Revised BCSA Standard

[sea4th]

I agree with you Eileen, 100 %. I worked side-by-side with conformation judges--for years. In fact, I almost got in an argument with one, some old broad with dyed hair & bangly jewelry, who insisted that the border collies in the ring do a full day's of work in Australia. I had to gag back some words & continue with my job. These people are delusional. They have no need of a true working dog, so they need something in their own venue to fall back on, so they make up stuff like instinct testing, etc., in addition to a conformation standard. That's all they've got!

 

Those people in the BSCA I referred to I'm sure are the ones who want to continue to participate witin AKC's system, without actually showing in conformation---and while trying to be so instrumental in changing the standard, indeed had to make compromises. Compromises, meaning selling out.

 

And---about taking themselves far too seriously---I take my dogs very seriously, but not to the point that I've seen in dog shows----anytime a dog has to have it's appearance chalked or altered in anyway, anytime a dog lives it's life with it's coat "wrapped" to protect the fringes, living in air conditioning to grow coat, anytime the planes on a head or tail set, or ear set is the ultimate, the end all----THAT's taking themselves far too seriously.

 

In the meantime, I look at the dog's around me--Satchmo, who is a year old & really homely, is brindled & his tail curls up over his back--but when he's working, it's down and he becomes beautiful. There's Pete, who would have been rejected because of the serious fault of being a tri with blue eyes, but he's a dog that never let me down and taught me the partnership human & dog. Now there's my 4 1/2 month old pups whose noses have never completely fully pigmented. I guess their show career is over before it even started. What to do. What to do. But tomorrow, they're being taken to sheep for the first time & they'll do, at 4 1/2 months of age, what I've seen fluffy show dogs unable to do---and to me, that's what its all about.

 

There are a lot of good "dog" people out there--the best, but they are functioning within a clueless organization.

 

Vicki

[cgt]

I'd be interested to hear what the clinician looked for in choosing a puppy based on "conformation," Charlie.

Hi. Things got kind of busy around here and I haven't had much time for the good things in life.

 

Regarding the "conformation" stuff. I don't want to get into the position of putting words into somebody's mouth, especially somebody who knows a helluva lot more than I. It was just casual conversation that I found kind of amusing in light of the topic of show conformation. I think the context of the discussion was the observation that this person pays more attention to certain physical characteristics than he used to when he looks to acquire dogs. Let me just say that this person was not talking about the set of the eyes, or the length of the coat or anything. Basically, this person wanted a dog with tremendous stamina and tolerance for relatively grueling work. For example, I think something like "big barrel-chested dogs typically don't have enough stamina" was mentioned. I don't think this person was being dogmatic about it. My impression was that this person uses a lot of dogs in running his business and when picking dogs some aspects of physical structure come into his decision process, based upon past experiences.

 

Let me change the subject... We've all heard the slogans/myths like: the importance black mouths, not too much white, etc. I recently heard a new one: Prick-eared dogs have more eye. Anybody heard this one?

 

charlie

[sea4th]

No, but barrel chested (is that the same as deep chested?) dogs have enough heart & lung capacity to see them through a day's work--that's what I've heard. So a barrel chested prick eared dog might be a formidable opponent/competitor/well on its way to being the ideal dog.

 

Vicki

[Smokjbc]

We've all heard the slogans/myths like: the importance black mouths, not too much white, etc. I recently heard a new one: Prick-eared dogs have more eye. Anybody heard this one?

 

>>>Charlie

 

If its true, no one has told my Nellie it. She has huge bat ears, and does not have much eye (she's usually going way to fast to slow down and stare at anything LOL). However, my other three dogs, all with prick ears (must be something in the water here) do range from moderate to excessive eye.

[SoloRiver]

I think the folks trying to revise the standard might be missing the point in more ways than one. It seems to me that the art of judging dog conformation owes more to that of judging horse conformation than it does to any direct study of functional anatomy in dogs. Dogs aren't built like horses, and they don't move like horses, although both are descended from leggy animals designed for moderate-to-high speeds sustained over long distances. They have different engineering requirements.

 

I'm not sure that any conformation standards really account for this. The engineering theory (such as it is) that they operate by often seems to be more applicable to horses than it is to dogs. That might explain why the generic show dog ideal is a dog that's built like a horse: square, with every line of every limb parallel to another, relatively inflexible through the midsection, and (except in toy breeds) with substantial bone being rewarded.

 

I don't think the ideal working Border Collie is built like a horse. I'm not a conformationist, and I think that the work a Border Collie does can be accomplished well by a wide range of conformations, with what's between the ears being more important in the end. But if speed and agility are of primary importance, it would seem more desirable to have a dog built more like a cat, than like a horse. Generally speaking, horses don't corner well, and the ones that are bred for it (like cutting horses) do it differently than a dog would. Most working Border Collies I see are built in a much "slinkier," catlike fashion than show dogs are. Fly is like that. Actually, to me a lot of the time she looks like a monkey (and she acts like one too, but I digress).

 

Solo doesn't look like an Australian-bred show dog, but his conformation fits the general mold that conformation people like. He is deep-chested, and very square, with a level topline and lots of bone. He's not cow-hocked and all his feet point in the same direction. On top of all this, he's got a very nice head (only "it's a shame about his ears," because they don't match). Conformation folks (and sports folks, actually) go ga-ga over how he's put together. The thing is, he's just not very fast. He's fast enough to make a great agility dog, but on sheep, if they're fast sheep and they decide to head for the hills, they can outrun him. He's very inflexible through the middle and has the galloping gait of a steeplechaser, not a cheetah. I think his lack of speed is directly related to his conformation, and it affects his confidence too. Nowadays, if he's in a big field and the sheep start getting away, he doesn't even try to get them, because he knows he isn't fast enough to cover them. He'll stop and look at me with this expression that says, "I'm so sorry, Mom -- what should we do now?" It breaks my heart.

 

 

Fly, the monkey dog, can always cover her sheep. And yet, she'd get laughed out of the show ring, revised standard or not.

 

I think if they select for dogs that meet the new standard, they will still end up with dogs that do not have the ideal conformation to work because they'll select for dogs built like Solo. That'll work fine for heavy, dog-broke sheep in 100x200 foot pens, or for the agility course, so they might never know the difference. Then again, if they really understood, they could never support a conformation standard to begin with.

 

-- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Superfly

[sea4th]

"It seems to me that the art of judging dog conformation owes more to that of judging horse conformation than it does to any direct study of functional anatomy in dogs"

 

Funny you should mention that Melanie. I received a reply one time, in response to something I wrote in our newsletter about this subject. The reply was from a very incensed woman, well known in this area, even throughout the AKC show-giving world for her success with conformation AuCaDo's. Overall dog-wise, she is very knowledgeable. So when she got onto the border collie bandwagon, I believe her intention was to be as successful in border collies as she she was in Australian Cattle Dogs (or--help do to border collies what she helped to do cattle dogs). She got a male from Australian show lines and finished him. 40 years of competing within AKC, she just couldn't mentally shift gears to comprehend that it's a whole different ballgame when breeding dogs that can actually work-- than the conformation hype she's been fed, and herself spewed. So in this letter which she wrote to me, she made that very analogy to equine conformation, which she heavily used to build her argument on for breeding a working dog.

 

She set up to prove the anti-conformation people wrong. She showed up at a herding fun day, with her Australian bred champion, and sat and watched. I think the more she watched the far more homlier border collies than hers actually work, the more she looked for an excuse to make a graceful exit. She found that excuse when our "clinician" used her foot push off a dog hell bent on doing ripping into a sheep (not kick), but it was the word kick that was used when she rationalized why she left. She would have no one kicking her dog.

 

A while later, she had the dog herding instinct tested. It shouldn't have passed, but it did, but just barely---although it wasn't instinct at all, instead it was obedience trained enough to take commands to position it in the proper spots for the sheep to move. IOW, the owner was attempting to read the stock with little or no interest from the dog. The dog was then officially herding instinct tested and passed & titled, to enhance his value as a show dog and stud dog.

 

There's another story of the son of one of my dogs was called in with his owner to help another of these Australian bred champions pass his herding instinct test, because the dog apparantly didn't have the power to move the sheep on his own, so this other dog went to work setting the sheep up for him. And guess what. That day, the show dog passed his herding instinct test as well.

 

An interesting side note, the owners of both of these show dogs had approached us in public and called my dogs "crippled pieces of crap".

 

I've often wondered if that eloquent comment ever came back to bite either of them in the butt.

 

Bottom line, is that AKC is gonna do what AKC has done and will continue to do. You can sit back and laugh at their silly rationalizations, just continue to work to keep the border collie the way it was meant to be---and that's no small undertaking.

 

Vicki

[Smokjbc]

Hi,

 

I think you can equate good horse conformation with good dog structure IF you have practical approach to both. I don't mean that they share similar traits- but that they do resemble each other in that you need a sound, efficient animal to perform a job well. Now, when I mentioned horse judging earlier, I mentioned it from a 4-H prospective- one well grounded in practical structure- at all times favoring function over cosmetics. That is almost directly opposite to horse "show" conformation- where cosmetics and extremes are rewarded over soundness. When I judged 4-H horses, we were presented with actual riding horses and broodmares (and even mules LOL)- yet in the Halter horse world, in most of the popular horse breeds, it is not expected of Halter Horses to be useful at all. I think the approach is different. When you do as the clinician mentioned did- select for dogs that will be expected to perform at a high level- you will look for different qualities than a person selecting for a dog to win someone else's opinion of what the breed looks like. I do see dogs that are unsound and/or have faults- obvious faults- that are pretty good dogs. I'd have to say that I would consider those faults if I was looking to breed to or get a pup from those dogs. Consider- not eliminate. How did the dog get unsound, how does its better qualities compare to this- how will the bitch/dog compliment each other? I do think good breeders consider those things, but they are personal preferences- not standardized models. A well built dog or horse will be better equipped to use its abilities- but then again, there's always animals like SeaBiscuit, who defy everyone's rules on how animals should look and perform.

[diane allen]

With great hesitation to enter this discussion....them that know, already know; them that don't, won't care.

 

I can't tell you how many people have told me my Lucy is very "type-y." I think that's a compliment - that she's built the way border collies are "supposed" to be built. She's a wonderful pet, superb at agility - but simply will not work livestock. Doesn't see them, has no interest in them, would much rather play ball or frisbee or agility. This may be due in large part to her first 3.5 years of life (not with me), but there appears to be no instinct whatsoever in her little sweet brain. So much for looks. Standards, schmandards.

 

diane

[G_Davis]

Jaime -- I've never HEARD that about prick-eared dogs, but in my (VERY) limited observations it seems to me that a higher percentage of prick-eared dogs do have that "style", that creeping lots-of-eye classic thing.

 

As far as conformation in the "sound structure" way of discussion, not silly appearance factors, you could think of hundreds, thousands of examples of successes with "poor" form & structure, in dogs, horses, or people. If you were picking a human body type and movement style for a sprinter, you would pick a Carl Lewis or a Tommy Jones, sleek & long & strong, no wasted motion, totally efficient. But, anybody remember Bob Hayes? He was short & thick & bow-legged, and he looked like he was trying to dig a hole or thrash his way out of a corn field when he was running. It seemed most of his movements were in other directions than the finish line. But he usually got there first.

[J.E.S]

"Jaime -- I've never HEARD that about prick-eared dogs, but in my (VERY) limited observations it seems to me that a higher percentage of prick-eared dogs do have that "style", that creeping lots-of-eye classic thing."

 

I wonder if its not so much that prick eared dogs have that style and more eye as much as the prick ears tend to give a dog a more focused and keen look. Take a Doberman...doesn't a Dobie with ears cropped have a keener look to it than one with drop ears?

JES.

[Smokjbc]

Hi,

 

Yes, you could find many example of unusually structured people or animals doing great things- but I think if you compared it to the number of animals/people who had problems in their chosen field because of their structure you would still find them to be the exception. My ankles are poorly constructed, they turn in and when I was real little I had to wear corrective shoes to strengthen them. When I was a kid I dreamed of being a gymnast- but reality says that even if I had had the talent and desire, I'd very likely have suffered injuries with the kind of training it takes to be successful at that sport. I think the same holds true with MOST dogs, that obvious defects and structure problems will be an issue. And even if they aren't an issue for that animal- what are the odds that they will reproduce themselves? They are more likely to pass on the undesireable traits without the same amount of heart and talent. So IMHO, we can appreciate those animals and admire their heart and spirit- but it doesn't mean if I'm looking to buy a racehorse, I'll buy one that looks like Seabiscuit .

[G_Davis]

J.E.S. -- What you're saying is probably true if we're just talking about 2 dogs standing in front of you, one with prick ears and one with flopped. But I think we're talking more about an overall working style, in action. Just two examples for clarification -- though there are many degrees in between -- some dogs really get low and creep, staring unblinkingly, while some dogs almost seem nonchalant, they're more upright, and sometimes they don't even seem like they're paying attention to the stock. Both could end up getting the same work done. It seems to me that the "classic" low creeping staring style is favored by alot of people, and especially among people that aren't Border Collie people it is the Border Collie trademark. In fact, I think when folks say a dog has alot of "style", this is what they're talking about.

[J.E.S]

"But I think we're talking more about an overall working style, in action."

 

Pairdog,I also am talking about two dogs working the same basic style. My dog gets fairly low and has that style..yet he has down ears. Some of my friend's dogs work in basically the same way yet have upright ears, to me they look more focused and keen than my dog due to his expression which is shaped by his ear set. Here, I'll try to put a pic in, I've never done this before so hopefully it will work. This isn't the best but its the only one I have that kind of shows what I mean. If my dog had upright ears I believe he would look like he has more eye.

 

 

[J.E.S]

Ok...I don't understand why I can't get these pics to work. I have tried them every which way. Even put them on another webpage and tried to get them off of that one...to no avail. Anyone have any suggestions?

JES.

[haflingerrider]

I went to a clinic, in my effort to become less herding ignorant (even though we have farmed for 27 years - we do the chasing and herding on 4 wheelers etc..). The clinician had a male Border Collie that had the worst looking front feet I have ever seen on a dog. He was so down in the pasterns he appeared to have floppey feet. I felt akward and did not ask him about the dogs feet. I wish I had asked his opinion on selecting for working ability VS ability to hold up structurally over a long period of time. I am just trying to learn, thanks for the input on this matter. I do learn alot from ya'll.