Jump to content
BC Boards

Early Takeoff Syndrome?


Recommended Posts

Well here's what I said, and I'm reading the same thing from other sports people posting here as well...

 

"most of the rest of the world outside of stockwork will not believe that two purebred dogs of one breed will not produce a purebred dog of that same breed in the short term"

 

 

You've noted that and it's clear what it means and that it's a main principle you want to convey in this later part of the discussion. And, I agree with you. Most people won't believe that.

 

But just because many people outside of stockwork don't care or won't believe it doesn't mean the facts of the matter shouldn't be stated. People do change their ideas in the face of new information. I suspect many of the folks here who've voiced how they try to talk to their friends in agility are among those who have. I have.

 

People didn't believe the earth revolved around the sun, either, but thank goodness that didn't mean the fact that it does stayed in the closed circle of physicists and astronomers.

 

Now, fish rescue....whoever heard of such a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 927
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There are dogs that need great handlers to be great and others great dogs that are capable of making handlers look great.

I had this world shattering revelation at a clinic a few years ago. I saw a girl there with two young dogs, really, really nice. She handled nicely too.

 

They were working at the pronovice level for the younger, and each for the one a few months older, though the girl didn't trial, just farmed.

 

She had gotten them both as pups and trained them entirely herself. She'd never trained a dog on livestock in her life.

 

THAT is a useful type of dog.

 

I resolved id go to that breeder for my next pup if possible. That was Sam,.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that show collie and sport collie were not good candidates for renaming non-working-bred border collies because they sounded too much like Lassie collies.

 

Those terms don't just sound like Lassie Collies, they are terms used for Lassie Collies. (Which, of course, are not actually called Lassie Collies. I wonder if the Collie folks get ticked off at that designation?)

 

I have a friend who runs Collies in Agility. They would be sport Collies - Collies (Lassie Collie) who have been bred for and participate in sports.

 

The name "Collie" - just "Collie" and nothing else, is already taken. Even some people who hear Border Collie for the first time sometimes think that is going to be a (Lassie) Collie and are very surprised to find that a Border Collie is a different breed altogether. They can usually wrap their heads around it once you point out that the word "Border" in part of the name.

 

I guess you could just say Non-Working-Bred-Border Collies, but that is a mouthful. Most people probably wouldn't go for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kass dog. Awesome. Someone start a registry. ;) ;) :):D:lol: <----- etc

 

And someone forgot to tell Sam's great-great something grandfather about the crazy red dog principle. Or great great grandmother? I forget. Anyway, Hype's got good stuff on both sides.

 

if she turns out to have this awful ETS thing you just send her here. I'll need a backup SD and a new working trainee by that time. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But if my point is that border collies that are bred to a different standard than the one that shaped the breed necessarily become a different breed, how do I "educate" someone to that fact without saying that border collies who are bred to a different standard than the one that shaped the breed necessarily become a different breed?

 

I think there is a way to say that over time breeding to a different standard wil result in a different breed, or how important the work is to making a Border Collie a Border Collie without being offensive or demeaning their interest.

 

In Mark's example of educating someone who had bought a pet store puppy I could have a conversation with them about puppy mills and pet stores, explain why I think its important to not support them, or I could tell them that their dog certainly was no poodle/shihtzu/etc because it wasn't bred for the right reasons and that they were terrible people for giving puppy mills money. There's a difference.

 

 

If someone gets in touch with me and says I want a Border Collie - don't want to work it - I send them towards rescue first.

And if they have valid reasons for wanting a puppy and are willing to sign a spay/neuter agreement would you consider selling them a dog? Or would you simply only sell to people who want to work stock?

 

So, in addition to Robin's point that sport people appear to be focusing on individual dogs while working folks are focusing on the breed as a whole, another disconnect seems to be that sport people, even many on these boards, understand and agree that breeding for a different standard is bad for the border collie as we know it, but they don't understand or agree that breeding for a different standard over time results in another breed entirely.

 

Who said that? the key words there are "over time" and that hasn't happened yet.

 

 

You can't say after a single generation that they are not Border Collies, just a poor example of the breed.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that? the key words there are "over time" and that hasn't happened yet.

How long would you say people have been breeding border collies for agility? How much time do you suppose is needed before it happens? If you believe, as many do, that in order to maintain a quality working population you have to actively select for working ability in *every generation*, then how long (number of generations) do you suppose it would take before someone could say the two types (working and sport) have become different? Two, ten, fifty? Never?

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long would you say people have been breeding border collies for agility? How much time do you suppose is needed before it happens? If you believe, as many do, that in order to maintain a quality working population you have to actively select for working ability in *every generation*, then how long do you suppose it would take before someone could say the two types (working and sport) have become different? Two, ten, fifty? Never?

 

Why does this feel like a trap? How about I say I don't know enough about "the work" to give a knowledgeable answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Pam Wolf will chime in at some point. She started out years ago with obedience before switching to stock work. This was back when clinics were unheard of so people new to the breed had few resources. If you didn't come from a farming background and you had a Border Collie, you did obedience. Anyway, she has told me that it only took 1 generation to lose the essence of the breed. The recommendation at the time was to breed every other generation of obedience dogs to working dogs. People realized that wasn't good enough. They were not getting Border Collies. The recommendation was quickly changed to breed every single generation of obedience dogs to a working dog in order to maintain their type.

 

So when do they become non Border Collies? Based on her experience it was 2 generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a way to say that over time breeding to a different standard wil result in a different breed, or how important the work is to making a Border Collie a Border Collie without being offensive or demeaning their interest.

 

In Mark's example of educating someone who had bought a pet store puppy I could have a conversation with them about puppy mills and pet stores, explain why I think its important to not support them, or I could tell them that their dog certainly was no poodle/shihtzu/etc because it wasn't bred for the right reasons and that they were terrible people for giving puppy mills money. There's a difference.

 

Well, yeah.

 

I gather you think some or all of us don't realize that, and would tell them their dog certainly was no poodle/shihtzu/etc because it wasn't bred for the right reasons and that they were terrible people for giving puppy mills money?

 

Who said that? the key words there are "over time" and that hasn't happened yet.

 

Conceptually, it happens once breeders are breeding a sub-population to a different standard. In terms of the results being discernible, yes, it happens over time -- you can't see the difference immediately, but it becomes more and more evident as time goes on. I think we've all been saying that.

 

Do you think it's happened yet with conformation-bred Border Collies?

 

Why does this feel like a trap? How about I say I don't know enough about "the work" to give a knowledgeable answer.

 

Good answer! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about I say I don't know enough about "the work" to give a knowledgeable answer.

And yet you're here telling us that our sense of urgency about the drift in the Border Collie gene pool due to NOT breeding for livestock work should be tempered with "honey". How many more years (over the 10+ so far since ACK and 20+ for agility) should we temper our sense of urgency with "honey", 10, 20, 30 (after the majority of the gene pool has lost significant working instincts)?

 

If it looks like a Border Collie but can't be trained into the useful livestock working dog is it a Border Collie?

 

If 50% of the dogs that look like Border Collies can't be trained to work livestock has the gene pool drifted away from what a Border Collie is or have we simply allowed (or purposely changed) the definition of a Border Collie become something else?

 

In summary:

If it came from what looks like a Border Collie it is a Border Collie

It's okay to breed for something other than working livestock since working breeders can't supply demand

Border Collies will be Border Collies even after the breed has lost its herding instincts just like the majority of the other herding breeds

If you can't say something nicely about the apparent lack of concern for preserving the herding instincts in the breed keep quiet

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so far since ACK

 

Mr Billadeau

I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation so, how is it that you get so wrapped around the axle (thanks Jodi) of the improper use of the word herding (http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=30773&start=0&p=383294&hl=+ball%20+herding&fromsearch=1entry383294) yet you seem to have no issues with using ACK instead of AKC?

 

Your Quote:

 

"While I understand the dogs are having fun. One of my pet peeves is to refer to these actions as herding.

 

Using the term this way belittles....."

 

Am I to assume that it is OK to belittle if it suits your purpose or is this simply "do as I say not as I do"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does this feel like a trap? How about I say I don't know enough about "the work" to give a knowledgeable answer.

Not a trap. It just seems to me that people who don't use the dogs for stockwork tend to dismiss the urgency that some of us feel regarding breeding away from a standard. It just ties in with the whole "When is a border collie no longer a border collie?" discussion going on here.

 

I didn't expect you to give an actual answer--the question was posed simply to suggest that people *think* about it. I, too, think that if you breed two border collies you get border collies, but as others have pointed out, aside from the actual work, there's the intangible essence of the breed, the essence that evolved alongside with creating the breed for work. And we all know that it's that essence that attracts people to the breed, and yet few people seem to make the connection that breeding to a different standard changes A LOT of things about a breed--if not the general look--including those intangibles that attracted the owner/breeder to that breed in the first place.

 

I know it shouldn't bother me so much, but I just don't understand how, with so many examples in front of us of breeds that are "no longer what they once were," and that are in fact a shadow of their former useful selves (and the good stuff that comes along with that, including generally good health and temperament), identifiable by looks but largely no longer by prupose, breeders can just forge ahead breeding to a different standard. I realize that it's largely human nature to be short-sighted, focusing on "what's in it for me" as opposed to "what's best for an entire population," but it still saddens me that one of the few breeds that still adheres to those early purpose tenets is being swept away in a tidal wave of breeding for everything else under the sun.

 

I really don't think we can stop it, but I do think that discussing it helps, FWIW, even though it does get tiresome going over this same stuff year after year. I imagine that even with some of the bluntness in this thread that some people might at least be now thinking about the issue, even if they don't feel an urgency to act.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is has the sport-bred BC changed into an non-useful working dog yet? Using Mark's number, sport breeding of BCs has been around about 20 years or so. I know many sport breeders who continue to bring working dogs into their lines. I know quite a few sport people who try their hand at Usbcha trials and they do alright.

 

I imagine there are plenty of sport-bred BCs who aren't useful as working dogs, but I also know there are some who are. What's the percentage of useful vs. non-useful? I don't think there's anyway to know since many sports people aren't interested in herding. Although it interesting to note that at least two of the high-volume sports breeders have sheep on their property; one was laughed at by these Boards for her obscure training methods and the other has dogs that I've seen competing at or near the Open level of Usbcha.

 

It's one thing to say sport-bred BCs are a different breed, but it's another to actually be able to prove it.

 

Also, it's important to point out there are (at least) two distinct types of BCs in agility - the ACK types who are interested in conformation and possibly arena-type herding trials for titles and so-called "versatility" and the more competitive types who tend to excel in the top levels of the agility sport. The latter tend to have dogs more closely bred to working lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it shouldn't bother me so much, but I just don't understand how, with so many examples in front of us of breeds that are "no longer what they once were," and that are in fact a shadow of their former useful selves (and the good stuff that comes along with that, including generally good health and temperament), identifiable by looks but largely no longer by prupose, breeders can just forge ahead breeding to a different standard. I realize that it's largely human nature to be short-sighted, focusing on "what's in it for me" as opposed to "what's best for an entire population," but it still saddens me that one of the few breeds that still adheres to those early purpose tenets is being swept away in a tidal wave of breeding for everything else under the sun.

 

I really don't think we can stop it, but I do think that discussing it helps, FWIW, even though it does get tiresome going over this same stuff year after year. I imagine that even with some of the bluntness in this thread that some people might at least be now thinking about the issue, even if they don't feel an urgency to act.

 

J.

 

Very nice post, Julie.

 

I have had several conversations with people (mostly with other breeds) about the issues of breeding to form vs breeding to function.

 

These are very dedicated people, driven by a real sense of preserving their particular breed and actually not short -sighted at all. The discussion always comes back to the idea that the function can be defined in some kind of formal terms (and in the context of the initial discussion of ETS here, I think form is increasingly being replaced by genetics.) For them, the problem is about not having properly defined the standard in terms of the physical traits that map on to the functional traits desired.

 

In the context of Border Collies, an agility breeder who I like a lot once argued with me that the conformation standard (to which she does not breed herself, though she does breed for "versatility") concerning solid color noses in border collies was a form-based outcome of a functional concern, essentially that border collies who had noses with random lack of pigmentation would not be useful dogs because their noses would be more likely to get sunburned and thus more likely to develop skin cancer.

 

I don't really understand why it is so difficult to convey that so much of what gives a border collie its border collie-ness is tied to what is in the dog's mind and instinct. As others have said, it's the dog's sense of the terrain, the sheep, the handler (and the relationship with the handler), its own sense of courage, etc. that makes a border collie a stockdog.

 

And each dog's "package" of those things will be a little bit different--making it impossible to set a specific standard that applies to all dogs except for the work itself--a dog that can get the job done given the package of traits (good and bad) that it has.

 

Most agility breeders I know of (which is admittedly only a handful) believe they are breeding for function (at least they tend to be fairly against breeding to the conformation standard); and, in my opinion, that's really what makes breeding for something like agility potentially worse than breeding for conformation (and why I think so many people here were alarmed at the idea of breeding against ETS, a disorder that seems to manifest only in agility).

 

Because in that case, the breeder *is* breeding to function. It's just a completely different function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[Dear Doggers,

Julie wrote (in part):

 

" . . aside from the actual work, there's the intangible essence of the breed, the essence that evolved alongside with creating the breed for work. And we all know that it's that essence that attracts people to the breed, and yet few people seem to make the connection that breeding to a different standard changes A LOT of things about a breed--if not the general look--including those intangibles that attracted the owner/breeder to that breed in the first place."

 

What a great breed. If only it were:

 

a. a little calmer

b. better with kids

c. more protective

d. didn't look at me all the time

e. didn't look at me LIKE THAT

f. couldn't get ETS

g. had better conformation

h. your refinement goes here

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr Billadeau

I am sure there is a perfectly good explanation so, how is it that you get so wrapped around the axle (thanks Jodi) of the improper use of the word herding (http://www.bordercol...=1) yet you seem to have no issues with using ACK instead of AKC?

 

Your Quote:

 

"While I understand the dogs are having fun. One of my pet peeves is to refer to these actions as herding.

 

Using the term this way belittles....."

 

Am I to assume that it is OK to belittle if it suits your purpose or is this simply "do as I say not as I do"?

Touche.

For now on I will use the proper term for the organization which has significantly contributed to the loss of working traits in a multitude of breeds.

This is the stated opinion of many people on and off this forum.

 

The AKC

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In summary:

If it came from what looks like a Border Collie it is a Border Collie

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I want to make one point of clarification here.

 

If it came from two Border Collies, it is a Border Collie.

 

In other words, two Border Collies do not produce puppies that have morphed into a different breed of dog altogether.

 

As far as your other points go, while there may well be individuals who hold them to be true, they are not true of all Border Collie owners who are part of the dog sport world. For instance, I would disagree with the rest of your summary, as well.

 

It's okay to breed for something other than working livestock since working breeders can't supply demand

 

I am not in agreement with this statement.

 

Border Collies will be Border Collies even after the breed has lost its herding instincts just like the majority of the other herding breeds

 

Border Collies do not produce puppies of another breed. The development of types within the breed is certainly possible, and is evident in the case of Conformation bred Border Collies.

 

This is not a case of "the breed" losing its herding instincts (see - not talking about individual populations of dogs here, but every single dog that makes up the entire breed). The only thing that is going to cause that to happen is if working breeders stop breeding for stockwork.

 

To clarify - this does not mean that I personally approve of breeding for other purposes. It is possible to hold a point of view on Border Collies bred for other purposes and not consider those to be good breedings.

 

If you can't say something nicely about the apparent lack of concern for preserving the herding instincts in the breed keep quiet

 

I don't think anyone is saying "keep quiet". I don't think anyone is in disagreement over concern for preserving the herding instincts in the breed. I realize you don't believe it, but I am concerned about that, as well. I don't express it in the same way that you do, and I don't hold the same point of view as you do on ETS. That does not mean that I have no concern.

 

I guess this goes under the "you don't know what you don't know" category. If you (the general you) don't know that Rave, and rushdoggie, and myself, and certainly other posters in this thread actually do have concern over preserving the herding instincts in the breed, then you don't know it. If you don't know that we, although we have stated it bluntly time and time again, don't support breeding Border Collies for Agility, in spite of the fact that we don't insist that Border Collies that have been bred for Agility haven't morphed into a different breed, then you don't know it.

 

Rave and rushdoggie, I included you in "we" based on what I have read in your posts in this thread. If I have lumped you into a category into which you do not fit, I apologize for that. I have no intention of misrepresenting your point of view.

 

Finally I would say that if you want to bring people around to your way of thinking, find ways to express your concern that aren't going to turn them off completely. If you (the general you, not you personally) don't have any interest in educating others, then that's moot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Border Collies do not produce puppies of another breed. The development of types within the breed is certainly possible, and is evident in the case of Conformation bred Border Collies.

 

At this point, we're all just repeating things to each other and apparently not hearing the other side very well, but this is the contradiction I keep talking about. If you believe stock work is the standard to which border collies should be bred, then there can be no "types" of border collies (well, I guess unless you'd want to classify cattledogs and sheepdogs differently, or make some other distinction that is based on type of stock work). Conformation border collies are not being bred to the standard of a border collie; thus, they are something else. If one believes they are, too, border collies but just a different type, then they do not fully believe that the breeding standard for border collies is a working one.

 

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well isn't that the point of these Boards, to go round and round and not get anywhere? :)

 

BTW, I have previously presented the views of the "outside world" because let's face it, people on these Boards can be a bit neurotic when it comes to BCs. I'd like to state my personal beliefs now, because they are becoming more defined now, the long weekend is coming up, and while I agree with the philosophy of this Board and I believe in what the working BC breeders and the protectors of the working BC breed are trying to do, I think I draw the line at reality. And reality to me (and I would guess 90% of this world) is that two individual dogs of one breed produce a dog of that breed NO MATTER WHAT, just like both my Spanish grandparents gave birth to my mom who is also Spanish, not German. Yes I understand the argument against this fully, however I personally do not agree with it. I do agree there can be varying types within a breed, and I do agree over a long period of time a breed or type of breed can change based on the repeated selection of breeding traits. I believe this is already happening in the conformation lines but I don't believe it's happened to any noticeable extent in the sport lines (yet). I would be curious to know how long it takes to significantly change a breed.

 

So I hope everyone enjoys their long holiday weekend and I think it's time to just agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So my question is has the sport-bred BC changed into an non-useful working dog yet?

YES! Absolutely. That's what Julie and I keep referring to when we talk about people who bring dogs out to try on stock, and we find the dog significantly lacking in some piece of the puzzle. They ACT like they want to work, but it's just not there--they generally lack balance, and they almost always lack feel for stock. Balance is the first element we need in a dog, and to me, a feel for stock is the biggest underlying skill that a dog must possess to be of any worth. I've seen it numerous times, and I know Julie has, too.

A

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...