Rave Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Don't know if it's been mentioned here yet, but I ran across this today: http://www.bordercolliesociety.com/bc/stdmember.htm ...a page discussing revising the BC standard for the AKC...interesting reading some of the reasoning behind some of the proposed changes. -Laura Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Laura, thanks for posting this . . . I guess. I am still queasy from reading it. IMO, every person who had anything to do with creating this standard, and everyone who commented on it, should be ashamed of themselves. There is one thing and one thing only to be said on this subject: BORDER COLLIES SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED ON THEIR APPEARANCE. Anyone who tries to prescribe how long their bodies should be compared to their heights, or whether they should be shown with or without whiskers, or how Australian their heads should be is just contributing to this idiocy. I could comment on how stupid it was to change the standard to require that the top of the head be parallel to the top of the muzzle, or that the coat should not be predominately white, but that too would be contributing to the idiocy. A border collie with parallel head top and muzzle is not better than a border collie with unparallel head top and muzzle, and vice versa. A border collie with predominately white coat is neither better nor worse than a border collie with predominately black coat. These qualities are totally irrelevant to our breed, and to set any of them as a standard to judge our breed is absurd and destructive. It is making a statement that these things matter, when the statement that should be made is that these things don't matter. A border collie is not defined by its looks. The border collie does not belong in an organization that defines dogs by their looks. WHATEVER the standards used for judging, if they are physical appearance standards they are inappropriate and harmful to our breed. And who the hell ARE these people with the gall to prescribe what a working breed they had nothing to do with creating should look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rave Posted May 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 my favorite line was the BC needed whiskers to catch the scent of the sheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgt Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Thanks for the amusement, Laura. Amen, Eileen. Still, I learned how important conformation is at a recent (excellent) clinic I attended. The clinician (who makes a living with livestock) mentioned, during a conversation about picking puppies, that he really pays attention to "conformation". I did a serious double-take. He continued on and I got the point: He needs dogs that can cover miles and miles each day, working all day long. These dogs need to be able to move quickly and stop on a dime - all day long. They have to be able to wrestle with cattle and they have to be able to finesse the sheep (and cattle, too), all day long. Certain physical characteristics, in his opinion, make a dog better/worse suited for this kind of grueling day-in-day-out real work. Hard to argue with that, I guess. I concluded that the real "conformation" standards are being enforced by this person and others like him when they breed/purchase dogs. Presumably, the vast majority of Border Collies are being bred to a conformation standard designed by people who don't use their dogs to make a living with livestock. Or do they? charlie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 One of the most telling comments had to do with how sad it was to see imported NZ/Oz style dogs, with so much "heart and desire" to work stock that their short, stubby, hairy bodies just couldn't handle. While I agree that one of these short, stubby, hairy dogs would probably have a hard time putting in a good day's work (especially at the levels of obesity that represent the norm for show dogs of all breeds), the point, which was missed, is that "heart and desire" are not the same thing as "talent" or "ability." Solo's got all the heart and desire anyone could ask for, a motor that'll run all day long, and the body to let him do it -- but it'll never make him an Open dog. And he's my soulmate, so it's hard for me to admit that. But it's true. Most of the AKC types I know would be impressed with Solo simply because you don't have to jump through hoops to get him to look at sheep. And then they tell me that Fly is ugly because her earset isn't good and her feet are too big. Pass the barf bag, Eileen. -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Superfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 I'd be interested to hear what the clinician looked for in choosing a puppy based on "conformation," Charlie. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would. I think there are legitimate structural qualities to look for in picking a dog, although many of them are individual preferences based on experience with a relatively small number of dogs. As long as they remain a matter of individual taste, no harm is done, because my experience that a little slinky dog intimidates cattle better than a big square dog balances out your experience to the contrary, and for every operation where a smoothcoat is preferable there is probably one where a roughcoat is preferable. Moreover, if the structural point is something EVERYONE who knows working dogs agrees on, then it's no doubt worth breeding for. What bothers me about even the structural dictates of conformation (apart from the coat color/eye color/tail set garbage), though, is that they lead to the triumph of theory ("whiskers enhance the ability to scent sheep" being a particularly ludicrous example) over empirical verification. This has been shown to be the inevitable result of conformation judging of dogs over and over again, in sighthounds, retrievers, sled dogs, etc. The physical characteristics that "ought to" make for the best performance according to the theorists are shown again and again NOT to make for the best performance. This is all the more true when the theorists setting the standard are unfamiliar or only shallowly familiar with the actual job to be done. I have a bitch who would never be considered to have good structure by the conformationists. Quite cowhocked, and with hind legs so long they almost HAVE to be cowhocked, because there's nowhere else for the length to go. But she is my fastest dog, by far, and my most powerful. Will this odd structure lead to a breakdown in later life? I'll have to wait and see, I guess. I'm certainly not going to ditch a dog as good as she is for one that has more orthodox conformation. Finally, on the subject of structural conformation, ya gotta take note of Kate Broadbent's Decks, who is ranked 11th in the country in qualifying points for the Finals at the age of 9 (I believe) and who has only three legs and is blind in one eye. He is not just a trial dog either -- he's a real working dog and an able assistant to Kate in her work as a shearer and contract shepherd. Would it be better if he had four legs and two good eyes? Sure. But those attributes, fundamental as they seem in theory, are demonstrably secondary to his ability and heart. Even structure is a relatively trivial part of what makes border collies what they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Well Eileen, A very well regarded handler whose name you would recognize likes a short coupled dog and has views on tail set too. Advocating for the devil, A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 I know, Andrea, but that's just one man's opinion. Other handlers of equal stature like something different. There are also some who would choose the split-faced pup in the litter because they like a split face, and others who would reject the split-faced one because they don't like a split face. The harm comes when any of this is incorporated into a breed standard. If any of these little individual preferences are institutionalized and rewarded separate and apart from working ability, then ability inevitably diminishes, because as a result of this pressure we end up selecting from a diminished pool from which some of the able are excluded. But I know you know that, when you're not playing devil's advocate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northof49 Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 I have a bitch who would never be considered to have good structure by the conformationists. Quite cowhocked, and with hind legs so long they almost HAVE to be cowhocked, because there's nowhere else for the length to go. But she is my fastest dog, by far, and my most powerful. Will this odd structure lead to a breakdown in later life? I'll have to wait and see, I guess. I'm certainly not going to ditch a dog as good as she is for one that has more orthodox conformation. _______________________________________________ To me sound structure has to be considered when breeding, but that does not mean that you produce cookie cutter dogs. I had a wonderful Border Collie that just passed to the Rainbow Bridg at 16.5 years of age on Jan 10, 2003. He was one of the most intelligent dogs I have ever had the pleasure of owning and knowing. He was great on his sheep,and also did flyball, obedience and agility, plus therapy work. I would have loved to have been able to breed him, BUT he had one of the worst structures - very straight shoulders, slab sided, too long in the hind leg and very cow hocked. He was always kept in top working condition because he was so active every day, but he started to physically break down at 8 years of age because he was not structurally sound. All my other Border Collies that I have owned since 1974 with good sound structure have lived as long as he did, but physically never broke down because they were soundly built. Aiming for sound structure does not mean that you must breed to a "standard". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 Originally posted by Eileen Stein:But I know you know that, when you're not playing devil's advocate. Damn, you've sussed me out.Actually, I heard another one on the link between looks and working style that had me hooting aloud. Again, a well regarded handler who maintains that a smooth coated tri, say, will be reluctant to flank but have good pace. And so on. I don't have the detalis right but that's the gist of it. Most entertaining. ALTHOUGH there might well be a grain of truth in some of it due to looks being genetically linked to certain traits passed down from prepotent ancestors. For example, I have always felt that a slick coated black dog is more likely to have lotso' eye. No evidence except for the anectodal kind. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Davis Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 The subject of "conformation", when the word is not being used in the AKC/showring context, but rather as in a breeder of working dogs paying attention to his or her own preferences in conformation, is an interesting topic. Like Eileen, I would be interested in hearing different folks' thoughts on what makes good conformation characteristics in working Border Collies. But too often the word itself throws people, and discussions don't get very far. Just because you look for or breed for certain things doesn't mean that a dog lacking those qualities can't work. And just because a deformed mutant 3-legged wire-haired yellow mutt is a good worker doesn't mean everyone should begin breeding for those qualities. (an exaggerated example for illustration -- please, no personal offense meant if you have this dog). And just because people discuss their ideas about conformation doesn't mean they don't know what the only valid measure of a Border Collie is. To a certain extent, breeding programs play the percentages. If I wanted a dog that could pull a load uphill all day (or whatever), I'd have certain characteristics that I was looking for. There would be occasions where dogs half my dogs' size and none of my preferred qualities could outdo my dogs by a mile. I might learn some subtle attributes from them to try and use, but I wouldn't revamp my program based on exceptions to the rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G_Davis Posted May 1, 2003 Report Share Posted May 1, 2003 forgot to mention... ...the thing that amazed (and depressed) me about the link in the original post was the number of comments sent in about the changes, and their tone and length. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokjbc Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Hi, My favorite comment was how this lady wanted the standard to say something about penalizing very dark eyes because lighter eyes look more "intense". I got a good chuckle out of that one, along with the person who wanted INTENSE put in big letters. My old trial dog looks anything but intense off of stock..sometimes she's downright comatose . I can imagine the yellow eyed fruit bat looking dogs if they took that seriously LOL. I agree though that many people do look at conformation and have preferences. The difference is that no one is trying to take those preferences and make them "official", or giving the narrow minded a way to pass judgement on dogs better than they will ever have. I come from a 4-H background, spent alot of time horse judging- and I do see working dogs with structural problems (down in front is a big one for me) - but the majority of good dogs I know are well built and without major problems. Kinda a "which came first?" question- if the dog was not fast enough or agile enough, or didn't have enough stamina- would it even be considered for breeding in the first place? The conformation world does things oppositely- they get the justification first before (and often without ever) showing the dog can do the work. My four dogs now all have some similarities and some differences- and strengths and weaknesses. My dog that can go all day is a sweet little dog, and useful in many ways- but she does have problems with dealing with pressure and is generally flaky. So what good is her nice structure to me if the whole package is not there? Jaime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Well, I would have to say that a big awkward dog that lollops along is far less likely to impress sheep with his power than a stylish dog with plenty of drive from a well angulated rear and long strides. The former will also be harder to pace and may never be able to work effectively at anything slower than a trot. And that a compact dog with what I call a "sewing machine" movement potentially will have several gears available and will be better for precise work on a technical course. Andrea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 How, in the conformation ring or in picking a puppy, would you distinguish the "big awkward dog that lollops along" from Tom Wilson's Roy or Kent Kuykendall's Bill or Jeanne Weaver's Don? Or am I misunderstanding your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mayflower Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 I just finished reading the comments on the web page that Laura posted. FWIW....I am speechless....and completely nauseated. I am utterly at a loss for words after reading though that. I don't even know where to start as far as responding to some of the ludicrous statements. I keep changing my mind about which one is the most insane.....but for now, would someone please tell me, is teeth loss from "working" genetic? Hello people!! You've got to be kidding me! I could not believe the uproar regarding loss of teeth I just took a time-out from throwing up to voice some kind of opinion on this. I think it's clear what I think about all this. You'll have to excuse me now, I need to throw up some more. Donna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Whoa, brakes on. Did you not ask, "I'd be interested to hear what the clinician looked for in choosing a puppy based on "conformation," Charlie. I'm not being sarcastic, I really would." While conformation is a long way below other factors in choosing a working dog, it IS a factor, all else being equal. And yes, if I had settled on a litter and was down to choosing a pup I would certainly consider factors like correctness of front , bite and presence of two testicles. Breeding for working ability does not negate choosing specimens that are more likely than not to stand up to the rigours my dogs will be asked to endure. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jvw Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Blackacre wrote: if I had settled on a litter and was down to choosing a pup I would certainly consider factors like correctness of front , bite and presence of two testicles But what age do the testicles decend? Can you tell before they do if they will? Jennifer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 So Andrea, I'm guessing you're looking for specimens that come with webbed feet so that they can walk on snow for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 > Well yes, I did ask that. And I meant it. And I meant the question I asked you too. How WOULD you tell the "big awkward dog that lollops along" in choosing a puppy, while at the same time be sure you weren't excluding a big, good-working dog? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 I couldn't be sure . . . but then, neither could you. So why not choose one that had a straight front and good angulation in the rear, ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL? A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackacre Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 Ha ha we have daffodils now you know Mark. And I'm still looking for the perfect border collie with snow shoe feet and retractable ice spikes. A. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 No reason at all why not, Andrea. It's as good a basis as any. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sea4th Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 But what age do the testicles decend? Can you tell before they do if they will? Actually, its part of a routine vet examination and they can be felt, way before they've descended. And no matter what the new and revised standard says, and I appreciate the efforts of those within BCSA whose influence was part of revising the standard from big and fluffy to something more moderate, but for all their efforts, the standards is always going to be up for revision, and as in a lot of other breeds, could be revised to what's currently winning in the show ring. That's why you have labs that look like rottweilers, GSD's that walk on their pasterns & hocks, bearded collies with afghan hound coats, and so on, & so on. So while seeing this "breed standard" as an attempt to educate those that buy into the whole conformation bit, I think it's futile---within the realm of the AKC mentality. Just a little side story--for years, I'd have a meet the public booth with my own dogs in a big AKC show here. My own dogs range from heavily coated, to smooth & kelpie looking and everything in between. People would surround us, 3 deep. Then one evening a couple of years ago, a bigwig from that club, asked if I had any pups, because a relative was interested--the traditional fluffy black & white. I said no, that most of my dogs didn't fit that description anyway. The subject came up about standards and I replied "Well, I don't breed to 'the standard'" "YOU don't breed to the standard???" The following year a rule was made that only entered dogs (Barbie collies) would be allowed to participate in the meet the breed venue as typical examples of the breed. Coincidence? Possibly, but I don't think so. They take themselves far too seriously. Vicki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted May 2, 2003 Report Share Posted May 2, 2003 I think you're dead right that it wasn't a coincidence. It's an article of faith in the AKC that a responsible breeder is one who breeds to the standard. That's the whole point of the standard. "The standard is the 'model' breeders use in their efforts to breed better dogs," in the words of their website. If you don't breed to the standard, you are not a responsible breeder, and your dogs cannot be a good example of the breed. > I know they congratulate themselves on sticking up for sheepdoggy-looking border collies, but what they're doing is so fundamentally wrong that I can't appreciate their efforts at all. If they understood the breed, and cared about the breed, they would take the position that border collies cannot be judged by their appearance. Period. Full stop. To my mind what they're doing is like saying it's better to murder people this way rather than that way, painlessly rather than sadistically, when what they should be saying is that it's wrong to murder people at all. But then maybe I take the dogs too seriously. 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.