Working bred versus sports bred ... interesting conversations with top competitors

[Root Beer]

I happened to have this from my trial this past weekend.

 

While every dog is not this sedate, this is pretty typical, as far as what I usually see, even when there are more dogs outside the ring.

 

I warn you - it's a very boring video . . .

 

[Gloria Atwater]

... while breeders may be breeding correctly, the breed has been defined since its inception by it's ability to work stock. ....

 

If it was bred to meet physical conformation standards, or to be able to do search and rescue or to do agility, it was bred to a standard outside that of border collie.

...... When you remove the working ability as the purpose of breeding, you are no longer breeding border collies.

 

.... they've co-opted the name while tossing out THE ONLY STANDARD THEY HAVE EVER HAD....

 

 

Those bits. ^ ^ ^

 

I don't have any opinion about naming sport or conformation bred border collies something else - I think that ship has sailed and we're stuck with it.

 

But all the above is exactly why I, too, chafe whenever someone says that it's fine if someone breeds border collies for sports or conformation, so long as they keep health, soundness and good minds a priority. Sure, they may be breeding handsome, healthy, mentally-stable and nice-to-live-with dogs, but if they're not selecting for stock work ... the work goes away.

 

The work goes away. Which is like breeding horses that look like Thoroughbreds but can't get out of a trot, or that look like Quarter Horses but have zero feeling for a cow. That's my whole contention about the "sporter collies" or AKC dogs: they look the part (kind of: This year's Westminster dogs mostly looked like Aussies with tails,) but that socket in their brain that's labeled "sheep/livestock/work" is empty. There is no fuse to spark.

 

That said, though, I'm of the mindset that the die-hard sports and conformation breeders should just carry on. Keep on breeding those dogs and in another 10 or 15 years, maybe they'll be SO removed from their roots that those who treasure the working dog won't have to hear so much about high drive working dogs ending up in pet homes that can't handle them. We'll have our working lines sharply separated and meanwhile the general public will be happy owning pretty, loveable, black-and-white dogs who will have become to border collies what Irish setters are to bird dogs: just a ghost of the useful dogs they came from.

 

Cynically yours,

 

Gloria

[kingfisher7151]

I'm pretty much on the same page as Gloria, but with a little less cynicism.

 

Sport and AKC bred dogs are nothing like a real working border collie. And I feel weird saying it, but I kind of think that's ok. At this point they've split off onto their own "breeds", and we still have plenty of true working dogs around for us to choose from. If that's a "breed" that people like, I have no problems with them owning one. It's no different to me than someone choosing a different breed for any other reason. Some people like the off-the-walls sporting dogs, even if they don't have the same type of intelligence as a working bred dog. I think AKC dogs are disgusting, but as long as those people don't do anything to ruin working dogs then I say go for it. Just stay away from the working world.

 

The name game is a whole different story, and I think it's pretty stupid coming from all angles. Sport and Conformation "border collies" are not border collies. But, as one who cares strongly about the dogs we all have, I find it much more trouble than it's worth to fight a name instead of just caring about what the dog can actually do. I get it that the other dogs aren't really border collies. But it seems a little petty to get caught up in the semantics. I'd have no problem with doing what the setter folks did when the breed began to split. AKC dogs are Irish Setters, and the real "Irish Setters" are now called Red Setters. I care about what the dog can do, not what it's called. I still like the mentality that's in my area of doing "best working dog to best working dog" breeding. The dogs may end up being mostly BC with a dash of heeler, aussie, even catahoula, but I think it's still a good example of breeding for a function, not a form.

 

Ultimately, I think we're right in the middle of a true breed split. Working, Sport, and Conformation border collies are as removed from each other as they are from most other breeds. I can't see anything wrong with someone choosing a different breed of dog, in the same way as I can't see something wrong with someone getting a "border collie". BUT. It's not a real border collie. Those breeders have destroyed what's left of herding instinct. It's completely true that working dogs can do everything that a sporting bred dog can do. But I think there are plenty of high drive aussies or tollers that can do sports as well as any border collie. If people choose a working bred dog, I'm thrilled. I think they're making a great decision. But if they choose a sporting bred dog, I suppose that's their decision and I wouldn't really question it. I don't like labs, but if they're someones favorite breed, then so be it.

 

I suppose I think that as long as there's a healthy supply of working bred dogs and owners, I don't really give a damn about what's happening in the AKC or sport world.

 

I'm genuinely a bit curious, given that there are so many good working breeders out there, why are we fighting so hard against something that has clearly taken hold?

 

(and as a warning, I'm not nearly as combative as this makes me sound. I'm just not great at writing)

[Liz P]

Because it's getting harder to find people who are breeding to a high standard. I actually had a conversation with someone who claimed their dog was of excellent quality because it could gather a 1 acre paddock with some trees and brush. This dog had already sired several litters of pups being sold as working bred BCs. I have a neutered male that isn't worth breeding who can gather almost 100 acres of rough terrain with no handler input.

 

Because people are not being honest with their buyers. I knew a farmer who wanted a pup to help out at their goat dairy. They were new to working dogs and had a vague idea that the parents needed to work. Unfortunately, they ended up with a pup from Australian show lines. Sire and dam had AKC herding titles. The pup was a herding flunky.

 

I knew someone else who wanted a working dog. They bought a pup sold to them as working bred from top lines. Breeder actually had a ranch, though I think they might have had horses and not sheep or cattle. I let the buyer know that the pedigree did not match the story that the breeder told them. Sire was from Australian show color lines (AKC registered). Dam was a mix of some of the worst color puppy mills in the USA.

 

Another dog I am thinking of was purchased by a family with a small farm. They thought a Border Collie would be useful. Breeding was a mix of working, show and sport lines. Oh, but the parents had herding titles, so that made them genuine working dogs. The resulting pup would barely look at stock and was totally useless.

 

You have to understand that in the UK there are a lot more sheep and a lot more people breeding good working dogs whose parents are tested to the highest standard. I am sure that working, show and sport dogs can effectively coexist there. People understand the difference because they are immersed in the culture. Not in the USA though.

[kingfisher7151]

I'm from the US, not the UK.

 

But your examples definitely make sense.

 

I would fault the buyer in all those circumstances as well, but the breeders were either highly unethical, or extremely uneducated. I didn't take into account the fact that AKC breeders still believe that they have working dogs. I assumed they knew how bad their dogs are, when compared to real BC's. AKC breeders should be required to own a real BC before they can breed any fake ones.

[GentleLake]

Since she's American, I'm assuming Liz's examples are in the US. So, she's explaining that the problem is worse here than it may be in the UK. And I agree with her reasoning. Too many people here simply don't understand what they're buying when they're looking for a border collie, especially since few of the responsible breeders of the original border collie don't advertize the way the show, sport and pet breeders do.

 

I didn't take into account the fact that AKC breeders still believe that they have working dogs. I assumed they knew how bad their dogs are, when compared to real BC's.

 

I think conformation folks, border collie and otherwise, are possibly some of the most seriously delusional people on the planet. Most of them seem to actually believe that their dogs represent the original breeds as they were developed, except perhaps in a better (i.e. "prettier" and more uniform) package.

 

It's truly mind boggling how they seem to believe that their herding titles, for example, actually prove that their dogs are capable of doing the work that they were originally developed to do. My pointer/Lab mix could have passed one of the instinct tests I witnessed 30+ years ago because he thought sheep would be good to play with. The "herding" breeds for the most part didn't even seem to be aware that there were other animals in the enclosure with them.

[Shetlander]

Clearly I know nothing about dog behavior and responses to stimuli.

I'll leave the topic of which is better to train (working or sport bred) to you experts.

Well, I should stay out of it too, I suppose. It has been years since I've been in sports so I only know sports bred dogs socially these days. I can't comment on their behavior at shows or classes, but most agility people I know want their dog to have good self control.

 

Also, I don't really know working bred dogs although I have met a few and been impressed by their working ability. But I am unable to compare them to sports bred dogs in day to day living. Quinn is a sports version and a fine companion. He was extremely keen but not especially talented to work sheep during the handful of lessons he had. I think he would have loved to be a farmer's dog, but I can't comment on how useful he would be to the farmer.

[CptJack]

I really, really don't have a hard time understanding how so many people come to those sorts of beliefs and conclusions, wrongheaded as they are.

A lot of dog people are raised in a kennel club sort of environment, even if just passively. AKC is everywhere. It's not just a matter of dogs being registered, breeds, and all of that jazz. They market themselves like mad. Bumper stickers, magazines, dog leashes, fridge magnets, the whole nine yards, and with that marketing comes their little slogan 'Dog's champion'. They present the image of being this big, official, upstanding dog organization. Of being THE dog organization. They've got a finger stuck in every pie out there, when it comes to dog shows, dog sports (MANY dog sports, from agility to Rally to Obedience and onward), and dog trials.

People's first thought when they want a purebred dog is 'AKC registered'. Their first thought when they look for a breeder, for a sport venue, for a training class is AKC affiliated. They don't KNOW that there are other organizations for all of those things, because AKC has marketed themselves so aggressively and for so long that there is simply no getting away from them. Even if you know nothing about dogs, you know AKC. They give (because of their own marketing strategy) the appearance of 'legitimacy' to the less educated.

 

So even IF they understood that working and show lines are different, they go looking for a breed of dog or a dog, and they're going to go looking for the AKC breeder. They're looking for titles? The ones they're going to recognize as 'valid' are going to be the ones from AKC. It's a mess, and it's frustrating and saddening and ridiculous, but I really don't think it's the fault of people who are 'taken in' by it.

 

What's the phrase? You don't know what you don't know?

 

Not that it excuses people who just outright reject education, but again: unless people KNOW to question it, are challenged on that, them even thinking to question and doubt something as pervasive as the AKC in America's asking for a lot.

[juliepoudrier]

You don't know what you don't know. That's right. It's easy to say that the draw to a working dog of sheep being worked right in front of it is *nothing* like the draw to an agility dog of the dog "running hot" in the ring, especially if one has never trained stockdogs. Since Mark come to stockdogs from an agility background I think he has a unique perspective, having had a foot in both camps.

 

Most young dogs have to be *taught* to maintain their composure while in proximity of another dog working stock, hard as that may be to believe.

 

J.

[CptJack]

I don't doubt that I don't know much about stock dogs. Or agility trials all over. Or Mark. It's okay. He doesn't know agility trials I've been to or me or what my experiences are. Or other people's. Or other people his experiences. Or what I consider well behaved and controlled or what he does. Or-

 

But I'm not entirely lacking exposure, experience, or knowledge of my own. I grew up on a (working, small) farm, have family that still farms and uses dogs (including BC) on stock. Not trailing, mind, but using them.

My problem was that the descriptions I was getting did not at all match my experiences, and frankly it sounds rather as though my experiences with both dogs working and agility trials were pretty radically different than what he was describing. Given that, well, we clearly just plain disagree. That happens sometimes.

It doesn't really mean anyone's being insulted. Doesn't mean someone can't FEEL insulted, but it doesn't mean an insult has been made.

[alligande]

Every agility trial I have been to there have has been at least one annoying manic dog in a crate, it can be any breed but there always seem to be one, and there often is at least one lunging loon, which can also be of any breed. What is hard at an agility trial is to keep a dog calm, personally I prefer to keep mine calm before a run and when you have tugging barking maniacs around you it is a true challenge, mostly I can but sometimes it all becomes just to much. I don't think any of this has anything to with breeding it is the expectation of the owners, many feel they want their dogs amped up and tug and play just outside the ring, one well respected trainer has her dog bark all the way to the start line as it keeps it "focused" my feelings on that one was about the rest of us!!!!

In USDAA that has the most laid back rules you do see a large number off leash dogs outside the ring, but you also see many amped up dogs. USDAA also runs pairs in which you have two dogs in the ring, you can keep the other dog leashed but as it is a relay being off leash gets you a better result.

[ShoresDog]

Just a comment about the notion that sport-bred border collies are diverging from working-bred dogs. I don't really buy that. It looks to me like the high-end performance breeders are continually infusing working bred dogs into their lines, and so what's likelier is they are breeding a great many dogs with a lot of working bred background, but whose innate working skills may be diluted in favor of other considerations. But they aren't going off into some separate and highly distinct gene pool, as the conformation show dogs are.

 

I certainly know very, very little about agility breeding, but I see that Janice De Mello of Hob Nob border collies recently imported a pup who is a son of Kevin Evans Jimmy, and if you look at her dogs' pedigrees, you don't go back but a generation or two to see dogs like Bobby Dalziel's Wisp. Too bad her chosen sport isn't USBCHA trialing.

[mum24dog]

You don't know what you don't know. That's right. It's easy to say that the draw to a working dog of sheep being worked right in front of it is *nothing* like the draw to an agility dog of the dog "running hot" in the ring, especially if one has never trained stockdogs. Since Mark come to stockdogs from an agility background I think he has a unique perspective, having had a foot in both camps.

 

Most young dogs have to be *taught* to maintain their composure while in proximity of another dog working stock, hard as that may be to believe.

 

J.

I don't recall anyone claiming that it doesn't need to be taught or that the attraction of sheep is "nothing". Control is clearly essential for a working dog, not so much for an agility dog but it can be and is taught, and it is most common at the highest level IME.

 

It's the same but different. The same in that you are training self control in the face of a strong stimulus, different in the number and intensity of external influences thrown into the process.

 

It could, however, be argued that a dog that is focussed on wanting to chase sheep and one focussed on wanting to chase a running dog are not that different since that focus can make the dog oblivious to what is going on around. I think the difference lies in the starting point of the dog's mental state - a calmer environment at a trial, bombarded by noises, crowds, movement etc at an agility competition. Harder to get through to a dog that is already on edge.

 

I wouldn't try my youngster on sheep if I couldn't keep him under control around the rings. I don't take him in to indoor shows because it is too much for him and there is no room to keep him under threshold. I will work with him over the summer where there is more space.

[Root Beer]

You don't know what you don't know. That's right. It's easy to say that the draw to a working dog of sheep being worked right in front of it is *nothing* like the draw to an agility dog of the dog "running hot" in the ring, especially if one has never trained stockdogs. Since Mark come to stockdogs from an agility background I think he has a unique perspective, having had a foot in both camps.

 

Most young dogs have to be *taught* to maintain their composure while in proximity of another dog working stock, hard as that may be to believe.

 

J.

 

The thing is that Agility has changed - a lot, even in very recent years. I am not talking the sport itself, although that has changed to some extent, but training techniques, approaches, and even the way dogs are handled outside the ring.

 

I've seen a lot of changes in the relatively short time that I've been involved. The options available to us now to cultivate better behavior in Agility dogs outside the ring weren't even around when I first started. The whole culture is in a constant state of growth and development.

 

Just in the way of a personal example, back when I was running Maddie, I had a "rule" that if an out of control dog yanged up to her on the leash once while we were waiting out turn outside the ring, I would politely ask the handler to keep the dog off of mine. The second time, I would let Maddie handle it.

 

I don't even need a rule like that anymore. Without even being asked, handlers are giving space to each other's dogs, dogs who would be out of control are kept back beyond threshold distance, and it really is a different scene.

 

Also, when I started with Dean, the only advice out there for a dog who went crazy over the action in the ring from the sidelines was tug, tug, tug, tug! Since that time, many have realized that the last thing you want to do is try to remedy stimulation with more stimulation and approaches like Control Unleashed, Crate Games, etc. (which might utilize tug, but in a deliberate and structured way that builds self-control) have become the way that we address those issues in dogs who struggle with that.

 

Things have changed, and have changed very quickly. I'm not saying there is no craziness ever, but I would say it's not as readily accepted, and that handlers are making more of an effort to help dogs who deal with that kind of overstimulation.

 

When considering the state of Border Collies in Agility, or the overall behavior of dogs at Agility trials, and even the role that leashes play at the Agility trial site, I'd say it is important to take those kinds of changes into account.

[Laurelin]

I don't think anyone was saying Mark's experiences were wrong? I was just objecting to this idea I see around the boards a lot that agility dogs are always amped up and out of control. I don't really see that in real life at all... A few of the baby dogs at USDAA or dogs in training may be a bit overstimulated. But overall agility dogs seem pretty well adjusted to me. I certainly would not want to deal with most the average public's dogs in situations that I'm around agility dogs in. I see far more reactive and lunging dogs when I take my dogs to the park for a stroll.

 

I can think of a couple individual agility dogs I know to give a wider berth to because they're not very nice. Ironically none are border collies.

 

It's my experience too that sports lines are kind of the 'mixing ground' so to speak for border collies. I know a sports bred dog that is cousin to the westminster BOB dog. I also know other sports dogs with working lines and even parents. I don't see how the sports dogs are their own breed at this point. Or even really the confo dogs because I do see some mixing though obviously not at the higher level confo kennels though you don't see that in any breed. Those high level confo dogs are in my experience usually from just a select few lines. In my breed I often see horrendous inbreeding at those top levels.

[Pam Wolf]

I've not had time to read all the posts but for those who think learning how to train/training a dog to work stocks makes the dog a better agility dog-to a certain extent I say Horse Hockey!!!!

What stock work does do is instill distance obedience to the dog and gives the handler much better timing and aids in the handler being able to 'read' the dog and thus give better cues.

 

IN NO way does "herding" make the dog a better 'agility' dog. he comes with the agilness (or not) and the rest is training! It is the training that makes the dog better at agility. Better training = better agility

[Chanse]

As ShoresDog and Laurelin have mentioned, I also find it hard to call the sports BCs a different breed at this point. Also, for some reason I find the argument that a non-working BC isn't a BC upsetting. These hundreds of years of breeding has led to an incredible dog and I believe that it is defined by more then just being able to work stock. The standard on this site states that it is how it works sheep and cattle. I think the "how" is the most important word in that standard. Once you get into the 'how' you can create a list of characteristics that define a BC. Athletic, biddable, quiet, focused, eager to learn, etc. If you ignore these qualities of the BC then you are just left with the fact that it works stock, and well, there is already a definition for that and it is 'stockdog'.

 

I don't know, but it just seems odd to me to be so limiting on the definition of a border collie. Honestly, what do you call a BC that fails it's herding training? That dog no longer fits the standard. Do we stop calling it a border collie? This means that just being bred to work doesn't even fit the standard. Should 'border collie' be a title and not a breed?

 

Also, I don't think anyone has said this, but after reading these post it seems like a BC that is bred for anything but work is a second class dog to the working BC. I think it is wrong to say that these dogs lose their spark and become a shadow of the dogs they once were. That may be true for the conformation show dogs, but I don't see why that would be true of dogs being bred for job like agility or SAR. Herding BCs are incredible at what they do, but to say that these dogs can't be bred to be incredible at something else is crazy to me.

 

I do agree that maybe one day these lines will diverge enough to where they are actually two separate breeds, but I think it is a little far-fetched to say that has already happened. Sure, call them a sub-type of border collie, but border collie still belongs in the name (what else are you going to call the offspring of a BC and a BC?). Maybe eventually these sport dogs will get a new name that is appropriate for them yet still links back to their border collie heritage.

[CptJack]

I don't know, but it just seems odd to me to be so limiting on the definition of a border collie. Honestly, what do you call a BC that fails it's herding training? That dog no longer fits the standard

 

You call it a border collie that doesn't meet the standard. Like an oversized lab, or something similar. It's still a border collie.

 

What you failed to get out of all of this was bred for any reason other than working ability. When the dog can't work and is bred, it's deliberately breeding generations away from being what it was intended to be - we're already there. If you deliberately ignore the standard while breeding, I don't know, pugs, and generations out you end up with a dog that's multi-colored, has longish hair, prick ears and a pointy nose, is it still a pug? If you breed for 200lb black and white labs (with steadily more white, because a bit is a fault but you can breed for it) and a wavy/curly coat and hatred of water and retrieving, are you still breeding labs? Or are you creating a new breed from an existing one?

 

You can't throw out the only standard that exists, breed against it or without knowing about it and have the same breed. You just - you can't. You're creating something else. Creating something else is okay! No judgement about that from me.

 

But it HAS been changed and IS something different. At the VERY least, we'd call somebody breeding 200lb bi-colored labs with wavy coats who don't like water a really really bad breeder, and that's assuming an isolated case, rather than a movement to breed that.

 

I agree that the ship has sailed, but it's more profound a change than 'working ability' 'not', because that working ability influences a LOT of the BC. And the diversity in the working BC will be stamped out, even just physically.

 

I mean really, look at some working BC who fall WAY outside the expected conformation standard and they don't even superficially LOOK like the same breed. That's its own brand of issue and insult. When people who have dogs who were bred to the original (ONLY unti AKC got the dog) standard are the ones that make people go "That's not a border collie!"

 

That's just twisted and wrong.

[mum24dog]

I've not had time to read all the posts but for those who think learning how to train/training a dog to work stocks makes the dog a better agility dog-to a certain extent I say Horse Hockey!!!!

What stock work does do is instill distance obedience to the dog and gives the handler much better timing and aids in the handler being able to 'read' the dog and thus give better cues.

 

IN NO way does "herding" make the dog a better 'agility' dog. he comes with the agilness (or not) and the rest is training! It is the training that makes the dog better at agility. Better training = better agility

 

 

I don't recall anyone suggesting that.

 

Horse Hockey? You mean Polo?

[Maralynn]

As a SAR handler, I have no issue in principal with dogs bred for that purpose. But I can't imagine the point in creating a sub line of SAR BCs. Theoretically, I'd still be using herding bred dogs trained for SAR in any breeding of "SAR BCs" to preserve the essence of the type I love to work with. So using SAR dogs as a "what if" scenario kind of seems like a straw man argument from my perspective. If my only goal is a SAR breed, I would be much more likely to create a cross bred dog to fit the bill. A dog that would have the best blend of traits to excel at the job. Probably something like BC/Lab/terrier or BC/ACD/Lab

[Sue R]

I'm not sure where anybody, after all this time, got the idea (once again) that a "non-working Border Collie is not a Border Collie". That's never been the philosophy of these boards.

 

The issue has been, and always will be, the *breeding* of dogs for anything *but* working ability. What you *use* a working-bred dog for (stock work, SAR, agility or other performance sports, active companion, pet, etc.) has nothing to do with anything as long as you provide that animal with a good and fulfilling life.

 

It is breeding for livestock work that has made these dogs what they are. When you no longer breed for the suite of characteristics that comprise that as your primary objective, you are no longer breeding *the same thing* and will eventually be producing something other than the Border Collie.

 

It's just that simple, and I'm not sure why or how someone can make it into something complicated.

[alligande]

I've not had time to read all the posts but for those who think learning how to train/training a dog to work stocks makes the dog a better agility dog-to a certain extent I say Horse Hockey!!!!

What stock work does do is instill distance obedience to the dog and gives the handler much better timing and aids in the handler being able to 'read' the dog and thus give better cues.

 

IN NO way does "herding" make the dog a better 'agility' dog. he comes with the agilness (or not) and the rest is training! It is the training that makes the dog better at agility. Better training = better agility

I believe this originated from my comments, the women who said this to me had already placed on the podium with the dog at a world level before she ever saw sheep, she started working the dog with sheep as the dog was getting older and she felt it was important for the dog to be mentally active, her working bred agility dog took to sheep really well and she felt that her learning the new skills needed had helped her mental focus in agility, had helped to make just a more well rounded dog.

[Shetlander]

Chanse, these Boards are committed to promoting and preserving the working bred Border Collie. It is a very different mindset than you find in the sports, conformation, or pet world. As I stated in my most recent post, I don’t truly know any working bred dogs or what they are like to live with. I have met/seen a few and thought they were impressive, but I can’t really compare how they are alike or different from the sports bred dogs I am familiar with, other than the ability to work stock when even I can pick up on some things.

 

Saying a dog isn’t a Border Collie if it isn’t truly working bred isn’t a slam against individual dogs though I understand it can feel that way. I struggled with some comments myself when I first joined these boards 9 years ago. The definition of Border Collie used by the Boards is different than most are used to.

 

I have come to see Quinn for what he is. A wonderful dog but due to his breeding he is missing some essential Border Collieness, for lack of a better word. He might have made a decent farm dog, but I don’t know. His dad was an imported Oz conformation dog. His mom was sports bred with one grandparent from totally working lines. Yes, he can be great at most things I ask him to do but he is limited in his ability to work stock and from what people with working dogs say, he probably is different in other ways from their dogs. That doesn’t make him any less wonderful to me. What people are saying on these Boards is working bred dogs can “do it all” without changing their breeding but when you change the breeding for conformation, sports, whatever else, you are losing at least some of the essence of what made this breed so remarkable in the first place. And the more you breed for activities other than work, the more you lose that quality that made people say, “Hey, that dog would be great for obedience or agility or SAR, etc.” in the first place.

 

Again, this isn’t about individual dogs. It isn't about Quinn. It isn't about your dog. It is about the breed as a whole. As far as your individual dog, you won’t find better people to offer support, help, sympathy and great suggestions on a wide variety of topics. And even though new members may get upset and angry at times, long time, committed members keep reaching out and trying to help, explain and educate. People here love dogs. They have been very kind and helpful to me and my sports bred model in both good times and at some very trying moments. They understood like few people who are close to me did the depth of my pain when I lost my ancient Sheltie, a dog so removed from her breed’s original purpose that I am confident she would been frightened of sheep if she had ever encountered any. And I was once a new member who had moments of being upset, angry and I’m sorry to say quite annoying to people generously giving of their time and experience in their posts.

 

The members here want what is best for all dogs. Their particular passion is Border Collies and wanting the best for them as a breed. This involves preserving the breed and providing education of how the breed came to be and came to be such marvelous creatures. That doesn’t take away from how great your dog or Quinn or even my Lhasa is.

[Sue R]

Thanks, Liz, you said it very eloquently.

[Chanse]

I'm not really angry by any of the comments, I think confused is a better description. My dog is my dog and I love him for who he is. I will admit that he is working-lines bred and not working bred. If I was on these forums earlier I probably would have found a working bred, but I still don't regret getting the dog I got. I liked the family that breed him and I like their dogs. I also like the amount of work they put in to deciding the cross.

 

I am more just upset at the future of the breed stuff. I am not sure, but it just seems to me like people are saying these BC traits can't be captured and used for a purpose other then herding. I like the idea of breeding for a new purpose (that's why we breed dogs) and I think the sports people could breed BCs (sorry, calling them that due to lack of a better name) that still have their 'spark'. I am just upset because it sounds like people believe that breeding for something other then herding is ruining the dog. I believe that there are agility breeders out there that care more about their dogs and their breeding practice then some working breeders. Even though I am not part of that group, I do feel like this is being rude or insulting to those people that do care a lot about the health, performance, and temperament of their dogs.

 

Sure, this dog is no longer a traditional BC, but it was still created from the BC. The BC is it's heritage and that can't (and shouldn't) be ignored. I just personally feel that you can't be upset with these people for referring to them as a BC. Names like "sporter collie" and "barbie collie" doesn't cut it. They are no longer just any type of collie, and they certainly aren't a radically new collie (no crosses). Those names ignore generations of work to get to those dogs. Sure, call them "sporter border collies" or "barbie border collies" or like Root Beer said, "recreational border collies", whatever it is, you can't just remove the "border collie" from a cross of two BCs.

 

I guess I am just not as much of a die hard when it comes to dog breeds. When I think about this issue I am really just thinking about my mom who fosters pups for a leader dog organization. That organization breeds and raises labs to be leader dogs. Labs weren't meant for this, they retrieve, they don't guide people. But those traits that showed up in a lab were able to be adapted to create a phenomenal leader dog. Is that dog still a lab? Should a field lab owner be upset at someone for calling that leader dog a lab? I think that would be crazy. If I owned a field lab I would be damn proud to call that leader dog a lab. I would say "look at what this breed is capable of." That's how I feel about BCs. They are capable of so much and I don't think we should be upset at someone trying to adapt them to a new task (of course I only support that if the person is a responsible breeder).