DeltaBluez Tess Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Folks Hearing all about dual registries, breeding numerous litters and for colors and breeding for sport dogs (flyball etc) makes me pause and wonder.... Just what makes an ethical and responsible breeder? One that does justice to the breed? I have my opinions and they are my opinions. The Border Collies is a working dog, plain and simple. Bred for years to gather livestock, for a job, a mission. Not breed for looks or color. Not bred to see if they could do a course in 4 or so seconds. Bred to work. Period. So I look at some of the breeders I know quite well....what do they look for in their program. Proven working ability. Clear of CEA and OFA clean rating. If the dog doesn't work, it is not in the gene pool. Doesn't matter if it is the most beautiful looking dog. They didn't breed them because one was lilac and the other one was merle. The dogs had to prove themselves. On the trial field. What it was born to do!! They are not diluting the gene pool that folks had spent hundreds of years developing. If we dilute this great gene pool how much longer until the herding ability is just a shadow of what it was before? That make me very nervous.... Diane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikw Posted June 14, 2002 Report Share Posted June 14, 2002 Diane, I don't think we have much to worry about finding what we wish to find out there,IMHO,there are quite a lot ethical breeders who really cares about the breed as a working dogs. Problems arises when someone new to the breed comes into picture and needs a working dog yet falls into the hands of quacks. As both Britta and Denise pointed out under Dual Registry thread,working abilities of these dogs are far more complex than most average owners could possibly comprehend. "It takes two to tango" comes to mind,better handling skills have a much better chance to bring out the best in a dog but it may take a true miracle to put something into a dog if it isn't there by their birth rights. That is one of many reason why one must avoid any advertisements claiming to pick out your next Champion in our litter or this litter will do all. There are numerous saying about these dogs,i.e.,can't get good ones out of good ones or two average workers may create a good one or can't destroy a good dog,blah,blah,blah. Some breeders may take that chance and sell the surplus pups,some does not believe in it. Good example I could think of will be Florence Wilson,she doesn't know you,you don't stand a chance getting a pup from her,not in this life or the next. Even a youngster coming out of her hands used to get a non-breeding statues put on it by ABCA until further notice. Better get back to chores. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Whiteman Posted June 16, 2002 Report Share Posted June 16, 2002 As I said in the Dual Registry thread "over there" a good breeder of dogs purported to work can answer clearly and in some detail any question put by someone who knows these dogs. If they can't/won't answer, avoids the questions or simply doesn't know what you are talking about, don't buy from them. The pedigree doesn't have to sparkle with championships...some of the finest trials dogs were bred out of two "farm dogs" whose ancestors were unknown. But the owners of the parents "knew dogs". Now I have a question about health... my 6 year old has developed a ring of black pigment on the bottom of one of his inner eyelids. It started as a spot and has spread around the inner lid to aboput a third of the way around. It isn't causing swelling or indeed any discomfort but does anyone know what this may be? Just "old age"?? Cheers Sue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Diane, I think it's pretty hard to come up with a punchlist for what constitutes an ethical breeder. During the whole Arthur Andersen/Enron scandal, one British commentator that I heard pointed out that the reason firms like Andersen can get away with crooked audits is that the American accountancy rules are a collection of specific proscriptions and mandates -- that is, you must not do X and you must do Y. Whatever isn't proscribed is allowed, and whatever isn't mandated is optional. This allows a lot of room for clever accountants to advise clients on ways to hide debt (such as offshore partnerships) that are not contemplated by accountancy rules, and therefore may be ethically left unreported in the company's audits, making the company look much healthier than it actually is. That's a backwards way to go at ethics. An ethical auditor would be one that is committed to providing the public and shareholders of a company with the most accurate picture of the financial status of the company as possible by whatever means necessary. Similarly, an ethical breeder is one that breeds to improve the breed to the best of his or her ability, not one that conforms to a strict set of rules and procedures. I'll even be a little heretical here and say that OFA and CERF certificates are optional. Does a farm and trial bitch who has been working daily for the past four years need a radiological examination to determine whether her hips are sound? I'd say not. Does a dog who has never produced a litter with a CEA-affected pup need to have his seventh litter eye-checked? I'd say not. OFA and CERF ratings can be very important if you're working with new lines, or if there's cause for concern within the lines you're working with. Personally, I would leave the judgment up to the breeder as to whether the examinations were necessary, as long as I could get a rational explanation from the breeder as to why they were done or omitted. One thing that you'll notice is that many people who can't tell you very much about Border collies and who can tell you even less about the working goals of their breeding program will make a big fuss of their OFA good or excellent dogs, and will imply that if such certificates are missing that the breeder is ipso facto irresponsible. Often these are the same people who are breeding for color, or for pet temperament, or flyball speed, or whatever wrong purpose is in fashion that week. My point is that OFA and CERF certificates are of limited significance if you know the breeding, trust the breeder, and approach things rationally. I look at OFA ratings the same way I look at organic certification of food. It's important if you know nothing about where the dog or the food is coming from, but I would rather pass up the certificate and learn how the dog is bred or how the carrot was raised. Just as organic certification is no guarantee of earth-friendly food, OFA certification is no guarantee of sound hips in the offspring. Organic regulations allow large-scale monoculture, and a cross of two OFA-excellent parents will produce 12.5 percent dysplastic pups. The clues that Sue gave about answering clearly and in detail about what their dogs are about -- their strengths and weaknesses on the farm and on the trial field -- will tell you a lot more about them as breeders than any collection of papers. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bill has put it succintly and importantly. The problem is, once the emphasis is taken off the DEMONSTRATED WORKING ABILITIES of the dogs - then, by defintion, there is less emphasis on what the dog has been bred for, and more on what the dog HASN'T been bred for...but IS being bred for now. The biggest problem that I see with the "test of the hill" is simply that many of our dogs don't get that test anymore - many are, essentially, hobby dogs - that perhaps demonstrate good abilities for trialing, or herding small hobby flocks, etc. Unfortunately, that isn't a proper test by the hill... A freind and I were talking last weekend about how our 7 year old "best farm dogs" were losing a step - and seemed to be aging faster than some of our other dogs...for good reasons - these are the dogs we grab, nearly every single time, to do the "work" - and they are the ones that have gotten run over by the atv, hung up in barbed wire, thrown 50' by an enraged bull, been kicked - over and over - by cattle in alleys, etc...these dogs are the closest I'll come to a "test by the hill"... Which is why I agree that OFA and CERF are "optional" - and, in my mind, should be a part - but PERHAPS A MINOR PART - of the decision making process... Off-stock "tests" of the breeding quality of ANY Border Collie are, unfortunately, used to justify the breeding of mediocre dogs...or to "elevate" a mediocre working dog to the level of "breeding stock"...usually for the personal gain of the breeder. In many cases, these "genetic titles" can simply be added to the "championships" already behind the mediocre dog's "registered" name - Ch. Darling Princess Foo-Foo, HdX, AKA, BSD, SNAFU, REMF, OFA and CERF...and used to bamboozle the unknowing... What makes an ethical breeder? What makes "ethics"? What ARE ethics? In the case of Border Collies - bred for ONE thing PARAMOUNT - working ability (anything else should be confined to other breeds)...and tell the truth... What else? ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest C Denise Wall Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bill Fosher, I take exception to some of what you wrote: >Does a farm and trial bitch who has been working daily for the past four years need a radiological examination to determine whether her hips are sound? I'd say not. < From the ABCA site http://www.americanbordercollie.org (Health and Genetics section): "The clinical symptoms of HD do not always correlate well with the severity of the disease as judged by radiological findings. Border Collies with HD that are fortunate enough to show few if any symptoms may have progeny that are not so fortunate. The exact complex combination of genetic and environmental factors that contributed to an individual's lack of symptoms will not occur in its pups. Therefore, it is important to remember that a high tolerance of an individual for the effects of HD does not mean that individual is suitable as a breeding prospect." Bill wrote: >Does a dog who has never produced a litter with a CEA-affected pup need to have his seventh litter eye-checked? I'd say not.< Denise writes: I take particular exception to this. Six litters with no affecteds certainly does not constitute any assurance whatsoever a dog is not a carrier of CEA (unless the dog was crossed to a known affected as in test bred). At the known incidence and suspected carrier rate in our breed, this could easily occur and the dog still be a carrier. At this time, if at all possible all litters should be eye tested. Bill wrote: >Just as organic certification is no guarantee of earth-friendly food, OFA certification is no guarantee of sound hips in the offspring. Organic regulations allow large-scale monoculture, and a cross of two OFA-excellent parents will produce 12.5 percent dysplastic pups.< No, the data you quote are not from crosses of two OFA excellent parents. OFA did a study where, in nonspecific breeds, crosses of OFA good or excellent parents yielded an average of 12.5% dysplasic dogs. Given the percentages of "good" vs "excellent" in all breeds, most of the crosses would have been from OFA "good" parents. And these are also dogs that may have a high breed incidence, and therefore high carrier rate (tho not expressed) of the genes contributing to HD. These data do not necessarily reflect the percentages of dysplasic pups that would be produced from these same types of corsses in our breed. Again, from the ABCA site: "Unfortunately, even following the most stringent guidelines, puppies may still be produced that will develop HD. This does not mean there's no point in testing parents before breeding them. This line of false reasoning is akin to arguing that, because working parents will occasionally produce pups that won't work, there's no point in testing the working ability of breeding stock. Selection for good hips will increase your chances of producing pups with good hips, but it's unrealistic to expect that puppies with HD will never be produced from tested, unaffected parents." Bill wrote: >OFA and CERF ratings can be very important if you're working with new lines, or if there's cause for concern within the lines you're working with. Personally, I would leave the judgment up to the breeder as to whether the examinations were necessary, as long as I could get a rational explanation from the breeder as to why they were done or omitted.< Denise writes: Here, I'll say, first, the more information you have about the lines, the better your decisions will be. However, this information should be used in addition to eye and hip testing not instead of it. Second, I have no interest in "certifications" per say. OFA represents a standardized system where the results are determined by professionals trained in that specialized area, which I think has merit, and is perhaps the best at this time. CERF merely keeps the record and statistics of eye exams. The slip from the eye examiner is just as valid as the CERF. Using the certificates as unequivocal stamps of approval with no understanding of the gray areas means people are making uninformed choices. Here I agree with Bill's general theme. There is no substitute for actual knowledge. There are few things in life that are black and white and health testing for dogs is certainly not one of them. That is no cause however to discard or discredit the aids we have just because they aren't perfect. Something commonly done that puts me off is using CERF and OFA "certificates" or "health clearances" (a misnomer if ever there was one) as marketing tools to peddle puppies. It is quite easy to elevate such certificates to a level of importance way beyond the important characteristics of the breed in an effort to capture the buyers market. Bill wrote: "One thing that you'll notice is that many people who can't tell you very much about Border collies and who can tell you even less about the working goals of their breeding program will make a big fuss of their OFA good or excellent dogs, and will imply that if such certificates are missing that the breeder is ipso facto irresponsible. Often these are the same people who are breeding for color, or for pet temperament, or flyball speed, or whatever wrong purpose is in fashion that week." I agree with this. To all working breeders - Please don't let misuse of health testing information by breeders with the wrong goals for our breed cause you to react against appropriate use of health testing in selection for sound, useful progeny. Denise [This message has been edited by C Denise Wall (edited 06-18-2002).] [This message has been edited by C Denise Wall (edited 06-18-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bill, In the most recent Systems Engineering class I just completed, ethics was defined as " decisions on 'right or wrong' based on the 'big picture' impacts", and "beyond the letter of the law." That was contrasted with "judgement", defined as "decisions based on technical intrepretation of information"; and with "legal", the minimum acceptable regulatory standards. We applied the definitions in the analysis of a case study on the Challenger disaster and the design of the shuttle O-Rings. And, no, I'm not an engineer. I'm a medical logistician with a vested interest in the decisions made by engineers. And, yes, I realize your question was probably retorical, but I've been out of the net for more than two weeks and had an urge to respond... Besides legality, judgement, and ethics all seem to apply to breeding decisions. Deb Iron Pheasant Farm [This message has been edited by Deb (edited 06-18-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Deb - "beyond the letter of the law." " decisions on 'right or wrong' based on the 'big picture' impacts" I think this might be an important concept for all ethical decisions...and fits into what both Bill F. and Denise have to say...which, by the way, I think are nearly exactly the same thing - simply interpreted through different eyes... Establishing off-stock standards for breeding workng dogs WILL ALWAYS run the risk of removing the very traits that make that dog what it is... Yet a breeder with the "big picture" will inherently understand the issue. Stamping a dog "breedable" because of "letter if the law" adherence to genetic standards, without taking into the picture right or wrong is essentially staying with the minimum regulated standards...or "technical (mis)interpretation of standards"... My Engineering Ethics classes were some time ago - but the consideration of what is morally right seems to me to be at the bottom of every breeding decision... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Concur Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpNatEm Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Ethical and Responsible breeder.It's one that health certifies AND health guarantees what they produce.What irks me is finding someone who has working dogs,believes in nothing else but that lifestyle-nothing wrong with that,BUT who knows the xrays on their dog is rated poorly and still breeds it out.Or sells defective pups and refuses money or the pup back when discovered of the defect by a vet.That's inethical and irresponsible. ------------------ Country Manor Border Collies Rogers,Mn. 763-428-8461 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Denise, I told you it was heretical. I'm also not sure it's right. Thanks for pointing out my misquote of the OFA statistics. I knew it was two good or excellent parents that will produce 12.5 percent dysplastic offspring, but I sure didn't write that. I didn't mean to imply (and I see that I did) that I think these tests should not be done. I meant to say that the presence is not, in my opinion, a litmus test for an ethical or responsible breeder. Just so I'm sure that I understand, would you say that a functionally sound dog who X-Rayed poorly, but was a solid worker with accomplishments on the farm and trial field that would otherwise make him a breeding candidate should not be considered for breeding? If so, I think you have more confidence in the significance of a radiograph and its interpretation than I do. I believe the proof is in the pudding, not in the lab. Perhaps I have only enough information to make me dangerous, but a vet I know has told me that he can make any just about any X-Ray look at least borderline dysplastic depending on how the dog is positioned and the degree of extension of the legs, etc. He was quick to add that he can't make a dog look better than it really is, only worse. Then add to that the fact that human beings interpret the films and, while they are trained and experienced, I have seen three trained and experienced shepherds condition score the same sheep and come up with three different answers. So there are at least two ways for human error to be introduced in the shooting and analysis of the films. I don't think they should be a necessary condition for a breeding decision. I believe they may be useful in informing the decisions, but I don't believe they are necessary. What the OFA system has done is forced breeders who have functionally sound dogs with OFA ratings of other than good or excellent to either hide their ratings or not breed their dogs. Even the OFA will tell you that films of obviously dysplastic dogs are seldom sent in -- the local vet simply says, "This dog will fail," and that's the end of it. I don't have a good answer for how to handle HD in Border collies, but I think a little education of puppy buyers with regard to level of play and types of nutrition in the first year of life might make more headway than basing breeding decisions on OFA status. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH [This message has been edited by Bill Fosher (edited 06-18-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Denise - Am I reading you wrong?...because I certainly don't think, from past discussions that you would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in your advocacy of hip ratings... I totally agree with Bill F., you can sign me up as a heretic - in fact some of the Orthopods at the U of Mn Vet Teaching Hospital tend not to be real "secure" in beleiving the "objectiveness" of OFA ratings - making comments like, "If this was the xray of a GSD, then they would rate it excellent, since it's a Border Collie, I'm betting they only rate it good, maybe fair." and "The rating depends on what day it shows up and what films they've been looking at lately." Hip ratings can be done by expereinced orthopods, regardless of what the folks at the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) would have you beleive...without getting too far into the politics - why should 1 particular organization have the right to "corner the market" on reading and interpreting xrays and, thereby, controlling the breeding of dogs in the United States? If a health provider in human medicine attempted to "sole source" the reading of every single human xray we would never stand for it as consumers...even making the HUGE, and I believe, erroneous, assumption that the OFA is always right... Politics and the attempt to establish a monopoly on canine breeding decisions aside... It takes a healthy dog to work, day in and day out under less than ideal conditions...at the trial I went to a week ago, some of the "best" runs were actually put together by the dogs in the best condition - no matter the talent level - because the dogs had to cover so much of the course in order to "work" the little darlings...several of the "better" dogs simply ran out of gas and headed for the water...leaving the course to the less talented but "healthier athletes". So, put me in with the heretics, and proud of it - working ability is the ONLY reason to breed these dogs - THE ONLY REASON... Working ability includes not only the intangibles we witness when we see the dog actually working sheep - but many of the things that affect the dog's ability to DO those things - from eyesight to hearing to heat stress to aerobic condition to bone structure and joint soundness and many other "athletic" abilities...that ALL must be taken into consideration... And the truly ethical breeder does that. ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 06-18-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEL Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bill G writes: "Working ability includes not only the intangibles we witness when we see the dog actually working sheep - but many of the things that affect the dog's ability to DO those things - from eyesight to hearing to heat stress to aerobic condition to bone structure and joint soundness and many other "athletic" abilities...that ALL must be taken into consideration... And the truly ethical breeder does that." And I ask: where does that leave the breeder who has a fine working dog who is 10 yrs old and still outshining the youngsters.....but who has several litters on the ground out of different bitches, and whose owner can't figure out why puppy-buyers keep calling to report to him on their severely dysplastic dogs, some of whom ended up euthanized at 2-3 yrs of age, the hips were so bad. Does that breeder keep scratching his head and breeding the dog - since it is still in fine condition and a great worker? And if so, does that also fit the definition of an *ethical and responsible breeder?* This is actually not a hypothetical question, but an actual scenario... Since the stud dog was never x-rayed, there's no saying that he is/was dysplastic..in fact, considering the longevity of his working life, he may or may not have been dysplastic himself, to any degree. And theres no saying that in each case, it might have been the dam's side to blame and the sire's side was *perfect.* And even if he was mildly dysplastic..he was a very nice working dog...perhaps if he'd been x-rayed and the H.D. was a known quantity, and his owner took care to only put him to bitches that were not only decent workers, but had clean hips themselves, there may have been a lesser impact on his progeny. I don't know.... I'm certainly not placing the value of an arbitrary hip rating above the overall quality of a fine working dog..but perhaps I'm narrow-minded enough that I'd like to think that a breeder would be interested in knowing what qualities - good and bad - that his dog brings to the mating, so that he can make the best choice in partners. I've heard it said that "if the engine's running, you don't look under the hood." But I hate seeing this idealogy applied to dog breeding.... To sum it up - I absolutely love your statement that I quoted above, and I think it is an excellent place - nay, the only place - to start in choosing breeding material...and I don't much care if breeding stock has the magic letters "OFA" or "CERF" to add to their resume, but, to steal another phrase from you "politics and the attempt to establish a monopoly on canine breeding decisions aside...," is it wrong to want an opthalmologist/orthopedist report to point out a potential flaw that might be best discovered before there are generations of pups on the ground? Wouldn't it be better to know in advance and plan accordingly, rather than breed willy-nilly and claim ignorance? I'm not a breeder, so I realize my questions may seem childishly simple, and for that I apologize...I guess its just that in my mind, it is such a great responsibility to be an ethical and responsible breeder, and the very definition can be such a "gray area" sometimes, that it seems I've never quite got it pinned down..... thanks janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest C Denise Wall Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Bill Fosher wrote: >Just so I'm sure that I understand, would you say that a functionally sound dog who X-Rayed poorly, but was a solid worker with accomplishments on the farm and trial field that would otherwise make him a breeding candidate should not be considered for breeding?< If so, I think you have more confidence in the significance of a radiograph and its interpretation than I do.< I, personally, would not breed a dysplastic dog, clinically sound or not. That does not mean I wouldn't take care to be sure the xrays, and the interpretation of them were representative of the true hip status of that dog. If everything were hinging on the hip xrays, I would certainly not hesitate to get a second opinion. I never said there were no flaws in the current testing procedures. If the current aids were perfect, we, on the ABCA Health and Genetics committee, wouldn't be looking into more useful testing strategies for our breed such as the DLS procedure through Cornell. But that doesn't mean what we have now can't be used with some assurance. If a dog has passed, it probably doesn't have HD. If it doesn't pass and you think it should, go somewhere else and have it done again. I've been through this whole argument about OFA in the past on these boards. If it didn't impress you Bills then, I doubt going through it again now will. Bill Gary wrote: >Denise - Am I reading you wrong?...because I certainly don't think, from past discussions that you would "throw the baby out with the bathwater" in your advocacy of hip ratings...< What have I said in this thread that makes you think I am "throwing the baby out with the bath water"? Work performance should be the primary selection criteria for Border Collies. Making pertinent health issues part of the selection criteria does not mean one is trying to "breed for it all". I don't, and don't know of many working breeders who have a problem with breeding to an OFA fair dog if the other factors make it a favorable cross. In my last breeding, I bred an OFA good bitch to an OFA fair dog. The actual passing OFA rating of the parents did not mean so much as the history of the other family members and progeny. I bred these dogs together primarily based on their match to create working progeny, yet I did consider other factors such as hips. There are all kinds of levels to this. Some people don't mind culling affected dogs. If one had a dog that was clinically sound but mildly dysplastic and just so unbelievably good in every other area that one was convinced it should be bred anyway, they could find the best hipped mate with the best hip history they could find. Then they could keep all the pups. It might also be acceptable to let them got to others who knew the risks. But doing such things should carry a different level of responsibility. I hope that people view me as having sensible views on these health issues because I've worked very long and hard to reach a balanced view that will be "ethical" as Deb defined it from her class - "decisions on 'right or wrong' based on the 'big picture' impacts", and "beyond the letter of the law." I think this is an excellent definition of ethical. Everyone needs to carefully review their own definition of right or wrong based on the big picture impacts before they breed. Sue, who was probably the reason this thread started in the first place, should ask herself if breeding for pets who play fun games is right in the big picture of a useful, working breed. Denise Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpNatEm Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 "should ask herself if breeding for pets who play fun games is right in the big picture of a useful, working breed. Denise" Yep,because I can name 20 owners of mine who use them as working dogs.Who cares whether you ever see them at the trials because the herding trials to you is"fun,show it off,compete"like others find in Obedience or agility.But talking about ethical and responsible I can name two known who post who breed out HD xray known dogs or sell defective pups too.But lke you all say,word gets out,or you find out through your trials of the dogs. progeny.I should hope so. ------------------ Country Manor Border Collies Rogers,Mn. 763-428-8461 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikw Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 >>>Who cares whether you ever see them at the trials because the herding trials to you is"fun,show it off,compete"like others find in Obedience or agility.But talking about ethical and responsible I can name two known who post who breed out HD xray known dogs or sell defective pups too.<<< Nothing like another pearl of wisdom from someone with half brain cell. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UpNatEm Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 LOL,half a brain cell.But yes like I said,word gets out and I know two here who would be considered irresponsible and unethical breeders. ------------------ Country Manor Border Collies Rogers,Mn. 763-428-8461 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikw Posted June 18, 2002 Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 Let's hear the names. And, as you put it,"words gets out". Any facts in those words? and whose words are those? I hear many things too but I prefer to rely on my own eyes and just asking point blank if "words" are in fact true. So far,I haven't come across anyone who lies as they look me in the eye,but the folks which I choose to deal with are much different than those who are in your circle where selling pups to any passerby is more important than anything else,including maligning the breed as a working dogs by claiming your dogs work. Sorry to say this Sue but,after writing this paragraph, " Who cares whether you ever see them at the trials because the herding trials to you is"fun,show it off,compete"like others find in Obedience or agility" I seriously doubt your mental state. You have just not maligned but sodomized the breed and all the stockman around the world. Try the site for Mr.Bud Williams, http://www.stockmanship.com when you get a chance,perhaps you could still learn a thing or two about stock and stockdogs from a man with ultimate respect for both species. If that would not enlighten you a little bit,you're sure a hopeless case. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeltaBluez Tess Posted June 18, 2002 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2002 >>Ethical and Responsible breeder.It's one that health certifies AND health guarantees what they produce<< Is this your criteria for breeding? I believe you stated you had run in trials and your dogs were titled? Have you compete in any ISDS type of courses to prove your dog's working ability? I am not interested in your answer about the pups you claim that are working but the parents? Agility ot flyball doesn't count in my book. Nor prancing around in a show ring. What was your criteria for breeding them? >>>>>Who cares whether you ever see them at the trials because the herding trials to you is"fun,show it off,compete"like others find in Obedience or agility.<< EXCUSE ME, did I miss something here? I know the REASON the Border Collie was bred .....for working ability ..and one way to show the WORKING ABILITY of the Border Collie is through trials.......herding trials that is, not jumping through a tire or grabbing a ball. With your last statement above you just slapped the faces of some BEST the Border Collies. Templeton's Roy, Price's Davey, Berhow's Nick, MacCrae's Nan..to name a few... Diane Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Whiteman Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 With respect to the statement that 20 of Mrs. Sue's dogs "work", I suggest to her that this is just not good enough.How many dogs has she sold? And I ask her to define "work". I am aware of thousands of BC's who "work"...they go out every morning and go round the back of the stock and bring them into the field/barn. The farmer thinks they work. If Mrs. Sue can show AKC herding trial prize winners, I suggest that it doesn't amount to a hill of beans.I asked her one before if any of her dogs have ever achieved a win in an ISDS type trial and she didn't answer. Enough said. I hadn't heard of this woman until a couple of weeks ago. I admit that breeding away from working stock is here to stay, though I feel it needs better understanding by those who buy pups, but I would say that if I were to meet this woman and she spoke to me as she speaks here, I would never buy nor recommend a pup from her. Having read her notes and how she expresses herself I would say that I don't like dealing with rude, slick and dismissive people. They aren't, in my definitions, ethical. To say that ethical breeding relies solely on health checks is nonsense. However to say that ethical breeding relies solely on working ability is equally nonsense. In my book, ethical breeding has to do with knowing the breed inside out and covering all the bases as best you can including health checks as they are available and proving/understanding the dogs' working ability. And being honest. Ethical breeding to me isn't how you sell a pup...it is why you breed them in the first place. If you breed them primarily for money, that, IMO, isn't ethical. If you breed more than a litter every year from mediocre dogs IMO that isn't ethical. It smacks of ulterior motives. OTOH, I admit to recognising those breeders who have superior dogs and who do have more litters than usual to fill a market hungry for superior working dogs and in a world where they are hard to come by, why not? Was the breeding of Wiston Cap "unethical"? For me, the only reason to breed is to add to a better working BC. That's the only ethical reason to breed. Creusa (not to be confused with Sue) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Denise, I'm sure your approach is perfectly rational and based on much more knowledge than I have. I'm perfectly comfortable with it. My dander is up on this issue, however, because I've recently seen a sample puppy contract that requires the pup to be spayed or neutered if it doesn't score at least OFA good. It also requires that any potential mates be OFA scored (and doesn't allow PennHip or the new procedure that Cornell is developing) and that any potential mate be scored good or excellent. One could argue that there are enough good working dogs out there that we really only need too breed the ones with tight hips, but I'm concerned that we might not fully understand the mechanics of the hip joint. I've seen OFA excellent dogs (not Border collies) with occasional hindquarter lameness, and it got me to wondering whether there might be such a thing as too much coverage. Getting a second opinion on a clinically sound dog with bad radiographs is probably a good idea, but I still say that I would rather breed a functionally sound dog with bad xrays than a lame one with good xrays. In another thread, Inci mentioned that CEA test results should not be used as a marketing tool, and perhaps that's really all that bothers me. I dislike seeing ads for dogs at stud that list their OFA and CERF ratings rather than their working accomplishments. I'm starting to think that OFA ratings may be the next witch hunt, and while I don't think that you're going to be leading the mob dragging the suspects to the dunking stool, I'm afraid that the mob will be quoting your writings. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Hey Janet - Pretty is as pretty does. If a dog is throwing problems, then that dog "probably" shouldn't be used for breeding... Note the word probably though - a situation can't be judged on one statement or condition - in the case you mention - how about the other bitches, etc.? If I (and note the "I" statement) was breeding litters that had a higher than the statistical probability of "bad" hips, "bad" eyes, or ears, or ability to be aerobically conditioned, etc. - then "I" would change the breeding...because "I" would not be getting the "working dogs" "I" would be breeding for. Also, and here's where Denise will really be mad at me... I don't beleive the evidence of hip ratings has a "provable, repeatable, conclusive and scientific" basis...I think anecdotal evidence of actual breedings of dam, sire, offspring, relatives, etc. is the only way to attempt a prediction. Just a minute before you scream... Read the excellent work that Denise has done so far - it is good work, and hopefully will lead us to EVENTUALLY enough knowledge to predict, "repeatably, conclusively and scientifically" exactly what will be thrown by a certain stud out of a certain bitch. But it doesn't do so NOW. It may give some "leanings" toward that - and perhaps some statistical basis (although as Denise points out, the statistics are not about our breed and may very well be skewed anyway)...but it isn't a predictor. As Denise says, I would have no problem breeding a "fair" to an "excellent" - IF THEY WERE GOOD WORKERS I THOUGHT WOULD ADD TO THE BREED. Partly because with the statistics we have at this time - the INCREASED chance of "dysplastic pups" is relatively minor... And I'll take this moment to ask about the definition of when you guys use the term "dysplastic" - is this a rating of "fair" or "poor" - or something else entirely? I hope sincerely, and am extremely glad that a portion of my membership money to the ABCA is being used for that purpose - that a "scientific indicator" of joint soundness can be developed... But, as a working dog breeder, even IF I knew that 1 out of a ltter MAY (statiscally)be dysplastic IF I bred the TOP working dog in the world to the second TOP working dog in the world - I WOULD breed them. And keep the pups and cull the one that showed the signs. That is also spoken as a livestock breeder...I have never needed to "cull" ("culling" can be a range of actions from simply spaying to euthanizing) a dog and pray I never do... All that said, I still do hip and eye checks and general vet checks and follow nearly every single pup I've sold "off campus" - information can only be a bad thing when it is used by self-serving fools... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 06-19-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEL Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Hey Bill, I hear what you're saying, and I'm not trying to disagree..if anything, I'm still in a fog about everything. If I hear you correctly - and I do agree - emphasis should be first, last and always on working ability. I guess what I'm wondering, in the very true scenario I described before, you have a great working dog with no obvious disability of his own, being bred to other nice working females - again with no obvious disability of her own [but no x-rays, so no "evidence" one way or the other] - but over the course of the stud dog's lifetime, you get numerous reports back of dysplastic dogs so crippled as to be unable to work - these being from different bitches, and sometimes reports of multiple dogs affected from the same litters..at what point to you either 1) stop breeding the dog, or 2) get him x-rayed to at least try and find out if you're contributing to the problem? Bearing in mind that not all puppy-buyers are probably going to bother contacting you...even less so, because if anything, they're more likely to go back to the dam's owner...how many crippled dogs have to come to your attention before you decide that the problem outweighs any potential *good* contribution this stud is making to the breed? And do you feel that there is any need to concern yourself with the pups who are unaffected to the point of being workable - but may then be bred themselves and pass the problem on down to the next generation? I do not mean to be disrespectful...I just wonder if, with the current, imperfect diagnostic tools currently at hand to identify dysplastic dogs - as a Breeder, isn't it the *right* thing to do to learn your dogs faults as well as his virtues to the best of your ability - in order to make intelligent breeding choices? And since you can't tell if a dog is affected by H.D. by simply looking, doesn't it make sense to x-ray? It seems like if you go by trial and error, and gather statistical evidence over your dog's lifetime and decide that you have a problem - in the meantime you've produced a whole lot of disappointment and heartache in the shape of the litters that you have concluded *probably* shouldn't have been bred - something that might have been averted with an x-ray. (not to say that you wouldn't still breed the dog - but you might then insist the bitch be x-rayed also, and faced with a choice of an "ok" working bitch but with so-so hips, you might decide that wasn't good enough to take the chance - where so-so hips on a really special working bitch would be worth it) I don't know...I can't honestly answer that question myself....I tend to think that yes, it does make sense; but not being a breeder myself, and certainly no expert in genetics - I am only trying to draw a picture for myself to try and understand... janet p.s. Bill writes: "All that said, I still do hip and eye checks and general vet checks and follow nearly every single pup I've sold "off campus" - information can only be a bad thing when it is used by self-serving fools..." And to me, that sums it all right up there...that is exactly what I would consider the definition of a responsible and ethical breeder. Thanks Bill.... [This message has been edited by JEL (edited 06-19-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Hey Janet - I thought that I had answered that - if "I" were breeding a situation like that - "I" would probably have stopped some time ago...based simply on the information you have provided. IF, out of every single litter that was produced, one of the pups went on to become a National Finals Top 20 dog - then the situation would become more complicated...and answers harder to come by... Does that make sense? Again, I would like to point out that these dogs were bred, first and foremost, by LIVESTOCK breeders - people who were primarily interested in the "breed" vs. individual specimens...the dogs weren't thier "babies" but were production tools much like we might view an atv or a IH tractor... This viewpoint changes things, whether you agree with it or not...and it changes the way the breed is viewed. Fitting into this scenario is also the "versatile" breeders statements about "temperment"... When a dog is sent to bring 1000 ewes with lambs off a rocky hillside, away from the only security they have ever known - or pull feedlot blackfaces around a trial course - the dog just MIGHT need to be "ill-tempered" in the judgement of companionn owners - free-thinking, bossy, unable to be cowed, unafraid of bovine, ovine, or human (but willing to RESPECT the "right" human), a dog completely incapable of being taught to "roll over" or "lie down" (off stock) because it considers those things simply STUPID. Now, I think that the downfall of the Border Collie won't be traced to akc recognition - but to "hobby" breedings - NO MATTER HOW GOOD A "WORKING DOG" THEY ARE BREEDING...because they don't have the test, the temerity, and the "objectivity" needed to improve a "breed"... And they needs must use artificial tests to "help" make the decisions. And I put myself in that category. I DON'T have the same test these dogs were bred under - no 3000 ewes on hill country that kills a dog a year... My children don't need to share dinner with the dogs - with the dogs getting the bigger share because they have the yearly gather in the morning...and so only the "good 'uns" get fed... So we, being who we are, create as good a test as we can...and try to hold to that test... Like Bill F., I KNOW the "versatile" breeders twist our words and our beleifs and our studies and pass gossip and inuendo as fact - in order to breed more and more lilacs and champagnes and flyball dogs and mild-tempered companions - but most of all, to make money selling more and more ill-bred pups... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Whiteman Posted June 19, 2002 Report Share Posted June 19, 2002 Bill, I just wanted to pick up on your point about breeding for the bigger flocks and terrain. First, I am in touch with several British breeders who still talk about breeding dogs in terms of whether they can shift hundreds of ewes in any condition over any terrain, work all day with truculent cows in barns and enclosed spaces...pretty much what the dog was always bred to do. There are certain farmers who want nothing but tough, powerful dogs because they need them. But OTOH these dogs don't get to trials fields very often...they are just too powerful , too independent. The best trials dogs are less so...strong and assertive but not THE most powerful ones. Men and women in GB have been thoughtfully and consciously breeding dogs of all temperaments for different purposes, for a long time. In history the dog was never unified in temperament or power etc. Some lines were better for thus and such and others for whatever. What I think we see today is a further splintering of lines..they are becoming known to be more specific. We have dogs bred for working in tough conditions, trials dogs, hobby dogs and then The Rest. I'm not sure this is wrong...in fact I would rather see a weak dog doing flyball than being expected to gather on a hill and making a mess of it and causing stress all round or doing nothing. But ethical breeders, IMO, know all this because they know the breed as a whole, and they breed and sell true...that is to say, they breed for a market and sell to those who fit that market. They don't sell to just anyone. One thing I try to do when I breed is to encourage my buyers to read Boards and discussion groups for a few weeks to get the hang of the wider picture. I encourage them to ask questions. I tell them about hips and eyes and explain the proper procedure as it is done here.However we are behind the US in educating the public about this but we are making some progress. Ethical breeders her refer potential owners to a series of French websites and discussion groups. The Breed Club has an Breeders' Charter which suggests this as good practice. I can't discuss the health tests here in your terms as our tests are called something different but I concur that if you are breeding a dog for work, consider the working lines you want first but if you decide to go ahead,be honest and tell the customer the possible outcomes.If I had two trials champions but one was a carrier or affected by CEA, for example, I would seriously ask myself if any progeny would really make a difference to the breed as a whole. Are my dogs better thn any other dogs Out There...enough to pass on defects? I tend to feel that there are other dogs in the world equally as good or better than mine without baggage. We aren't building up a gene pool here...we have the facilities now to mate dogs all over the world by Artificial Insemination. It is infinitely easier now to travel to mate good clear dogs. Ethically I feel we should do all we can to avoid the known problems because you never know how they will grow exponentially once the pup leaves your hands. Sue in France Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.