Jump to content
BC Boards

Early Takeoff Syndrome?


Recommended Posts

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.

 

On the offshoot about parentage defining a breed or appearance defining a breed, I think the Belgian Sheepdog story is kind of interesting. In Belgium there is a single breed, formed of sheepdogs originally drawn from the regions around Tervuren, Groenendael, Malines, and Laeken in Belgium. There were physical differences in the dogs from the different regions, but they were all sheepdogs. They remain a single breed in Belgium today. They were all originally recognized by the AKC as the Belgian Sheepdog. Hwever, according to the Archivist of the Belgian Sheepdog Club of America, there came a time in the 1950s when "A letter writing campaign to the AKC began saying that the Tervuren was a different breed and the few Malenois and Laekenois did not look like the other two at all." The AKC agreed, noting that

 

the fact is that the Malinois and Tervuren which we have seen bear little resemblance in conformation to the Groenendael, and the Laeken bear no resemblance at all to any of the others!

 

What concerns us is that if this interbreeding of the different types is permitted to continue we are likely to end up with a great many registered dogs which even an expert could not confidently identify as purebred Belgian Sheepdogs. . . .

 

[O]ur Board of Directors considered this problem some months ago, and they seriously wondered whether the interests of the breed would not best be served if we should consider each of the different types a separate and distinct breed, even though we know that originally they sprang from similar stock.

 

And so it came to pass that there were three breeds where once there had been one, and some offspring born of two registered Belgian Sheepdogs became Malinois and Tervurens, two different breeds, while other offspring continued to be Belgian Sheepdogs. Of course, in that case the AKC spoke and said it was so, so maybe that's what makes the difference? Or maybe the fact that they "looked different" is what makes the difference. Who knows? But the bottom line is that two dogs of one breed can produce puppies that are a different breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 927
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

Here we definitely disagree.

 

It is, however, possible to disagree on this point and still care about breeding Border Collies to a working standard. Not as in being a breeder, but in the kind of breeding that one supports and holds to be what should be done.

 

We can debate about who cares and who doesn't care and who cares the most and who cares better, but we will go round and round on that, especially since believing that another person does not care or does not care enough or does not care correctly doesn't actually determine whether that person's caring.

 

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

 

On that I would agree. The actual complexity of an individual's point of view is rarely that one dimensional, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow 18 pages and I can feel more coming. This is the subect I have heard and debated about since I got my first border collie as a rescue 14 years ago. At that time, knowing even more close to nothing about the breed than I know now, I thought the "herding" part of their behavior had already been bred out of them. Didn't know there was this whole world of stock dog training and useful working dogs running about on farms. Wound my way through many permutations of the "sport dog" world to finally end up on a small hobby farm with sheep and a bunch of dogs.

 

I think of the three obviously distinct groups of "breeders" of this breed as emphasizing certain genes and suppressing others--theoretically starting with the same 100 year old plus gene pool and picking certain traits to breed for which to breed. Thus some genes come to the surface and some are buried far back in the genome. So the argument "those traits are still there, these are still border collies", is diabolically still here for our discussion.

 

Stuff like color or ear set are relatively easy to breed. Behaviors like "ETS" will keep agility pundits bickering for years, looking for some way to blame their dogs' failures in this game invented by people. Working stock depends on the "structure" of that most complex of organs, the brain, of the dog. Border collies' brains have been developed by our species over the centuries to work with us, to be intelligent, to know stuff about the behavior of prey animals about which we as humans can only guess, and to be frugal and focused and helpful. This is a lot of stuff to breed for. In my opinion the result of this effort should be treated very respectfully, and not diminished by focus on some offshoot attribute such as ears which point different ways or the self-doubt of a perfectionist made to repeat and repeat ever faster a physical activity to which there is never, apparently, a perfect execution.

 

Back under my rock go I the troll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Behaviors like "ETS" will keep agility pundits bickering for years, looking for some way to blame their dogs' failures in this game invented by people.

 

Hi Knotty Clarence. I don't mean to put you on the spot and I realize this is a tangent, but this is a mentality that I am trying to get a handle on. And it does relate loosely to ETS.

 

Suppose there is a genetic cause, or an undetectable physical cause (such as depth perception) that causes ETS.

 

How exactly is seeking to identify such a cause an assessment of "blame" on the dog?

 

Thanks for any insight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

This is such an important point. I can even imagine an Agility breeder saying, "But to do their job well, sheepdogs have to be agile, don't they? Well, that's what I'm breeding for -- agility!" It's very hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with working border collies and the work they do how very small a part of the package agility is. Not that it's not important -- of course the dogs have to be and are very agile, in the common (not competition) meaning of the term -- but it's the other stuff that's unique and precious in border collies, not their agility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

I would be curious to know what type or lines the failing dogs come from. Are they from the conformation or sports lines or some mix there of, or do you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Knotty Clarence. I don't mean to put you on the spot and I realize this is a tangent, but this is a mentality that I am trying to get a handle on. And it does relate loosely to ETS.

 

Suppose there is a genetic cause, or an undetectable physical cause (such as depth perception) that causes ETS.

 

How exactly is seeking to identify such a cause an assessment of "blame" on the dog?

 

Thanks for any insight!

I think the "perfect' outcome of any agility run matters more to the handler than to the dog. the Person makes up the course and the rules for completing the course, and the dog follows the person's direction with the person. At the end of the run, sometimes the person is happier than other times. I'm guessing this is what the dog knows, though I did say "bad bar" to a knocked bar during a run one time and was interested in my dog's reaction.

 

My dog Calvin hates to leave a sheep behind. Sometimes I'm in hurry to put the sheep away, and maybe miss a group. I'll say, oh heck, let's just leave the gate open, they'll come in. Not Calvin. He will go back and find them. He enjoyed agility, was quite fast when we used to run it and had really good weaves. He was an enthusiastic, exciting agility partner. But HE'S passionate about his sheep work. Working sheep is where I have really gotten to know him. And he has attention to details I don't even know are there. This is an anacdote about one dog, in one instance, with one handler. But once I saw these behaviors in action, and became dependent upon help from these dogs for management of my increasing flock, I decided I want to let the dogs lead a bit, and see what I can learn from them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

No, Mark, the answer I gave is because I'm just letting it go, because there's nothing I am going to say that I going to make the slightest difference so its time to walk away. Its like the atheist/theist discussions I get into every now and then: completely circular with the same people saying the same things over and over and complaining no one is listening to them.

 

If you can't see that approaching someone who has a totally different mindset and comes from a completely different place and expecting them to totally change the way they think about a subject is best handles without insults and dismissing offhand the things they are passionate about, I can't help you.

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.

 

Anna has already answered this, but I just wanted to note that I have said a couple of times in this thread that my direct experience with such dogs is that they aren't useful (at least they wwouldn't be useful here for even the most basic tasks). Well, let me rephrase that, since useful is obviously a rather vague term. I imagine *some* of the dogs I've worked with could go get tame sheep out of a field and bring them to the barn, as long as the sheep wanted to go there and the human was willing to closely supervise. But training these dogs is very much an exercise in frustration because they do lack some basic "elements" of the working package. I have a friend who pretty much stopped giving lessons because it just became too much trouble dealing with a steady stream of dogs who are lacking in ability/talent.

 

I also have wondered if the training/raising that goes with being in an agility home works against these dogs. So I wouldn't say that the training problems I've seen are entirely genetic, but certainly the lack of keenness, lack of balance, lack of *desire,* could very well be the result of genetic drift.

 

Of course not all working-bred dogs would be classified as useful either, but I think you stand a better chance of getting a useful working dog if it comes from good/exceptional working dogs.

 

As for trial presence, IME most of the people who are cross-overs tend to stay in the novice levels at sheepdog trials. I'm not sure what the reason is for that; it could be manyfold, greater desire to stay where one has a chance of winning or getting ribbons, dogs that aren't capable of doing more, the "intimidation factor" (hard to step up when you're in an area that's not your forte), handlers that aren't capable of training more, handlers who don't have the time to train for both venues, so put their favorite first and just dabble in the other (heck, I've dabbled, barely, with agility with a couple of my dogs, at home, for fun)....

 

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.

 

I wonder how many sports breeders keep livestock on their property or trial their dogs on stock. I imagine the percentage is vanishingly small. And lots of people with AKC herding breeds keep livestock on their property, but that doesn't really say anything about their knowledge of or ability to breed for a high standard of working ability. The woman who was mocked probably wouldn't have been mocked if she actually was actively trialing dogs and winning or at least showing well at the higher levels (i.e., showing that her unconventional methods work).

 

I guess this may be a cynical view, but I wonder if some folks who breed in large volume for the sport market recognize that some folks are getting the message that they should buy from working stock, and so keeping a few sheep and doing a little training might be nothing more than some seriously savvy marketing.... But I don't know Jan personally and certainly can't get inside her head, so all I can do is wonder.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the "perfect' outcome of any agility run matters more to the handler than to the dog.

 

Certainly an opinion that you are entitled to have. I know that there are people for whom that is true. I know there are people for whom that is not true. And I know there are people who care about both the dog and the run and try to keep a balance in making decisions.

 

At the end of the run, sometimes the person is happier than other times. I'm guessing this is what the dog knows, though I did say "bad bar" to a knocked bar during a run one time and was interested in my dog's reaction.

 

That is true.

 

I have to say, though, that my favorite run of all time with Dean was a run where he slalomed most of the jumps instead of jumping them. He was so obviously delighted with his new discovery that we had a blast running together that day. There was no "blame". He made the choice to run around the jumps. In doing so he provided me with one of the most memorable and enjoyable runs that he and I have ever had. Is that blame?

 

Those sorts of things happen for a lot of people. Some do get upset if it's not a Q, no matter what, but many, many handlers are happy if the dog is enjoying his or herself. Sure, a perfect run is an incredible and unique experience, but most of the time runs are not perfect and most participants realize that.

 

Not all Agility competitors are the same. We aren't clones who all care about the same things. There are people who consider the dog last. There are many others, though, who put the dog first.

 

Also, there are times when equipment is faulty. Wind can blow bars down. Teeters can collapse. The supports under the dogwalk can fail. And in those cases it is certainly no the fault of the dog. I guess the equipment could be "blamed", in that case. I don't have any issue with people "blaming" equipment, although I'm not really into "blame" as a general thing. Maybe that's why I have a hard time really understanding the concept of how recognizing what is truthful about an individual dog is "blaming" him.

 

The question that I asked, though, wasn't so much about equipment failure, or handler experience when a run isn't perfect, as it was about the idea that the dog is being "blamed" through consideration of ETS as a genetic or undetectable physical problem (like depth perception) over which the dog ultimately has no control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be curious to know what type or lines the failing dogs come from. Are they from the conformation or sports lines or some mix there of, or do you know?

Laura,

I haven't seen pedigrees on most of the dogs I've worked with, so I have to go by what the owner says. Many are definitely sport-bred (per their owners, and I wouldn't know enough to know if these are good, bad, or indifferent sport breeders); others are working-bred (per their owners, but when they tell me where the dogs come from, they are not breeders I would consider good working breeders--the dogs seem more a mishmash of lines, versatility type perhaps?, that is, sports and working--but not good working--mixed), and a couple have been strictly conformation bred. In other words, a real mix of dogs. All of these dogs had some little elements of working ability and all had huge gaps in their abilities. (To make my point about the abilities or lack thereof of these dogs, I could really, really--and I mean really--use the extra income that lessons/training brings me, but I can't in good conscience continue to take money from the owners of these dogs when I recognize that they really aren't going to get very far and it will take a lot of work to get them there.)

 

To be fair, I have also seen a few working-bred dogs that didn't have what it takes, but those are definitely much fewer and much farther between.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've given like a zillion lessons and two dogs really have stood out over time for me. One was a "lemon" purely conformation bred dog, NZ lines, the whole nine yards. He wouldn't even look at the sheep, even when i had another dog working them in circles around him. Might as well have been a piece of furniture. The other came from a highly sought after agility breeder (Ignited, does that sound right?), a merle, with absolutely no focus on anything - it was like watching a super charged ADD dog or something, and she scared the you-know-what out of me because i was going to get hurt as she rammed the sheep around with no concept of "work".

 

I'd hate for Joe Shepherd to have bought into either of those as "border collies" because that's one less real work situation that would ever try a second, purpose-bred dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robin,

Your comments bring to mind a dog that I used to see at a different trainer's place. Strictly conformation bred as well. He'd work at working sheep for maybe two minutes and then he was done and off eating poop.... He was very consistent that way.

 

ETA: Although Robin refers to the dog as "lemon," she's talking about color, I think, lol!

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, Mark, the answer I gave is because I'm just letting it go, because there's nothing I am going to say that I going to make the slightest difference so its time to walk away. Its like the atheist/theist discussions I get into every now and then: completely circular with the same people saying the same things over and over and complaining no one is listening to them. If you can't see that approaching someone who has a totally different mindset and comes from a completely different place and expecting them to totally change the way they think about a subject is best handles without insults and dismissing offhand the things they are passionate about, I can't help you.
I would expect that other places outside the working community AND this forum (READ THIS FIRST)
For the good of the breed, border collies should be bred only for working ability. The border collie breed was created by farmers and shepherds who wanted to develop a dog which could help them manage their livestock. They bred only to produce good workers, and that singleness of purpose created the breed we love. Changing the way border collies are bred will change the breed itself. Therefore, breeding dogs who have not proven themselves as useful herding dogs, or breeding for appearance/color, or breeding for sports or for "good pets," or breeding for anything other than working ability (which includes the health and temperament necessary for working) is harmful to the breed.
That means breeding for sports WILL harm the breed. It's part of the philosophy of this forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgot about ROM. Thank goodness for it. Or the ABCA.

There's a picture in some old book on border collies which (in black and white) shows a litter of puppies which contains both "beardies" and border collies with the caption that both hair types would occur in sheep dog litters. I will search around the house to see if I can find it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: Blame

 

The vet can't find a cause for "ETS" (poor performance) and hot shot agility god/ goddess can't train away "ETS", ego the dog must be genetically defective. (Because the humans are blameless here)

 

Actually, the mentality that I have run across in Agility is that the handler is to blame for anything and everything. At least anything and everything that is considered not to be good.

 

And if you don't "blame" the handler", the dog must be "blamed", so that is why the handler is supposed to be "blamed" for everything.

 

I don't get that. If there is a reason and the reason is acknowledged and then decisions are made with that information in mind, I don't see how that is "blame".

 

Speedy has arthritis. Am I "blaming" him for not being able to leg weave without coming up lame because I choose not to have him leg weave? That information helps me to make appropriate performance decisions for him. How is that "blame"? Should I "blame" myself for not being able to handle him in such a way that leg weaves do not cause a physical condition that will become aggravated when he engages in certain kinds of motion (like leg weaves)? To me that's ridiculous. He has a condition that is beyond his control or mine. It is what it is. We work with and around it. I don't see blame as having any place in that.

 

If ETS is caused by something genetic or an undetectable eye problem, then trying to determine whether or not that is the case is not "blame" of the dog. Nor is it removing "blame" from a handler who deserves to be "blamed" for something that he or she is not choosing or causing.

 

ETS may or may not be caused by something genetic or a currently undetectable eye problem, or something else. Or it might not. How is trying to determine the factual answer to that question an assessment of "blame"?

 

Thus far, I have not heard an explanation that makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be curious to know what type or lines the failing dogs come from. Are they from the conformation or sports lines or some mix there of, or do you know?

The ones I have dealt with are most often sports bred, specifically from three of the top names in sports breeding that I am familiar with,

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...