Jump to content
BC Boards

Sport Collies


SoloRiver
 Share

Recommended Posts

But I think Melanie's argument that the time OUGHT TO BE

 

I get that, but I still disagree.

 

The puppy of two Border Collies is a Border Collie. Intention to create something different cannot render the puppy of two particular dogs as something distinct in one fell swoop.

 

Let me be clear - yes, I know traits can be selected over time and breeding can create different breeds - of course!!

 

But the fact remains that if a stockdog breeder and a sport Border Collie breeder were to breed the exact same two dogs, the puppies are either Border Collies or they are not. Intention alone does not create a different type of dog immediately.

 

Many of us here hold the exact same position when it comes to the "doodles". A mix between a Lab and Poodle is not a breed, it's a mix. It's the same type of mix one finds in a shelter. It takes generations of selective breeding and the ability for the "doodles" to produce those same dogs without mixing two breeds to actually have a breed.

 

The puppy of a Border Collie and another Border Collie is not a separate breed. It's a Border Collie.

 

An arbitrary decision to classify a certain contingency of Border Collies as something completely different, does not, in fact, change what they are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kristine,

Most of us are not saying it happens in one fell swoop. Melanie made it pretty clear in her original question that she was asking if the dogs people were breeding for sport were consistently producing those characteristics deemed important for sports in the subsequent generations. If they are, then they are indeed producing a different breed of dog. I'm personally not talking about arbitrarily taking sports dogs and calling them something else *right this moment* but I think this is a valid discussion if a set of breeders are taking a particular breed and changing it by selecting for specific traits (that are either different from or a subset of the traits that make up the "original" breed) that breed true in subsequent generations. If this happens, it's a different breed from the original. That's not the same as Labradoodles, but it is the same as countless breeds of livestock and even domestic pets that have been selected and bred for *specific* traits that exist in the founding population until the new version breeds true for those selected traits.

 

So the discussion should be what do those dogs who are being bred for sports now become? At some point, if sports breeders continue to breed for specific traits and subsequent generations can consistently reproduce those specific traits, then the animal is no longer the same as the one they started with, right? In most circumstances, the new, "imptoved" version gets a new name. That's not because those who have the old version are being elitist about their old name; it's because the new version is distinct from the old version and so should be recognized as such, and the people who have created the new version want their new version to be recognized as such. Doing so makes it easier for marketing purposes (especially in the livestock world).

 

I don't see why people are so willing (in principle or by action) to change a thing to suit their purposes, but then are seemingly so unwilling to acknowledge the change by, for example, changing the name of the new version. It's another weird variation on the theme "You can't say my dog isn't a border collie just because it doesn't work stock." Except in this case, a change is deliberately being made, so we're not talking about dogs who come from some original stock and just happen to end up in homes that do something else with them; we're talking about a population of dogs that is deliberately being changed to suit a purpose that was not the purpose of the original breed.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the fact remains that if a stockdog breeder and a sport Border Collie breeder were to breed the exact same two dogs, the puppies are either Border Collies or they are not. Intention alone does not create a different type of dog immediately.

 

[...]

 

An arbitrary decision to classify a certain contingency of Border Collies as something completely different, does not, in fact, change what they are.

 

This is incredibly frustrating, Kristine. I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing what I have written given how many times I have written it and the fact that other people seem to get it without any problems.

 

(1) I have never even hinted that the immediate offspring of two working Border Collies can be labeled by the intention of the breeder. I have said, over and over, that when you are not selecting for the same traits, eventually you will not have the same dogs. THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING.

 

(2) The categories we are discussing are not arbitrary in the least. In fact, the reason we are talking about categories is because names should have meaning (sorry, I am a systematist by training so that is how I think). If someone says a dog is a "Border Collie" and I can make no predictions about what dog given the name except that the dog is probably black and white, then what does "Border Collie" really mean?

 

Perhaps the distinctions we are discussing are too nuanced to be understood or interpreted simply. I can't help that, but I think it's important to rebut such posts when they keep reinterpreting what I've written, wrongly.

 

I totally lack the energy to keep up this argument, and I have actual science I am supposed to be doing. If you want to keep pouting and insisting that your personal dogs have been insulted, there is nothing I can do about that but please stop spinning what I've said in prior posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that, but I still disagree.

 

What is it you disagree with? What is it that you get? To help pin it down, here is the sentence in full that you were referring to:

 

But I think Melanie's argument that the time OUGHT TO BE when (1) a group of people are breeding for a specific purpose different from the traditional breed standard, and (2) the complex of traits or phenotype that they are breeding for becomes predictably achieved in their breedings, is a very sound one.

 

When would you say the KC Collie became a separate breed from the border collie? When show breeders began breeding their collie subset to an appearance standard and ceased breeding for working ability? When they achieved their aim of producing dogs that consistently looked like their appearance standard and not like the working stock they came from? When the Kennel Club(s) closed the Collie studbook, leaving all the working dogs outside? When the working breeders first used a new and different name (border collie) for their dogs to distinguish them from the show Collie? When that new name came into widespread usage? When the Kennel Club(s) recognized the Border Collie as a separate breed? Some other time? Or did it never become a separate breed, because descent continued in an unbroken line from the original working collies (assume unbroken descent for purposes of this question)? Also, would you say the border collie (the one with the new name) was the new breed, and the Collie (the one that kept the name of the dogs it was bred (away) from) was the original breed, or vice versa?

 

If blackacre gets her kelpie registered on merit with the ABCA, so that he is listed in the studbook and his offspring are registerable as border collies, is he then a border collie, or not?

 

I know that the Kennel Club is not going to adopt Sport Collie as the name of their sport-bred Border Collies, but I'm not willing to let them determine how I see it and say it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is incredibly frustrating, Kristine. I don't know why you insist on mischaracterizing what I have written given how many times I have written it and the fact that other people seem to get it without any problems.

 

This definitely is frustrating. I am not insisting on mischaracterizing anything. We disagree - that is clear. I "get it", but I still don't agree with you on this particular subject.

 

(2) The categories we are discussing are not arbitrary in the least. In fact, the reason we are talking about categories is because names should have meaning (sorry, I am a systematist by training so that is how I think). If someone says a dog is a "Border Collie" and I can make no predictions about what dog given the name except that the dog is probably black and white, then what does "Border Collie" really mean?

 

This is probably the crux of the debate.

 

It's a pretty sweeping statement that one can make "no predictions" about what dog one has beyond the dog being black and white when it comes to most sport bred Border Collies. I can see that it could eventually get to that point if working bred dogs were not brought back into the lines (which in most cases they are), but the sport bred Border Collies that I've come into contact with (I'm not talking about my own - this is not personal) are very clearly identifiable as Border Collies in more than looks.

 

 

Perhaps the distinctions we are discussing are too nuanced to be understood or interpreted simply. I can't help that, but I think it's important to rebut such posts when they keep reinterpreting what I've written, wrongly.

 

I don't think they are too nuanced to be understood. I think I understand where you are coming from pretty clearly. Reinterpreting what you've written isn't going to change the fact that my stance on the issue is different.

 

I totally lack the energy to keep up this argument, and I have actual science I am supposed to be doing. If you want to keep pouting and insisting that your personal dogs have been insulted, there is nothing I can do about that but please stop spinning what I've said in prior posts.

 

I find it strange that you consider the fact that I take an opposing viewpoint and refuse to change it because you disagree as "pouting", but if that is what you want to think, that's what you will think. I will re-iterate for those who are reading the post that I am not insulted and my posts are not based on "hurt feelings", but on the fact that I simply disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine,

Most of us are not saying it happens in one fell swoop.

 

True. I originally thought that more of you saw it that way and I am glad that this discussion has clarified my understanding on that point.

 

Melanie made it pretty clear in her original question that she was asking if the dogs people were breeding for sport were consistently producing those characteristics deemed important for sports in the subsequent generations. If they are, then they are indeed producing a different breed of dog. I'm personally not talking about arbitrarily taking sports dogs and calling them something else *right this moment* but I think this is a valid discussion if a set of breeders are taking a particular breed and changing it by selecting for specific traits (that are either different from or a subset of the traits that make up the "original" breed) that breed true in subsequent generations. If this happens, it's a different breed from the original. That's not the same as Labradoodles, but it is the same as countless breeds of livestock and even domestic pets that have been selected and bred for *specific* traits that exist in the founding population until the new version breeds true for those selected traits.

 

I am certainly not arguing that it's a valid discussion. I think it's a very important one.

 

I think, though, that there is not a simple cut-and-dried answer because there are more factors to consider, such as the fact that some sport breeders do add working Border Collies back into their lines on a regular basis, and the fact that not even all sport Border Collie breeders are selecting for the same traits as one another. Some breed for drive and speed, others for structure, others for biddability, others for temperament. Some strive to keep the Border Collie true to the original breed by continuing to work their dogs on stock to differing degrees.

 

It would be neat and tidy to simply stop recognizing Border Collies from sport breeders as Border Collies and call them something else (I'm not saying that you want to do this - it's just a discussion point), but it's just not that simple.

 

It makes sense that in conformation, a "new version" is emerging because they are breeding to a set standard. They are unlikely to breed back in working Border Collies, they are deliberately breeding out traits the make the Border Collie unique. I don't see this same thing happening with the sport Border Collie breeders across the board for the reasons that I stated above.

 

 

So the discussion should be what do those dogs who are being bred for sports now become? At some point, if sports breeders continue to breed for specific traits and subsequent generations can consistently reproduce those specific traits, then the animal is no longer the same as the one they started with, right?

 

Yes and no. Sport breeders who continue to add working Border Collies into their programs are going to continue to produce pretty much what they started with.

 

One would need to ask sport breeders, but I would guess that most of them are not deliberately intending to create something different. I'm not saying it can't or doesn't happen, but, again, it keeps this question from having a simple answer.

 

In most circumstances, the new, "imptoved" version gets a new name. That's not because those who have the old version are being elitist about their old name; it's because the new version is distinct from the old version and so should be recognized as such, and the people who have created the new version want their new version to be recognized as such. Doing so makes it easier for marketing purposes (especially in the livestock world).

 

The difference here, though, is that there is not an intention on the part of sport Border Collie breeders (so I understand as part of their intended market) to actually create something different.

 

That's where it gets back to the fact that two Border Collies produce Border Collie puppies.

 

I don't see why people are so willing (in principle or by action) to change a thing to suit their purposes, but then are seemingly so unwilling to acknowledge the change by, for example, changing the name of the new version.

 

I think it is simply because they don't see it as the same kind of change that stockdog folks consider it to be. Why would they? If someone is not a stockdog handler/breeder/enthusiast, the idea of breeding Border Collies only to make better stockdogs is not even on the radar.

 

Why would they breed two Border Collies with making better flyball dogs and then call it something else? It wouldn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is it you disagree with? What is it that you get?

 

OK, I will clarify. For further clarity, I am splitting the quote in two.

 

You wrote:

 

But I think Melanie's argument that the time OUGHT TO BE when (1) a group of people are breeding for a specific purpose different from the traditional breed standard,

 

I disagree with this.

 

The puppies produced by two Border Collies are Border Collies. They don't become a different breed simply because a group of people decide to breed for a different purpose.

 

I used the example of a stockdog breeder and a sport breeder breeding the exact same two Border Collies to clarify this. If Ms. Stockdog Breeder bred Female Working Border Collie and Male Working Border Collie to produce new working Border Collies, those are the exact same puppies that Ms. Agility Breeder would end up with if Ms. Stockdog Breeder gave Female Working Border Collie and Male Working Border Collie to her to breed Agility dogs.

 

Therefore, I disagree that Border Collies should be called "Sport Collie" or anything else at the point where a group of people set out to breed for a different purpose. The dogs are Border Collies.

 

and (2) the complex of traits or phenotype that they are breeding for becomes predictably achieved in their breedings, is a very sound one.

 

With this I would agree provided that the phenotype were easily perceived without genetic testing, nor the need to actually train the dog on stock to perceive that the change had occurred.

 

When would you say the KC Collie became a separate breed from the border collie? When show breeders began breeding their collie subset to an appearance standard and ceased breeding for working ability? When they achieved their aim of producing dogs that consistently looked like their appearance standard and not like the working stock they came from? When the Kennel Club(s) closed the Collie studbook, leaving all the working dogs outside? When the working breeders first used a new and different name (border collie) for their dogs to distinguish them from the show Collie? When that new name came into widespread usage? When the Kennel Club(s) recognized the Border Collie as a separate breed? Some other time?

 

I would need to know more about the history of how all of this happened to answer the question of "when". It is obvious in retrospect that a split did, indeed occur, but I could not say without knowing more about the historic progression each breed when the split occurred.

 

Without knowing that, I would say that at some point after the changes that the kennel club was working to bring about were manifested, the actual split occurred.

 

When they started, both the kennel club and the working breeders had the same types of dogs. The name change did not render them different breeds, either. It was when the changes were manifest and the new type was being produced consistently.

 

Does that make sense? If not, I'd be happy to clarify.

 

Or did it never become a separate breed, because descent continued in an unbroken line from the original working collies (assume unbroken descent for purposes of this question)?

 

No - they did separate.

 

Also, would you say the border collie (the one with the new name) was the new breed, and the Collie (the one that kept the name of the dogs it was bred (away) from) was the original breed, or vice versa?

 

I would say that the Border Collie (the one with the new name) was the original breed.

 

The Collie (the one with the original name) was the new breed.

 

If blackacre gets her kelpie registered on merit with the ABCA, so that he is listed in the studbook and his offspring are registerable as border collies, is he then a border collie, or not?

 

That sounds like a very interesting situation. Have to think about that one! :rolleyes:

 

I know that the Kennel Club is not going to adopt Sport Collie as the name of their sport-bred Border Collies, but I'm not willing to let them determine how I see it and say it.

 

And that goes both ways. I know that some working stockdog folks are going to refer to certain Border Collies by other names, but I am not willing to let them determine how I see it and say it, either. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine -

 

Where do *you* draw the line? Somehow i keep getting the feeling there is no line for you.

 

Oh, no there's definitely a line.

 

I would draw the line:

 

1. After a distinct change has taken place (which is perceivable without a genetic test)

 

and

 

2. When a new "type" of dog is being consistently produced with identifiable traits.

 

Eileen's example of the Lassie Collie as a distinct breed from the Border Collie is an excellent one.

 

I honestly don't see such a thing happening with the sport bred Border Collies in the near future, though.

 

For one thing, every time working bred dogs are bred back into the lines, the potential for a distinct change is lessened or even negated.

 

Also, sport breeders aren't consistently selecting for the same specific traits like the conformation breeders do.

 

There is a line, but before the line is reached there is a lot of grey area. I hold the position that until the line is very obviously crossed, the dogs remain Border Collies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nor the need to actually train the dog on stock to perceive that the change had occurred.

 

This explains everything. Thanks.

 

1. After a distinct change has taken place (which is perceivable without a genetic test)

 

and

 

2. When a new "type" of dog is being consistently produced with identifiable traits.

 

Oh, for doG's sake. This is what I have been saying. So what the hell are you disagreeing with?

 

Also, sport breeders aren't consistently selecting for the same specific traits like the conformation breeders do.

 

(1) They (or at least, the "good" ones) seem to be under the impression that they are.

 

(2) If they aren't, that gets back to the original question. What is the point of breeding these dogs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's where it gets back to the fact that two Border Collies produce Border Collie puppies.

I think it is simply because they don't see it as the same kind of change that stockdog folks consider it to be. Why would they? If someone is not a stockdog handler/breeder/enthusiast, the idea of breeding Border Collies only to make better stockdogs is not even on the radar.

 

The change is not "considered to be" it is - why do they want a Border Collie and why on earth are they breeding them then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now see, that's very vague. Please specify more clearly. How do you define that change?

 

I can't define that change. I don't know what it would be.

 

Whatever it is, though, it would need to be something distinct that would show up in the sport bred Border Collie population at large.

 

You can tell the difference between a Border Collie and Lassie Collie very easily. I'm talking about that kind of distinction, although it would not need to be a change in appearance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For one thing, every time working bred dogs are bred back into the lines, the potential for a distinct change is lessened or even negated.

 

I know you've mentioned several times that "working lines" are bred back into the "sport lines," and I know that this happens, because, unfortunately, a nicely-bred pup I know of was just sold to a big time agility person for her breeding program (I only say unfortunately because the person will dual register (and then breed) and it makes me ill). HOWEVER, just because this pup is a decently bred working pup, from good working parents, doesn't mean that any thought was given to the "working parts" of this pup's package and how they might or might not fit in with the desired agility traits. So a "working dog" is being "put back into" the sport lines, but without evaluating that particular pup's working ability, this statement is basically meaningless. If we can agree that what made the (working) BC what it is today was careful selection for working ability, based on the whole package of working style, amount of eye, and everything else that makes up that package, then to just arbitrarily dump "working lines" back into sport breeding programs does not "lessen or negate" the "potential for a distinct change." This agility person who bought this pup has had dogs from the grandsire's line before and likes them and wants to breed back to those lines. But she has no freaking clue what's on the dam's side (big-time cattle-bred working bitch with a TON of eye), nor how that line will mix or not with what she has.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With this I would agree provided that the phenotype were easily perceived without genetic testing, nor the need to actually train the dog on stock to perceive that the change had occurred.

 

Why do you impose the qualification I have highlighted? If the traditional standard of the border collie is stock working ability, and the new subset of dogs lacks that quality, why isn't that the ultimate proof that those dogs are no longer border collies? You said that you weren't using appearance as your criterion, but it seems to me that you are, because what do you have left to "perceive"? What do you consider the defining characteristics of a border collie?

 

For one thing, every time working bred dogs are bred back into the lines, the potential for a distinct change is lessened or even negated.

 

Yes, that has happened, and occasionally still happens, but reading the responses of the sports people on this thread I tend to doubt it will happen much longer. After reading them yourself, wouldn't you agree? They just don't see any need to go back to working lines, because they want the offspring of what they can see being successful in their chosen activity. So what then?

 

ETA: Just wanted to note that I agree with what Anna wrote, but she is writing from a stock person's perspective. Those breedbacks are doing nothing to continue the breed's working ability. But since it seems you don't see the breed's working ability as having anything to do with what makes it a breed, I assume that isn't significant to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also do not understand how you can say that the show collie is another breed (perhaps) but the sport collie is not when the breeding of both is far removed from the what the purpose bred dog is? Granted, to me, they're all still border collies but I do agree that when you breed with different objectives, you get a different dog. Putting working lines back into sport lines occasionally will not produce good working border collies so in essence the sport breeders are just as culpable as the show breeders of producing a different dog.

 

Maria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you impose the qualification I have highlighted?

 

Quite simply because the average pet/sport Border Collie owner is not going to go test a dog on stock just to "prove" that it's a "real" Border Collie.

 

The fact is that lack of such a test does not change what the dog is.

 

If the traditional standard of the border collie is stock working ability, and the new subset of dogs lacks that quality, why isn't that the ultimate proof that those dogs are no longer border collies?

 

If that is the case, the onus is really on those who insist that the sport bred Border Collies have, in fact, morphed into a new breed, not vice versa.

 

A dog is not identified as belonging to a certain breed due to a test - whether genetic or a "skills test", if you will. This is the case, particularly when both parents of a litter of puppies are actually Border Collies.

 

You said that you weren't using appearance as your criterion, but it seems to me that you are, because what do you have left to "perceive"? What do you consider the defining characteristics of a border collie?

 

I'm not sure if this is really possible to do. Is there a list of specific defining characteristics of a stockdog who is officially deemed "Border Collie?" If so, I'd be interested in seeing that.

 

One of the main characteristics that I can say off the bat is that both parents of the dog are Border Collies. From there the defining characteristics are going to mimic those of the parents in some measure.

 

If I were to start listing examples, I am sure I would be told that other dogs do the exact same thing, etc., etc., so I'm not. You know these dogs. You know what is unique about them even outside of the context of stockdog.

 

Yes, that has happened, and occasionally still happens, but reading the responses of the sports people on this thread I tend to doubt it will happen much longer. After reading them yourself, wouldn't you agree?

 

I don't think a big enough cross section of sports breeders has been represented here to say one way or the other. I do know that the pedigrees I've seen for myself of sport bred Border Collies do include dogs that have been purchased directly from working breeders. The papers I've seen for these dogs are always ABCA papers, not AKC. That may vary from region to region, but from what I've seen myself in my area, a true separation has not occurred among the breeders that sports folks seem to get Border Collies from around here.

 

ETA: Just wanted to note that I agree with what Anna wrote, but she is writing from a stock person's perspective. Those breedbacks are doing nothing to continue the breed's working ability. But since it seems you don't see the breed's working ability as having anything to do with what makes it a breed, I assume that isn't significant to you.

 

That working ability is what makes the Border Collie a breed isn't significant to me is a complete misunderstanding. I have never indicated in any way that it isn't significant to me.

 

Please find where I have ever said that sport breeding is good for the breed or that I think it is optimal because I know that I have never said any such thing. But the fact that it is not best for the breed does not render those dogs something altogether different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOWEVER, just because this pup is a decently bred working pup, from good working parents, doesn't mean that any thought was given to the "working parts" of this pup's package and how they might or might not fit in with the desired agility traits. So a "working dog" is being "put back into" the sport lines, but without evaluating that particular pup's working ability, this statement is basically meaningless.

 

It's meaningless from a working standpoint, but it is "problematic" if one (and I'm not saying that you are) is seeking to make the case that the puppies being produced are not Border Collies.

 

If we can agree that what made the (working) BC what it is today was careful selection for working ability, based on the whole package of working style, amount of eye, and everything else that makes up that package, then to just arbitrarily dump "working lines" back into sport breeding programs does not "lessen or negate" the "potential for a distinct change." This agility person who bought this pup has had dogs from the grandsire's line before and likes them and wants to breed back to those lines. But she has no freaking clue what's on the dam's side (big-time cattle-bred working bitch with a TON of eye), nor how that line will mix or not with what she has.

 

So, do you consider that particular puppy a dog of a completely different breed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That working ability is what makes the Border Collie a breed isn't significant to me is a complete misunderstanding. I have never indicated in any way that it isn't significant to me.

 

Um, so how do you reconcile this statement with the entire rest of your post? This line of discussion is clearly a waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, so how do you reconcile this statement with the entire rest of your post? This line of discussion is clearly a waste of time.

 

Holding the position that puppies born to two Border Collies are, in fact, Border Collies, regardless of the intention of an individual breeder does not equal considering working ability insignificant. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about that. I never stated anywhere that working ability is insignificant. But the reality is that there are Border Collies in existence that were bred with something else in mind, yet they remain Border Collies because their parents are Border Collies.

 

I know we disagree on this. You know we disagree on this. I think we've made that very clear. You think it's a waste of time. I don't. Nobody is forcing you to keep asking me questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Um, so how do you reconcile this statement with the entire rest of your post? This line of discussion is clearly a waste of time.

 

Because it's completely circular, you see. If a puppy's parents are border collies, it's a border collie. Right up until it "changes" somehow, other than in it's ability to work stock, because, well, you can't see that unless you go to sheep and you shouldn't have to do that, even though that's what the breed is supposed to be. Of course, even if you do prove it's changed somehow, say, with sheep that it doesn't want to work, well, too bad, it's still a border collie because it's parents are. :D:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because it's completely circular, you see. If a puppy's parents are border collies, it's a border collie.

 

OK, so tell me how you could take two of your working bred dogs and produce a puppy who is not a Border Collie. I'm really interested to know how this can happen.

 

Right up until it "changes" somehow, other than in it's ability to work stock, because, well, you can't see that unless you go to sheep and you shouldn't have to do that, even though that's what the breed is supposed to be. Of course, even if you do prove it's changed somehow, say, with sheep that it doesn't want to work, well, too bad, it's still a border collie because it's parents are. :D:rolleyes:

 

So, if a puppy bred from two of your working dogs does not want to work sheep, it is not a Border Collie?

 

If you still consider it a Border Collie, then why? If a dog who won't work sheep is not a Border Collie, then (by that logic) "washouts" ought to be considered a different breed, as well.

 

I seriously don't see how it can be both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, do you consider that particular puppy a dog of a completely different breed?

 

Not at all because this particular puppy, despite its to-me unfortunate placement, was bred of good solid working parents, ostensibly to be a working dog. But apparently it was "excess" (as per one of the other threads), and so was sold to a sport home. When things, to me, will shift down that road to becoming something other than a Border Collie is when this pup is bred to a sport-bred dog without having ever seen her on stock to evaluate her working ability, and bred for the speed or quick turns (or whatever it is that agility people fancy) that the owner hopes to reproduce (if she even has those qualities, which is a crapshoot, as this pup comes from a dam with a sh!tpile of eye, and I have no idea how that plays out in agility. All I know is that the dam is the single most tunnel-visioned dog I have ever worked with as far as stock being her only reason for existence). Her offspring will, unfortunately, to me, be something else.

 

It's meaningless from a working standpoint

 

Only if "we" (all of us?) somehow agree that working ability had nothing to do with the development of the Border Collie, which I don't think is the case for anyone here in this discussion.

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you impose the qualification I have highlighted?

Quite simply because the average pet/sport Border Collie owner is not going to go test a dog on stock just to "prove" that it's a "real" Border Collie.

 

The fact is that lack of such a test does not change what the dog is.

 

No, but it prevents you from ascertaining what the dog is.

 

A dog is not identified as belonging to a certain breed due to a test - whether genetic or a "skills test", if you will. This is the case, particularly when both parents of a litter of puppies are actually Border Collies.

 

Except that going by what you said earlier, it is. By some type of test -- even if it's just testing by gross physical examination -- you are willing to accept that a KC Collie is a different breed from a border collie, despite uninterrupted descent, in each generation. But gross physical examination is not an appropriate test to use when the essence of a breed is not based on appearance. If the defining characteristics are behavioral, then a behavioral test is appropriate.

 

That working ability is what makes the Border Collie a breed isn't significant to me is a complete misunderstanding. I have never indicated in any way that it isn't significant to me.

 

You've said repeatedly that working ability ISN'T what makes the border collie a breed.

 

I have to agree with Robin's conclusions about this discussion. You seem to have gone back to saying that a breed can never change. (And we are still amoebas, I guess.) And when you say, "So, if a puppy bred from two of your working dogs does not want to work sheep, it is not a Border Collie? . . . If a dog who won't work sheep is not a Border Collie, then (by that logic) 'washouts' ought to be considered a different breed, as well," you seem to be ignoring the entire course of the discussion. It's getting to feel kind of Sisyphean to continue.

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...