Jump to content
BC Boards

Sport Collies


SoloRiver
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, in other words, counter to what you said earlier, the breed cannot ever split or morph into a new breed? Dang, we've all got to get used to calling our dogs rough collies and smooth collies. Just when we got used to Border Collie.

 

I did not say that. Of course new breeds can be developed.

 

I said it does not happen in one fell swoop simply because of intention. If that were the case, I could take two working Border Collies who love to swim, breed them to be swimmers and call them "Border Swimmers". But doing that doesn't make them a breed. They are still Border Collies regardless of my intentions. (Note Well: My dogs are fixed. I don't breed. Don't take that example as something I am actually going to do.)

 

I never said that new breeds could not be developed from the Border Collie - of course they can. But if one is claiming that certain Border Collies are not Border Collies anymore, that proclamation in and of itself does not actually demonstrate that an actual split has, in fact, occurred. Call them all Gertrude if you want, but that isn't going to make them a new breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 398
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I did not say that. Of course new breeds can be developed.

 

I said it does not happen in one fell swoop simply because of intention. If that were the case, I could take two working Border Collies who love to swim, breed them to be swimmers and call them "Border Swimmers". But doing that doesn't make them a breed. They are still Border Collies regardless of my intentions. (Note Well: My dogs are fixed. I don't breed. Don't take that example as something I am actually going to do.)

 

I never said that new breeds could not be developed from the Border Collie - of course they can. But if one is claiming that certain Border Collies are not Border Collies anymore, that proclamation in and of itself does not actually demonstrate that an actual split has, in fact, occurred. Call them all Gertrude if you want, but that isn't going to make them a new breed.

 

How about if i breed swimmer collies to swimmer collies (all actually border collie by your definition of course) for many generations? When do they stop being border collies and become swimmer collies. Oh wait, can't do that, cause they're all border collies and well, you can only get border collies from border collies. And ANY puppy with border collie parents has to be a border collie by birthright. Hmm, quite the conundrum, isn't it, reconciling your incompatible viewpoints?

 

BTW, proclamation (i.e. papers) doesn't make a dog a border collie either, which the main thing you're missing. Papers don't get the sheep in the barn before the coyotes come out at night. Border collies that meet the breed standard of work do. Of course there are border collies who are lousy examples of the breed standard and are border collies by paper, but at some point they do stop being border collies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Please point out to me where I ever said those words. In context, please.

 

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.

 

No, I didn't say that. I understand that you are hearing that for some reason, but I have not said that.

 

you seem to be ignoring the entire course of the discussion.

 

No, I'm really not ignoring the course of the discussion.

 

I hear a lot of contradictions and a lot of twisting of very clear points that I have made, but I have yet to hear a logical explanation of how by simply intending to breed for purposes other than stockwork, sport Border Collie breeders have magically produced a whole new breed of dog presto change-o and that this "breed" of dog that has been developed beyond record time and must immediately have a new name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about if i breed swimmer collies to swimmer collies (all actually border collie by your definition of course) for many generations? When do they stop being border collies and become swimmer collies. Oh wait, can't do that, cause they're all border collies and well, you can only get border collies from border collies. Hmm, quite the conundrum, isn't it, reconciling your incompatible viewpoints?

 

Maybe reconciling the viewpoints that you have decided that I hold is difficult, but there is no trouble reconciling what I actually said.

 

BTW, proclamation (i.e. papers) doesn't make a dog a border collie either, which the main thing you're missing. Papers don't get the sheep in the barn before the coyotes come out at night. Border collies that meet the breed standard of work do.

 

So, puppies bred from your own working dogs that don't work out as working dogs don't meet that standard and are not Border Collies by your definition.

 

What do you call them? Must be quite the conundrum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hear a lot of contradictions and a lot of twisting of very clear points that I have made, but I have yet to hear a logical explanation of how by simply intending to breed for purposes other than stockwork, sport Border Collie breeders have magically produced a whole new breed of dog presto change-o and that this "breed" of dog that has been developed beyond record time and must immediately have a new name.

 

Unless i'm mistaken, nothing has happened presto change-o, unless the SCA (Sport Collie Association) registry out there i'm not aware of. Is it so far fetched to think we're seeing the first steps on the road to that though? Border collies were created to excel at work stock, Sport Collies are being produced to excel at sports. That's a pretty obvious divergence of purpose and intent in breeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to get deeply in on this debate (though I find it very interesting) but I do have a question. To those of you arguing so strongly on the sport breed dogs aren't BCs, do you consider the ability to work stock the one and only characteristic that defines a border collie as such?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have yet to hear a logical explanation of how by simply intending to breed for purposes other than stockwork, sport Border Collie breeders have magically produced a whole new breed of dog presto change-o and that this "breed" of dog that has been developed beyond record time and must immediately have a new name.

 

It doesn't happen over one generation, or two, or ...

 

But, it does happen. Over time. Eventually, the genetics that made the Border Collie what is was will morph into the traits that the "sport collie" are now being selected for.

 

As people breed border collies away from the need to work and control livestock, the genetics will "pool up" on those other desired traits. Those now dominant traits will change the dog. Yes, you'd (hypothetical "you") be able to trace your new "sport collie" back to the original "border collie"...but it really has become its own breed.

 

So, while you may do agility with your border collie that you got from working parents and your dog is still a border collie, if you breed that dog, and pay no attention to working ability, what are you selecting for? How many generations does it take for you to get something consistent based on your criteria? That's when the breed has become something different.

 

Unfortunately, to get there, you're changing the border collie bit by bit by bit.

 

Jennifer Akins

Trowbridge, CA

www.jentodogs.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristine, this is never going to get anywhere if you keep erecting straw men and asking people to knock them down. I'm with Eileen. I'm done pushing that rock up that hill.

 

Yeah, i've got knots on my head from beating it against the rock too. I'm out unless someone else comes up with some questions. It's an interesting topic but Kristine is making me dizzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really enjoyed the debate. Thanks, especially - Anna, Robin, and Eileen - for taking the time to hash it out.

 

Sorry you saw it as straw men Melanie. On my part it was an honest effort to try to understand a different perspective and to seek to have my own perspective understood by others, however it was taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to get deeply in on this debate (though I find it very interesting) but I do have a question. To those of you arguing so strongly on the sport breed dogs aren't BCs, do you consider the ability to work stock the one and only characteristic that defines a border collie as such?

 

It's the historical breed standard, and as such, if you want to breed true and try to improve the breed, you choose the best dogs that exemplify or improve the standard. Obviously there is a continuum from great examples of the breed down to lousy ones - great working dogs down to ones that won't work at all. I think i'm finally getting this myself. :rolleyes:

 

However, if you bring a dog with an unknown background to my farm, i can only tell you if it's a border collie if you put it on the same side of the fence as the sheep. What it looks like until then tells me nothing. Appearance is irrelevant.

 

If the standard you measure a border collie by is possession of registration papers, then yes, those sport collies are still border collies, but in name only. ETA: It's possible they could be good examples of the breed standard, but unless you can guage their stockworking ability, you don't know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really don't want to get deeply in on this debate (though I find it very interesting) but I do have a question. To those of you arguing so strongly on the sport breed dogs aren't BCs, do you consider the ability to work stock the one and only characteristic that defines a border collie as such?

 

The ability to work stock is the breed standard in border collies. It is what the breed was developed for, and it's what good border collie breeders breed toward today. So yes, it is the defining characteristic of the breed. Just as the AKC uses an appearance standard to define their breeds, the traditional border collie breeder uses a working standard. And just as not all dogs produced by AKC breeders measure up to their appearance standard, so too not all dogs produced by traditional border collie breeders measure up to the working standard. But that is what we strive for, and if we stop striving for it and that ability is lost, then the dogs are no longer real border collies. They will have changed into something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Please point out to me where I ever said those words. In context, please.

 

You didn't write those exact words. But when you say that what makes a border collie a border collie is that its parents were border collies, and when you rule out a test of working ability to determine whether a subset of border collies has become a different breed, you are saying that working ability isn't what makes the border collie a breed. Don't you see that?

 

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

 

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

 

The puppies produced by two Border Collies are Border Collies.

 

If these statements were true, then a new breed could never develop, because at what generation could you say the parents of the pups were not border collies? Do you really not see that?

 

I guess this'll be my final word on the subject too. Thanks, it's been real.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You didn't write those exact words. But when you say that what makes a border collie a border collie is that its parents were border collies, and when you rule out a test of working ability to determine whether a subset of border collies has become a different breed, you are saying that working ability isn't what makes the border collie a breed. Don't you see that?

 

I can see how one could interpret it that way, but that was not what was intended.

 

My point in saying that change should be discernible without specific tests (the two types mentioned by others were genetic and testing the dog on sheep, so those were the two I highlighted) is not to say that working ability does not make the Border Collie a breed, but that a new breed would be very obviously distinct somehow (not necessarily looks, of course).

 

You gave an excellent example with the Border Collie and the Lassie Collie. The differences are obvious - not just in looks, but in the overall package of what the dog is. From what you explained, in that case the name was changed before the new breed was actually developed, but now that there are two different breeds, the differences can be discerned without tests.

 

If these statements are true, then a new breed could never develop, because at what generation could you say the parents of the pups were not border collies. Do you really not see that?

 

From what I understand, the development of new breeds of dogs is not a simple and straightforward or fast process. I would say that in the case of developing a new breed from the Border Collie, that would be the case, as well. You can also go back and find plenty of times where I said that a new breed could be developed from the Border Collie.

 

I know that's not a satisfying response, but the development of breeds is a pretty complex subject in and of itself.

 

ETA: The statement in bold is simply for emphasis. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another thought from Tea! :rolleyes:

 

We run sled dogs. They are a team used mostly for fun, but some work in the mts. They are rescues.

 

One mal (Wheel dog) doesn't pull very well. Has health issues and not good hair for snow, but a sweet funny dog.

 

One mal (Wheel dog) bred from a musher pulls great.

 

The alaskans bred for mushing do great pulling wise...(swing and one lead) although not terribly fast, as alaskans, that's probably why they are here.

 

The village type dogs do great, (Swing and one gee haw leader) not real fast but alot of stamina, although rather predatory.

 

The mals are dogs that are typically reg, although these are not. (That I know of) I think they, as a breed, are shown AKC and I assume do not work to be shown AKC

 

The village dogs are not registered. But people keep track of their lines and I think there is some talk of forming, or has just formed a reg for them?

 

The alaskans are not registered but the mushers keep close track of their bloodlines. And they are very good sled dogs. But here's the thing.

 

They have so concentrated on speed that I worry about things like tough feet and good hair.

 

For me...a dog who has bad feet or gets frost bite even though he is fast won't do me much good in the Mts.

Which for me is their work.

 

Also the really speedy dogs are too fast/ freaky for me on really bad going, (Like there is no trails where we go!)

 

Another thing is the alaskans eat about three times as much food as the village/mal dogs. The village dogs metabolism and digestion is better suited to work for me in the mts. I must take their food.

 

The Aslaskans formed as a working breed out of various types of dogs. But now the concentration is on racing.

 

The old people have told me things about the old dogs, that they didn't need booties, that they never needed dog coats, that they could hunt for themselves, that they had common sense about traveling in rough going. The old people had maybe 4 or 5 dogs on a team.

 

Now, the teams are big.

 

So it seems the thing that developed the dogs was what people wanted the most. In the view of the old people a wise, tough dog that could move their gear. (Practical)

 

In terms of now- a fast dog that can win races.

 

Or a beautiful dog that looks good.

 

So that is interesting to me. Sorry I have seemed to post this twice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The old people have told me things about the old dogs, that they didn't need booties, that they never needed dog coats, that they could hunt for themselves, that they had common sense about traveling in rough going. The old people had maybe 4 or 5 dogs on a team...

 

So it seems the thing that developed the dogs was what people wanted the most. In the view of the old people a wise, tough dog that could move their gear. (Practical)

 

In terms of now- a fast dog that can win races.

 

Or a beautiful dog that looks good.

I think you have hit it quite on the head. Nowadays, when this is more a sport than a necessity (or survival tool) some people can afford big teams, dogs that need to be babied, dogs that require more feed, dogs that don't think, etc. In "the old days", a dog was either useful (contributed more than it cost to keep and maintain) or it was culled. People couldn't afford to keep animals that didn't haul their own weight, so to speak.

 

I think that's just as true for working stockdogs as you see it is for sled dogs. It is similar for Quarter Horses that are bred with small, stylish feet that are not sound like the old, range-proven horses were. People didn't used to be able to cosset their horses that had to work for a living, and on which a person's livelihood depended. I don't believe it is beneficial for the future of the breed (or genepool of working stockdogs, stockhorses, sled dogs, or whatever).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ability to work stock is the breed standard in border collies. It is what the breed was developed for, and it's what good border collie breeders breed toward today. So yes, it is the defining characteristic of the breed. <...>

But that is what we strive for, and if we stop striving for it and that ability is lost, then the dogs are no longer real border collies. They will have changed into something else.

 

So that I'm politically correct, when someone asks what breeds my dogs are since my 3 BCs don't look alike and 2 are far from general public knowledge of looks, I shouldn't say they are BCs at all since none show workability, nor would likely succeed at it.

 

When I first come to the boards, people described BCs like the equine SportHorse. Any breed will do, though usually they are warmbloods but the defining point (to my limited understanding) was what those horses competed in. Their venues of competition defined them as sporthorses. So I immediately made the parallel that a Border Collie was a working sheepdog, no matter the appearance.

 

So what are my dogs? (none are registered or have any proven lineage - but 'look' (haha) BC.) I certainly don't want to do the breed any injustice.

2697014295_70cd8fbb7d_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really mean that you want to know what to say so as to be politically correct, you will be only the second person I ever encountered in my life who used the term "politically correct" in anything but an ironic or disparaging sense. I doubt that most people have even met one. But I digress.

 

What do you mean when you say, "none show workability, nor would likely succeed at it"?

 

Since you're right that appearance doesn't matter, and you apparently don't know their parentage or how they would work, I guess in your position I'd say, "I think they're border collies." But if you prefer to say "They're border collies," that'd be fine too. I doubt that the person asking has philosophical motives, or any interest deeper than making conversation.

 

And I wouldn't worry about it much one way or the other. That's not where the rubber meets the road when it comes to breed definition.

 

ETA: However, if they DID have an interest deeper than making conversation, I'm sure I would have more to say on the subject than they would ever want to hear. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found this discussion really interesting at first. Unfortunately, is seems to have disinegrated into petty arguments. I am a long time lurker and I actually posted on this topic.

 

Here's the gist and I am speaking from in what my opinion is the general perspective of most sports people, myself included. I have discussed these opinions with many other sports people. Take them or leave them, I am not intending to get in an arguement or endless back and forth discussion about them.

 

I am an excellent home. My dogs are well cared for mentally, physically and nutrionally. They are a huge and intricately intwined part of my life. That will never change. My dogs do work stock in a hobby kind of way when I can fit it into my schedule. I really like herding with my dogs. Realistically though, to be really successful at training a working stock dog, you actually need stock to work. Oh yes, I have heard stories of people who don't own stock who have successfully trialed their Border Collies. However, I know that my dogs saw sheep once a week for months and that progress was very slow. I am not in the financial or lifestyle situation to go off, buy a farm and get some stock or to pay for expensive lessons more then once a month or so. So, any dog I own probably will be introduced and get to work stock on a sporadic level. It will never trial and it will never prove its mettle as a "working dog" unless someday my circumstances change and I find myself with more free time and more access to stock.

 

I am an avid and experienced agility competitor. I am a tick below what would be considered top level. I have won and placed at Regional level, but I have not yet won or placed nationally. I intend to continue to be a seroius agility competitior with Border Collies until I am too decrepid to get around the course. That's a long way off yet.

 

I do believe that Border Collies that are being bred should be working dogs. However, I think that working people as a whole tend to have a wide variety of definitions of "proven on stock". If you are breeding your young dog who is trialing in nursery, is that dog proven on stock? If you are a farm owner who has livestock who has a dog you use on your own farm successfully and never trial is that dog not proven on stock? Border Collies were developed by farmers to work stock on their farms not to compete on the trial field, right?

 

Frankly, I am not interested in any one person's definition of what dogs should and should not be bred. I am able to read trial results, study pedigrees, do my homework, watch a dog on sheep, meet a dog in person and know if it is a decent dog and make my own decision. I can decide what lines I like and what dogs I am interested in a potential puppy from. I have friends whose dogs I greatly like as individuals who are not working people whose dogs I might consider a puppy from were I looking.

 

I also strongly believe that any Border Collies that are being considered for breeding should also be vigoriously health tested and cleared of all genetic diseases and conditions and have proven themselves of solid temperament without undue aggression, fear, anxiety or down right weirdness that many Border Collies display.

 

I also strongly feel that there are way to many dogs being bred. I feel a breeder should have homes lined up for the potential puppies before a litter is even bred. If you have to complain because rescue dogs are taking places for your wonderfully working bred puppies, to me that should be raising a red flag. If you don't have enough homes interested in your litter, why are you breeding it in the first place? There are many "sports bred" litters that are long sold before they are ever produced. If a working breeder doesn't have homes for the puppies it might produce, I see a problem there. Again keep in mind that I support the belief that only Border Collies successfully working stock should be bred.

 

That all being said - this is America folks. If I want to own a Border Collie I have the capability and right to own one. If you want me, as a responsible, experienced home that will give a dog an outlet for its mental and physical needs, even though a non-traditinal one, to support the working dog instead of purchasing a "sports collie" by all means step up to the plate, take me seriously when I inquire about purchasing a puppy and sell me one. Sell me a young dog you kept but are not going to have time or inclination to train. I will want to do some bloodwork on that dog and have x-rays done at my own expense before committing to the purchase, but I will provide an excellent home. I am confident that any screening you want to do regarding the type of home I can provide a dog, and I would hope you would do some screening, will pass muster just as well as any potential working home might. I will be just as interested in return if you pass my screening about the health, genetics and temperament of your dogs and the x-rays and bloodwork turn out good.

 

Keep in mind that I will not, ever, buy a dog male or female that has been altered before it is at least a year old. I believe, as the vast majority of sports people do, in the studies that have been done (Chris Zink) and my own veterinarian who feel this is not in the best interest of the dog. I will happily purchase the dog on a spay/neuter contract. I have no intention of breeding.

 

Don't even bother trying to sell me a dog without papers. I want to research the lines I am purchasing. I want at least five generations of pedigree and to be able to research the health of the lines I am buying. There are many many, sick, deaf, epileptic, structurally unsound and just plain temperamentally unsound at there. If I am handing you money for a dog, I feel I am entitled to its registration. I am not interested in someone selling me a dog because they don't have enough working homes or as is quite possible the dog just isn't a great dog on livestock without papers because I am a sport home. Sorry, not interested.

 

Yes, I am very interested, when I am ready for my next dog in a few years, in a well bred dog from successful working lines. I already have potential places in mind based on research and potential lines that I might be interested in a dog from. Why do I want this type of dog if I am not working stock as a sports breeder? Because I do believe that Border Collies are Border Collies because they were bred to work stock. I want a Border Collie who has all of the brain power, drive, determination and endurance of a dog bred to work stock. Many sports people feel this way but feel that a working person would not sell them a dog, would not be forthcoming or even have screened for many potential health problems, does not have information regarding hip ratings of previous generations and will generally brush them off as a pet home and sell them the pup that no one they wanted to sell to wanted.

 

Those of us who want Border Collies are going to get them. If you want to help protect the breed's integrity as a working breed, then make yourselves more available as a whole when we inquire about a puppy. Be prepared to answer health and temperament questions. Sell us a dog or a puppy. If not, and although I do not personally support it, then don't complain when the sports people are breeding their own.

 

Regards,

 

Jen Shipley

Flute, Enna and Fever

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jen. That was a very insightful and well balanced answer, and I really appreciate you taking the time to write and post it.

 

I know Jen, and she is an excellent owner and handler. If I bred Border Collies, I would not hesitate to sell her one. I have seen how dedicated she is to her dogs, how much work she will put into them, and the success that results. Her dogs are very well loved.

 

Even though this discussion has been contentious at times, I think it has been very enlightening and I am not at all sorry to have started it. It has addressed many issues that the Border Collie community as a whole needs to think about. If it continues, I hope it does so in a productive manner. Thanks everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Melanie - Thank you for starting this topic. Yes, it did get a bit heated at times but I think that it has been a real impetus to some serious thought, and to the starting of several other very informative discussions. I think the boards have recently "experienced" some of the best discussions I have ever read here, and I think your topic here got the ball rolling.

 

Jen - That was a very thoughtful post. You summed up a lot of pertinent points and made a very good argument for consideration of the "right" sports homes for some well-bred, working-bred dogs. By right, I mean people like yourself who will provide excellent homes and never breed for the wrong criteria or reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also strongly feel that there are way to many dogs being bred. I feel a breeder should have homes lined up for the potential puppies before a litter is even bred. If you have to complain because rescue dogs are taking places for your wonderfully working bred puppies, to me that should be raising a red flag. If you don't have enough homes interested in your litter, why are you breeding it in the first place? There are many "sports bred" litters that are long sold before they are ever produced. If a working breeder doesn't have homes for the puppies it might produce, I see a problem there. Again keep in mind that I support the belief that only Border Collies successfully working stock should be bred.

 

I'd like to point out that people as individuals were not "complaining" that rescue dogs are taking places from their wonderfully working bred puppies. I think we hashed out the big picture view here about what was meant but obviously you chose to assume "red flags" should go up upon hearing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jen,

A question I have is that there seems to be a recurring theme that working breeders won't sell to sports folks. I think it's pretty clear from this discussion that they will--they just don't want their dogs subsequently used for a bunch of sports breedings, hence all the discussion about NB status, etc. Do you have any thoughts on how to reassure the working breeders that their lines won't be bred time and again into sport lines? I think that would be the only reluctance most working breeders would have selling to sport homes, but it's a biggie.

 

And I would like to second what Denise said. It's a bit disingenuous to come here and say you don't want to get in a back and forth discussion and then post something like what Denise quoted above. FWIW, most top working breeders do have lists for their pups, but that doesn't mean that the breeder is going to consider all of those working homes ideal homes for their particular litter. As I said in another thread in another section, many working breeders would rather see their pups go to a nonworking forever home than to a working home where the dog might be sold and resold. As long as some pups from each litter are being evaluated for working ability, it's not a problem to put some pups in pet or sport homes. You say you have no interest in breeding. Would you have any qualms about buying a pup from a working breeder on NB status? You get the pedigree, etc., but the any pups you produced from the dog should you (the generic you) go ahead and breed it against the breeder's wishes would not be registerable with the ABCA without the breeder's consent. Would sports competitors abide by such a thing? Would they refuse to buy a pup with NB status?

 

J.

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...