The individual vs the entire breed (gene pool)

[Lenajo]

Large ISDS Breeders and Dealers When looking at the numbers be sure to look at the time span. Imo there is a big difference in potential quality because of inevitably poor follow up for a breeder who produced an average of 500 dogs in over 60 years, and another who did that in 10-12 years.

 

That whole website is interesting. Note the article on the influence on Wiston Cap here as well

[C Crocker]

Large ISDS Breeders and Dealers When looking at the numbers be sure to look at the time span. Imo there is a big difference in potential quality because of inevitably poor follow up for a breeder who produced an average of 500 dogs in over 60 years, and another who did that in 10-12 years.

 

That whole website is interesting. Note the article on the influence on Wiston Cap here as well

 

 

 

Thanks Lenajo,

 

I had forgotten about his web site. I had this man do a pedigree on my border collie when she was a pup.

 

Carolyn

[Sue R]

Large ISDS Breeders and Dealers When looking at the numbers be sure to look at the time span. Imo there is a big difference in potential quality because of inevitably poor follow up for a breeder who produced an average of 500 dogs in over 60 years, and another who did that in 10-12 years.

 

That whole website is interesting. Note the article on the influence on Wiston Cap here as well

As you have pointed out, the most prolific breeder (in terms of numbers of pups produced per year) seems to be the one that produced almost five hundred in about 12 years. That seems to be more of a farm-based business supported at least somewhat on producing and selling pups, no matter how well bred they might be.

 

While others have produced more, they have produced them over a longer time period, so fewer pups per year on average. Many top handlers who train and breed seem to have produced rather moderate numbers of pups on a per-year basis, which I would think would indicate a great deal of care going into some very good breedings from top-notch breeders.

 

Very interesting, to say the least. Thanks for posting the link. I do wish ABCA had this sort of data. I think it would be very illuminating.

[Ooky]

What an interesting weekend on the boards, and I want to thank everyone for the thoughtful discussion on this issue. It's made me feel pretty passionately about this in a very short amount of time. I hope it won't be out of line for such a "novice" (not EVEN a real "novice") to put their 2 cents in.

 

As I've said before, I have the strongest background and ability to think about the mechanisms and consequences of artificial delection (breeding) in context of natural selection. And as upsetting as it was for some people to hear, I can't get away from the argument that more top-notch working litters need to be bred. It does nothing for the overpopulation issue, which I also care deeply about. But since this thread is about the future of the *breed*, the issue of rescues needing homes doesn't negate the fact that the well- and purpose-bred are right now being swamped by the carelessly bred. Ironically, for the breed, the more BYB/sport/mill/whatever litters come out, the *more* purpose-bred litters are needed for the "red circle" genotypes to not be swamped out. Unless there is a very rigid split, where the two pools cease to mix much. What is really, really sad to me is the conundrum previously pointed out here that ethical people who should and can be breeding, mostly won't, and will produce very very few litters because as individuals it is hard for them, ethically, to produce more dogs inthe current situation. And understandably so, but for these people to produce fewer litters *for that reason* hurts the breed as it accelerates the swamping process. Please don't think I'm saying this is the purpose-breeders' fault - no, I lay that on BYBs and puppymills.

 

That issue only deals with supply, though. I think when some people suggested it would be better for the *breed* in some cases if more pet/sport homes went to good working breeders so that these breeders can produce more litters. This comment, I believe, was a reasonable suggestion on the need to increase *demand* for well-bred dogs. More demand means more opportunity to breed litters from good working stock, and if all of the litter can't be placed in working homes, hopefully enough would that you could reasonably have something like twice the litters, w/ half of each litter going to pet/sport/hobby homes. If you are worried about individual fates of individual dogs that are in rescue *now*, this seems like a ridiculous stance. If you are objectively thinking of how to save the breed in this situation, it makes more sense.

 

I have worked on rangelands in the western US for over a decade - Colordao, Utah, California, Oregon. There is a lot of commercial ranching out here. My suggestion for increasing demand for well-bred litters is reaching out to more of these peopel somehow, because I'm here to tell you that most do not use dogs in day to day operations. Especially in California, ACDs are the farm dogs that *most* often run up to greet me when I come on someone's ranch, because the majority of what I see are cattle operations. But I do see a lot of sheep too - this spring I spent a good 8 weeks in the Antelope Valley of California doing surveys and sheep are king there. Out of all the herds I saw, only *2* had dogs out. ALL had Mexican immigrant workers out. I do NOT think Mexicans are bad, BTW, I think immigrant labor and taking advantage of people for too-low salaries and no benefits IS bad, however. I'm sorry, but in my mind these sheep farmers need to understand the money and manpower a good dog would replace. There is a ton a meat beng produced in this country and dogs, in my mind, are the perfect tool to keep meat prices low and herds healthy.

 

Then this got me thinking how THIS BORDER COLLIE issue really ties into huge issues about how our private and public grazing lands in the west are *really* mismanaged, and how the meat production business is so messed up. It is environmentally disatrous, bad for our health, bad for the stock, and bad for the small, ethical farmer. Huge, enormous herds are run by huge moguls who rarely even see their stock. Why would they care to take the effort to find and buy really good dogs?

 

Even small ranches here could benefit from dogs to help the rangelands not be destroyed by overgrazing. Too many farmers I see don't move their stock enough, and when they are overstocking their lands anyway, this has they typical effect in the arid west of trashing the wetlands and allowing the dry ridges to go ungrazed and develop massive invasive weed problems. (The wetlands get trashed b/c ranchers just let their stock sit there, which they naturally do as the forage is more palatable, digestible, and nutritious, and there's water). Again, a tough job mad massively easier with not just a good dog, but a stellar one.

 

How to reach more of these people? Maybe others here have some ideas on that... Do you think the "fanciness" or trialling puts them off?

[Sue R]

What interesting thoughts!

 

I'm sitting here thinking how I have contributed, or not contributed, to the benefit of the breed. And I am ashamed to say that what I have done in obtaining my dogs has not been at all a benefit to the breed or its future.

 

Thinking I was getting a well-bred working pups, I purchased one from a breeder that I felt was a good, conscientious breeder of quality working dogs. Skye had potential but was killed at a young age (not a working accident). I was given Celt, for whom I will always be grateful, but whose breeding is partly very lacking in quality (enough said about that previously). We adopted Megan, who was a impulse buy from a poor-quality breeder by a young man who realized he was not providing her with a suitable home, and rehomed her (happily, with us). Bute was given to me by Celt's breeder as he was unsaleable (several birth defects) but a potentially useful farm dog who needed a home. His breeding also has some holes (but, to be fair, all my dogs have had limited training opportunities, and many flaws are probably mine).

 

What I'm trying to say is that we are pretty much at our dog limit with three dogs - but, in obtaining all three, we did not support the production of good quality working-bred dogs, or support the kind of breeder who produces them in a very ethical, responsible manner. We have one home/farm/livestock situation that could have helped contribute to the future of the breed by supporting one or two good breeders through obtaining pups from the right kind of source, but didn't.

 

We supported a high-volume producer of working-background pups destined largely for pet/companion/sport homes, and a "rescue" dog. I sure hope I've learned from my mistakes and to listen to the folks who know what they are talking about especially when it's not what I want to hear (and you know who you are).

 

In our case, the individual dogs (Celt, Megan, and Bute) are doing fine with us but sadly I have done nothing to benefit the breed as a whole (gene pool).

[Denise Wall]

Ooky,

 

What a great and interesting post!

 

And thanks to everyone else also for their good contributions to this discussion.

[juliepoudrier]

Devil's Advocating right back at ya!

 

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.

 

Sure as long as the useful farm worker is truly a useful dog. It's been said before, but I'll say it again, anyone's dog can look good at home working their own stock. When the work is truly challenging on a day-to-day basis, then the work being done of the farm probably is suitable for choosing breeding stock. When the work is what's needed on the hobby farms that most of us have, then I question it's viability for choosing breeding stock.

 

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?

 

No one has mandated that only accomplished handlers or top-level (if by top level you mean something quite narrow like finals winners) should ever breed. But it is necessary to prove that your breeding is adding something positive to the gene pool at some point, isn't it? Using less than stellar or unproven dogs as breeders certainly has been done in the past, but the person doing the breeding needs to have enough experience to recognize that the less than stellar or unproven dog is going to produce offspring that are better than it is or that breeder is going to have go out and prove somehow that the resulting pups are an improvement over the parent(s). When I say have enough experience to recognize, I'm talking about the stockpeople who have been doing this since they were practically in diapers and so can recognize the good ones whithout having to see it proved anywhere, folks like Jack Knox, Alasdair MacRae, and Tommy Wilson, for example, or other old-time farmers and ranchers who know both livestock and dogs inside and out. The rest of us thinking of breeding have to be able to understand their dog's strengths and weaknesses (that is, get beyond kennel blindness), and as I've stated before the best test we have of that is the open trial. There's a reason not all dogs make it at the open level. Should none of those dogs be bred? Of course not, but there's a huge yawning gap between novice and open, and I personally question whether the average owner who has never worked a dog at that higher level has the experience to recognize the skills, traits, talents required in a dog that performs consistently at that higher level. I know I didn't. (e.g., My Twist is a good dog, IMO, and together we moved from novice to open. But as a novice training her, I let some things go in training that I should have corrected back then, had I known as a novice what I needed as an end result in an open dog. And that goes back to Anna's point of not knowing what you don't know. And I also think that anyone who has made the journey from novice to open will tell others that what they thought was a great dog when they were novices--in general--changed over time as they gained more experience training and trialing. And I think that's the root of my comments about novices being part of the problem. But no need to keep beating away at that dead horse here.) No one can say anything about pups that were produced from any breeding unless at least some of them get out there and prove that they are as good as their parents or better. It's not about breeding trial winners to trial winners even, but you have to be able to recognize strengths and weaknesses that may not show up except at the highest levels of testing and then you have to have some idea about how to improve on those and then you have to have some measure by which you decide whether the breeding choice was a good one. Denise can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I understand it is that the dogs in the yellow ring (especially) maintain some valuable working genes that can be used to maintain diversity. But if the dogs in the yellow ring are only every doing agility or flyball or being pets or maybe doing the chore work on a small hobby farm, there's no evidence that the genes they possess are valuable. You might breed such dogs, but if those progeny only ever do agility or flyball or run in novice, then there's no evidence that the dogs are *maintaining* valuable working genetics in that ring. It's a downward slope (or outward spiral toward the white ring) if the progeny of such crosses are never proven.

 

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".

 

Sure, one can say that "well-bred" means a good pedigree. But as Sue R pointed out so beautifully, what's on paper doesn't have a lot of meaning if what's on the ground can't do the work. Thats why most purpose-bred animals have to live up to some sort of performance criteria (be it loin eye size in a market lamb, or speed in a race horse, or cow sense in a working quarter horse, or stockwork in a border collie). There are a lot of well-bred thoroughbred racehorses out there who never make it to the track or win anything of importance. Some few of those may go on to become good producers on the strength of their pedigrees alone (again as above these will be horses that horsemen who've been in the business a long time recognize as having certaily qualities of good producers), but most have to show some talent at racing before they will be bred from.

 

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

I'm sure your dogs will do just fine sorting your sheep for you on your farm.

 

J.

[jdarling]

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.

 

I don't think the "intent" of producing BCs for other than stock work needs to be there in order to achieve that very thing. It happens all the time -- whether the breeder wants to objectively look at their breeding program or not. There are many "breeders" out there that try to convince themselves and others that they are breeding working dogs, when it fact, they wouldn't know a good working dog if it bit them in the rear.

 

As a novice myself, I could easily sit here and play "devil's advocate" and downplay the importance of breeding top dogs to top dogs, and throw out the "Well there are good ranch dogs, too..." (despite the fact that I do trial) and find every excuse in the book to justify breeding my dogs, but having my ass very recently handed to me at a trial that was at a place other than the place I normally trial at on lambs that have never been worked by dogs before ... I have a whole new respect for what's being said here.

 

Thank you to all those that continue to have the patience to "fight the good fight."

 

Jodi

[Shoofly]

Ooky, thanks for the input, a great post! And thanks to everyone else too. The boards have been very interesting lately.

[Journey]

Very interesting, to say the least. Thanks for posting the link. I do wish ABCA had this sort of data. I think it would be very illuminating.

 

 

The site that lists the Breeders is very interesting! I too wonder if the ABCA can do something of this nature? It may or may not help matters but I think it definitely would give a better picture of where the breed stands right now. If all records are computerized it shouldn't be that difficult to produce and publish on the ABCA site.

 

Karen

[Shoofly]

The site that lists the Breeders is very interesting! I too wonder if the ABCA can do something of this nature? It may or may not help matters but I think it definitely would give a better picture of where the breed stands right now. If all records are computerized it shouldn't be that difficult to produce and publish on the ABCA site. Karen

 

I was kind of hoping someone else would pipe up with the answer on this but...it's on ABCA's radar to do this, and has been for awhile. I'm actually a current director of ABCA and it's been talked about and hopefully will remain a goal for the new board coming in. I'm not sure what the holdup is since i could never get my hands on the database but i know it's not a simple question or it would have already been done. And if MS and NC weren't so far apart i could walk in and try to figure it out (data geek here). I suspect it's going to take some serious data management work to get the database into shape to answer questions like these though. For example, say you have a high volume breeder (or even a medium volume breeder) named Richard T Jones, in say TN. And say he has a PO Box in KY, and sometimes registers dogs with one address, sometimes the other. Sometimes uses R Jones, sometimes RT Jones, sometimes Dick Jones, etc. If the ABCA database isn't organized around some unique field per breeder (say a breeder ID#), you'd have a heck of a time compiling all the litters this person registers. Now i don't know if it is or not, as i haven't looked at the actual database, but well, it's just one complication i can imagine in answering those sorts of questions - as important as they are! I hope to see this project take on a higher priority.

[Lenajo]

It looks like the ISDS has the same trouble with people moving.

[jdarling]

I think tracking the number of litters put on the ground by a particular breeder is a double-edged sword.

 

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.

 

I would hate to have "X" number be the magical number by which one goes from a "responsible breeder" to a "puppymill" despite their ethics and the work they do with their dogs. Seems a slippery slope to me. Sport breeders seem to be setting a precendent that you only breed a bitch so many times, only once per year, you test for everything under the sun, have reservations for x amount of puppies before doing the breeding, etc.

[juliepoudrier]

What I find interesting about that list is that for the most part (I certainly didn't check every name and number) it looks like breeders were producing just one or two litters a year (on average) over the timespan given, with a few notable exceptions.

 

J.

[Shoofly]

Did you guys try this section on Teun's page?

 

http://www.bcdb.info/winners.htm

 

Just reading it over may be enlightening for some, along those "you don't know what you don't know until you know it" lines.

[Journey]

Now i don't know if it is or not, as i haven't looked at the actual database, but well, it's just one complication i can imagine in answering those sorts of questions - as important as they are! I hope to see this project take on a higher priority.

 

 

Thanks Robin!

 

OK, maybe if each breeder is input into the database with a "breeder number" it could even be their ABCA membership number (since you have to be a member to register). That may help with any address, name confusion. Now, this wouldn't help with breeders like MAH and S******* who used others to register, but still you would have the membership number to classify them in. And maybe just going on the sire and dam numbers based on dogs registered from them would be enlightening! Many people "know" who owns who at any given time.

 

Karen

[Lenajo]

We've also got a few breeders that are master mlm marketers with their litters. They just take the money, somebody else is the "breeder".

[Debbie Meier]

Did you guys try this section on Teun's page?

 

http://www.bcdb.info/winners.htm

 

Just reading it over may be enlightening for some, along those "you don't know what you don't know until you know it" lines.

 

 

Thanks for the link, it's quite interesting, kinda fun seeing what choices or ideals changes the potential handler level, also gives you a hint as to what things you can change to potentially get you and your dog(s) further along, if that's your goal anyway.

 

Deb

[Sue R]

I took that test several years ago. Just reading and playing with it is very educational.

 

My results were (and are) embarassing. It makes it obvious why I have made so little progress, and why folks like Julie P and Laura C have progressed so far in their respective learning curves as they have made much better choices and worked harder than I have to learn, obtain quality dogs and access to suitable livestock, and train seriously.

 

What is extra embarassing is that I thought I was researching well, choosing well, and doing an all-around good job of going about getting a dog (or dogs). It is another case of "if I knew then what I know now"...

 

I would not trade any of my dogs for the world's best-bred, best-trained, best-quality dog out there but I would have done ourselves and the Border Collie a better service by researching more, asking more questions, going to trials and meeting people, learning more, and finding and supporting the right breeder.

 

I'm doing the best I can with and for the dogs I have now, we love them dearly and they will always have a good home with us and work to do, but I wish I'd done a better job myself in many ways.

[SoloRiver]

ISDS kennel prefixes with #dogs registered per year

[Sue R]

ISDS kennel prefixes with #dogs registered per year

Also very illuminating. How about 51 pups a year for six years?

 

Robin - Could ABCA do these sorts of charts with some volunteer inputs, maybe data entry? I notice that the breeder chart says breeders and dealers. That sort of thing (designation of dealer) might be helpful in identifying those with "operations" like Swa**ord where others are listed as the breeder but the dogs are funneled through a particular business. I think it would be very, very interesting to see what sorts of numbers we would find on North American breeders/marketers.

[Lenajo]

Sue I wish you'd stop knocking yourself. Everybody headed to Open caliber has a different learning curve, and to some degree different goals.

 

Basically you did the best you knew at the time, and when you knew better, you did better (quote borrowed from Maya Angelo - it just fits too well not too use)

 

The people who do the most damage know what they are doing, and don't care. That in my opinion, is the worst of the problem.

 

 

 

-

I took that test several years ago. Just reading and playing with it is very educational.

 

My results were (and are) embarassing. It makes it obvious why I have made so little progress, and why folks like Julie P and Laura C have progressed so far in their respective learning curves as they have made much better choices and worked harder than I have to learn, obtain quality dogs and access to suitable livestock, and train seriously.

 

What is extra embarassing is that I thought I was researching well, choosing well, and doing an all-around good job of going about getting a dog (or dogs). It is another case of "if I knew then what I know now"...

 

I would not trade any of my dogs for the world's best-bred, best-trained, best-quality dog out there but I would have done ourselves and the Border Collie a better service by researching more, asking more questions, going to trials and meeting people, learning more, and finding and supporting the right breeder.

 

I'm doing the best I can with and for the dogs I have now, we love them dearly and they will always have a good home with us and work to do, but I wish I'd done a better job myself in many ways.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Did you guys try this section on Teun's page?

 

http://www.bcdb.info/winners.htm

 

Just reading it over may be enlightening for some, along those "you don't know what you don't know until you know it" lines.

 

Thanks Robin. I don't know whether to be encouraged or depressed by my results! I can say that what his survey reflects is true - I've made giant advances (at least I think so) when I went from my series of cast-offs and unknowns and less-well-bred dogs to my young solidly bred dog. I don't know about the rest yet. We'll see.

 

Robin, you don't mind if I post that in a thread by itself? I think many people may have missed it. And it does make a lot of important points. I certainly hadn't thought of several things as having direct impact on my ability to advance.

 

Data geeks - just don't let people fool themselves eh?

 

Don't beat up on yourself Sue - what's my excuse? I've had sheep for ten years now.

[Sue R]

Sue I wish you'd stop knocking yourself. Everybody headed to Open caliber has a different learning curve, and to some degree different goals.

 

Basically you did the best you knew at the time, and when you knew better, you did better (quote borrowed from Maya Angelo - it just fits too well not too use)

 

The people who do the most damage know what they are doing, and don't care. That in my opinion, is the worst of the problem.

-

Yes, I believe you to be quite right but there is a world of hurt in realizing how very much I have messed up. I am a slow learner but the glaciers are melting much faster than I personally am making progress. But, I am making progress and so I should be very grateful.

 

As for heading to Open, I'd settle right now for competent farm work. Also, not shouting so loudly and ugly when things don't go well, that the whole rural neighborhood no longer seeks refuge in their houses and locks up their children and dogs. Maybe, someday, with the right dog and my trainer's continuing patience and long-suffering, I might just graduate to ProNov (Eastern ProNov). ;^)

[Journey]

Hey Robin,

 

Another thought to compiling the data - what about based on the sire/dam. This way the ABCA knows who the owner is based on the registration. If there is no transfer of registration they have the original registration to determine "who" the owner is. Maybe this way it can distinguish "who" w/o name confusion. And if he sire/dam changed hands and they don't know, then the registration can be placed on hold until the proper paperwork is submitted. Just some thoughts....

 

Karen