Borderlines

[rufftie]

I can't speak for your country but I can't think of any decent breeder of agility dogs here breeding "crazed" dogs.

 

as a participant in agility i can tell you they're out there! of course they're not "decent" breeders as they are breeding for over the top, high drive dogs., not working ability. i can think of 2 breeders off the top of my head where the dog owners themselves couldn't believe how messed up their own dogs turned out to be. the breeders were unresponsive to their plight. they're selling lots of dogs at outrageous prices. and as just an observation, to cause even more controvery , they were mostly "colored" dogs:reds and merles. although the craziest i've met personally was a tradtional b/w.

[shysheperdess]

I have been in the "sport" world of border collies for many years...and one of the common misconceptions thrown around...(and purposefuly done so by sport folks/pet people who breed, almost as an excuse for them continue to do so) is that dogs from working or stock lines are to busy mentaly, or wound up to be good pets or live in a house/family type situation....after getting to really now some of the finest working bred lines/big hats/sheepdog trialers in the country the past 10 years I would say that is the farthest thing from the truth....

 

In fact..the exact opposite is true...I have seen SO many dogs from sport bred kennels that literally VIBRATING...they need constant stimulation and tend to have "reactive" and aggressive issues....it's sad really....I can name quite a few from VERY well recognized obedience/agility lines that I have personally known since pups...

 

With the exception of one pup...who is from over-seas bloodlines(Aled Owen)....ALL working dogs that I have met have been of even temperament....they sit calmy by there handlers side waiting a run...or spectating...a far cry from the average scene at a flyball or agility competition....

 

There is also the stigma that dogs from working lines or sheepdog trialers are worked ALL day and that a dog from working lines NEEDS this to be happy....I recently visited a very well known/succesful big hat handler for a lesson and her dogs are happy to lie around the property or in there kennel..sometimes not getting a chance to work here or there...

[Pearse]

(Bold emphasis mine.) What is a "regular" meeting? Is that the annual Membership meeting, a Board meeting, or something else? Who can propose the action; a member, or must it be a Board member?

 

Suggest you go and read the ByLaws if you are interested in this topic. What constitutes a "regular" meeting is defined there.

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen and I were on a committee to examine dual registration and at the Tennessee Finals annual meeting we proposed that dual registration be banned. Our proposal was soundly defeated.

 

We went back to the drawing board and at Sturgis One proposed that since the ABCA is a working dog registry dual registered dogs that sought and won a conformation championship would be deregistered. This proposal was accepted without demur.

 

I'm sorry, but much as I hate to do it I must take issue with this. It is simply not true.

 

Donald and I, among others, were indeed on a committee to examine dual registration in 2002-03. Donald wanted to see a ban on conformation showing -- he was then on the Board of Directors and was instrumental in having the committee set up. The committee wrote a preliminary report suggesting six possible courses of action, including banning dual registration and including taking no action at all, but not including banning conformation showing. This was presented to the ABCA Board, which voted to circulate it to the membership for discussion until December 1, 2002, after which the committee was to re-examine the issue and prepare a final report for ABCA Board action. Members were encouraged to contact the directors with their opinions. A special forum for ABCA members was set up here on these Boards, where the issues were debated fiercely. I think it's fair to say that a clear majority of those posting favored a ban, but by no means did the numbers posting approach a majority of the membership. The topic was also raised for discussion at the Tennessee annual membership meeting in November 2002. There was no proposal on the floor, no motion was made. There was not a quorum present at the meeting, so the issue could not have been formally considered even if it had been proposed. (This is true of all ABCA annual membership meetings -- there's never a quorum present, so the transaction of business is limited to what was included in the notice of meeting and voted on by a quorum of proxies.) Of the random group of members who happened to come to that meeting rather than having dinner with their friends (no more than 30 or so in total), the great majority opposed a ban.

 

When the time came for the committee to prepare its final report in early 2003, Donald told the committee that he had decided on what the ABCA should do -- it should ban conformation showing. I drafted and circulated a proposed final report, which discussed all of the suggested approaches in detail and which I believe reflected the expressed consensus of the committee members. It recommended not permitting the future registration of offspring of AKC-registered dogs:

 

Under the approach we propose, if in the future an ABCA-registered dog is registered with the AKC, it would retain its ABCA registration, but its offspring born thereafter would not be eligible for registration with the ABCA. Applicants for ABCA registration (including transfers) would be required to sign a statement to the effect that if the dog becomes registered with the AKC, the owner must notify the ABCA office and have that dog’s registration changed to “Limited (Nonbreeding) Registration.” If the dog is already registered with the AKC at the time ABCA registration is sought, it would be denied.

 

This is less stringent than the Option B approach, under which a dog would lose its ABCA registration upon being registered with the AKC, but the committee feels it most directly addresses the problem of future generations of AKC show and sports dogs becoming co-mingled in our registry with real working stockdogs, to the detriment of our gene pool, and masquerading as “true working border collies” by virtue of the ABCA registration. While it is a compromise with the clear split that Option B would produce, it has the advantage, over Option B, of permitting AKC participants who do not intend to breed their dogs to continue registering with and supporting the ABCA.

 

Donald emailed me as follows: "Since your proposed report - with which I agree in every important detail - would endanger the conformation ban, I cannot join any debate over it." Most of the membership of the committee, including me, were not Directors and therefore had no access to Board proceedings. The committee never did make a final report to the Board. Donald lined up votes on the Board in support of banning conformation champions, and in a Board of Directors meeting in July 2003 that ban was adopted.

 

No motion to ban dual registration was ever made, considered or voted upon by the Board of Directors, still less by the general membership. Banning dual registration was not discussed at the general membership meeting at Sturgis in Sept 2003, because it had already been laid to rest by the Board's vote on banning conformation champions. Banning conformation champions was also not discussed at the Sturgis meeting, because it was already a done deal.

 

Ironically, it was frustration at this course of events that led me to run for the Board the following year, with a strongly anti-AKC candidate statement. Ironic because, even though I was elected, there was just no way that anyone on the Board would consider reopening that bruising, divisive issue at that point.

[Laurae]

Half a dozen big hats who strongly support or oppose any proposal will, if not in theory in fact. determine its fate.

 

Most of the membership of the committee, including me, were not Directors and therefore had no access to Board proceedings. The committee never did make a final report to the Board. Donald lined up votes on the Board in support of banning conformation champions, and in a Board of Directors meeting in July 2003 that ban was adopted.

 

No motion to ban dual registration was ever made, considered or voted upon by the Board of Directors, still less by the general membership. Banning dual registration was not discussed at the general membership meeting at Sturgis in fall of 2003, because it had already been laid to rest by the Board's vote on banning conformation champions.

 

Guess I won't bother to join the ABCA then, since my opinion/vote/voice would mean nothing.

[Eileen Stein]

Guess I won't bother to join the ABCA then, since my opinion/vote/voice would mean nothing.

 

I hope you won't draw that conclusion. As regards your quote from Donald, it's true that some directors will weigh opinions of big hats more heavily than opinions of others, especially on particular issues, but others won't, and ultimately the membership has it within its power to determine the course the association takes. As regards your quote from me, I don't think generalizing from that one particular instance is valid. Different issues, different personae -- different results.

 

In that regard, let me just use this opportunity to make a pitch for all members to fill out and send in the membership questionnaire included in your last newsletter, and to use it as a vehicle for making your opinions, criticisms and suggestions known to the association.

[juliepoudrier]

The "crazed" dogs you'll see here are most likely off a farm, partly because they aren't bred to be able to cope with the hyperstimulation of the agility environment.

I wouldn't generalise though, as I know some calm farm dogs in agility too.

Hmmmm...it's interesting to me that over time in all sorts of discussions you repeatedly say that the crazed dogs are the working dogs off of farms. But you wouldn't dream of generalizing, of course.

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Thanks Eileen for your correction. At Tennessee, the two surviving ABCA founders actively opposed banning dual registration, Although I don't recall a formal vote, the consensus was clearly (and loudly) anti-ban.

 

Bad politicing on my part.

 

 

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

In regard to the "Crazed Border Collie" comments, blame the individual handling the dog that is thinking they have something special and their friends that are telling them how wonderful of a job they are doing regardless if they really feel that it is acceptable behaivor. God forbid that anyone would tell another that their dog is behaiving like a frickin idiot.

[Pam Wolf]

[God forbid that anyone would tell another that their dog is behaiving like a frickin idiot.

 

ROTFLMAO

[rushdoggie]

I do think that theres a chance that the "craziness" you often see in some sport-bred dogs isn't because of their breeding. Its because the owners and handlers of these dogs have spent their lives winding their dogs up believing that "drive" and "maniacal crazy behavior" are one and the same. In other words, they were *taught* to be bonkers.

 

I have known many many sport dogs, and owned a few myself (one of whom was a multi-generational sport bred dog) who were calm, well-mannered and easy to live with pets and were well behaved at events.

[rufftie]

oh, i absolutely agree that the handler plays a big role in dog behavior. in fact, a friend and i play a game at dinner when we're away at trials. we decide which dog we need to save from it's owner and which owner we need to save from their dog and which dog we would love to have. and yes, sometimes my dogs should be saved from their handlers errors! but it's just fun dinner talk. i would never think of telling an owner their dog is bonkers unless it posed a danger to my dogs. otherwise bad behavior, i think, should be left to the judge, club or venue owner.

[Debbie Meier]

I'm not trying to pick on you but none of the three will do it, if they did they will lose $ or fear political backlash.

 

i would never think of telling an owner their dog is bonkers unless it posed a danger to my dogs. otherwise bad behavior, i think, should be left to the judge, club or venue owner.

 

[Pam Wolf]

And when you do tell them they look at you like youare evil incarnate!

[rufftie]

you are both right. i just try to stay out of the way. but i have been known to be evil, but perhaps not incarnate! i try to warn people, but they look at me like i'm nuts-also probably true.

[PSmitty]

I do think that theres a chance that the "craziness" you often see in some sport-bred dogs isn't because of their breeding. Its because the owners and handlers of these dogs have spent their lives winding their dogs up believing that "drive" and "maniacal crazy behavior" are one and the same. In other words, they were *taught* to be bonkers.

 

I have known many many sport dogs, and owned a few myself (one of whom was a multi-generational sport bred dog) who were calm, well-mannered and easy to live with pets and were well behaved at events.

 

*nods* Yep.

[MrSnappy]

The "crazed" dogs you'll see here are most likely off a farm, partly because they aren't bred to be able to cope with the hyperstimulation of the agility environment.

 

I wonder what selection criteria goes into breeding "for a dog who can cope with the hyperstimulation of the agility environment?" (she muses).

 

I agree with rushdoggie - the output (your dog's behaviour) is mostly a direct result of the input (your training). Dogs who get hyped up are hyped up. Dogs who are asked to mind their manners demonstrate that request.

 

Having said all that, well-bred working dogs are not necessarily any easier to live with / more difficult to live with than dogs bred for other reasons. I have had the displeasure of living with several working bred dogs who were massive pains in the ass, and conversely enjoyed cohabitating with many BYB type dogs who were just peaches. And in the other corner, I can switch those two statements around very easily and still be totally honest. You can get dogs who are just left of whacko from any kind of breeding, and the handler's management of the dog can certainly make it worse. I dislike hearing that "working bred dogs are even tempered calm-like-Buddha at home" just as much as I dislike hearing that "working bred dogs are bouncing off the walls if you don't exercise them 29 hours a day" because really, neither of those things are true, except as they apply to some individuals within each category.

 

The difference though, as I've observed, is in the dog's ability to think about things. Many of the sport bred dogs don't stop to think about things like the working bred dogs do. Maybe that's what people mean when they say that sport bred dogs are "over the top hyper, crazed etc." Both kinds of dogs are smart, responsive, highly trainable, fun to work with and energetic ... but the working dogs seem to a bit more thoughtful to me. Not exactly a tangible quality - however, I maintain I have met equal number of dogs from both kinds of breedings who are what I consider "over the top" and lots of times, it's just emphasized by the person on the other end of the lead.

 

RDM (Working hard to be the kind of person who doesn't strangle Dexter in his sleep. If he slept, that is)

[abcollie]

I do think that theres a chance that the "craziness" you often see in some sport-bred dogs isn't because of their breeding. Its because the owners and handlers of these dogs have spent their lives winding their dogs up believing that "drive" and "maniacal crazy behavior" are one and the same. In other words, they were *taught* to be bonkers.

 

I have known many many sport dogs, and owned a few myself (one of whom was a multi-generational sport bred dog) who were calm, well-mannered and easy to live with pets and were well behaved at events.

 

So WHAT are they breeding for?

[geonni banner]

I read somewhere - probably here - that sports breeders looked at size, height especially, and speed.

 

In a timed event, fast is often good. I'd assume they would be breeding for specific angulation, titanium bones and teflon cartilage. All that running, cornering, jumping an so on would make physical soundness really important.

 

As for craziness and hyperactive behavior, I would think that it would work against a competition dog over time, but I think they would want a dog that would rev easily, which might lead to really reactive dogs.

 

I would also think a short, or at least a flat coat would be preferable due to the danger of overheating.

 

I would suspect that different coat colors would appeal as well. The flash factor. And since there isn't one overweening characteristic, like stock-working ability (well, OK, it's a cluster of characteristics) as a desiderata, I could see how choosing dogs to introduce variations of color might more easily come about.

 

Sports people?

[rushdoggie]

So WHAT are they breeding for?

 

Generally, the dogs that sporty people want to breed to are the ones who win. A dog who does well (meaning has a lot of titles or wins at big competitions) at a chosen sport and has health clearances is considered a good breeding prospect.

[MyTDogs]

So WHAT are they breeding for?

 

"DRIVE"... & very often, "High Drive"

[rushdoggie]

"DRIVE"... & very often, "High Drive"

 

I think thats a generalization.

 

I can't speak for every breeder, of course but I do know a few 'sport breeders' and they don't breed for "drive" per se. They breed dogs they think are good at their chosen sport and that they feel are athletic and trainable.

 

Yes, they should all ensure that the dogs they breed are good at what the breed was meant too do (work stock) and they don't really do that, but that's a separate issue.

[Pam Wolf]

"DRIVE"... & very often, "High Drive"

 

 

 

I would beg to differ and call it energy.

[Ooky]

I seem to remember a thread where it was discussed that "early start syndrome" (or something) was likely genetic and should be avoided in breeding decisions for agility dogs. That said to me that a LOT of thought was being put into an entirely different selection theme on the high-level sport breeding side.

[JenS]

Back when I was doing agility, I noticed many folks looking to what was termed "structure". There was a lot of stock put into how the dog/pup was put together so it could jump well, or move fast etc. It seemed to me that lots of the "structure" modeled on was that which is used to evaluate horses, such as straight legs, correct angles, and the like. So, in essence, it was conformation although it was quite different then what the breed ring was rewarding. I found it all quite amusing. My agility friends knew full well what I thought of the A.K.C. and conformation, and we didn't discuss it much, but somehow they were convinced that proper "structure" was very important to a successful agility dog. It was rare that temperament, unless it was really bad, was noted at all. There were the "drive" folks (note the quotes) who thought it was desirable to have a badly controlled spaz if you really wanted to be competitive. Most folks were'nt terribly interested in such dogs, although litters of such that were produced were quickly spoken for.

 

I can't speak for what is going on out there now. It has been a few years....