red borders

[Sorienew]

Are the red border collies rare and more expensive? A friend just bought one and said the breeder said they were. Thanks.

Birdie and I wish everyone here a happy holiday season.

[urge to herd]

Ack. I've got 2 red/white girls, both I got 'free,'. The gene for the brownish red fur is recessive, so there are fewer of the them, so in that sense, I guess they are rare. But, getting a red/white dog from a breeder who is breeding from proven parents for work ability I wouldn't think would cost any more than a black and white from the same breeder.

 

If I was looking to buy a dog, I would run from anyone who tried to tell me that a red is any better a dog simply because of it's color. When we get to wanting another dog, my priorities will be temperment, period. Color, size - though I would like a pocket collie, a smaller one - and anything else are just whatever the package happens to be wrapped in.

 

And, Sam I got from a back yard breeder, I didn't know any better at the time. Shoshone came from a rescue - she's our million dollar free dog.

 

Ruth

[Liz P]

No, and if a breeder charges more for them or says they are "rare" I would run the other way.

[diane allen]

Obviously, they are more expensive, if your friend paid more for the color.

 

Run, run, run away....

 

(and if this makes no sense to you, read some past posts about colors and breeding....)

 

diane

[aljones]

"Ack!" is right! Just a couple of weeks ago, I traded a BC puppy miller a stack of old linens for one of his used-up, beat-up stud dogs. The guy had the nerve to tell me, "That there is the best deal you'll ever get...a beautiful red border collie with blue eyes for some old towels!" Yeah, right, some bargain--just ask my VISA card that's gotten quite the workout at the vet lately.

 

But if I didn't already abhor this guy, that stupid crack about the dog being worth more because of his coat and eye color would have sealed the deal.

[stockdogranch]

To the OP: You've been on this board long enough to know the answer to your question. As pointed out, red is a recessive gene, so is less likely to occur. And anyone breeding for COLOR is one you should run away from as fast as you can!

 

A

 

ETA: And you've also been on here long enough to know that referring to a Border Collie as a "border" (topic title) will raise at least a few hackles.

[Root Beer]

ETA: And you've also been on here long enough to know that referring to a Border Collie as a "border" (topic title) will raise at least a few hackles.

 

The other day I saw a lady wearing a shirt that said "BORDERS" on it in big letters and somewhere in the design was an image of a Border Collie.

 

I thought of you all immediately and almost burst out laughing - really! I had a mental picture of the response that would be forthcoming if she somehow showed up at this board wearing that shirt. (If that were possible, of course!) Good manners and impulse control prevailed, naturally, and I didn't laugh. Not out loud, anyway. :D

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I thought, red borders - you mean like the paper I use for my Christmas letters? It is actually getting harder and harder to find classic holiday colored-border stationary paper (it's getting hard to find writing paper period!). So I guess you could say red bordered paper is rare - those red borders are hard to find!

 

Now that I've punished that expired equine thoroughly. Around here, red Border Collies are quite easy to find. There's no less than three major "lines" that carry it strongly, and most other lines carry a liberal dose of it too.

[Sue R]

ETA: And you've also been on here long enough to know that referring to a Border Collie as a "border" (topic title) will raise at least a few hackles.

Thank you, Anna. It may be a small thing but it sure gets under my skin. It's total AKC and disrespectful to the dog that is a "collie" (sheepdog or working dog) if you've got to shorten the name. Geesh!

[DTrain]

There are fewer red and white border collies for reasons pointed out but they are no different and no better or worse than any other border collie. I am a little ticked off that any breeder would push a point otherwise. Two litters ago we had six puppies. Two of them were red and white and the others were the average every day boring black and white. I was very pleased that both of the R&W dogs went to working situations. The owners could not have cared less. These dogs came from a well established working line and they could have been purple and it would not have made a difference. The dogs do not seem to be aware that they are better than the black and whites so I guess they are happy with their lot in life and, the black and whites don't seem to care either. They all like to get up in the morning and go to work.

[luvmycash]

Sorry, I have to ask since I am new to the board. What's wrong with calling them borders? I've called them that for years, am I breaking some sort of taboo?

[juliepoudrier]

Sorry, I have to ask since I am new to the board. What's wrong with calling them borders? I've called them that for years, am I breaking some sort of taboo?

As others have already said, it's really AKC/conformation speak for border collies. There are some who feel that the term is a bit derogatory. And of course, if you're someone who has both border collies and border terriers, it could cause some confusion. It's a small thing in the grand scheme, but you will find that people who use their dogs to manage livestock generally don't refer to them as "borders" and folks who are more into conformation showing do. It's nothing more than that. So if you refer to your dogs as "borders" some folks will make certain assumptions about where your proclvities lie with respect to these dogs.

 

J.

[bc4ever]

ETA: And you've also been on here long enough to know that referring to a Border Collie as a "border" (topic title) will raise at least a few hackles.

 

I was wondering when someone was going to mention that. When someone says "Borders", I usually think of the book store first! LOL! Never even occurs to me that they're referring to a Border Collie.

[bsms99]

Sorry, I have to ask since I am new to the board. What's wrong with calling them borders? I've called them that for years, am I breaking some sort of taboo?

I've never called them Borders, but I didn't know it was frowned upon. If "BC" is okay, then why is it wrong to say "Borders"?

 

With color, I guess I'm a bit of a dissenting voice. Breed for ability, but how do you pick a puppy out of a litter? I know of no good basis for saying any particular puppy will be any better or worse when grown. Their personalities, bodies and abilities change so much from <8 weeks to 2 years - how do you predict? From my way of thinking, something arbitrary like color seems as good as any other. And even if you are breeding...if you have a blue merle bitch who is a fine worker, why NOT accept color as a factor in picking out a stud? There are hundreds of good males willing to do the deed. Even after narrowing it down by work style, etc, you MAY have a choice of colors or coats, etc - so what is wrong with adding it in to the mix? Near the bottom, of course - but as a tie-breaker? Why not?

 

When I was looking for a new BC pup, I emailed a variety of people. I explained that we had a BC who loved to work, but who was really 'just a pet'. She died 5 years ago, and we missed that intensity and focus a good BC has. Most of the internet sites replied with emails like, "We have two litters arriving this month, one next month and two more the following month...what color & sex do you want?"

 

I contacted the ABCA and others looking for a lead. A guy in Idaho who conducts a lot of trial clinics, instead of asking me why a pet owner was bothering him, suggested a breeding in Oregon from parents he knew. A short time later, I agreed to buy a puppy. We preferred a female, but would take a male if the litter worked out that way (it did). My daughter preferred a tricolor, but she didn't have a reason & we would take any color/any coat length. The breeder would pick the male most likely, in her opinion, to make a good pet BC.

 

Breeding for color or emphasizing it is wrong. But what is wrong with using it as a tie-breaker? And how DO you pick out a puppy from a litter?

 

BTW - below is our previous BC, and the one we expect to arrive in a few weeks...

 

 

[Sorienew]

I've never called them Borders, but I didn't know it was frowned upon. If "BC" is okay, then why is it wrong to say "Borders"?

 

With color, I guess I'm a bit of a dissenting voice. Breed for ability, but how do you pick a puppy out of a litter? I know of no good basis for saying any particular puppy will be any better or worse when grown. Their personalities, bodies and abilities change so much from <8 weeks to 2 years - how do you predict? From my way of thinking, something arbitrary like color seems as good as any other. And even if you are breeding...if you have a blue merle bitch who is a fine worker, why NOT accept color as a factor in picking out a stud? There are hundreds of good males willing to do the deed. Even after narrowing it down by work style, etc, you MAY have a choice of colors or coats, etc - so what is wrong with adding it in to the mix? Near the bottom, of course - but as a tie-breaker? Why not?

 

When I was looking for a new BC pup, I emailed a variety of people. I explained that we had a BC who loved to work, but who was really 'just a pet'. She died 5 years ago, and we missed that intensity and focus a good BC has. Most of the internet sites replied with emails like, "We have two litters arriving this month, one next month and two more the following month...what color & sex do you want?"

 

I contacted the ABCA and others looking for a lead. A guy in Idaho who conducts a lot of trial clinics, instead of asking me why a pet owner was bothering him, suggested a breeding in Oregon from parents he knew. A short time later, I agreed to buy a puppy. We preferred a female, but would take a male if the litter worked out that way (it did). My daughter preferred a tricolor, but she didn't have a reason & we would take any color/any coat length. The breeder would pick the male most likely, in her opinion, to make a good pet BC.

 

Breeding for color or emphasizing it is wrong. But what is wrong with using it as a tie-breaker? And how DO you pick out a puppy from a litter?

 

BTW - below is our previous BC, and the one we expect to arrive in a few weeks...

 

 

 

 

Thanks for all the feed back.

[Sue R]

I think that, as long as it is a well-bred, working-bred, "right" litter - then it makes no difference whether you chose between the pups based on sex, color, personality, whatever. The breeding *for* a particular color, eye shape, ear set, coat (barring that for true practical reasons - short coat for certain environments, long coat for other demanding environments, but only after all other *real* considerations have been made), and other superfluous or cosmetic reasons makes a breeding an irresponsible breeding.

 

There is nothing "wrong" with any color, etc., as long as the breeding is a good one - the right male and the right female to compliment each other's working characteristics - instinct, stockworking ability, focus, stamina, intelligence, biddability (sp?), health, and temperment. When you add an unnecessary or cosmetic "requirement" to the breeding, you are no longer breeding for the right reasons.

 

Now you know...

[Chesney's Girl]

To add to what Sue explained

 

Not to mention the OP said that the breeder was asking the buyer to pay more for a different colored Border Collie. There in lies the problem everyone is discussing on the top. Not whether color is a tie breaker in a well bred litter.

 

And I think most people on the boards simply type out Border Collie instead of abbreviating it since there are a lot of people here from BC, Canada. Every time I read BC I think of British Columbia.

[bsms99]

... When you add an unnecessary or cosmetic "requirement" to the breeding, you are no longer breeding for the right reasons.

 

Now you know...

Actually, I don't know yet. For example, I've noticed a tendency for BCs to be kinda black & white. Somehow I doubt that was a purely random chance.

 

Also - while one needs to breed for herding ability, many of the items in your list are not things you can predictably breed for...biddability? When you pick a mate from a dog you do not own, how do you know how much biddability comes from genes, and how much comes from good training? Intelligence plus biddability? Sports breeders need those.

 

My point is NOT to denigrate breeding for herding instinct. Although no one can map those genes, you obviously need to try. However, is someone who prefers black & white dogs a bad breeder if he crosses any merles off his list of potential dogs? As long as he tries to breed for a good working dog, why does it matter if he adds in any additional criteria he likes?

 

It seems to me that as long as herding ability (with its variations) is your top criteria,and then health, how you rank the remaining criteria shouldn't disqualify you as a responsible breeder. The farm where we bought Leila (just outside Bicester, England) had almost all merles. He bred dogs for his use and for use by farmers he knew. He also liked merles. The vet who recommended him said his dogs were great herders, and also good house dogs. His pups were spoken for before they were born, mostly from sheep farmers nearby. His dogs had papers, but he sold pups without them unless you wanted to file the paperwork yourself. Leila grew up to be a great dog, who tried to herd everything that moved and who also adored her family.

 

We once looked into breeding Leila. The male (if it had worked) was an unpapered BC with a local reputation as a fine cattle dog. The New Mexico rancher didn't know anyone with a bitch that would work cattle, and not inclined to search for one. He met Leila, gave her an hour or so with cattle (knowing she had never worked cattle in her life), and liked what he saw. The agreement was he got first pick of any females, and any pups we didn't want to keep. He knew a half dozen ranchers who would take a pup from his dog, so finding a home wasn't a problem. And since neither dog was registered, it arguably wasn't a 'Border Collie' issue. As it turned out, figuring out when Leila was in heat was a bit of a challenge, and getting either dog to ignore cattle long enough to breed was as well.

 

But would it have been irresponsible?

[bsms99]

To add to what Sue explained

 

Not to mention the OP said that the breeder was asking the buyer to pay more for a different colored Border Collie. There in lies the problem everyone is discussing on the top. Not whether color is a tie breaker in a well bred litter.

 

And I think most people on the boards simply type out Border Collie instead of abbreviating it since there are a lot of people here from BC, Canada. Every time I read BC I think of British Columbia.

Understood and agreed.

[airbear]

... since there are a lot of people here from BC, Canada. Every time I read BC I think of British Columbia.

That's what I think too.

 

To go back on topic, the people from whom I hear the "borders" thing seem to be sport people who are explaining to me why they don't have a border collie. Something along the lines of "I couldn't live with a border", or "Every border I know is insane", or my all time favourite "My goal is to beat the borders", which makes me think of Taco Bell.

[lrayburn]

Due to the basic genetics - black and white being dominant over red and white and merles making up such a small percentage of the population (editted) - people breeding purely for working ability will rarely turn up large numbers of pups in "unusual" colors. The odd red and white dog turns up as a matter of course. Turning out litters of merle pups generally is an indicator that people are making a concious decision to breed for something other than pure working ability. Charging and paying more for unusually colored pups supports that mentality. If all other things are equal, choosing the pup out of a well-bred litter that has the color, markings, sex, etc you prefer isn't an issue. However, turning out a litter of candy-colored pups or charging more for unusually colored pups indicates that likely not all other things were equal and working ability wasn't the overriding factor in the mating.

 

Lisa

[Root Beer]

or my all time favourite "My goal is to beat the borders", which makes me think of Taco Bell.

 

Run for the Border - DONG!

 

 

Although I will admit, Maddie placed above a Border Collie in an Agility run one time and I have to say - it feels really good to "beat the borders"! HA!

[MrSnappy]

Due to the basic genetics - black and white being dominant over red and white and merles being recessive as well - people breeding purely for working ability will rarely turn up large numbers of pups in "unusual" colors. The odd red and white dog turns up as a matter of course. Turning out litters of merle pups generally is an indicator that people are making a concious decision to breed for something other than pure working ability. Charging and paying more for unusually colored pups supports that mentality. If all other things are equal, choosing the pup out of a well-bred litter that has the color, markings, sex, etc you prefer isn't an issue. However, turning out a litter of candy-colored pups or charging more for unusually colored pups indicates that likely not all other things were equal and working ability wasn't the overriding factor in the mating.

 

Lisa

 

You should keep this paragraph somewhere and post it immediately when someone tries to debate this, so we don't have the same thread over and over. It sums it up so nicely.

 

RDM

[Sue R]

Actually, I don't know yet. For example, I've noticed a tendency for BCs to be kinda black & white. Somehow I doubt that was a purely random chance.

 

I believe that the early shepherd shapers of the breed would often cull "off-color" dogs for various reasons. With increased knowledge of genetics, I think you could probably say that, barring something of which we are unaware, the color doesn't matter if the other genetics are all there.

 

Black is a dominant color, red is recessive. So, in a normal population where you were not making a particular effort to produce reds, you would tend to see 3/4 blacks and only 1/4 reds, even though the red gene would be carried in 3/4 of the population (it would just not be seen except in offspring of a Bb bred to either another Bb or a bb - BB being homozygous black, Bb being heterozygous black, and bb being homozygous red).

 

There have been lots of working breeders over the years who would cull (read that as removing from the gene pool, often by killing) "off-color" dogs, under the impression that they either wouldn't work as well as the "traditional" black and white or because they would not sell to working owners who shared that prejudice. Does it have a basis? One can only wonder right now, especially as very, very few dogs "of color" make it to the top levels of trialling. Is it because of prejudice, or because there is some other factor there? I don't know, do you?

 

Also - while one needs to breed for herding ability, many of the items in your list are not things you can predictably breed for...biddability? When you pick a mate from a dog you do not own, how do you know how much biddability comes from genes, and how much comes from good training? Intelligence plus biddability? Sports breeders need those.

 

Many of the characterisitics are predictable, to a degree. Breeding is more of an art than a science. But if I were to buy another pup, I would certainly want one bred "right" for all the characteristics that are important in stock work, even those less easily "quantified". That would sure up my chances of getting a "good one", while it would never be a guarantee.

 

As for sport breeders, well, there have been recent and heated discussions of breeding for something other than working abilities (and all that that requires). I won't go into that here, period.

 

My point is NOT to denigrate breeding for herding instinct. Although no one can map those genes, you obviously need to try. However, is someone who prefers black & white dogs a bad breeder if he crosses any merles off his list of potential dogs? As long as he tries to breed for a good working dog, why does it matter if he adds in any additional criteria he likes?

 

Everytime you add an additional criterion, you are narrowing the gene pool (potential mates) that will fit your total criteria. In other words, you are limiting your breeding choices for a cosmetic characteristic, not a practical one. If a "colored dog" is the best fit for a bitch, then there should be no problem in using that dog for breeding to that bitch - if, cosmetics aside, it is the best breeding, period.

 

It seems to me that as long as herding ability (with its variations) is your top criteria,and then health, how you rank the remaining criteria shouldn't disqualify you as a responsible breeder. The farm where we bought Leila (just outside Bicester, England) had almost all merles. He bred dogs for his use and for use by farmers he knew. He also liked merles. The vet who recommended him said his dogs were great herders, and also good house dogs. His pups were spoken for before they were born, mostly from sheep farmers nearby. His dogs had papers, but he sold pups without them unless you wanted to file the paperwork yourself. Leila grew up to be a great dog, who tried to herd everything that moved and who also adored her family.

 

That's that breeder's choice. I would personally cross that breeder off my list if color is an important consideration for him. Doesn't mean he isn't producing good dogs as he obviously appears to be doing so. If his dogs and bitches were the right kind of dog for the work I need, the color of the pup wouldn't matter. But, I would still prefer to chose a pup from someone who was breeding without color (other than for health purposes) as a consideration.

 

We once looked into breeding Leila. The male (if it had worked) was an unpapered BC with a local reputation as a fine cattle dog. The New Mexico rancher didn't know anyone with a bitch that would work cattle, and not inclined to search for one. He met Leila, gave her an hour or so with cattle (knowing she had never worked cattle in her life), and liked what he saw. The agreement was he got first pick of any females, and any pups we didn't want to keep. He knew a half dozen ranchers who would take a pup from his dog, so finding a home wasn't a problem. And since neither dog was registered, it arguably wasn't a 'Border Collie' issue. As it turned out, figuring out when Leila was in heat was a bit of a challenge, and getting either dog to ignore cattle long enough to breed was as well.

 

But would it have been irresponsible?

If she was a good bitch and the dog was a good dog, and the match was a good one, and you had homes lined up for the pups (particularly working homes, so you could evaluate the pups in terms of working abilities), what's wrong with that? But I would have to ask, what was your motivation for considering breeding her? Producing pups of color, making money off pups, had working homes clamoring for her pups, needed another one just like her on the farm/ranch? Motivation is a necessary criterion of a good breeder.

[bsms99]

Valid points, and thanks for the response. I'm not a breeder, but I like learning from those with experience.

 

"...But I would have to ask, what was your motivation for considering breeding her? Producing pups of color, making money off pups, had working homes clamoring for her pups, needed another one just like her on the farm/ranch? Motivation is a necessary criterion of a good breeder."

 

We planned to lose money, since any medical bills would be out of pocket and we were not going to charge for the puppies. We just knew we had a dog who was a great match with us. A friend with a sheep ranch in Utah had seen her work sheep (her one time in her life) and said he'd be glad to get any pups she had. The rancher in NM had a dog with a strong local reputation, and multiple rancher friends had told him they would take any pup they could get. So it was strictly a case of our wanting a dog like the one we had, and knowing there were ranches that would take any other pups in the litter.

 

Now that I'm older and perhaps a bit wiser, I think it is better to either find a reputable breeder or get one from a rescue. In a sense, I think it WOULD have been irresponsible, since I didn't know the male dog very well. In my defense, in the pre-Internet days, finding information on dogs was a lot tougher...