Yeah thats right I said it!!

[Katelynn & Gang]

Originally posted by Pipedream Farm:

 

I'm willing to concede this.

 

But you should be aware that the terms "working bred", "from working parents", "working dogs", etc are subjective and we sould be careful how these terms are used. They can be used just like the conformation and sport breeders say their pups are from "working lines".

Above explains what I was trying to say.

 

Working and working bred means something more then just working registered (to me). Its something the dogs must be whole heartedly bred towards, for improvement upon those traits which make a superior working dog such.

 

If Border Collies are not bred whole heartedly for the traits which makes the breed a superior working dog, are they the superior working dogs which make up this breed any longer? No, they are not working dogs at all but just some off brand labile of the real thing.

 

The farther you breed from that original purpose and breeding practices that created this superior working breed we luckily still have today, the more is lost and the less superior the dogs become with each careless breeding.

 

Sorry but I refuse not give any puppy miller, backyard breeder, high volume breeder, conformation breeder, or sport breeder the credit or advantage they want by calling their dogs "working bred."

 

Maybe I just have a overly high standard for what I will call a working bred dog, for I feel as though they must be superior to the low quality and poor breedings we are so often seeing today being called by anyone and everyone "working bred."

 

Mark, I understand and believe in what you've written here. Thank you.

 

Katelynn

[Kyrasmom]

Ok, I told myself I'd stay away from this but given that neither of you have answered my question:

 

"what do you call the pup who comes out of parents who both work stock and are ABCA registered, reside on a working ranch or farm, and are more or less kept solely for that purpose? They're not pets. They're not Barbie Collies. And while they've got temperament issues galore, they seem to get the job done."

[Katelynn & Gang]

Someone has a rescue puppy out of parents who are from Champion conformation lines but are not prefect and are AKC registered. The parents reside in a families back yard and on the end of a jerky show lead in a show ring being handled by the families children in junior showmanship and are more or less solely keep for that purpose.

 

Their not workers. They are not sporties. And while they have temperament issues galore, they seem to look almost prefect for the show ring to the unknowing eye (someone who doesn't know show dogs) and are good enough to get children a few blue ribbons junior showmanship.

 

But their breeder (because ones someone has two dogs that bred is indeed a breeder) dropped their puppies off on a cold back road in the middle of no where.

 

The rescuer does not know if they are registered, which they aren't, but can tell they are from Champion conformation lines because they are black and white, perfectly marked, to small, to smashed, out of proportion, and cannot move livestock of any sort to save the world.

 

What do you call these puppies?

 

Their Sire and Dam's parents were Champion conformation dogs and they, themselves walked some sort of show ring with children? Making their puppies AKC Champion conformation bred then, correct? Meaning they are just as good as that dog that won the Westminster, right?

 

Katelynn

[SoloRiver]

Katelynn,

 

I admire your passion, but you're picking fights now and it isn't helping anyone.

 

Part of the misunderstandings in this discussion stem from the fact that among the "dog fancy," people often use the terms "working bred" or "working lines" (or in other breeds, "field lines") to describe any dog that is not bred for conformation or that does not look like a conformation-bred dog. For example, you'll hear people refer to any weedy Lab as "fieldy" or "field-looking" when really, the truth of the matter is simply that the dog is badly bred by any standard and happens to be weedy rather than stout.

 

When I use the term "working bred," I mean bred by a certain kind of breeder who is actively trying to produce good working dogs and has some standard of performance or selection. To me, this does not include random farm breeders who are just putting the two dogs they have together.

 

That said, there are working breeders out there who produce good working dogs but are crappy breeders by every other measure I can think of. And yes, well-bred dogs from nice working stock DO end up in rescue, because unfortunately in the working dog culture there is less of a tendency to be picky about buyers, less of a tendency to remain responsible for what you produce (i.e., taking dogs that don't work out back, or insisting that they come back), and practically zero tendency to use spay/neuter contracts or non-breeding registration.

 

That said, the vast majority of Border Collies that end up in rescue come from essentially random breeding. The fact that their owners might live on farms does not, to me, necessarily mean that they are working-bred dogs, any more than my Papillon is a conformation-bred dog because he has a couple of champions in his pedigree. It simply reflects the fact that in this breed, backyard breeders might have a few cows too.

[Kyrasmom]

They would be the result of an irresponsible AKC breeder. Any breeder of any registry whose dogs end up in rescue, especially as puppies, is an irresponsible breeder. End of story.

 

But you still haven't answered my question now have you? Because the question that arises is that the little bitch that works MAY very well be of breedable quality if you're assessing her working ability (I'm not able to do that), she may even be healthy, she may even have a steady temperament were she exposed to a fair owner, BUT her exploitive and ignorant owner still contributes to the BC population in rescue..which was the original point of this discussion.

 

Truly, I'm trying hard to keep my sense of humor here, but you can't keep switching the facts around to suit you. The point of this entire arguement has been whether or not the AKC contributes the most to Border Collie's in rescue and unfortunately for your point of view, AT THIS TIME, it's just not so...and the responsibility for BC's in rescue also lies within the working dog community.

 

But hey, you guys have coined the terms:

 

Barbie Collie

Sport Collie

Golden in a Tux Collie

 

why not just come up with a new term for those hard working dogs that have crappy breeders/owners and through no fault of their own end up in rescue.

 

Hard Luck Collies

Almost good enough Collies

Part time working Collies

Non trialing working collies

 

Ok, that was flippant, but really, this discussion which had actually become interesting, is now just becoming a farce.

 

Katelynn, I admire the strength of your convictions, especially for someone your age, but really, you're not being realistic, and if you took the time to hear what I'm saying without simply wanting to lash out at me (which is getting tiresome in its rudeness) because I questioned your opinion you might see that I'm not the enemy and that in alienating me, and people like me, you would be doing a disservice to the dogs you proclaim to love and respect.

[Jodi]

Here's my two cents -- and that's probably all it's worth.

 

This topic has come up over and over. And there are no real numbers for anyone to look at to compare the percentage of "working bred" (for lack of a better term) and "conformation bred" (same here) Border Collies showing up in rescue. Because I think the percentage of each is the real issue. Admittedly, there are bad breeders in both sectors. Right now, there is no doubt that there are far more "working bred" BCs in rescue due solely to the fact that the Border Collie has been around far longer than when it was recognized by the AKC. The question is ... how many people were really aware the Border Collie existed (or cared) prior to the AKC accepting it into their registry, and how much has it impacted, if at all, the number of rescues now showing up -- either working or show bred?

 

Jodi

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Mark, just to clarify, I don't think our farmer friend is setting any kind of "standard". He's just breeding to get (I assume) another useful pup. Probably he's breeding to supplement his income, too. Edited: In the past this was as honorable as selling the calves your milk cow produced, so it's going to be difficult to get past that notion today.

 

I'm not saying it's "right" in terms of our ideal breeder. [Edited:] He clearly represents a lowest common denominator. But if the LCD must be somewhere, I'd rather it be with people who breed useful dogs, rather than people breeding dogs for - whatever.

 

An important part of the history of the breed is made up of farmers like him breeding their farm dogs. The improvement comes from the trial field and peer pressure, when farmers like him become aware of higher standards and aspire to them in their own breeding.

[Katelynn & Gang]

They would be nothing more then backyard breeder puppies to me. They were breed with no direction, not working, not conformational, not anything from the sounds of it. Just someone that had two intact dogs that could care less what happened.

 

I believe calling them anything else would give credit where it is not due, from either a working or conformational view point.

 

Breeders like the one you have talked of supplied many Border Collies Rescues with all the dogs they need to stay in business. I believe that these breeders should never been giving titles such as "working breeder" or "conformation breeder" or their puppies by anyone that the public would or might look up to.

 

I also strongly believe that if AKC hadn't open their books to the Border Collie there would be a much less need for rescue in general because the public wouldn't be as exposed to the breed as it is now on TV and at dog shows.

 

That is a personal opinion that you may or may not agree with but over the last ten years I'd say need in rescue has grown and it still growing (Yes, my first Border Collie was a rescue about ten years ago).

 

I'm wondering, how many rescues are in Canada and are they needed like they are here in the United States? They do not get the AKC Nationals and things that we get on TV over here, so it would be very interesting to know. And they do not have Border Collies showing in their kennel club shows either. Anyone know what rescue is like for Border Collies over there?

 

Please check out the ABCA web site and read some of the threads on this board about the man which ABCA expelled. The working community is doing their best to keep their breed safe from all the dangers which is faces.

 

Sorry if you feel alienated and I am sorry about my rudeness. Stick around, this is a touchy subject but my bark is much worse then my bite.

 

Katelynn

[Gary M]

Melanie said

"That said, there are working breeders out there who produce good working dogs but are crappy breeders by every other measure I can think of. And yes, well-bred dogs from nice working stock DO end up in rescue, because unfortunately in the working dog culture there is less of a tendency to be picky about buyers, less of a tendency to remain responsible for what you produce (i.e., taking dogs that don't work out back, or insisting that they come back), and practically zero tendency to use spay/neuter contracts or non-breeding registration."

 

I think this becomes part of the crux of the discussion.

 

The question then becomes:

 

Just because a breeder CAN produce litters with good working line backgrounds with an unknown potential for improving the breed, does that mean the breeder SHOULD turn out litters as often as possible without regard for a pre-determined need or outlet for the product of the litter?

 

This seems to be IMHO where the "rescue" faction and the "working / trial" faction part ways.

 

I, as a member of the first group, tend to believe that if you breed for the former without regard to the latter, then it is at the very least borderline irresponsible at best.

 

Now I am sure that there are many working and trialing people that will disagree with that view and I can respect and do acknowledge the fact that not every pup from every litter will be as good or better than the sire and dam.

 

So, for example, TopNotch Breeder has 10 pups, but no personal need or no foreknown placements.

5 are taken by potential W/T (Work/Trial).

5 go to where ever homes for sport/pet/dual reg/whatever and at 8 to 10 weeks, not Spayed/neutered nor enforceable contract to do same.

 

Of the 5 W/T, 1 will wash out and re-placed (only hopefully S/N), 2 that went to working are "good enough for what I need" (most likey at least 1 not S/N) and the other 2 are future breedworthy.

 

The 5 that went to wherever homes will never have potential known, but may or may not propogate an unknown number of future unknown numbers of soon to be mediocre dogs that may or may not retain any combination of registry alphabets to be passed along, that sooner or later some quantity will end up in rescue, shelters or pounds.

 

So it now becomes a question of the breeders long term responsibility for bringing the first litter to being.

 

I believe the quantity resulting from the last question determines the answer to the first.