Jump to content
BC Boards

Recommended Posts

So I've been in a debate on another forum about show vs working and NO am not trying to start the same here. Its more frustrating then helpful.

 

Some one said tho that the american border collie are just as different then the orginal hill border collie as the show border collie. That the "show" border collie resemble the hill collie more then american border collies. Hill collie have more coat and shorter legs vs american collie long legs and little coat. Hill collie have more drive then the american border collies.

 

Show border collie being Austrialian Show Border collies.

 

Just curious what you think? Is there a big different in the working breed depending on where they come from?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 103
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

So I've been in a debate on another forum about show vs working and NO am not trying to start the same here. Its more frustrating then helpful.

 

Some one said tho that the american border collie are just as different then the orginal hill border collie as the show border collie. That the "show" border collie resemble the hill collie more then american border collies. Hill collie have more coat and shorter legs vs american collie long legs and little coat. Hill collie have more drive then the american border collies.

 

Show border collie being Austrialian Show Border collies.

 

Just curious what you think? Is there a big different in the working breed depending on where they come from?

 

Seems like a very good time to point out to them that they can go to Horse & Country online, or watch on RFD, where they'll see plenty of hill collies that are just as variable in structure and coat type as their American counterparts. I don't think I've owned a single working dog that had the same exact structure as one of the others, they just haven't been "typey" that way or whatever the term is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:D Working Border Collies around the world are uniformly not uniform. Hum, does that make any sense? :rolleyes:

 

Claiming the show Border Collies more closely resemble the hill dogs sounds like something a kennel club person would say.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was their argument:

 

Specifically with regard to leg length...... in the US being able to cover huge distances is the most valuable attribute but this is not necessarily the case in their country of origin. I appreciate that it may be beneficial but this does not mean this IS what the breed was bred to be...... nor does the fact that there are 'some' in the US that prefer more leg equate to it being more correct than the Border Collies original conformation.

 

On the hills where dogs were expected to work largely independently on near sheer drops with sheep that do not see people from one round up to the next and run blind and fast shorter legs in comparisson to body length are one heck of an asset.

I would just like people to maybe appreciate how difficult hill sheep are....... a dog with the leg length typically seen in the US working sector would not cope in the hills where these dogs were bred. Hill farmers tend to steer clear of anything with excess leg length because they do not find them as sure footed on such difficult terrain and longer legs increase the likelihood of cruciate injuries in this situation where turning on a knifepoint is a regular occurance.

 

 

Urrrgh just makes me anoyed when people take a breed from it's county of origin change it beyond all recognition then slate others for deviating from their 'chosen depiction' of the breed not even bred to standard or fit for the job it was originally bred to do........ because yes conformation, type, coat all play their part in a good working hill collie.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that I see different b/w working and show dogs is what is between the ears.

 

Mine have more than 2 brain cells

 

Diane

 

 

:rolleyes:

 

To Ss. Cressa.

 

You know, thinking about it, none of my dogs would be considered long-legged. Jet is a little, but she is Canadian and Welsh, so maybe that doesn't count :D. Most of my dogs have been from mostly American lines, with the UK working lines usually in the second or third generation and one dog has McCallum lines, although she's small for that type. None of my dogs have short, stubby legs, they are very middle of the road. To me, a good working structure doesn't have any extremes one way or another. I think it's telling that they say hill farmers disregard "excess" leg length. There's a huge difference between preferring short, heavy boned show dog legs and not wanting an awkward, lanky dog (which, admittedly I don't care for either, but I wouldn't look down on it if it could do the job).

 

I'd be curious as to what they base their assertion on, that a hill farmer would not want any leg on their dog. If your friends aren't satisified watching the National trials, again with the direct descendants of the dogs they assert are the "orginal" hill collies, then maybe they should check out The Blue Riband of the Heather by Barbara Carpenter. Again, they'll see that the body and coat types are extremely varied even at the beginning of the 20th century.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How many of these folks have been to the US? What US working border collies have they seen, and under what circumstances? How, for example, have they been able to determine that "hill border collies have more drive than the american border collies"?

 

I have had several imported dogs over the years, as well as quite a few US bred dogs. If you put them in a line-up, there's not a chance in the world that these pundits could pick out which ones were US-bred and which were UK-bred. The post you quote just drips ignorance.

 

Here's a picture of the two dogs Jim Cropper won the English National Brace Championship with last year:

 

Brace.JPG

 

His dogs work on the hill. Their legs look pretty long and their coats look pretty short to me. They don't look a bit like a Barbie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, and the OP on the other forum fails to recognize that while there are some American dogs who are far removed from the UK bloodlines, there are also UK dogs imported on a regular basis, so whatever body structure is common in the UK is being brought over here and used as well. Her whole argument sounds like the typical justifications that the KC show people always use.

 

I, too, would suggest she get out and actually *look* at the dogs who typically work on the hill. I'm quite sure she'd find a wide variety of leg lengths and coats.

 

Here is the page for some of Derek Scrimgeour's current dogs. I don't see any with particularly short legs or heavy coats. If you go to Derek's page and look at his past dogs, they are as variable as his current dogs.

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I, too, would suggest she get out and actually *look* at the dogs who typically work on the hill.

 

Or, while she's right there, she should break out the video camera, say to the shepherd, "Here ... my dog is built right for this. Let me show you how it's done." And then send us the video of the result.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a picture of the two dogs Jim Cropper won the English National Brace Championship with last year:

 

Brace.JPG

 

His dogs work on the hill. Their legs look pretty long and their coats look pretty short to me. They don't look a bit like a Barbie.

 

Mine came from the Pennines and is very like the one in the foreground.

A friend's comes from a farm even higher up and is even more similar but taller.

Another friend who works on a sheep farm in the Pennines too has 2 dogs, both short coated and on the tallish side for bitches.

I could go on ......

 

And this is the breed's country of origin and the terrain I'm taking about is like the region they originally came from.

You really couldn't get any further from the show type if you tried.

I agree with LizP that it does sound like the sort of nonsense a KC person would spout. Excuses, excuses.

 

Pam

Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, we go to Yorkshire about every spring. For the hiking, the ales, and the sheep & lambs. That's where we fell in love with border collies.

 

We have seen working border collies that are everything from a virtual fox to a virtual lurcher. Short, tall, hefty, lean, long-legged, short-legged.... All that matters is that they do the work.

 

DH also downloads the England, Welsh, Scottish, & Irish - then UK championship trials. Same seems to be true of those dogs.

 

Must say, I've never seen a Barbie collie on the moors or in the trials. What's lacking is what I'd call athleticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tommy is 100% Scottish and she has really long legs. I think her father was very tall and her mother was very small and low to the ground.

 

Mick's Scottish on his sire's side, and he's leggy with very short hair. I never met his parents personally, as I got him as a rescue at 5 months. He came with his ABCA papers, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its funny because before I read this thread when I just saw the title I would have said - based on your dogs I have seen on here US dogs seem a little smaller

 

Fairly old fotos, here is my friends dog who was bred on a hill farm in the borders of Scotland to two fantastic working dogs (him and his sister have no real drive for sheep)

In the farmers words he 'likes a good working dog but something nice to look at too'

 

IMAGE_00022.jpg

 

 

The pup with him is from a cattle farm, she has grown leggy and fairly smooth coated

DSCN0520.jpg

 

Over here people often say the shorter dogs are Welsh, but TBH I think each farmer has a style he likes for no reason other than fashion, the farmer of the first dog likes lots of black on his dogs and likes a fair bit o coat (that looks after itself) He dosent like coloured dogs

 

But the next farm down she has smooth coated red and white dogs, and they are working the same land

 

I think we just like the look of something that reminded us of a dog we had in the past

Link to post
Share on other sites

And so they contradict themselves yet another time. Tweak the story to meet whatever is the current fad. I have a yearbook from the Border Collie Club of Great Britain from back in 1995, I think, and there is an article written about dividing border collies into 3 body types according to their origen. There it's said the that one's with more leg under them are developed in the hill country, i.e., leggier dogs are preferred for hill work. The shorter-legged, heavier coated border collie come from the lowlands where sheep are heavier. The argument given in the original post is in direct contradiction to what was written 15 yrs. ago by the GB BC KC. Back then, you didn't see the influx of the corgi-legged Oz show dogs either. Back then, show dogs in GB might have come right from the barn on a farm to a show kennel. You could pretty much pick out a border collie with an all GB background. But the argument referred to in this thread is another justification for written breed standards according to the current fad. That is subject to change as the fad changes. Obviously, it already has in 15 yrs with the influx of what's being put up at conformation shows -- the corgi-legged Oz dogs, so of course, you must tweak history to justify your champions.

 

When I was at the International in Scotland in 06, I saw a lot of different body types -- in border collies too :rolleyes: and not once did I see anything that look like the "ideal" border collie according to the KC. What I saw were pretty much the ideal in working dogs, and to me that's beauty that proves itself day in, day out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's kind of funny that throughout the discussion, at least till near the very end, they were basing all their comments on American working border collies on *one photo* of a smooth-coated, long-legged, prick-eared dog (Juno, maybe?). Good thing it wasn't Lark's picture that was used, because then they'd believe that Americans had need of only tiny border collies (with smooth coats and prick ears). And I also thought it odd that so many were arguing for the standard looks of the UK working dog when all one has to do is go to a few websites of actual working farms and see a tremendous variety of looks and types. When I visited Richard Millichap's place in Wales, he showed me a smooth-coated prick eared dog and also a couple of dogs with a bit more coat. I was surprised to note that one poster talked about how flat Wales is, since I have photos showing the sheep at the bottom of this very tall hill--they're specks really--and one of Richard's dogs had to go down that big ol' hill and bring those sheep up it. But gee, what he really needed to do the job on his flat south Wales farmland was a short, stout dog suitable for the flat terrain, lol!

 

Here's a photo of the Millichaps' south Wales farm:

P6030014.jpg

 

I don't remember the name of the dog, but here's another perspective of the Welsh "flatlands":

P6030040.jpg

 

This dog does indeed have *some* coat, but appears to have longish legs:

P6030024.jpg

 

And *gasp* is that a smooth coat? What's it doing in Wales on a real working farm (please don't look at those overlong legs)?

P6030049.jpg

 

Oh, and here are a couple of Barbara Carpenter's dogs. Maybe no one bothered to inform her that smooth coats are an American thing, and being in England she certainly shouldn't have something like that:

P6040027.jpg

(Beck)

 

P6040021.jpg

(Roy)

 

Wynford Japp, who hails from a flatter part of Wales:

P6040071.jpg

 

Same dog, better photo:

P6040063.jpg

 

So I guess someone forgot to tell the folks in the UK that their dogs have always had standardized looks, because it seems they haven't quite gotten that message yet.

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.showdog.com/login/philboard_read.aspx?id=202010

 

Here is the thread in question. Will probably be an interesting read for people who don't know how the KC people think or defend what they're doing.

 

Debating with them makes my brain want to explode, sometimes I wish it would.

 

Autumn

 

I read as much of it as I could. When I realized I was gritting my teeth I stopped. I need what teeth I have left! :rolleyes:

 

One thing that struck me as interesting was, (I'm paraphrasing) "If you can't tell by looking that a dog is a Border Collie, then you don't have a breed." IE, there is no such thing as a Border Collie if there is no consistent appearance throughout the breed.

 

Well, of course, the Border Collie person's answer to this is that you can tell it's a Border Collie by how and how well it works stock.

 

However, this got me to thinking. (Always dangerous...) I've seen a lot of different-looking dogs presented on "Guess-the-breed" threads and "Is my new rescue a Border Collie?" threads. Usually when the general response is, "It looks like a Border Collie to me," I tend to agree. But of course that photo doesn't tell me squat about what the dog in question would do with stock. Even so, I do see something that says Border Collie to me. What is it? I don't know.

 

When I first got into rough Collies I could look through a magazine full of show shots of sable and white Collies buffed and fluffed for the ring and they would all just blur together. Six months (and a lot of study) later I was amazed that I ever confused Lord Peabody of Buckethead with Razzle Patoot of Fuzzy Acres.

 

My conclusion is that working-bred Border Collies do indeed have a type. But I can't tell you what it is. But I am learning to recognize it when I see it. And I can tell you it isn't about length-to-height ratio or coat texture, color or length. It isn't something that could be codified in a breed standard. (Thank DoG!) Anybody else able to describe how you recognize two dogs of radically disparate appearance as Border Collies, and distinguish them from, say, a smallish Golden Retriever/ Shetland Sheepdog mix, or any other mix that would roughly approximate the appearance of one Border Collie or other?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've seen a lot of different-looking dogs presented on "Guess-the-breed" threads and "Is my new rescue a Border Collie?" threads. Usually when the general response is, "It looks like a Border Collie to me," I tend to agree. But of course that photo doesn't tell me squat about what the dog in question would do with stock. Even so, I do see something that says Border Collie to me. What is it? I don't know.

 

When I look at those photos, I tend to look for something that says NOT a border collie. If I don't see something inconsistent with all the varied border collie looks I've ever seen, I'll say that the dog could very well be a border collie. It's very rare that I feel I can tell more than that from a photo.

 

Don't know if that's how other people do it . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites
"If you can't tell by looking that a dog is a Border Collie, then you don't have a breed."

 

Well, as long as you look at how the dog is working. Not at how it looks standing still.

 

And who the h*** says that Wales is flat!?! Someone who looked on a page of a map? Yeah, the page is sure flat; so Wales must be? Then again, must be the one who decides on the breed by looking at a dog's beauty shot, not at the actual dog at work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...