Split from the Gallery thread

[Guest Blackandwhite]

Eileen wrote quoting Tim Longton

 

Here is what Tim Longton had to say about that in The Sheep Dog: Its Work and Training, published in 1976

 

That was written thirty years ago my dear, a lot has happened in 30 years it was written just at the time the UK KC was accepting the BC as a show dog. Todays trialers have moved on and accepted the BC can be a dual purpose dog. As I said many of the first show dogs in the UK were also working dogs and one was a trials winner and a breed champion.

 

 

To quote another famous trial person and a more recent quote.

 

"Do not take too much notice of people who say that it does not matter what a sheepdog looks like as long as it works - there has never been a first-class dog yet which did not look good, and always remember that, if your dog or bitch is used for breeding at some time in the future, you will want both looks and brains."

 

 

** H. Glyn Jones, A Way of Life: Sheepdog Training, Handling and Trialling

 

 

George

Who does not intend to flame, but reveals the facts

[Miztiki]

I don't know much about working dogs, and I know less about breeding, but I do know this:

 

If a person wants a smooth coated dog then they will not breed together two rough coated dogs. Yeah, it's possible that one of the pups might have a smooth coat, but that would be chance.

 

The people here have no desire for anything but a dog that can work, and work *exceptionally* well. They believe, and I believe, that that is what makes a Border Collie a Border Collie. There is no other dog on the face of this earth with the BC eye and crouch, that can herd a flock of sheep the way they do. They are unique.

 

People who breed with any other goal in mind may by *chance* produce a dog who is *capable* of work. It's highly unlikely that it will be exceptional in its work, and it's probable that the work it might do is more a trained behavior than an instinctual one.

 

I don't think anyone here is interested in having a "first class dog". They want a Border Collie in all its glorious uniqueness.

 

That is the difference between "you" and "us".

[Howdyjabo]

Again George--- the original breeders(the dogs in the Key Dogs book are an example) had dogs that were beautiful-- but they don't resemble "conformation" dogs being bred now. There has been a change in the breed standard even if you just base that change on looks only.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

H. Glyn Jones believes (possibly with some basis in fact) that a dog's working style will follow the looks of the dog. This does not mean he thinks he can predict the quality of the work by evaluating the dog's looks.

 

. . .the two young farmers were both saying of their own dogs, "this is the type I like." Each was saying exactly the same thing about two dogs that not only looked different but also had totally different working styles . . .the two collies were litter brother and sister though their owners were not aware of this . . .not only had these dogs been brought up by entirely different people, they were also naturally different to each other."

 

Glyn Jones believes that Wiston Cap was the epitome of sheep working ability and he has strong strong ideas that the closer a descendant of Cap resembles him, the more likely the dog will be a "reincarnation" of him.

 

As to the remark about there never being a dog worked well, that didn't look good too - well, a quick glance through any lineup of champions will reveal many a dog that any self-respecting show breeder would cull right out of their breeding program. Look up Mackenzie's Don, who won it all two years before Jones published his book. A Jones' Roy, Sup. Champ in 1961, wasn't exactly a looker. So either Jones defines "good looking" differently from the show breeders or he means something different, like working style (he definitely preferred a stylish dog to a plain working dog).

 

I've seen enough discussion on "workingsheepdog" to know that the current concensus opinion is that show breeding is harmful to the maintanence of high-level working ability in the breed. There are a very few top trialers who cater to the kennel club crowd if they are lucky enough to have a winner who also throws fluffy, classic colored pups - but they do so with tongue firmly in cheek. It happens over here, too, but it doesn't mean they think they are likely to produce winning pups from such breedings.

[Guest blessedmom]

And I am not going to knock "color" dogs in the head-- they just should be bred to dogs that will minimise not emphasise those recessive genes.

This is interesting, why should we even worry about color in the first place? Why put the energy into trying to breed for or breed against a color. They are working dogs just breed the best to the best and let it be. Are you suggesting that becuase I have a red tri and it is a top herder and the 2 top herder is a red tri too that I should not breed the two? HMMM seems you may be just as much caught up and the next person in color.

 

I used to show *other* breeds in the conformation ring. Border collies changed my way of looking at the whole conformation game

WOW me too I now dont like conformation for any working breed.

 

We DO have to make it very clear that there IS a line on this issue between you and those of us who support breeding ONLY for livestock work

I feel a bit different I mean if someone wants to do agility with thier dogs and flyball. Then atleast make sure they work livestock and do it well. I do not agree with people who only breed for agility or flyball but I dont think that by bashing them they will ever change. I think that the working breeders need to stay true and very soon we are going to have 2 different breeds here, sad but true.

 

If there were superior "working dogs of color" out there then perhaps we'd see more of them in the general working dog population. But there aren't and traditionally haven't been

Well maybe you will see more of them, THis statement is crazy I guess maybe you have not seen the working dogs of the west coast, many many many reds both working and up and coming!

 

 

How is Swafford still getting away with selling ABCA registered pups?

Read what his site says he is farmiong them out to other people. Someone should have the registry look into this, not sure what they could do just another yahoo getting around the rules.

SITE SAYS: We are currently looking for Foster Homes for Pups in all of the above states.

Please contact us if you'd be interested in fostering, raising and placing puppies.

[Howdyjabo]

I explained why "I" think breeding color to color is a bad idea already- Go back and reread my posts.

[Denise Wall]

George,

 

I'd still sure like to hear about your dogs' work.

[Jodi]

I just noticed something really strange.

 

Cathy's IP address is:

 

195.93.21.33.

 

George's IP address is ...... drum roll please:

 

195.93.21.33.

 

How original.

 

Jodi

[kelpiegirl]

What is an ISP number? And how do you find them?

Julie

[juliepoudrier]

Originally posted by Julie Poudrier:

If there were superior "working dogs of color" out there then perhaps we'd see more of them in the general working dog population. But there aren't and traditionally haven't been

Orignally posted by Blessedmom (in response to above quote):

Well maybe you will see more of them, THis statement is crazy I guess maybe you have not seen the working dogs of the west coast, many many many reds both working and up and coming!

BlessedMom,

You know that when you quote someone out of context and then draw erroneous conclusions about that poster's intent from the out-of-context snippet you chose to repeat here, it's bad form to then call the original poster/post "crazy." If you go back and actually read the original post you're quoting me from, you'll see that I clearly stated that red dogs happen because red is carried in some of the most famous lines of working dogs. Ergo, you can breed B&W dogs together and get red pups without even considering color or trying to get it. I then went on to state that other "designer" colors must be deliberately bred for. I intentionally didn't include red in my subsequent comments about "dogs of color," but I guess it was easier for you to ignore that so you could make your above comments.

 

It was clear from my original post (though apparently not to you) that I was excepting reds and speaking specifically of "designer" colors that people have to breed for in order to get: merle, lilac, "champagne", etc. I trial a lot, and although I haven't made it to the west coast, I did make it to Sturgis last year, and I stand by my comments that you don't see "dogs of color" working at the top levels. I can't help it if you wish to continue to think I'm including red dogs in that list.

 

FWIW, two of my own open trial dogs (one now retired) are red, so I think I am certainly aware of the fact that red dogs are capable of doing the work.

 

Next time read the whole post instead of making snide comments about a part you've taken out of context.

 

J.

[Sue R]

As to the remark about there never being a dog worked well, that didn't look good too - well, a quick glance through any lineup of champions will reveal many a dog that any self-respecting show breeder would cull right out of their breeding program. Look up Mackenzie's Don, who won it all two years before Jones published his book. A Jones' Roy, Sup. Champ in 1961, wasn't exactly a looker. So either Jones defines "good looking" differently from the show breeders or he means something different, like working style (he definitely preferred a stylish dog to a plain working dog).

When a dog is working well, it is looking good. So, what's the conflict?

 

A very well-respected clinician (and Rebecca knows whom I am talking about) said the three most important attributes in a dog are balance, power, and style. A dog that has all three and uses them well, is a beautiful sight to see.

 

And, George = Cathy? My, have we ever seen that before? Only, usually it's been someone well under the age of adulthood. (Not to knock the well-grounded and mature young folks on these boards.)

 

Jodi - I was wondering how "real" our new UK member was. I guess you outed that one.

[Jodi]

Blessedmom,

 

Aren't you Samantha (hdk9) with the red tri pup that used to live in Nevada?

 

Jodi

[Pipedream Farm]

Originally posted by Jodi:

I just noticed something really strange.

 

Cathy's IP address is:

 

195.93.21.33.

 

George's IP address is ...... drum roll please:

 

195.93.21.33.

 

How original.

 

Jodi

That would explain why "George" hasn't described his dogs working styles.

 

Mark

[kelpiegirl]

Oh, so Ip number is a web address? How do you find them? Sounds very nefarious to me....

Julie

[Jodi]

Julie -

 

If you look at the bottom of any one of your posts, you will see it says:

 

"Logged: 143.229.41.254"

 

That number is your IP address. It's like a computer fingerprint, in a way.

 

Jodi

[Shetlander]

Originally posted by AK dog doc:

But maybe you have the courage and the inner fairness to perhaps admit just the possibility that maybe we DO mean what we say, that we are NOT all liars, and that we DON'T intend that term as an insult, but as a descriptor. Which will it be?

If this was intended for me, first off I've never said that anyone was a liar. Where did I imply that? It never crossed my mind that anyone was lying when they said there was no disrespect meant by the word Barbie. People can disagree about something and not believe the other person is a liar.

 

What I have tried to convey is certain terms can be viewed as offensive or derogatory by some people. This is regardless of how the terms are intended. Yes, one group of people may find a word perfectly acceptable but if they're trying to talk to other groups of people (and I thought that's part of what we were doing here), they might want to take into consideration how that other group might think of the word.

 

I've now been told I'm wrong, illogical, have a chip on my shoulder, and like to be insulted because I don't understand why we can't use the terms show or conformation instead of Barbie. Now if the answer is because that's what you've been doing for years, so get over it, ok. But I can still think it doesn't help communication without me being arrogant or masochistic. Maybe where I'm wrong and illogical is in continuing to try to state my opinion and only ticking people off.

 

On one of my Border Collie lists, a person set off a firestorm by referring to her dog as a working dog when she did sports with that dog. I don't think she meant any offense at all, but still people went up in flames they were so furious that she'd say her dog was a working dog. I never thought of my dogs as working dogs, but as performance dogs. However, I will say I'm going to go "work" my dogs when I mean train them. I know that's what I mean but I sometimes say work. Will I say that to herding people? I'll sure try not to, because I know how that word might be viewed regardless of how I mean it.

 

Barbie may be shorthand for you with no ill will meant, but it isn't shorthand to everyone. If I called my agility friends' dogs Barbies, their first response would be puzzlement, then awareness of what the term meant, then back to puzzlement over what exactly I was saying about their dogs. If I told them not just that their dogs weren't the same as working Border Collies (on which they'd probably agree) but that their dogs weren't really Border Collies at all, they'd most likely be irritated with me and/or think I was being odd.

 

Again, what I'm trying to say is if you want to have educate and persuade others to your point of view, the way things are phrased is going to have a big impact on whether they can hear what is being said. Look at all the problems that arise from misunderstanding tone in posts. People may think you're being sarcastic when you're not or that you're serious when you're making a small joke.

 

This thread has been extremely educational. I had understood about the importance of breeding for herding and how different types of dogs are now out there due to breeding for other characteristics. I really had no idea that some (many? most?) people on these boards believe that if a dog can not herd well, then it is not really a Border Collie. I would have just thought the dog was not a good representative of a BC (based on working ability), the same way my oversized sheltie with a wavy coat was not a good representative of a his breed (based on looks). Once someone insisted he wasn't a sheltie, a sheltie breeder no less but I never thought she might be right. I did think she was kind of rude, but never thought she was a liar for stating her opinion of my favorite dog. I even bought my next dog from her and I still think she's not the most tactful person around.

 

I've never said my dog could work stock if he was given the chance. Beats me. I see a lot of herding behaviors, but I know that's all they are. I'm not especially interested or at all concerned about his working ability. I've never said he was of the same total make-up as dogs bred only for working ability or that he was worthy of being bred. All I've tried to say I feel the average agility person isn't going to think his or her dog is a Barbie and not a BC. And they're told if their dogs aren't real BC's, but they like their current dogs so much, then that raises the question do they even want a real BC? Or should they stick to what they know, these nice, driven, fast sports dogs and the people who breed them?

 

I don't know. Maybe this really is hopeless and the three different lines (or breeds if you prefer) are here for good. Maybe people will keep breeding for different qualities, that's all there is to it and there's no sense in trying to reach an agreement on breeding practices. Everyone (and their dogs) can go their separate ways. I don't fully understand the relationship between ABCA and AKC, so I can't comment on the intermingling aspect of things.

[Eileen Stein]

Nice catch, Jodi. There it is, for all the world to see.

 

Only trouble is, it obsoletes my half-finished post about current-day top trialers who say looks don't matter. Oh well, it was getting too long anyway.

[Pipedream Farm]

There are several IP Address Lookup websites. One of those yielded for the location/owner of this IP address:

 

Your IP Address: 195.93.21.33

Brighton, UNITED KINGDOM

 

another website yielded:

IP Location: United Kingdom - England - London - AOL Uk

 

Mark

[Katelynn & Gang]

Well, that explains it.

 

Cathy/Geroge, take another look at ?A Way of Life? and you will notice that most of the dogs referenced to in that book are not what would make it in the show ring of today or ever for that matter.

 

You will also notice that in reading the pedigrees of the dogs which Glyn Jone?s references to in ?A Way of Life? that there are no such Kennel Club Champions anywhere on any of the pedigrees.

 

If you look at pedigree?s of the very bests dogs in the United Kingdom that grace their trial fields and hills, you will also find that none of those dogs have Kennel Club Champions in the pedigrees and the same for here in the United States.

 

If Glyn Jones really thought and believed in what you have ?read into,? do you really think he would have working dogs related to our working stock or have show dogs related to your show stock?

 

Actions speak much louder then any words combined. You and your kind would be wise to take notice to some of these amazing handler?s auctions that have kept the breed as it was, is, and always will be.

 

Katelynn

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

No one has said that. People have said the exact opposite, over and over again. Please go back and re-read my post of 03-01-2006 02:30 PM.

 

>

 

You would have been right.

 

It is dogs who have been BRED for things other than working ability that are no longer border collies. The Australian/New Zealand bred Barbie Collie is a good example. It has been systematically bred for generations to conform to a certain way of looking. During that time it has not been bred for herding ability. As a result it is no longer the same breed, analytically, as the traditional border collie which is bred for herding ability and not for looks. The Barbies have become a different breed because they have been bred to be different.

 

As for the term "Barbie Collie," it has become so widespread that everyone uses it now. Even show breeders. Maggie referred to her Australian imported show-bred dog as a Barbie. The term has caught on because it is similar in sound to "border collie," and sums up so perfectly the way those dogs are different from border collies. The point of them is the way they look, just the way the point of Barbie dolls is the way they look. Neither "Conformation Collie" nor "Show Collie" works as a description because both are confusing -- there already IS a "Conformation Collie/Show Collie." It's the Lassie Collie.

 

"Barbie Collie" is just an accepted term now, and I have to say, in the nicest possible way, that I think you're just going to have to get used to it. You can be upset about it if you want, but you can't stop people from using it.

 

If the Barbie folks choose a different name for their dogs, I'll be only too happy to use it. In the meantime, "Barbie Collie" is the best way I know of to indicate what I mean when I talk about those dogs.

[Howdyjabo]

Liz-- please hang in there. I think you are just somehow missing the gist of it.And I'll admit its frustrating me. But I'll try and hang in there too.

 

 

The "Barbie" or "Border LINE" is reserved for - the dogs that are being BRED specifically to "ADAPT" them to suit other uses.

 

We are VERY proud that the breed Border Collie is a very versatile breed valued by many outside the herding arena-- thats one of the things that we are actually trying to protect.

I would BRAG on a dog of mine doing something impressive outside the herding arena-- BUT ONLY if they weren't breeding it.

 

Again-- if the shoe don't fit /// Don't put it on

 

Are you breeding your dogs/ are your friends breeding their dogs???

 

if not this is really a non issue for you and them. You have NO REASON to tell them we are calling their dogs "Borderlines" becasue we are not.

 

Even if you or them (hopefully mistakenly) get a "Barbie Collie" or "Borderline"

Unless you are holding it up to the world as the STANDARD of the breed.-

No harm/No foul

Its a Border Collie.

[Kyrasmom]

Well, when there is a formal split and my dogs are called Barbie Collie's or "poop for brains Collies" then that's how I will refer to them. For now, I'll keep calling them what they are, Border Collie's.

 

Just because a coined phrase becomes familiar, or common, doesn't make it nice or acceptable, and if I were to look through all the posts on this board, I would find many a time where it has been used not to differentiate but to denigrate. But then I'm the one with the chip on my shoulder.

 

I'm not disputing that the objectives of the two lines are different, but to come in and say that the only reasoning behind "barbie" is to differentiate, I think is less than objective.

 

Editing to add because I saw the post above mine: how can it not be frustrating when one post says our dogs are Barbie Collie's and another, based on the use we make of them, are Border Collie's. Then again, there is "working bred" and "working bred" so really...how can you not expect people to get confused and defensive. Neither of which I am by the way, I'm just trying to point out why people feel as they do.

[kelpiegirl]

In terms of a rose called by any other name...

 

What if there is a litter of BC pups bred by a farmer (who uses his dogs on the farm, and trials), and all are sold. One of these puppies is purchased by a person who deigns to show the puppy in AKC conformation. The dog becomes a show champion. Is this a Barbie Collie too? Is it what it does, or what it is bred for?

 

Julie

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Oh no, I'm not saying the only reason behind "Barbie" is to differentiate, although that is an essential reason. It also expresses our opinion of breeding border collies to an appearance standard. But no one thinks it's the DOG's fault it was bred to be something other than a border collie.

 

Golden Retrievers are nice, lovable dogs. "Golden Retrievers in tuxedos" are nice, lovable dogs. But people resent them being called by the same name as our dogs, when they are bred to be entirely different from our dogs.

 

You've made it clear that you like to call them both Border Collies. Although I think you're ignoring a fundamental distinction in doing so, I'm not trying to stop you from doing it. Why can't we leave it at that? I'm ready to -- just can't go around in circles any longer without getting dizzy.

[Sue R]

"Barbie Collie" is just an accepted term now, and I have to say, in the nicest possible way, that I think you're just going to have to get used to it. You can be upset about it if you want, but you can't stop people from using it.

That was the case for the N-word, and many other derogatory words in years not far gone by and in many people's minds, and people didn't have to get used to it. I think our Border Collie community here should be much more "advanced" than that outdated approach.

 

I have used the expression of Barbie Collie myself, found it amusing and often accurate (with regards to the breeding goals of the folks who produce these dogs). But maybe our community here should find a descriptor that doesn't convey a sense of "second-class citizen" or "pale imitation" for the conformation-bred (or sports-bred) Border Collie that has often found a home with one of our members.

 

We have many members who share out common understanding about breeding goals, but own and love dogs produced under the "Barbie" or sports breeding mentality (sometimes through rescue, and sometimes because they "didn't know any better" about breeding practices when they acquired a dog, just like those who have puppy-mill or BYB dogs, or any other irresponsibly-bred dog).

 

Do we want to alienate or make these members feel that they and their dogs are belittled by the board membership, when what we don't condone is the breeding that produces such dogs?

 

After all, would we "put up and shut up" if it became common usage to call the working-bred Border Collie the "Crippled Piece of C***" Collie, as some kennel club folks seem to view them?