which we encourage folks to get their next sports dog from working breeders. Every time that suggestion is made, and it's made A LOT so I can't believe you've somehow missed it, someone with working dogs notes that not all dogs out of working-bred litters will cut it as workers. Please tell me how we've been waivering on that topic--all you have to do is go back and read previous discussions (any one of the ones where someone posts looking for a pup for agility would be a good place to start) and you'll see that the--let me repeat--not all working-bred dogs will cut it as workers message appears.

 

The proof is in the pudding, and I think to some extent some folks may rely on pedigree a bit too much when selecting who to breed do, and when the majority of the pups don't make muster, it is not talked about, or blamed a long back relative which had the same problem.

 

These are huge, sweeping assumptions you are making, and coming from someone whose working dog of choice isn't even a border collie, and whose experience with working border collies is limited, it's a bit presumptuous I think. Maybe in your experience, people rely on pedigrees, but in my experience, people actually rely on their knowledge of the types of dogs represented by a pedigree (a subtle but also very large difference) and what they see of the dogs in front of them in order to make breeding decisions. Do you think it's some huge mystery to everyone why some pups bred by working dog breeders and top handlers get passed on to other homes? I would think it would be pretty obvious that pups or young dogs that are sold on (unless clearly advertised as great workers) are being passed on because they don't pass muster. I don't know how anyone could come to another conclusion.

 

Track records speak volumes. When I see a 9 year old dog still competing successfully along with his son and grandson, that's when I start believing in those lines. My feeling is 1) see the dog work 2) see the parents work 3) see the pedigree

 

And you're implying that's not what good working-dog breeders do? Maybe the aforementioned novices or less-expereienced breeders who have a little success don't have enough understanding of the art of breeding and perhaps have heard a few things that they can parrot to make themselves seem like they know/understand more than they do might rely on pedigrees in the sense that they breed to a name(s) without understanding the work/qualities in that line, but I think that the breeders most of us on this forum would go to for pups don't fall into that category. And I don't know why you'd want to try to imply they do.

 

I have bred one litter. All the pups from that litter work. Whether they work to top levels remains to be seen, but the fact is that if you take care in choosing the bitch and dog you will likely get a litter that works, at least well enough to do farm chores. You hope you've made a wise enough choice that at least some of the litter will be stars, but as has been said ad nauseum on this forum, all you can do is make the best choices possible and then hope that the genes combine in just the right way to produce great workers. I don't think anyone breeds a litter expecting that every single pup will be a star. We'd like it to be that way of course, but genetics is a tricky thing, and as I said before, all you can do is try to stack the odds in your favor. And that's completely different from your claim that many or most breeders just breed to names in pedigrees.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

kelpiegirl: Why don't you tell us why purpose bred working dog shouldn't have more respect for their potential to be workers? Why exactly should we not seek them out if we want a worker, or even if we just want a true Border Collie as a family member?

 

Most people accept in that that the first part of proof of value (as a worker) is in the breeding. If you buy them and breed them right you have the greatest chance of getting the results you need.

 

If Puddin' the yard dog always made a great dog those of us with stockwork would be seeking them out.

 

Where did you get your Kelpie?

 

 

What I am getting at Lenajo, is NOT that there IS a comparison between breeding work/non work- as you alluded to, what I am getting at is the work/work some how validates that is is automatically a good working dog, worthy of some higher respect on those premises alone. As I said, the proof is in the pudding.

[kelpiegirl]

With as much brevity as I can muster...

No one has claimed that a working bred litter will produce great dogs, but the claim has been made that if the dogs are working bred, that there is some absolution involved, wrt exonerating them from detracting, if bred, and not great working dogs- from the working gene pool.

 

Did anyone make this claim? AllieMackie's question was whether those of us who work our dogs have dogs from strictly working lines. She didn't ask whether, nor did anyone claim, that the dogs are exceptional workers. She simply asked if those of us who worked our dogs had dogs that were strictly working bred.

Is this supposed to be some revelation? How often in these breeding discussions (and even in discussions where we encourage someone not to get a pup if they really want some sort of guarantee of temperament, ability, etc.) do we state that pups are a "pig in a poke" and that breeding is a crap shoot, which of course leads into the discussion about why it makes sense to breed the proven to the proven--to increase the odds of getting a good worker. No one has ever claimed on this forum to my knowledge that proven working breedings will always produce exceptional workers. In fact, the claim is always that doing so will increase your odds of getting good workers. (I think it's Bill Fosher who has often used the analogy that if you were trying to produce a winning basketball team, you would choose your breeding stock from short, fat guys and gals.)

 

 

Hmmmm....in my post previous to this one, I mention a dog I have who is from working lines (good ones) on both sides who is a "working washout." I guess you just didn't notice that comment (or chose to ignore it).

 

Yes, but you added lots of qualifiers as to why "The second rescue actually is from true working lines, but is the apparent result of two BYBs taking their first-generation pet dogs from working lines and crossing them..." Again proof that a working bred dog might not be worth breeding, based on pedigree?

 

 

These are huge, sweeping assumptions you are making, and coming from someone whose working dog of choice isn't even a border collie, and whose experience with working border collies is limited, it's a bit presumptuous I think. Maybe in your experience, people rely on pedigrees, but in my experience, people actually rely on their knowledge of the types of dogs represented by a pedigree (a subtle but also very large difference) and what they see of the dogs in front of them in order to make breeding decisions. Do you think it's some huge mystery to everyone why some pups bred by working dog breeders and top handlers get passed on to other homes? I would think it would be pretty obvious that pups or young dogs that are sold on (unless clearly advertised as great workers) are being passed on because they don't pass muster. I don't know how anyone could come to another conclusion.

 

I believe you are being presumptuous in assessing what I do and do not know about working bred border collies. I freely admit I am a novice, but I sure as heck have seen enough dogs to, I would hope have a bit of an opinion- or is that only allowed for certain folks. That last sentence gives me quite a chill. How does one actually obtain a good dog? Sure would like to know.

 

 

And you're implying that's not what good working-dog breeders do? Maybe the aforementioned novices or less-expereienced breeders who have a little success don't have enough understanding of the art of breeding and perhaps have heard a few things that they can parrot to make themselves seem like they know/understand more than they do might rely on pedigrees in the sense that they breed to a name(s) without understanding the work/qualities in that line, but I think that the breeders most of us on this forum would go to for pups don't fall into that category. And I don't know why you'd want to try to imply they do.

 

No, not at all. I am not talking about "breeders" in general, I am talking about DOGS, and their ability to work, and produce good working dogs.

 

I have bred one litter. All the pups from that litter work. Whether they work to top levels remains to be seen, but the fact is that if you take care in choosing the bitch and dog you will likely get a litter that works, at least well enough to do farm chores. You hope you've made a wise enough choice that at least some of the litter will be stars, but as has been said ad nauseum on this forum, all you can do is make the best choices possible and then hope that the genes combine in just the right way to produce great workers. I don't think anyone breeds a litter expecting that every single pup will be a star. We'd like it to be that way of course, but genetics is a tricky thing, and as I said before, all you can do is try to stack the odds in your favor. And that's completely different from your claim that many or most breeders just breed to names in pedigrees.

 

J.

 

I think the point is being missed. I am not referring to any particular breeders/dogs/life forms. I am simply trying to say that no dog is proven any better than any unless the dog has been worked, and produces good workers. It is a general point of conversation, and one, I had hoped could remain "friendly"....

My apologies if anyone is offended, I am talking in generalities here...

[kelpiegirl]

Okay, again, I am NOT comparing working to NON working, obviously- that's a no-brainer. I am stating that there is no implied worth of a dog, unless it in fact works, and works well. One SHOULD seek working bred dogs, just be cognizant that there big ranges in quality. She's from Australia, and from "dubious" lines in fact. Dubious for sure, and not the best worker- but certainly not garbage. But, she wasn't obtained as a "working" dog. But, once I started her, it became clear that that is what she lives for, and she has changed my life dramatically in that regard. Her existence hasn't coloured what I am saying here either. I am not foolish enough to THINK that I know more than the BC folks here, I am just saying that the dog's work and the dogs pup's work is what I find most important.

 

kelpiegirl: Why don't you tell us why purpose bred working dog shouldn't have more respect for their potential to be workers? Why exactly should we not seek them out if we want a worker, or even if we just want a true Border Collie as a family member?

 

Most people accept in that that the first part of proof of value (as a worker) is in the breeding. If you buy them and breed them right you have the greatest chance of getting the results you need.

 

If Puddin' the yard dog always made a great dog those of us with stockwork would be seeking them out.

 

Where did you get your Kelpie?

[Lenajo]

I am simply trying to say that no dog is proven any better than any unless the dog has been worked, and produces good workers.

 

And in generalities, I would respond that the dog that works well and represents in that work the consistancy of a good working line to boot; deserves more respect as potential breeding dog that comes from flybynight/"garbage"/unknown/nonworking lines.

 

It's simple odds.

 

Whether or not the dog than produces good workers is another story. Again, the odds of that happening are related to what is behind both that dog, and the good working/good line dog it was bred too.

[Eileen Stein]

No one has claimed that a working bred litter will produce great dogs, but the claim has been made that if the dogs are working bred, that there is some absolution involved, wrt exonerating them from detracting, if bred, and not great working dogs- from the working gene pool.

 

I think the point is being missed. I am not referring to any particular breeders/dogs/life forms. I am simply trying to say that no dog is proven any better than any unless the dog has been worked, and produces good workers. It is a general point of conversation, and one, I had hoped could remain "friendly"....

My apologies if anyone is offended, I am talking in generalities here...

 

I'm not offended, I just can't figure out what your point is. "the claim has been made that if the dogs are working bred, that there is some absolution involved, wrt exonerating them from detracting, if bred, and not great working dogs- from the working gene pool" ???

 

Of course you don't know if a dog is good unless it has been trained up and worked. That is constantly said here. But breeding sires and dams together on the basis of their working ability greatly increases the odds of producing good working dogs, and it is to that type of breeding that we owe the border collie. Without that type of breeding, we wouldn't have the border collie. That is the way border collies should be bred. This too is constantly said here.

 

If a breeder generally breeds in this way, but also at times studs his dogs to non-working bitches, I would approve of the former and disapprove of the latter. He would be a better breeder than those who don't breed for working ability at all, and not as good a breeder as one whose every breeding was made to maximize working ability. That seems pretty obvious. What more can you say?

 

But then, I'm not at all sure I've addressed your point, because I don't have a clue what it is.

[Lenajo]

Your whole arguement is centered around your success with your "dubious bred" Kelpie, so saying that it doesn't colour what you say is rather untrue

 

Basically you have been saying you've got a poorly bred dog as a pet (you imported a Kelpie from Oz, a 24 hour flight, for a *pet*???); then developed an interest in working because you find she enjoys it - and now you do. And because of that you appear to have generalized that other dubious bred dogs have the same potential value as workers and potential breeding dogs.

 

Unfortunately training and how much you love them are not genetic.

 

The problem with the "dubious" genetics is that they don't go away because we like the other stuff better.

 

But I'm open...and maybe she is the next potential great one. Looking forward to hearing more about her.

 

 

Okay, again, I am NOT comparing working to NON working, obviously- that's a no-brainer. I am stating that there is no implied worth of a dog, unless it in fact works, and works well. One SHOULD seek working bred dogs, just be cognizant that there big ranges in quality. She's from Australia, and from "dubious" lines in fact. Dubious for sure, and not the best worker- but certainly not garbage. But, she wasn't obtained as a "working" dog. But, once I started her, it became clear that that is what she lives for, and she has changed my life dramatically in that regard. Her existence hasn't coloured what I am saying here either. I am not foolish enough to THINK that I know more than the BC folks here, I am just saying that the dog's work and the dogs pup's work is what I find most important.

[MrSnappy]

RDM, the "stockdog community," like the "rescue community," is not monolithic. It's made up of an enormous variety of people: <snip>Yes, all of them are concerned about preserving the breed, but some are better at it than others and some will sacrifice more for it than others.

 

Thank you Eileen, for this thoughtful reply. Of course, of necessity, I tend to over-simplify the 'working community' otherwise I would be off on tangents and it would be impossible to form a cohesive post.

 

More than really asking the question looking for an answer, I ask the question so that it gets raised at all. Because I really do think that in some ways, we appear hypocritical to Noobs seeking information on where to buy a responsibly bred stockdog, and maybe we need to think about our answers instead of regurgitating the same old rhetoric. I guess what I'm saying is that we oft times give the impression that it is as simple as going to a trial and finding someone with dogs you are drawn to, and as long as they are breeding working dogs, you are golden - and so are they. But it's more complicated than that, I think ... and as it becomes more and more crucial to the breed, more people need to take firmer moral stands, I think.

 

The fact that some people feel they can't raise the question at all for fear of community backlash worries me. The fact that some people - maybe lots of people - don't care about the question also worries me. I would hate to see this become an issue of chatter than of action. Not that *I* have an answer - my 'influence' such as it were, is non-existent. I do not even work a dog on sheep at all anymore. My lifestyle is such that I will never be in a position to *require* a working dog, and therefore cannot (personally, I mean) justify the purchase of one. I can get what I need out of rescue and I would consider it hypocritical of me to buy a puppy or a dog for what amounts to - for ME - a sport. But for the sake of argument, because the subject interests me, I have gone through the process of looking for a puppy from dogs I like, from people I respect, and whose breeding philosophy I am comfortable with. And frankly, it's a lot harder to find than I thought it would be, or than I feel it should be.

 

RDM

[Ooky]

Let me just say that as a complete newcomer to not only the breed, but dogs, this is one of the most fascinating discussions I've read since coming here. I really get it now when people got angry after I claimed I though Odin would be a "good herder". I have felt this way for a while, but I want to formally rescind all such claims in the face of the level of discussion you all were talking at. This may not even be easy for those of you thinking constantly about these issues in relation to the evolution of the breed to understand, but when I spoke of "good herding" I was comparing Odin to other types of pets, or possibly other breeds of dogs at most. And now I know enough to realize, from your descriptions of the high-drive champion herding dogs, that he would probably suck at it completely, which is just fine with me since I still think he's the greatest thing ever.

 

Which I guess makes me a nightmare for a lot of people here. when it comes to preservation of the breed in the face of the "current Border Collie breeding and dog over-population trends" or however someone said it like 6 pages ago (too lazy to go back, but thought that was an excellent point from someone). I went looking for a border collie, and knew enough to want one bred to work, not show or sport, but I knew nothing else. I had only the vaguest knowledge of competitive trialling at the time I bought him, with no plans to do that ever (still not sure whether we will). I thought I should be looking for a farm that used their breeding studs and bitches for a purpose, on livestock (and also had a good socialization program, liked the parents, etc), which in retrospect means that at best I probably went to someone *not* really breeding up to the high levels of competitive work, and at worst I went to a BYB wanting an "injection of cash" for their farm. Well, I don't really know, because I didn't even know the questions to ask, such as "Have you trialled with these dogs?" I asked stuff like, "Are they good with kids?" and "How have they been socialized with people?" and "Have you done temperament testing of any kind?" Which have nothing to do with these breed-specific issues. Not only that, but two things they did that I thought was good, which was agree to sell the dog as a pet without papers for a reduced price, and a S/N contract, were likely red flags, it seems. I didn't care at all about papers, which again shows you how dumb I was -- not because I need them for anything, but because otherwise there is no way to independently check these people's claims that he was "working bred". It wasn't really a S/N contract per se, but a spit-in-the-hand-and-shake-on-it sort of thing; I mean, this guy was a goat rancher who loved his dogs.

 

And I say this not to say, "hey my dog is great, (altho he is ), don't you mean people say he shouldn't have been bred". What I'm saying now is that even though I did enough research to get the essentially correct message, I didn't get the nuances of this intricate issue and may have inadvertently done as much harm in my purchasing choice as someone who knew nothing at all. It's depressing, even as I look at this dog every day and can't believe how perfect he is for me (not a stockperson). I originally didn't want to go to a breeder in the first place, so when I did I tried to do it responsibly, and look what they say the road to hell is paved with...

 

So, just a set of observations from one of the multitude of those making up the demand for these dogs. And who now sees just how great they are and how imperative it is that they remain this way, for whatever purpose they are used for in addition to stockwork.

 

I thought IronHorse brought up some very interesting points...

 

 

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

 

This is true. And as I work on many, many public/private lands used for grazing, I will say only about 1/2 of the people that apparently keep large herd of sheep *for profit* in the western US use dogs at all - the rest seem to specifically rely on Mexican immigrant labor to shepherd their flocks. That is a strict observation.

 

In light of breeding for purpose, I have a question - NOT meant to offend. I am so philosophically interested in artificial selection as it pertains to dogs, because I have studied processes of natural selection for so long. Darwin used dog breeding as an example to explain mechanisms behind natural selection, and his examples have always stayed with me. In fact, he didn't give people enough credit for their ability to impose selection, as he thought all the multitude of different dogs must have originally come from at least a few species instead of just one as we know today.

 

My question is, is breeding to competitive trial level the same as what this breed has been bred to do throughout it's history (reaching back far in time, even before modern collies like Old Hank or whatever that original stud was in the 1890s)? I am asking because I don't know. It sounds to me like trialling is an incredibly artificial "herding" situation, since you don't have lambing ewes or "cantankerous old rams", there aren't hundreds of sheep + several dogs at once, etc. It sounds like the Olympics of actual ranching duties and work a useful dog would perform, but missing certain desirable ranch-use behaviors. I know someone said that in the trialling pressure cooker, 99% of a dog's weaknesses would be exposed, but I'm asking more, is this a relatively *new* type of standard that people are breeding to? As in, defining success in a competitive arena vs. true duties allowing you to ranch your flock?

[Shoofly]

My question is, is breeding to competitive trial level the same as what this breed has been bred to do throughout it's history (reaching back far in time, even before modern collies like Old Hank or whatever that original stud was in the 1890s)? I am asking because I don't know. It sounds to me like trialling is an incredibly artificial "herding" situation, since you don't have lambing ewes or "cantankerous old rams", there aren't hundreds of sheep + several dogs at once, etc. It sounds like the Olympics of actual ranching duties and work a useful dog would perform, but missing certain desirable ranch-use behaviors. I know someone said that in the trialling pressure cooker, 99% of a dog's weaknesses would be exposed, but I'm asking more, is this a relatively *new* type of standard that people are breeding to? As in, defining success in a competitive arena vs. true duties allowing you to ranch your flock?

 

All i can say is there are sheepdog trials and there are sheepdog trials. I don't think anyone would watch this video

and not say those are sheep that are fairly sorting the good dogs from the not so good. That's why we pack up the camper and drive halfway across the country, to run on sheep that are a good hard test of the dogs, as opposed to a friendly little farm flock that is well dogged but not a test of the dogs as much as a test of the handlers' handling abilities.

[juliepoudrier]

Not only that, but two things they did that I thought was good, which was agree to sell the dog as a pet without papers for a reduced price, and a S/N contract, were likely red flags, it seems.

I have to run an errand so don't have time to respond to all of your questions, but I did want to address this comment. I assume you're not being facetious here, and I'm basing my comments on that assumption. The one thing I think you might have gotten out of this long discussion is that the breeder agreeing to sell the pup for less money without papers or requiring a S/N agreement are not red flags, but rather the sign of a breeder who at least is trying to prevent a puppy buyer from creating more pups down the line. These are good things, regardless of the rest of his breeding practices. If you were just looking for a pet and had no plans to work your dog and therefore prove it's worth as breeding stock, then the breeder did the right thing by either not giving you the papers (so even if you did have a litter you wouldn't be able to register them) and/or asking for a spay/neuter agreement. One of the main topics of this discussion is why otherwise good breeders don't require people buying pups for pet, sport, or uses other than stockwork to not breed those dogs.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

No, that is QUITE, well, in truth, THE largest faulty syllogism I have EVER read, Lenajo. IF you read my post, I said "Her existence hasn't coloured what I am saying here either." Furthermore, I NEVER said she was the next potential great one "not the best worker- but certainly not garbage". So, please refrain from referring to statements that I have not made. My observances/opinions are made solely based on what I have been taught, seen and read. Since Julie mentioned something about "parrotting" maybe I am doing that? But, I surely haven't made my stance based on my dog. I have an opinion, so sue me.

 

 

 

Your whole arguement is centered around your success with your "dubious bred" Kelpie, so saying that it doesn't colour what you say is rather untrue

 

Basically you have been saying you've got a poorly bred dog as a pet (you imported a Kelpie from Oz, a 24 hour flight, for a *pet*???); then developed an interest in working because you find she enjoys it - and now you do. And because of that you appear to have generalized that other dubious bred dogs have the same potential value as workers and potential breeding dogs.

 

Unfortunately training and how much you love them are not genetic.

 

The problem with the "dubious" genetics is that they don't go away because we like the other stuff better.

 

But I'm open...and maybe she is the next potential great one. Looking forward to hearing more about her.

[kelpiegirl]

Eileen

Me neither

 

I'm not offended, I just can't figure out what your point is. "the claim has been made that if the dogs are working bred, that there is some absolution involved, wrt exonerating them from detracting, if bred, and not great working dogs- from the working gene pool" ???

 

Of course you don't know if a dog is good unless it has been trained up and worked. That is constantly said here. But breeding sires and dams together on the basis of their working ability greatly increases the odds of producing good working dogs, and it is to that type of breeding that we owe the border collie. Without that type of breeding, we wouldn't have the border collie. That is the way border collies should be bred. This too is constantly said here.

 

If a breeder generally breeds in this way, but also at times studs his dogs to non-working bitches, I would approve of the former and disapprove of the latter. He would be a better breeder than those who don't breed for working ability at all, and not as good a breeder as one whose every breeding was made to maximize working ability. That seems pretty obvious. What more can you say?

 

But then, I'm not at all sure I've addressed your point, because I don't have a clue what it is.

[MrSnappy]

If you were just looking for a pet and had no plans to work your dog and therefore prove it's worth as breeding stock, then the breeder did the right thing by either not giving you the papers (so even if you did have a litter you wouldn't be able to register them) and/or asking for a spay/neuter agreement.

 

As an aside ... in Canada the Animal Pedigree Act makes it illegal to sell a registered animal with papers for one amount and without for another (ie, this is considered "charging extra" for papers). If the animal is pedigreed, you are required to provide the buyer with the papers, though you can certainly have a spay/neuter clause.

 

RDM

[Ooky]

I have to run an errand so don't have time to respond to all of your questions, but I did want to address this comment. I assume you're not being facetious here, and I'm basing my comments on that assumption. The one thing I think you might have gotten out of this long discussion is that the breeder agreeing to sell the pup for less money without papers or requiring a S/N agreement are not red flags, but rather the sign of a breeder who at least is trying to prevent a puppy buyer from creating more pups down the line. These are good things, regardless of the rest of his breeding practices. If you were just looking for a pet and had no plans to work your dog and therefore prove it's worth as breeding stock, then the breeder did the right thing by either not giving you the papers (so even if you did have a litter you wouldn't be able to register them) and/or asking for a spay/neuter agreement. One of the main topics of this discussion is why otherwise good breeders don't require people buying pups for pet, sport, or uses other than stockwork to not breed those dogs.

 

J.

 

 

No, no NOT being facetious - I knew people were advocating these practices but everyone kept saying the only people who did it were conformation breeders, and that REAL working breeders did not do this. I still think the practices are great in theory, but was bringing up that there is no way for me to have even checked their claim of "working bred", something that I wouldn't actually be able to do anyway because what I know about pedigrees is *nothing*. My point being that two things I thought were objectively good seemed to point to red flags that this wasn't the type of collie breeder I should have picked.

 

I thought the S/N was good from a non-breed-specific standpoint- I am a newbie who NEVER EVER plans to breed dogs or cats or anything, ever.

[IronHorse]

Ooky,

From your explanation of the process that you went through to obtain your dog. In my opinion you did percisely the right things and got the right dog for you.

It doesn't sound to me that the breeder you purchased your dog from was doing anything other then breeding the best working dogs they could for their purposes(unless they had mulitple litters at the time you got your pup) and in the process was able to responsibly place one of the pups that for whatever reason they felt was best suited for the home you would supply.

I think you went about aquiring your pup in the best possible fasion from what sounds like a very responsible breeder.

As for answering your question about breeding to "competitive trial level" I am rather interested in hearing others opinions as well.

Its my understanding that trialling evolved more as a social event where ranchers from a regional area could gather with their dogs, put them through their "paces" in front of their peers for the acolades as well as a means by which desirable traits for breeding purposes could be hashed out between owners and their dogs.

Todays modern trailling IMHO has evolved beyond that, but to what degree,well i am interested in hearing more about.