Improving the Breed

[geonni banner]

I woke up this morning a 4 AM and tried to sort out my thoughts on the whole working dog/ competition dog thing.

 

Herding trials were indeed instituted to showcase the talents of dogs from working sheep farms, and they had the added value of being a meeting place to see dogs, talk dogs, and possibly make breeding decisions. They still have the potential to do that. But the number of people who get sheep to train a competition dog is beginning to catch up with the number of people who have working dogs from ranches and farms that they bring to trials. Or so I’m told. How does that affect the Border Collie as a whole?

 

So I thought of this analogy. I don’t want to step on toes. I just want to understand what’s happening with this breed of dog.

 

Think of it like two horses. One is a blue-blooded Quarter Horse who can trace his pedigree back in six lines to Wimpy P1, Red Miller and Peter McCue. He is a competition cutting horse, a winner of the NCHA Futurity. He is a big chestnut with four white socks, musclebound, and with hoofs the size of snuff tins. He divides his time between a semi-palatial stable, (where he dines on fancy supplements, alfalfa cubes, immaculate timothy hay, and assorted other things), a covered arena where he trains, and a breeding shed.

 

 

The second horse is a Quarter Horse too. His sire was a stud down the road – good worker. His dam was a ½ Quarter Horse, ½ grade horse of uncertain ancestry. He’s a bay, a little cat-hammed, a little ewe-necked, small, wiry, big feet and tough as nails. The wispy locks of hair on his fetlocks suggests a Percheron “in the woodpile.” He divides his time between working on a huge cow & calf outfit in Wyoming, a dirt corral, and pasture turnout. He has a 3-sided windbreak in the pasture. He eats good hay and maybe some sweet feed now and again, and whatever he finds in the pasture.

 

 

The first horse in owned by an investment banker. He is currently being syndicated. He is ridden in competition by a paid rider. He is cared for day by day by a phalanx of stable-hands.

 

The second horse is owned by the man who rides him every day, the rancher who owns the cows. He is cared for by the rancher, or one of his sons.

 

The first horse earns money for his owner. As he will for the members of his syndicate. He earns top dollar in the breeding shed. Last year he paid for the investment banker’s new swimming pool. He is a valuable source of income. The investment banker leases the cattle he is trained on, the ones he faces in competition are owned by someone else.

 

 

The second horse is a valuable member of a ranching team. He knows every square foot of the BLM land the rancher leases grazing-rights to. He faces the same cows every day; he does all sorts of work from cutting in corrals, to riding fence-lines. He is a good roping horse, and gets daily use on livestock.

 

 

The first horse earns money for his owner by standing at stud, and by siring sale-able progeny for his owner(s). He is a good investment in his own right. The cattle he works are incidentals.

 

 

The second horse is highly valued by his owner, and an indispensable tool for managing his herd of cows, but it is the sale of the cattle which pays the mortgage, not the horse himself. He is valued for his usefulness in maximizing the rancher’s success with his cows.

 

If you took the two horses and switched the places where they worked, how would each fare? Would the blue-blood hold up to daily stock work? Would he stay sound? Would he be as useful?

 

Would the rancher’s cow-pony make the grade in the competition ring?

 

And which do you think embodies the best qualities of the Quarter Horse?

 

Which would you rather have on your spread?

[Debbie Meier]

To find the answer to that question all you have to do is research the pedigrees of some of the top ranch remuda programs. This ranch was the 2013 winner, their stud horses are sons of a "who's who" of the competition cutting and cowhorse performance world http://matadorranch.com/horses/

[juliepoudrier]

I would put it a different way. There is a difference between dogs that are taught to compete in trials vs. dogs that are taught to work livestock. The former are taught very narrow skills while the latter are taught broad skills that can be applied to trials and farm work.

^^Agreed. And not all farm work is created equal either, so clinging to a farm work standard (vs. trialwork) is somewhat artificial/misleading as well.

 

There are indeed plenty of weekend warriors, but there are also people who trial and farm, so generalizing in either direction usually isn't helpful.

 

J.

[Sue R]

I've often seen on here the view that only Open trial dogs should be bred from. How often do we see posters looking for a pup told to check for recent trial results in the breeding? How can that be justified?

 

Since most people who come here to pose the question, "Where should I go to find a good breeder or a well-bred pup?" are normally novices, this is pretty sound advice because it sets a certain standard that a person who doesn't know very much can go by to evaluate a breeder/breeding.

 

In real life, as explained by Denise Wall's "bulls-eye" description of breeding choices that will keep a healthy and diverse genetic population while producing a high proportion of "useful" working dogs, it is not only Open trial winners that are bred - it is a variety of dogs from the center of the bulls-eye (the most accomplished and talented dogs) to the outer rings of the bulls-eye (dogs that are less accomplished and talented but still useful to a certain degree).

 

Talented breeders don't always use just Open-level dogs. Read Eric Halsall's "Sheepdogs, My Faithful Friends", to see a number of examples of breeders' choices (in the UK and Ireland) that involved one dog of a pair being less talented (or even unproven or proven to not be a worker) being bred to another animal that was a good match for breeding and produced excellent pups. Almost invariably, one of the dogs in the breeding choice has been outstanding in the "real world" of serious work on the hill, farm, or ranch, and perhaps also in trials, and the other (generally the bitch) has been a match in some other way, even if not proven herself.

 

Trials are not the only way of evaluating an animal but they are *one way* of evaluating an animal, off the home farm, on different stock, in a different situation. It is a valuable tool that taken alongside knowing how an animal works "at home" can give you a wider picture of what that animal is capable of doing, and in comparison to other animals on a level playing field where none has the "home court advantage" (except the animal running in a trial on its own farm/ranch).

 

But when you are talking to novices and trying to steer them in the right direction, to suggest going to a breeder who is producing a litter from Open-level animals is a good beginner's guideline. To suggest otherwise would just play into the hands of breeders who do not produce pups from well-proven and/or well-matched parents. At least that's how I see it.

[juliepoudrier]

Geonni,

The problem I see with your hypothetical is that you are talking about the extremes. There is a vast middle (the standard bell curve) of good using dogs (or horses) that are being bred from, worked to various standards, and kept in a variety of ways. Working border collies are not an all-or-none proposition. As Sue mentions above, if you understand Denise Wall's bull's eye analogy, then you know that there are good working animals, great working animals, not so good workers who happen to be great producers, good workers who always produce better than themselves, etc. It's not either/or or black/white as you seem to understand it.

 

I think what most breeders of working dogs try to do is breed to correct faults (I am not talking about conformational faults here, but holes in the attributes one needs for a good partner on the farm). I know I do. I don't look at a potential mate to one of my dogs and think about its trial record. I think about how the dog works, what I like about that dog, what that dog brings to the table WRT the faults in my own dog (no dog is perfect, even if kennel blindness leads some to believe otherwise). If the dog's good qualities are ones I value, if the dog tends to be a good producer (meaning it throws dogs that are like it in working style/ability) so that I know by making that cross I am likely to get those traits I value/seek, and if the dog's working traits are a good complement to my dog's working traits then I would make the cross.

 

Yes, in any endeavor there are folks who will choose to breed only to "champions", but I really think there are also plenty of folks who follow my decision-making process, and these people are the ones who will keep the high working standard within the breed over time. That vast middle, if you will.

 

It's also important to remember that not all people who trial are in it just for the glory and the winning, though certainly some are. Some do it because they want to be able to test their dogs on varied terrain and varied stock. I can say that a dog that travels across this country and Canada to trials and sheep and/or cattle is meeting more different types of livestock and situations than one that stays home and works its own livestock day in and day out. The dog that can do the former does indeed bring something valuable to the genetics table, as does the latter, for different reasons. It's all about finding strengths and weaknesses in the dog for the job at hand and working to create something better than that dog in the next generation. Doing so doesn't mean you're making the entire breed better in that overarching sense, but it does mean that you are keeping the good genetics there and so genetically speaking keeping not only the basic good working traits but also the diversity in genetics that make these dogs capable of doing so many different jobs related to working stock.

 

Just my two cents.

 

J.

[mum24dog]

 

 

 

Talented breeders don't always use just Open-level dogs. Read Eric Halsall's "Sheepdogs, My Faithful Friends", to see a number of examples of breeders' choices (in the UK and Ireland) that involved one dog of a pair being less talented (or even unproven or proven to not be a worker) being bred to another animal that was a good match for breeding and produced excellent pups. Almost invariably, one of the dogs in the breeding choice has been outstanding in the "real world" of serious work on the hill, farm, or ranch, and perhaps also in trials, and the other (generally the bitch) has been a match in some other way, even if not proven herself.

 

 

 

 

I know - I have my eye on one such litter atm. I probably won't follow it up but if I did I'd be more interested in the bitch that appears to have no credentials than the dog that seems to have plenty.

[Sue R]

A dog that is useful on instinct alone is a useful dog, to one degree or another. One that has been trained and developed to use both instinct and obey commands is a dog that can be used in almost any situation (taking the type of stock into consideration as there are all degrees of "easy" and "difficult" stock to work, and not all dogs are suited to all types), even when the job requires something other than plain instinct - such as fetches that are not straightforward, driving away, and similar jobs that need a dog to listen.

 

When I told one trainer I was not interested in trialing, she made the point that if I could put the dog anywhere I wanted him/her on the field, I could accomplish whatever job I needed because I could utilize both the dog's talent and instinct, and also the ability to put the dog in the position to accomplish the job that I needed.

 

My choice of dog (or pup) if I get another for work or trial, would be one that had proven itself both in "real work" and on the trial field, as a useful dog.

[geonni banner]

This is all so great - the explanations in response to my ruminations.

 

Yes, Julie, I did think of the business about extremes later, and I understand that trials do still in several ways perform their original purposes. And my horse analogy probably works better to compare working bred collies to sport-bred or even conformation-bred collies. But I'm finding my way to an understanding of issues that the population of working Border Collies as a whole face. I need all the help I can get.

 

Thank you too, Sue. Going to trials/ trial competitors to find a pup is a good idea - especially for the newbie. At least they will not be buying a conformation-bred or sport-bred dog. And they may find their way into stockwork.

 

Thank you too, Debbie, for the link. I am interested in looking at that.

[Liz P]

What Sue and Julie said.

 

I've seen some gross misconceptions and simplifications in some of the posts above.

 

I would challenge anyone to find a pedigree of a Border Collie that didn't contain a mix of trial and farm/hill dogs.

 

While it's true that if we only breed the top trial dogs we will lose genetic diversity, we need to always be striving to produce dogs who can work to an Open standard. Breeding a dog that is just adequate on a small holding is not good enough. In order to balance diversity and quality, population geneticists recommend breeding the top 30% of dogs.

 

Buy the pup out of parents that suit you as a handler. It took me years to figure out precisely what I like, want and need. Now that I know, I am very picky about what I buy and breed.

[CMP]

Having made many of them, I tend to agree about generalizations and simplifications. The format often leads to such broad brush discussions. Mea culpa.

 

Diversity inside of any gene pool is good - provided that diversity adds to the general improvement of the breed. Let's say health, work ethic, intelligence and athletic ability as a base set of qualities which most BC people could probably agree make up the core strength of the breed. Anything, any endeavor, which improves these things is ultimately a positive one.

 

Like it or lump it, the breed has evolved and is used widely for many things not related to herding farm animals as a vocation. Thus it is now bred for those things. Ergo some of the instincts particularly suited for dogs who work as herding animals are being purposefully removed. Broadly speaking, but not universally true of course: what makes a very very good working dog probably makes a very very poor family pet.

 

It makes sense that the pockets - the people who depend upon them to make a living, the people who trial and breed them, the people who use them for sports or hobbies or pets - all have a sense of wanting to make sure the dogs don't "change" too much because they truly are wonderful animals. Each of those pockets has an idea of how the breed is best protected from the other pockets - some of which are at odds with one another.

 

I have a BC I plan to train in service work and live on a large, multi-holding family farm which uses dogs and would be severely compromised if the dogs did not exist. I personally think trialling and agility and freestyle and frisbee and day trips to the dog park with the kids are all good jobs for Border Collies. I just don;t think they should be bred for those things specifically. If they are, at some point the breed will need to be split apart into types. That would suck.

 

I think I can sound judgmental which I do not mean to be - I am afraid I find the topic very interesting in an academic sort of way and I am extremely interested in everyone's point of view.

[Sue R]

Diversity inside of any gene pool is good - provided that diversity adds to the general improvement of the breed. Let's say health, work ethic, intelligence and athletic ability as a base set of qualities which most BC people could probably agree make up the core strength of the breed. Anything, any endeavor, which improves these things is ultimately a positive one...I personally think trialling and agility and freestyle and frisbee and day trips to the dog park with the kids are all good jobs for Border Collies. I just don;t think they should be bred for those things specifically. If they are, at some point the breed will need to be split apart into types. That would suck.

 

This really sums up the philosophy of this board - breeding for working ability and not for appearance, other uses, etc. Within a diverse gene pool, people who need a working dog or a working-bred dog for another use (therapy, sport, active pet, goose work, etc.) should be able to find something that is suitable for them and their need/want.

 

As Liz said, it's important to know what you want and need, and seek out that kind of dog or breeding.

 

I have two work dogs - one is a diplomat and one is balls-to-the-wall. Two very different dogs, both with different strengths and weaknesses in light of the stock that we have here on the farm and our lifestyle. If I get another dog, I will try and choose one based on what I like, what I am comfortable with, and what I need, and one that will fit in with the family life we lead as well.

[geonni banner]

Having made many of them, I tend to agree about generalizations and simplifications. The format often leads to such broad brush discussions. Mea culpa.

 

Diversity inside of any gene pool is good - provided that diversity adds to the general improvement of the breed. Let's say health, work ethic, intelligence and athletic ability as a base set of qualities which most BC people could probably agree make up the core strength of the breed. Anything, any endeavor, which improves these things is ultimately a positive one.

 

Like it or lump it, the breed has evolved and is used widely for many things not related to herding farm animals as a vocation. Thus it is now bred for those things. Ergo some of the instincts particularly suited for dogs who work as herding animals are being purposefully removed. Broadly speaking, but not universally true of course: what makes a very very good working dog probably makes a very very poor family pet.

 

It makes sense that the pockets - the people who depend upon them to make a living, the people who trial and breed them, the people who use them for sports or hobbies or pets - all have a sense of wanting to make sure the dogs don't "change" too much because they truly are wonderful animals. Each of those pockets has an idea of how the breed is best protected from the other pockets - some of which are at odds with one another.

 

I have a BC I plan to train in service work and live on a large, multi-holding family farm which uses dogs and would be severely compromised if the dogs did not exist. I personally think trialling and agility and freestyle and frisbee and day trips to the dog park with the kids are all good jobs for Border Collies. I just don;t think they should be bred for those things specifically. If they are, at some point the breed will need to be split apart into types. That would suck.

 

I think I can sound judgmental which I do not mean to be - I am afraid I find the topic very interesting in an academic sort of way and I am extremely interested in everyone's point of view.

Like!

[juliepoudrier]

I'll speak briefly to your points below.

1. Re: People breeding for other jobs (i.e., not stockwork) I know you are relatively new to this forum, but this is something that has been discussed a lot here. The board philosophy is that dogs should NOT be bred for anything besides work. Does the whole world follow that philosophy? Of course not. But rest assured that there is a core group of people who do recognize the changes that occur within a gene pool when people start breeding for characteristics specific to non-stockworkng jobs. Someone asked about why we would send newbies to stockdog trials and tell them to talk to open handlers. Sue already touched on this, but I'll say it again. Although you personally lump all trial dogs into the "other job" category, there are many of us who disagree with you, and frankly, telling someone to go seek out farmers and ranchers is pretty much a nonstarter. At least if we send them to a sheepdog trial they're going to be starting with dogs who work stock to a high level of competency, even if it's not YOUR personal idea of a high level of competency, and that's way better for the breed than just letting them bumble around on the internet and find all the websites that claim to have dogs from working lines, no matter what they're actually breeding for.

 

2. Although I can see how breeding for an agility dog or a flyball dog, or even a service dog, could be at odds with the philosophy of breeding for a dog who works stock, I think it should be clear to you from this discussion (and others that have taken place here in the past, should you care to search) that the folks who trial in general really aren't add odds with the folks who strictly farm. I think you are setting up a false dichotomy there. Now if you are referring to folks who trial at low levels or in venues other than USBCHA open I'm quite sure that you would find nothing but agreement, even from the trial folk you seem to be decrying as ruining the breed right alongside the flyball breeders and the pet breeders.

 

3. The breed is already split into types. The group that did the noise sensitivity study found that the conformation bred dogs are already pretty much their own genetic branch. As long as people continue to breed for sport for several generations, some aspects of an all around stockworking dog will be lost to that genetic population as well. You might argue that people who have trial dogs and breed them are also "ruining" the breed by somehow turning it into something different, but I would suggest that they are just part of that working continuum (again, excepting the dabblers and the folks who never want to get beyond novice or some of the other venues) that goes from the folks who want the "rip and tear" type of cowdog right on down to the folks who want the superbiddable trial dog. (Though many trial folk actually do like dogs who can think for themselves, which is where generalizations make things all murky, especially from someone who doesn't actually work dogs on stock and has never trialed and so couldn't really know what trial people want in a dog--because we're all individuals and we don't all want the same thing, just as all farmers and ranchers don't all want the same thing.)

 

It has been pointed out several times here that at least top trial dogs have displayed their competency across a variety of stock at a variety of locations, large and small, farm and range. You seem to be arguing that this adaptability--to be able to go from range ewes one weekend to a farm flock the next, from a location like Soldier Hollow or some of the western trials held on huge spaces with the sheep far enough away for the human to be nearly unable to see them, to an smaller farm with sheep that are used to being worked by dogs is not valuable. Some of these dog even move between sheep and cattle and do both well. Some excellent working, well trained farm dogs taken off the farm would flounder badly. And yet you don't see "trial folk" dismissing farm dogs as a group as not worthy of breeding from.

 

I personally don't have a huge operation, nor do I have a giant "stable" of dogs so that I can pick and choose what dog to use that day based on the task or stock at hand. When my neighbor called me because his non-dog-broke cattle got out one night, I couldn't go to the kennel and get the dog whose job it is to work the rank cattle that haven't been worked by dogs. I took the dog who, gasp!, may have worked someone's farm sheep the previous weekend, after coming back from a trial on range sheep a month earlier. and who rarely works cattle because I don't raise them. I fail to see how such a dog could not be an asset to a gene pool, even if she does have the misfortune of having been trialed to the highest levels. Some would argue that a smallholder's one or two dogs who have to manage to do all the jobs facing us are worth breeding from just on the basis of their ability to adapt to all the needs we have on the farm.

 

One could argue that having to have multiple dogs to cover the various tasks on a large operation is actually creating subgroups (kind of like what you're saying about trial dogs, agility dogs, etc.) of dogs designed to do specific jobs on a diverse operation. How is it that the former (versatile workers who trial) is bad and the latter (dogs who have specific jobs on a large farm ) are good? Both are subgroups of the larger working gene pool, no?

 

Some of the folks you dismiss as dabblers make a good living off their livestock. They also trial. Somehow that makes them the enemy to you and yours? Some of them even keep sheep and cattle, just like your family does. And yet you apparently have no respect for them, their skills, or the skills and abilities of their dogs.

 

I find that rather sad.And I can't believe I let myself get sucked into yet another one of these types of discussions.

 

J.

Like it or lump it, the breed has evolved and is used widely for many things not related to herding farm animals as a vocation. Thus it is now bred for those things. Ergo some of the instincts particularly suited for dogs who work as herding animals are being purposefully removed. Broadly speaking, but not universally true of course: what makes a very very good working dog probably makes a very very poor family pet.

 

It makes sense that the pockets - the people who depend upon them to make a living, the people who trial and breed them, the people who use them for sports or hobbies or pets - all have a sense of wanting to make sure the dogs don't "change" too much because they truly are wonderful animals. Each of those pockets has an idea of how the breed is best protected from the other pockets - some of which are at odds with one another.

 

I have a BC I plan to train in service work and live on a large, multi-holding family farm which uses dogs and would be severely compromised if the dogs did not exist. I personally think trialling and agility and freestyle and frisbee and day trips to the dog park with the kids are all good jobs for Border Collies. I just don;t think they should be bred for those things specifically. If they are, at some point the breed will need to be split apart into types. That would suck.

[Alchemist]

Just speaking for myself - but I think "recent trial results" is far too narrow a criterion for choosing a breeder/litter. Don't forget that most handlers run at most two Open dogs - and very occasionally three. It's not at all like having a huge stable of thoroughbred horses where you can pick which horse you think will suit a particular track. Some dogs may rise high in the standings because they have an exceptionally talented handler. Other dogs may attain that status because they've been trialing for years, and thoroughly know the ropes. Some handlers may have just retired their top Open dog, and have just moved a dog up from a lower class - this newer dog may not place as well as an older, more seasoned dog. Any dog (or handler!) can have an "off" day (there is an element of "luck of the draw" in the crankiness of the packet of sheep you draw).

 

I'd much rather go to trials, get to know the handlers, see how they treat their dogs, see how the dogs relate to them (are they trying to "please" them or to "appease" them, to quote one clinician)... try to meet them off the field. Find out how they raise their dogs if that's also something that's important to you. See how the dogs run - do they take responsibility for a given task, with few commands from the handler, or are they more mechanical? These things would matter far more to me than a top ranking at any particular recent trial. Ask around - tell people you're looking for a dog with (name your desired criteria - for me being a "good listener" with a "good sense for sheep" were high on my list in looking for a dog I could train on stock). These are all really, really tough for someone brand-new to Border collies to pick up on, and you're not going to "get it" at your very first trial, in all likelihood. This isn't a great endeavor for people interested in instant gratification. Metrics such as points in the national rankings just would just make it too easy, while representing just too flimsy a statistic.

 

I've often seen on here the view that only Open trial dogs should be bred from. How often do we see posters looking for a pup told to check for recent trial results in the breeding? How can that be justified?

[geonni banner]

"Diversity inside of any gene pool is good - provided that diversity adds to the general improvement of the breed. Let's say health, work ethic, intelligence and athletic ability as a base set of qualities which most BC people could probably agree make up the core strength of the breed. Anything, any endeavor, which improves these things is ultimately a positive one.

 

 

My sense was that this referred to diversity among stock dogs - not the breed at large." Was I wrong?

 

Like it or lump it, the breed has evolved and is used widely for many things not related to herding farm animals as a vocation. Thus it is now bred for those things. Ergo some of the instincts particularly suited for dogs who work as herding animals are being purposefully removed. Broadly speaking, but not universally true of course: what makes a very very good working dog probably makes a very very poor family pet.

I think this last suggests that the "average pet owner is not up to the challenge of a dog with an active mind and a strong work ethic." In my experience, this is sadly, too often true. So the Border Collie in the hands of the pet, show, etc. breeder has "valuable moving parts removed." A lamentable development, but one that is undeniably taking place.

 

It makes sense that the pockets - the people who depend upon them to make a living, the people who trial and breed them, the people who use them for sports or hobbies or pets - all have a sense of wanting to make sure the dogs don't "change" too much because they truly are wonderful animals. Each of those pockets has an idea of how the breed is best protected from the other pockets - some of which are at odds with one another.

 

I have a BC I plan to train in service work and live on a large, multi-holding family farm which uses dogs and would be severely compromised if the dogs did not exist. I personally think trialling and agility and freestyle and frisbee and day trips to the dog park with the kids are all good jobs for Border Collies. I just don;t think they should be bred for those things specifically. If they are, at some point the breed will need to be split apart into types. That would suck.

 

I don't think we have an argument here.

 

 

I think I can sound judgmental which I do not mean to be - I am afraid I find the topic very interesting in an academic sort of way and I am extremely interested in everyone's point of view.

I too, am interested in an academic sort of way. It's the only way I can be - given that I have no experience with working dogs, and given my health, age, monetary situation, etc. am never likely to.

 

I am happy to learn from my "betters" - those who do have experience of this kind. And I hope that we can discuss these things without becoming too exasperated with each other.

[simba]

I wonder if the breed has improved in that the 'average' of the breed has got better. Now that depends on which dogs you include and what time frame you pick (last twenty years, last two hundred?), and is far too wide and yet ill-defined a question… but I still wonder it.

 

Do we have more dogs, or maybe even a higher percentage of dogs, now who are being bred for work in a reasonably thoughtful way?

[geonni banner]

And I can't believe I let myself get sucked into yet another one of these types of discussions.

 

J.

I'm sorry to hear that as you are one of the people I have learned the most from. And discussion, hopefully can lead to understanding.

[Laurae]

I agree that discussing the topics this thread has brought up can be very educational. However, with all due respect, it is incredibly disrespectful to disparage different kinds of stockdogs when you don't actually have any experience working with a stockdog.

[geonni banner]

I agree that discussing the topics this thread has brought up can be very educational. However, with all due respect, it is incredibly disrespectful to disparage different kinds of stockdogs when you don't actually have any experience working with a stockdog.

Disparage? Disparage...

 

I was taught by a mediator that one of the best ways to reach an understanding of what a person you are in dialog with, or a person you are trying to understand, is to repeat in your own words, what you thought they said to you. My analogies about horses and my original post were designed to try and clarify what I think I'm hearing here by getting a response that that says "yes, that's it" or "no, it's like this."

 

I have in fact got some of that. I'm sorry if my way of saying things has been hurtful or offensive. I offer apologies to any who feel that way.

 

I'm listening to a lot of voices here. And they don't all agree about the issues under discussion. I must try to choose among them for a glimpse of the truth. I feel that I have never been led wrong by Julie, Sue, Gloria, Debbie, Tea, and many others, so naturally I am somewhat mortified that my posts were aggravating, frustrating or wrong-headed.

 

However, I do feel it's a discussion worth having. And I hope it continues. Perhaps without any further input from me. This is nearly always a very civil and civilized place - it's why I come here. But at this point I think maybe I better "sit down and shut up." And I hope the thread will go on to some useful purpose.

[CMP]

...

 

Some of the folks you dismiss as dabblers make a good living off their livestock. They also trial. Somehow that makes them the enemy to you and yours? Some of them even keep sheep and cattle, just like your family does. And yet you apparently have no respect for them, their skills, or the skills and abilities of their dogs.

 

I find that rather sad.And I can't believe I let myself get sucked into yet another one of these types of discussions.

 

J.

 

I dismissed no one. No one is my enemy. I have tremendous respect for anyone who keeps animals, whatever the quantity. I pointed out my family situation and the "feeling around here" because I, myself, am at odds with it, what with my "city bred dog" and her provenance. I find that discord interesting as a subject (and a bit of an example under a microscope of the broader BC community) worth understanding - therefore I engage in conversation and discussion. I am enjoying the whole of this thread immensely and have learned a great deal more than I knew before.

 

That said, I have clearly offended you which was not my intent and for which I apologize inasmuch as I did so unwittingly.

 

Really though, don't let it make you sad - it's a big topic and my opinion is but a small matter.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Some interesting points here. Thanks to all.

 

When I visited the ABCA several years ago I was astonished to see how many drawers were records of owners/dogs I'd never heard of and how small the files of famous handlers were.

 

The sheepmen I know don't buy trial winners. They buy their grandsons or granddaughters. They don't need trial dogs and certainly don't want to pay for them. Routine stockwork on the farm or ranch is much, much easier than open sheepdog trials.

 

Every human culture evolves - including ours. When I began in the early 80's there were very few trials and the sheep were confined in a drop pen at the setout because nobody was good enough to spot them. Nobody in europe was working Border Collies, the "clappy", "strong-eyed" dog was preferred and brutal treatment of dog and stock was unremarkable. At the International, the ISDS pulled the papers of any dog with PRA and some British handlers offloaded those they expected to fail to the US.

 

I don’t think many people are skilled enough to know if the dogs have deteriorated. The earliest complaint I’ve seen: “Oh, where are the grand hill dogs of yesteryear” was published in 1912.

 

 

Donald McCaig

[Mark Billadeau]

There are many dogs that can "get the job done", where the job is to move livestock from point A to point B. The effort involved to get the dog to understand the job and what happens between point A and point B while getting the job done can vary greatly between dogs. It is this difference that distinguishes the good and great dogs from just another dog.

 

[Pippin's person]

From my experience talking with people who thoughtfully breed their dogs, the majority seek to create puppies who have better overall talents (which can include compensating for weaknesses) relative to the parents they are breeding.

 

I have heard from several people who've been involved in stockdogs that the quality of the dogs in N. America has drastically improved over the last 30 years--I think it's difficult to predict how much more improvement is possible. But, I think that people continue to try, within the confines of the understanding that these are living beings being created who will always have strengths and weaknesses.

 

I also think it's really hard to puzzle through the relative merits of the ways that border collies may be asked to work stock in the absence of experience of those ways.

[juliepoudrier]

^^Exactly, Mark. And a point I tried to make earlier. I've seen plenty of farm work that makes me cringe, for the sake of the dogs and the livestock. I've also seen trialwork that makes me cringe, for the same reasons. The whole farm vs. trial thing just gets tiresome after a while, and as I said earlier, it seems to me a false dichotomy. Neither is likely to irreparably harm the other.

 

ETA: I also agree wholeheartedly with Robin's last paragraph above. (Actually I agree with her entire post, but the last paragraph speaks directly to the part of this discussion that bothers me the most.)

 

Geonni,

The issue I take with your comments is precisely because of your lack of experience. When you say that seeing someone's dog work is a thing of beauty but you wouldn't consider dogs from that person's kennel because they probably can't do real farm work (implied if not stated outright), you are perpetuating an idea about trial dogs that does a whole lot of people and dogs a disservice, not just the one you named specifically.

 

Certainly there are trial dogs who would struggle with the daily work on some farms, but I think the converse (farm dogs who would struggle at trials) is also true, and if I had to guess I would say that the average farm dog is more likely to struggle at a trial than the other way around. Why? Because of what's been stated here ad nauseum in these discussions, as well as discussions about where to find a good working dog: the farm dog learns its job and does that job, probably much to the great satisfaction of its owner, on a regular basis. But not all jobs are created equal, and the dog who is stellar at home doing the same routine(s) on the same stock every day is not being challenged the way a trial dog is.

 

It has been stated several times on this thread that dogs doing farm work need to be tough and independent, and the assumption is that people who trial want neither of those traits. And this opinion is coming from people who neither work dogs on the farm nor trial, so how would they even know? If statements are just being repeated from some third party, and that third party either farms or trials, but doesn't do both, then how can THEY know what trial people (or conversely, farmers) require of a dog? Except that trial people generally do farm to some extent, and some actually keep quite large numbers of stock, so they at least have some idea of the reality of farm life.

 

But either way, both types of dogs are *working* and that's certainly a damn sight better than dogs who are being bred for sport or service work or any of the other things people use border collies for (and before someone bristles at that comment and starts whining that we are elitists who don't want border collies in the hands of anyone else, or the perennial,"the times are a' changing; and working dog people should get over the fact that border collies will change right along with them," let me repeat that most of us believe border collies can and should have many uses, we just don't believe they should be bred specifically for those other uses--and I can't believe I'm having to say that, AGAIN).

 

You'll never stop the novice who gets a year end award and decides to breed Moss, the best dog ever (or the farmer who loves his dog who brings the cows to the milking parlor twice a day and thinks the only way to get another good worker is to breed *his* dog). But even so, at least Moss (or the farmer's dog) looks at stock, has some interest in working them, and actually does work, even if not to a very exacting standard, and that's less damaging to the gene pool (see Denise Wall's bulls eye description) than any of the other myriad reasons people choose to breed these dogs.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

I personally feel that the best dogs are the ones that handle the farm/ranch work with ease and then come out to the trial field as if it is a play day and nothing more difficult then they are expected to do any other day of their lives.

 

But when your watching those dogs or reviewing results, if they fail you have to discern as to if the handling is what lacks, vs. the dog. Many who are watching from the outside in credit winning and fault losing to the dog, when in many cases the dog may have been perfectly capable of executing the work, and executing it well, the failure fell on the shoulders of the handler.