Jump to content
BC Boards

The individual vs the entire breed (gene pool)


Denise Wall
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just goes to show you really never know until you put the rubber to the road, you know?

 

Absolutely! The same can be said of handlers you know :rolleyes::D

 

Didn't mean to misquote you or Kyrasmom earlier. Just trying to condense a lot of posts into one response.

 

Apparently a lot of board members were rained in this weekend? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Several perhaps disconnected thoughts here in response to some of the recent comments:

I think we've seen enough of the dogs who have done well at the cattle finals also to do well at the sheep finals, or to just perform well consistently in both venues, not to make generalizations about cattle dogs vs. sheepdogs.

 

Yes, some of those those darn "sheep" dogs from the East seem to be talented enough to take on the cattle dogs from the West in their own backyard and come home with prizes. It's great to know those kind of dogs are out there.

 

If I had a concern about the breeding of "less than the whole package dogs" I would lay the blame at the feet of novice handlers/hobby folk who do well in the novice classes and use that as an excuse to breed.... In my mind, these folks are not doing any favors to the breed and are right up there with folks who breed willy nilly for other things. A dog who cleans up in novice-novice, and handlers who never advance beyond pro-novice (East Coast version) couldn't possibly even begin to understand what "the whole package" entails...

 

J.

 

Wow, Julie, that's a tad harsh, over-generalized and elitist. I think it quite depends on an individual's access to mentorship and knowledge; as well as their research, experience, dedication and personal motives... not just the level that they may or may not be trialing. If someone wants to breed a litter, and puts the necessary time, thought ,and research into it; starts with decent working stock, breeds "up" to a complimentary dog, and stands behind their puppies... I don't see that as being a negative for the breed. Gee, I guess I haven't seen the ammendment where ABCA decided that only puppies from USBCHA handlers can be registered.

 

Laurie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in today's less than agrarian type of lifestyle we'd better all HOPE there's some converts that pick up the important lessons and carry them on. I'm not just talking about the dogs, but the stock, and the lifestyle as well.

 

I hope so Laura, and the ones like you keep me trying whenever I can. It's a wonderful lifestyle and is good for all involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Melanie noted, the difference between my working bred dogs and the sport breds at Agility trials or training is focus and self control.

 

It’s very interesting to read all this. Quinn is my first Border Collie, sports bred, and when we were training for agility and obedience, he acted the way you and Melanie describe your dogs. Maybe he's a fluke? I no longer do any organized activities with him but until last year saw him in the context of classes, seminars and matches. I do see my friend's sports Border Collies but that is in the context of relaxed get-togethers. Maybe I'm forgetting how the majority of sports bred dogs are.

 

Also, coming from a stockdog background I don't feel the rabid need a lot of these people seem to to have a dog doing "adult" work the moment whatever organization they favor says its "ok" to enter events. Talk about cultural differences! A lot of those dogs wouldn't be nearly so bad if they were raised with balance and common sense.

 

Now, that I have definitely seen in sports. The intensity some people bring to raising and training their puppies can be pretty amazing and sometimes hard to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, Julie, that's a tad harsh, over-generalized and elitist. I think it quite depends on an individual's access to mentorship and knowledge; as well as their research, experience, dedication and personal motives... not just the level that they may or may not be trialing. If someone wants to breed a litter, and puts the necessary time, thought ,and research into it; starts with decent working stock, breeds "up" to a complimentary dog, and stands behind their puppies... I don't see that as being a negative for the breed. Gee, I guess I haven't seen the ammendment where ABCA decided that only puppies from USBCHA handlers can be registered.

Laurie,

It may sound harsh to you, but I stand by it even so, and I don't think it's elitist at all. We sit here and say that the sport, conformation, pet, etc., breeders are taking these dogs down the road to ruin, and if we are going to say that, then we need to look in the mirror, too, and recognize that some of the problem breeding comes from within as well. I would add the miller type working breeders to this list too. I don't see these comments as being at all inconsistent with previous comments made by others about the misguidedness of people who get a border collie, have some success in their dog sport of choice, and then start breeding more agility dogs, or flyball dogs, or whatever. It's the same thing.

 

I'm sure there are some novice handlers who have (and use) good mentors to guide them in breeding decisions, and who actually use their dogs in real farmwork (i.e., not just weekend warriors), and so are able to make good breeding decisions, but in general, I think many more do not. It's not elitist to point out that a person whose dog has never done more than a novice course probably doesn't know what is required of a dog at the highest levels. How could they? (It would be like me taking one of my dogs and going out and winning a few agility classes and on that basis deciding I should start breeding agility dogs because my success at the small local events has somehow imparted to me knowledge of what it takes to produce a world level agility dog. I wouldn't dream of doing it.) Having a mentor sure beats not having one, but it's not the same as experiencing it, because it will show the holes that just might not be evident otherwise. Around these parts, you don't even see most novice handlers even bothering to *watch* what's going on in open, so it's not too great a leap to think that most aren't terribly concerned with what it requires of a dog. Note that these comments are not directed at you but at the trends I've seen since I've started working dogs. And also I don't think the open trial is the only way that working dogs should be chosen for breeding, but short of someone having a farm where their dogs get plenty of work daily, it's the best we have right now. And we wouldn't even be having this discussion and the other recent ones in this politics section if ABCA imposed limits on registration (and I'm not saying that ABCA should do that). In the end, we all operate within our own good consciences, and if someone believes they are truly capable of producing better dogs that improve the breed without having tested those dogs (or any dogs) at the highest levels, then they're going to do it, aren't they?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s very interesting to read all this. Quinn is my first Border Collie, sports bred, and when we were training for agility and obedience, he acted the way you and Melanie describe your dogs. Maybe he's a fluke? I no longer do any organized activities with him but until last year saw him in the context of classes, seminars and matches. I do see my friend's sports Border Collies but that is in the context of relaxed get-togethers. Maybe I'm forgetting how the majority of sports bred dogs are.

 

They aren't *all* that way. If they were it would be easier to get people to see sense about buying and breeding them. Sensible sport dogs and working conformation dogs do exist, because as they say "even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes".

 

The problem is that the good ones are flukes, and they want to breed them all like the "fluke" was really "just a normal XYZ bred dog given a chance with proper training and exposure".

 

You can do all the proper stuff you want and most of the sport dogs aren't going get sensible, and the show dogs aren't going to run Open or work a real ranch. Breeding those occcasional "orange" dog from "white and red" line crosses just puts doses of white in the genepool that will bite us all later.

 

(Thanks Denise for that great Dart Board analogy!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the east vs. west thing: I don't know since I don't sheep trial (anymore). That's just what I am told, and an idea that I hear thrown about a fair amount. I wasn't making any kind of claims.

 

And I don't necessarily see the dogs as "sheep" dogs or "cattle" dogs. To me, the ideal is a STOCKDOG that has enough natural ability to read stock, of whatever species, and respond accordingly. Tough when needed, and gentle as can be when needed, with the brains to figure out which is which without being micro-managed.

 

If I had a concern about the breeding of "less than the whole package dogs" I would lay the blame at the feet of novice handlers/hobby folk who do well in the novice classes and use that as an excuse to breed.

 

Harsh though it may be, I totally agree--at least, I would lay a fair portion of the blame there. Even though a novice person may do the research, be dedicated, have great personal motives, etc., it comes back to the old you don't know what you don't know thing. The other word included in that list was "experience"--if a person has that much experience, then I would think s/he would no longer be running in the Novice class, no? Unless a person has worked with a LOT of different dogs and trained them up him-or herself to a high level (which would include ranchers who have been working with dogs and stock for a long time as well as Open handlers, so, no, there's no USBCHA "amendment"), there's no way to really objectively evaluate this or that dog's breed-worthiness, let alone how that particular dog would cross with another when bred.

 

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as the east vs. west thing: I don't know since I don't sheep trial (anymore). That's just what I am told, and an idea that I hear thrown about a fair amount. I wasn't making any kind of claims.

 

And I don't necessarily see the dogs as "sheep" dogs or "cattle" dogs. To me, the ideal is a STOCKDOG that has enough natural ability to read stock, of whatever species, and respond accordingly. Tough when needed, and gentle as can be when needed, with the brains to figure out which is which without being micro-managed.

Harsh though it may be, I totally agree--at least, I would lay a fair portion of the blame there. Even though a novice person may do the research, be dedicated, have great personal motives, etc., it comes back to the old you don't know what you don't know thing. The other word included in that list was "experience"--if a person has that much experience, then I would think s/he would no longer be running in the Novice class, no? Unless a person has worked with a LOT of different dogs and trained them up him-or herself to a high level (which would include ranchers who have been working with dogs and stock for a long time as well as Open handlers, so, no, there's no USBCHA "amendment"), there's no way to really objectively evaluate this or that dog's breed-worthiness, let alone how that particular dog would cross with another when bred.

A

So does anybody REALLY know - percentage wise - how many puppies are registered at ABCA by:

1 Professional Stockmen

2 Usbcha "Hobby" Trialers

3 Novice "Hobby" Trialers

4 Small Farm "Working" litters

5 BYB's Pet litters

6 Sports litters

7 Puppy mills

 

Just wondering...

Laurie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would require a lot of subcatagories. Such as the professional stockman who sells a large percentage of his pups for agility or pets.

 

One helpful thing that *could* be done is to rank breeders by numbers of litters produced like ISDS does. Or maybe that is is by kennel name? Anyway, I know I can look at the ISDS site and see that XYZ kennel has produce X number of litters since X year.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what it would prove anyway, beyond the fact that well-bred working dogs are most likely not the majority of registrations.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so from a conserving the breed point of view, how should a pet-bc owner (who may or may not investigate herding in a hobby sort of way) go about acquiring their next bc? Is it more important to support working bc breeders and buy a balanced, sensible dog from them or to go through bc rescue and adopt one that may or may not have been bred responsibly and found their way into unwanted dog purgatory? Is acquiring a dog from rescue tantamount to buying from a byb in terms of damning the breed? :D Is it even ok to own a border collie if it never gets a chance to work?

Forgive me if I'm being thick... :rolleyes:

Ailsa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At this point I direct all strictly pet homes to Rescue first. If they can't find what they want or have a specific, reasonable request for a breeder pup then I direct them to a breeder. I can't say I'll sell them a pup from me, even if I have one to sell I probably won't. (Basically because after a humongous burn from a buyer with "references" and a slick set of lines I pretty much have to know the buyer for a year or more before I'll sell them a pup.

 

Another thing I'm usually doing (after finding out if the person really needs a Border Collie period) is talking them out of a pup period. So few people need pups. If someone will accept a young adult it makes it so much easier to match needs and wants. once that door is open it is much easier to decide exactly what rescues or breeder rehomes (failed high level herding dogs for example) will suit.

 

I don't believe a Border Collie has to work to be happy, or an owner has to work the dog to be a good owner. I think its a good idea for at least a short time, because it gives insight to what the dog/breed is about and it builds the relationship. But if it can't happen then it can't.

 

so no, I don't think you are being "thick". I would ask you though, why you want a Border Collie if the basics of the breed (the working part) are not of use or interest to you? If you just like the markings and the intelligence part, there are probably other, likely easier, breeds to live with. If you are prepared for that part, not just prepared but want it and can channel the dog positively, then go for it.

 

Just as long as you don't breed the dog!

 

I bet you'll like the sheep stuff though :D

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay, so from a conserving the breed point of view, how should a pet-bc owner (who may or may not investigate herding in a hobby sort of way) go about acquiring their next bc? Is it more important to support working bc breeders and buy a balanced, sensible dog from them or to go through bc rescue and adopt one that may or may not have been bred responsibly and found their way into unwanted dog purgatory? Is acquiring a dog from rescue tantamount to buying from a byb in terms of damning the breed? :D Is it even ok to own a border collie if it never gets a chance to work?

Forgive me if I'm being thick... :rolleyes:

Ailsa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that the good ones are flukes, and they want to breed them all like the "fluke" was really "just a normal XYZ bred dog given a chance with proper training and exposure".

 

You can do all the proper stuff you want and most of the sport dogs aren't going get sensible, and the show dogs aren't going to run Open or work a real ranch.

 

Hmm. That is really interesting. I will be timing at my club's agility trial in couple of weeks plan to pay close attention to how those Border Collies (sports bred to the last one, no doubt) behave. I never really thought of them as not sensible, though I've seen my share of over the top dogs in that sport and not just Border Collies. Again though, I've had next to nothing to do with the sport for almost a year and my memory could be hazy. Your descriptions have given me something to watch for and think about at the show.

 

Quinn enjoyed agility when we did it, the way he enjoys most of life. He's game for pretty much anything (other than vets and Lhasas) but he clearly believes his true vocation is herding sheep. :rolleyes: I know so little about stock work but I do believe he would have been beyond happy as a farm dog (especially if he also had kids to play with) and maybe even fairly helpful with chores. I understand I purchased him from the wrong breeder, but I can't regret having him. He is the most fun I've had in a dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe a Border Collie has to work to be happy, or an owner has to work the dog to be a good owner. I think its a good idea for at least a short time, because it gives insight to what the dog/breed is about and it builds the relationship. But if it can't happen then it can't.

 

so no, I don't think you are being "thick". I would ask you though, why you want a Border Collie if the basics of the breed (the working part) are not of use or interest to you? If you just like the markings and the intelligence part, there are probably other, likely easier, breeds to live with. If you are prepared for that part, not just prepared but want it and can channel the dog positively, then go for it.

 

Just as long as you don't breed the dog!

 

I bet you'll like the sheep stuff though :D

 

Thanks for your response Lenajo.

 

Yes, I think I would like the sheep stuff! I'm going to look into it.... :D

 

In regards to your other points, when I adopted my first bc, I had no idea what I was getting into -- I actually meant to get a lab or golden :D Chalk it up to being clueless and just really wanting a dog. But now I couldn't imagine living with another type of dog -- I feel that we're deeply connected and have so much in common -- activity, fun, smarts, scarcasm, problem-solving, etc.

 

I actually do have a great interest in the breed -- that's why I'm here :D and am asking questions. I am keenly aware that there are other easier breeds to live with and now that I'm broken in, wouldn't want to take the easy way out!

 

In terms of acquiring a pup versus an adult, my first was a young adult when I adopted her and my second was a very young pup. I have absolutely no problem with adopting a dog that isn't a pup: in fact, I might prefer it!

 

And no, I would never breed. Myself or the dog. :rolleyes:

Ailsa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what it would prove anyway, beyond the fact that well-bred working dogs are most likely not the majority of registrations.

 

J.

 

Well, some folks were blaming "Sports breeders" for the Border Collies' doom. Then it changed to "Novice Handler Breeders" whose feet the problem lies at. Somewhere along the way the surplus Rescue dogs got tagged for taking homes away from more deserving "well bred" working puppies (who can't find working homes for some reason - I still don't understand that one), and so on... Just wondered if anyone actually had facts to back up these accusations... It would be interesting to know.

 

And what would be considered "well bred" - again only red bullseye dogs? Would that include all Open level dogs, or only the ones who qualify for or run in the Finals? What about unproven relatives of said dogs? What about dogs who run at the Finals but produce serious medical issues (orthopedic problems, epilepsy, late onset deafness, cryptorchids)? What about their close relatives who never leave the farm? How small would the gene pool actually become if it was limited in any one decade to "Finals" dogs and their working progeny?

 

 

Laurie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One helpful thing that *could* be done is to rank breeders by numbers of litters produced like ISDS does. Or maybe that is is by kennel name? Anyway, I know I can look at the ISDS site and see that XYZ kennel has produce X number of litters since X year.

 

 

 

Hi Lenajo,

 

 

Not to steer this thread off course, but can you tell me how I get to the area on the ISDS web site that has this info? I read the website often, but have not run into this info on there and I would love to be able to read it

 

Thanks in advance for the info.

 

Carolyn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to steer this thread off course, but can you tell me how I get to the area on the ISDS web site that has this info? I read the website often, but have not run into this info on there and I would love to be able to read it

I haven't seen it on the ISDS site, but Teun van den Dool compiles lists from the stud books fairly regularly on his website.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, some folks were blaming "Sports breeders" for the Border Collies' doom. Then it changed to "Novice Handler Breeders" whose feet the problem lies at. Somewhere along the way the surplus Rescue dogs got tagged for taking homes away from more deserving "well bred" working puppies (who can't find working homes for some reason - I still don't understand that one), and so on... Just wondered if anyone actually had facts to back up these accusations... It would be interesting to know.

 

Isn't it entirely possible that *all* the folks not breeding to improve the working ability in the breed are to blame,to a greater or lesser extent depending on not only breeding practices but also numbers of puppies produced? The fact is that none seem to be breeding with the best interests of the breed as a top-notch stockworking dog at heart. I don't agree that rescue homes are the root of the problem--the need for homes for a bunch of unwanted dogs, no doubt mostly bred by BYBs, mills, and the like, is the root cause of the rescue problem. Not all working homes are created equal. There is nothing wrong with a breeder of good working dogs wanting to ensure that his/her dogs get into the best homes possible, working or not, as long as some of the dogs from each breeding are where their worth as working dogs can be evaluated. All of this has been said before, so I'm not sure why the need to repeat, but there ya go.

 

And what would be considered "well bred" - again only red bullseye dogs? Would that include all Open level dogs, or only the ones who qualify for or run in the Finals? What about unproven relatives of said dogs? What about dogs who run at the Finals but produce serious medical issues (orthopedic problems, epilepsy, late onset deafness, cryptorchids)? What about their close relatives who never leave the farm? How small would the gene pool actually become if it was limited in any one decade to "Finals" dogs and their working progeny?

 

Have you been reading any of these other threads? No one has said that well-bred means only finals winners or only open level dogs. There are two components to well-bred: 1. the understanding of what it takes to work at the top levels, be that in USBCHA open or on a ranching/farming operation where the dog really does replace the work of a human on a regular basis, where the dog is tested daily and worked long hours, etc. and 2. proof of the breeding, either in trials or on farming operations where the dog is truly put to real work on a regular basis. I don't think most people would be against unproven relatives of top dogs, but at some point the progeny need to be tested against some sort of high standard or the breeder in question can't possibly say that the unproven relative is a good producer. If you don't test what you produce, how do you know that you can make a claim of breedworthiness? And although it may not be the *perfect* test, the USBCHA open trial, based on the ISDS open trial, which as we all know was developed as the de facto standard by the folks who created the breed, is the best test we have. But before anyone cries that not all good dogs leave the farm to be trialed, yep, and that's been discussed ad nauseum too. The farmer/rancher types as described by Anna and others certainly have their own test of what makes a good working dog, and I can respect that. But since I'm the one who said novices shouldn't be breeding, and that's what seems to have set this whole discussion going, let me ask this: How does a novice handler with novice dogs know what s/he's producing? In one breath you ridicule the desire of an open handler breeder wanting to place a pup in a pet home because that won't prove a breeding (although it's been clearly stated that a certain number would always go to working homes to be proven) and in the next you defend the practices of breeders whose dogs are *never* tested off the home farm or by other than a titling organization or perhaps not at all, having been sold on to sports or pet homes. If by proving your (the general you) breedings, you mean winning in novice-novice, what have you proven? That the breeding is producing dogs that can work to the lowest common denominator? How is that good for the breed overall? If we can all agree that we should be breeding with the idea of improving the next generation, tell me how a philosophy of breeding novice dogs or unproven dogs, and never or rarely testing any progeny to a high standard fits into that philosophy.

 

Breeders like Sa**ord and MAH claim well bred dogs from well-known working lines. If you just look at a pedigree to determine the "quality" of the breeding, sure there dogs "have it all." But do you really believe that those dogs are quality working dogs? Dogs that have been bred for generations based on pedigree alone (and that's assuming the pedigree is what they say it is)? So basing breeding decisions solely on pedigree (that is, who the dog's relatives are) when none of those dogs are ever proven beyond the famous/well-known dogs in the pedigree is still not helping the breed. Sooner or later you have to go out and prove it.

 

I suppose some could say that novice breeders and sports breeders are doing no real harm because the people who are buying their puppies aren't going to be the folks looking for top-level stockworkers, but that takes us right back to Denise's dart board. If you (the generic you) are breeding dogs that are unproven or proven only at the lowest levels, how can you possibly be contributing to anything other than the whitening of the yellow or the yellowing of the orange?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How small would the gene pool actually become if it was limited in any one decade to "Finals" dogs and their working progeny?

 

How did we get from Julie's original post about "novice handlers" to THIS!?!?

 

Julie, once again, you've said it well,

 

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it entirely possible that *all* the folks not breeding to improve the working ability in the breed are to blame,to a greater or lesser extent depending on not only breeding practices but also numbers of puppies produced? The fact is that none seem to be breeding with the best interests of the breed as a top-notch stockworking dog at heart.

 

 

Anyone breeding with the "intent" of producing Border Collies for other than stock work is contributing to dilution of the breed's intent and purpose. That is not to say that there aren't different levels of stock work; and whether one is breeding for "Open Trial" workers, or useful working farm dogs should not label that breeder as having a hand in the breed's demise.

Breeding proven top-level working dogs certainly "should" increase the odds of producing top level workers, but that isn't a given; and multiple bitch owners breeding to a "popular" trial dog - concentrating the gene pool - may or may not be in the breed's best interest. I think by mandating that only "top level workers" or high profile dogs owned by accomplished handlers are appropriate to breed, you may be setting a standard that "throws the baby out with the bathwater". Just like mandating that breeders should only breed CEA clear to clear, and culling all the carriers would be an obviously wrong move; so would culling all the "less than stellar" or unproven dogs from a gene pool. How does anyone really know what would be lost by culling the "yellow" and "orange" from the gene pool?

 

I think breeders (like you and some others on this board), who breed thoughtfully, selectively and infrequently are to be commended. It is obvious that money is not the motive for those breeding decisions, and that they have the best interest of the breed at heart. I do question the motives of anyone that breeds multiple (5+) litters yearly, whether for "stock work", sport, or for pets. To me, income-based breeding puts a breeder in a position where they may or may not have the best interest of the breed at heart, even if they are producing top-notch dogs. Are they really doing the breed a service by flooding the market with their puppies? Are they keeping track of more than the "good/working" puppies' progress? Are their puppies in non-working pet or sport homes sold on non-breeding registration? Are they willing to take back and/or rehome puppies from their breedings? As stewards for the breed, it's not just the puppy you produce and sell, but knowing what happens with those puppies over the long-term, and letting those results steer future breeding (or culling) decisions.

 

 

There are two components to well-bred: 1. the understanding of what it takes to work at the top levels, be that in USBCHA open or on a ranching/farming operation where the dog really does replace the work of a human on a regular basis, where the dog is tested daily and worked long hours, etc. and 2. proof of the breeding, either in trials or on farming operations where the dog is truly put to real work on a regular basis. I don't think most people would be against unproven relatives of top dogs, but at some point the progeny need to be tested against some sort of high standard or the breeder in question can't possibly say that the unproven relative is a good producer. If you don't test what you produce, how do you know that you can make a claim of breedworthiness?

 

Traditionally, "well-bred" means what's on the pedigree, regardless of who owns the dog, or how it works. Same with horses. I guess we differ in our "semantics".

 

 

But since I'm the one who said novices shouldn't be breeding, and that's what seems to have set this whole discussion going, let me ask this: How does a novice handler with novice dogs know what s/he's producing? In one breath you ridicule the desire of an open handler breeder wanting to place a pup in a pet home because that won't prove a breeding (although it's been clearly stated that a certain number would always go to working homes to be proven) and in the next you defend the practices of breeders whose dogs are *never* tested off the home farm or by other than a titling organization or perhaps not at all, having been sold on to sports or pet homes. If by proving your (the general you) breedings, you mean winning in novice-novice, what have you proven? That the breeding is producing dogs that can work to the lowest common denominator? How is that good for the breed overall? If we can all agree that we should be breeding with the idea of improving the next generation, tell me how a philosophy of breeding novice dogs or unproven dogs, and never or rarely testing any progeny to a high standard fits into that philosophy.

 

 

I don't think I ridiculed or defended anybody. Just posed some questions for discussion. Call me the Devil's Advocate, I guess.

 

Gotta go sort and move some sheep. With my candy-colored Pro-Novice Dog, and Kenny's BYB Pro-Novice dog. Gee, I hope we can get it done. I'll check back this afternoon.

Laurie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sue R relayed about her "nicely bred, flashy, flank off of the pressure" dog not being able to get the job done on runaway cattle, and her gritty "ugly" dog jumping in and accomplishing it. I think in a farming situation, Joe Farmer is gonna appreciate dog # 2,and feel like taking dog # 1 out behind the barn. This is why it's important for modern breeders to keep in mind that it's the "whole package" that needs to be kept alive, not just the "trial package". Laurie

 

Just a clarification - Celt was what I thought (in my very novice ignorance) was a very well-bred dog from a very conscientious breeder of quality working dogs. I have since learned that that was very optimistic. His mother, imported from Ireland, has produced some outstanding offspring (her get include the winner of the Scottish National and also one of the Brace winners last year).

 

BUT (and it's a big "but") his father was an unproven (couldn't be successfully trained by a very, very top trainer who can bring out the best in less-than-optimal dogs) wash-out as a ProNov trial dog, son of a goosedog (nothing against goose dogs but again, unproven on stock) and a somewhat successful Open level dog with real temperment (anxiety, tension, lack of confidence) issues.

 

So, what does Celt have in his "package"? Some of his mother's quality but with his father's and grandfather's anxiety and fear that severely limits his otherwise very fine potential. After struggling for several years with him (and I will keep on working with him, he can amaze me sometimes with what he can do when he and I overcome our mutual problems), I spoke to his father's trainer because I was concerned about Celt's problems. And he summed up that sire's shortcomings in one very short sentence. A great relief to me because it meant that it wasn't "just me" that was the problem, but also a severe disappointment that I might never be able to proceed past a certain stage with Celt.

 

What's the point? This poor breeding choice (not "nicely bred") produced a dog with only part of a very good package, and part of a very not-good package. As far as I am aware, the rest of the eight pup litter was a washout for anything but pet dogs. And, I have since and reluctantly come to the conclusion that the breeder, while feeling he/she is making good breeding decisions, is really just producing a lot of pups in general for the pet/companion/sport market. When you see that virtually all the pups produced and kept for trial wind up "moving on" without making it to Open, and the Nursery and Open dogs are generally from "outside", you can see the breeding program is not working hard at producing top-quality stockdogs (the one, and only one of which I am aware, pup that has shown himself to be excellent on the trial field is in extremely capable and experienced hands). When you also see that a number of these pups have gone on to sport, pet, and occasionally Novice-level (as if that's "proof" of working ability) homes and are, in their turn, also being bred...well, it just goes on and on and perpetuates and multiplies some of the very problems we have recently been discussing on this board.

 

Bute, too, shares the downfall of having one good parent (another Irish dog, a successful Brace dog) and one unproven parent (who goes back to some nice American dogs). At least, while he didn't get (or we haven't developed) much style, at least he got "grit" (as Laurie aptly put it), which counts for a lot. You can't get far on real stock without it.

 

I think it all goes to show that, while getting a pup or dog from a good breeding is no guarantee, it surely does up your odds for getting a suitable, stockworking and/or trialing candidate. Making poor breeding and/or purchasing decisions only lead to degredation of the genepool and the breed as a whole for a number of reasons which we have been discussing here and elsewhere.

 

Sorry to ramble. I just don't manage to say anything in a short and sweet manner...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just another thought, after Laurie's post (that was happening while I was typing mine):

 

The Border Collie was not developed by people just breeding "the best to the best". There were some very significant sires and dams that made enormous contributions. But there were also a lot a just plain useful farm dogs that probably never saw a trial field, that were bred to other useful dogs or maybe to proven trial winners, to produce better dogs generation after generation. This was also accompanied by strong culling, as repugnant as that might be to us now (as it was not accomplished in general by neutering and placing in a pet home).

 

A farmer or shepherd could not afford to maintain a useless sheepdog. The work (on farm and/or trial field) proved the dogs' worth. The trial field allowed people to be aware of good dogs outside their own neighborhood, for breeding purposes, to see dogs in action so as to evaluate their working style and potential as breeding choices.

 

I think Denise's bull's-eye demonstrates this very well, that dogs of top quality (red, outstanding dogs on farm and trial field), larger genepool of medium quality (yellow, useful dogs), and even larger (perhaps) genepool of not-so-useful dogs (white, that should probably not be chosen for breeding except for a definite purpose with some benefit) can all contribute when wise breeding decisions are made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...