Ethical Working Dog Breeders

[Debbie Meier]

RDM posted this quote on another thread and rather then taking that thread off topic I thought I would begin another discussion, or maybe flame which is usually what happens when I post.

 

I think that people who want to need working dogs should support *ethical* working breeders, absolutely. But for the average person who wants a border collie companion, buying a superior-bred stockdog pup doesn't improve their chances of getting a good companion, nor does it perpetuate the working stockdog, because theoretically, those companion-owning people would not be breeding those (unproven) dogs. So if "you" for the sake of argument, were producing top notch working pups and selling them to companion homes with other interests, it lines your pocket but doesn't go back into the working gene pool. And when those dogs go get bred, guess what they become? .... sport and byb dogs. I mean, they come from somewhere, right?

 

 

The quote brings up questions, how many working dog breeders would be classified truely as "Ethical" you can't sell to anything but working homes, you have to do all the genetic testing, you have to breed to improve working ability, etc. One can argue that a trial home is not a working home, we were discussing that the other day, a local breeder said that he only sells to working homes, I asked him if he would sell to someone that wanted to trial, he said, yes it was a working home, but is it? If there person wants to trial and discontinues, owns no stock of their own, are they really a working home?

 

 

On another note, if all we support are ethical working dog breeders (which would be great), and the number of breeders is low how is that going to effect our gene pool, it could have tragic consequenses, in short order everything could be closely inbred just based on that selection criteria. I'm not saying go and purchase from any breeder, but if they have good working dogs that improve or support the overall gene pool wouldn't not buying from them put the selection of breeder ethics over working ability? There just are so many gray areas, it's gotta be pretty difficult for someone that wants to add a new working dog to their live to meet the standards set here.

 

 

How many working Border Collie breeders are there in the world that would meet 100% of the criteria of being Ethical, and how does a person wanting to purchase a working dog go about finding them? I really don't know of any breeders, atleast in our area that would qualify as "Ethical" by the standard set by some folks on the boards here.

 

I'm interested to hear others thoughts or expirences with trying to find a breeder that meets the "Ethical" criteria, although I wonder, are there many people on this board that would qualify as buyers from an ethical breeder?

 

Deb

[jdarling]

I think the first question is, "What is considered ethical?" Talk about a can of worms.

 

The breeders that I consider "ethical" don't necessarily test hips unless there's a reason to, only test eyes when preparing for the finals or whatever, put puppies on the ground without having homes for each and every one of them, will breed 3 and 4 litters at a time (magically right after the nursery cutoff), don't sell on spay/neuter contracts, and sell their pups for very reasonable prices.

 

And I wouldn't have it any other way.

[Liz P]

Jodi hit the nail on the head. You can't figure out how many breeders are ethical without first deciding what ethical means. I can list a lot of breeders who I consider to be overall ethical breeders but who do some things I don't personally agree with.

[Smokjbc]

Jodi hit the nail on the head. You can't figure out how many breeders are ethical without first deciding what ethical means. I can list a lot of breeders who I consider to be overall ethical breeders but who do some things I don't personally agree with.

 

For me personally, it's simple. An ethical breeder breeds with the aim of superior working ability and stands by the quality of their pups, they do not support or register with AKC. An added bonus is "will take any pup back for any reason" but I'm not prepared to say that they must take pups back for reasons beyond their control. I personally would and have taken any pup back at any time, but I've only breed two litters in 14 years, so it's not hard for me to state that. If someone had truly good lines (I stopped breeding because I felt I jumped into that too soon to follow my first rule of aiming for superior working ability) and was knowledgeable about producing skillful, healthy sheepdogs- I wouldn't want those valuable genes lost or curtailed because of the "room" issue.

 

As far as finding an ethical breeder, I think being involved in the sheepdog world can give most hands a good idea of who fits that description. If you are a newbie, ask one of us for a referral. I have an outstanding one I can send you too- that really did right by myself and the pups IMHO .

[SoloRiver]

Not enough.

[Eileen Stein]

I agree that opinions differ as to what makes a breeder "ethical," but the part of your quote from RDM that I think should be addressed is this:

 

But for the average person who wants a border collie companion, buying a superior-bred stockdog pup doesn't improve their chances of getting a good companion, nor does it perpetuate the working stockdog, because theoretically, those companion-owning people would not be breeding those (unproven) dogs.

 

In fact, it does help to perpetuate the working stockdog, even though those companion-owning people would not be breeding those unproven dogs, so long as some pups from each litter go to working homes and are trained up to show what they're capable of and what they're like as workers. In fact, this is the ideal situation, because it enables working breeders to breed more combinations of dogs, and thus learn more and improve the next generation more than they could if they had to limit the offspring they produce to only those that could be absorbed by working homes. But that system only works if there are people who want real border collies as companions (which there are) and if they get their companions from working breeders (which, unfortunately, they often don't).

[MrSnappy]

RDM posted this quote on another thread and rather then taking that thread off topic I thought I would begin another discussion, or maybe flame which is usually what happens when I post.

 

The quote brings up questions, how many working dog breeders would be classified truely as "Ethical" you can't sell to anything but working homes, you have to do all the genetic testing, you have to breed to improve working ability, etc. One can argue that a trial home is not a working home, we were discussing that the other day, a local breeder said that he only sells to working homes, I asked him if he would sell to someone that wanted to trial, he said, yes it was a working home, but is it? If there person wants to trial and discontinues, owns no stock of their own, are they really a working home?

 

While I totally endorse this discussion, I do want to point out that in taking that quote, you may have put "ethical" into a context that was not intended, insofar as I stressed "ethical" for my purposes mainly. I sometimes feel that when these discussions take place, "ethical" and "working stockdog" are used interchangeably with respect to breeders. As I've made clear in other discussions, I don't think this is the case. There are certainly stockdog breeders who I personally would not consider ethical, and I make a point of qualifying that when I discuss breeders.

 

But my point is that in the context of this discussion, ethical was not the emphasis, and was not meant to take the conversation in another directional turn, just to qualify my stance on breeders. I have some ideas about what constitutes ethical breeding and I fleshed those out pretty clearly in another discussion we had recently, something about "going to the dark side" - stockdog breeders who contribute to the sport dog breedings for purposes such as monetary gain etc.

 

In fact, it does help to perpetuate the working stockdog, even though those companion-owning people would not be breeding those unproven dogs, so long as some pups from each litter go to working homes and are trained up to show what they're capable of and what they're like as workers. In fact, this is the ideal situation, because it enables working breeders to breed more combinations of dogs, and thus learn more and improve the next generation more than they could if they had to limit the offspring they produce to only those that could be absorbed by working homes.

 

But of course the flip side of this is that those breeders sometimes overproduce and put too many pups on the ground, given that the reality is that there are more than enough dogs to go around already.* The numbers in shelters and rescues suggest this, as (from one viewpoint) do statements such as "rescue dogs take a home away from a working stockdog bred puppy." This exact argument, btw, is often trotted out by hardcore pundits of animal activism, who like to tell you that every time you buy a dog, you kill one in a shelter because it could have had your home. On both sides of the coin, I find the argument disingenuous to a fairly significant degree. It's sort of meaningless, like saying that by purchasing a stereo at Future Shop, I left one to languish in a Best Buy. Yes, well.

 

*(arguably perhaps not enough working stockdogs, which then begs the question - if there are not enough working stockdogs available, why then must any pup be sold to a pet home? It's kind of a chase-its-own-tail argument.)

 

But that system only works if there are people who want real border collies as companions (which there are) and if they get their companions from working breeders (which, unfortunately, they often don't).

 

Rescue dogs are still "real" border collies, if we agree that the term border collie with respect to individual dogs is still relevant, though it may be less relevant when discussing the breeding of dogs for a different purpose. The next dog I pull from a shelter could just as easily be one of "your" puppies as one from a BYB. So that's kind of a "nothing" statement.

 

What I specifically objected to in that other thread, and which is now being quoted, is the idea that someone should go to a working breeder to get a companion animal rather than go to a rescue. Not only does that a 180 turn around from the party line that has been punted around in this community for years, but it's also just not true. While I know some of the folks in this thread dabble in rescue, I doubt seriously that many or any of you have been as involved as deeply as, and seeing the numbers as, myself that come through rescue, nor dealt with the applicant volume. I have no qualms about telling you that the vast majority of people adopting a border collie do not give a rat's ass who their dog's Daddy is or what level he trials at. And this is because they want a nice, smart pet. Of course a well bred puppy can be that, but a rescue can certainly be a "real border collie as a companion."

 

The sheer numbers of border collies bred for something other than working is obviously a concern. The numbers in which they flood the market, so to speak, is also obviously a concern. But are they taking homes away from your dogs? I don't think so. They are overproduced, but they are not eating your market share. The bigger problem is the value system of our society and how we profit off the backs of dogs - which is an even bigger discussion. But it is a reality. Whatever nasty situation border collies are in with respect to the shelter system, Labs have it 400 times worse. Puppymills, for example, are a much bigger problem than just "too many of X." But I digress.

 

If ethical breeders are limiting their matings because there is not a market for the puppies, that is by definition ethical of them in the face of a reality of too many dogs - in my mind anyway. It certainly does not stop certain Big Hats from producing oodles and oodles of puppies. So if putting too many pups on the ground to preserve the breed is a valuable and viable justification, IMO, you're going to have a hell of a time defining ethical! Just because one breeds quality dogs with some alleged higher purpose in mind, does not - or should not - give them a free pass to produce more offspring than they can provide homes for, and it's even worse to complain that rescues are preventing them from doing just that. That makes them just as guilty as any other overproducer; the difference being they produce too many stockdogs instead of sport dogs or what have you. Neither is okay to do.

 

As always, JMO. And my head kinda hurts now.

 

RDM

[vanillalove]

I can only dream of ever working a Border Collie on sheep. I definitely have interest in it and will probably dabble in some lessons when I find a dog that catches my heart. I will probably never own sheep though, and I'll probably never trial to the high standards that the dog can trial at. The main activity will be agility for fun, frisbee for kicks and backyard/park romping for hours. But I want to support the working Border Collie, and I don't want to be turned down because I don't own sheep. To me, that isn't "ethical", it's just being picky. I love the breed as it is, and I understand it's history and it's purpose, and I can understand why someone wouldn't want it to be considered another "pet" breed. But say I want the Working Border Collie as my companion? I don't believe that is unethical. I understand that it doesn't go back into the working gene pool, but I'd want to support (working breeders) them, because I don't want to support the other guys. If it's "unethical" to be sold a working bred BC even though it may never actually work stock, then people who want a companion ARE going to go to sport breeders, or whatever. I mean, that is if they don't go down the rescue route. If I don't meet these high standards of a "working home", do I not "deserve" this breed?

 

I have definitely found breeders that I would consider ethical in my eyes, but they would probably sell a pup to me; a relatively non-working home, in comparison to these high standards. I don't think that should be considered wrong. Now maybe, I only think that because I am on the buying side of the whole thing, but some people do love this breed for what it is and wouldn't have it any other way to own the "real" thing. Do we not deserve that right after all the trouble we've gone through to find someone who breeds the Border Collie the way it should be?

 

Man, talk about a can of worms..

 

ETA: My "needs" in a BC are not of those of a pup, so I am going down the rescue route, this is just all speculation if I was one who was set on getting a pup, it would be from a breeder who *I* consider ethical, or whatever word we're using now.

[mjk05]

I don't think any breeder of working dogs can take complete responsibility for everything that happens to those dogs down the track. And selling to pet/sports homes is not really any more risky in terms of those dogs being used for indiscriminate breeding than selling to working homes, in many cases. We nearly sold a collie bitch to some big farmers a few years ago- they certainly do need working dogs, their dogs get a lot of work, and they sounded great on the phone. But when we asked some triallers from their area, we were told they also make a fair bit of cash by breeding their bitches every cycle and selling the pups down in the city to petshops. Obviously we didn't sell them the pup.

 

Our compromise is that we've only sold the occasional pup to pet/sports homes, and then to people I know well (friends, basically), and then we ask them to at least start the dog on sheep so we can get a vague idea what we've produced.

 

We also try to be picky with working homes, especially things like securing dogs when not working, securing dogs on vehicles, and we strongly recommend sterilising if they aren't wanting to breed. For working dogs, I don't think selling sterilised animals or requiring spay/neuter contracts is a good thing, or enforcable, and in reality if we didn't think our dogs would be improving the general working dog population we probably shouldn't be breeding them. Oh yeah, and we tell buyers we'll take pups/dogs back at any time.

 

I don't think you'll ever get 100% agreement on what consitutes an "ethical breeder". You just have to decide what attributes are important to you in a breeder, and then support them.

[Shoofly]

understand that it doesn't go back into the working gene pool, but I'd want to support (working breeders) them, because I don't want to support the other guys.

-------

thing, but some people do love this breed for what it is and wouldn't have it any other way to own the "real" thing. Do we not deserve that right after all the trouble we've gone through to find someone who breeds the Border Collie the way it should be?

 

Vanilla - thanks for posting this. I'm glad to see the last part of the sport collie thread has been food for thought for people. If you want to support the working dog, you have to support the working breeder, the good ones anyway.

[Tea]

So here is my situation. I add it so to show another aspect.

 

We raise sheep. For a living. We browse them loose on public and private land. We are trying to get contract work from the county to do this on the roads. We have to have working dogs.

We rescued two dogs from a wonderful border collie rescue and I think I was pretty fortuate. But, we only tested one on sheep, took one dog on chance. One dog is partially deaf and has some health issues that do concern me. They developed a couple of years after we adopted him. When we browse sheep loose we are miles from home, on horseback or on foot. If a dog has a problem he must be carried back. This first dog is very smart and carries on well at this point.

The other rescue dog seems very healthy and is keen.

It takes me some time and effort to train. I love the rescue dogs. And if one couldn't do the work he would retire here and that is fine, I have the room to do this.

 

It is critical that people breed only sound/sane/ with good stamina dogs. ( And for me- dogs that work stock.)

It seems to me that work tests this like nothing else....Ranches and farms that do this work maybe few and far between. But as the local slow food movement grows I think we will see the concept of browsing sheep loose, grow.

 

I had a dog donated to the project (Our ag program is a non-profit) a well bred pup.

He was bought from a breeder that has a working ranch and does trials. He is different from my rescue dogs, his natural skill level is higher.

 

So we have two rescues and one bought. In some ways that is a balance.

 

To sum it up.....what I am trying to say I think is.....

 

I need good sound working dogs. I cannot do my work without them.

 

I am not doing this for sport. Although I am sure it is fun.

I admire trialing and I am glad that people do it but I do not trial.

 

I do this for the local slow food movement, for the balance of farming and habitat and for the education of young farmers and to support my own family.

 

The dogs are partners in this.

[PSmitty]

<snip>

What I specifically objected to in that other thread, and which is now being quoted, is the idea that someone should go to a working breeder to get a companion animal rather than go to a rescue. Not only does that a 180 turn around from the party line that has been punted around in this community for years, but it's also just not true. <snip>

 

And this is because they want a nice, smart pet. Of course a well bred puppy can be that, but a rescue can certainly be a "real border collie as a companion."

 

RDM

 

Yes, exactly. Thank you for saying this.

[Denise Wall]

Tea, thank you so much for your post. It's good to hear your perspective.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I feel the need to point something out that hasn't really been noted, or not maybe in a way that highlights this.

 

Working home does not = working home like stereo home = stereo home

 

There's a huge variety of working purposes that also fit the breed standard of work. It's one of the major reasons we have such a healthy variety in the breed with little conscious effort to maintain it.

 

If you have a stud dog who seems to be, on a sample of maybe two litters, a genius at passing on a predictable working style and ability - that's the Holy Grail of working breeding. You can't know for sure until you've seen more pups from that stud though.

 

What Denise described in another thread is the ideal situation and the one we had forever, before Border Collies became "borders" and trendy pets. I started CBCR with another person because after ten years of BC rescue being around in a formal way, we at that time were just starting to see the need for more than - uh - one organized rescue on the entire MidAtlantic/Southeastern seaboard (not counting FL which oddly had two).

 

You breed, get a couple pups into situations where you can gauge their working ability, and the rest go to responsible, trustworthy, forever homes. I'm a rescuer and I believe strongly in the need for breeders to breed on a scale where they can easily judge the worth of an individual. I don't know how we can replace that in the breed. I've thought about it really hard because I'm a rescuer, not a breeder and probably never will be, and yet I need to be able to go and not only find a pup that "works" in some general way, but will work in a predictable way so that we don't end up with the tragedy of having to move on a youngster whose confidence is broken by my pushy, fussy to move sheep.

 

When I first got interested in Border Collies, a "contract" went no further than a handshake and, "You have trouble, you call me, okay?" To me that's an ethical breeder, one who says that and means it. To me that means the breeder expects the pup not only to work, but also work in a way that will satisfy me, and won't go unsound on the road to being useful, if I treat it right.

[Eileen Stein]

In fact, it does help to perpetuate the working stockdog, even though those companion-owning people would not be breeding those unproven dogs, so long as some pups from each litter go to working homes and are trained up to show what they're capable of and what they're like as workers. In fact, this is the ideal situation, because it enables working breeders to breed more combinations of dogs, and thus learn more and improve the next generation more than they could if they had to limit the offspring they produce to only those that could be absorbed by working homes. But that system only works if there are people who want real border collies as companions (which there are) and if they get their companions from working breeders (which, unfortunately, they often don't).

 

But of course the flip side of this is that those breeders sometimes overproduce and put too many pups on the ground, given that the reality is that there are more than enough dogs to go around already.

 

Yes, they do, especially if you consider all dogs as fungible. But really, I was only pointing out how buying a superior-bred stockdog can help in the preservation and improvement of the breed even if the buyer does not test that dog on stock or breed it. (Sort of analogous to people saying the purpose of stockdog trials can't really be to test for breedability or they wouldn't let neutered dogs compete, which disregards the fact that you learn about the breeding quality of those neutered dogs' sires and dams by watching them compete.)

 

You may be right that the ideal for individual dogs is that no new dog should be bred while there are existing dogs in rescue who could meet the needs of a pet buyer, but that is not the ideal for the future of the breed. The ideal for the future of the breed (which is certainly not happening either) would be that good working breeders bred a lot, and bad breeders bred not at all, and the good working breeders' pups went to both working homes and to the homes of people who want real border collies as companions. (And by "real" here, I only mean that the home is appreciative of and comfortable with the kind of border collie that is produced by breeding for working ability.)

 

But given that we don't have that ideal situation, and never will, should people seeking a companion dog go to rescue for their dog rather than to a working breeder? You've probably read enough of what I've posted here to know that my personal answer would be usually yes. But there is no "party line" here that everyone has to agree with, and people are entitled to express and defend the contrary opinion, which is held by quite a few.

 

The next dog I pull from a shelter could just as easily be one of "your" puppies as one from a BYB.

 

If by that you literally mean one of "my" puppies, that is not true. But I'm assuming that's not what you're saying.

 

The sheer numbers of border collies bred for something other than working is obviously a concern. The numbers in which they flood the market, so to speak, is also obviously a concern. But are they taking homes away from your dogs?

 

Well, sure they are (asuming you're using "your" to refer to working breeders). In the absence of those non-working breeders, who are generally much more market-oriented, those buyers would go to working breeders. Which would be better for the breed, because as regards the breed, all dogs called border collies are not interchangeable.

 

If ethical breeders are limiting their matings because there is not a market for the puppies, that is by definition ethical of them in the face of a reality of too many dogs - in my mind anyway. It certainly does not stop certain Big Hats from producing oodles and oodles of puppies. So if putting too many pups on the ground to preserve the breed is a valuable and viable justification, IMO, you're going to have a hell of a time defining ethical!

 

I think a good working breeder faces two ethical imperatives -- don't breed more than you can place, but contribute as much as you can to the preservation and improvement of the working border collie. They are usually hard to balance, and sometimes they are conflicting. I think some do a good job carrying out and balancing those ethical imperatives, and some don't. I would like to support the former.