Anti merle prejudice

[CMP]

Trials do not prove working ability.

 

Trials prove trialing ability.

 

Working proves working ability.

 

The way I see it, the breed has split into three categories: pet, sport, working.

 

Some dogs fit into two categories: either the first two or the last two.

 

To assume trial ability = working ability is dangerous, if we're talking big picture of breed integrity.

[ShoresDog]

Maybe, but it's not really germane to the color breeding issue.

[Debbie Meier]

but it is relevant to this discussion where the OP mentions that the merle bitch is proven as a trial dog insinuating that the color has no factor influencing the breeding nor that it should since the dog is proven to be able to work.

 

It was interesting that it was requested that we not consider the dogs working ability in the original post.

[juliepoudrier]

I will try to make my point more clearly. Merle is dominant. To get it you have to have a merle as part of the cross. That means the dog you pictured had to have a merle parent, and that parent had to have a merle parent, and so on. I find that it stretches believability to argue that a (this) merle dog is the product of breeding decisions based solely on working ability because to keep the color in the line, a breeder has to choose a merle parent every time, regardless of whether it's the best working dog that could be chosen for that mating. And so, as has been said ad nauseum on this forum in these discussions, the breeder has based breeding decisions first on color, then on ability.

 

I didn't view the videos because I can't watch them at work and I don't choose to use up my data at home to watch videos, but as an individual the dog in question could be a good one. But I've had several dogs who have worked well at home and won open trials that I still didn't feel were worth breeding, for various reasons. If one of those dogs had been a merle and I had bred that dog because I wanted more merle working dogs, then I have put color as the main criterion.

 

Let me say that another way: there are plenty of dogs out there who win trials an/or who do great work on a farm/ranch. Those facts alone don't necessarily make them worth breeding from, no matter what color they are. But if such dogs are bred from simply because they are a cool/interesting color, then they are being bred for the wrong reasons. And that gets to Debbie M's question: if the dog had the same ability, the same trial successes, but was not a special color, would its owner consider it worth breeding?

 

And I also find it interesting that these discussions rarely surface with respect to red dogs or white (mostly white) dogs, even though there are strong prejudices against those colors as well. The only logical reason for that is because there isn't as great a demand for those colors in general (though red has gotten rather popular too).

 

J.

[ShoresDog]

The preoccupation with merle coloring and all the hypothetical and convoluted arguments that there might be situations where it is okay to breed for it ... just makes me sad.

 

Look into the pink, micropthalmic, and only partially seeing eyes of a double merle puppy, and say "Your vision sucks, and maybe you can't hear, because black and white wasn't pretty enough for us."

 

Do a Google image search for "double merle border collies," or look at the dog in the link below, and you'll see some examples. Poor dogs. It's easy to say, "no merle-merle breedings," but remember, they're dogs.

 

http://www.caithreamkennels.com/sitebuilder/images/betty4-321x471.jpg

 

Our black and white, tri, and red dogs are beautiful, functional creatures.

 

Merles are pretty, and I know some really nice ones -- Mike's Sport, Barb's Callie come to mind. I like them a lot. Breeding for merle coloring ... not.

[Gloria Atwater]

 

I won't deny it, I find Jazz absolutely stunning. I find merle, in general, to be rather appealing. I'd kill for Merle BC, that has working ability.

A question.

Lets say that a breeder puts working ability above everything else. If those certain BC's can prove themselves that they can work stock(have competed, & earned titles), & that will always be their first priority. If that said dog can't properly work stock? That dog will not be bred.Ever. But, lets say, that this same breeder will also pick out a dog based on what it's color is. There is no merle to merle breeding's

Would this be acceptable?

 

 

Well, remember that in USBCHA trialing, there are no "titles." And there are plenty of dogs running in Open that are never bred. They may have enough working ability to get around a trial course, but they're just not of the quality people look for when searching for pups. So, trialing alone is not a reason to breed.

 

However, I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you clarify? If someone breeds working dogs and they pick a dog for their own use because they like the pup's color, I have no problems. I don't care if someone owns or trials a dog that is neon purple.

 

But most of the working dogs out there will NOT be fancy colors, so for breeding purposes, the working gene pool is generally found in the standard colors: black & white, tri color and sometimes red. (For whatever reason, I seem to see more red dogs from cattle working lines.)

 

Now, if a working breeder holds out to find a quality tri color male for his quality tri bitch, I don't think that would bother me, because he wouldn't be excluding 3/4s of the working border collie population to get that color combination. I think that's what the prejudice against breeding for merle boils down to. I have no idea how things are in the UK, but in the US, most merle border collies come from AKC and/or sport breeding, and that is not selecting for the best working dog.

 

Just my thoughts, everyone's mileage may vary.

 

~ Gloria

[Gloria Atwater]

P.S. To answer the original question, I never judge a dog by its color, unless there is clearly some accompanying health issues at play. I know at least 2 blue merle Open dogs here out West who run well and who have kicked my dogs' butts a few times. But they are also well handled and their owners are not trying to breed more merles with them.

Also, Jazz looks lovely and sounds very nice. But since she is UK bred, I don't know if she can quite compare to merles found in the US. Maybe they are doing something a little different over there. As I said, the majority of merle border collies in the US come from AKC and/or sport lines, which do not breed for the best in stock working ability.

~ Gloria

~ Gloria

[Eileen Stein]

As I said, the majority of merle border collies in the US come from AKC and/or sport lines, which do not breed for the best in stock working ability.

I think the majority of merle border collies in the US come from puppy mills, whatever their registration. The color sells.

[Eileen Stein]

Trials do not prove working ability.

 

Trials prove trialing ability.

 

Working proves working ability.

 

. . . .

 

To assume trial ability = working ability is dangerous, if we're talking big picture of breed integrity.

 

There are some aspects of working ability that trials cannot test, such as stamina. But trials test most aspects of working ability extremely well. The border collie breed we know was shaped by trials to a very great extent -- Wiston Cap's influence on the breed came because he was a trial dog. When I hear working stockmen say that trials don't prove working ability, it always makes me wonder how much experience they have of trials, and what the nature of that experience has been.

[Pam Wolf]

Re: breeding to/from merles (in the US) I'd be hesitant as I know no one who selects primarily for work who has lots of merles.

 

Additionally I doubt the authenticity of some of the 'pedigrees' of some of the working merles behind some of the dogs (and if a breeder is going to lie in one area, what makes you think they would be honest in all?)

[DeltaBluez Tess]

There was a nice merle that ran at the Finals but I don't know the breeding behind that dog...I know the owner but not the dog's lineage.

[CMP]

@Eileen Stein

 

I am not a working stockman but I live with a bunch

 

My opinion is influenced, without a doubt, by the (local) working farmer's general position that a dog's ability to be an actual working dog can really only be proven by working.

 

Trialing can show off a great working dog's abilities and has often proven to do just that. It's nothing against trialing, per se, I would suggest, but rather something against the trend to consider a dog who does not have to withstand the rigors of daily/frequent/actual work but can make a good run under somewhat ideal conditions as a "working dog" and thus breeding from that dog and calling it "working bred".

 

When a real working dog wins a trial, it is a victory for the breed.

 

Trialing WAS a very important part of the evolution of the breed. But no dogs went to trial or won trials who were not ... you know ... actual working dogs. Back then people did not get "into the dogs" and let the sheep and work follow that interest. They were farmers who got dogs because they needed them to work. What they did on the trial field was considered an extension or proof of what they did on the farm. It is not really that way today.

 

I LOVE sheepdog trials and consider them superb entertainment. Who wouldn't love to watch all that grace and intent in action?

 

Trials always were a big part of the working collie world - the farmers wanted to show off their dogs as well as their own skills. They were also human and competitive and a dog trial was a fun way to have some harmless competition and entertainment. The deals for breeding that happened at those trials built the breed, to some degree. So trials are NOT bad and I do not think they are.

 

Long winded, I know - but ... here's the best parallel I know:

 

In Nova Scotia there was a boat, a schooner, called the Bluenose. A working boat. Fished the grand banks. Was high liner of the fleet a few times. On a bet, an annual race was started between an American fishing interest and a Canadian one - the Fisherman's Cup. The boats had to be working boats - proven working boats - to enter.

 

So on it went until folks got mad that the Bluenose won every race. So they designed and built a boat more designed for racing than fishing, fished it a few times to give it eligibility and entered it in the race. Bluenose won but the race was changed and eventually the boats were racing boats with a few fish thrown around in them for effect, sort of thing.

 

Over time the race became a fast boat race and not a working fast boat race and as one fisherman said, "It might have won the race but the winds of the banks would blow it apart in an hour."

 

I obviously have condensed a lot of pertinent detail but the comparison is a solid one, I think.

 

So, when I make a statement like trialing ability does not equal working ability, I do not mean to disparage trials or their importance to the breed. I mean to point out that the nature of the modern trial is more complex and contains many weekend warriors and sporting types who have gotten into the "sport" of sheepdogs but do not actually work those dogs outside of trialing.

 

So, a while a working dog with a trial title represents the best of the breed, a trialing dog with a trialing title represents something slightly different and that difference could well be important in the long term. Durability, endurance, character under real conditions, etc. - these cannot be really tested in non working dogs.

 

This is my personal opinion and may well be wrong. It has been formed, insidiously, over many years of exposure to both trials and sheep farmers.

[Maxi]

I haven't looked at the videos in the link that the OP posted, but I have looked at the pedigree. The dogs on this seem to be mainly Killiebrae ones.. In fact one Killiebrae bitch appears on both sides of the pedigree as the paternal granddam and maternal great granddam.

 

Killiebrae is Derek Scrimgeour's kennel prefix, but the breeder of the dog actually mentioned by the OP is not Scrimgeour himself.

 

So basically, is the OP just asking, do Scrimgeour's lines breed good dogs even if there is a bit of Merle in the mix?.

 

Only the person who decided to introduce the Merle originally into the cross can answer whether this dog was introduced with the intent to enhance the work ability of the offspring or whether it was introduced to improve dog sales to those who may want coloured working/trial dogs.

[emilyfalk]

I won't deny it, I find Jazz absolutely stunning. I find merle, in general, to be rather appealing. I'd kill for Merle BC, that has working ability.

 

A question.

 

Lets say that a breeder puts working ability above everything else. If those certain BC's can prove themselves that they can work stock(have competed, & earned titles), & that will always be their first priority. If that said dog can't properly work stock? That dog will not be bred.Ever. But, lets say, that this same breeder will also pick out a dog based on what it's color is. There is no merle to merle breeding's

 

Would this be acceptable?

 

 

One problem I see with this situation is that there will be other merles in the litter who will go to homes that might breed them no matter how they work. In the working world, dogs often get passed around and the breeder can easily lose track of where they end up, no matter how hard they try. Lots of well-bred dogs end up in puppy mills and become an easy selling-point for the millers when they breed them.

 

Also, the original merle breeder would have to keep every merle pup in the litter until they are old enough to be evaluated in their work in order to determine who is breed worthy. He could accumulate a bunch of dogs that way, and as Jan pointed out, now we have lots of intact merles running around who could have an accidental litter.

 

Lots of people breed dogs for the wrong reasons, no matter what the color. Like Eileen and others have pointed out, in the US so many of those breedings are dogs who are merle or red with the intended market being sport or pet people. Human nature: we want to have something that's different, fancy, attention-grabbing, and perceived as better than your boring old black and white dog. It's been shown that black dogs are less desirable to adopters and sit in shelters longer than others. How quickly are merles or reds adopted through rescue? (I'm asking)

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

Personally, I don't like blue-eyed dogs, all white dogs, blue eyed/brown-eyed dogs, red dogs or merles and if I had a hundred equally good sheepdogs to choose from, I'd avoid them. In the real world, I don't have a hundred equally good sheepdogs to choose from. At one time I may know of three or four for sale. One may have "a wee bit too much eye" - like my June, "another may hate a blind outrun" like my Luke. The third might be "soured on trials" like my Fly, the fourth may be sound-sensitive like my Silk 2.

 

And mind, I've been at this a long time and I'll hear about more available good dogs than most will.

 

So I balance the dog's strengths and flaws and the state of my bank account - we're talking real money here - against my needs here on the farm (where I must have a dog that can scour a hundred acres for sheep I cannot see) and my hopes for the trial field (will he stop, can he outrun, does he enjoy shedding).

 

I am entering an intimate relationship. Do I feel that he and I can bond, form a team, rise above ourselves? Are we right for each other? Can we work through disappointments, unexpected difficulties, my failings and his?

 

Merle, schmerle.

 

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

Oh, Donald, now you've gone and hurt Pip's feelings.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

 

Only the person who decided to introduce the Merle originally into the cross can answer whether this dog was introduced with the intent to enhance the work ability of the offspring or whether it was introduced to improve dog sales to those who may want coloured working/trial dogs.

 

As Maxi said, without being able to ask why merle was introduced into those lines, there's no way to know, well, why. But one could speculate (and *I* would speculate) that it's more likely that merle was introduced for the sake of the color rather than to improve the working traits of the dogs in question. I believe this because as I've said many times before, the numbers of good working merles is small (though growing as people continue to breed for that color--consider Astra) and so their genetic influence on the working dog as a whole should be vanishingly small, from a statistical standpoint. So the likelihood of a merle being the best dog to use to enhance the working traits of any other dog is just plain slim. And that leads to the color option being the one that makes the most sense.

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Having looked at the pedigree, I'd have to wonder ... if merle is dominant and Joss' granddam was a merle, then either Boss or Jaz would have had to be merle, right? It's dominant so it shouldn't be hidden over a generation like red could be. So I guess I'm actually interested in how one gets a merle grandaughter if the only merle in the pedigree is a grandparent. That doesn't make genetic sense to me (unless Belle was merle).

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

 

 

Trialing can show off a great working dog's abilities and has often proven to do just that. It's nothing against trialing, per se, I would suggest, but rather something against the trend to consider a dog who does not have to withstand the rigors of daily/frequent/actual work but can make a good run under somewhat ideal conditions as a "working dog" and thus breeding from that dog and calling it "working bred".

 

 

 

Trialing can show off any dog's working abilities. That's what it's designed to do. The trial course we use today is basically the same one those oldtime farmers originally set up to be "a proof of what [the dogs] did on the farm." Those "somewhat ideal conditions" you mention were not conditions that would make it easier on the dog, but conditions that would make it harder -- to really test the dogs' abilities to the highest possible standard. And it isn't only that "The deals for breeding that happened at those trials built the breed, to some degree." The trials became a revelation to most shepherds and farmers of what a sheepdog was capable of -- what it could do or be. That's why the breeding deals that shaped the breed were made. They wanted a dog who could work that well.

 

Yes, there are hobbyists in trialing now, and there weren't back then. But that fact does not change the trial's value in proving the working abilities of the dogs. The test that proves their abilities remains the same today in the ISDS and USBCHA open trials. You are right that the influx of hobbyists raises the risk that the trial requirements might be changed to be a less rigorous test of working ability, or a test of things other than working ability. You can point to AKC trials as an example of that happening, and we need to be vigilant that it doesn't happen in "real" trials. But it hasn't happened so far.

 

Your Bluenose example is not a good analogy, IMO, because a race tests only speed, which is a very small component of the elements necessary for a boat to be a good fishing boat. Naturally that would evolve into a situation where the boats that won were no longer the best working boats, because the one criterion you're selecting for is not a very big part of the requisites for work. The same thing has happened in sled dog racing -- modern day competing sled dogs are bred for speed, because speed is the ultimate criterion selected for in racing, and so they would no longer be the best dogs for serious hauling or trapline work. But sheepdog trialing does test the great majority of the elements needed in a good working sheepdog (with a few regrettably unavoidable exceptions, such as stamina), and tests them to a high degree, whatever their owners may do for a living.

[Mark Billadeau]

 

 

Trialing can show off a great working dog's abilities and has often proven to do just that. It's nothing against trialing, per se, I would suggest, but rather something against the trend to consider a dog who does not have to withstand the rigors of daily/frequent/actual work but can make a good run under somewhat ideal conditions as a "working dog" and thus breeding from that dog and calling it "working bred".

 

The main thing trialing can provide that "daily/frequent/actual work" doesn't provide is an evaluation of the dog's work on many different fields (and terrain) other than home and on many different flocks and breeds of sheep.

 

How often does "daily/frequent/actual work" allow you to evaluate a dog's gathering ability on a brand new field? How often does "daily/frequent/actual work" allow you to evaluate a dog's ability to read and manage sheep/breed of sheep you and your dog have never worked?

 

It will be very difficult for "daily/frequent/actual work" to provide this breadth of experience and evaluation prior to selection for breeding. It can be one more aspect when making breeding decisions to help ensure one is not breeding for dogs that work well on one flock of sheep on a select number of fields and terrain.

 

Let me put it another way. As a puppy buyer how am I to know your breeding program is producing dogs that can work well off light/flighty sheep on the steep hilly fields if all of your breeding selections are based upon working heavy sheep that constantly challenge dogs on flat fields? They may be bred based upon "daily/frequent/actual work" but that work is highly specific to your needs.

[GentleLake]

Having looked at the pedigree, I'd have to wonder ... if merle is dominant and Joss' granddam was a merle, then either Boss or Jaz would have had to be merle, right? It's dominant so it shouldn't be hidden over a generation like red could be. So I guess I'm actually interested in how one gets a merle grandaughter if the only merle in the pedigree is a grandparent. That doesn't make genetic sense to me (unless Belle was merle).

 

Considering that the dog in question is registered as a black tri, I'm guessing it wouldn't be a stretch if one of the parents is similarly misidentified.

[Debbie Meier]

Looked her up on Anadune, the sire, his sire and his dam were all merles.

 

Joss (sire) was a Blue Merle Tri

 

Boss (grand sire) was a Red Merle Tri

 

Daz (great grand dam) was a Blue Merle

[Kian's Mom]

If this needs to be moved then please do so, but since it is talking about Merles and working ability I have a question.

If the original working Border Collies were bl/wh or bl/wh tri then where did these other colors come from?

[Tommy Coyote]

That's a very good question. I know there are people here who have done a lot of historical research on these dogs and they will be able to answer that.

 

The really early herding dogs were a real mishmash of whatever worked best. And then some hunting dog thrown in. Maybe the better question is "why are border collies mainly black and white?"

[juliepoudrier]

To take Mark's point a bit further, if you are breeding useful cow dogs that are being used in a dairy operation, are those same dogs going to be useful gathering range cattle at branding time?

 

The trial vs real work is an age-old argument (and also one that crops up among AKC herding folks, who often claim that *their* trials--and AHBA trials--are better tests of *real* work than "border collie trials") that I think creates something of a false dichotomy. Dogs doing "real" work may or may not be good trial dogs and vice versa. But the proving of a dog on its home terrain and its home flock/herd isn't any more stringent of a test than proving a "weekend warrior" dog only at trials, if we want dogs who who have the capacity to adapt to various working conditions and types of stock.

 

I agree that with the influx of hobby herders breeding may change, but one could argue, on the basis of Denise Wall's dartboard analogy, that even weekend warrior dogs are dogs who work to a standard, and breeding from them is a better choice for keeping working ability in the breed then allowing the gene pool to be overrun by the sport/pet bred dogs. And one could also argue that the people who have not time for or interest in trialing and who need the dogs for "real" work at home will still breed their dogs, no matter what their actual standard of work as long as they are useful to their owners, so those working genetics will also remain in the gene pool, all of which keeps a larger gene pool that harbors working genetics (that is, where the selection pressure is for work, even if that work isn't the best of the best, even if not the dogs anyone would recognize as a top worker).

 

And of course aside from the novice handler breeding his/her successful candy colored ex sporter dog, there will always be people breeding to try to create the best working dogs possible. At least those latter folks will have a decent working gene pool from which to make breeding choices. JMO.

 

J.