It's that time of year again: yuck

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

But why would we want to? If we are breeding a good dog, and they are breeding a less-good dog, why would we want to blend ours with theirs? We would only become worse off by doing that. Better that future generations of AKC dogs become another breed altogether than that they drag down ours.

 

And breeding for looks will ALWAYS be at the expense of something. In our breed it will be at the expense of working ability most of all.

[KrisK]

Eileen, well said.. I just don't understand what people don't get about it...Breed for looks.. NO, Breed for proven working ability...YES. Does that mean the dogs we have that aren't working dogs are bad..NO...just don't BREED them! (Oh, and just to be clear...neither of my BC's are working dogs..and not likely to be...but at least they LOOK like working BC's

[shotgun]

But why would we want to? If we are breeding a good dog, and they are breeding a less-good dog, why would we want to blend ours with theirs? We would only become worse off by doing that. Better that future generations of AKC dogs become another breed altogether than that they drag down ours.

 

And breeding for looks will ALWAYS be at the expense of something. In our breed it will be at the expense of working ability most of all.

Excellent point. I'm learning quite a bit here.

[prosperia]

"so that further generations do not become what would essentialy be another breed altogether."

I agree with Eileen. I don't think I would have a problem with the Barbie's becoming their own breed. Let them have their fluff and cross eyes.

As long it is known who the real border collie is

[shotgun]

The problem with what I was saing seems to be what my basic assumptions were in the first place. A lot of people on these boards have expressed concern that the AKC and similar organizations are endangering the breed becasue they might casue a cascading effect where it would be inevitable that these "show" borders would get their bloodlines mingled with working dogs.

 

If that's not the case, then I may have misinterpreted what some other people were posting. If it's not inevetible then my opinion is irrelevant. If, however, there is a real danger of these other dogs getting into the mix (and I do not know how real that danger is) then my idea was just to try and offset some of the damage from this practice.

 

It's always real educational here. Thank you for bearing with me.

[Eileen Stein]

Shotgun, reading over what you wrote again, I think the main problem is your apparent assumption that breeding for looks and working ability will produce a better dog than breeding for working ability alone -- that future generations bred this way, if only we had the patience and fortitude to do it, would have all the working ability of their working forebears and looks besides. If that assumption were true, then what you proposed would make a lot of sense, but unfortunately it's not true.

 

The example sometimes used to illustrate this is to suppose that you adopt two goals in breeding racehorses -- you want to produce the fastest racehorses and you want those racehorses to be white. You may succeed in your goal of producing the fastest white racehorses, but it's very, very unlikely that they will be the fastest racehorses of all, because you are sacrificing all the genes of other-colored horses which could contribute to speed. A competing breeder, who has only the single goal of producing the fastest racehorses, is much more likely to produce faster horses than you, because he is taking advantage of all the genetic possibilities in his quest to produce speed; he is not limiting his arsenal by imposing the additional color requirement. Another example sometimes given is that once agribiz started breeding tomatoes for skins thick enough not to bruise unduly during shipping, the resulting tomatoes did not taste as good as before, even though they were still breeding for flavor as well as thicker skins.

 

I've noticed over time that the folks who don't work their border collies on livestock are the ones who have the most trouble seeing why it would be a bad idea to breed for both working ability and conformation to an appearance standard. This is not meant as a put-down of people who have border collies as pets or for other purposes at all. There are many, many good border collie owners who fall into that category, and they provide great homes for their dogs, and love them dearly, and can be among the staunchest defenders of the breed. But it seems to me that people who happen not to know much about what's required in a useful livestock dog cannot IMAGINE the complexity of the traits that go into working ability, and how important it is to have all these characteristics, and to have them in the right balance. It's very, very difficult to produce good working dogs, much more difficult than to produce good conformation dogs. There is so much to it. That's why our breed is so terrific, and so good at all the things dogs do -- because they were developed by breeding to this very demanding working standard. And the folks who need that ability really NEED it. The border collie is just about the last breed, among many once-useful herding breeds, who is still a useful, valuable stockdog. To risk losing that, just to have another pretty kind of showdog, is to throw down diamonds in the sand.

 

Yes, there IS a risk of show and working bloodlines becoming intermingled, as you say. But the best way of avoiding that, IMO, is to try to force as much of a split as possible between those show BCs and our working BCs, to insulate ours from theirs as best we can. If we try to breed ours to look like theirs, we're increasing the chances of intermingling, and we're damaging ours even if there ISN'T any intermingling.

 

I hope this is clear and helpful. Thank you for keeping an open mind.

[shotgun]

Shotgun, reading over what you wrote again, I think the main problem is your apparent assumption that breeding for looks and working ability will produce a better dog than breeding for working ability alone -- that future generations bred this way, if only we had the patience and fortitude to do it, would have all the working ability of their working forebears and looks besides. If that assumption were true, then what you proposed would make a lot of sense, but unfortunately it's not true.

Well, no I don't believe that and never realy have, but you do point out some other gaping holes in my idea.

 

I appreciate the time everyone is taking to educate me. Hopefully this will all make me a better owner when I get my BC.

[border_collie_crazy]

what in the? of all the weird comments this one takes the cake lol

 

when I see Merlin I see a Border Collie that really reminds me of what they probley looked like when working in Scottland (With the acception that being groomed for show). I know BC's can come in differnt coat types but could the short coat type be able to hold the extreamly harsh winters of Scottland? I know all BC's are tuff but could the coat with stand the weather. That is probley why most show BC's have big coats etc.

[Pipedream Farm]

PEG ISDS 125220

J. WILSON

INT?L SHEPHERDS CH. 1984-1986-1987

INT'L AGGREGATE CH. 1987 SCOTTISH NATIONAL AGGREGATE CH. 1986-1987

SCOTTISH NATIONAL SHEPHERDS CH. 1986-1987

Source: Border Collies West

 

Not the best photo of Peg, but she's clearly smooth-coated.

 

J.J.Templeton's Roy

Scottish National Champion 1982, 83, 85

Source: url=http://www.bordercolliekennel.nl/pedigree_duke.htm

 

You should reconsider your preconceived notions of what a working border collie is and how it should look.

 

Mark

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Many of the slick-coated dogs descend from Scottish or other mountain stock. I doubt there was any deliberate selection for the short coat, but I know it's actually an asset when working in snow. The slick coated dogs don't get the balls of ice in their feet and undersides that can plague a dog with a very heavy coat.

 

I don't see any physical type centered on any particular region, when looking over early photos. The ISDS trials did a lot to spread bloodlines all over the UK. Shepherds picked sires whose working style they liked and thought would be a good match for their bitches. They didn't put much thought into whether it was a "Northumberland" dog or a "Whitehope Nap" type unless they were thinking of power, ability to work cattle, or quickness of foot.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Oh, dear, that's a truly rotten photo of Peg. She was rough, but what we in the US often call "medium". Tom's little Jen, her mother, was a really fluffy thing but her gransire Thomas' Craig, though a big fluffbutt himself, tended to throw smooths.

 

How about Templeton's dogs? Doesn't get much harsher than the conditions up at their farms - here's two generations:

 

Templeton's Moss

 

Templeton's Roy

 

And further back, McKnight's Gael (1967 Int Sup Ch), whose blood is featured in zillions of Border Collies, Scottish and otherwise. She's as slick as you get, Melanie's Fly looks a lot like her.

 

Compare those dogs to this:

http://home.iprimus.com.au/bronson/extended.htm

[Pipedream Farm]

Thanks Rebecca, I just went hunting for dogs with lines that throw smooth looking for photos. In that photo of Peg you couldn't see the rough. Hopefully the point has been made, but I'm sure it hasn't.

 

Mark

[border_collie_crazy]

thanks guys I will post those pics to the person who said the above, I have no clue where they got the idea that scottish BCs look like ungroomed show BCs lol

[border_collie_crazy]

yay! it seems to have worked the person got the point lol now the only thing that confuses them is they figer there both border collies therefore they can both work, cant they. I just told her the answers from when this has been discused before, basicly that work defins the breed and if you take the focas off the work then no they cant all work the same, while some can work now the more you breed away from working ability the more you lose. sound like a good answer?

[steve clendenin]

One of the best dog to be imported was Tommy Wilson Roy. was he not from Scotland and was he not a smooth tri. I think I'm correct

[Joan]

Originally posted by steve clendenin:

One of the best dog to be imported was Tommy Wilson Roy. was he not from Scotland and was he not a smooth tri. I think I'm correct

From Scotland, yes. Edited to say: And definitely a tri! In the photos I've seen, and in a video of him working at the Finals, he looks like "short rough" to me. Here's a link to his pedigree, with a couple of photos.

 

http://www.stockdog.com/bordercollie/bcpics/twroy.htm

 

Joan - proud to have a Roy son

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I think he was a "fringed smooth". Steve's son in law has a (son? grandson?) that has that same coat (fluffy pants and fringed tail, slick forelegs). But he threw smooths when crossed on a rough - genetically smooth therefore.

 

Wow, Ann really favors him. Except fluffy. She got the fluff from her dad.

[Eileen Stein]

Correct on both counts, Steve . . . and your pig-wrestling quote was hilarious.

 

 

Here's a picture of Roy.

[steve clendenin]

I use to say it to engineers until I worked myself up through the ranks and became one. I have never meet an engineer that didn't like to argue. Now you all know why I'm the way I am.

[border_collie_crazy]

yay the people who were syaing these things were just confused and they understand Border Collies now, and why we are against breeding them just to look a certain way a little pointless but I just wanted to mention that your guys info DID get through to 3 of the 4 people, the 4th still figers that looks come first lol

[shotgun]

I hope BCC doesn't mean me.

[border_collie_crazy]

huh? no I dont mean you lol I am talking about some other people I know

[nancy]

Because our PBS station is in another pledge break (Lawrence Welk, One-Stroke Painting, and other gorp), we actually watched what must have been tapes of the last day of the AKC fiasco.

 

That Pomeranian looked like an evil Furbie! Even my husband wanted to know what was wrong with the hind end of the German Shepherd and complained that the handlers were strangling the dogs to keep them prancing.

 

The only time Ferg paid attention was when the "herding dogs" were on. And, man, did she look down her nose. She finally sighed and turned away.

 

Looks like that Merlin had a puppy face - which seems to be an AKC favorite. And fat legs. None of the dogs we've ever seen working in Yorkshire look anything like that.

 

Flat, fat faces; pudgy legs; blow-dried fluff; mutantly long hair; stupid gaits...seemed the rule. And am I the only one who think those handlers look really dumb bounding around pulling up on the dogs' necks?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

We saw the "Best of" show too, for the same reason. We were actually putting up fence until the last few minutes and so only caught the "herding" group and BOS.

 

I've always thought you had to have a really good self-image to do conformation handling. Dogs and dress clothes, really. Does anyone really get a kick out of seeing dogs so very removed from their natural surroundings? All I could think was how the whole thing REEKED of Victorian elitism, distaste for naturalism, and eugenics. Dog shows are SO last century, if you think about it. So is the whole AKC culture.

[SoloRiver]

The thing that kills me the most about the handlers are those sensible little flat shoes -- I don't know about you, but it isn't as if they're doing the 100-yard dash. If they're going to do it up with the sequined dragon lady outfits they could at least wear some presentable shoes.

 

On Usenet they were going on and on about how the Pointer "demanded" the win and just showed her little heart out and had the "it" factor that made her better than everyone else. Excuse me, but aren't the dogs supposed to be judged against a Platonic ideal? Where does flair come into it? Is this figure skating or something?

 

On Usenet they were also talking about a Reuters article I posted -- that explained the "illegal" grooming that goes on at shows (although the article didn't mention all of these they include chalking, hair spray, nose black, shaving of erroneous hair, dye, trimming to shape coated dogs, etc.) and how it wasn't really dishonest because everyone does it. Excuse me, I thought dog shows were supposed to be for selecting breeding animals. Why should animals being judged be able to use cosmetics? Isn't the point to reveal only that which is genetically encoded and can therefore be selected for? Where does gluing ears and using Sharpies to color in pink nose spots come into this?

 

Anyway.