Barbie Board?

[bcnewe2]

But, one thing I've noticed in a lot of these types of threads is that everyone talks about conformation bred dogs, sport bred dogs, and working bred dogs. I don't think the lines are that distinct. A great many (and I mean, many) border collies are bred with no purpose in mind. They are bred simply because someone can. They are not trying to produce a conformation champion or top sport competitor or a great working dog, though they may mistakingly believe that their dogs can be any of those things because of what they've heard about border collies.

 

So, if it is necessary for folks to come up with a different name for a non-proven, non-working bred dog besides a border collie, I think you'll need to come up with something other than Barbie Collie and Sport Collie, because it won't work for a great majority of the dogs out there. And I do think that the name Barbie Collie is meant to be demeaning just as it would be demeaning to refer to a pretty girl as a Barbie. If you want to seriously engage in a conversation about splitting out the breed (and that may very well be appropriate), I think that suggesting that non-working bred border collies should be called Barbie Collies is not going to result in any sort of meaningful or productive discussion.

 

I would call them backyard bred dogs "BYB"

and it's a shame that any dog is bred in that way. Can you imagine what might happen if backyard breeding ceased to exsist? OMD it might end a whole profession....rescuers, shelters, and pounds.

Wouldn't that be wonderful!?!?

 

I don't see the term barbie collies as demeaning. If I had a baby and decided to put said baby in beauty contests then I think I'd be opening myself or my baby up to any term of beauty that someone wanted to throw out there and I should/would be proud of my beautiful baby. Now maybe if you don't like Barbie dolls, you might have a bit of an argument but what the heck is wrong with barbie (let's not really go there but I"m just saying)

And if conformation people want to say they aren't really concerned with looks....well that makes them just about crazy in my mind. What is conformation? Looks? You can't say it's structure built to do anything....and we don't need to rehash how many AKC BC's are out there proving thier conformation on the field....so I think it's calling a spade a spade.

If I had choosen ACK as my venue I don't think I'd be insulted if you called my dog a pretty boy/girl or barbie. Just as I'm not insulted if you call my dogs ugly unless you mean their work.

 

I guess I was just thinking outloud when I asked why do they get upset with that name but it's going to stay as much a mystery to me as my working dogs will stay a mystery to someone who can't see that beauty.

 

I don't go around calling show peoples dogs barbie cause I know it'd piss them off, but I sure think it a whole lot, and the only time I mean it in a bad way is when they start saying they're dogs can do the same work...if they only had a "insert whatever excues you want"

Cause then you might as well be saying your poodle can work as well as my border collie! and I just don't want a poodle for my work dog or my dogs compared to one.

 

Let's just split the breed and they can call them whatever they want and I'll call them what they pick out but lets not tie the 2 together, it makes about as much since as calling a poodle a border collie cause they have about that much in common.

 

JMHO

[bcnewe2]

As far as my experience with stock(cattle, sheep,ducks)... Their icky, nasty, disgusting beast that aren't the most intelligent things.(maybe its best if I stay away from them)

 

Now that just hurts! Is that what you think people with barbie collies feel when we call them barbie?

Yikes....just plain mean.

 

eta....

I would like my dogs introduce to livestock but I don't think I will ever be that serious with it (if you couldn't tell). I just want my dogs to have brains and come from dogs that have been on livestock with success.

Now aint that the kettle calling the pot black???

[SS Cressa]

Wow. I'd say your experience is really lacking.

 

So if they aren't that intelligent, why does it take a a breed with arguably the highest intelligence to work them?

Just clarifying - I don't think you have to like sheep or work them to be a good BC owner, but I think the quoted statement is highly is pretty far from the actual truth and shows a huge misconception of livestock.

 

If they were smart they wouldn't ended have ended up on my plate!

 

hey! I never claim to have much experience with livestock. It might sounds silly or selfish I just like watching border collies work which is why I would like to do a little herding with my dogs. It like watching those really smooth fast quick on their feet border collies on the agility course. If ran properly it should take your breath away! ( and I am not refering to the handler catching their breath after the run)

[Maralynn]

If they were smart they wouldn't ended have ended up on my plate!

 

So does this mean that dogs aren't really smart because they end up on peoples plates in some parts of the world?

[Denise Wall]

SS Cressa, the reason I asked you about your experience working stock is because you were making a lot of judgments about how well show dogs work on farms and such. Not to pick on you specifically because I hear this all the time from non working border collie people. Why is it that people who don't work stock with their dogs think they know more about it than people who do?

 

And while I'm ranting...if show people are insulted at their dogs being called Barbies then how about if one spends all of their time and efforts studying, training, working and carefully breeding the very best workers they can only to be told, oh, you don't *need* to breed border collies for "the herding instinct." They all have it anyway. Our dogs that haven't been bred to work and have never been worked to a high standard on stock are just the same as yours. Wow. What idiots the working border collie people are! To think all that time and effort spent for no reason. To think none of the working people has ever figured that one out in all these years. It doesn't matter how they're bred. Personally, I find that insulting.

[Debbie Meier]

Umm...I was just over at the Double M website, there are a couple of things posted there that could lead SS Cressa to believe that she was seeing AKC dogs that are also USBCHA open level dogs, first on the home there is a dog for sale listed as "Sweep is out of two TOP USBCHA Open dogs. Both are National Qualifiers"

 

Then if you go to the puppy page: http://www.doublemstockdogs.com/puppies

 

there is this statement (unsure as to which dogs it is refering to): "Both Parents are AKC HC and USBCHA open field dogs"

 

So depending on how familuar you are with all the lingo, red flags, handlers, top dogs, etc....I could see a person thinking that they just stumbled upon the best of both worlds, a breeder/handler that has top notch AKC dogs and top notch USBCHA dogs, and that these dogs were running both AKC and Open USBCHA.

 

Anyway, I guess I could see how SS Cressa came to her original conclusions, atleast about the Elijah dog.

 

Deb

[Sue R]

I see what you are saying, Debbie, and there seems to be a huge disconnect between what the websites say and what people have seen actually happen.

 

Let's face it, that there are some kennel club-bred (or partly kc-bred) dogs that are good on stock, but they are exception and not the rule. A vastly higher level of consistency and quality is found in well-bred, working-bred dogs.

[WildFlower]

So if they aren't that intelligent, why does it take a a breed with arguably the highest intelligence to work them?

 

So does this mean that dogs aren't really smart because they end up on peoples plates in some parts of the world?

 

I am so glad that other people felt the need to respond to the comments made about livestock. You took the words out of my mouth, Maralynn, about other cultures/countries eating dog.

 

I am a vegetarian. However, I have come to see, in many cases on this board, that the people here with livestock deeply respect and care for their animals. And I know that many are sent off to slaughter. I have learned a great deal about tending to livestock from this site. And while I have made my decision to be a vegetarian, I respect those that run small farms. That is the way "farming" was intended to be - not mass factory farm operations.

[DebC]

Ummmm, I'm pretty sure she was referring to livestock, not dogs, ending up on peoples plates - !

[Sue R]

Juding any species' intelligence by whether or not it winds up on plates is grossly underestimating the animals. Each animal is "smart" in its own way - a sheep is smart in the way a sheep needs to be smart, a cow likewise, and so on. Their smarts are survival smarts, and what seems "stupid" to many of us is either their response to what we want them to do that goes contrary to their instincts (oftentimes, just bad stockmanship on our part) or, in the case of certain animals, breeds, and so on, generations of breeding out natural instincts and rearing in an environment that is very unnatural.

 

After all, as someone mentioned (and I will elaborate), why does it take intelligent human beings and the smartest dogs on earth to work livestock well?

[stockdogranch]

Their icky, nasty, disgusting beast that aren't the most intelligent things.(maybe its best if I stay away from them)

 

 

"Now, I find that remark to be highly insulting!"

 

Really, that's an incredibly ignorant statement,

 

A

[urge to herd]

Every living thing gets eaten, one way or the other. Unless remains are embalmed or cremated, it all gets eaten. Who eats who is more a matter of biology than intelligence, IMO. Read Karen Pryor's latest book, Reaching the Animal Mind, and ideas about intelligence can get expanded quite a bit.

 

Ruth

[WildFlower]

Ummmm, I'm pretty sure she was referring to livestock, not dogs, ending up on peoples plates - !

 

Yes the OP was. But she made the comment that they end up there becuase of a lack of intelligence. In some other cultures, dogs end up on plates. And we all can agree here that dogs are intelligent. So, the logic is flawed.

[juliepoudrier]

I agree with Denise. Why is it always the people who don't own livestock, have never worked livestock (with or without a dog), and who in fact might even avoid farms like the plaque who somehow think they can be authoritative on what it takes to work livestock or even about the intelligence of livestock?

 

I also agree that the "livestock are icky and stupid" comment shows complete ignorance. The only time I can honestly say that I have ever seen livestock behave stupidly is when they are panicked. I think most people would recognize that even *humans* behave stupidly when panicked.

 

Judging another species by using your own species as a barometer is stupid.

 

As for the "ending up on my plate" comment, while I realize SS Cressa intended it as a joke, I think her attitude is sadly pervasive among many in society. I take issue with the comment more from philosophical side: the animals that end up on your plate aren't stupid, SS Cressa, they don't have a say in the matter. Humans put them on your plate. And if you want a real education, perhaps you should do some research into how most of the animals that end up on your plate are raised. Find out how they spend their lives and how they are slaughtered--all the steps that take them from birth to your plate. Perhaps then you might have a bit more empathy for the "stupid animal" that gives its life (with no choice in the matter, therefore one can't apply a value judgement like stupid) to feed you.

 

J.

[SS Cressa]

Why is it that people who don't work stock with their dogs think they know more about it than people who do?

 

I never claim to have any experience. I was trying to create different examples not create a controversy(i think I faild at that)! My point was not that ALL show dogs can herd. I wasn't even trying to say MOST show can herd! I was going for some show dogs can/have produce working dogs. What would they be call seeing people are trying to define the border collies in 3 groups (show borders, sports borders, and "true" border collies). All I was trying to point out was how do you define the seperatation in border collies?

 

Some people dismiss the dogs given in the example as "true show dogs" since one has working dogs in their pedigree. So should all border collies pedigree be examine for if they have "working lines" or come from ISDS/ABCA stock To claim which name to call them? regradless of breeding purpose?

 

ETA: By working I mean they work stock for a living.

 

ETA: My experience is watcing cows deficating on each other which to me is yucky! LOL look at it from a dog person perpective and if I was thinking them as dogs I would say they lack socialization and proper exposer. I call them stupid more in a making fun of them since they didn't want to copperate with us. Yet a little stick thing in our hand kept them line/from running. The sheep refuse to move from their pen/stable. And we had to manuel move them to the arena. If they were smart it should have been easier.

 

Sorry if i don't make sense I as posted before just worked a 3rd shift. I will try to make sense from my thought...

[Mark Billadeau]

So should all border collies pedigree be examine for if they have "working lines" or come from ISDS/ABCA stock? To claim which name to call them?

The real question to ask is why was the litter bred?

The litter was bred to make pups for the show ring, to work livestock, to play fly ball, to play agility, for versatility (jack of all trades master of none), or worst of all to make money or because my dog is so great I (the world) needs more.

 

Mark

[Ooky]

Not to beat a dead horse but this is exactly what I meant. Someone who truly feels that way about livestock and farming and what a lot of people on the board try to do with their life's work, I REALLY don't think it's going to matter if you call conformation collies "barbies" or not. It means the person is not in a place where they are capable of understanding the point.

 

+1 for Denise's post on how the insults go both ways, and +1 for Kristen's post. If an AKC person came up and called Odin ugly, I think I'd just laugh. Actually, his conformation *has* been openly critqued in front of me (and found to be sadly substandard). I honestly can't take it seriously.

[Mark Billadeau]

So what if the dog has working lines in it's pedigree, so what if it has international or national champions; if it was bred for the show ring it is a show bred dog. Because of this (what's in the show bred dog's lines) it COULD have some working ability; but unless the breeder or owner attempts to train the dog up to a very high level there is no way to PROVE how much working ability (none => Open level). More important still, without this proof there is no way this dog can be used to produce what I would consider a working bred dog.

 

Mark

[SS Cressa]

The real question to ask is why was the litter bred?

The litter was bred to make pups for the show ring, to work livestock, to play fly ball, to play agility, for versatility (jack of all trades master of none), or worst of all to make money or because my dog is so great I (the world) needs more.

 

Mark

 

Thats my thought! But when "you" are talking about seperating the breed are you also talking about the ABCA/ISDS breeders who are also breeding for things other then their working ability? The "family pet", dogs that compete and are being bred for agility, obedience, etc.. but are still register with the herding registery? and Change their names to whats approp. or just drop their registery?

[Mark Billadeau]

Thats my thought! But when "you" are talking about seperating the breed are you also talking about the ABCA/ISDS breeders who are also breeding for things other then their working ability? The "family pet", dogs that compete and are being bred for agility, obedience, etc.. but are still register with the herding registery? and Change their names to whats approp. or just drop their registery?

Please note that while a litter could be working bred (bred for work), pups from the litter could end up with owners who do other things with their dogs. This does not mean these breeders are breeding for these other things. However, there are dogs registered with the ABCA that were not bred for work.

 

The ABCA exists to register, maintain and verify the pedigrees of Border Collies, to promote and foster in North America the breeding, training and distribution of reliable working Border Collies, and to promote stockdog trials and exhibitions.

ABCA homepage

 

The ABCA is not solely a register for working bred dogs; it is not a herding registry. The ABCA is a registry for Border Collies that promotes breeding for work. Unlike the AKC which is a registry for many breeds that promotes breeding for the show ring; but not all dogs registered with the AKC were bred for the show ring or compete in the show ring.

 

Mark

[Mark Billadeau]

Changing the ABCA to a herding registry or creating a herding registry has been discussed within the herding community. The biggest snag IMO is developing a test of herding ability that is a sufficient test that is not too subjective and inclusive of trialing dogs and farm/ranch dogs.

 

Mark

[Conner22]

SSCressa -

this is about the purpose of protecting a "border collie's" name. Border collies are the dogs we know today because of years of breeding for working purposes. Its not very fair to the people who've put the time/work into the breed to have the credit taken from them and given to AKC. However, this is not about INDIVIDUAL dogs, but the purpose dogs are being bred. So if a dog is out of herding parents- its "technically" a working bred dog- BUT if you were to take the dog, do agility with it, and BREED the dog with its title of a MACH- that litter is an agility litter. It doesn't matter that the dog originated from working lines, nor does it matter if out of the MACH dog you get a herding dog.

As for the dogs you mentioned- if they are not being bred, then they don't NEED a classification.

 

As for the idea of classifying the border collies- this is similar to me of many other breeds turned show. In akc Labs for example are classifications: show, retrieval, agility, obedience, etc.

I don't know if there is any way of resolving the issue, most people just go to breeders they know have the dogs they want, for the purposes they want.

I used to be crazy about german shepherds, thats another breed DESTROYED by breed ring. And show shepherds and schutzhund shepherds are WAYYYYYY different.

 

Shaneen

[bcnewe2]

However, this is not about INDIVIDUAL dogs, but the purpose dogs are being bred. So if a dog is out of herding parents- its "technically" a working bred dog- BUT if you were to take the dog, do agility with it, and BREED the dog with its title of a MACH- that litter is an agility litter. It doesn't matter that the dog originated from working lines, nor does it matter if out of the MACH dog you get a herding dog.

 

Well Shaneen you may not know much about your new breed but seems to me you know enough for a wonderful start.

Good on you for asking, reading, researching and trying to understand what it takes years if maybe never for others to figure out.

 

Welcome to the boards.

[SoloRiver]

As with speciation, I don't think there's a rubicon you cross and then you're automatically a different breed. However, it is also true that when you start selecting for different criteria, you end up with different dogs. This is how modern discontinuities in dog variation (i.e., breeds) came about in the first place.

 

To me, a breed should be predictable for certain essential traits that make up "breed type." Conformation people tend to define "type" using appearance, and use the world "typey" to refer to a dog that closely resembles an appearance-based ideal for that particular breed. Border Collies are variable in appearance but remarkably consistent in behavioral type. To me, a Border Collie that does not exhibit "typey" behaviors (i.e., working ability) is not a good example of the breed, and a dog that has actively been selected for traits other than what we consider desirable behavioral type for Border Collies is either part of a lineage that is on its way to, or has already become, an entirely different kind of dog, or the equivalent of a different breed.

 

You may observe individuals in lines or populations that can work, even though they were not bred for it, but those individuals are flukes. The point of a breed is that the individuals of that breed are consistent and predictable for certain traits, and I don't see how a breeder could call her dogs "working dogs" if the only useful dogs they produce are accidents. I don't want to rely on accidents to find the types of dogs I want. That's why when I decided to get a puppy, I went with a breeding that I could reasonably expect would produce "typey" (in the true Border Collie sense) individuals who would work, and that's exactly what I got.

 

A Barbie Collie breeder might not think much of Jett since she has almost no white, and almost no coat, and is small and gangly at the same time, but that's because that breeder and I have fundamentally different definitions of the breed. It is patently obvious that my Jett is an entirely distinct animal from a Show Border (OK, that's what I'll call them instead of Barbie Collies if that'll make people feel better) -- a show dog isn't what I want, and a Jett isn't what the show breeder wants. Calling them the same breed is nonsensical; at this point I consider it an administrative artifact.

[Gary M]

Since much of this debate always seems to come down to a parsing of words and terms, it can also rightly be said that any breeder that produces litters for a distinct purpose is a conformation breeder in that it is breeding for the purpose of conforming to a set of standards.

 

The split comes in what those standards are and how they are judged or assessed as they apply to the result of that breeding. Westminster and the USBCHA finals are both conformation events. One is called a "show" and the other a "trail" but the purpose of each is fundamentally the same. Each is designed to decide on the basis of a judged event how individual dogs conform to their respective adopted standards.

 

I think one could safely say that those who breed for the best examples of conformance to the standard they choose to breed for are in the minority and the rest, or the majority of breeders, have other reasons (obviously) that each internally justifies however noble or evil (or in between) they may be.

 

Even the term "Border Collie" could be considered a misnomer depending on how you define it. It seems to me at least, Border Collie is a term that is (or should be) used to define functionality in that in its correct application is a distinct methodology by which the dog works stock. If my Aussie Tasha worked stock in the same manner (eye, gait, headset, etc.) and as efficiently as a top 10 National Finals dog (admittedly highly unlikely) I believe that she could be ROM'd as a Border Collie. Would this make her an Australian Shepherd breed with Border Collie functionality or does she magically change from one breed to another based on abilities?

 

I believe that regardless of protestations to the contrary, the term "Barbie" collie was not coined or is used as a term of endearment, but instead as an elitist pejorative to be used to disparage those who breed for appearance, with which they disagree. That is why I also believe many on this board, myself included, that do not own working or working bred Border Collies take offense at its use.

 

I have repeatedly heard that we "pet owners" are not second class citizens, yet when the annual "Look at the Cruft's

(or Westminster) blockheaded Barbie Winners" thread comes out and my dog, through no fault of its own, looks like "their" dogs, I should not take offense. It is no different than someone using a degrading term to describe my ethnicity, but at the same time saying "but don't take it personally, I don't mean you, of course, I mean "them"".