Borderlines

[rushdoggie]

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.

 

Well, for sure. If your goal is breeding a dog who might excel at agility and they have some genetic reason they can't learn how to jump well, that should be part of the breeding equation.

 

Basically, Linda M. felt there was an actual physical reason ("early take-off syndrome" is what she called it) why some of these dogs couldn't find the right take off point, maybe vision or perception issues.

 

It goes against the POV by most people here, of course, but in that other paradigm it makes sense.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

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

 

Thanks for the suggestion! For the benefit of anyone else reading the thread who may be interested but hadn't the time to go look it up, here is what the website says:

 

Time and Place of Meetings: A meeting of members for any purpose may be held at such time and place, within or without the State of Delaware, as the Board of Directors may fix from time to time and as shall be stated in the notice of the meeting or in a duly executed waiver of notice thereof.

 

I guess the above is a "regular" meeting? Other types of meetings are described as follows:

 

 

Annual Meeting: Annual meetings of members, commencing with the year 1983, shall be held on the first Tuesday of October, if not a legal holiday, or, if a legal holiday, then on the next secular day following at 7:30 p.m., or at such other date and time as shall, from time to time be designated by the Board of Directors and stated in the notice of the meeting. At such annual meeting, the members shall elect a Board of Directors and transact such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting.

 

Special Meetings: Special meetings of the members, for any purpose or purposes, unless otherwise prescribed by statute or by the Certificate of incorporation, may be called by the President and shall be called by the President at the request, in writing, of a majority of the Board of Directors, or at the request, in writing, of a majority of members of the Corporation entitled to vote. Such request shall state the purpose or purposes of the proposed meeting.

 

So if I understand correctly, at a regular meeting a member could propose an action, which could then be put to the membership for a vote (the vote itself presumably not taking place at the same meeting)? Is that right, or have I misunderstood?

[abcollie]

I think thats a generalization.

 

 

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.

 

Actually NO it's not a separate issue ... it IS the issue. They are NOT breeding Border Collies they are breeding dogs. A Border Collie should be judged and bred by it's WORK (that is the standard). So breeding for anything else is just breeding.

[Pam Wolf]

What Candy Said

[juliepoudrier]

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.

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

From observation only (i.e., knowing folks who are active in agility), structure still is a huge factor at least for some folks.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

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.

 

Note that I don't say that all dogs from farms are "crazed". That would be a generalisation.

 

What agility folk breed for over there I couldn't say, but I do know what the top breeders want here and it isn't "crazed".

 

But the fact remains that a lot of farm dogs here are bred (deliberately or accidentally) without a view to a temperament that can cope with the bombardment of stimuli they get in dog sports. They don't need to be to be able to do an adequate job - a typical (non - trialling) farm dog here will rarely go beyond the boundaries of its own farm or mix with more than a handful of people or dogs. They don't need to be super sociable to do their job. Throw them in at the deep end of modern society and many don't cope well. In the environment they were bred for they may be fine.

That may not be your experience but it is mine.

 

I expect to get the usual response of "You don't know what you're talking about because you don't do sheepwork" - but I do do agility (and have for many years) and I come across a lot of dogs that are farm bred (and a lot that aren't) and I should have the right to present a different pov when statements are made that don't tally with what I see in my world, just as you do.

 

Pam

[jdarling]

But the fact remains that a lot of farm dogs here are bred (deliberately or accidentally) without a view to a temperament that can cope with the bombardment of stimuli they get in dog sports. They don't need to be to be able to do an adequate job - a typical (non - trialling) farm dog here will rarely go beyond the boundaries of its own farm or mix with more than a handful of people or dogs. They don't need to be super sociable to do their job. Throw them in at the deep end of modern society and many don't cope well. In the environment they were bred for they may be fine.

 

I can tell you that the one thing that is exactly the same over here is the ignorant opinion agility handlers have of farmers/ranchers and their dogs.

 

I don't know about other people's dogs, but there's nothing more stimulating for my dogs than for me to work another dog within ear shot or sight. The "excitement" of agility doesn't touch that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[PSmitty]

From observation only (i.e., knowing folks who are active in agility), structure still is a huge factor at least for some folks.

 

J.

 

Yes, I see this here, too. I remember an agility friend commenting on Alex. Something like "oh, his feet look a little easty-westy". First, I had to ask what she meant, and then was like, "Oh, well. He has four feet, right? I figure he can run and jump." *shrugs* The same person made comments about Will's "poor structure", because he has one cow hocked leg. She pretty much said he was all messed up. Maybe stuff like that matters to people really into sports, so I think sport breeders do play into that. I love agility and flyball, but as long as my dogs are sound enough to do it, I don't care much about structure.

[G. Festerling]

But the fact remains that a lot of farm dogs here are bred (deliberately or accidentally) without a view to a temperament that can cope with the bombardment of stimuli they get in dog sports. They don't need to be to be able to do an adequate job - a typical (non - trialling) farm dog here will rarely go beyond the boundaries of its own farm or mix with more than a handful of people or dogs. They don't need to be super sociable to do their job. Throw them in at the deep end of modern society and many don't cope well. In the environment they were bred for they may be fine.

 

So I will address this as well. To my dogs, who are farm and ranch dogs for the most part, see few outside dogs that are supposed to be here and not to be run off, there is no harder stimuli to deal with than sheep. Than the natural inherent inbred ability and desire to work life stock.

Which also is one of the reasons why just "instinct" testing a dog on stock only gives a partial picture of his/her ability and or whole genetic makeup. Progressing though proper training (for work or trial) will reveal the true strenght's and weaknesses and will start revealing a whole lot more info needed to try to pick a matching mate.

 

Structure, I always love that one. And honestly don't have a clue what to do with it. Is it not the big point of conformation folks that structure is what makes the dog able to work "better"? I grew up in the horse business. Been in it all of my life. I see more horses that are not supposed to be built right for a specific job, work just fine more often than not. I grew up when a horse called Deister tore up the jumping circuit. What made him great was most certainly NOT his conformation but his mind, grit and spirit.

[Pearse]

 

So if I understand correctly, at a regular meeting a member could propose an action, which could then be put to the membership for a vote (the vote itself presumably not taking place at the same meeting)? Is that right, or have I misunderstood?

 

 

That is correct. However, for the motion to be voted on at that meeting there would need to be a quorum present. This almost never happens at the AGM (the only regular meeting on the calendar). Any member could bring the issue up for discussion under "New Business" in the hope that enough interest would exist to foster some additional study, leading to a vote the following year.

 

In reality, if one wanted to propose a change to the ByLaws, it would be necessary to get the matter on the Agenda for the regular meeting far enough in advance that the motion could be sent out with the ballots for the election of officers in the hope that enough members would vote by proxy to constitute a quorum.

 

 

Hope that helps.

[Pearse]

I can tell you that the one thing that is exactly the same over here is the ignorant opinion agility handlers have of farmers/ranchers and their dogs.

 

I don't know about other people's dogs, but there's nothing more stimulating for my dogs than for me to work another dog within ear shot or sight. The "excitement" of agility doesn't touch that.

 

Most stockdogs show interest in other dogs working but they don't get amped up over it. You can go to any dog trial and there'll be a dozen dogs peering through the fence at what is going on on the field. They aren't whining or carrying on though. That kind of behavior is discouraged pretty early in their training.

 

It would be really inconvenient if I couldn't just lie one dog down while doing something with the other dog.

 

Most handlers put their young dogs up when training other dogs until the young dogs have learned how to behave when other dogs are working specifically to avoid allowing them to get over stimulated by watching other dogs work.

 

 

 

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

Hope that helps.

 

Yes, I appreciate it! Thanks for clarifying.

[jdarling]

That kind of behavior is discouraged pretty early in their training.

 

Yes. It's a training issue, not something that's due to breeding "without a view to a temperament that can cope with the bombardment of stimuli they get in dog sports."

 

"Bombardment of stimuli" is not unique to agility or dog sports.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MrSnappy]

I don't know about other people's dogs, but there's nothing more stimulating for my dogs than for me to work another dog within ear shot or sight. The "excitement" of agility doesn't touch that.

 

Well, to be fair, that's because your dogs work, not play agility. For dogs who play agility, and don't work, it's equally as exciting. My dogs won't take food etc. when they're playing because they do tend to find that activity is rewarding in and of itself. Perhaps a dog who works regularly wouldn't find agility as stimulating as working, but dogs who play the sport regularly certainly do. And it is a different kind of stimulation.

 

However, what I sometimes wonder is if lots of the bigger deal handlers don't just let their dogs spend enough time being dogs, especially as puppies. For folks who go from trial to class to clinic to workshop ... they think their puppies are getting a lot of socializing etc., but how much time are they getting just being regular puppies? My dogs spend a lot more time crashing around through the scrub, swimming, playing ball and just being regular dogs all over the place than they do agility. They spend very little time in an agility environment and a lot of time in other environments learning manners and general dog stuff. My dogs are not always "on" and I don't do foundation training at every opportunity etc., so I sometimes wonder (again) if the output is the direct result of the input. If your puppy grows up at trials and every free moment is spent doing agility, it's not hard to imagine a dog becoming obsessively ready to go-go-go all the time.

 

Re: structure - that gets bandied around a LOT at trials here as well. It's a huge buzz word for sport people. I still remember with some serious amusement when a Big Deal agility person here, whom I've never exchanged words with before, looked at Dexter when he was 9 weeks old and said, "Pretty straight in the rear, isn't he?" I was baffled, at both the importance she placed on the 'structure' of a 9 week old puppy, as well as the implied insult of the way my dog was put together and how it was the first thing she ever said to me. Of course, I wasn't too concerned and indeed, Dexter jumps like a gazelle. I can kind of see why they think it is important - certainly Piper would have an easier time of things if she didn't have bulldog elbows - but when I see everything from beagles to a 3 footed (it's missing one) cattle dog playing, I just can't put THAT much stock in 'structure.' Then again, I also don't take my dog to the chiropractor, which is something virtually every agility person in the world seems to do with their dogs. Those poor dogs always have something "out." You'd think, with all that importance on 'structure' that their dogs wouldn't constantly need adjustments, but what the heck do I know? ;-)

 

RDM

[rushdoggie]

Actually NO it's not a separate issue ... it IS the issue. They are NOT breeding Border Collies they are breeding dogs. A Border Collie should be judged and bred by it's WORK (that is the standard). So breeding for anything else is just breeding.

 

Actually, yes, because we were having an offshoot conversation within the topic about "all sports bred Border Collies are hyperactive out of control idiots" and I am refuting that, it is a separate issue. Semantics, I know, but I'm a stickler for that.

 

There's not a reason to make gross generalizations about what may not be true, because there's no need to. We all know the way to preserve the breeds ability to work is to only breed those who can do the work. There's no need for the red herring of "plus all the sporty dogs are crazy" part, especially when its not always true.

[Ooky]

Well, for sure. If your goal is breeding a dog who might excel at agility and they have some genetic reason they can't learn how to jump well, that should be part of the breeding equation.

 

It goes against the POV by most people here, of course, but in that other paradigm it makes sense.

 

My point exactly.

 

Regardless of whether 10%, 50% or 90% of the sports bred dogs in this country have over the top drive or too-excitable temperaments or whatever, different breeding paradigms --> different selection criteria --> a different breed.

[abcollie]

Actually, yes, because we were having an offshoot conversation within the topic about "all sports bred Border Collies are hyperactive out of control idiots" and I am refuting that, it is a separate issue. Semantics, I know, but I'm a stickler for that.

 

There's not a reason to make gross generalizations about what may not be true, because there's no need to. We all know the way to preserve the breeds ability to work is to only breed those who can do the work. There's no need for the red herring of "plus all the sporty dogs are crazy" part, especially when its not always true.

 

So the "sports" people are breeding for a calm, thoughtful, dog that can think for themselves? Do you really think agility "brings" that out in dogs? 15 seconds of PURE adrenalin is all I see. A slow thoughtful dog will get you nowhere "fast" :@)

 

"Other side of the coin" ... I've gotten a LOT agility bred dogs come to me that want to work livestock ... and I sure don't see any thoughtfulness. They are VERY good at taking directions (as fast as they can) ... don't argue that but it's in reference to what the handle wants/asks NO thought to it. They get VERY bored if the sheep aren't running and they aren't chasing.

 

I have NOTHING against people doing agility with their dogs. I'm all for people interacting with their dogs because dogs need that --- but that said .... they need to stop acting like they are breeding Border Collies. They are breeding agility dogs (and whatever standard that is???).

[rushdoggie]

So the "sports" people are breeding for a calm, thoughtful, dog that can think for themselves? Do you really think agility "brings" that out in dogs? 15 seconds of PURE adrenalin is all I see. A slow thoughtful dog will get you nowhere "fast" :@)

 

 

I don't think I said that. I said "sport collie" breeders are breeding for things that make a dog good at their chosen sport. Theres actually a LOT more to agility than 15 seconds of pure adrenaline. It takes a lot more to learn skills to be performed on the fly at high speed and be a good team with your handler. A dog who isn't thoughtful and biddable won't be able to work with his handler.

 

 

"Other side of the coin" ... I've gotten a LOT agility bred dogs come to me that want to work livestock ... and I sure don't see any thoughtfulness. They are VERY good at taking directions (as fast as they can) ... don't argue that but it's in reference to what the handle wants/asks NO thought to it. They get VERY bored if the sheep aren't running and they aren't chasing.

 

I have no doubt that your experience is valid. I have not ever said that "sport bred" dogs would be good for stock work. What I have said is the accusation that "sport bred" dogs are out of control, overexcitable idiots isn't a fair picture, and when that argument is trotted out as an argument you will have people thinking "hmm, the sport bred dogs I know don't act like that" and you take away from the message that you do want to present, that working ability is the hallmark of the breed and should be the main criteria for determining breeding stock.

[rushdoggie]

different breeding paradigms --> different selection criteria --> a different breed.

...and that we can agree on 100%.

[Eileen Stein]

How would the Board know whether there was widespread support from the membership (or not)? Does a poll or a ballot of some sort go out to membership? I am aware of the challenge of "policing" dual registration, as it has been posted before. But if the membership (or majority of) wished to enact the policy and at least try to enforce it, how does the Board become aware of it?

 

These are good questions. In the particular case of the dual registration issue back in 2002-03, a tremendous effort was made to get the issue and the various approaches that were under consideration before the membership -- publication in the ABCA and USBCC newsletters, in the working border collie magazines, online, etc. Membership input was actively sought, and I doubt there were many members who didn't become aware of the issue. Yet feedback was received from a very small percentage of the membership. My impression is that the members who expressed an opinion either on the forum that was specially set up for that purpose, or at the annual membership meeting, or through direct contact with one or more directors, totaled no more than 100 or so (not counting directors), while the number of members eligible to vote in 2002 was 3,682. While this lack of response by the members might indicate indifference on the part of the majority, the fact is that no one really knew how the majority of the membership felt. Some consideration was given to polling the members. Since I wasn't on the Board, I don't know why that didn't happen. My best guess would be that the directors thought they wouldn't get a very high response, and that what response they did get wouldn't be representative of the membership as a whole.

 

As far as the more general question of how the Board would know whether there was membership support for some course of action, the typical way they would find out is by being contacted directly by members. The Directors' names and contact info are on the ABCA website, and people can call or write them. Or they can approach them at trials. Some do contact their directors in these ways, and I know of cases where the Board has taken action on just one contact of this kind. But I have to say that I was surprised when I became a director at how little contact and input I received from members. I think it's reasonable to deduce from this that people are mostly satisfied with the way the registry is operating, and are content to leave the running of the association to the Board of Directors. But still, it was a desire to learn more about our members, and their concerns and opinions, that caused us to include a membership questionnaire in the newsletter last December. The returned questionnaires have not yet been tabulated because they are still coming in, so I urge any member who has not sent theirs in to do so.

 

So if I understand correctly, at a regular meeting a member could propose an action, which could then be put to the membership for a vote (the vote itself presumably not taking place at the same meeting)? Is that right, or have I misunderstood?

 

As long as I've been around I never recall a special meeting of the membership being called. So in practice there is one regular meeting a year -- the annual membership meeting held at the national sheepdog finals.

 

It's obvious that when the founders set up the ABCA, they never foresaw the organization growing to be as large as it has. They did provide for proxy voting at membership meetings, but they almost certainly envisioned that a quorum would be present at annual meetings. If that should happen now -- if a quorum were physically present at the annual meeting -- you could make your motion at the meeting and get it voted on at the same meeting. But there hasn't been anything close to a quorum present at an annual meeting for a good long time -- at least 20 years, I would say. We have always had a quorum for the election of officers, because sufficient numbers have sent in proxy votes in the officers' election to constitute a quorum. But we don't have a quorum for the transaction of other business that might be raised at the meeting. Under the ByLaws, a majority of those present could vote to adjourn the meeting until a quorum could be obtained, but that's never happened, for obvious reasons. For fuller details, see ByLaws, Article II, Quorum.

 

The way this has been handled is that the members present are encouraged to raise and discuss any issues they wish, although no official votes can be taken. Sometimes that will result in the President or the Board taking prompt action to implement the suggestion, as actually happened at the last annual meeting. The more the idea seems to be a good one and/or the more support it seems to have, the more likely it is to be implemented. You could also request that your proposal be included in the notice of meeting for the following year's meeting, which would enable it to be voted up or down at that meeting if the proxy votes on that issue plus the in-person voters were sufficient to constitute a quorum. As far as I can see from the ByLaws, the Board would not be obliged to include your proposal in the notice of meeting. If it was silly or harmful in their estimation, I doubt they'd include it. But if it appeared to have some merit and some likelihood of passage, I think they would.

 

The ABCA membership has grown to the point where it functions better as a representative democracy than a direct democracy (although the latter is still possible). Consequently, if the issue is one that is really important to you, it might be worth it to pay attention to the candidates for director each year, and find out how they feel about the issue, and nominate/vote for candidates whose views represent your own.

[Eileen Stein]

Just a note in passing: When mum24dogs took issue with the idea that agility-bred dogs are hyper or crazy, she used a quote taken from me ("dogs bred to be crazed sports dogs") as her intro. I used that term in passing because I was replying to someone who had expressed the thought that seeing over-the-top "Frothing at the Mouth" agility-bred dogs affected the public's perception of what a border collie is, regardless of where it might be registered. I wasn't expressing an opinion that dogs bred for agility are crazed, because -- while I've heard many knowledgeable people say that -- I don't know enough agility-bred dogs to form such a judgment. Just wanted to be clear that I wasn't expressing an independent opinion on that subject. I'll leave that to the people with direct experience.

[geonni banner]

OK, let me get this straight…

 

Border Collies generally make the best choice for a winning Agility dog. The dogs “in the ribbons” would attest to that. Some contend that working-bred Border Collies make the best sports dogs. Some say the best ones are sports-bred.

 

Drive is a characteristic that appears useful in Border Collies used for stock work and for dogs competing in Agility (and Flyball and Disk, and Dock Diving and any other sport.)

 

Litters bred for livestock working ability will probably show some variation in amount of drive. High drive dogs may be attractive to those who work difficult stock such as rank range cattle, or people who compete in timed-event sports. They may not be the first choice for working a variety of less challenging livestock. Dogs with an appropriate level of drive would obviously be good candidates for both sport or working homes, and those homes which did both stock work and sports. Low drive dogs may make better house pets for less active people.

 

Those with Border Collies who have been active in Sheepdog and Cattle Dog trials report dogs alertly but quietly waiting their turn, showing evidence of controlled excitement.

 

We have all seen the hyper, non-stop barking Border Collies at Flyball competitions and Agility competitions. We may also have noticed a number of dogs at Agility competitions and even some at Flyball competitions that stand by, alertly but quietly waiting their turn.

 

It has been suggested that the barking, hyper dogs fall into 3 categories: dogs that are being trained and/or rewarded by their handlers for this behavior, dogs that are bred to be that way by sports breeders, and working-bred dogs that fall at the high-drive end of the spectrum – or are crazed from being off their home-farm turf. (This last seems a rather thin argument to me, as a dog so disturbed would not likely have the focus to compete.)

 

Border Collies should be bred for livestock working ability, period. Everything else is secondary. I think we have a majority agreement here on the Boards, including with people who do Agility and other sports. (Why else would they still be here?) For those who believe this - and I count myself among them – the words “sports-bred Border Collie” are an oxymoron. If it isn’t bred for livestock-working ability it isn’t a Border Collie, regardless of what its papers or its appearance would suggest. It’s a sports-bred dog, just as the Barbie Collies flouncing around the breed ring are show dogs, not Border Collies.

 

I’m afraid that if we cannot legally wrest the name Border Collie from the AKC/KC, and we are set on retaining that name to designate the breed as we know it, then we must all become proselytizers, and “spread the gospel” of the working stock dog we call the Border Collie. It sounds a rather tedious and hopeless prospect, but I’ll do it if you will. The remaining option seems to be to look the other way, and not only does that course render this entire thread pointless, and all those like it, but it may be fraught with dire consequences for the true Border Collie.

[Liz P]

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

Drive, self control, biddability, instinct, power, feel and many other characteristics must be present and balanced for a dog to be useful on stock.

 

A dog with less drive but heart to spare might be a better candidate for a tough job on a large farm, depending on the total package. This is why working breeders tell people that complex tasks are required to select breeding stock.

 

Complex tests for complex dogs.

[geonni banner]

It's a lot more complicated than that.

 

Drive, self control, biddability, instinct, power, feel and many other characteristics must be present and balanced for a dog to be useful on stock.

 

A dog with less drive but heart to spare might be a better candidate for a tough job on a large farm, depending on the total package. This is why working breeders tell people that complex tasks are required to select breeding stock.

 

Complex tests for complex dogs.

Well, yeah, obviously. But it doesn't take a complex skill set to make a sports dog which is why there's no excuse for sport-bred Border Collies. Even concentrating on producing quality stock dogs will get you dogs with a variety of levels of talent for that work. Consistency in a litter is a desirable thing, but there will always be some pups that grow out to be more talented than some of their litter mates. Some may be quiet, careful workers, some may be bold and fearless, and even with well-considered matings there will sometimes be dogs produced that may not be super stellar with stock but just dandy for sport or pet homes. As long as the pups are physically & mentally sound, biddable and relatively intelligent they should be acceptable to any pet home and most sport homes. Bottom line - intelligently planned working bred litters will always produce dogs well-qualified to do sports, but sports-bred litters will be likely to contain few real working prospects, and none that will reliably pass on those traits.

[brndlbc]

But it doesn't take a complex skill set to make a sports dog

 

None?