Barbie Collies

[2 Devils]

ummmm... my pencil has no lead

[juliepoudrier]

Kim,

You're a woman--you CAN'T say that! (Okay, crawling back out of the gutter now....)

 

J.

[2 Devils]

Julie did you have to take it to the gutter. I wrote the snickering and knew someone would but I was expecting a guy to respond not sweet, innocent Julie

[Northof49]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

[QB] << Personally I think people are fair game and the dogs are not. >>

 

I totally agree, and if ever I learn that there are dogs reading here whose feelings might be hurt I promise to take down any thread that disparages the cookies 'n clones ideal.

 

Well Tucker likes to read all the responses here, but the only problem he has is with some words with more than three syllables in them - being a guy he likes things kept simple

[Root Beer]

The idea of breeding for, or wanting a dog bred specifically for, agility just really confuses me. Why go for the lowest common denominator? Why not get a dog that was meant to be everything a Border Collie should be, which in and of itself includes the makings of the ultimate sports dog?

There are two obvious reasons that I can see:

 

1. Availablilty

 

In order to get a Border Collie from working lines, one must actively seek out those who have working Border Collies and figure out how to get on the list for a puppy from a breeding. It's not something that happens easily and I would maintain that the average person who wants a Border Collie (there are a lot of folks who do not read or post here) are not even aware that it's possible to do so.

 

2. Not Knowing Any Different

 

Before I actually had a Border Collie, I had no clue that there were people still working stock with them (or that they even worked stock at all!), so the obvious thing to do was to get a Border Collie from any old breeder.

 

Turned out the breeder that we got Speedy from was breeding for Agility. Out of control drive, anyone? Nah. I'm keeping him!

 

P.S. Don't tell Speedy that he's not a "real Border Collie" or he might want to go to the beauty parlor instead of to sheep tomorrow. Shhhhhhhhhhh . . . (That's a good-natured joke, BTW.)

[SoloRiver]

They bred the hell out of Red Spot so Tempe is likely to have zillions of relatives out there. He seems to have been the go-to stud for AKC people who wanted working lines, huge coat, and fancy color.

 

Kristine, I wouldn't trade Solo for the world although his breeding (and certainly the motivation behind it) is questionable. I would never go back to his breeder for another dog, but that isn't a slur on him by any means.

[Kat's Dogs]

## Spot is Dazzy's grandfather, (Peg then being her great grandmother). Cool.

 

I think that is the same Spot... (ISDS 161819)

[Genie]

This discussion brought to mind how I first learned about the breed and the breeder who made a lasting impression on me.

This goes back to the time when the AKC had the Border Collie in the miscellaneous class and was about to officially recognize the breed for conformation showing. I watched the BCs that were doing obedience and liked the eagerness, focus and that little extra something that I didn't see in other breeds and can't fully describe.

While expressing my interest in the breed with my co-workers, I found that one shared my interest in the breed and another knew a BC breeder (her mother). She invited us to her Mom's place to see the dogs and find out more about the breed.

This breeder (my co-worker's mother) took a lot of time to explain to us what the breed was like and her concerns for what would happen to the breed if it was bred for any other reason than working ability. She also showed us her dogs working sheep. No words could have told me as much about these dogs as I learned watching them work. I fell in love with the breed and came away with an enduring conviction that I would have one of these dogs one day and that it would come from someone who bred for working ability.

I have since lost touch with this breeder and her daughter, but my co-worker who went out there with me that day and I eventually got our border collies. Our first dogs were rescues. She is certain that her next BC will be either a rescue or from a breeder like the one I got my second BC from, who bred for working ability. The puppy I got was perfect for me, but not what my breeder was looking for in a working dog. He will be a good companion and we will have fun doing agility and rally and probably even therapy work one day. He is a well rounded puppy who can settle when tired or when I ask him to, but is quite willing and ready to go with me and do what I ask.

What I see in the obedience rings and conformation rings today is not the same dog I saw there years ago. I wish more people could be introduced to the breed as I was so that they will know what these dogs are and should be like. I think we would see fewer people going to conformation or sports bred dogs if they knew what was out there.

[ShoresDog]

Genie, what an eloquent post! You are so fortunate to have had this introduction to border collies.

[Kat's Dogs]

What was wrong with the obedience ring dogs?

[Genie]

Originally posted by Kat's Dogs:

What was wrong with the obedience ring dogs?

I wouldn't say that there's anything wrong with them. Its just that I can clearly see a difference in behavior from the BCs I saw years ago to the ones I see in obedience now. That 'something different' about them that I found so appealing years ago is no longer there. I can't describe it - I just know that I see it and don't like what I see.

[Kat's Dogs]

I was just curious, because any dog can do obedience. You can take a working dog and train them in obedience. I just didn't like them being blended together with the show ring dogs. (although I am sure you ment nothing like that)

 

They are two very different "sports". Obedience is just like Agility and Rally, and flyball. NOT like the conformation ring.

 

Obedience is not show,

Just wanted no confusion there.

[Genie]

Originally posted by Kat's Dogs:

I was just curious, because any dog can do obedience. You can take a working dog and train them in obedience. I just didn't like them being blended together with the show ring dogs. (although I am sure you ment nothing like that)

 

They are two very different "sports". Obedience is just like Agility and Rally, and flyball. NOT like the conformation ring.

 

Obedience is not show,

Just wanted no confusion there.

I see what you're saying. I must not have been clear. My point is that the venue they participate in isn't as important as why they're breeding and what they're trying to produce. The obedience dogs that I see around here are mostly from breeders whose focus is on conformation showing, obedience or both. They certainly aren't aiming to produce dog that will work sheep well and that's what I feel has caused the change that I'm seeing in BCs in the OB ring.

[tumblehome]

Originally posted by Rebecca, Irena Farm:

[QB]

the Show BC crowd may lose all interest in recognising working dogs as "purebred", and you'll get the situation we have here, where they almost seem to have a vested interest in publicising their own lines as "the real purebred BC", and even denigrating the working dogs as "mutts".

And there you have it. This attitude is already out there. "Real BCs have a title on both ends!"

 

Why would we care? Because the AKC has the ear and eye of the public. If most people think the show BC represents the ideal, that breeding will inevitably work backwards into the gene pool. This will harm working breeders in several ways:

 

Reducing the variety available in the breed. Anyone want to hunt with a Golden Retriever? Or an Irish Setter?

 

 

Ah. I have hunted over a golden retriever. Several of them in fact. All my dogs hunt. I would not have a golden that could not competently do the job it was created to do. I think though that you would have as hard a time identifying my red dogs as "golden retrievers" as AKC border collie people would have recognizing your border collie as a "border collie."

 

The split between show goldens and working goldens is as profound and as complete as the rift in border collies. The people who breed hunting golden retrievers breed for ability not looks. You want to herd sheep, you use a working BC. You want to hunt, you use a working GR.

 

Same difference.

Chris O

[Kat's Dogs]

Genie, OK - I like that better now.

[Geoffrey]

About the golden retrievers....

 

there is a dual CH golden in Canada...field trials/conformation. Of course, I've never done a field trial so I don't quite know how good they represent true ability etc.

 

This is his webpage: http://www.ambertrail.com/pushstuddog.html

[juliepoudrier]

Geoffrey,

I think the key is your statement that you don't know field trials. I would guess that the field trials the dog ran in are the equivalent of the AKC herding trials--that is, not a real tough test of ability. Now if the dog can go out and do real excellent fieldwork under all sorts of conditions or trial in "open" (i.e., non-KC-affiliated) trials and do well, then I'd believe the dog is "all that." But unfortunately a dual championship is the equivalent to what folks here have referred to as titles "on both ends." (This is not a slam on that partuicular dog, whom I know nothing about, but just pointing out that to many of us "DC" doesn't mean a whole lot.)

 

J.

[Kat's Dogs]

Not all field trails are AKC - and there are a few really really good goldens out there!

 

Same with the labs too. And a lot of other breeds if you look in the right places to find the "true to the breed" dogs.

[juliepoudrier]

Kat,

I didn't say all field trials were AKC. But if the dog has a dual champion, then one of those champions would be from KC field trials as I don't believe the kennel club recognizes trials held by other entities for the purposes of awarding a champion title.

 

And please tell me where I implied that there weren't good field trial dogs out there? What I *said* was that the KC type field trials were probably no different than herding trials when it comes to level of difficulty.

 

I was addressing Geoffrey's comments specifically, not making sweeping statements about the state of labs or goldens or any other hunting breed. I don't quite see how you interpreted my comments as anything other than what I specifically said. In fact, I believe my comments were entirely in keeping with the attitude we (the working stockdog community) have about USBCHA style trials vs. AKC trials and the relative merits of wins/championships in either venue.

 

J.

[muddy bob]

I have a client who is big into the field trials and she claims that the dual champs are most often working bred dogs that went to enough of the right conformation shows to get that Ch.

You want to hear something screwy? Get this. The breed rep. for her particular breed is vehemently anti-hunting. Sorry to digress but it is another example of how the AKC doesn't give a rip about people that really use dogs for more than status symbols.

 

muddy

[Geoffrey]

My other example:

http://www.firesideretrievers.com/kids.htm

 

Yes, many of them have AKC titles etc to 'prove' them. But a lot of the pictures are just plain hunting - not AKC trials. "Open".

 

I know a few people who compete in akc field trials and their dogs are also sucessful in non-trial hunting type situations. Field trials are generally seen to be much more difficult for retrievers that AKC herding is for a BC. (from what I hear from my field trial contacts and my research).

 

ETA: the DC golden was field-bred. Not Conformation lines (according to another website about him).

 

ETA again: there are several Golden Ret. kennels with dogs that suceed in Non-AKC field trials in Europe etc.

[Deb Mickey]

Just gonna jump in here on the hunting/field trial end of this thread.

 

In spaniel, retriever, & pointing breeds AKC offers 2 venues related to hunting. One is their hunt test program and the other is their field trial program. They are very different programs. From what I?ve seen in the spaniel world there is no comparison between the two as far as the level of skill & work the dogs perform.

 

Both separate the breeds by the style of hunting these breeds do, therefore there are separate events, rules & requirements for spaniels, retrievers and pointers. Each is geared to the breeds' style of hunting (spaniels ?flush? game, retrievers retrieve, and pointers point).

 

The hunt tests have 3 levels of tests and are not as exacting or as demanding as field trials. The hunt tests *** may *** equate to AKC's herding program.

 

Field trials, on the other hand, are more demanding than hunt tests and *** may **** equate more to the ISDS style of herding trials.

 

If a dog is dual titled with a breed championship and a hunt test title, then the dog has ?titles on both ends? of his registered name, such as CH (breed champion) Merlin JH (Junior Hunter). If the dog is dual titled with a breed championship and a field trial title, he has both titles at the front of his name, such as CH (breed champion), FC (Field Champion) Merlin.

 

From anything I?ve heard, read and seen, all these breeds are severely split between show or conformation bred and bred for work. In English Springers the two look very different, have different temperaments, drive, and health issues.

 

 

Here's a springer bred for the show ring:

 

Here's a springer bred to hunt:

 

The last time a springer was dual titled (breed champion and field trial champion) was back in the 1940s, I understand.

 

Lesson done for today!

[juliepoudrier]

Hey Deb,

Thanks for the info. It seems that in the herding world, the dogs do have the DC in front but seem to keep the titles behind, but maybe that's because you can get a championship on one type of stock and still have just titles in other types. I must confess that looking at all those abbreviations behind a name makes my eyes cross, so I don't ever bother to try and figure them out.... Oh, and here's an example from Geoffrey's second site: ...sired by AFC, FTCH, AFTCH Rosehill's Mr. Speaker, MH, OS, FDHF .... If the dog had his conf. championship, are you saying he would just have a DC in front and all that other stuff would go away (front and back)? I thought not because it's different championships (maybe not all AKC?) and of course I have no idea what somje of the stuff behind means, though I could guess that MH = master hunter?

 

I suppose in the field trial world AKC has done a better job of testing dogs? (I would still wonder if the comparison would be more like the AKC started herding titles vs. the AKC advanced herding titles--very different, but still not as tough as ISDS style trials. But then again, I'm not into hunting dogs, so it's all academic to me. If I wanted a hunting dog, however, I'd certainly look for a strictly field-bred dog.)

 

I think the main point is that the field-bred dogs and the show dogs are not the same thing, and while you can probably get a field-bred dog who can also win his conf. championship (just as with border collies), it's less likely that you can go the other way (take any or all of the conf. ch. dogs and have them be successful in the field).

 

I noticed when I looked at the dog Geoffrey posted that he didn't look as much like the standard show GRs and I applaud the judges who put him up even so.

 

J.

[Geoffrey]

He's *cough* technically more 'correct' *cough* than the conformation ones (IMO). For example, show labs are supposed to be shown in "working weight" and should appear as if they could work - they are shown in hugely obese weights and look like end tables. A "correct" lab would never ever win, sadly. However, with that Golden...it seems like the judges actually looked at the standard a bit. He's obviously not perfect, but he looks better (to me) than the heavily coated, heavy bone, things that gallumph around the rings.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

To take this thread even further afield (yerk!), while it's true that Dual Championship titles go before the dog's name, the term "a title at both ends" dates from the days before there was such a thing as a performance championship. (From the time when the only performance titles you could get were in obedience [CD, CDX, UD] or tracking [TD, TDX], actually.) At that time, the only title that went before a dog's name was "CH" -- the conformation title, the title of importance. All performance titles went after the dog's name. So the term "a title at both ends" meant a conformation title plus a performance title, and it still retains that meaning today, even though (now that performance championships have been created to extend the paper chase) the performance title may end up before the dog's name.

 

Actually, the term originated in the platitude "A well-balanced [insert name of breed] has a title at both ends," and nowadays if the dog is accomplished enough to have a breed championship plus a performance championship, with no after-name titles, the poor thing is even more unbalanced.

 

ETA: I'm wrong to say that there were no performance championships back in the day. Now that I think about it, there always was a field championship, because the AKC was a very sporty club of sportsmen at the beginning. But the "title at both ends" ideal came from the obedience/tracking advocates, and I've never heard it used to mean anything other than a conformation title plus a performance title. It wouldn't make much sense to use it to mean a dog should have a major title (prefix) plus a lesser title (suffix).