sometimes I feel like giving up...

[Alchemist]

Consider this argument:

 

Let's suppose that breeders of working Border collies all adhere to an admirable standard. They hold to the ideal that you shouldn't breed a Border collie unless it proves itself by working to a high level (equivalent to trialing at the Open level). Perhaps they even sell their pups on spay/neuter contracts if they're going to pet/sports homes, perhaps not - but they surely won't breed to a dog that hasn't proven its worth. So any Border collie that doesn't go to a working/trialing home leaves the gene pool of working Border collies.

 

Let's further suppose that they don't breed if they end up with a lot of pups from their litters that end up not being placed in good homes - whether working or not. I would argue that all this is entirely credible.

 

These reputable breeders of working Border collies can maintain a total of a certain number of dogs themselves; the exact number depends on how many they feel they can handle. Maybe it's dictated by how many kennels they have, maybe by how much time the owner can devote to each dog; the exact criteria are immaterial. Let's call this number a "steady-state amount". It ultimately represents a balance between how many they breed, vs how many they can place. Too few homes, then they have to breed fewer litters, else they won't be able to find the pups good homes, and they're in danger of having more dogs than they can handle. A large demand, then they can perhaps breed a few more litters. In any case, the reward (for them) isn't necessarily the number of pups they can sell - it's more a chance of keeping some really promising pups that will be their next Open stars (or really useful working dogs).

 

In a world where there are lots of sports or conformation breeders, they may flood the market for pups who end up being bought by individuals who might otherwise have invested the extra effort into seeking out a pup from working lines. This decreases the demand for pups bred from working lines. The pup who might have been the next Wiston Cap (or substitute some other famous Border collie) never ends up being born.

 

Anyway, in a nutshell, this to me is the argument that describes how breeding "sports" Border collies - even if they never re-enter the gene pool of working Border collies - still affects the future of working Border collies.

[Sue R]

You and I were posting at the same time and concerning the same ideas, but I was on the wrong topic! So here are my clumsy thoughts -

 

Someone earlier in this topic mentioned they did not see how breeding sport lines would affect the future of the working-bred dog. I can see a couple of aspects.

 

First, as I have personally seen with regards to show ring "Border Collies", the type of dog that is in the public eye is going to be the type of dog that the public feels is "the Border Collie". If all they ever see is Westminster or similar big bench shows on TV, that dog is going to be the type of dog they associate with the name, "Border Collie". If all they ever see is agility, flyball, or freestyle, that will be the type of dog they equate with "Border Collie". I believe that, if it impacts John Q Public, it will impact the breed - you can see this in many, many other breeds that have drifted away from their original purpose and abilities.

 

I don't believe the same issue with regards to the Border Collie or working sheepdog exists in the UK, for instance, where many decades of tradition and modern exposure like "One Man and His Dog" along with coverage of the national-level trials, world trials, and Supreme International, and presence of working dogs on TV and in person in the countryside, have allowed the general public to know what the working-bred Border Collie is and what it can do. Nothing like this really exists in the US (or Canada, as far as I know).

 

Second, I think it's a matter of numbers. Let's just say that there are 1000 working-bred and proven bitches worth breeding, and they would produce a total of 5000 well-bred pups with good potential to be working dogs. But, let's say that there is only demand for 3000 working-bred pups - demand on farms, ranches, and for trial prospects.

 

What are the choices? One would be to breed fewer females. That would have a couple of results. It would reduce the gene pool with each generation (now, you could offset that by breeding some bitches one year and some others the next year, but it would still reduce the population). It would mean that some people without a ready working market for their working-bred pups would not be able to breed a suitable female (while other, more high-profile handler/breeders might sell all pups to working homes) even while they would like to retain a couple of pups to raise for their own use.

 

The other choice would be to breed the proven, quality females, placing as many pups from each litter into working homes (where, among other benefits, the value of the breeding could be assessed in a working situation - a benefit to future breeding choices). Some litters would find all pups placed in working homes. Some litters would find some pups placed in working homes. Pups that were over and above the demand required by working homes, would make pets, sports dogs, service dogs, and so on in suitable non-working homes.

 

What I am trying, clumsily, to say is that having an "outlet" for pups over and above the demand created by actively working/trialling homes allows the gene pool (population of breeding animals) to stay large, vibrant, and diverse. If a lot of pups are produced from non-working (performance sports, BYB, puppy mills) breeders, they would be filling at least some of that demand for non-actively-working pups, and therefore have an impact on the abiity to keep the working-bred gene pool large and diverse.

 

I can think this out in my head but just can't seem to put it into words on the screen.

[Gloria Atwater]

Hi Kristine!

 

Good on ya for pursuing an interesting and thought-provoking line of questioning.

 

I think it's a touchy question for people to answer simply because there is so much gut feeling wrapped up in the whole debate. It's hard even for me to articulate why I am increasingly wishing that a more marked division between working and show/sport lines would be a good thing. But I keep returning to that thought, more and more as time goes by.

 

I think part of it comes from the fact that I do see Show breeders periodically out-crossing to Working lines, which in its face is not a bad thing ... but then they go on to sell these "diluted" dogs as "all purpose" or whatever. (Sorry for all the quotation marks, there.) What they produce is then a watered down version of the working Border Collie ... and people new to sheepdogging are happy to buy them!

 

It frankly *saddens* me to see people out there struggling to train a BC with limited and diluted talent. Now, granted, even if the breed did magically and miraculously split to Working BCs and Show BCs, absolutely nothing would prevent the two variations from being crossed, will-nilly, or from those Border Collie Lite dogs from being produced. Nor would it prevent the innocent and gullible from purchasing such dogs thinking they are "working" dogs.

 

But while I have NO clue about statistics or populations of show or sport BCs versus working lines, I *do* see dilution of the working lines occurring. And I do see people buying these dogs thinking they're getting a working dog.

 

Now, I'm not talking about savvy and educated Open trialers, who know all about the working bloodlines and breeders. I'm talking about John Q out there who either wants to work and trial their dog as a hobby, or they have some property or a little farm with a few head of livestock. There IS a world of difference between a well-bred working dog and one from show/performance lines in which the work ethic has not been a breeding priority. Many of the show/performance breeders deliberately select for lack of some working qualities.

 

Granted, while some of us may *wish* there could be a split or division between working lines and the rest, I also realize the reality is pretty much impracticable. It's most likely never gonna happen - if only because it would require folks on both sides of the show-vs-working question to agree as to what their dogs really are!

 

But because I do see a dilution happening out there, and because I've no idea how prevalent this is ... it troubles me. And I don't know what to do about it. But it does keep bringing me back around to the wishful opinion that we should just keep Those Dogs over There.

 

I also wish the Easter Bunny was real and left me chocolate every year ....

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

Pups that were over and above the demand required by working homes, would make pets, sports dogs, service dogs, and so on in suitable non-working homes.

 

What I am trying, clumsily, to say is that having an "outlet" for pups over and above the demand created by actively working/trialling homes allows the gene pool (population of breeding animals) to stay large, vibrant, and diverse. If a lot of pups are produced from non-working (performance sports, BYB, puppy mills) breeders, they would be filling at least some of that demand for non-actively-working pups, and therefore have an impact on the abiity to keep the working-bred gene pool large and diverse.

 

This.

 

I agree. The more dogs bred specifically to be Show/Agility/whatever, to the exclusion of working traits and working bloodlines, the more those working traits fall by the wayside. By breeding away from the BCs original intent - working livestock - and selecting for qualities that exclude working traits ... that's the harm to the gene pool. There would simply be fewer homes to which work-bred dogs could go and still have perfectly good, non-sheepdog, sporting careers.

 

Heck, I had a book someone gave me a few years ago, can't remember the title or the author, but she bred show BCs. In this book she detailed how she started her breeding program and described her selection process ... which deliberately encompassed breeding OUT working traits. Why? Because the intensity of working lines, the tendency to develop fixations or what have you, is detrimental to the kind of placid behavior needed in the Show ring. Discussion about the Agility-genre "early start syndrome" ( ) tells me that the same sort of detrimental breeding practices are appearing in the Agility world.

 

Listen, Geri Byrne from whom I got both my present pups has placed at least a couple pups in agility homes, and so far as I know, they do a great job! Certainly my little Gael has the speed and nimbleness to be an agility dog, if that were my thang. It IS possible to incorporate honest working lines into the sport world, but when sport breeders start doing weird stuff like fretting about "ESS," I fear that's going to deplete the working gene pool by nudging out prospective Agility/Other-Sport homes that otherwise would have been very happy with a sport dog from working lines.

 

Not sure I'm making a lick of sense, here, since I have no scientific data whatsoever to back up my thoughts. But ... them's my thoughts, worth exactly the penny anyone wants to give for 'em.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Denise Wall]

Consider this argument:

 

 

These reputable breeders of working Border collies can maintain a total of a certain number of dogs themselves; the exact number depends on how many they feel they can handle. Maybe it's dictated by how many kennels they have, maybe by how much time the owner can devote to each dog; the exact criteria are immaterial. Let's call this number a "steady-state amount". It ultimately represents a balance between how many they breed, vs how many they can place. Too few homes, then they have to breed fewer litters, else they won't be able to find the pups good homes, and they're in danger of having more dogs than they can handle. A large demand, then they can perhaps breed a few more litters. In any case, the reward (for them) isn't necessarily the number of pups they can sell - it's more a chance of keeping some really promising pups that will be their next Open stars (or really useful working dogs).

 

In a world where there are lots of sports or conformation breeders, they may flood the market for pups who end up being bought by individuals who might otherwise have invested the extra effort into seeking out a pup from working lines. This decreases the demand for pups bred from working lines. The pup who might have been the next Wiston Cap (or substitute some other famous Border collie) never ends up being born.

 

This is absolutely my opinion also. Well said.

[Sue R]

I was trying to "channel" your thoughts, Denise, but Lynn said it so much better here!

[Root Beer]

But while I have NO clue about statistics or populations of show or sport BCs versus working lines, I *do* see dilution of the working lines occurring. And I do see people buying these dogs thinking they're getting a working dog.

 

Now, I'm not talking about savvy and educated Open trialers, who know all about the working bloodlines and breeders. I'm talking about John Q out there who either wants to work and trial their dog as a hobby, or they have some property or a little farm with a few head of livestock. There IS a world of difference between a well-bred working dog and one from show/performance lines in which the work ethic has not been a breeding priority. Many of the show/performance breeders deliberately select for lack of some working qualities.

 

Thank you - that makes sense. So, it's not dilution among those "in the know" (Open trialers, non-Open trialers who are seeking to become Open trialers, those using Border Collies in day to day farming operations, etc), but among those who are new and are getting their first dog to get into stockwork at the hobby level.

 

I still don't see how that would result in the working Border Collie becoming extinct, but you aren't the one who said that would happen, either.

 

Granted, while some of us may *wish* there could be a split or division between working lines and the rest, I also realize the reality is pretty much impracticable. It's most likely never gonna happen - if only because it would require folks on both sides of the show-vs-working question to agree as to what their dogs really are!

 

It would also require the side that does not seem to see the need for a split, nor desire a split, to be the side to make the split happen. That does strike me as highly unlikely.

[Smalahundur]

Well, those lengthy answers confirm my suspicion; the working line breeders need a place to sell of their "culls".

[Sue R]

Well, those lengthy answers confirm my suspicion; the working line breeders need a place to sell of their "culls".

Culls? No, I think you have missed the point entirely. It is true that dogs that don't work out on stock may need to be rehomed in more suitable situations, but we are not talking "culls" when we are talking pups in this situation. Reread the posts and maybe you will understand.

[Denise Wall]

What Sue said. With dogs sold as little puppies, as we are mostly speaking about, there is no way to know if they'll be the best workers in the litter or the worst. They are not "culls." Those used for sports for example are not tested for work like the breeder's pup will be. The breeder's pup may or may not work out, but it will likely have a chance to show its working potential and therefore its breeding quality to possibly produce more good workers.

[juliepoudrier]

Well, those lengthy answers confirm my suspicion; the working line breeders need a place to sell of their "culls".

Wow, show me someone who can look at an 8-week-old pup and determine its future abilities as a working stockdog, and I'll show you someone who could make themselves very rich. I believe your idea of culls comes from the show world, where breeders can tell at a fairly young age whether a pup matches the conformation standard, but I can assure you that every pup in a working-bred litter is bred with the same expectation of potential and sold as such. They are not culls in the commonly understood definition of that word.

 

J.

[SS Cressa]

So let me see if I got this right:

 

Sport breeder are harming the breed since they force farmer (or the people who herd/breed) with their dogs regularly to cut back on breeding. And that MIGHT POSSIBLE mean the famer (or people who herd with their dogs/breed) might not find that **MAGICAL** cross that could possible produce the next top herding dog?

 

Agility/Flyball/whatever should only get the leftover pups since the pups should only go to working homes. And IF by chance their are extra pup those can be sold to agility/flyball/whatever home? But whos to say that the pup you sold WAS suppose to be the next "top" herding dog but now since it was sold to a agility/flyball/whatever home it potential is now lost?

 

This make me want to support the farmer(or the people who herd/breed) who don't even WANT to sell me a dog but is doing it since they have too!

[Maralynn]

So let me see if I got this right:

 

Sport breeder are harming the breed since they force farmer (or the people who herd/breed) with their dogs regularly to cut back on breeding. And that MIGHT POSSIBLE mean the famer (or people who herd with their dogs/breed) might not find that **MAGICAL** cross that could possible produce the next top herding dog?

 

Agility/Flyball/whatever should only get the leftover pups since the pups should only go to working homes. And IF by chance their are extra pup those can be sold to agility/flyball/whatever home? But whos to say that the pup you sold WAS suppose to be the next "top" herding dog but now since it was sold to a agility/flyball/whatever home it potential is now lost?

 

This make me want to support the farmer(or the people who herd/breed) who don't even WANT to sell me a dog but is doing it since they have too!

 

How in the world did you get that?

 

And no, you didn't get it right.

[Denise Wall]

SS Cressa,

 

Consider this:

 

Border collies were bred and developed into the wonderful dogs that many sports people apparently like by stringent selection criteria for work over many, many years. Good working dogs need not only talent and sound bodies but also sound minds. It takes strict selection for all of the traits involved in working to keep all the pieces fitting together in the right way. If you start breeding away from certain things or ignore selecting for them, there is less chance the pieces will fit together in the right way that will make a sound dog as a whole.

 

You can be indignant and feel as if you're getting the "left overs" if you like, but when you stop making the educated effort to breed or buy these dogs for what they were meant to be, they're not the same dog and the pieces don't fit together right. And once Humpty Dumpty is broken apart, he cannot be put back together again.

 

Every non working breeding will likely decrease the number of working breedings. The less people dedicated to finding working bred pups, the less will be bred. And so it goes. That's how working breeds are lost. God knows, it's happened in enough breeds that people should be able to read the handwriting on the wall.

[SS Cressa]

So these aren't saying what it sounds like they are saying? I am sure I am just reading these wrong. o.0

 

... I think it's a matter of numbers. Let's just say that there are 1000 working-bred and proven bitches worth breeding, and they would produce a total of 5000 well-bred pups with good potential to be working dogs. But, let's say that there is only demand for 3000 working-bred pups - demand on farms, ranches, and for trial prospects.

 

What are the choices? One would be to breed fewer females. That would have a couple of results. It would reduce the gene pool with each generation (now, you could offset that by breeding some bitches one year and some others the next year, but it would still reduce the population). It would mean that some people without a ready working market for their working-bred pups would not be able to breed a suitable female (while other, more high-profile handler/breeders might sell all pups to working homes) even while they would like to retain a couple of pups to raise for their own use.

 

The other choice would be to breed the proven, quality females, placing as many pups from each litter into working homes (where, among other benefits, the value of the breeding could be assessed in a working situation - a benefit to future breeding choices). Some litters would find all pups placed in working homes. Some litters would find some pups placed in working homes. Pups that were over and above the demand required by working homes, would make pets, sports dogs, service dogs, and so on in suitable non-working homes.

 

What I am trying, clumsily, to say is that having an "outlet" for pups over and above the demand created by actively working/trialling homes...

 

Let them go call their dogs by some other breed name, make up their own. A border collie was meant to work the hills with his shepherd day in day out, not run around a course going over and through obstacles, or looking a certain way, having a certain height, etc.

 

They'll ruin the breed just like almost every other working breed has been ruined over the years.

 

Picture one day when there won't be one BC left able to work sheep because the blood lines have been ruined.

 

Tim

 

Working breeders will sell to pet and sport homes, ..., although ideally pups would go into working homes, the number of working homes is limited, so some pups will go to non-working homes. If all those non-working homes are buying sport-bred and other-bred border collies, then those homes are not available to working-bred border collies. A vicious cycle.

J.

 

Consider this argument:

 

Let's suppose that breeders of working Border collies all adhere to an admirable standard. They hold to the ideal that you shouldn't breed a Border collie unless it proves itself by working to a high level (equivalent to trialing at the Open level). Perhaps they even sell their pups on spay/neuter contracts if they're going to pet/sports homes, perhaps not - but they surely won't breed to a dog that hasn't proven its worth. So any Border collie that doesn't go to a working/trialing home leaves the gene pool of working Border collies.

 

Let's further suppose that they don't breed if they end up with a lot of pups from their litters that end up not being placed in good homes - whether working or not. I would argue that all this is entirely credible.

 

These reputable breeders of working Border collies can maintain a total of a certain number of dogs themselves;... Let's call this number a "steady-state amount". It ultimately represents a balance between how many they breed, vs how many they can place. Too few homes, then they have to breed fewer litters, else they won't be able to find the pups good homes, and they're in danger of having more dogs than they can handle. A large demand, then they can perhaps breed a few more litters. In any case, the reward (for them) isn't necessarily the number of pups they can sell - it's more a chance of keeping some really promising pups that will be their next Open stars (or really useful working dogs).

 

In a world where there are lots of sports or conformation breeders, they may flood the market for pups who end up being bought by individuals who might otherwise have invested the extra effort into seeking out a pup from working lines. This decreases the demand for pups bred from working lines. The pup who might have been the next Wiston Cap (or substitute some other famous Border collie) never ends up being born.

 

Anyway, in a nutshell, this to me is the argument that describes how breeding "sports" Border collies - even if they never re-enter the gene pool of working Border collies - still affects the future of working Border collies.

[Maralynn]

So these aren't saying what it sounds like they are saying? I am sure I am just reading these wrong. o.0

 

Not seeing anything about leftover pups or breeders who don't want to sell to you.

 

The fact is that many breeds have been ruined by not breeding for the work. To preserve the essence of the breed, you must breed for the work. What folks here are interested in doing is preserving the ability and essence of the breed, because when you don't, you loose it. You will not preserve the essence of the breed as they are bred for sports. Period. Why wouldn't you want to support the people/breeders who know how to best preserve the breed that you love?

[Gloria Atwater]

Well, those lengthy answers confirm my suspicion; the working line breeders need a place to sell of their "culls".

 

Oh, good grief! That is absolutely not the case. The idea of there being this under-belly of "cull" pups that working line breeders need to place is groundless and even a little silly. I don't know of anyone who is magician enough to look at 8 week old pups and say, "Well, this one will work, but this here is a cull: we'd better send him to an agility home."

 

I see NO reason on earth a work-bred dog can't ALSO excel at agility, tracking, flyball or any other sport we can name. That's my whole point. Pups from working lines can be sold to sport homes just as readily as working homes, and do just fine at non-sheep-related careers. I see no NEED to breed away from working qualities in order to have good sporting dogs. To do so is, in my humble view, an artificial affectation that is detrimental to the border collie breed as pertains to its original purpose and heritage.

 

Just my tuppence, of course.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

Thank you - that makes sense. So, it's not dilution among those "in the know" (Open trialers, non-Open trialers who are seeking to become Open trialers, those using Border Collies in day to day farming operations, etc), but among those who are new and are getting their first dog to get into stockwork at the hobby level.

 

I still don't see how that would result in the working Border Collie becoming extinct, but you aren't the one who said that would happen, either.....

 

 

Correct, I'm not saying such practices will render the BC extinct. But I am saying that diluting the working skills within the breed IS dangerous and detrimental, in the long haul. Look at Australian shepherds: the line between the Show dogs and the steadily-shrinking pool of working lines gets wider all the time. The tough little "blue dog" of 40 years ago is getting harder to fine, at least according to my working Aussie friends who have increasingly tougher times finding good working dogs to breed to/with.

 

Yes, it is among those new to BCs where I see the "diluted" dogs, but I think anyone outside the Open trial community could, over the course of years, find themselves having a tougher time locating solid working lines. In a worse-case scenario, as I said, but again, look at Aussies. My working Aussie friends assure me they are not the same dog they were three or four decades past.

 

Again, must my tuppence. Everyone's mileage may vary. Plus, I realize this is an emotionally-charged debate, and as such I submit there probably is no "right" or "wrong" side. There are just differing opinions about how we imagine the future of the breed we love.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

So let me see if I got this right:

 

Sport breeder are harming the breed since they force farmer (or the people who herd/breed) with their dogs regularly to cut back on breeding. And that MIGHT POSSIBLE mean the famer (or people who herd with their dogs/breed) might not find that **MAGICAL** cross that could possible produce the next top herding dog?

 

Agility/Flyball/whatever should only get the leftover pups since the pups should only go to working homes. And IF by chance their are extra pup those can be sold to agility/flyball/whatever home? But whos to say that the pup you sold WAS suppose to be the next "top" herding dog but now since it was sold to a agility/flyball/whatever home it potential is now lost?

 

No, no, no, no, no .....

 

Sport breeders aren't forcing farmers or ranchers to do anything with their breeding programs. What some (not all!) sport breeders theoretically run the risk of doing is overwhelming the market with their own, created version of Border Collies that have been selectively bred for traits OTHER than working. The very traits that distinguish the BC from all other breeds.

 

There is no such THING as a leftover or "cull" pup! At 8 weeks old, there is no way of telling which is going to be the next national champ and which won't. It's *always* a crap shoot when one buys a pup as to whether this will be the dog that gets you to the Meeker Classic, or if it'll just be a nice little pal.

 

The point is that whether a pup goes to a show home, a sport home, or a pet home, the foremost purpose behind the breeding should be that these pups will forward the best qualities of the Border Collie breed. That means NOT selectively breeding out the working instinct, and not going off the rails trying to cobble together select bits and pieces of BC traits in order to create a better agility or flyball or whatever dog. To do so, as someone else said, is to risk losing the completeness of the package that makes a BC a BC.

 

As I've already said, there is no reason working lines can't excel in sports. There is no reason working-line breeders should not sell to sporting or show homes! Sporting or showing are not damaging to the Border Collie. What's detrimental is breeders who dismiss the BC's heritage in favor of "customizing" a dog that lacks the BC's defining and fundamental traits.

 

I'd better shut up, now, before people get tired of seeing me around here.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Rave]

Bottom line is ABCA needs to come up with a way to preserve the breed, and in doing so change the name of the BC to Working Stock/Sheepdog or something. That's the only way there'll be the split you all so desperately want. Trying to change sports and show breeders just isn't going to get you anywhere. If that's not obvious to you all by now, then keep hitting your head up against that wall. ;-)

[Sue R]

Bottom line is ABCA needs to come up with a way to preserve the breed, and in doing so change the name of the BC to Working Stock/Sheepdog or something. That's the only way there'll be the split you all so desperately want. Trying to change sports and show breeders just isn't going to get you anywhere. If that's not obvious to you all by now, then keep hitting your head up against that wall. ;-)

Obviously, trying to get some people (the collective "some people", maybe?) to understand some basic principles is not getting "us" anywhere. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying because someone, somewhere, will "get it" and that will make a difference, no matter how small. Meanwhile, everyone else who isn't interested in "getting it" can just merrily roll along doing just what they want because that's what they want to do. Personal wants are just so important compared to the future of the traditional (I like to call it "real") Border Collie.

[jdarling]

Rave, I don't think anyone is concerned about the working dog / show dog split. That one is pretty much done. I'd imagine there are very few ABCA registered show dogs that compete in conformation (I could be wrong) because once they get their championship, the ABCA registration is stripped. As far as the Sporter Collies, if the ABCA were to stop allowing dual registration altogether in a clean split, I'd imagine the ABCA would lose quite a bit of money with registrations. While there are many people who buy Sporter Collies from the biggest Sporter Collie kennels, it seems the agility big wigs still go back to the stockdog big hats for their dogs.

 

I guess what I don't "get" is ... if the Sporter Collie people do not care about working ability, and in fact, are breeding for specific agility traits, why is anyone getting so butthurt about what the dogs are then called? I mean ... if you're breeding so far away from what a Border Collie truly is, is it still a Border Collie? What good is a dog that has been bred so that the "genetic" Early Takeoff Syndrome (why do I giggle every time I type that?) doesn't develop ... if the desire to work livestock isn't there either?

[Smalahundur]

Wow, show me someone who can look at an 8-week-old pup and determine its future abilities as a working stockdog, and I'll show you someone who could make themselves very rich. I believe your idea of culls comes from the show world, where breeders can tell at a fairly young age whether a pup matches the conformation standard, but I can assure you that every pup in a working-bred litter is bred with the same expectation of potential and sold as such. They are not culls in the commonly understood definition of that word.

 

J.

 

Nope that´s not where I have my "ideas" from. My ideas come from the conclusion I draw from the info that I get from working dog breeders on the board, coupled with the fact that I don´t get satisfying (actually no) answers to the questions I posted earlier in this thread. You take the word culls literally though I clearly stated "they are like culls in that respect". So can you give me some direct answers on how a population of non working border collies, not being used in working breeding lines, can have a detrimental effect on the working BC. (You might remember my Icelandic horse exemple).

[juliepoudrier]

Smalahundur,

I think your question has been answered. Several people have pointed out that when the market is flooded with non-working border collies, then suitable homes for working-bred dogs are hard to come by. And we already know that working homes are limited and certainly not expanding at the rate of non-working homes. Responsible breeders aren't going to produce pups for which there are no homes (the point being made over and over that homes could be available if other breeders weren't already flooding that market with non-working-bred dogs), and so fewer working border collies will be bred.

 

Others have noted that once you take away pieces of the puzzle by simply not breeding for the whole puzzle or selectively breeding agains certain parts of the puzzle then it's nearly impossible to put those parts back (as evidenced by any number of breeds for whom breed aficianadoes are trying to do just that, and not very successfully). So even if the population of border collies (working and other) remains stable or grows overall, the percentage of those dogs that still contain the genetics of the whole puzzle will become smaller. If you are involved with rare breed horses or anything else, then you know the deleterious effects of a genetic population that gets smaller and smaller (heck, many of the genetic problems present in various show breeds of dogs are a direct result of tiny populations of dogs being used to create/fix the breed). So I don't quite see how it's difficult to understand that with border collies if the working population is overwhelmed by dogs bred for things other than work could have a detrimantal effect. Working breeders won't be able to outcross to other populations of border collies because the pieces of the puzzle won't be there.

[Smalahundur]

Thanks for answering Julie, I´ll digest it a bit and come back to this when I have a bit more time