Jump to content
BC Boards

McCallum


Tea
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I am confused about the McCallum border collie thing?

 

 

 

Even though my Taw is from those dogs. Where did they come from? How are the Reg with ABCA?

 

 

 

And they got their own reg too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on conversations with Tony McCallum this is what I have gathered, to get the whole story you would need to speak to him personally, it is a treat. Tony teaches via parables vs. giving people the answer to their questions directly. Tony McCallum is from Australia where he was breeding and raising dogs for his own personal use, one of the jobs that he told me about was to go out with his dogs and gather hard to capture cattle when other means of gathering failed. He would do it over a series of days, first just sending the dogs out to get the cattle to move off them, eventually leading to the last day where he would send the dogs out and the cows would just come in yielding to the pressure of the dogs. He has in his mind what he wants in an ideal dog, did intense line breeding and culled hard.

 

Eventually he came over to the states, Texas I beleive and brought some of his dogs along. The dogs were eligable for ABCA papers and when he registered the dogs he placed McCallum in front of their names. The dogs you see now with McCallum on their pedigrees or in their names are offspring of his breeding program or line of dogs, he mentioned that very few that have McCallum dogs purchased them from him. IMO, based on that, it is not likely that many would be a representative of what Tony wanted in a dog, he spoke of destroying entire litters if the dogs did not meet his standards regardless as to how good the parents were. One of his policies that he shared with me was to not sell a dog that he himself was not willing to use. Anyway, breeders that found themselves with his dogs or offspring of his dogs tend to maintain the McCallum previx and market them as McCallum bred.

 

We had the pleasure to have Tony stop in last winter, stay with us followed by a clinic that we through together last minute. He has family up in Minnesota and occassionally will pay a visit to a breeder that he is intrigued by so that he can see their dogs for himself. He is passionate about good working dogs that are able to handle any type of livestock in a proper fashion with little training.

 

As for their own reg, here is a link to a registry that I beleive he formed himself, I have no idea how active it is or if most just are with ABCA here in the states, after speaking with Tony it would be pretty difficult to get a dog in via ROM registry, like I would'nt even bother to try with our dogs at this point even if they were from McCallum lines, I know the answer would be something like "keep breeding and come back after you have a good one in a few more generations". According to Tony there is no such thing as bad livestock, so if you have a dog that can't handle stock in certain situations you don't have a good dog, does not matter how much winning the dog can do. http://mccallumk9.com/mcregistry.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok...now this makes more sense to me in my kinda dim brain.

 

 

 

I actually must have e-mailed Tony McCallum and talked to him about his dogs. Got McCallum and McNab confused.

 

 

Taw is from Stimatze's

 

Her father is Hoss.

 

 

Thanks for the info

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tea, I have a McCallum-related female whose sire was from the Stimatzes breeding. He was very McCallum type- big male, short coat and not a lot of eye but boy could he move cattle! A lot of dog. Trialed on cattle where he got kicked and it broke ribs/bruised his lung and they didn't know until the next day when his sides swelled up. Watching the video, you could see he got rung real hard but there was no quit in him. My Nellie works like that, not as strong and kinder to her sheep, but does have a good bit of push.

 

That was the first clinic I ever went to (McCallum) and I'd still say that he was the most generous with information and the most enthusiastic about the (good) dogs.

 

I took my first pup to that clinic and she was tiny - maybe four months. He handed her back to me and just said with a wink, "You might want to give this one to me. She'll be a champion if I run her but for you, she'll just be a dog." He was right- I don't believe I could have started out with a worse prospect for a first-time sheepdogger. He knew that from day one what it took me two years and help to figure out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yes, the steep steep learning curve....how well I know that......in fact the more I know.... the less I know I know.......

 

 

 

Sweep has been much harder for me as he is zippy.

 

 

 

But Taw.....there is something about Taw, something......

 

 

the dogs have taught me so much...each of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"he spoke of destroying entire litters if the dogs did not meet his standards regardless as to how good the parents were"

 

Oh my. :o

 

 

I agree--Oh my.

 

Don't know if I really want to know the answer, but I wonder at what stage of life this person decides these dogs don't meet his standards --when they are born, after weaning or does he actually try to train them up first?

 

The few dogs I know of this breeding were sold by breeder without ABC papers. Don't know if they could not qualify to get them or if breeder didn't care if they had them when sold. The two I saw ( before working age) seemed to be pleasant dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree--Oh my.

 

Don't know if I really want to know the answer, but I wonder at what stage of life this person decides these dogs don't meet his standards --when they are born, after weaning or does he actually try to train them up first?

 

 

That's why I've never been able to feel very warm or fuzzy towards Tony McCallum. I can't fathom being that fixated on and mercenary towards a goal. Just how many dozens/scores/hundreds of lives did he create and then destroy? Gah! He may have developed the premier cow dog, but his manner of getting there? No thanks, not for me.

 

~ Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing devils advocate - how was the Border Collie developed? It just happened to be 100 years ago instead of today? FWIW I don't like the idea at all either and couldn't support it, but I don't think its uncommon in creating a breed/type

 

I have to echo this. I don't personally know what Mr. McCallums breeding methods are and while I did get alot out of my few times meeting him and even more out of the dog of his breeding, I don't know him well enough to vouch that his practices are ethical or not. However, especially as cattledogs, I have seen a very distinct McCallum type that is excellent at its job. I don't know that many breeders could duplicate the consistency of that quality without culling strictly.

 

I do feel breeders should evaluate whole litters and make sure that the ones that don't cut it don't reproduce or the ones that don't produce good workers don't go on to have litter after litter with just the occasional good one. I doubt the environment where these dogs were originally were developed had pet homes lined up to take the dogs that didn't measure up.

 

I couldn't do that type of culling myself, but I am not a breeder and don't have my name attached to a line of dogs that will reflect on my breeding efforts. Personally, I find it more responsible to keep control over everything you produce rather than pander to the AKC sport/"herding" crowd and produce dozens of sub-par, dual-registered dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not saying I agree with it or would do it...

 

He was probably keeping entire litters until they were 2 years old and fully trained. Placing adult dogs bred for cattle work in pet homes can sometimes be a disaster waiting to happen (dogs left without work can become bored, destructive and if managed incorrectly, aggressive).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellybean,

I imagine it's because there weren't plenty of homes lined up for them. I think it's a fairly common practice among old-time breeders to destroy dogs that don't measure up. We may not like it, but at least the dogs aren't being dumped somewhere.

 

J.

 

 

Well actually they are being dumped somewhere--it's just out in the back forty, dead.

 

While it may have been and maybe still is a "practice' to kill off the ones that meet the "standards', it seems remarkable that there are today lines of Border Collies , talking only working , not show/agility, that have a consistent work style, a look of that specific line, without resorting to terminating the pups/started dogs/trained dogs that didn't make it. Breed best to best, I get it. Just spay/neuter the rest if necessary. I have raised horses for over 40 years and somehow mangaged to produce a line of working cowhorses from my breeding program that are a type/style, recognizable as that line. None were killed in the process. If , after being started, they did not lean to the type to carry one the lines, they made good trail horses, show horses for another discipline and enjoyable horses for their new owners. They were castrated before they left, if stallions.

 

This breeder could sell/give them away hopefully to a good home, without papers, assuming these dogs have papers to begin with. They do not to carry his name officially. while I treasure tradition in the equine world, I am glad this is one that has not continued, as I suspect there are horse people that years ago thought not unlike this dog breeder.

 

I am not soft hearted , just think there is a more inventive way to creat a line of any animal. Selective breeding does not have to be fatal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess I wonder if a breeder who breeds for the exclusive purpose of producing working dogs for their own use is any more wrong to destroy the dogs that do not suit the purpose of their intended breeding then a no-kill advocate is for destroying a dog that does not suit the purpose of being a pet as they would be a hazard to society.

 

 

In speaking to people that rescue I've heard mixed opinions, some feel that dogs with poor temperments and severe health issues should be destroyed while others believe that all should have a chance of rehab and if unable to be integrated into society should be housed in a safe place until they need to be euthanized. Well is that right by the dog, or would that dog have been better off euthenized when they failed to be rehabbed? My thoughts also go to the resources spent on that one dog that could have help countless others.

 

 

I don't know that there is a perfect answer but it seems that most agree that eventually there is a time where they feel that euthanization is the right thing to do. Does it really matter if it is when the breeder decides the pup does not suit the purpose in which it was bred, or when a dog shows it can not be suited as a pet, or when diagnosed with a terminal disease and destroyed before they become wrought with pain or when the day comes where it is obvious they are suffering from pain and we can no longer give them any relief? Regardless, in most cases we are deciding, not nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess I wonder if a breeder who breeds for the exclusive purpose of producing working dogs for their own use is any more wrong to destroy the dogs that do not suit the purpose of their intended breeding then a no-kill advocate is for destroying a dog that does not suit the purpose of being a pet as they would be a hazard to society.

 

Wow. Are you serious? I'd say there's a pretty big difference between "destroying" a healthy dog that does not work stock to a certain caliber vs. euthanizing a dog with a dangerous temperament who is a danger to himself and others. Are you really comparing the two?

 

 

In speaking to people that rescue I've heard mixed opinions, some feel that dogs with poor temperments and severe health issues should be destroyed while others believe that all should have a chance of rehab and if unable to be integrated into society should be housed in a safe place until they need to be euthanized. Well is that right by the dog, or would that dog have been better off euthenized when they failed to be rehabbed? My thoughts also go to the resources spent on that one dog that could have help countless others.

 

I do not agree that all dogs can be saved, or should be. Dogs with a dangerous temperament or an incurable illness should most likely be humanely euthanized, as sad as that is, so that others can be saved. But what this has to do with a breeder destroying entire litters of dogs just because they didn't work to his liking, I don't know.

 

 

I don't know that there is a perfect answer but it seems that most agree that eventually there is a time where they feel that euthanization is the right thing to do. Does it really matter if it is when the breeder decides the pup does not suit the purpose in which it was bred, or when a dog shows it can not be suited as a pet, or when diagnosed with a terminal disease and destroyed before they become wrought with pain or when the day comes where it is obvious they are suffering from pain and we can no longer give them any relief? Regardless, in most cases we are deciding, not nature.

 

Again, BIG difference in the scenarios you present here. And yes, to some of us, it obviously matters when and WHY dogs are destroyed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well actually they are being dumped somewhere--it's just out in the back forty, dead.

 

While it may have been and maybe still is a "practice' to kill off the ones that meet the "standards', it seems remarkable that there are today lines of Border Collies , talking only working , not show/agility, that have a consistent work style, a look of that specific line, without resorting to terminating the pups/started dogs/trained dogs that didn't make it. Breed best to best, I get it. Just spay/neuter the rest if necessary. <snip> This breeder could sell/give them away hopefully to a good home, without papers, assuming these dogs have papers to begin with. They do not to carry his name officially. while I treasure tradition in the equine world, I am glad this is one that has not continued, as I suspect there are horse people that years ago thought not unlike this dog breeder.

 

I am not soft hearted , just think there is a more inventive way to creat a line of any animal. Selective breeding does not have to be fatal.

I'm not going to get into some long, drawn-out debate about the rightness or wrongness of heavy culling that involves destroying vs. neutering. None of us here does it, but it does happen, whether we like it or not. I don't personally know what Tony McCallum does/did, so it seems a bit pointless to argue about it. I think it's also pretty apparent that none of us would take that approach, but it's naive to think it didn't happen in the process of developing the border collie breed (or any other breed, including livestock, for that matter). Our sensibilities have changed over time, but I think it's a bit odd to impose those sensibilities on what people have done historically. There was a report on the local news the other day about a landfill worker that happened to hear a noise in a bag of trash at the landfill. He decided to investigate and found living puppies inside. They were rescued. How many others face a similar fate, or worse? I'm not trying to diminish the apparent wrongness of that type of culling, but I'm pretty sure it goes on all around us every day--we just don't see it or hear about it.

 

I have raised horses for over 40 years and somehow mangaged to produce a line of working cowhorses from my breeding program that are a type/style, recognizable as that line. None were killed in the process. If , after being started, they did not lean to the type to carry one the lines, they made good trail horses, show horses for another discipline and enjoyable horses for their new owners. They were castrated before they left, if stallions.

 

I think your horse analogy is a bit flawed, though, since the number of offspring a mare can produce over her lifetime is much, much smaller than the number of offspring a dog can produce. Also, you have no control over the mares that leave your place, and if they are nice or have fancy markings or colors, it's entirely possible that they are being bred and your breeding is being used as a selling point, even though they're your culls. Again, I am NOT saying you should have killed them to prevent that, but I'm guessing it is at least part of the reasoning being used by McCallum and others like him.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all are horrified at the number of dogs that are euthanized in kill shelters, well, how about "kill breeders"? I can't buy the excuse of "old-time breeders". Wrong is wrong, then and now. Period.

Can't really have it both ways, if you ask me. If you support the breeding of dogs for a very specific task, there's going to be collateral damage somewhere down the line because very simply you're never going to get 100% of those pups equal to the task.

 

You may sleep better at night having not destroyed a dog of your own breeding, but if you instead put that dog in a pet home, thereby taking an adoptive family out of the market for a dog, you've basically played an equal part, haven't you?

 

It sounds great and logical to be appalled by Tony's methods, but it only works if you don't put too much thought into it. I'm not saying that culling dogs to death is right, but most of us who want very specific traits in a dog have contributed to the death of dogs indirectly. I've never gotten a dog from a shelter. Not because I'm cruel, but because if I'm going to spend my time and money to train a great working dog, I'm going to give myself the best chance at success. For me that pretty much excludes rescue dogs as an option.

 

If I didn't care about a dog having working ability, I would absolutely get nothing but rescue dogs. But seeing as I do care about working ability, I have effectively killed off the same number of shelter dogs as I've had working border collies. Given that I care about working dogs I have to accept that I play a role in the death of dogs.

 

To me the whole thing is like being appalled at hunting because it's cruel to the animal and then ordering a steak at dinner. Nothing more than an attempt to separate yourself from the reality in order to stand on moral high ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"but if you instead put that dog in a pet home, thereby taking an adoptive family out of the market for a dog, you've basically played an equal part, haven't you?"

 

See, now this makes no sense to me. You are saying that because I got a dog from this breeder, another will die in a shelter--right? Well, you could just as easily turn it around and say that if I get a dog from a shelter instead of this breeder, then the pup at the breeder will die. So, using this logic, no matter where I get a pup from I am responsible for a pup dying. :blink: Sorry, don't buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

See, now this makes no sense to me. You are saying that because I got a dog from this breeder, another will die in a shelter--right? Well, you could just as easily turn it around and say that if I get a dog from a shelter instead of this breeder, then the pup at the breeder will die. So, using this logic, no matter where I get a pup from I am responsible for a pup dying. :blink: Sorry, don't buy it.

You're not following the actual logic, but the logic that allows you to maintain your moral high ground. It's the support for the breeding of dogs that I'm talking about. Without demand, there are no breeders, so you're scenario makes no sense. It might hold true for a litter or two, but not beyond that because there is no more breeder.

 

If you support dog breeding, in any capacity, you're supporting the increase of the dog population. Therefore you have some culpability in the shelter dog crisis. It's pretty simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I didn't care about a dog having working ability, I would absolutely get nothing but rescue dogs. But seeing as I do care about working ability, I have effectively killed off the same number of shelter dogs as I've had working border collies. Given that I care about working dogs I have to accept that I play a role in the death of dogs.

 

I am not subscribing to this logic, either. I support the working dogs -- whether or not I work dogs, I'd buy a working pup any day of the week. I didn't put the dogs on the ground that landed in rescue, and I didn't euthanize them, either. I'm sorry there are puppymills and backyard breeders out there, and I'm sorry there are rescues that act as safety nets for the puppymills and backyard breeders, but I don't play any part in it simply because I support the working dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not just sell on a strict no breeding spay/neuter contract, and not add his name to the pups he doesn't approve of. Or even juvenil spay neuter, yeah there's qualms about it, but if these aren't going to be great working dogs than it should be okay. Better than culling. someone recognized like him could have his pups sold off cheaply/quickly, because even if they don't meet his standard they would meet someone with a less strict one..Better than culling them, that's just lazy and irresponsible to me.

 

Kinda like he's justifying it my saying I'm on a quest to make great dogs so I shouldn't be held to the same standards as everyone else.

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...