What has color got to do with it?

[strychix]

The last two posts (the one directly above my last post was previously unseen) are very well thought out, and I agree. I'm not saying just anyone can or would do it, I'm mostly looking at the idea that it could be done, albeit very difficult. I wouldn't attempt it, personally, even with how intriguing I find genetics, but I also don't necessarily see breeding dogs in my future - especially a breed so specialized. I spay an neuter most all my pets (even had a neutered rat) and I'm very firm in believing most pets should be unless you know a lot about breeding those animals. I even got my boyfriends dog neutered when we got him, which his brother holds against me and calls me 'te castrater' long past Lakota's death and told my bf that his dog killed himself because of me.

[Debbie Meier]

It really is a point that can not be properly argued until all parties have actually gained first hand experience using a border collie on livestock who is a good example of what makes border collies special and sets border collies apart from other breeds of stockdogs.

 

As you gain the appreciation for a good dog you get to the point where you can visualize a particular dog based on it's working style and how it related to the livestock but you can't even recall what color It was, but odds are it was either black/white or a variation of black/white/brown (tri-color).

 

 

I don't think I've ever seen a Lilac or Lemon colored dog that displayed a standard of work that would be minimally acceptable for the dog to be considered a true example of a working border collie. There are some blue merles out there, but nothing that we would consider so good that we would want to use them to begin adding blue merle into our future color options. Right now we are pretty plain jane, black, white, brown. We've produced two sables but both washed out and were simply useful stock dogs that were neuter candidates.

 

Maybe what some new to the breed don't realize is that the ability to work and be useful is not enough to qualify that dog to be breeding quality in the eyes of many working dog breeders.

[gcv-border]

Well, just throwing this out there - as someone who also has an advanced degree in genetics and has bred livestock (so I know some theory and have some 'real world' experience - but not with breeding BCs), I think one must consider the genetic toolbox of BCs that exists today as a result of the breeding decisions that have been made throughout the history of the breed.

 

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that, in the past, red dogs were culled. This may also go for dogs that were too white or too black. (I use red as an example since I have heard of red dogs historically. Does anyone know of a merle dog - say before 1950 or or 1900 or so? I have always wondered if some Aussie got mixed into the pot - and that might be another interesting discussion.) Anyway, back to topic, because of past practices, the # of red dogs are proportionately much lower than B&W, it would stand to reason that the # of high-level red working dogs are also significantly lower. As has been pointed out on these boards before (see Liz's post above), one would be dealing with an extremely narrow genetic pool.

 

Yes, theoretically, I could envision a breeding program in which someone(s) could breed for high-level red working dogs (as an example). Essentially, one would have to recreate what went into breeding for the BC that we know today. That would involve thousands of crosses over a period of 50, 100 or 200 years. For EACH generation, the pups would have to grow out and be trained in order to be evaluated for herding ability before another round of crosses could be mapped out. Breedings would not only be based on herding ability, health, structure (as priorities), but also with color in mind (if only to try and carry along the red trait, but not necessarily produce red at the start of this 'breeding program'.) If one started with a few foundation dogs (and that in itself is going to produce a genetic bottleneck unless outcrosses are performed later), the numbers in each generation would grow exponentially such that no one person or organization could continue this 'experiment'. (i.e. breeding AND testing all the offspring to find the next producers). Thus, in an ivory tower approach, I could see producing red BCs of high herding ability by mapping out judicious breedings based on high criteria for herding traits, health and structure, but it would NOT happen in anyone's lifetime.

 

As others have said many times before, for working dogs that handlers can use today, you must prioritize breeding between 2 high-level working dogs that you think will complement each other using the dogs available. Most dogs are B&W because of the decisions the herders made in the past by culling red dogs. If someone wants to breed for a future where high-level R&W herding dogs are more numerous, feel free to try and recreate history - if you live long enough.

 

OK, that is my little rumination for today. Being a Devil's Advocate, in a sense, but not really, since I totally agree with not breeding for color (in the short term ). I just thought I would pose a scenario in which it might be done, if reality didn't intrude.

 

Jovi

[juliepoudrier]

I never heard of people specifically culling red dogs, but I can envision a situation in which those dogs simply weren't chosen for training or to produce the next generation, but who knows, and I don't think we ever will know, so can only speculate. Obviously red has been carried down through the generations and pops up occasionally even in lines not "known" to produce red.

 

Regarding merle, the Aussie is an American-created breed and I seriously doubt that the merles that exist in the working-bred border collie are the result of someone mixing Aussie in, especially in the UK. Doesn't merle appear in collies and shelties? At least the collie shares some progenitors with the border collie, so it would make sense to me that merle has existed for some time. This is a case where I can see shepherd prejudice preventing merle from being widely carried in the population. If merles appeared but were rarely bred from, then merle would appear only very sporadically in the population. If merles were bred from with any regularity, the ISTM that there would be more working merles out there, simply because merle is dominant and so any merle bred would statistically produce some merles. The fact that there are so few merles (until more recently) would argue that dogs in that color/pattern simply weren't bred from.

 

The thing with red is that you can breed to dog who come from lines that produced red and not get a single red pup, for more than one generation. So in general, if you are producing greater than normal numbers of reds, you must be including color as a breeding criterion, which means you are in effect compromising the working ability criterion. I have had two nice red working dogs, but neither one was a top working dog. I might have been able to upgrade by breeding to a really good male, but the minute I narrow my choices of males to those who could or would produce red, I have likely chosen against the dog whose work style/ability is the best complement to the bitch (or the most likely to improve her offspring), and that's the crux of the matter.

 

J.

[Liz P]

My understanding of the merle gene in the Border Collie population is that some of the early dogs were indeed merle. As the breed was refined by trials, people selected the dogs that were non merles. (More on this later.) At some point, not sure of the year, a woman decided she liked the merles and made it her project to bring back the working merle. To the best of my knowledge, every single merle Border Collie in the world (every one that I've found anyway) goes back to her breeding.

 

So it seems that all the merles are related. The long time shepherds I've had the pleasure of speaking with in regards to the color all say that the merles have the same work style. They are none too complimentary on that work style, many citing lack of feel (aka the ability to read sheep, find balance, etc) and several other less desirable traits.

 

It's been my experience that some bloodlines really stamp their pups physically and in working style. Linked traits maybe? All the merles are related, so it's more than a possibility they tend to have the same working style. Now, if most of the merles have the same working style and the shepherds don't like the style, you can see why there would be selection pressure against the merle.

 

Back to the whole selection for non merles early in the breed history comment I made earlier. I remember reading some papers about people doing breeding experiments to test the heritability of certain traits in working dogs. The conclusions of the papers were that the traits were recessive, so a copy from each parent must be inherited in order to get a good working dog. The true founders of the breed, the really brilliant dogs that took the Border Collie to the next level, were non merles. Whether this was by chance or not, people were selecting for the black and white dogs over the merles. Perhaps the merles only had one copy of the desirable gene/s.

 

Just some thoughts rattling around in my head.

[gcv-border]

Liz and Julie,

Thanks for your thoughts on the merle coloring in BCs. I have always wondered about its (the merle color) history.

 

Jovi