Barbie Board?

[SS Cressa]

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.

 

Shaneen

 

When you are talking about spliting the breed into different breeds then yes it is about the individual dogs. What about the dogs that fall into the grey area -the muti-purpose dogs? Weither you breed them or not to me doesn't matter. How you define the seperation to me DOES matter.

 

When these distictions are being made people are trying to use clear cut cases. The show border that have only done conformation in the last 30+ years to me ARE a seperate breed. But what of the people who do dual things with their border collies? Agility/herding or even conformation/herding? More and More kennels are doing dual activity with their dogs. A LOT are doing herding and conformation or sport and herding. So since a conformation dogs herd their offspring can be consider working bred if bred to another conformation/herding dog since both dogs herd? regardless what the purpose of the breeding?

 

One of the things I ask breeders is what are they hoping to improve with this breeding. or why did you choose that stud. or how does the stud complement the dam. Things I have heard from working breeder (parents help on the farm) "I like the pedigree", "I like their temperment and the type of temperments they produce", "It was an accident breeding", "She was early and he was available". To me these breeding are all other then their working ability. So should they also be called something other then border collie also? (I am NOT talking about the breeder but the dogs that are being produced.) When ask about the dogs working ability and what they are hoping to improve (ask nicer) is almost always ingnore or avoided.

 

ETA: I have ask can I watch your dogs work? I don't know anything about herding but I would LOVE ro see the parents work! I can come early or later! Some reply "well they mainly just "help" around the farm".

[juliepoudrier]

But what of the people who do dual things with their border collies? Agility/herding or even conformation/herding? More and More kennels are doing dual activity with their dogs. A LOT are doing herding and conformation or sport and herding. So since a conformation dogs herd their offspring can be consider working bred if bred to another conformation/herding dog since both dogs herd? regardless what the purpose of the breeding?

No. If conformation-bred dogs are also participating in AKC herding or other arena type venues, then no, most true working-bred dog folk would not consider the "dual-purpose" dogs or their offspring to be working-bred. Most kennels that do multiple things with their dogs are still breeding for the bench show first and then adding in a second activity so they can call their dogs versatile or so they can appeal to folks who also want to do sports. In other words, they are not selecting their breeding stock based solely on their ability to work livestock to a very high level but rather are choosing breeding stock based on what can do well in the conformation ring together with ability to negotiate the tests in herding venues that are basically "lowest common denominator."

 

The fact that people will tell you their dogs work and then when you ask to see them work those same people brush you off with a "well they just sort of help around the farm" should be a big, fat clue that the claims they make don't likely live up to the reality. Anyone who truly believes they have a superior working dog should be more than happy to show you what their dog's got.

 

Gary M,

Semantics aside, most folks commonly understand the term "conformation showing" for any breed to mean that the animal is being shown to a physical standard. It makes no sense to bring in the argument that the various sects are looking for dogs who conform to a specific standard--you're just trying to muddy the waters. Ask anyone on the street what a conformation show is and they aren't likely to lecture you on how all tests require a form of conformation but instead will tell you that the animal is being judged on beauty or structure.

 

As for your comments about "barbie collie" I'm guessing you haven't read this entire thread, since a number of people have been quite blunt about the fact that the term was NOT created as a term of endearment and was never meant that way. Taking issue with it now seems a little pointless.

 

No one can stop you taking offense at comments that are disparaging to a particular type of dog. Generally, though--and I think you are well aware of this--those comments arise from a place of philosophical difference WRT to breeding practices and really aren't aimed at anyone's personal dog. There are plenty of working dog folks who wouldn't be caught dead owning a red dog, or a mostly white dog (I have both), but I don't bother to take it personally when they say so. It's their opinion and their choice. My opinion and choices are different. And as long as my red dog and white dog perform well to a working standard, what others think of their looks matters not one whit to me. Too bad others can't take the same approach; it would make them a lot happier....

 

J.

[Pearse]

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'm going to assume for a moment that you aren't trolling and actually believe what you are saying. I offer that disclaimer because it's difficult for me to imagine anyone so disengenuous as to equate Conformation as it applies to the show ring to working ability (keeping in mind that the majority of working dogs never see a trial field and therefore need not conform to anyone's standards of work).

 

It's not a parsing of words at all and only someone profoundly ignorant of the issues under discussion would try to claim that it was. It's a fundamental difference in philosophy. Conformation breeders argue "if it looks like this, it can work". Working breeders know this to be a lie and argue "if it works like this, it can work, and if it can work, who gives a crap what it looks like".

 

Conformation as it applies to the show ring applies strictly to the shape or appearance of an animal. Border Collies in an AKC show ring are not judged on their stockworking ability in any way shape or form, and their success in the show ring depends entirely on how closely their PHYSICAL APPEARANCE ahderes to an arbitrary "breed standard" that has no basis in behavior, biomechanics, or physiology.

 

Working Border Collies in trials are judged on their ability to manage livestock. There is no "standard". Read the judging rules for a trial. There is nothing in there about the appearance of the dog, or the style of work. In fact, most judges judge the movement of the sheep or cattle around the course and not the movement of the dog (the one exception being a crossover on an outrun). If the stock take the most practical route around the course, the run scores high marks.

 

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?

 

No, she would not be ROM'd as a Border Collie. She'd be an Australian Shepherd who could run at the National Sheepdog Finals.

 

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"".

 

If I were you, I'd only take offense if your dog worked like theirs.

 

The Blockheaded Barbie Collies raise such emotional responses here because they are indicative of what breeding to what ever physical characteristics happen to be in fashion. Working Border Collies do not look like minature Bernese Mountain Dogs. AKC conformation champs with a lot of Australasian breeding in them do. They do, because some AKC judges like that look.

[SoloRiver]

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"

 

No actually, it is really, really, REALLY different.

 

Repeat after me: dogs are not people, and people are not dogs. There. Are we straight now?

 

Sorry. Trying to equate the working vs. show debate with, um, racism is not only a red herring, it's an offensive red herring.

[C Crocker]

One of the things I ask breeders is what are they hoping to improve with this breeding. or why did you choose that stud. or how does the stud complement the dam. Things I have heard from working breeder (parents help on the farm) "I like the pedigree", "I like their temperment and the type of temperments they produce", "It was an accident breeding", "She was early and he was available". To me these breeding are all other then their working ability. So should they also be called something other then border collie also? (I am NOT talking about the breeder but the dogs that are being produced.) When ask about the dogs working ability and what they are hoping to improve (ask nicer) is almost always ingnore or avoided.

 

ETA: I have ask can I watch your dogs work? I don't know anything about herding but I would LOVE ro see the parents work! I can come early or later! Some reply "well they mainly just "help" around the farm".

 

 

 

I believe you have stated similar at some time in the past. I fear you are still hanging around with the wrong "breeders" of working border collies. Step up in your associations and you will learn if learning is your goal.

 

Good luck.

 

Carolyn

[SS Cressa]

I believe you have stated similar at some time in the past. I fear you are still hanging around with the wrong "breeders" of working border collies. Step up in your associations and you will learn if learning is your goal.

 

Good luck.

 

Carolyn

 

I have stated this before and its not going to change much until I get another pup. My point was more if you're going to judge the other border collie (show/sport) and change their name by what is being bred will this include the one that are closer to home/the ones on farms being bred for other reasons? or Is the name change going to affect only the "other" registry (AKC,CKC,KC)?

[SS Cressa]

I do realize where most of the people are coming from when talking about working vs show herding! It drives me crazy when talking to show breeders and they state "well MY dogs have drive and are fast. They have done agility or have produce agility dogs" or my fav is when they have agility dogs in their pedigree only to fine out that their agility dogs have only ever gotten their novice titles or are only in open and thats it! 0_o or their dogs second cousin twice remove has their MACH and they are acting as if since THAT dog got its MACH their dog is as equal-ly good. and your just like uh ok?!

[Gary M]

No actually, it is really, really, REALLY different.

 

Repeat after me: dogs are not people, and people are not dogs. There. Are we straight now?

 

Sorry. Trying to equate the working vs. show debate with, um, racism is not only a red herring, it's an offensive red herring.

 

No actually it really, really, really isn't.

 

The offensiveness of a statement is typically judged in the mind of the person that hears it, not those that state it and I, along with others on this thread have stated what we consider to be legitimate reasons we find "Barbie" Collie offensive. Primarily it aims at the product, not the producer. There are a variety of legitimate reasons that one might own a dog that was ACK bred and yet despise as much or more so than you those that were responsible for its breeding. And I will bet dollars to doughnuts that if you saw me walking a fluff butt border collie down the street, "Barbie" would be the first thought in your mind and I would take that as demeaning to me as well as my dog. And I would personally take as much offense as if you had insulted my heritage.

 

My lack of a PhD aside, I know dogs are not people and people are not dogs and I have always been aware of that despite your credentialed condescension that I did not.

Furthermore, your PhD does not define what I or others may find offensive in terminology. There is a specific reason that Barbie Collie is used over Show Collie or show bred collie and that is to ridicule and demean those with whom you disagree.

 

Now I will grant you that have as much right to be offended as you stated, as do I by what you state. In the words of us less educated on the board it may be restated as "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" or sometimes simply put as "the pot calling the kettle black".

[herdcentral]

I am quite new to the world of the Border collie. I first had anything to do with them when starting to compete at agility trials. I thought all Borders were the same although I noticed a lot of variation in looks. I came to realise that the most variable were from working lines, although you could see familiar resemblences in certain lines, and that the show breds tended to look more uniform.

 

There were top agility performance dogs from both sides. I myself adopted a 5 month old BC who I realise now is from show lines. Not that I care as she is a wonderful dog. The people who are are running agility and also showing their dogs are very proud of their achievements in the conformation and agility fields, and they are super dogs. I also noted that a commentator at our Royal show one year was commenting as to the beauty of several of the conformation bred dogs as they entered for their agility runs. I had a little smile as I actually prefer the looks if you were to consider looks in the equation of some of the working bred dogs competing.

 

However having read more and belonged to the board for awhile I have really come to understand more about the situation. I happen to be in a situation where I am going to be working with sheep so a working bred collie is the only way to go. Why would you even consider a dog not bred specifically for the job you want it for? Just because it looks like a BC means nothing really. Even if I were not working sheep I have been convinced of the what the board believes in and would probably rescue another BC.

 

I think the best you can do is work hard to educate people like myself but really as long as there is livestock, working dogs are going to be bred. A person who wants to work livestock is going to get a working bred dog.

 

One or two fluke proves absolutely nothing, it is the normal way of a distribution curve in a population - you are always going to get that. It is natural and not worth getting hot under the collar that maybe 1% of confromation collies could cut it with the average working bred dog. That is not a % I would be willing to dice with if I was serious about working livestock.

 

Show people are equally passionate about conformation and are going to keep breeding conformation Borders, many of which will end up as pets, agility dogs and your AKC herding and may look at working bred collies as ugly because they have been bred for a differnet purpose. Then there are the people who breed the BC only for money - puppy mill type situations.

 

As to the name split I wouldnt be holding my breath. You just have to keep making sure that the sheepdog tradition continues and breed the best working dogs you can, to make sure that the genetics are carried on, and continue to work for the breed.

 

I have noticed several working bred labs imported from Ireland who are mainly involved in retrieving trials but also make an appearance in agility and obedience. These are fabulous dogs and to my untutored eye quite different from the the confromation bred labs in both looks and attitude.

[Ooky]

There is a specific reason that Barbie Collie is used over Show Collie or show bred collie and that is to ridicule and demean those with whom you disagree.

 

Yeah, there IS a specific reason - it really solidifies the concept of the manner in which the breeding practices produce completely different dogs.

 

My DH is not on this board, but sometimes I describe threads on it to him, and stuff I've learned about border collies. When I started talking a lot about the evils of AKC and sport breeding to him, he didn't get it (thought the board bodysnatchers had got me). When I started using the term "barbie collie", he suddenly GOT what I meant about the extreme difference. Then we watched a Westminster collie video together and he was like, whoa.... those ARE totally different dogs than what we have.

 

No, the term is not nice. But it is useful and descriptive in a way that I think is very powerful, conceptually. And I do NOT think it harms dogs the way racial slurs harm people. You are the one deciding to take offense, when the term is meant to describe a different line and breeding practice by naming that practice's product. Honestly, its hard for me to believe anyone has ever used a racial slur against you if you think this is at all comparable. I could be wrong, but remember - your dog doesn't care if I think he's a barbie or not, or call him that right to his face. (And the recipient of a racial slur most DEFINITELY cares).

 

Also, if it offends you, I don't see why you should care what anyone else thinks of your individual dogs either. In fact, I bet nearly everyone here would like them, because by and large the people here like individual dogs. But not the breeding practices that created them. There IS a difference.

[Sue R]

Yeah, there IS a specific reason - it really solidifies the concept of the manner in which the breeding practices produce completely different dogs...Also, if it offends you, I don't see why you should care what anyone else thinks of your individual dogs either. In fact, I bet nearly everyone here would like them, because by and large the people here like individual dogs. But not the breeding practices that created them. There IS a difference.

Thank you. With my verbosity, it would have taken me paragraphs to say this, and I wouldn't have said it as well as you have.

[Gary M]

Pearse,

I will freely admit that my use of the term conformation was a bit of trolling. Sometimes I get a little frustrated in these types of threads and sometimes feel that turnabout is fair play.

 

I will disagree somewhat about what you said regarding how trials are judged for I have been at quite a few trials and have seen where judges have placed more emphasis on the dogs methods than the results. A case in point was a trial I attended a few years ago where I watched a larger than usual Border Collie move the sheep effortlessly through the course. From beginning to end this dog had total control of the sheep to the point the sheep never paced above a trot and with the shed and pen finished the course with more than time to spare.

The dog did not make the top 10 of a 20 - 25 dog field. The comments I heard from other trialers while the dog was running were not encouraging. Stands up to straight, too loose eyed, wears too much, yada, yada, yada. It was apparent the judge felt the same way based on its score, so the dog was not meeting the expectations of how it was thought the dog should have performed. All the while the dog was running, I thought "What a great dog. Confident, capable, sheep not panicked, got to be in the top 3." So it was not what the dog did, but how they did it.

Now really, I understand this to a degree. In any event where the results are judged, the judge(s) will have their preferences and biases in working style and it will affect their scores. I also don't think it can honestly be said that there is not some amount of "good ole boys (or girls)" networking in the scoring. After all, the judges are human and those they score this week may be scoring them the next.

 

I have also talked to ranch owners that use dogs for stock work (one in particular from out west that used to post semi-regularly on this board) that think in larger part that trials were "hobby herder fluff". "Just because a dog can move 3 dog broke sheep on a weekend" he told me "doesn't mean they can move a thousand head of range sheep over miles of open ground every day". You tell me, true statement or not?

[herdcentral]

Pearse,

 

I have also talked to ranch owners that use dogs for stock work (one in particular from out west that used to post semi-regularly on this board) that think in larger part that trials were "hobby herder fluff". "Just because a dog can move 3 dog broke sheep on a weekend" he told me "doesn't mean they can move a thousand head of range sheep over miles of open ground every day". You tell me, true statement or not?

 

I know when I worked many years ago on a North Australian cattle station, the dogs appeared to be blends of ACDS, kelpies, collies, but boy could those dogs work in some of the toughest and most dangerous conditions in the world of livestock. They were tough arse dogs! The stockmen appeared to did their own blending for exactly what they needed. Those dogs were simply amazing as were the stockmen.

[juliepoudrier]

I will disagree somewhat about what you said regarding how trials are judged for I have been at quite a few trials and have seen where judges have placed more emphasis on the dogs methods than the results. A case in point was a trial I attended a few years ago where I watched a larger than usual Border Collie move the sheep effortlessly through the course. From beginning to end this dog had total control of the sheep to the point the sheep never paced above a trot and with the shed and pen finished the course with more than time to spare.

The dog did not make the top 10 of a 20 - 25 dog field. The comments I heard from other trialers while the dog was running were not encouraging. Stands up to straight, too loose eyed, wears too much, yada, yada, yada. It was apparent the judge felt the same way based on its score, so the dog was not meeting the expectations of how it was thought the dog should have performed.

 

Without actually asking the judge I don't know how you can say what the judge's expectations were. Unless you are quite familiar with stockwork, trials, and judging then you have no experiential basis on which to make this claim. Having sat in the judge's chair myself, I can say that I couldn't possibly have paid attention to the dog's working style when I was watching to see if the sheep stayed on line through the course. I deducted points based on what the sheep were doing, not what the dog was doing. If you look at the USBCHA judging guidelines I don't think you'd find anything relating to a dog's style and the judging thereof. In the points-and-time cattle trials, what the dog does is almost completely immaterial, as long as the stock make it around the course and through the obstacles. Style couldn't possibly even begin to matter in such a situation. I have seen plenty of different working styles on the trial field--dogs I loved, and dogs who wouldn't have suited me (as a handler) at all, and yet I've never been to a trial where I could honestly say that the judge was paying attention to or deducting points for the dog's working style (as Pearse said, there are a few things a dog can be faulted on, and style isn't one of them. Examples: dog crossing the course, dog gripping, dog turning on wrong sheep at the shed--but these are specific actions and not actual working style).

 

I am on an e-mail list devoted to people who largely trial in AKC, along with AHBA and ASCA. I have witnessed numerous discussions among these folks regarding working styles, etc., to the point where I have come to believe that at least in some venues, how the dog works is considered important. But I don't think USBCHA trials are one of those venues.

 

What sorts of trials have you been attending?

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

I have also talked to ranch owners that use dogs for stock work (one in particular from out west that used to post semi-regularly on this board) that think in larger part that trials were "hobby herder fluff". "Just because a dog can move 3 dog broke sheep on a weekend" he told me "doesn't mean they can move a thousand head of range sheep over miles of open ground every day". You tell me, true statement or not?

Not Pearse, but I would venture to say that in some instances this is entirely true. But most people who are moving very large bands of sheep or cattle also use more than one dog for the task, so the comparison isn't quite realistic. The value of a trial at the open level isn't to show that a dog can move bands of thousands but to show that a dog is capable of showing up on a strange field and working sheep it's never seen before. Most farm dogs can learn their daily tasks and routines (and the stock know the routines too), so the only way to really compare dogs is to take them out of their familiar environment and see how they perform in an unfamiliar one.

 

I'm sure there are plenty of hobby herders who never work on more than a few sheep and whose dogs wouldn't know how to handle large groups or livestock that were significantly different from what they train on day in and day out. But there are many of us who use our dogs for daily tasks on the farm (I rarely work anything less than the whole flock with my own dogs) and yet still expect our dogs to be able to go out and perform well on 3-5 head in a trial. I'll also admit that at home I may do things more expediently than I would at a trial (e.g., if an animal is being recalictrant, I will go ahead and ask the dog to grip, which in general would be a DQ at a trial), but I can take the same dogs who do the down and dirty work at home and expect them to perform to a higher standard on the trial field.

 

J.

[Sue R]

I am on an e-mail list devoted to people who largely trial in AKC, along with AHBA and ASCA. I have witnessed numerous discussions among these folks regarding working styles, etc., to the point where I have come to believe that at least in some venues, how the dog works is considered important. But I don't think USBCHA trials are one of those venues.

 

What sorts of trials have you been attending?

 

J.

Sounds to me like appearance is important in AKC "herding" events as well as the show ring and obedience ring. Hmm, are we seeing a trend? "Herding" class as "beauty pageant"?

 

As for Gary M's remarks, I've scribed for a number of judges from the US, Canada, and UK and have to say that some have expressed preferences for certain dogs in terms of how they worked, being a dog with a working style that they liked or did not care for. But the scores were based on the sheep and the quality of the run - straight lines, tight turns, reasonable pace, and so on. It's the result that counts, not the style, when it comes to scoring.

 

JMO, and I am sure there are judges that are more qualified than others and judges that are more ethical than others, and those that are more or less experienced. Having worked with multiple judges in posting and scoresheet compilation, I can say that there can be variability among judges and how they point (or how hard they point) certain work. But I also see that each qualified judge is very consistent in their own judging throughout a class even during a long, hard day's judging. Nobody's perfect but I sincerely wonder if you are qualified to "judge" a judge - I know I am not.

[Gary M]

Yeah, there IS a specific reason - it really solidifies the concept of the manner in which the breeding practices produce completely different dogs.

 

My DH is not on this board, but sometimes I describe threads on it to him, and stuff I've learned about border collies. When I started talking a lot about the evils of AKC and sport breeding to him, he didn't get it (thought the board bodysnatchers had got me). When I started using the term "barbie collie", he suddenly GOT what I meant about the extreme difference. Then we watched a Westminster collie video together and he was like, whoa.... those ARE totally different dogs than what we have.

 

No, the term is not nice. But it is useful and descriptive in a way that I think is very powerful, conceptually. And I do NOT think it harms dogs the way racial slurs harm people. You are the one deciding to take offense, when the term is meant to describe a different line and breeding practice by naming that practice's product. Honestly, its hard for me to believe anyone has ever used a racial slur against you if you think this is at all comparable. I could be wrong, but remember - your dog doesn't care if I think he's a barbie or not, or call him that right to his face. (And the recipient of a racial slur most DEFINITELY cares).

 

Also, if it offends you, I don't see why you should care what anyone else thinks of your individual dogs either. In fact, I bet nearly everyone here would like them, because by and large the people here like individual dogs. But not the breeding practices that created them. There IS a difference.

 

I live in Michigan, grew up in Detroit as a minority as far as the population makeup of the city was at the time and still is and work in a similar populous. Believe what you choose.

And it is because you name the the product, not the practice in demeaning terms that I take offense. It is not the dog's fault with regard to the circumstances of its being, its FREAKING PEOPLE, ignorant, moronic butthole people. So demean the practice, not the result. Your dog doesn't care whether you call him a Border Collie or an Oil Spill. It doesn't know the difference anyway. So AKC calls them Border Collies. So what, get over it already, its just words, right? You are not going to buy a dog from them so what difference does it make?

From what I have seen in rescues, shelters, Petfinder and on the streets, ACK cannot claim exclusive rights to piss poor breeders.

What is the cutesy demeaning term for ABCA dogs that are badly bred, including by so-called big hats, that don't work or tell the difference between a sheep (or cow) and a 55 Buick? Funny I haven't seen one for that.

[Pearse]

Pearse,

I will freely admit that my use of the term conformation was a bit of trolling. Sometimes I get a little frustrated in these types of threads and sometimes feel that turnabout is fair play.

 

So instead of wasting my time giving a rational answer, I should have have followed my initial reaction which was "guy's being an idiot; ignore him".

 

 

I will disagree somewhat about what you said regarding how trials are judged for I have been at quite a few trials and have seen where judges have placed more emphasis on the dogs methods than the results. A case in point was a trial I attended a few years ago where I watched a larger than usual Border Collie move the sheep effortlessly through the course. From beginning to end this dog had total control of the sheep to the point the sheep never paced above a trot and with the shed and pen finished the course with more than time to spare.

The dog did not make the top 10 of a 20 - 25 dog field. The comments I heard from other trialers while the dog was running were not encouraging. Stands up to straight, too loose eyed, wears too much, yada, yada, yada. It was apparent the judge felt the same way based on its score

 

No, that's not apparent at all. A judge watches every run at a trial. Usually, he/she is asked to judge the trial because he/she has more experience and judgement than the punters under the handler's tent. As a very good judge told me once, unless you are prepared to sit and watch each and every run, don't presume to second guess the judge.

 

Some other trialers are a good judge of dogs and handling. Some just like to gossip. But, I would say that "wears too much" would be a fault at any trial. It usually shows a lack of power or control.

 

 

I have also talked to ranch owners that use dogs for stock work (one in particular from out west that used to post semi-regularly on this board) that think in larger part that trials were "hobby herder fluff". "Just because a dog can move 3 dog broke sheep on a weekend" he told me "doesn't mean they can move a thousand head of range sheep over miles of open ground every day". You tell me, true statement or not?

 

Yeah, I've heard that too, usually from people who never trial. Is it true? It might be true of some dogs. It's likely not true of the best trial dogs. If it is true, it pretty much proves my point. As I said in my previous post, the majority of working dogs never ever see a trial field which is why your assertion that the value of working Border Collies is defined by their conformance to some arbitrary standard is patent nonsense. The value of a working Border Collie is that it can gather and shift a large flock of sheep or herd of cattle. Trialling is a "my dog's better than your dog" game. Anyone who's ever worked dogs for real knows that. It is a good way to compare dogs with one another on a relatively level playing field, and not all trials use "3 dog broke sheep". I know several (including several National Finals) that use sheep that have never seen dogs before. The good dogs still get the sheep moved in straight lines and tight turns. Those dogs I'd take to work anywhere.

 

And as for your rude response to Melanie Chang, I'll take it as further evidence that you're a trolling jackass. I don't think Melanie ever mentioned having an advanced degree, but I'm sorry for you that you find that threatening. I think her taking offense at you equating ridiculing someone's dog with racism comes from a more personal point of view.

[Katelynn & Gang]

I love when people give dogs people emotions. Their dogs, really. They have emotion, I know, I do rescue and I see it in every pull BUT they do not have emotion like people. My dogs don't sit and listen to my calls or read my emails to see what I am saying about them. They do not understand death, money, beauty or regret like we do. That is why dogs are so beautiful and when we take that away from them to start giving them human emotions we do them a great dishonor.

[Gary M]

Julie,

All the trials I have attended have been USBCHA sponsored, or to say that all I have attended I was aware of from the trials section of the USBCHA website

I have been going to trials in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana for 5 years. I am not saying that qualifies me for anything, but I am not completely ignorant about it either.

And obviously no, I do not have actual on field trial experience and am not attempting to judge the judge.

[juliepoudrier]

What is the cutesy demeaning term for ABCA dogs that are badly bred, including by so-called big hats, that don't work or tell the difference between a sheep (or cow) and a 55 Buick? Funny I haven't seen one for that.

Actually there is a name for that. We call them biscuit eaters. Or worthless. I have one. I love him all the same, even if he's badly bred and doesn't work. But I don't get offended when someone refers to him as a biscuit eater. That's what he is.

 

J.

[JaderBug]

What's the board's opinion on our dogs being called 'Coyote Collies' by the Barbie people?

[Katelynn & Gang]

What's the board's opinion on our dogs being called 'Coyote Collies' by the Barbie people?

 

I think its great. I wish they all hated the working bred dog so much that they'd close their stud book.

 

I think me and my dogs have no feelings because none of us could care less what anyone says about any of us. hahaha

[Gary M]

Julie,

All the trials I have attended have been USBCHA sponsored, or to say that all I have attended I was aware of from the trials section of the USBCHA website and I believe those are USBCHA sponsored.

I have been going to trials in Michigan, Ohio and Indiana for 5 years. I am not saying that qualifies me for anything, but I am not completely ignorant about it either.

And obviously no, I do not have actual on field trial experience and am not attempting to judge the judge.

But I also know something about human nature, prejudices and preferences and it is simply not possible IMO for those not to play some part in the results. Not that there is anything wrong with that either. I know it is not an exact parallel, but I have a car I show concourse. Same car every time, different judges, different scores. Sometimes same judges, different events, different score. Sometimes win, most times don't. Que sera, sera.

And while I have not talked to a specific judge about a specific run and how they scored it, I have talked to people that are participants that are judges at other trials on how they would score it and I hear "the dog should have this" and "the handler should have that" as well as where points would have been knocked off.

[juliepoudrier]

What's the board's opinion on our dogs being called 'Coyote Collies' by the Barbie people?

Doesn't bother me in the least. I think that people get offended by a name like Barbie largely because they understand that the reasons behind the name are valid ones. And that the name is indeed a denunciation of the practice that created the animal being so called. They take offense because they see the name as a denunciation of their own choices. In other words, it's really not so much about the dogs as it is about the people.

 

Gary,

The problem with your belief that the people you talked to at trials somehow are better equipped to determine the score than the judge is that the handlers also have their own agenda as well as their personal likes and dislikes of handlers and dogs. Also, how anyone else would score a run is irrelevant in so far as the judge who's doing the judging. As long as the judge is consistent in his/her scoring, the actual points taken off for particular faults doesn't really matter (in other words, one judge might hit a point per sheep for a missed panel while another might hit two points--as long as the individual judge is consistent in how s/he scores each run, the actual point deductions are somewhat irrelevant--that's why the judging guidlines offer a range of point deductions for mistakes). While I listen to what handlers might be saying about a particular dog (or handler) I also tend to take their comments with a grain of salt because humans are humans. Here's just one example. I was at a trial a few years ago where the consensus among handlers on Saturday was that the judge was being rather lenient. On Sunday, those same handlers were commenting about how the judge seemed to scoring much harder on day two. I went out and ran one of my dogs and got a score that placed me in the top 20 percent. After I checked my score, another handler asked what it was. When I told that handler, their response was, "Oh, well the judge is being lenient." Huh? This was one of the same people who earlier had been commiserating on how much harder the judge was being that day. But it turns out my score was higher than that person's score, hence the leniency comment. In the nearly nine years I've been trialing, I've seen this sort of thing many times, directed at me and at others. I just don't think you can take the average handler's word for what the judge is doing unless you know for a fact that the handler doesn't have a personal agenda, and most do (and I'm not saying that to be ugly--it's the nature of humans to be competitive and unfortunately that competitiveness can lead to comments about the judging).

 

Sure judges are human. No doubt there's some amount of the "figure skater effect" that goes on. But I'm pretty sure that most judges try very hard to be impartial and to judge what the stock are doing without paying attention to the dog's working style or who the handler is.

 

J.