The individual vs the entire breed (gene pool)

[Eileen Stein]

Well, if it is required that every defender of working border collies express identical opinions or else people will misunderstand and end up arguing or feeling disillusioned or hurt or whatever, then I guess people will misunderstand and end up arguing or feeling disillusioned or hurt or whatever. Not too many people, I hope.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

If I am a breeder:

 

Pet home: where I will not be able to evaluate honestly the success of my breeding as represented by a pup I place there. This can include a trial home if they are not serious - or even, if they don't do the kind of work I'm using as my standard.

 

Working home: A home where I can honestly evaluate the success and/or weaknesses of my breeding as represented by the dog that goes to that home.

 

You can't tell if a dog is weak in an area if you never see it perform to that level.

 

I really hope this doesn't turn into a "farm work versus trial competition" argument, but it is a valid part of this question. and I stand firm on the idea that while farm work represents the purpose for the dog, it is the trial that shapes the breed. We had farms before we had trials, and we did not have Border Collies. We had Border Collies only after we had trials.

 

Trials aren't better than farm work, "trial dogs" aren't better than "farm dogs" - I'm not saying any of that. Even where there is any difference in the dogs (where the trial dog and the farm are not one and the same to a stock handler), both are needed. But reference needs to be made to the ISDS style trial pretty frequently or we'll lose a lot.

 

Look at the pictures on this one page and think of all the balanced extremes that these dogs represent. Hair trigger reactions, but you can see the coolness under pressure and readiness to take a lead from the handler. Extreme speed, but strength and stamina. Flexibility and agility, but soundness.

 

http://www.kinlochsheepdogs.com/Blaenglowo...r%20Photos.html

[stockdogranch]

You can't try to endorse the breeding of well bred working dogs from hopefully ethical breeders and then turn around and infer that to want them any person should want them on sheep as well. That would bring us back to square one where only working dogs can go to only working homes and what about the excess?

 

As an occasional breeder, I try as hard as I can to place my pups in "working homes," by which, as I stated before, I would hope to be, at the very least, a "hobby herding" home. I carefully plan my breedings, and try to have as many pups as possible already spoken for before the breeding ever takes place. I pick one for myself as a "keeper," but may have a second one that hasn't sold puppy-raised elsewhere, then come back to train to sell as a started dog. If there are too many for Plan A, then I might consider a pet/sport home for the "excess." Why am I so picky about where these pups go? For two reasons: 1) I am not in the business of breeding random dogs just to put them on this earth when there are way too many random dogs, anyway. And 2) for the pups' sake. The one I choose to keep at 7 weeks is no different than the ones I choose to sell, other than I like smooth coated girls, so that's what I'll keep. So the one that may end up in a pet home could very easily be the "best" working one of the batch. And I think it's not fair to the pup, who was very intentionally bred for a very particular purpose (in my case, preferably not just any old stockwork, but working cattle, if at all possible), to not be given the chance to do what it was bred for. So, while I don't think it's wrong for anybody to want a cool, intelligent, agile dog for a companion or pet, I also have to balance (as Eileen said earlier in the other thread) my breeding practices as best I can for the good of not only the individual pups, but for the breed as a whole, too. I think we all find that balance in different ways--this is mine.

 

A

[Kyrasmom]

I think balance is essential and agree that to know that you are breeding quality working dogs some must go to working homes otherwise you're breeding program has, in essence, no program beyond reproduction. I also agree that good working breeders require support (what defines a good working breeder is a whole different context but for the sake of this thread, we'll leave it as is). I won't say they require support above and over rescue necessarily but if someone is hell-bent on buying a puppy, I'd rather see them go to a good working dog breeder than a sport/show/byb breeder. And there is always going to be that person who is hell bent on having a puppy...and there's nothing wrong with that! I truly believe it's allowed. Good owners and good people can want puppies...it's the road they take to the puppy that defines them, in MY opinion.

 

I also think that if more folks bought cool, intelligent, well bred dogs, even if they were "only" in pet homes they would be better ambassadors for the breed than some of the sport dogs I've met whom bounced off of every wall in sight, even invisible ones.

 

Balance is a good thing, for the dogs, for the breed, and for us as well.

 

Maria

 

PS: Eileen, we're obviously not communicating well and I won't say that you seem to miss my most obvious point and I yours and just chalk it up to my own pregnancy hormones which must be interfering with my ability to say what I think.

[Journey]

You can't try to endorse the breeding of well bred working dogs from hopefully ethical breeders and then turn around and infer that to want them any person should want them on sheep as well. That would bring us back to square one where only working dogs can go to only working homes and what about the excess?

 

I'm all for differing opinions but some are whiplash causing. That is also tongue and cheek.

Maria

 

Sorry about the whiplash Maria

 

You basically answered yourself with I'm sure that how they work livestock is the thing that makes them unique but it is also one reason they make good pets and the reason that many want them regardless of the availability of sheep. They are biddable. They are intuitive. They are intelligent. They are driven but aren't on speed. It's the entire package that makes this up.

 

So, when you start diluting them, sport collies/byb/puppymills it begins to change the breed. I doubt that it's the well bred pup from ethical breeders that is filling up rescue, here in this area I know it's not. However, the well placed pup in a pet home has the potential to peak the interest of the owner to give it a try. Some do, some don't.

 

Karen

[Kathy H.]

As one says, I usually lurk ☺ but finally have something to say.

 

I will try to be brief (truly!). You all should feel free to ask whatever/correct me/fix things. And I’m afraid it’s still really long. Feel free to skip to the end!

 

I have had working line bouviers since the mid 80s, 6 in total. I worked them in Schutzhund, put some obedience and agility titles on them and then, in the mid 90s moved to stock work. I have been involved with the North American Working Bouvier Association for many, many years (a non AKC group).

 

I have had border collies for about 11 years now, 7 in total and have done some agility with one but stock work with the others. I have managed to walk to the post in open a couple of times, trial where I can, have sheep (and may someday break even on them!) and basically haven’t done agility or any other sport for probably 8 years now.

 

I currently have 5 border collies and one bouvier.

 

So, you are now saying, what does this have to do with border collies and this thread ☺! Read on or skip to the end! Basically, I keep seeing these really scary parallels between what has happened to bouviers and what seems to be starting to happen to border collies.

 

Bouviers (name means “cow dog”) originated as general, all purpose farm dogs in the general area of northern France, Belgium and the Netherlands. About the time that farms were largely disappearing in this area of the world, the Bouvier (with a capital) was becoming a breed with a stud book. About that time, these dogs were also “repurposed” into police/protection dogs as well as “beauty” dogs. This all happened pretty much prior to 1930 or so [much left out here and hugely simplified.]

 

Over the years that followed, the breed (Bouvier des Flandres or cow dog of Flanders) has divided into “working” dogs and “beauty dogs with people consistently trying to produce the perfect blend of the two (all that hair came in about then too). Still only one name though and one “breed” as defined by pedigrees not function.

 

Since the 1960s or so, the big controversy in the working bouvier world has revolved around the definition of work. Is work only protection work? Is what a therapy dog does work? How about SAR? What does it mean for me to say that I have always had working line bouviers?

 

And what about stock work? There are a few of us who have taken seriously the idea (expressed by someone here way back in this thread), that the only way to keep the work in the dog is to keep the whole package and in my mind that has meant attempting to get back to the origins and to attempt to “restore” the bouvier as a stock dog.

 

[much left out here about that effort and about what happens when you tilt at windmills and some rather nasty politics]

 

So what does this have to do with border collies? A lot I think. First, it is a cautionary tale. To my mind, for bouviers, the word “work” has slithered around in meaning until, now, for bouviers, what it tends to mean is any bouvier that is not a conformation dog. IOW, “work” is pretty much what, in this thread, has been being called “sport dogs”. In many people’s mind this means protection sports. In other people’s minds, it’s any sport and includes therapy work and SAR. It’s not hard to connect the dots for a very depressing future for border collies. Not tomorrow, not next year, but the road is there.

 

Second, if, we select away from the “whole package”, in this case, the qualities needed for a good farm dog (a discussion well beyond this post), then things begin to go awry. In bouviers, we started getting sharp dogs (bred to work protection in defense) and then, as protection sports have changed, prey-nut dogs. We got part of the package but lost the essential balance that farm work demands and selects for. We have also gotten conformation type dogs that are either slugs (les bouviers du boudoir! = Barbie collies) and/or dogs who can actually be dangerous because selection has focused on coat and ear set and topline and so forth, thus allowing the loss of balance of temperament. Again, I think it’s easy to connect the dots and see the slippery slope.

 

Let me try to pull this together. When I got my first border collie (from Elmer Brumley for those of you who know him), I literally thought that all border collies were working stock dogs. Some were better than others but I thought that the definition of a border collie was a stock dog.

 

So, I’ve been sort of depressed by the rise in the use of the term “working border collie” in the fairly recent past (cf above and “working” bouvier).

 

I have also been depressed by the rise of border collies where the “whole picture” has been lost, where part of what makes border collies the dogs they are has been selected for to the detriment of selecting for the complex function that is working stock.

 

So is the future bleak? I don’t think it has to be but it’s an uphill battle that is never won. In the bouvier world there are people trying to breed for stability and biddability without losing the protective qualities that also define the breed. It’s tough to do. Personally, I am convinced that the best way to do this is to breed/select for function and it seems to me that there is a niche out there for an all-purpose farm dog that would work small acreages. Now if we could just get rid of the coat! But would this dog still be a bouvier (a cow dog) or a Bouvier des Flandres (a "breed").

 

For border collies, it occurs to me that it is all in the name. Is the name “border collie” defined by function? Then what function? After all a border collie is what it can do, not who it’s ancestors are (again I acknowledge all kinds of complexities and trust you all to correct me if I’ve got anything wrong). We’ve already started down the path the bouvier followed a long time ago. We have a subset of border collies doing what they were originally bred for—working stock—and we have to call them working border collies (or working lines) to differentiate them from all those other dogs out there doing other things. Is the border collie a breed or a function?

 

I’ll stop here (aren’t you all glad!) and let other continue along this line of thought or just ignore it or tell me I just don't get it!

 

Great discussion by the way and thanks for reading. I feel better for having gotten this all down anyway.

 

Kathy/Iowa

[doggietrio]

i feel good working breeders need our support,

 

What makes a good working breeder?

 

Is it someone who has a really useful ranch dog?

Is it someone who trails occasionally?

Is it someone who trials and wins?

 

There are a couple of dogs locally that I really like. One has a very nice pedigree and is "just a ranch dog". He does chores, but has never trialed.

 

The other is a dog from lines that aren't well known, but this is a trial dog that won several trials in his area when he was trialing.

 

Both dogs have only been bred once. Both had pups go to working and sport homes.

 

Are they both good working breeders, or is there additional criteria that needs to be defined to determine if they're good or not or working or not?

 

Sorry, the more I read, the more confused I'm getting!

 

Jennifer Akins

Trowbridge, CA

www.jentodogs.com

[Shoofly]

I'll stop here (aren't you all glad!) and let other continue along this line of thought or just ignore it or tell me I just don't get it!

 

Great discussion by the way and thanks for reading. I feel better for having gotten this all down anyway.

 

Kathy/Iowa

 

Wow, thank you so much for posting! The "whole package" thing is really important to get out there for people to think about.

[mjk05]

You can't try to endorse the breeding of well bred working dogs from hopefully ethical breeders and then turn around and infer that to want them any person should want them on sheep as well. That would bring us back to square one where only working dogs can go to only working homes and what about the excess?

Just a minor point, but "putting them on sheep" doesn't necessarily mean "working home".

It can just mean dogs in a pet home doing occasional "hobby herding" or even just a handful of times to let the breeder have a look at the dog.

I guess for many people there is so much enjoyment in seeing your dog do what it was bred for and the work seems such an integral part of the breed that its hard to understand why anyone would want to own one without at least superficially exploring that aspect of the dog. I didn't read that comment as saying that none of these dogs should go to pet homes.

[Kathy H.]

Wow, thank you so much for posting! The "whole package" thing is really important to get out there for people to think about.

 

I'm glad you like that. I think it is critical and at the center of thing.. Let me give you an example. The bouvier I have right now comes from a breeder who has seriously selected for stability and working with humans and who lives on a farm and raises stock. SophieRose is the daughter of a bouvier who has earned a WTCH (working trial championship) in ASCA and who works on the farm. Her father is a ringsport 2 dog from France (huge demands for biddability and cooperation under pressure plus standing up to pressure). I seriously doubt SR or any bouvier will do well in big field trials; that's not what they're built for but they once were and maybe can be again, useful farm/ranch dogs.

 

SophieRose is 18 months old now. Yesterday, she and I were working at moving stock around a small rectangular pen and in and out of gates and one of the lamb types managed to get its foot really, really (as in where are the wire cutters) stuck in the wire of a gate. Had the lamb started struggling, it was a broken leg for sure.

 

Without thinking or who knows why I asked SR to lie down and she not only lay down, she backed up when I asked her to (she was coming to see the lamb, no attempt to grab, she actually just smelled it and she doesn't know what "back up" means. She does know to try to figure out what the human is doing and help.). It took me 3-4 minutes to free the lamb and I really thought we'd have a broken leg. SR very much reminded me of my first stock work bouvier (who came from KNPV=police dog and Schutzhund "lines" or rather dogs used for these, e.g., working lines in another sense).

 

Anyway, then when the lamb got free and ran off, SR did NOT chase after it (and she is young without a lot of work under her paws and she has a ton of power and does not hesitate to use her teeth if she thinks it'll be useful or "fun").

 

That was the moment (when SR listened to me and stayed put with a calm mind, not just a quivering body and thus helped me get something important done stock wise) that I actually thought, "you know, this needs to be kept in the gene pool). This is going to be a useful dog.

 

BUT SR is the product of an uphill battle and trying to regain something (let's call it usefulness on the farm!) that has been lost for a long time and is still very fragile.

 

I really don't want to see that kind of thing, that kind of selection pressure lost in border collies and I think things are in danger of going down that road. Basically, we need to keep the farms and ranches and people working with livestock alive and well in order to keep stockdogs alive and well.

 

The bouvier (small letter, I'm not talking about the official breed) and what happened to it as stock dog over maybe 100 years or less can be a cautionary tale to take seriously for the border collie. It doesn't have to be that way but once the loss of selection by function goes too far, it is very difficult to regain, and it sneaks up on you.

 

Kathy/Iowa

 

PS I don't breed but I support people who breed for useful dogs by buying their pups and doing my best to see how they work out (pun intended!)

[Pippin's person]

As usual, I find this particular discussion really interesting and it taps right into what I do for a living, which is to try and understand how folks go about the messy process of working out matters of language, like the meaning of "Border Collie." The discussions here are quite similar to the discussions people have about all kinds of social categories, like, for instance who is a "conservative", a "father", "rich"... these discussions always seem to point out how unstable meaning really is and how tied it is to context and some kind of consensus--and the struggles over consensus that occur along the way. Those struggles all have a similar quality of trying to balance evidence from individual examples of X with generalizations about the inherent nature of X. That seems to be how humans go about reasoning about categories of things.

 

I've been thinking about this with respect to the individual Border Collies in my home, most specifically the two that I am learning to work, as a hobby, on sheep. One of them, perhaps the one I'd call my heart-dog, is not a very good example of a (working) BC. He is moderately talented, but I don't imagine he'd make it to an open level of trialing even in the hands of a competent handler. Although there's no way to know for sure, I think his particular weak spots make it likely that he'd be unreliable as a working farm dog. The other one is starting to look like a pretty good example of a (working) BC (as noted by people other than me), seems to have a lot of the qualities that good working dogs have. He was/is an extremely slow maturing dog and appeared to everyone who watched him to be pretty much a wash as a worker until he was about about 15 mos. old.

 

Off-sheep, too, they are different individuals. As an example, the one with moderate talent has an excellent temperament with people and other dogs--he is friendly, happy, out-going. The one that's looking like he might have more talent is not great with most people and other dogs and it's taken an enormous amount of training to be able to have him out in public without looking like Cujo (a real side benefit of that training has been that he can take a correction without becoming mortally offended). There is really no way (at this point) that he would have survived as a rescue or in a home that was predominantly a pet home--I have no doubt he would have been euthanized had he shown up at a shelter. (as an aside, the parents of both these dogs have rock-solid temperaments with people and other dogs--Mr. Talent's littermates run the spectrum, but tend more toward the wary side as a group, particularly the males in the litter. I don't know anything about Mr. Congenial's littermates, but the breeder mostly produces dogs with excellent temperaments "out of the box").

 

It won't be a surprise to anyone, I'm sure, to hear that Mr. Congenial (Hamish) is sport bred while Mr. Talent (Kyzer) is working bred. I think they are both unquestionably border collies. But, I think there would also be general consensus that Kyzer is more "breeding-worthy" than Hamish--even among people who are 100% sport folks. Anyone who's asked me about breeding Hamish (very few) has *always* done so in the context of his coloring (he's a red-tri). People regularly ask nervously if we plan to neuter Kyzer and note what a shame it would be if we do--and that's come from both "sport" people and "working" people.

 

So, what's the point of this in the context of the OP? I think that what works for the breed as a working breed is probably promoting/supporting the breeding practices that others have noted in this thread while also continuing discussions like this one in which people keep calling into question and hashing out the meaning of terms like "Border Collie", which I think causes some people to think more broadly about breeding practices more generally.

[OurBoys]

I'm sure that how they work livestock is the thing that makes them unique but it is also one reason they make good pets and the reason that many want them regardless of the availabality of sheep. They are biddable. They are intuitive. They are intelligent. They are driven but aren't on speed.

 

This is why we chose the border collie. When dh and I decided we wanted a dog, we started doing our research. Because of their heritage, intelligence, and everything else you listed is what appealed to us.

[sluj]

The concept of breed is so new compared to the existence of farms and farm dogs, that I seriously wonder if we'd be better off abandoning the idea of breed altogether. If your dog works sheep, call him a sheepdog. If his littermate works cows, call her a cowdog. If yet another littermate holds down a couch, call her a companion dog. I don't think it's ridiculous at all to call dogs with different roles by different names. Having two parents that work sheep isn't a guarantee of being a successful sheepdog, nor does having neither parent working guarantee that the progeny won't. (Yes, I know, probabilities... but still, I wouldn't let a kid remove my appendix just because both her parents are doctors.)

[Shetlander]

It won't be a surprise to anyone, I'm sure, to hear that Mr. Congenial (Hamish) is sport bred while Mr. Talent (Kyzer) is working bred. I think they are both unquestionably border collies. But, I think there would also be general consensus that Kyzer is more "breeding-worthy" than Hamish--even among people who are 100% sport folks. Anyone who's asked me about breeding Hamish (very few) has *always* done so in the context of his coloring (he's a red-tri). People regularly ask nervously if we plan to neuter Kyzer and note what a shame it would be if we do--and that's come from both "sport" people and "working" people.

 

So even with Kyzer's temperament issues, which sound significant if you said he'd never have survived in a pet home, and with a number of siblings you describe as "wary," you think he's more breed worthy? Or is it more a context of because of working ability, he is more breed worthy than happy go lucky, less talented at herding Hamish? And actually, while I don't think anyone would be surprised by Hamish's level of talent, I do think many here would be surprised that he has the much easier temperament. I wouldn't be surprised myself because I know lots of sports bred dogs that have lovely temperaments.

 

Anyway, not that I would ever breed and of course I wouldn't dream of commenting on what the whole package a Border Collie would be bred for (Quinn is my first Border Collie and I know extremely little about working stock). But I still need to say that I'm always dismayed when I hear people talking about breeding dogs with known temperament issues. I know that isn't your plan or what you are saying. Maybe the people who worry you're going to neuter Kyzer don't realize the issues you've been able to overcome with training, which would make more sense.

[Kyrasmom]

Just a minor point, but "putting them on sheep" doesn't necessarily mean "working home".

It can just mean dogs in a pet home doing occasional "hobby herding" or even just a handful of times to let the breeder have a look at the dog.

I guess for many people there is so much enjoyment in seeing your dog do what it was bred for and the work seems such an integral part of the breed that its hard to understand why anyone would want to own one without at least superficially exploring that aspect of the dog. I didn't read that comment as saying that none of these dogs should go to pet homes.

 

 

I understand that and I'm sure many pet homes would be fascinated to see their BC's on sheep even if it were an unusual occurance but there are just as many, maybe more, that enjoy the dogs as they are because they make great "best friends". And a nice BC makes a great apartment dog which is often a challenge in urban environment: having a medium/larger sized dog in the city. My most recent pup, striaght from a farm but not from an ethical breeder by a long shot (a rescue) adapts to any environment and any person with the ease of a nobleman. He never freaks out, he learned to heel within minutes of being on a lead, he plays hard when we're out and drop onto his pillow as soon as he comes into the house. He wants to do what I ask ALL of the time. All my dogs do that, mind you, but Wenty has an ease about him that I do recognize as different from the others. Does he work? Would he work? I really don't know - both his parents work on a cattle ranch - and work a lot.

 

I also didn't take it to mean that none of the dogs should go to companion homes but simply that owners should want to see them on sheep to appreciate them. And I'm sure, I'll repeat, that wuold be fascinated, but others, myself included, who feel perfectly happy to hike, play, run agility in the backyard, do hospital visits, and basically always have a pooch in the backseat. And good working breeders and rescues need those owners as well.

 

Maria

[Pippin's person]

So even with Kyzer's temperament issues, which sound significant if you said he'd never have survived in a pet home, and with a number of siblings you describe as "wary," you think he's more breed worthy? Or is it more a context of because of working ability, he is more breed worthy than happy go lucky, less talented at herding Hamish? And actually, while I don't think anyone would be surprised by Hamish's level of talent, I do think many here would be surprised that he has the much easier temperament. I wouldn't be surprised myself because I know lots of sports bred dogs that have lovely temperaments.

 

Anyway, not that I would ever breed and of course I wouldn't dream of commenting on what the whole package a Border Collie would be bred for (Quinn is my first Border Collie and I know extremely little about working stock). But I still need to say that I'm always dismayed when I hear people talking about breeding dogs with known temperament issues. I know that isn't your plan or what you are saying. Maybe the people who worry you're going to neuter Kyzer don't realize the issues you've been able to overcome with training, which would make more sense.

 

I didn't say that *I* think Ky is more worthy of being bred than Hamish--I don't actually have an opinion on that since it's so unlikely to happen. But, I think if I were to ask around, that would be the consensus (that's just a hypothesis, though).

 

I don't plan to breed Kyzer--even without his issues around people, I wouldn't begin to consider his procreation until he has proven himself (if he does) by the standards that I accept as indicating true working ability. (it's moot with Hamish--he was neutered some time ago). I hope that he does prove himself, but it's likely many years away given the glacial pace at which I become a competent handler. At that point, if I were approached by someone interested in breeding to him, I suppose I would assess his personality, talk to the bitch's owner about the issues he's had and ask more experienced handlers for advice and guidance. It's actually rather hard to imagine at all, so I don't particularly. I can say with 99.99% certainty that I would not seek a bitch to breed him to--I really don't have any interest in breeding.

 

But, I guess thinking about the two of them in the context of these frequent discussions has made me that much more aware of how complicated the issue is (or at least can be) and it's why I think these discussions are so critical. When we got Pippin, I had never thought about any of this--I didn't know that it was there to think about.

[MickeyDogs]

I just want to add an example of another breed's history along with Kathy H's history of the bouvier (very interesting, by the way! ).

 

The English Springer Spaniel in America is a very separated breed - those shown in conformation and those that complete in field trials (the springer version of a USBCHA open trial), not to mention those produced by BYBs. This breed, both working & bench, have been recognized by the AKC for a long time. The last dual champion (one dog earning both a conformation & field championship) was back in the 1940s and since then the breed has taken 2 very different paths. The two versions look nothing alike but do share some broad traits. But they are also very different in drive, stamina, work ethic & the ablity to do the work. Those wanting or needing to preserve the hunting instinct have been strong and have continued to produce a valuable hunting companion, keeping in line with the breed's original purpose.

 

Are those breeding for the work a minority? For sure. But they are keeping that "side" of the breed alive and will continue to do so much as I would say those breeding border collies for their stockwork will.

 

I am a sport person who has gone to the "dark side" and now compete in USBCHA trials. In my day I've competed rather successfully in competitive obedience, agility, and flyball. When it was time to add another springer to join me in the fun I purposefully choose a pup from a litter what was 1/2 and 1/2 - half conformation & half field. What I got was a dog with a lot of drive, intelligence, and a willingness to work & be a partner. I didn't do much field work with him but the one time I did he showed a lot of natural ability, if a tad out of control, but also had an extremely hard mouth. Springers and any breed bred to retrieve game are bred to have a soft mouth - that is the ability to pick up and carry game without damaging it. My dog, with his hard mouth, was doing some serious crunching of the game as he brought it back to me. Is that nurture or nature?

 

Anyway, I see the border collie in America splitting into separate versions of itself like the springer has and like the border collie has in the United Kingdom. With sheepdog trials becoming more popular even as farmwork fades with farms becoming overrun with development (at least here in the northeast), I think the border collie will retain it's sheepsense & its ability to work. Those to whom this is important will make sure of that.

 

There is no way for a breeders of working border collies to "compete" with the sport breeders and the BYBs - they are way outnumbered.

 

One more reference to the English Springer Spaniel. The springer came to America from England, like the border collie, but today very few are imported to add to our gene pool. Now there are those who say the breed in America has changed so radically from the English version that a name change is in order.

[Sue R]

One more reference to the English Springer Spaniel. The springer came to America from England, like the border collie, but today very few are imported to add to our gene pool. Now there are those who say the breed in America has changed so radically from the English version that a name change is in order.

Hmm, we've heard that before and I'm someone who would be in favor of it (and I realize that that won't happen, at least not from the AKC/show/sports side of the fence).

 

I grew up with a friend who had a show-bred English Setter. The dog was big, beautiful, and very hard to train. I have a friend whose husband hunts with English Setters. He always buys a certain type or bloodline that is known for hunting and not for show. They do not look like the show dog - their coats are much more sparse, bodies more "lithe", termperment very sane, they chill out easily, they do not walk around in a very upright stance, and they are very trainable. Hmm, again, sounds a bit like some of the differences between show-bred and working-bred Border Collies to me. I realize its a very small sample size but do I detect a trend?

[1sheepdoggal]

I realize its a very small sample size but do I detect a trend?

 

 

No Sue, Its not a trend, its a freakin disaster. Its been my privledge to handle many breeds of dogs over the past twenty five years in the grooming biz. Some breeds some folks have never seen outside of a TV screen show ring, as well as Ive owned and trained for others a number of the AKC registerable breeds. Professionally grooming, and competing in grooming competitions as well as handling in AKC conformation events ( many, many years ago) and breeding conformation show dogs (again, many, many years ago) has opened up many opportunities for me to have met and seen the dark side of breeding and conformation/working and BYB breeders. And I can tell you, I have seen/witnessed the change in most every single AKC breed of purpose. I can also tell you that there are very few breeds that are anything like their original counter parts except in name and most, if not all, breeds of purpose have made a split in so far as working verses show/pet/sports bred dogs. Those that have not made the split, havent, simply because there are no dogs left that exude the qualities of thier original purpose. Some breeds, even that far back had already made the split, and it was painfully clear even back then. I could go down the list, but with at last count, 158 AKC registerable breeds, it would be a miserable and depressing list at best, and at worst would would bring every owner of an Airdale to the Westie down on me like a ton of bricks, and change the entire tone of this thread, but it has happened and there really is, for most if not all of those breeds, no turning back, no fixing them and the saddest part is, that no one wins, and the dogs suffer. Once healthy breeds are now wrought with physical and mental defects, structure problems, to much coat, eye problems, skin problems, cronic ear problems, temperment disabilities, and the list goes on, all for the sake of a ribbon, and bragging and breeding rights. The worst part of all, being loss of working ability and the structure to do the job intended for the breed. A trend? No, it has gone beyond that, long ago. I said I had been privledged, but not priveldged in the concept of Oh cool! I get to meet a movie star, but privledged in like living the horror. But also, most folks, dont get the view that I have had throughout the years, and so it is difficult for them to see or understand the subtle changes that have wrought the breeds. Now days, say when some one is looking at buying say a cocker spaniel, what once use to be a lovely family pet, and dads weekend hunting companion if you ask your friends, one of the first things they are going to say is, they bite, they have cronic ear infections, they have too much coat upkeep. But you'll never heard a word about the loss of their hunting ability, its been gone that long in the breed. Those are cockers from this generation. But if you ask your mom or grand pa about the cocker spaniel that they grew up with, I'll bet you hear a whole different story. So it doesnt surprise me to hear folks argue about breed changes/splits/ and what is OK and not OK. It doesnt surprise me that younger folks have no idea what type of dogs some of the breeds were 30 years ago, and it doesnt surprise me that in this day and age, that its hard for folks that have not been a part of these changes to find them hard to recogize, and find it difficult to know which side of the fence to stand on, or to have the passion of preservation of a breed, when the true meaning of loss, hasnt been truely seen to understand. Even for those that have worked so hard to preserve the Working Border Collie, still changes have been made and there have been losses/weaknesses of one trait or another. But recognizing that, and turning it around "before" its to late, is half the battle, and make no mistake, a battle it is, has been, and will continue to be.

[juliepoudrier]

Kathy H.,

Thanks for your thoughtful comments on this thread. I think you illustrated the end result so many of us fear and that is a direct result of the attitude of "So what? Breeds change as needs change, and you can't stop it." What folks with that attitude don't understand is the clear difference between needs and wants. Purpose bred dogs were created because of a need, a real puporse that made someone's job easier in some way. Now it's all about wants: I want the fastest flyball dog possible, I want a top agility dog, I want the dog considered the most intelligent on the planet, and so on." Wanting these things isn't bad in and of itself, but when those wants drive changes in a breed that takes that breed away from the need for which it was created, that's when we get into trouble. Unfortunately, as Darci noted, unless you have either seen the real progression of some of the breeds or have actually used them then and now, you have no idea what a huge change has taken place, because it has been incremental over a number of generations. If you weren't familiar with the "before" version, how could you possibly know the wrongness of the "after" version? Sadly, as with just about anything in which humans are involved, the desires of the individual often overcome the needs or best interests of the whole, and the end result is breed after breed of animal that no longer have any hope of meeting the needs of their original purpose. In some case, folks will argue that the purposes have also changed, and in some cases that's even true, but a draft horse isn't much use if it can stand there and look pretty but not pull the plow or haul hay to the other beasts in the winter or pull logs out of locations where machinery can't. A herding dog isn't much use if it has no interest in working stock, and, yes, there are still plenty of folks around who actually need dogs for the work (that is, not just the weekend warriors and hobbyists). But when it comes to all things livestock, sadly most Americans are so far removed from the whole process that they can't even begin to grasp the implications of changing a once-useful breed to one that isn't.

 

And I think Kathy was being quite honest when she noted that it's nearly impossible to put back in genetics that were lost along the way as a breed is taken in different directions away from its original purpose. What's truly dismaying is that we never seem to learn from past mistakes. Actually I don't think it's a matter of learning, since I think there are plenty of very obvious examples of breeds taken to ruination for anyone who cares to notice--I think it's a matter of greed and a public that just doesn't know or care that leads purpose-bred animals down the path of destruction. Plenty of folks will be around to wring their hands when the breed is no longer the dog they new and loved, but for now, it's all about what "I can do for me."

 

J.

[Shoofly]

A herding dog isn't much use if it has no interest in working stock, and, yes, there are still plenty of folks around who actually need dogs for the work (that is, not just the weekend warriors and hobbyists). But when it comes to all things livestock, sadly most Americans are so far removed from the whole process that they can't even begin to grasp the implications of changing a once-useful breed to one that isn't.

 

I was talking to someone last night about this whole discussion and she asked why it is that people seem to be under the impression that there is less need for stockdogs than in the past. Specifically, she asked, "have people stopped eating meat or something?" Anyway, reading Julie's post and the quote above made me wonder, with the demand for more naturally raised livestock and the green movement, etc., could the demand for actual farm-working stockdogs actually increase? As the economy tightens, will stock producers turn to more cost effective methods of handling livestock (i.e. stockdogs)?

 

I know the demand for well trained trial dogs is extremely high. Prices not only reflect this, the difficulty in even finding trained dogs available to buy reflects it as well. When word quietly got around that i was kinda, sorta, maybe thinking about selling a young Nursery/Ranch level dog, i had people following me around at dog trials trying to pry him from my hands. My impression is that the demand for trained dogs is very high but the supply is very low and getting lower as stockdog trainers can't make a living training and breeding stockdogs.

 

Just some more food for thought.

[juliepoudrier]

I was talking to someone last night about this whole discussion and she asked why it is that people seem to be under the impression that there is less need for stockdogs than in the past. Specifically, she asked, "have people stopped eating meat or something?" Anyway, reading Julie's post and the quote above made me wonder, with the demand for more naturally raised livestock and the green movement, etc., could the demand for actual farm-working stockdogs actually increase? As the economy tightens, will stock producers turn to more cost effective methods of handling livestock (i.e. stockdogs)?

Robin,

I almost made the exact comment in my post re: eating meat. The more I talk to people in person and on various forums, the more it seems that folks are looking for ways to buy food closer to home, naturally raised, etc. As the prices for commercial (i.e., factory farmed) products continue to rise, the prices of locally raised meats should become much more competitive. This should increase the demand for meat grown by smaller farm operations. Most of those small operations operate on a very limited budget (I know I do) and can't afford the mechanization of the larger factory farms. I believe that these small farms will rely more on useful stockdogs for livestock handling. I can say the few times I've been out in the pasture and have seen something I needed to do or check with the sheep and thought "Oh, I'll just try to do it myself" have always ended with me going back to the house for a dog....

 

I think the factory farms won't be affected by a tighter economy re: how stock are handled since factory farming pretty much minimizes handling of that sort, but as I said above I do think that as the price gap between factory farmed and home grown and naturally raised becomes smaller, more consumers will choose the latter and that may create a bigger demand which could result in an increased number of such smaller farms with a concommitant increase in demand for useful stockdogs. It's a workable theory anyway. The question then becomes "Will farmers be able to find useful stockdogs to fill that need when it arises?"

 

J.

[1sheepdoggal]

Robin, I think that ones location and life style has a lot to do with their feelings and or knowledge about whether or not the need for good working stock dogs has diminished. Where I come from out west, there are still many, many vast cattle and sheep ranches and ranchers who depend almost soley on the help of several solid working dogs. It is said out west that one good working dog takes the place of 3 men on horse back, and cuts way back on having to pay wages to those men on horse back. And in this day and age, where cutting back costs in the raising of livestock for a profit is absolutly mandatory in order to make that profit and continue to keep a ranch going in the right direction, I see the need for good working stock dogs to be on the increase in many places, as opposed to their usefulness being required less and less.

[laurie etc]

Robin,

I almost made the exact comment in my post re: eating meat. ...Most of those small operations operate on a very limited budget (I know I do) and can't afford the mechanization of the larger factory farms. I believe that these small farms will rely more on useful stockdogs for livestock handling. I can say the few times I've been out in the pasture and have seen something I needed to do or check with the sheep and thought "Oh, I'll just try to do it myself" have always ended with me going back to the house for a dog....

 

... The question then becomes "Will farmers be able to find useful stockdogs to fill that need when it arises?"

 

J.

 

Just a quick example - I weaned my lambs last week - almost 5 months old and as big as their dams, and never worked except sparingly with their dams (to vaccinate and deworm) since I moved them to a new farm soon after lambing. Yesterday, I needed to catch them into the run-in shed to grab one out that someone was there to buy. They are wild as March hares - and don't know about "coming to a person with a bucket" at all. (In fact, people are probably just as scary to them as dogs, without their mamas there to "calm them".) I absolutely could not have gotten the job done with out a dog. Pod reads lambs so well, is patient with them, but anticipates their crazy, flighty movement. It took no time at all to settle them and have them decide to walk like little soldiers into the shed, where Pod held them in a corner until we could tie up a makeshift gate behind them. No amount of "machinery" or manpower could have accomplished what she did so easily. Without a dog, we would have been there all night trying to corral the little buggers, and would probably have ended up with injured, exhausted sheep.

 

On another note- reading all these posts makes me wonder if the "bullseye" shouldn't be the tough, dogs that will walk into pressure, and get the job done efficiently, rather than specifically "trial winners".

 

**Edited to add- I went back and re-read Denise's Bullseye Analogy, and she does use top "workers", not top "trialers". It is from this board that I keep hearing that only Open level dogs should be bred to Open level dogs. **

 

I've heard a number of comments from old-timers and experienced sheepdog people from both sides of the pond that so many of the dogs winning trials nowadays are the "easy", softer dogs who tend to train up quickly and want to stay off pressure. Makes them easier to train for the "weekend warriors", and quicker to get on the trial field, but they may not possess "the whole package" for hard ranch/hill work. A couple of the old timers I've talked to prefer a tough, hard headed dog that will stand up to training and "take a lickin' and keep on tickin'". So are the "weekend warriors" changing the breed from its original purpose, too?

Food for thought.

Laurie

[stockdogranch]

Interesting thread. Like Darci, I know LOTS of folks who have large livestock operations who completely rely on their dogs to get the work done. But I also live in SoCal, and my university students look at me like I'm from another planet when I mention having a lamb butchered or raising a few hogs or chickens or whatever for the freezer. That concept is so totally removed from their world that it's amazing. I think for many folks in SoCal, the idea of more locally-grown, or at least, more "organically" grown has some appeal (but I don't know if that's because they understand that there are good reasons behind it, or just that it's trendy and pricey, so that makes it desirable), but they still don't connect with where it comes from, if you know what I mean.

 

As for what type of dogs we are producing...I see a lot of different types. I agree with Laurie to some extent, that many weekend warriors want a different type of dog than I do. I have friends here very much like that. I really wasn't so aware of this until one day last year several of them came to work on outruns. They wanted me to hold sheep for them, which I did. Some of these reasonably successful Open handlers had a hard time lifting and moving my sheep. These are sheep that see dogs every day, even VERY young pups. But I realized that these sheep are used to being moved by MY dogs every day, who are used to working cattle, and so, evidently, my sheep take a bit more convincing to move than their dogs were ready to do. And more convincing than their sheep at home need, as well. Apparently I have "trained" my sheep to expect a certain level of pushiness? in a dog. I also see dogs, who, to me, lack something when I do setout with range ewes. There are certainly some dogs who have difficulty lifting because they are too busy flanking off the pressure, or are so sticky that they just won't walk on in and get things moving. But, then again, I also have good friends who work thousands of head of cattle day in and day out who rely on their dogs. The dogs they are breeding are "tougher"? (not sure that's the right word) than some of the pure trial dogs I see in this about-as-fast-paced-and-urban-as-you-can-get area. So I think there's a wide range of dogs being bred out there, and a person can find the right kind to suit his/her needs if you look,

 

A

 

ETA: Oh, and I learned LONG ago to never, ever go to the pasture without a dog, even if I think I'm only going out to close a gate or something. It's never that simple.