How working breeds are lost

[Howdyjabo]

" My livelyhood revolves primarily around people with AKC dogs and has for many years- for other breeds AKC is a "given". I don't abhor "the elephant" like you do, but I see them as a necessary evil for many purebred dogs."

 

 

AKC is ok for non working breeds of dogs- if I had another breed I would probably have AKC papers and think nothing of it.

If you have a working breed and value that breed as it is(or was )-- then AKC is a no no.

Personally I think its gone too far with any breeds except JRT,Border Collies,greyhounds and livestock Guarding breeds--- To give any concern to any but those.

 

Your customers should be ok with that message-- or the true working breed owners registering and buying from AKC.... should be uncomfortable.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Jamie

 

>>Bess spends most of her time bonging up and down in the house and making sheep run as FAST AS POSSIBLE...<<

 

Bess is very similiar to Tess.....Tess was actually a calm puppy until she saw sheep....them she was go, go and go.

 

If it goives you any idea about the litter, Bess was one of the quieter laid back pups....Brice, on the other hand, was quiet but very CLEVER....and very driven.....one pup I kept from the litter was named Neal, but he is known as Griz...as in Grizzly Bear.

 

A bit of history on Tess. I was in AKC many yrs ago and was training to run Tess in AKC. She had no papers but was going to be registered ILP etc...but our lives took a 180 degree when I meet Scott Glen. Tess thanks him to this day....you see without him, Tess NEVER would have gotten the 10 acre sheep farm for her 2nd Birthday.

 

Diane

[laurie etc]

Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

You've said a couple of times that our gene pool won't be diluted because dogs who go into the AKC and are bred for conformation or versatility will be gone for good--their pups won't be in the ABCA gene pool. But the whole point is that, if dual registration is permitted, they WILL be in our gene pool. As things stand, the offspring of two dual registered dogs can continue to be dual registered indefinitely. In a few generations of breeding for show they will be Barbies (just as the ones we now call Barbies were created originally from breeding working dogs to look like that), but their owners can still register them with us. In a few generations of breeding for versatility, they will be jacks of all trades and masters of none, but their owners can still register them with us. How does that not dilute our gene pool?

Eileen - I'll try to explain where I'm coming from on this. Point well taken, by the way, regarding breeding for versatility making dogs "jacks of all trades-masters of none". I venture that it wouldn't take too much concentration on breeding AGAINST specific things like eye, crouch and stock sense to radically "dumb down" a Border Collie into a black(or red)and white Barbie-retriever.

What I guess I don't agree with is that the majority who are breeding for versatility even CARE whether their dogs retain ABCA ties. The AKC people I've come across who breed for versatility, especially with "looks" in mind, could care less if the pups are registerable with ABCA - they are all about breeding for a versatile and "correct" (structure/looks) AKC Border Collie. They may talk about herding ability, but all they really care about is whether the dog can pass an AKC instinct test (which most beagles could pass), and getting that HT added to their dog's names. Pretty pathetic, but there you have it. Those breeders and dogs won't be diluting the gene pool because their pups will probably be outcrossed to Barbies in the first generation.

 

The people I know who are into agility could care less about the Barbie look, in fact don't want it at all. They want stamina, speed, brains and accuracy, which a good ABCA dog naturally has. They are not trying to alter anything about a Border Collie, necessarily, just using the traits already there to their advantage in their sport. Most of them are not interest in breeding, but even if they were, I can't see where retaining ABCA registration on those type of pups, will dilute the gene pool any more than random ABCA breedings without any specific goals in mind. They may be unproven stock, but they are still just as likely to retain the attributes as their proven cousins, and maybe more likely to than their unproven, randomly bred cousins. I 100% agree that Border Collies should not be bred for any reason other than maintaining and enhancing the top herding abilities they already have, and that breeding to enhance something like agility performance is ridiculous. My dogs who do agility were not "bred for agility". But they have been very successful at it - because they were bred to be working Border Collies, they have "the right stuff" already.

 

Without seeing statistics, if ABCA even compiles that sort of thing, its hard to know how many or what percentage of breeders and puppies you are talking about. Is it a documented number?

 

At any rate, I appreciate you helping me see the problems from your viewpoint without alienating me - or those who have already dual registered - and educating us the best of your ability. This forum always gives me food for thought - and helps make people aware that there are differences in opinion that can be hashed out rationally through discussion.

[SoloRiver]

Laurie,

 

You need to look up the definition of the word "hegemony" in the dictionary.

 

That's the most concise way I can think of to explain the situation.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

They may be unproven stock, but they are still just as likely to retain the attributes as their proven cousins,

Good grief. I've just wasted ten years of my life trying to get good enough to work my dogs at a high enough level to competantly test their "breedability" myself.

 

Geez, wish someone had told me a decade ago that these dogs will be "just as likely" to retain working ability if I breed them without regard to their ACTUAL ability on stock. I could have bred Ben and sold tons of wonderful pets. I could have bred Jen and made tons of money on mediocre working dogs with top-level sport ability. I could have bred Trim and produced zillions of $7000 goose control dogs. Man, have I missed the boat or what?. . .

[laurie etc]

Originally posted by Rebecca, Brook Cove Farm:

They may be unproven stock, but they are still just as likely to retain the attributes as their proven cousins

Here's more food for thought...

Theoretically, AND Based on Denise's dartboard theory... Training doesn't pass genetically - so it doesn't count in reality. Only the genetic traits pass, regardless, so breeding a genetically appropriate dog who sits in a box all its life (or does agility for a living, or has an incompetent handler) has just as good a chance of producing top herding dogs as a similarly bred dog who herds at the top levels. If some of those Boxed dogs(or agility dogs or dogs never handled to potential) aren't bred, how limited would the gene pool end up? And how would you know that a boxed dog or a novice dog wasn't better at passing along the genetics than an open level dog unless it was bred?

[Dixie_Girl]

I will say it again, name ONE breed of dog the AKC has IMPROVED. Agility people want dogs that have agility, speed, stamina, brains, and acuracy. Well, it's like putting the cart before the horse. BCs make good agility dogs because of their gene line from WORKING BCs. But lots of dogs have that. BCs don't ALWAYS win agility. Alot, but not always. But you CAN have a dog good at agility and lousy at herding. The point is, as more people get into the agility and flyball, due mostly to it being televised so much now, the more people will want to run BCs. How will anyone know what the dogs lineage is when there are unscrupulus people breeding? Let's face it. I have an intact male. All I need is a ABCA bitch, and buddy, I'm in business! But does Jackson have what it takes to herd? Will the bitch? But hey, he is good at agility. I know you will be saying ok where should agility dogs come from. From dogs that don't cut it as stock dogs, and they should be fixed, so as to never perpetuate that trait.

[Denise Wall]

Laurie,

 

One thing I'll **guarantee** you overall -- if you take an entire litter and train them to the highest level they're capable of, and then you take another litter and do nothing with it, you'll sure as hell have a better chance at picking the best breeders in the first litter.

 

You wrote:

 

"They may be unproven stock, but they are still just as likely to retain the attributes as their proven cousins"

 

Yes, all dogs will retain their attributes genetically. But how do you know what they are if you don't prove them? What you're saying is not logical.

 

You wrote:

 

"And how would you know that a boxed dog or a novice dog wasn't better at passing along the genetics than an open level dog unless it was bred?"

 

And how do we know that fido, the mutt down the street, won't be better at passing along herding genetics than an open dogs unless it was bred? It's all about odds.

[laurie etc]

Originally posted by Denise Wall:

It's all about odds.

yep - my tongue in cheek point exactly...

 

Honestly, of course I think dogs should be worked to their fullest extent to see what they are possessing/lacking and then an appropriate match chosen by a knowledgeable person with vast experience in crossing dogs to improve the chances of getting what you want... no one wants to have to keep reinventing the wheel every breeding unless they are inventing a new designer dog- they go with what has proven to "work". But genetics at this point truly is a crap shoot... "breed the best to the best and hope for the best" is still the tried and true way to go.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I agree with you that the people who are into versatility are all about breeding a "superior" Border Collie with "correct structure" and enough ability to get a few titles in a lot of categories. But unfortunately I don't think you're right that they don't care about retaining ABCA ties. The prime advocate of versatility is the BCSA. Their leadership pushed relentlessly for keeping the studbook open, and the membership voted overwhelmingly in favor of urging the AKC to do that. Why did they do that, in view of the fact that their versatility ideal is easily achieved, and best maintained through breeding to other versatile AKC dogs?

 

The fact is that they want to retain ties with the breeders and dogs in the ABCA because their goal is to get them into the AKC. They've never made a secret of it. Both the BCSA and the AKC expected from the start that if the AKC recognized the border collie, border collie people would have no choice but to register, because how else would they sell their dogs? That's the way it had always worked in the past, even with ASCA. It was a cruel shock to them when so many working dog people didn't immediately troop dutifully into the AKC ranks. They are not content with having a split in the breed; they want to have a unified breed, ultimately defined by and part of the AKC. They are chipping away constantly to accomplish that, and dual registration is a necessary, if transitional, step in that process.

 

The last round of "wearisome" debate about banning dual registration was precipitated when the BCSA appointed a committee to come up with ideas for how to get good ABCA breeders to come over to the AKC. One of the ideas the committee came up with was to give big cash prizes to those who were registered with the AKC, both for scoring high or breeding a dog who scored high in our Finals, and for scoring high in a combination of our trials and their trials. This would provide a financial incentive for our big names to register with the AKC and to enter AKC trials. They also proposed obtaining USBCHA sanction for trials which they would hold in conjunction with AKC trials. Handlers would be lured to the HA trials, and figure why not be able to run in the AKC trials in the afternoon or the next day, and so register with AKC. Another proposal was to give out prizes of AKC registration at our trials.

 

When they did obtain sanction for a USBCHA trial to be held in conjunction with their National Specialty (using the name Border Collie Supporters of America) and this whole scheme came to light, there was a big uproar, and a lot of indignation, and they backed off. But they're still nibbling away. The same BCSA herding committee report that I referred to in the other thread revives the idea of an award with "substantial value" for which you would have to earn an AKC herding champion title and 5 cumulative USBCHA-sanctioned open trial points. Just last week I received an email inviting me (ME!) to apply to be on the board of a "health, education and rescue foundation" that they're setting up "to serve the entire Border Collie community, regardless of registry." What a nice idea, you probably think. I see it as one more initiative to extend their hegemony over the working dog. I declined, but they'll find someone who will accept. So no, I don't think they are going to keep to themselves and stay out of the ABCA gene pool. To accomplish their ultimate goal they have to obtain and maintain the utmost in ties to the ABCA breed.

 

>

 

The statement in boldface is absolutely not true, and if you believe it, that may be the major source of our disagreement. You don't have to "breed AGAINST specific things like eye, crouch and stock sense" to lose working ability; just not breeding FOR working ability will inevitably cause it to wither away. Have you read this? It applies as much to breeding for an agility model as for a conformation model. If you do not breed high-quality, complementary working dogs AND test the offspring and cull the poor workers in every generation, you will lose working ability, and you cannot do this without training them to the highest level of which they are capable, and working them.

 

>

 

No, equally unlikely to. But they will do more damage than the unproven, randomly bred cousins, because the latter are unsung residue that drifts to the bottom of the gene pool, but the agility-bred and agility-titled dogs are dogs for which claims of excellence can and will be made, on the basis of which their offspring will be bred and marketed and re-bred.

 

>

 

No, we have no statistics on how many ABCA dogs are dual-registered. But I run into more all the time, and dogs are advertised so extensively as being dual registered that I think it must be a valued marketing tool.

 

I'm glad you find the discussion useful, and are not alienated by it.

 

Edit: Just read your "dog in a box" post, and I'm afraid I don't get your tongue in cheek point. How do you breed the best to the best if you don't know if the dogs in question are any good?

[Jodi]

Eileen, Denise, Bill, Rebecca, Laurie, Bob and everyone else responding, thank you! Thank you for re-hashing this subject yet again. I read and re-read the posts, and learn a ton every time this subject comes up. Being that the AKC studbooks are now open indefinitely, I think it's completely appropriate, if not necessary, to throw the topic around once again.

 

Eileen, you said: "They are chipping away constantly to accomplish that, and dual registration is a necessary, if transitional, step in that process."

 

In thinking about this, what will a ban on dual registration accomplish with the BCSA as far as getting the working lines INTO the AKC? I understand that, should the ban take place, someone will be able to buy a working dog, register it AKC, and lose its ABCA registration and will not be able to have any pups ABCA registered. They still took a dog out of the working gene pool. I know I'm getting way ahead of myself here, but do you have any thoughts on how to avoid that scenario in the first place? We all know darned well the AKC will not stop accepting ABCA registered dogs. Just a thought.

 

I was talking to a friend of mine tonight, and the subject of a ban on dual registration came up. I mentioned to her that I was in the process of drafting my letter to the AKC to have my one dual-registered dog deregistered. She mentioned to me that she heard the AKC won't do it. I explained to her that I heard they started charging a fee to deregister. Do we know anyone who has done it very recently that can shed some light?

 

Also, another question came up. What if the dual registration ban happens, and the AKC decides not to deregister dogs that people request deregistration on? Is it going to work like the CH ban, where "all dogs after [such and such] date cannot be dual registered"?

 

Thanks.

Jodi

[Denise Wall]

But genetics at this point truly is a crap shoot

NO, it is NOT a crap shoot. If you can't figure out that people who understand how to breed these dogs can breed good dogs regularly and with very good odds for each litter then I don't know what to tell you.

 

Just because you need to believe it's all a crap shoot anyway to justify breeding doesn't mean it's true.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I'd suspect it would work similarly to the grandfather clause of the Ch ban, because otherwise it wouldn't be fair to those who let's say "registered in ignorance" and have since repented. Especially since, as I understand, the AKC will NOT deregister your Border collie on your request.

 

I think it's really important to understand that the goal of the breed club is to create a world where THEIR Border collie is THE Border collie. They'd like to see us relegated to a splinter group of "field types" like "field" cockers or Goldens - where WE have to come to THEM to broaden our gene pool. Where they dictate what a good "Border" breeder is - with all the helath checks, a "title on both ends" and oh, maybe one National stockdog champion somewhere in there. Where the USBCHA Finals is incorporated into the specialty (all it would take is a majority of dual registered handlers, and a big cash prize would lure plenty of those handlers over to dual registration). Where the top Border collie of the year is no longer the National Finals winner but the top pointed conformation champion (woo-hoo! Line up to breed your bitches to Can Mex Ger Am Ch. Eng Sh Ch Eys4Ewe Up Yer Tartan at Midnight Blue HT - yeah, THAT will improve the breed!).

 

That's how the AKC destroys working breeds. By putting all the prestige on excellence in the conformation venue, there's pressure to acknowlege that on the part of breeders who want to sell pups. They either have to consider that standard when breeding (my pups will have brains AND beauty), or they will breed back to those conformation champion lines.

 

Thankfully, soon all those Ch lines will be dead ends for the ABCA. But unless dual registration is cut off too, all a breeder has to do is incorporate lines that are grandfathered in and still retain bragging rights ("My pups go back to Merlin").

[Bill Fosher]

Laurie etc. wrote:

Training doesn't pass genetically - so it doesn't count in reality.

 

You can't possibly know what a dog's genetic attributes are without training it. So when you state that a dog's untested cousins retain the genetics of the tested dog, you may well be right, but you could be (and probably are, given the difficulty of breeding top shelf dogs) wrong.

 

Working ability is not like color genetics or even frame genetics. It is a constellation of attributes that are present in varying amounts, and probably are each controlled by several sets of genetic instructions. This is why it's not enough to simply figure that the traits are fixed (as your post seems to indicate, in that you discuss selecting against a couple of traits). As others have said, simply taking selection pressure off these traits is all that's needed for them to fade.

 

Jodi,

 

An open studbook allows the AKC breeders access to our dogs in perpetuity, but it doesn't allow them to essentially assimilate our entire studbook, as dual registration does.

[Pipedream Farm]

"Crap shoot" is the wrong term. Crap shoot implies you have little control over the outcome. If genetics were truly a crap shoot then why do we care about testing for CEA? Just breed and you'll get whatever you're going to get. In reality we know the probable outcome for CEA based upon the cross; and we direct the outcome to minimize the extent of CEA (carrier and affected) in the litter. In order to predict the outcome we test prior to breeding; we won't know how each pup will end up but we know on average the distribution within the litter. For herding, the genetics are more complex but the principles are the same. Test prior to breeding in order to predict the outcome and choose the right cross, minimizing the probability of undesired traits and maximizing the probability of the desired.

 

Mark

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

The dual registration ban would not prevent dogs leaking from the ABCA into the AKC. Nobody's come up with a way to do that, and I don't think there IS any way, now that their studbook is permanently open to ABCA dogs. There is no really good option for us, only an array of poor ones. I think that's one of the main reasons a ban hasn't been implemented. But I think a ban (either of dogs or persons, or both) would be better than any of the other options (including doing nothing), because I think it's crucial that we be able to separate and differentiate our dogs from theirs, and do it while the good breeders/handlers will still choose us, or we will be assimilated.

 

>

 

Yes, the ban would apply to the future only -- registrations before the ban went into effect would not be affected.

 

I don't believe the AKC will honor your request to de-register your dog, but it would be good for you to send the letter anyway. Let us know what happens.

[Smokjbc]

Bess is very similiar to Tess.....Tess was actually a calm puppy until she saw sheep....them she was go, go and go.>>>

 

Bess is sorta calm in the house- she is a big flirt with the other dogs- she even weaseled her way into our nasty, grouchy heelers heart and he actually plays with her endlessly. She also is adored by one of the cats who lets her wrestle with him. Brice, OTOH is not tolerated by the cat... LOL.

 

If it goives you any idea about the litter, Bess was one of the quieter laid back pups....Brice, on the other hand, was quiet but very CLEVER....and very driven.....one pup I kept from the litter was named Neal, but he is known as Griz...as in Grizzly Bear.>>

 

Brice is definitely the driven one still- that boy wants what he wants, and what he wants right now is sheep wool LOL.

 

 

Now back to the subject:

 

I live in an area where most Border Collies are either flyball/agility bred or they are second generation from working stock (supposedly). I have three Border Collies that come out to work my sheep that are actual working type. I have about 4-5 more that "get by" but are not talented or particularly endowed with any stock sense. The three that are decent (not counting my own, which of course are all decent have the same thing in common- their parents worked in a significant manner. One pair of dogs was purchased locally from a man who gave them a speech about breeding for work- but where he lives would be impossible to work his dogs in a significant manner, and not surprisingly these two dogs do not have sufficient talent to even run a Novice field course (one of them is so abysmal I would hate to call it a Border Collie LOL). This person bought two "working" bred dogs that are not good representatives of the breed- and its no surprise to me considering where they came from. You can't choose breeding candidates from arena herders. Most good hands can make any so-so dog look good in an arena or small area on a small flock. What is really there genetically has to be shown and developed- no one knows until that dog has been trained over a long period of time, on a variety of stock, and in suitable environments that will show the dog as useful.

[laurie etc]

sorry Denise, Mark, Bill... I'm not a craps player so I apologize for my late night comparison - but if you read the rest of my comments, I'm not really as dumb as I sounded...

 

Originally posted by laurie etc:

Honestly, of course I think dogs should be worked to their fullest extent to see what they are possessing/lacking and then an appropriate match chosen by a knowledgeable person with vast experience in crossing dogs to improve the chances of getting what you want...

Eileen - I guess I have always stayed away from the AKC Border Collie Club people, and I don't keep up with all the petitions and "club news" because I have absolutely no interest in what they are doing. Thanks for uodating me on that. In my own little corner of AKC-land (agility) I don't see that kind of B***S*** happening. There are a very few people who are trying to beat the world by breeding "for agility", but I never bought into that either. They are pretty self limiting, because they are basically breeding dogs for themselves and mostly sell any "culls" on spay-neuter contracts. You are giving me great feedback, and although I can't guarantee that my agility dogs will be de-registered with AKC - (apparently it can't be done) - they won't be feeding the AKC Border Collie Club Gene Pool either.

[Rosanne]

(patting Laurie on the back)

 

We are shades of grey in a black and white BC world it seems.

[juliepoudrier]

This is the gist of the discussion as I see it.

 

Originally posted by Denise Wall:

One thing I'll **guarantee** you overall -- if you take an entire litter and train them to the highest level they're capable of, and then you take another litter and do nothing with it, you'll sure as hell have a better chance at picking the best breeders in the first litter.

Laurie wrote (despite her own comments directly to the contrary):

"breed the best to the best and hope for the best" is still the tried and true way to go.

Eileen wrote:

Edit: Just read your "dog in a box" post, and I'm afraid I don't get your tongue in cheek point. How do you breed the best to the best if you don't know if the dogs in question are any good?

Denise wrote:

NO, it is NOT a crap shoot. If you can't figure out that people who understand how to breed these dogs can breed good dogs regularly and with very good odds for each litter then I don't know what to tell you.

Bill Fosher wrote:

You can't possibly know what a dog's genetic attributes are without training it. So when you state that a dog's untested cousins retain the genetics of the tested dog, you may well be right, but you could be (and probably are, given the difficulty of breeding top shelf dogs) wrong.

And then Laurie quoted herself again:

Honestly, of course I think dogs should be worked to their fullest extent to see what they are possessing/lacking and then an appropriate match chosen by a knowledgeable person with vast experience in crossing dogs to improve the chances of getting what you want...

So, Laurie, if you truly believe the above, then why are you arguing otherwise?

 

and Roseanne,

If you truly believe that approaching breeding as being shades of grey (i.e., who cares if the dog is a stellar worker as long as it will work and is an awsome agility dog) is better than black and white (only those dogs who are excpetional workers should be bred), then you are indeed part of the problem.

 

J.

[laurie etc]

Julie - I don't think I'm arguing otherwise - that IS what I believe -and it is what people have done for ages; but if Denise's dartboard theory is true, it isn't necessarily accurate. Actual performance through training gives us a better way to gage what we "hope" the genetic outcome will be - no doubt. But conversely, who's to say that dogs who never perform will produce any less if they are genetically similar? We just don't have a way to gage them. (I never said I advocated breeding these unknowns, by the way.)

 

I guess part of my original point was just that it seems that the bar is lowered in the Border Collie world for Farmer Brown and a lot of ABCA breeders with unproven dogs; but raised for anyone who dual registers, competes their dogs in other than USBCHA herding, or questions the authorities...

 

edited to say - I had to go back a re-read all the posts because I wanted to make sure of what I said. I hope some of my analogies weren't taken out of context. To be clear - I do stand by my feeling that no one should be breeding un-tested dogs. Border Collies should be bred by knowledgeable people with a goal in mind for the particular cross, and with the intent of maintaining or improving the working gene pool.

 

I've been on this computer for way to long in the couple days- I've got to go do some other stuff, but I'll be checking back in the morning.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

who's to say that dogs who never perform will produce any less if they are genetically similar

But, the problem is that, since we can't map out all the behaviors and characteristics a dog possesses that will result in a dog with working ability, we can ONLY go by performance to judge whether they ARE "genetically similiar." Ie, right now, only genotype that is EXPRESSED is possible to observe and allow us to make breeding decisions.

 

I think you are saying, littermates possibly or even full brothers or sisters. Have you ever observed a wide sample of siblings of a particular cross, how they can and almost always DO, have a very wide range of abilities and working styles? Every now and then you'll find a cross that throws very consistently talented pups with very predictable working ability. These are so rare that they attract a LOT of attention.

 

I've had two really smart people counsel me on being a novice breeder. One person said that I shouldn't even consider breeding a dog until I'd personally trained a dog successfully from start to finish. If you don't have experience seeing what it takes to even reach the top level of training, how can you evaluate a dog to that level?

 

The other piece of advice I really took to heart was, first time out, you want to work with a bitch that is good enough that you can breed her to something with a SIMILIAR style, and not mess around with outcrossing. But that takes knowing what you are looking at, a level of training that ensures that you haven't overlooked any huge flaws, and focusing on her qualities as a working dog ONLY, not throwing, "Oh, but she's such a great agility dog" into the mix too. You also have to know what you are looking at in terms of the male, too. Sure, you might have the advice of your trainer, but trust me, you'll want more than one opinion, and you'll have to have the knowlege to sort though the "bull"!

 

I'm with Denise. I don't understand how someone could say at one time, "You don't know everything that goes into reaching World Trial level in agility, and you don't understand how important it is," and at another time say, "Breeding for livestock work really couldn't be as complicated as you say it is."

 

How can you be an authority and someone like Denise (and many like her) cannot? Denise has bred GENERATIONS of highly successful and brilliantly useful working dogs. Elaine has bred successful working dogs also. Do you think she really has an irrational feeling of being threatened by AKC breeding and she's just lying about her scientific rationale? Do she and Elaine have the time and energy to beat the air uselessly, chasing giants of their own creation?

 

You keep trying to make some distinction between what you intend to do and being a "breeder." Unfortunately, once you put pups on the ground, no matter what your intent, you are a breeder. Your choice lies in WHAT KIND of breeder you will be. Will you be a breeder whose purpose is ONLY to produce pups capable of outstanding livestock working ability? Or will you be classed with "everyone else", those who breed for "something else" and fly in the face of how this breed was developed and the ONLY way it will remain what it is today?

[Howdyjabo]

Just because you don't breed-- you should still understand all the breeding issues. The buyers have as much impact on where the breed is going as the breeders do.

 

I get tired of "I don't breed". So no harm to the breed-- if I don't get it.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Karen, how come I use about three hundred words and then you can come along and sum it up so well in about twenty?

[Katelynn & Gang]

Rosanne,

 

This is simple to take in.

 

If you want to breed top notch Border Collies, fine! Go herd weekly and trial in ISDS type trials. Prove your dogs worthy to be bred to their breed and its people.

 

BUT if agility is so important to you that you just do not have enough time to do herding with your current dogs to get them trained for ISDS style trials, that is fine too!

 

Just make sure you leave the breeding of these amazing dogs up to the people who do have the time to do herding, trial at ISDS type trials religiously with their dogs, and only register with a working registry. They are, after all, the type of people and registry that gave you the breed in the first place. Without them, you wouldn't be top in your game of agility with your working bred Border Collies, you wouldn't have them at all.

 

Katelynn