"Breeder"

[Cheri McDonald]

Okay, I am going to admit to being an idiot and slap my forhead in shame, cause I just read the rest of the posts. The lady clarified that they are working dogs and I agree with what was said about health testing. So pardon me for butting in...but I still wonder if there should be some sort of verification. I would not trade my two rescues for anything in the world, just wish there weren't so many out there.

[Sue in France]

Coming in a bit late to this discussion but I did check out the site and have to say that if I still had a red pen in my pocket,in my capacity as an ex-English teacher I would have a field day!! If the Buchanans are still reading, please note that we do not "quarantee" dogs against eye and hip problems...not even "quarantine" them. We have them examined/tested/certified as free from etc. In addition I would challenge the assertion of being worldclass...whatever that means. If you were in France you would not be able to breed more than one litter per year unless you were a certified breeder and inspected. In Germany,Switzerland, Holland and Denmark you would find even more stringent regulations.

However this does raise a couple of issues that have been bothering me recently. Apologies to those who read The Other Board.

If I do have a litter of pups, I do so because I have had a request for a pup or two and think that, the sire and dam compliment each other temperamentally as well as in their working styles. TBH that is about all you can honestly say is a good bet (and I put it no higher than that)that will be reproduced and the working style is a bit of a lottery at that. And I am well-known here for selling them only to those who have work for them to do later on....farmers and shepherds.For every one I sell I turn down roughly eight requests for pets.

I am not a shepherd though I have 30 sheep and try to run them as would anyone with 3000. I do not make my living shepherding (though given another 30 years back and a big bank loan I would love to) though it is a 24/7 hobby that pays its way. I have two Open class BC's and quite frankly and honestly that is one too many as far as needing them for work. I appreciate them for allowing me to know the breed better and working with different styles. I do not go tramping the hills though try to find work in the mountains when I can...a fullish day about twice a month. Both dogs get about an hour a day on the sheep at best. And I am feeling extremely guilty about that...it isn't enough.

But then I think of the many people I am aware of who read and write to Boards and groups who have BC's and use them once a week when they take them to a trainer. Some go on about BC's should work and not be pets. But for six and a half days a week some of these dogs are just that. IMO they don't work...they pursue an activity and not very often at that.

Shepherds and farmers need a new dog about once every ten years. But if we supplied only that need we would not go very far very fast to improve the breed (whatever that means to each of us) nor would we encourage so many people to appreciate the dog (is that so important?) and our gene pool would be rather smaller as well. In the old days the dog was strictly a farmer's dog and TBH maybe that is the way it should have stayed if we are true to our stated credo.

But the genie is out of the bottle and we have a huge request for pets, both active and passive. You may not like it but it is there. There is also a huge pool of dogs which are poor workers by breeding...too weak, (but often great with kids), they grip but make great frisbee dogs etc. Dogs a farmer would get rid of. So you have a supply and you have a huge demand. If you decided tomorrow never to breed a pet BC you would still have people wanting one and being forced to buy a working one (someone will sell them a dog, be sure of that) but never working it...that IMO is worse. Surely it is better that those dogs bred to work DO work (and I mean properly...not just one a week for an hour) and those bred for Other Traits are sold as pets...openly and honestly? The worst of all worlds for me is the mixing of the two. I would rather the Buchanans said we breed dogs that don't work but the temperament and health of these dogs is carefully screened and certified as correct. Or that they said we breed for work... Period. At this time I see nothing wrong with breeding pet dogs for pet owners. What I do see as wrong is breeding working dogs for pet owners.

I know I am going to get flack over this because the received wisdom is that no BC should be bred for anything other than work.But as I said, my definition of work is a full tme job. That would be fine except that there is also the requirement that noone SELLS a working BC to a pet owner. But these pet owners are there and why should they not offer a good home to a dog which will be expressing all that is left there in its head? Otherwise we will have to say that we sell BC's only to shepherds and farmers. That will put a huge dent in a lot of lister's lives...and trainer's pockets at the very least.But if we are honestly true to our credo, this is what should happen.

and BTW...there IS a nice profit to be made in breeding dogs...let's be honest about this. I figure the expenses of feed, vaccination, registration, identification and phone calls etc are covered by the price of one pup. The rest is pure profit.

 

Sue in France

(waiting for the roof to fall in around her ears)

[MrSnappy]

Originally posted by Sue in France:

Both dogs get about an hour a day on the sheep at best. And I am feeling extremely guilty about that...it isn't enough.

But then I think of the many people I am aware of who read and write to Boards and groups who have BC's and use them once a week when they take them to a trainer. Some go on about BC's should work and not be pets. But for six and a half days a week some of these dogs are just that. IMO they don't work...they pursue an activity and not very often at that.

SNIP

There is also a huge pool of dogs which are poor workers by breeding...too weak, (but often great with kids), they grip but make great frisbee dogs etc. Dogs a farmer would get rid of. So you have a supply and you have a huge demand. If you decided tomorrow never to breed a pet BC you would still have people wanting one and being forced to buy a working one (someone will sell them a dog, be sure of that) but never working it...that IMO is worse. Surely it is better that those dogs bred to work DO work (and I mean properly...not just one a week for an hour) and those bred for Other Traits are sold as pets...openly and honestly?

SNIP

At this time I see nothing wrong with breeding pet dogs for pet owners. What I do see as wrong is breeding working dogs for pet owners.

Sue, I think you are all over the map on this issue.

 

In the first breath you claim to breed working dogs for working people, never for pets, and then you go ahead and admit that your dogs almost never work, so how can you make the distinction that you only breed working dogs?

 

Secondly, you say there were always be some dogs born in a litter of working dogs that don't make good working dogs, so they would be more suitable for pet homes. Then you say that no one should breed dogs for work and for pet. That's a concept that cancels itself out, doesn't it? If it's true that a percentage of pups in a litter won't be good working dogs, than you have pups for pet homes so why on earth is there a need to breed pet border collies?

 

Third, I think we all agree that if you breed a border collie for anything other than working ability, you might as well be breeding golden retrievers. I don't know how someone with two Open dogs who claims to love the breed can in the same breath suggest marginalizing the breed by deliberately breeding low-drive pet quality dogs.

 

I'm not trying to insult you, but it sounds like you are fairly profit driven, your closing paragraph being case in point about money to be made off of litters. You say there is not enough demand for working dogs anymore and most of your requests come from pet people, so what you are essentially suggesting is why can't you make some money breeding dogs for the pet market and you're looking for reasons to justify that stance.

 

It's really your business if this is something you want to do, but in that vein you are hardly the person to then judge people like the Buchanans.

 

Rescue is full of dogs that don't make the working grade (and sometimes has ones that do too) so I hardly can endorse the notion that it's okay to produce still more of them. If you were local and had 12 potential buyers for pet quality dogs, I could fill that need for you right now, and I could do most of it with puppies because I have 9 of them in rescue.

 

I think it's a weak argument to say that because there is a market, you should breed for it. It's especially weak to say that if you don't, someone else will. So what if someone else does? Do you want to be the person comprimising your integrity and the integrity of the breed or do you want to be the person who is trying to keep the breed what it is supposed to be? You can't have both.

 

If more breeders had the integrity to not breed substandard dogs, and to not sell to inappropriate homes, there would be less rescue dogs in need of homes. I would go so far as to suggest that if there is a market for pet quality dogs in your area, why not rescue pet quality dogs and find them homes? That way you can show people the difference between a dog bred to work, and a dog bred to not work, and still provide them with what they need, without compromising the integrity of the breed.

 

RDM

[Margaret M Wheeler]

See there Sue, judge not lest ye be judged. You will be judged, mind you, but not understood.

 

I am pretty sure that I understand that if you are criticizing the Buchanans, it is on their use of the English language, not on their breeding practices. In fact, I think that you are arguing that all other things held equal that if the Buchanans are breeding working dogs and selling them to working homes you don't see a reason to criticize them. On the other hand you believe that selling working dogs to pet homes is a problem. Why do think that?

 

I raised working Jack Russells and while I wouldn't sell one to a breeding home that wanted to register with the AKC, I often sold them to pet homes. I sold them veeerrryy carefully but nevertheless... Why was I wrong to do so?

[Sue in France]

Oh dear, someone seems to have this all upside down. and can't read either.

First, do you remember that I said that we are not by law in France allowed to breed more than one litter per year...that isn't one litter per female...that is ONE litter. To call me a breeder is laughable. If you remember I said I have a litter if and when a couple of someones ask me for a pup.

Second I said that my dogs don't work more than an hour per day on average. They also get some training ...about 30 - 45 mns every other day on average. Training is NOT working. If you can't tell after an hour per day the style, talent and abilities of your own dog, you had better go back to basics.Practise some reading. They gather, drive, separate and single. They load and unload trailes and do close work in barns and pens. But not every day and not all day. They are both in Open class in national qualifying trials. One isn't yet three years of age.I get phone calls from shepherds who value a good dog to use him as stud. (and no, I don't advertise).The bitch I have was trained by H.Glyn Jones and gave him two nice litters before I bought her. She is 7 years old.

As for your assertion that I breed for money because I said it is possible, I must assume you don't understand a wry comment. It is, however true, no matter how sanctimonious you want to be. I did not nor never have bred indiscriminately for money. In my nearly 7 years with BC's I have bred four litters, one because I thought it would make a nice cross, and because it did I repeated it. The third was with the bitch above and I knew she produced some usful dogs. The fourth was many years ago before I knew much about what was going on.

And lastly I would appreciate it if you would point out to me where I said there are always pet quality pups in a working litter? Neither believing it as an absolute nor even considering it as enough of an idea to mention it,I can only think that you have misread...again...what I said.

I am suggesting that it may be not a bad idea to breed pets because I have seen with my own eyes the heartache of an owner and the dog that was bred for work and sold as a pet. THESE are the dogs which end up in rescue. I want dogs that are bred for work to work...and those bred as pets to be pets. ISTM that the Buchanans are using working dogs and selling them to whoever coughs up the money, pet or working home. It is THIS that I disagree with. Seems you missed my major point which is that if as BC owners we breed nothing but working dogs you will end up with MORE rescue dogs, not less because the number of good working homes is very limited. And I am admitting the reality of the world as it is that there are thousands of good pet homes wanting to take a BC.They will find them because breeders sell them. Why not breed the dogs with little talent, fill that need and let the rest of us get on with the kind of working dog we like? I am not advocating filling up the world with pet BC's...though if the world all wanted BC's and gve them good loving homes, why not? If pet breeders sold to pet buyers the rest of us who understand and value the qualities of working dogs as they are meant to be, can carry on without worrying or pontificating about where Mr. Breeder is selling His Dogs.

Sue

[Sue in France]

ah...on rereading RDM's assertion that I aid there are always poorer dogs in a litter, I did NOT say they should be sold to pet homesMy point was that no matter how carefully you choose breeding partners, you can never be completely sure of the outcome.

Margaret, I do not think there is a right and wrong but only a point of view. I would never say that someone is right or wrong...just whether I agre or disagree.

I am saying that if a pup is bred with the intention of creating a working dog, then that dog will probably want to work (see above. You can't know until the pup is twoish for sure). The instincts that are there (given that the pup has inherited the desire to gather, respond to movement, interract with moving objects) need expression. This may be expressed by herding or even biting the neighbour's children, chasing cars, never being still, etc...all of which I have seen in local pet BC's which were bred from working parents and sold as pets. They just aren't happy and neither are the owners. THESE are the dogs that end up in rescue.

If a breeder says I will breed good healthy pets which are docile, child proof and easy to train basic obedience, and sell them only to those wnting pets, then why not?? AS LONG AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHICH DOGS WE HAVE WHEN MAKING FUTURE BREEDING DECISIONS.

I understand in the US this is kind of designed to happen with the two registries...AKC and ABCA. In France we have only one registry for BC's..;and this problem is much less well recognised or adressed. All I am saying is that I see no problem with two different kinds of BC's living side by side but for two clearly defined reasons. and that they are kept well apart for breedign or sales purposes.

Sue (sorry for any typos...I am typing around my cat who likes to sit on the mouse ATM...)

[Sue in France]

ah...on rereading RDM's assertion that I aid there are always poorer dogs in a litter, I did NOT say they should be sold to pet homesMy point was that no matter how carefully you choose breeding partners, you can never be completely sure of the outcome.

Margaret, I do not think there is a right and wrong but only a point of view. I would never say that someone is right or wrong...just whether I agre or disagree.

I am saying that if a pup is bred with the intention of creating a working dog, then that dog will probably want to work (see above. You can't know until the pup is twoish for sure). The instincts that are there (given that the pup has inherited the desire to gather, respond to movement, interract with moving objects) need expression. This may be expressed by herding or even biting the neighbour's children, chasing cars, never being still, etc...all of which I have seen in local pet BC's which were bred from working parents and sold as pets. They just aren't happy and neither are the owners. THESE are the dogs that end up in rescue.

If a breeder says I will breed good healthy pets which are docile, child proof and easy to train basic obedience, and sell them only to those wnting pets, then why not?? AS LONG AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHICH DOGS WE HAVE WHEN MAKING FUTURE BREEDING DECISIONS.

I understand in the US this is kind of designed to happen with the two registries...AKC and ABCA. In France we have only one registry for BC's..;and this problem is much less well recognised or adressed. All I am saying is that I see no problem with two different kinds of BC's living side by side but for two clearly defined reasons. and that they are kept well apart for breedign or sales purposes.

Sue (sorry for any typos...I am typing around my cat who likes to sit on the mouse ATM...)

[Sue in France]

ah...on rereading RDM's assertion that I aid there are always poorer dogs in a litter, I did NOT say they should be sold to pet homesMy point was that no matter how carefully you choose breeding partners, you can never be completely sure of the outcome.

Margaret, I do not think there is a right and wrong but only a point of view. I would never say that someone is right or wrong...just whether I agre or disagree.

I am saying that if a pup is bred with the intention of creating a working dog, then that dog will probably want to work (see above. You can't know until the pup is twoish for sure). The instincts that are there (given that the pup has inherited the desire to gather, respond to movement, interract with moving objects) need expression. This may be expressed by herding or even biting the neighbour's children, chasing cars, never being still, etc...all of which I have seen in local pet BC's which were bred from working parents and sold as pets. They just aren't happy and neither are the owners. THESE are the dogs that end up in rescue.

If a breeder says I will breed good healthy pets which are docile, child proof and easy to train basic obedience, and sell them only to those wnting pets, then why not?? AS LONG AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHICH DOGS WE HAVE WHEN MAKING FUTURE BREEDING DECISIONS.

I understand in the US this is kind of designed to happen with the two registries...AKC and ABCA. In France we have only one registry for BC's..;and this problem is much less well recognised or adressed. All I am saying is that I see no problem with two different kinds of BC's living side by side but for two clearly defined reasons. and that they are kept well apart for breedign or sales purposes.

Sue (sorry for any typos...I am typing around my cat who likes to sit on the mouse ATM...)

[Sue in France]

Margaret,

Nothing is perfect in an imperfect world (g).

There are going to be anomalies but hopefully fewer than at the present time. These don't surface until the dog is older and hopefully the owner will rehome the dog properly. Again, nothing is perfect. Even the breeding rules of the ISDS do not stop some lines becoming weaker or the pups sold as pets. These can then go on to breed more ISDS pups as long as both parents are so registered. It is up to the buyer to check lines and the working abilities of the parents.

In the suggested separating of the future breeding of working and non-working dogs, I had hoped to avoid more often the weakening of working talent by selecting for clearer working traits... To try to lessen the situation we have now of putting the two sides together sometimes indiscriminately.

 

Sue (in hopes of posting only once now the cat has gone to sleep...)

[Eileen Stein]

I can't add much to Mr. Snappy's reply, but these are my main reactions:

 

1. My general experience is that working-bred pups sold to suitable pet homes make excellent pets. Sue seems to feel that there's something immoral in selling working-bred border collies to a home where they will not work (and since she said, "my definition of work is a full time job," that means her own home would not qualify), but why that should be so, I can't imagine. She tries to imply that this is not just her own moral imperative, but part of the philosophy of these boards ("there is also the requirement that noone SELLS a working BC to a pet owner"), and there she is just plain wrong.

 

2. Pet homes for which a working-bred border collie is unsuitable should get a different breed. If the concept of a breed is to have any meaning and coherence, it must refer to dogs bred for a specific purpose. There is no reason whatsoever to breed poorly-working border collies to be pets.

 

3. It sounds to me, Sue, as if you want to breed border collies which are lacking in working ability and sell the progeny as pets. It makes no difference to me whether you're doing it for money or for the sheer altruism of providing a pet-hungry populace who don't want real border collies with dogs they can nevertheless call border collies. If you are doing this, you're doing it to the detriment of the breed, and priding yourself on never selling a working-bred border collie to a pet home is manufacturing a virtue to cover a genuine vice. But then again, if you "would never say that someone is right or wrong...just whether I agre or disagree," then fine, your disagreement is noted.

[Sue in France]

Eileen,

In answer to your first point about my home not providing full time work, I am in complete agreement. Hence my moral dilemma. Not for the first time have I asked myself if I should be keeping BC's.

Second, I never meant to imply that noone selling BC's to a pet owner is part of the philosophy of the Boards. I think you will find if you go back over that post that I referred to it as part of a necessary state of affairs in order to keep the two halves of the population separate..;something I advocated, not the Boards.

You then go on to say that if the concept of breeding is to have any meaning then one must breed for a purpose. From where I am sitting, I can see very little purpose in a lot of BC breeding except that of profit. What I am wanting to see is MORE purpose. But clearly defined purpose. Some for the purpose of work...some for pet.

Finally I do not want BC'sbred with a lack of ability...I never said I would join the ranks of pet BC breeders. If I ever had another litter I want to be more certain that not only are they as good a working a dog as I can get but that they go to the homes where this ablity can be expressed and used. In general I want to make sure better working dogs are produced by identifying and setting aside the pet breeders.

I would welcome the day that the BC is recognised as two breeds because right now the issue of quality is fudged by the desire to keep all BC's under the same roof. Yet so many times have I heard that breeding for pet is different, that people who want working dogs should stay away from pet breeders, that pet breeders weaken lines etc. I AGREE!! So I am suggesting a complete and clearly defined line down the middle. We will never ever get back to a pure breed. We may as well see it as it is and pet and work breeders go their separate ways. Being soft on this issue doesn't do the breed any good at all because we aren't breeding for a purpose! We are breeding for all purposes and then wringing our hands when the working abilities are less evident.

I want pet breeders to sail off onto another island and leave me with a cleaner BC whether I eventually own one or not.

 

Sue

[MrSnappy]

Sue wrote:

 

I am suggesting that it may be not a bad idea to breed pets because I have seen with my own eyes the heartache of an owner and the dog that was bred for work and sold as a pet. THESE are the dogs which end up in rescue.

But that's simply not TRUE, Sue. All sorts of dogs end up in rescue. We have dogs that are working on cattle ranches that came from rescue, and dogs that are snoozing on a sofa and have to be coaxed to go for a walk that came from rescue. The reason so many dogs are in rescue is because there are too many border collies, and a huge portion of them are bred by people who want to breed pet BCs, flyball BCs and agility BCs, or are breeding border collies for money because they recognize a market for them. There are three adverts in my paper today placed there by people breeding non working border collies. And I know who all those breeders are, and this past year I have ended up with no less than 4 of their pups in rescue. (Whereas I ended up with one working bred registered dog, and the breeder of that dog's sire took him back.)

 

I want dogs that are bred for work to work...and those bred as pets to be pets.

But I don't understand this. If you have a real respect for the working dog, why not encourage people to select a breed more appropriate to them, if they cannot handle a working dog?

 

I think many working dogs do fine with the proper outlets in the proper pet homes. I don't see the need to breed PET border collies, period.

 

Seems you missed my major point which is that if as BC owners we breed nothing but working dogs you will end up with MORE rescue dogs, not less because the number of good working homes is very limited.

I didn't miss your point Sue, I simply disagree with it. If BC owners are conscientious and ethical and sell to carefully screened homes and make it their mission to always take the dogs back if it doesn't work out, then they will not end up in rescue. With a few exceptions I can think of, most of those working dog do not end up in rescue. But more importantly, why breed for a am market that wants a border collie and can't actually live with a border collie? I screen these people out when I place my rescues, and I'd wager most reposnible breeders do as well.

 

ah...on rereading RDM's assertion that I aid there are always poorer dogs in a litter, I did NOT say they should be sold to pet homesMy point was that no matter how carefully you choose breeding partners, you can never be completely sure of the outcome.

Sorry if I misunderstood you Sue. When you wrote "There is also a huge pool of dogs which are poor workers by breeding...too weak, (but often great with kids), they grip but make great frisbee dogs etc. Dogs a farmer would get rid of." I assumed you meant that these dogs came from working parents, but were no good for work, and were therefore better for pet ("frisbee")homes rather than working ones. But then again you have a problem with placing any working bred dog in a pet home, so I admit I'm not sure what your point really is.

 

RDM

[Sue in France]

Mr. Snappy,RDM,

 

If you can tell me how to dissuade the usual 8 callers wanting BC's as pets as opposed to the one wanting a working dog from not only putting the phone down but also calling someone else where they will get their BC..;and stop the huge rush (at least here in France) of the BC being the dog of the hour, I would be REALLY grateful.

I am absolutely sure that your rescue is properly represented in your post. But my experience here is that those wanting pets and buying dogs from working lines want rid pretty quickly. And just down the road there is a farm which wanted a working dog and was given a black and white male who is afraid of other animals. A basket case really.

I guess the reason many dogs end up in rescue can be various...new baby, old grandparent coming to live there, new kitten, old antiques being chewed...zillions of reasons really.

I cannot think of any better guidelines for prospective owners than more clarity about the purpose for which the dog was bred. Can you?

 

Sue

[Sue in France]

Hey Margaret,

I am not sure if you are running behind me in support or in fear and trembling!! (big grin).

Anyway I am running off to bed..it is nearly midnight here.

I want to thank everyone for a very stimulating and mature debate. (at leat everyone else was mature!!). I guess I am truly the hardliner of those who want to keep the BC as a working dog. Unfortunately those who also want this are beginning to be in a minority and the BC has become firmly part of the pet culture. It grieves me to do anything in support of that. I just want them cast adrift.

talk to you soon!

Sue

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Why? No, really -- why? Seems to be a moral dilemma unique to your own mind.

 

>

 

Well, this is what you wrote, in context:

 

"I know I am going to get flack over this because the received wisdom is that no BC should be bred for anything other than work. But as I said, my definition of work is a full tme job. That would be fine except that there is also the requirement that noone SELLS a working BC to a pet owner. But these pet owners are there and why should they not offer a good home to a dog which will be expressing all that is left there in its head? Otherwise we will have to say that we sell BC's only to shepherds and farmers. That will put a huge dent in a lot of lister's lives...and trainer's pockets at the very least.But if we are honestly true to our credo, this is what should happen."

 

I admit I find this hard to follow and I may have misunderstood. Whose credo are you saying we would be true to if we sell working-bred BCs only to shepherds and farmers? Yours? Is "we" the royal we?

 

>

 

No, I said that if the concept of A BREED is to have any meaning and coherence, it must refer to dogs bred for A specific purpose. Breeding two or more separate categories of dogs taken from one breed for two or more separate purposes erodes the integrity of the breed. In breeds that are defined by appearance, it would be like breeding small fluffy Pomeranians and large smooth-coated Pomeranians, and continuing to call them both Pomeranians. In breeds that are defined by function, it would be like breeding border collies for work and breeding border collies for pets, and continuing to call them both border collies.

 

>

 

Sorry, I got the impression you were considering buying a female pup from the GB show kennel where you got your male pet BC so that you could breed some pets. But maybe that's a different Sue?

 

>

 

I don't think I'm particularly soft on this issue, but again I have no idea who "we" is. *I* am not breeding for all purposes, and neither is any other good border collie breeder I know, and nor am I advocating that anyone do so. I don't know what you're advocating -- it almost sounds as if you're saying that because some people are breeding for the wrong purposes we should give an imprimatur to breeding for the wrong purposes. Or that because there's a demand for badly bred border collies we should supply that demand. Can that be it?

[Eileen Stein]

Margaret, you are too funny.

 

--Eileen (not in fear and trembling -- sorry)

[Sue in France]

Mornin'

Eileen,

Of course my dilemma about whether I should keep BC's is my dilemma. I never said otherwise.Go back to my first post on this issue.

Then,I never considered that the Boards HAD a philosophy. I was under the impression that the Boards had no opinion either. But if I ask Sue Barta what she thinks the general concensus is I'll bet she woudl say it leasns towards working BC's. Sheepdog-L does not admit mention of AKC and another forum started up brecause I understod that people wanted to concentrate on working dogs, not pets. If I misunderstood, I apologise.

As for purposeful breeding I see none of it in selecting for working traits and then selling the pups as pets. Would you deny Mozart a piano? It is a cop out and I could easily say the sale ws purely for money...but I won't.

Finally if I can quote Eileen:

"I said if the concept of A breed is to have any meaning and coherence it must refer to dogs for A specific purpose. Breeding two or more separate categories of dogs taken from one breed for two or more separate purposes erodes the integrity of the breed...In breeds that are defined by function it would be like breeding BC's for work and..;for pets and continuing to call them both BC's".

 

By Jove I think she's got it!!

Currently ISTM that we are NOT breeding for one purpose...we are breeding for whichever purpose the buyer has and thesea re often different purposes within the same litter. What is YOUR specific purpose for the existence of the BC, Eileen? By your own definition you cannot say "work and pet"...that erodes the BC as a breed. I fully agree. I wish we could all define more carefully what the breed's purpose is and stick to it because ATM BC's are being bred under one category and the reality of the matter is that they are really at least two separate purposes. I don't want to call pet BC's Border Collies. I want the Border Collie to work. If the issue is constantly fudged the standard of working ability will inevitably decline as owners mate working dogs and pet temperaments and produce weaker dogs. This for me is the central issue...if owners don't differentiate between pet and work in ma

[Sue in France]

sorry.../

making mating decisions there is bound to be a weakening of the working abilities of the breed.

So in response to the reality of the fact that in my experience more and more people want pet BC's, I proposed that pet lines be used to supply that need. I object to using working lines when there are already lots of lines that are pretty useless on stock. IMO if a BC can't work stock it doesn't deserve the name BC. It is already just Another Dog.

 

Sue

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Okay, but I asked why you have this dilemma. What exactly is bad about a person with a flock so small that she could manage it without a full-time dog having a border collie?

 

>

 

Nonsense. As you pointed out, to improve the working dog and to keep the gene pool at a healthy level it is desirable to breed more border collies than there are working homes for them. The working-bred border collie pups in those litters in excess of the demand for working prospects can go to pet owners who desire the type of dog that breeding for work produces. Those litters are bred for working ability, which keeps it at a high level in the gene pool. Breeding border collies to be pets does nothing for the gene pool, because working breeders will not want to breed to the resulting dogs. If your Mozart analogy is meant to suggest that working-bred dogs are unhappy if they are never brought to livestock, I have seen no evidence in the real world that this is so.

 

>

 

My specific purpose for the existence of the BC is work. A breeder who is not breeding to produce dogs with good working ability ought not to be breeding border collies, IMO. But you have not shown me any reason why it is undesirable for pups from a litter bred for work to go to a good pet home.

 

>

 

Then if you import this show-bred bitch and begin to breed pet border collies, what will you tell pet seekers who ring you and ask if you have any border collie pups for sale? If you say, "No, I don't," then according to you they will go elsewhere and likely find a working-bred BC pup -- quelle horreur! If you say, "Yes, I do," then you are calling them border collies.

 

Bottom line, I guess: You see a problem in the fact that people are breeding border collies for purposes other than working ability. I do too. You would address that problem by saying it's okay to breed border collies for purposes other than working ability. I would address that problem by saying it's not. I don't see how your approach will have a better impact on the problem than mine.

[Sue in France]

Eileen,

I am not troubled by people breeding for purposes other than working dogs...I am troubled by people breeding for working dogs and then selling them as pets. (that, BTW, is the last time I am going to say it.)

If ever I breed for pets I guess because things haven't progressed very far in the dividing of the breed, I will have had to have said that I have pet BC's for sale...but don't expect them to work. I am not aware of any other official name for the lobotomised BC yet.(no offense intended to pet owners...just trying to describe a gentle pet-type creature)

As for narowing the gene pool, I am not sure that would be the case if working breeders are only using working lines now anyway...and would continue to do so. I don't see much change there.To narrow the gene pool would have to mean cutting out some pet lines...which I would like to see. In fact which is the object of the exercise!!

Finally I certainly have seen very unhappy dogs bred for work and owned by pet fanciers. They are often hyperactive, unreliable around children and more clever than their owners. They can be uncontrollable car/chicken/livestock chasers and pounders and chewers of the boundary fence and I submit that if they had a job of work to do they would have Other Things to Think About and the owners would have a Proper activity for them to do. I do admit that in this respect I have a sneaking sympathy for agility owners...

Margaret...though you may think I am going all hormonal, please realise that this is something I have thought about for a long time. The catalyst for this chat WAS that woman who gave me That Headache...of course I wouldn't have met her if I didn't have pups for sale. But I do go through this discussion in my head every time someone ELSE has pups for sale too. I said I realised that the US has the two registries and therefore is somewhere down the road to recognising the Two Sides of the BC already...this is not the case in France AND there is no such thing as a BC rescue and therefore I am even more dedicated to the separation of work and pet in my own dealings with buyers. I know that whenever I have a litter the chances are that I will keep some of them for quite some time...until I find homes that want a helpmate. I can only put into practice what I believe in...and all I can ever expect anyone else to do. But I will always continue to ask myself questions about the welfare of my dogs and the BC in general and try to find solutions to problems I perceive to be there.

BTW I have just come in from two hours of cleaning up the back ends of some lambs and have decided to keep my dogs for another week...they were a great help (grin).

Sue

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Oh. Then I misunderstood these previous comments of yours:

 

" From where I am sitting, I can see very little purpose in a lot of BC breeding except that of profit."

 

"Being soft on this issue doesn't do the breed any good at all because we aren't breeding for a purpose! We are breeding for all purposes and then wringing our hands when the working abilities are less evident."

 

"Currently ISTM that we are NOT breeding for one purpose."

 

"I do not want BC'sbred with a lack of ability."

 

I thought you were deploring this perceived reality (except for that last statement, I guess, which is impossible to reconcile with your saying that you want some BCs bred as "lobotomized" pets so that pet seekers won't end up either with working-bred dogs or having to forego owning a "border collie").

 

Perhaps, then, the essence of our disagreement is different experiences. In France you see a world in which working-bred border collies sold to pet homes are generally "hyperactive, unreliable around children and more clever than their owners" "uncontrollable car/chicken/livestock chasers and pounders and chewers of the boundary fence." I don't have enough first-hand experience of France to say whether your perception is right or wrong. But here in the US I see a world in which quite a few dogs of all breeds or mixed breeds would fit that description, but where working-bred border collies generally make excellent pets for suitable pet owners. You will find many, many examples of that reading these Boards. Therefore, I see no moral imperative to keep working-bred border collies out of their hands.

 

And I'm totally unable to see how breeding two different types of dogs for two different purposes and calling them both border collies is going to diminish confusion and "fudging" and provide clarity. Breeding border collies "as pets" has been going on in the US for some time now, and as far as I can see it's only increased confusion.

 

You started this discussion by saying, "At this time I see nothing wrong with breeding pet dogs for pet owners." Neither do I, as long as you don't call them border collies or register them as such. If you do, IMO you're contributing to the confusion, and to the deterioration of our breed. But I recognize that you live in another country, and one which AFAIK has little or no influence on border collies elsewhere, so I guess whatever you want to try in France is your business.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Breeding border collies "as pets" has been going on in the US for some time now, and as far as I can see it's only increased confusion.

As in, dogs that are hyper, snappish, and hypersensitive to no purpose and no ability for an outlet. Owner raises hand to throw ball, pup cowers in fear - "Oh, poor thing, must have been abused!" No, just badly bred.

 

All the head cases I've ever seen in rescue came from pet breeding. Not BYB, locally respected breeders with a 20 year program of breeding from carefully chosen lines. All the worst cases (but one) of HD I've seen were from pet breeders. The most horrible genetic mess I've ever seen in one Border Collie litter came from a pet breeder.

 

My vet was admiring my Marremma dog and comparing him to the Berners she herself raises - bright intelligent eyes, solid hips, no real prospect of cancer. "This is a dog still bred for one purpose only and he'll actually do it." I responded that that was the reason the Border Collie people were so up in arms.

 

She gave me a sharp look. "Sorry, you've lost that battle. The majority of the Border Collies I see in here are crazy dogs with no brains, and I can tell they couldn't herd a sheep if the sheep told them how." She's a big fan of my dogs because I had taken Ben, my novice dog mind you, and helped her move six 800 pound hogs from one pen, down a garden path, to another bigger one. Boy did Ben have fun that day!

 

Anyway, if she said it, it wasn't to get my goat. It was a clinical observation.

 

We don't need to clog the world with more pets, even if we think we might be able to "build a better pet."

 

We don't need to be dumbing down the Border Collie, we need to be encouraging breeders to raise the quality of other breeds - breed for purpose not for looks, or convenience. We also need to encourage folks looking for just a nice family dog to check out pound hounds. No, they're not sexy but a lot of times they're just as "smart" as a family needs and sometimes more. My friend with the two agility mutts came in third in the national competition he attended last week (have no idea what it was, obviously not the AKC). My red dog mutt will do anything the Border Collies do, including work the sheep: it's just that her work ethic stinks.

 

WeE need to stick our guns, not waffle (how's that for a mixed metaphor). Worry about what we can control, our own breeding practices, and educate those who come across our path looking for answers. That' my game plan, anyway.

[Sue in France]

Eileen, I don't want to breed BC's as pets and call them BC's. I said they should be considered as Something Else. and I don't understand why dogs bred as pet BC's are by definition considered inferior...as long as they are healthy in every way and the temperament is correct for the life they will lead, as my pet BC has shown over 7 years and why I was considering going back to the original breeder who has the same lines.I still can't see the problem.

Rebecca, right on!!

 

Sue (still loking forward more to the new purchse from Danish working lines than to a pet progenitor..but always thinking!!)

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

This is my final struggle to understand what you are advocating.

 

The whole reason behind your proposal of breeding pet border collies, as I understood it, is that people want border collies as pets. They won't be guided toward a golden retriever or a lab or a viszla or a pug -- they insist on a border collie. If these people would be satisfied with something not called a border collie, the problem you point to would not exist. There are plenty of good pet-bred dogs not called border collies around already; no need to breed more. So it seems that these pet-bred border collies are going to have to be called border collies, or the border-collie-seeking pet buyers you wish to satisfy will not want them, and the whole scheme you envisage is pointless and doomed to failure. Two questions (not that you've answered many of my previous ones):

 

Why can't you direct the pet buyers calling you and clamoring for a border collie to a breed that is already a pet breed?

 

Will these pet-bred border collies you might breed, and don't see anything wrong with breeding, be registered as border collies, or will they not?

 

>

 

Well, you're the one who described them as lobotomised.

[Eileen Stein]

Rebecca, right on!!