Sport Collies

[Lenajo]

As I said, there is nothing wrong with an ethical rehome. Not all dogs work out.

 

My point was if you know there is a preventable deal breaker (like getting a dog old enough xray if you can not, no way no how, live with HD) they you should do it. To me getting a dog for a "sport" (aka, an entertainment one does with a *pet* dog) should include prevention of deal breaker problems by sensibly buying/adopting right off the bat. That is *not* buying a puppy when you know that there are things that could happen (like HD) which means rehome - period.

 

I have the same impatience when people approach me wanting a puppy for rough cattle work. That is a specific type of work that can in generalities be bred for, but there is no guarantee a puppy will reflect that breeding exactly the way the buyer wants....not to mention all the developmental and training mistake crap that can happy to a pup in the process of trying to learn. Better to get a young adult that already suits and polish it, than waste 2 years on a puppy to find out it won't work out...then be shoving it off to a new home

 

Breeders, and I am one, are a different entity. You cannot "keep them all", or you will become a collecter. Sensible decisions must apply over emotions at times. That said, I'd be leary of a breeder who didn't manage to keep a few dogs around that earned the right to the couch.

 

I err on the side of control freak myself I don't think paper contracts mean much, but they are a good way to establish honest conversation. The most important thing to me is getting to know a buyer. And one of those questions I ask a person is "what happens if this puppy turns out to be the opposite of what you told me you want?"

 

I don't want to hear mindless platitudes of love and devotion either. I want honesty - ever yperson has a "deal breaker" situation. It's what you do to prevent that counts...and that may mean *no puppies*

 

And since I don't rampantly overbreed I can take the time to find each pup that I'm not keeping the most appropriate home possible. A luxary I know would evaporate when trying to market the other 9 litters these breeders we are dicussing had planned that year!

[SoloRiver]

If I were selling a dog because she was not up to snuff, I would have spayed her first.

[Lenajo]

If I were selling a dog because she was not up to snuff, I would have spayed her first.

 

Actually I would have called the breeder first, then if they were a no, they I would have spayed her.

[jdarling]

And since I don't rampantly overbreed I can take the time to find each pup that I'm not keeping the most appropriate home possible.

 

Do you mean to tell me you don't have an online deposit list 40 people deep, where people can order their pup by color, sex and drive level? Shame on you!

[Lenajo]

I have a list 10 times as long with names of people....who will draw back a bloody nub if they come near my babies.

[Rave]

What do they do with those dogs? When elite sport competitors wash out dogs where do those dogs go?

 

Well the ones who are decent will get pawned off on a lower level competitor and if not, given to pet homes. I wouldn't be surprised to see some dumped in rescue.

 

Some flyballers really disgust me with how go through and also train dogs. The whole "leave them in the crate so they're wired to play" method is appalling. But lest you think all flyballers are like that, they aren't. The only ones I've seen/heard this about are the top level teams, and they are a VERY SMALL MINORITY.

[jdarling]

If I were selling a dog because she was not up to snuff, I would have spayed her first.

 

And I have done that also with other dogs. (I went on the referral of a friend, and there was nothing wrong with the dog. We just weren't teaming up. However, I learned a huge lesson on this one.) Point being, the breeder of this particular dog was ok with me selling her, however, the breeders in the 2nd and 3rd generation had no knowledge I had even done that, yet their names were on the papers when the dog ended up in rescue.

[MrSnappy]

Sorry to see you're misinterpreting my posts and lumping me into some preconceived group. I have several "herding snob" friends as you call them and there's no hatred here, except maybe in your snippy posts.

 

I had such a good comeback to that, but I'll let you be the LWW cuz you want it so much

 

Some flyballers really disgust me with how go through and also train dogs. The whole "leave them in the crate so they're wired to play" method is appalling.

 

We had one of those here. And as in the other thread about working breeders, it was another interesting sociological thing to observe ... people were very uncomfortable with the 15 + dogs she had in crates in her house that came out only for flyball. But she also bred borderjacks, and had a VERY fast Malinois and some other fast dogs and people wanted the on their teams. So they said not very nice things about her in certain circles, but bought her dogs with a smile on their faces. Sad.

 

Since many people live in dog-limited communities, or just frankly have financial/emotional/time limits, I would rather they *ethically* rehome an unmatched dog than keep it and eventually resent it.

 

The same home has acquired at least 4 that I can think of, and potentially more, dogs since the rehome that Kristi refers to. Our agility community is very much team focused - dog first, sport second - and most people involved found it rather gross that he rehomed his pet because it couldn't play a sport that is supposed to be fun for dog and handler. An awful lot of people were shocked that this person considered the dog a tool for the sport, rather than the sport a tool for the dog and handler to bond.

 

I can't imagine jumping over poles and climbing A-Frames to be more important than my dog or its welfare or the bond I have created with it. The rehoming in all areas - sports and herding - has always bothered me and probably always will. I think there's a really fine line between rehoming a dog for its sake and dumping it for yours.

 

Another rather horrifying event was a woman on my old flyball team who recently euthanized her Aussie because it didn't run fast enough in flyball. The dog was shy from the outset when she bought it as a puppy and did not improve much with age, possibly because flyball is the only exposure the dog got to anything /any other environment. When the dog got a little snarky with another dog that got in its face, she had her excuse and put it down. Now she has room for another *faster* dog to join the family.

 

Half the team left the club in protest, and those people are my heros.

 

RDM

[airbear]

Since many people live in dog-limited communities, or just frankly have financial/emotional/time limits, I would rather they *ethically* rehome an unmatched dog than keep it and eventually resent it.

I guess it makes me sad that one could resent a dog for its physical limitations, and thus justify getting rid of it (everything else is just a euphemism) to make room for the next one.

 

I have two stable ponies that travel with me to sheepdog trials. I don't resent them - they are good at their own things. Can't imagine re-homing them to make room for a better dog, but that's just me.

[Lenajo]

ok guys, no shooting the messanger LOL. I gave room for the guy to be reasonable and ethically because I didn't know the situation, but I did say a lot more than just the quote your are sitting on.

[Dalesred]

Melanie

 

I can't make the case because it's something I don't believe in either.

 

Rhiw comes from proven working stock but, he is 'only' a pet. Thanks to this board I now know more than I ever did before about the breeding for working ability only argument, and I understand the case for it. My next dog, however, will be a rescue as I feel that would be an even better choice for our situaiton than a working bred pup.

 

I know you will know all about this anyway, but others might be interested to hear that there was a brilliant TV programme aired recently about this very issue here in the UK. BCs weren't mentioned specifically, but the appalling consequences of what has happened to a number of breeds through inter-breeding from a diminishing gene pool for size/ looks/ colour/ designer characteristics etc, was truly awful.

 

Whilst I accept that the breeding for herding ability versus breeding for sport is another and slightly different aspect of the argument, the programme gave a vivid and disturbing insight into what goes on in the show breeding world. And how appalling and irreversible damage can be wreaked in a very short time.

 

One woman admitted quite frankly on camera that , as a Rhodesian Ridgeback breeder she 'culled' all pups born without a ridge. Even though the ridge itself is a deformity. She said she had to 'shop around for an old fashioned vet willing to do it.' I bet she did.

 

Then there were the King Charles Cavs whose skulls are too small for their brains. The pug who had horrible spinal curvature due to breeding to produce the double curl in the tail, the GSD hip/joint problems and so on.

 

What is worst of all though, these damaged dogs, some living with chronic ailments of varying severity, from mild impairment to acute and constant pain, can be bred from and shown in the show ring. And the Kennel Club has done very litttle to address the issue, saying that they were wary of 'driving unscrupulous breeders underground. '

 

All of this leads me to conclude that every time you breed selectively for something other than that with which the breed is primarily meant to be or do, has to be a retrograde step. So much damage has been done to the health of many breeds, in order to further the financial and ego needs of their breeders, that their very future is in question.

 

And there are so many, many cross breeds in rescue waiting for loving forever homes that it seems awful to me to deliberately add to their number.

[Shetlander]

As I said, there is nothing wrong with an ethical rehome. Not all dogs work out.

 

That is no doubt true, but there is a very strong sentiment among sports people in general that you do not rehome your dog because he isn't quite what you were hoping for. It isn't the done thing. Although, as you mention, it is different with breeders and viewed by sports people as a different set of circumstances.

 

At my club, I can only think of one person in the 9 years that I've belonged who rehomed her dog for what appeared to everyone to be trivial reasons. When she seemingly out of the blue stated she could no longer keep one of the nicest dogs I've ever known, she went from being a Dog Person to a person who had dogs. She dropped out of the club soon after, not to anyone's surprise or disappointment.

 

But I've also known people who kept dogs that probably would have been happier in another home. I struggle with my own decision to keep my Lhasa because I do think he'd be much better as an only dog. However, he would be a difficult dog to place for a number of reasons plus I've never given a pet away. Not only is it not done among my friends and peers, but my parents also strongly believe pets are forever. It's very much a cultural thing for me.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

I had a guy offer some good cash for Tess two years ago . She gave a demo on wild sheep in a reining/cutting arena at a cowdog trial. He was looking to buy a dog for his ranch. He hosts cowdog trials. He whipped out his checkbook and was ready to buy her.

 

He approached me after the demo and asked me in front of a bunch of cowdog folsk, "How much for her?"

 

I said "She is a sheepdog and not a cowdog. Why do you want her?"

 

"Best dog that I seen so far. Good stock sense and best dog I have seen so far." was his answer

 

"She's old and semi-retired" was my reply

 

He BRIGHTENED UP and then said "I hear your folks retire your old trial dogs to good homes. I would be a great home for her" (mind you he had a old retired Border Collie from another Big Hat and he does have a good home for the dogs!!)

 

After a bit, he realized that Tess was not going to go anywhere. Some of my dogs go to retirement homes and some don't. I also sell some of my dogs and others will die here. (Sorry, Kristi....Nan is staying....you'll have to move in here to be her handler!! RDM....Kuro is here to stay and wants to know when you will come and see him!!)

 

So he bought a Tess pup, Ray. Ray is over 3 years and is now is best friend and partner. I told him that was the best I could do.

 

He loves Ray and Ray loves him. Now he knows the special connection that I have with Tess. He has it with Ray.

 

Not all handlers re-home their trial dogs. I think it depends on the dog and handler.

 

On a side note, I have had several dogs that were sports bred. One is still vey intense and a darn nice working dog . The other one (related) is intense but loses focus. The other sport bred dogs that I have worked are intense but don't have that focus.

 

Diane

[MrSnappy]

RDM....Kuro is here to stay and wants to know when you will come and see him!!)

 

I think you mistyped. What you really meant is "RDM, Kuro is on his way to your house to live with you!" Right??

 

 

RDM

[jdarling]

That is no doubt true, but there is a very strong sentiment among sports people in general that you do not rehome your dog because he isn't quite what you were hoping for. It isn't the done thing. Although, as you mention, it is different with breeders and viewed by sports people as a different set of circumstances.

(Emphasis added.)

 

(Not taking this quote to single anyone out ... just using it because it fits my question.)

 

So if I have a dog that doesn't quite work out and I want to "rehome" him ... would it be better if I just said I was selling him? Is there a difference? Or is that "dumping"? And what about the people that take dogs, raise them, train them, and sell them as trained dogs. Is there an ethical question mark there too? Because a lot of times, handlers will train up a few dogs, keep the ones they like, and "sell" the others as trained dogs. I don't think any of these handlers *resent* these dogs. They just are generally "overdogged" and need to cut down the numbers so they can bring in more young dogs. Yes? No?

[Ooky]

Who knows? I don't think there's a line, rather it's a gradual process where some breeders may be years ahead of others in crossing it. How long did it take to originally create the breed? Does it take a shorter time to dilute? What about outcrossing BCs with other herding breeds (wasn't this done with Beardies)? Does it add to/strengthen the breed or dilute it?

 

 

I know less about breeding than evolution, but I think they are in many ways at least somewhat similar mechanisms of change. We impose artificial selection on dogs, because we provide everything for them, even wild dogs that predate or scavange on the fringes of human societies. That's one of their defining characteristics as a species. So in *some* ways, they have escaped the brunt of natural selection. So artificial selection, which we impose --purposefully-- criteria on dogs' form, structure, temperament, abilities, and function much like natural selection does. (although maybe not so "purposefully" in the case of hodge-podge crazy breeding like what's going on with BCs right now).

 

In nature, no, there is usually not a clear line between species. A species, or subspecies, or variety, is defined on how you decide to define it. There are several viable species theories, and experts working on each group of organisms come to a consensus (or not) on how to define groups within their favored groups. So if working people clearly can see such changes in temperament, balance, courage, etc. that the breed is not the breed anymore (or quickly becoming that way), I would just naturally see them as the "researchers" who really know about it and would be the ones to pick the correct definition of "breed" in this case.

 

I don't know how long it took to create the breed. Someone here would be way more qualified to answer that, which I also think is a very good question.

 

BUT yes, in nature, it DEFINITELY takes a shorter time to dilute an "unneeded" phenotype than it does to develop useful traits. While historical artifacts can and will remain of the original traits, complex phenotypes like intelligence, knowledge on stock, stamina/soundness, etc. do not just happen by accident. In nature, if these things are useful, they will be "naturally" selected for. But since *we* control which dogs have reproductive success in each generation, it's up to the breeders to continually select towards those things. Darwin explained how it was like nature was the ultimate "pruner" - it NEVER lets up if some set of traits is required. So, it's like you have to apply continual pressure to stay at the desired (in artificial selection) or useful/necessary (in natural selection phenotype). Release the pressure, and the mean phenotype becomes less focused (more variation in traits) AND centers around a less extreme mean.

 

I've got a BC. Having met dogs my whole life, I'd say this is a pretty extreme mean phenotype in dog terms. You must keep selection pressure high. The selection that got us here was stockwork-based.

 

And as for previous outcrossing, again my impression is that all of that was done with stockwork ability driving the selection, so it doesn't really apply to the "let off/change the selection pressure" scenario.

 

I do agree some breeders are doing worse "damage" with their breeding practices than others, by which I mean some dilute more slowly, and some dilute quickly. But it only can make sense that any breeding away from stockwork is by definition a dilution of the selection pressure operating to make this breed.

[Shetlander]

So if I have a dog that doesn't quite work out and I want to "rehome" him ... would it be better if I just said I was selling him? Is there a difference? Or is that "dumping"? And what about the people that take dogs, raise them, train them, and sell them as trained dogs.

 

I think we're talking two very different communities with entirely different circumstances of owning dogs. The vast majority of people in sports have dogs as pets first. Yes, they often choose dogs they hope will excel in the sport(s) of their choice, but that is not the dog's primary or only purpose.

[stockdogranch]

And what about the people that take dogs, raise them, train them, and sell them as trained dogs. Is there an ethical question mark there too?

 

I'll jump in on that one. I know some do it to get the best dog they can for themselves, letting the others go on to other working homes. I don't see that as a problem. I just like starting young ones. And there are people out there (ranchers) who have stock, need a dog, and have no idea how to start one and get it up to speed to be functional in their operation. I get to start a little one and help it become something very useful; the rancher gets a decent dog to help out. Everybody's happy. And I certainly don't "resent" the pups I start; in fact, I generally like them a whole lot.

 

A

[DeltaBluez Tess]

>>>> And I certainly don't "resent" the pups I start; in fact, I generally like them a whole lot.

 

That's good!!! WINK, WINK!!!

 

Kisses to your gals for me!!!

 

 

Diane

[juliepoudrier]

Ever wonder why I have as many dogs as I do? It's because even though I actually need dogs to help me with my livestock, all of my dogs are still also my pets and companions. Not being able to work anymore (or not being open trial quality) doesn't meant they get shipped somewhere else. I am just too controlling for that--I think there are very few people who would take as a good care of them and love them like I do (and those people know who they are, because they are already on my list of who gets my dogs should I die unexpectedly). What this means for me as a competitor is that I have to work with what I've got and that I might not be able to get that next prospect until one of the current old timers passes. Since even sheepdog trialing is pretty much an ego thing (after all, I'm not making a living off my trial successes by selling lessons or trained dogs or anything), I just don't see the need to run out and replace the not-so-stellar ones with better prospects. The truth is that having a dog around that is capable of winning consistently in open is nice, it's not an absolute requirement for the bulk of the livestock chores I do here on a day-to-day basis. If any of my youngsters don't turn out to be competitive in open, they will still make useful farm dogs, and I actually have a greater need for the latter than the former.

 

I don't disrespect people who do choose to rehome retirees (especially since I learned a lot from the retired open dog who was rehomed with me) or dogs that simply aren't a good match for them (if my Kat had been a good match for her original owner, I wouldn't have her now, and I think we are a much better match than her original owner was with her) if they are making the best effort to find the best situation for that particular dog. I do think it's sad, though, the way some folks run through dogs like there's no tomorrow. No sport is worth that to me.

 

J.

[stockdogranch]

Kisses to your gals for me!!!

 

Thanks--we're off to Soldier Hollow for 5 days of hard work, but that we also thoroughly enjoy!!

 

A

[Wendy V]

Nicely said, Julie. It is the reason that I own 10 dogs. I only need 3-4 for work, and I am training 4 young ones for a replacement crew now that the originals are between 9-13 yo, but I also have the crippled one and the biscuit-eater with me for life. No doubt that they will live until they are 20, they have it so good.

[herdcentral]

I do think it's sad, though, the way some folks run through dogs like there's no tomorrow. No sport is worth that to me.

 

J.

 

I love agility and where I live I can only have 3 dogs. I have and older girl that I run because she loves it, a young ACD who is doing well in obedience and has the perfect attitude for agility but I am waiting a CT scan result for likely elbow dysplasia which will preclude her from agility and an 18 month old BC who comes from sport lines.

 

The BC is a lovely mellow girl except when she is chasing a ball, she is very fast and loves life but she doesnt seem overly thrilled with agility. Very accurate and carefull is how I would describe her and nowhere near the same joyful can do attitude and focus of my young most likely elbow dysplastic ACD and my older dog. Probably to do with my lack of experience with training BCs and I am working on it but it is not easy!

 

I guess the thing is that they are my pets first and all have great temperaments to live with. I could not even think about not having them in my life even if it means I dont get to do my favourite sport. Both my young dogs I got with the purpose to do agility and that dream is currently waning somewhat but I love them anyway.

 

My breeder will take back the elbow dysplastic dog if it turns out to be dysplasia, but I couldnt do that. She is simply the most terriffic little dog and is bonded to me and her pack.

 

C

[SoloRiver]

That is no doubt true, but there is a very strong sentiment among sports people in general that you do not rehome your dog because he isn't quite what you were hoping for.

 

There is? That has not been my experience. I would actually say it has been the opposite, or at least I've heard plenty of people talking about it, but I don't know what happened to those dogs.

[herdcentral]

There is? That has not been my experience. I would actually say it has been the opposite, or at least I've heard plenty of people talking about it, but I don't know what happened to those dogs.

 

I belong to a small country club and none of our dogs are going to be champions. We are all totally crazy about agility but our dogs are our pets first and we learn to deal with the dissapointment of not having the perfect agility dogs. It can be frustrating at times but it makes the occasional win and title all that much sweeter and maybe helps us to be better trainers.

 

I have heard that some people rehome dogs that havnt worked out as one of our members has one of these dogs a BC that she runs in agility. This dog is much loved. I also know of dogs that havnt worked out for top trainers and they were not rehomed but stayed on as pets.

 

C