Ok I have a question

[Pat W.]

First I am in total agreement that a dog should be bred for its ability to do the job it was originally created for -within reason- I am not advocating bull baiting or anything like that. I feel that BEFORE a dog is shown in the breedring they should have a non AKC affiliated title attached to the end of their name. Herding/driving dogs should prove they still have the ability to work sheep or cattle, gun dogs not gun shy and able to either retrieve, point or flush game, terriers show the instinct to go to earth. IF in some perfect world this were a requirement before entering the breed ring how would you feel about the beauty pagent known as Westminster? I totally dont understand the puppy breed classes and think they are a waist of time, good confirmation doesn't disappear over time. Straight shoulders dont become more sloped, hock angulation doesnt increase or decrease. Who the heck cares if an ear is tipped or pricked my question is can they hear out of both of them? Does a square head influence the working ability of a dog more than a longer head or is it acually the brain inside? Does more or less coat help a dog work sheep? Do livestock care if a dog is blk and wht, red, blue,predominately white or green with purple stripes...anybody ask them? Which matters more the fact that a dog has dilute coloring in his coat or juvenile cateracts?

Humans are wired to be attracted to things pleasing to the eye no getting away from it. I find rough coats more pleasing than smooth coats, dont particuarly like blue merle coloring in BC's but love it in Aussies. Like a dog with more bone than not in a male, but not nessicarily in a female. Like a taller dog in the 22 inch range vs the smaller, I was at an agility trial this weekend where two "Pocket" Border Collies competed at the 16inch championship ht and I have to admit when I saw them my reaction was EEEPPP! Followed closely by the thought could they work effectively work sheep? I have learned so so much in this board, find myself reading the information on sheep and so forth with great interest although the likelyhood of my getting sheep is about as much as my growing wings...but anything is possible. I laugh at the funny stories, cry when someone who I have never met has lost a beloved friend and for good or bad jump in with both feet when I have something to say. Thank for the ability to voice my opinion!

[bcnewe2]

quote]Does more or less coat help a dog work sheep? Do livestock care if a dog is blk and wht, red, blue,predominately white or green with purple stripes...anybody ask them?[

 

I think coat would depend on area. It's hot down here, I have rough coats and sometimes think smooth would be better in the heat. I prefer smooth but ended up getting what worked for me. Looks never entered the equation except picking from the litter, as what else do you look at when picking a tiny pup?

 

Thoughts on the color thing…

 

My main working dog gets quite upset when he's working the whole flock and out of the corner of his eye sees one or both of the LGD's, in his work mode and being trained to not leave anything behind unless told to, he will flip around to pick up the straggling sheep then realizes they are the LGD's. He’s not a happy camper when he gets tricked. I've even seen him go correct the LGD after he's finished working for tricking him (at least that's my read on what he's doing). I also think the white LGD's blend in so well with the sheep without close observation, or scent, anything could be fooled for the minute. So IMO color does affect the sheep to some degree, and the dogs, if not their own color the color of other dogs!

 

I've also noticed that when my sheep are in a big group, the Momma's with black babies will check all the black babies to find their own. So the color is effecting what they do.

 

For the sake of entertainment (I do live in AR) I'd like to see a predominantly white BC come over and work my sheep. Just to see if they are calmer (assuming it's a well trained dog) with the white color, stemming from hanging with the all white LGD's. How long it would take them to realize the white BC was not an LGD. I'm sure they'd get it quick if being worked but how quickly if the white bc was just hanging around instead of working.

 

 

rambling instead of working

Kristen

[kelpiegirl]

Does anyone notice if light coloured eyes seem to affect the sheep? What about colouring around the face- for instance on a tri dog, the headlights as I call them- the tan spots above the eyes?

There is one dog that comes to mind as having such presence over sheep- I haven't seen it to that degree again- was a heavily mottled white/black bitch with blue/brown eyes. Her presence probably had nothing to do with her phenotype, but MAN was she a cool dog.

Julie

 

quote]Does more or less coat help a dog work sheep? Do livestock care if a dog is blk and wht, red, blue,predominately white or green with purple stripes...anybody ask them?[

 

I think coat would depend on area. It's hot down here, I have rough coats and sometimes think smooth would be better in the heat. I prefer smooth but ended up getting what worked for me. Looks never entered the equation except picking from the litter, as what else do you look at when picking a tiny pup?

 

Thoughts on the color thing…

 

My main working dog gets quite upset when he's working the whole flock and out of the corner of his eye sees one or both of the LGD's, in his work mode and being trained to not leave anything behind unless told to, he will flip around to pick up the straggling sheep then realizes they are the LGD's. He’s not a happy camper when he gets tricked. I've even seen him go correct the LGD after he's finished working for tricking him (at least that's my read on what he's doing). I also think the white LGD's blend in so well with the sheep without close observation, or scent, anything could be fooled for the minute. So IMO color does affect the sheep to some degree, and the dogs, if not their own color the color of other dogs!

 

I've also noticed that when my sheep are in a big group, the Momma's with black babies will check all the black babies to find their own. So the color is effecting what they do.

 

For the sake of entertainment (I do live in AR) I'd like to see a predominantly white BC come over and work my sheep. Just to see if they are calmer (assuming it's a well trained dog) with the white color, stemming from hanging with the all white LGD's. How long it would take them to realize the white BC was not an LGD. I'm sure they'd get it quick if being worked but how quickly if the white bc was just hanging around instead of working.

rambling instead of working

Kristen

[Eileen Stein]

I feel that BEFORE a dog is shown in the breedring they should have a non AKC affiliated title attached to the end of their name.

 

Someone is going to point out that real sheepdog trials don't result in titles attached to the end of a dog's name, so it might as well be me.

 

Herding/driving dogs should prove they still have the ability to work sheep or cattle, gun dogs not gun shy and able to either retrieve, point or flush game, terriers show the instinct to go to earth. IF in some perfect world this were a requirement before entering the breed ring how would you feel about the beauty pagent known as Westminster?

 

I would still feel it was pointless and destructive. By participating in beauty pageants, you are endorsing the judging of border collies by an appearance standard, and that simply is not an appropriate standard by which to judge a border collie. If you award a title and glory for a dog looking a certain way, you are providing an incentive for people to breed their dogs to look that way, and that inevitably results in a dilution of herding excellence. Herding ability is not a yes/no thing that you can check off by means of an exercise leading to a title. It is much more complex than that, and if it is no longer the sole driving force behind breeding decisions (as it was when the breed was being developed), then the breed will change and its abilities will diminish. Actually, I think what you propose (the "versatility" ideal) is actually worse than what we have now, because it would give the false impression that the Westminster winners are true working border collies -- that they "have it all," and are therefore superior to those who are bred only for working ability and have no conformation championship.

 

Candy Kennedy used to give the illustration that if you are breeding for the fastest racehorse that is also black, you will not be producing racehorses that are as fast as the other guys, who are breeding only for speed without regard to color. The same is true of versatility breeding -- if you're breeding for the best sheepdog who can win a conformation title, you will not be breeding sheepdogs as good as the other guys who are breeding only for working ability.

 

You might find this article on Genetics and the Border Collie to be of interest. And thanks for asking a good question.

[juliepoudrier]

First I am in total agreement that a dog should be bred for its ability to do the job it was originally created for -within reason- I am not advocating bull baiting or anything like that. I feel that BEFORE a dog is shown in the breedring they should have a non AKC affiliated title attached to the end of their name. Herding/driving dogs should prove they still have the ability to work sheep or cattle, gun dogs not gun shy and able to either retrieve, point or flush game, terriers show the instinct to go to earth. IF in some perfect world this were a requirement before entering the breed ring how would you feel about the beauty pagent known as Westminster?

 

Um, well IMO, I think the problem with requiring some sort of working title before allowing entry in the beauty pageant is that often the titles are pretty meaningless. I mean just about any dog with prey drive could pass an instinct test and be said to have "herding ability," but we all know that doesn't necessarily translate into real ability. I suppose it would be better than nothing, but it probably wouldn't go far toward changing my opinion about dogs bred solely or mostly for a look. Now if all the dogs shown in the ring had to prove real competence at a level equivalent to whatever the open competition in that field required, I might feel differently (e.g., the recent discussion about golden retrievers and gun dog competitions and the contention by many of the posters that the AKC gun dog competitions *are* tough).

 

I totally dont understand the puppy breed classes and think they are a waist of time, good confirmation doesn't disappear over time. Straight shoulders dont become more sloped, hock angulation doesnt increase or decrease.

I think some things can and do change over time. I've seen many an "ugly" foal with crooked legs grow out of the ugliness and have the legs straighten and turn out quite nice. But regardless of that, I don't really see the point of a puppy class, but then my opinion is certainly colored by the fact that I don't really see the point of the beauty contest at all.

 

Who the heck cares if an ear is tipped or pricked my question is can they hear out of both of them?

 

I wholeheartedly agree. Unfortunately fads take over and the sheeplike masses follow--if one or two winners have tipped ears, then the judges must want tipped ears, and so it follows that without tipped ears you can't win. It's a vicious circle that has no bearing on the animal's working ability and really boils down to the opinion of one or a few judges, who then have inordinate influence over the breeding (and/or "reshaping") of future show dogs. I personally prefer prick-eared dogs but wouldn't turn down a dog with some other sort of ear if it was a great worker. That's the essence of the difference that separates the conformation people from the working people, I think. We all have prefernces when it comes to how a dog looks, but most of us wouldn't refuse a dog that didn't match our particular preference if it was a stellar worker in preference of a so-so worker with our favorite look. In the conformation world, a particular look, which often comes down to the opinion of a few judges, becomes paramount over everything else. None of my dogs actually have a certain look (beyond a preponderance of prick ears, but that just happened and wasn't a conscious effort on my part) because to me it's what they do that's most important.

 

Does a square head influence the working ability of a dog more than a longer head or is it acually the brain inside?

I know one old timer who doesn't like dogs with narrow heads. He likes a broad head, which isn't the same as the square head with a more prominent stop that you see on the show dogs. His reason for wanting a dog with a broad head? A broader head means more room for the brain. He's fond of saying that while the dog may not use that brain, at least there's room for it in there!

 

Does more or less coat help a dog work sheep?

 

Well, some folks actually believe that a dog with a lot of flowing coat is actually more scarey to sheep (I hear that repeated a lot on one list I'm on). I don't necessarily ascribe to that view. I think the sheep can read a dog's intent no matter what the dog looks like, and it's that intent they react to. My reason for disliking big coats is that in rough fields the longer/bigger coats pick up a lot of crap. It's much easier to remove burrs, etc., from a smooth-coated dog, which is why I prefer a smooth coat. So it's not a working ability issue that matters where coat is concerned, but *for me* a maintenance issue. Just last night I was cutting mats off Phoebe's belly because she's a pigpen and always playing around in the mud, etc. If she were smooth coated, there would be no mats to contend with. But if she turns out to be as good a working dog as her mama, I'll deal with the maintenance issues her rough coat presents (not to mention I'll have to get used to those airplane ears)!

 

Do livestock care if a dog is blk and wht, red, blue,predominately white or green with purple stripes...anybody ask them?

No one asked the dogs, I'm sure, but you'd be surprised by the number of long-time stock people who still ascribe to the view that color does matter. I had a mostly white pup in Twist's litter. Most of the people on the puppy list were quite clear that they didn't want a white dog because "the sheep won't respect them." I have heard this same comment about red dogs (from top handlers and stock people). Then again, others have said (one the aforementtioned old timer) that color doesn't matter--it's the work that counts and livestock don't care about the color (although this same person had the same anti-red prejudice until he had a red dog who worked well). Since I have red dogs (two of whom have competed successfully in open trials, on east coast and west coast sheep, and even cattle), I have to agree with those who say color doesn't matter. I'll let you know about the mostly white dogs once Pip is older and trained! But (and you knew there'd be a but) all that said, shepherds were a pretty traditional and conservative lot and so the stock these dogs (working dogs) were bred from were largely the "traditional" colors, black and white or tris. That doesn't mean other colors didn't exist, but if they did, they were a distinct minority. So the whole color issue is more of a reverse prejudice--all the candy colors come about because people are breeding *for* them, which means they likely aren't putting working ability first. You don't see those candy colors in the old photos of, say, International Supreme winners. That's not to say that candy colored dogs can't work well, but rather that the breeding choices made to produce them aren't based on working ability first and therefore are in effect choosing *against* working ability.

 

Which matters more the fact that a dog has dilute coloring in his coat or juvenile cateracts?

 

I don't have a good answer for that one, since either condition could cause health problems. I understand that juvenile cataracts can clear on their own, but don't know much about it. The problem with dilute colors is as above--if you're breeding for dilute colors then you aren't breeding for working ability. If a dilute "pops up" in a working bred litter, that's one thing. If someone is deliberately breeding lilacs or lilac merles or whatever, their breeding program is about color, not about ability.

 

Humans are wired to be attracted to things pleasing to the eye no getting away from it. I find rough coats more pleasing than smooth coats, dont particuarly like blue merle coloring in BC's but love it in Aussies. Like a dog with more bone than not in a male, but not nessicarily in a female. Like a taller dog in the 22 inch range vs the smaller, I was at an agility trial this weekend where two "Pocket" Border Collies competed at the 16inch championship ht and I have to admit when I saw them my reaction was EEEPPP! Followed closely by the thought could they work effectively work sheep?

I can probably answer that last question. I have a small border collie. She weighs 26 pounds, and I couldn't tell you her height. Her dam is small. The dam's sire and dam are actually what I would consider medium to medium-large size. Her sire is medium sized I'd guess. So she just happened to get genes that made her small. She's just a year old but works sheep just fine, including the rams and my Scottish blackface, which are known to be quite willing to turn and fight a dog. Just last weekend, since my main work dog is recovering from surgery and can't be worked, I decided to try this little dog on the neighbor's cattle herd, which had gotten out and needed to be put back in the pasture. These are adult cows and steers, some calves, not dog broke, and very willing to chase a dog and go after it with their horns (those that have horns). While I did not allow my youngster to head the cattle since I wouldn't be near enough to help her out (remember, this was her *first time ever* attempting to work cattle) but we did successfully drive them from the field they weren't supposed to be in to the pasture from whence they had escaped. Lark was quite willing to go in and bite heels, though I stopped her most of the time as I didn't want her kicked. (Once again, the aforementioned old timer said I should have let her bite all she wanted at this point since it would help her confidence and as little as she is the cows would likely have kicked right over top of her). So at least in this one case, little doesn't seem to be an impediment. And that's good, since I *prefer* dogs on the smaller side.

 

I have learned so so much in this board, find myself reading the information on sheep and so forth with great interest although the likelyhood of my getting sheep is about as much as my growing wings...but anything is possible. I laugh at the funny stories, cry when someone who I have never met has lost a beloved friend and for good or bad jump in with both feet when I have something to say. Thank for the ability to voice my opinion!

 

That's what these boards are supposed to be all about--learning from *everybody's* experience and opinions.

 

J.

[krazy15k]

"So the whole color issue is more of a reverse prejudice--all the candy colors come about because people are breeding *for* them, which means they likely aren't putting working ability first. You don't see those candy colors in the old photos of, say, International Supreme winners. That's not to say that candy colored dogs can't work well, but rather that the breeding choices made to produce them aren't based on working ability first and therefore are in effect choosing *against* working ability. "

 

What if someone just happens to have a "candy colored" dog that works really well. If they breed that dog to another good working dog, and happen to have another off colored dog wouldn't that person be breeding for working ability? Also, you can get a red out of two black and white parents, I know these aren't the colored dogs we are talking about but they are a color that some people find less desirable, and they are bred for working ability (hopefully).

 

Sorry to get on a side note, in my honest opinion the sheep work for individual dogs, their color doesn't really matter. A good sheep dog can move sheep reguardless of color. I think sometimes we get caught up in little details instead of looking at a big picture. It doesn't matter what a bc looks like as long it is healthy and works sheep. But hey what do I know.

[Journey]

Also, you can get a red out of two black and white parents, I know these aren't the colored dogs we are talking about but they are a color that some people find less desirable, and they are bred for working ability (hopefully).

 

 

Yes, you can get a red out of two b/w parents. Both parents must/did carry the red recessive is all.

 

Karen

[MrSnappy]

What if someone just happens to have a "candy colored" dog that works really well. If they breed that dog to another good working dog, and happen to have another off colored dog wouldn't that person be breeding for working ability?

 

Isn't that exactly what Julie P. said? She did specify that some of the "candy coloured" dogs can work, no question, but that *traditionally* the shepherds did not breed or use these colours. But there are and have always been some around. So basically you've just repeated Julie's statement in the form of a question, I think.

 

However, if someone is breeding for working ability, the colour of the dog is irrelevant. If someone has a, say, merle that can really work, there is no reason not to breed that dog (other factors being equal) any more than there would be reason not to breed a bi colour / traditional dog. And yet there is a prejudice against those dogs in certain circles so *some* people wouldn't want the pups. It's a bit of a self fulfilling cyle, yet it's also a moot point because who would breed merles deliberately to prove they can work? Because if colour really doesn't matter, why breed specifically for merles at all?

 

It's a bit of a head spinner But I guess people have their preferences, no matter how much they toe the 'colour doesn't matter' line. The whole colour thing drives me crazy because I get people who will only adopt a dog if it is a certain colour (usually reds), and I also have dogs that are atypical (ie smooth coat tris or sables) that no one will adopt because they don't think they are border collies, for real. Then again, I am no less guilty, really, as there are some dogs I just do not like the look of. For me, frequently, it is mostly white dogs. It has nothing to do with any myths about whether or not they can work, they just don't appeal to me visually, for the most part.

 

RDM

[juliepoudrier]

What if someone just happens to have a "candy colored" dog that works really well. If they breed that dog to another good working dog, and happen to have another off colored dog wouldn't that person be breeding for working ability? Also, you can get a red out of two black and white parents, I know these aren't the colored dogs we are talking about but they are a color that some people find less desirable, and they are bred for working ability (hopefully).

This has been covered here before, but I guess I'll repeat it. Your argument only makes sense if there are a lot of the "candy colored" dogs in the gene pool in the first place. And in the past, when the working border collie was developed, there weren't, and if any appeared, they weren't likely chosen and used (because of the old timer prejudice against "odd" colors). This means that the likelihood of just happening to have two candy colored dogs who are also top workers is pretty slim in the first place. There are a heck of a lot more of those candy colored dogs out there now, but someone has to be selecting for those colors above all else, and in doing so, they aren't selecting for working ability first and foremost (and in fact, you generally don't find those candy-colored dogs at open stockdog trials with any regularity). And not selecting for working ability above all else is the problem.

 

Red, on the other hand, does appear in some of the top working lines from the UK. As you say, you can breed two B&W dogs and get red pups. People didn't have to consciously breed for red to get it, and in fact you could breed two B&W dogs who might both carry the red recessive and still not get any red pups (done that). So while red was probably popping up occasionally, shepherds weren't trying to produce it, and again weren't choosing the red pups from those litters that had them, so that the reds weren't being carried through as breeding stock, at least not at anywhere near the rate of the more "normal" colors. This means you wouldn't likely find shepherd A breeding his fine red bitch to shepherd B's great red stud to produce all-red litters.

 

All you have to do is attend a bunch of top trials in this country or the UK. The candy colored dogs are extremely rare. Finding two to breed to one another would be difficult, and again, you'd not only have to have those two dogs but presumably you'd want the breeding to *improve* on the characteristics of either dog. So, if you were being purely objective about working ability, your chances of finding a stud that complements your bitch are much greater in the non-candy-colored population than among the candy-colored dogs out there. If you choose that other candy-colored dog because it's a "good worker" without taking into consideration the whole package and how it's working attributes might combine well with your dog's working attributes to try and produce pups that are better than either parent (that should be the goal after all), then all you are doing is putting color ahead of everything else, and as has been said ad nauseum on this forum, that's a wrong goal for breeding.

 

That's not to say that two odd-colored dogs that are exceptional workers won't ever be bred, but given the genetics and population logistyics, including the fact that most of the candy-colored dogs out there aren't being bred from strictly top working dogs, and it's pretty easy to see that the likelihood of having two top workers from which to produce more candy-colored top workers is pretty slim. That's my opinion on the subject anyway.

 

Oh, and I just paged through Barbara Carpenter's The Blue Riband of the Heather: The Supreme Champions 1906-1995 and every International Supreme winner was either B&W or black tri or "black, tan, and white." A couple of years ago, a red dog from Ireland won the Supreme. When I looked through Carpenter's National Sheepdog Champions of Britain and Ireland, 1922-1993, here's the breakdown: three Irish National Champions were red, all around the late 60s and early 70s; one red dog won the Scottish National Championship; and one red dog won the English National Championship. All other dogs were B&W or black tri or black and tan. No candy colors. So while red did pop up occasionally, other odd colors did not, at least not in the top trialing venues. So it would be hard to find dogs "of color" bred strictly from working lines to breed together in the first place.

 

J.

[Liz P]

Was there not a blue merle trial winner way back in the beggining that shows up in a lot of pedigrees? I have seen a black and white pic of a clearly blue merle dog taken around the turn of the century. Maybe he wasn't famous, but I thought he was for some reason.

 

Couldn't you say that working people do tend to select against odd colors, so you are even less likely to get a Nat or Int Ch that is not black or tri?

[Strider]

Ready to get shouted down again... but some arenas do require the working display prior to conformation application. However, it depends, apparently, on what you believe might define a border collie.

 

If your definition is that it's a sheep dog, then any sheep dog would do. The standard belief is that the BC must exhibit other characteristics such as "the eye", the crouching pose, the intensity and intelligence, etc. Conformation shows take it differently and incorporate build, colour, etc.

 

The conformation proponents argue that the ability is innate, and their issue is that the dog is a "border collie" because it appears to be a "border collie". They assume that the skill to herd will remain intact. I know that the body shaping of other conformation champions has made their ability to do the bred job impossible: German Shepherds in North America are a fine and tragic example in my opinion, as are the dangerously overweight labradors.

 

The herding people insist that breeding for looks will dilute the herding ability, the conformation people argue that the breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, despite its other abilities.

 

While working the genetics, I did find merles that were "champions", as well as reds/livers. You can find most of the pedigree chains online, and the line breeding (or inbreeding, depending on the result) is intriguing if nothing else.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

By shouted down, do you mean disagreed with?

 

>

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "arenas," "working display" and "conformation application"? Are you referring to the fact that in some other countries a dog must pass a working test before receiving a conformation championship? Or something else?

 

>

 

The "standard belief" of whom? And are you equating crouching and eyeing with the "working display" you referred to above?

 

>

 

This article gives a pretty good explanation of why the skill to herd will not remain intact in conformation bred dogs, even if their body type is not altered.

 

>

 

What breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, according to the conformation people?

 

>

 

What do you mean by "champions" -- conformation champions, or something else? By "working the genetics," do you mean looking at pedigrees, or something else?

 

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I don't feel I understand most of what you're saying here well enough to address it.

[Strider]

<< Ready to get shouted down again... >>

 

By shouted down, do you mean disagreed with?

 

No, I mean triteness and name calling. These boards occasionally disagree and discuss as if the people are more than teens, but I haven't seen much of it. Discussion is healthy, name calling - including towards dogs is not.

 

<< ... but some arenas do require the working display prior to conformation application. However, it depends, apparently, on what you believe might define a border collie. >>

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean by "arenas," "working display" and "conformation application"? Are you referring to the fact that in some other countries a dog must pass a working test before receiving a conformation championship? Or something else?

 

Arenas meaning places people do things, working display means herding affirmation (title in some cases), conformation application means show ring. Sorry, it's the academic in me I guess! (Sheesh, it does sound like a politician.)

 

<< If your definition is that it's a sheep dog, then any sheep dog would do. The standard belief is that the BC must exhibit other characteristics such as "the eye", the crouching pose, the intensity and intelligence, etc. >>

 

The "standard belief" of whom? And are you equating crouching and eyeing with the "working display" you referred to above?

 

No, I'm using it as a display of what people might use to define what a BC is. How would you define a Border Collie, for example?

 

<< The conformation proponents argue that the ability is innate, and their issue is that the dog is a "border collie" because it appears to be a "border collie". They assume that the skill to herd will remain intact. >>

 

This article gives a pretty good explanation of why the skill to herd will not remain intact in conformation bred dogs, even if their body type is not altered.

 

Yes, I've read it. Interesting, but you realize it makes a leap of science to achieve an argument that may not be valid? Genetics is specific, but not exact. When I worked the genome project, it was clear that nature/drift and mutation will modify, "fix", or erase genetic computation sometimes at random. You can predict with some degree of possibility what will happen, but you can't necessarily argue "this" vs. "that" with certainty. That's not genetics, that's belief.

 

There are exceptions of course. Two black and whites can produce a red, a blue merle and a red can produce black and whites or a tri, for example, and you could predict it with enough genetic background or identify the potential source. Or you can say with absolute certainty that two reds definitely will not produce a black and white.

 

What is very valid is the argument that breeding for a specific item - such as looks - can erase other traits, especially in limited stud book environments. But that argument has two edges: breeding only to "fix" herding traits could lead to increased genetic anomolies by the same logic. And there's only one pair of each, you can't concentrate it further than that.

 

If this were true, then why do current lines differ so drastically from the original BC stock? In look or temperment? Why would afflications such as cerebellar apiotrophy and immune mediatated hemolitic anemia surface in rare births or be triggered by vaccinations?

 

That's not to say that the potential isn't there, or that the article lacks validity. It's just not a hard and fast set of rules to reach that conclusion.

 

<< The herding people insist that breeding for looks will dilute the herding ability, the conformation people argue that the breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, despite its other abilities. >>

 

What breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, according to the conformation people?

 

They choose on looks. So if that's their basis, then obviously they would compare current dogs vs. the original "dog zero". I posted some photos of dogs that I consider awesome, but they certainly don't look that much alike, and the lanky, smooth coat for example bears very little resemblance to the progenitors of the breed.

 

<< While working the genetics, I did find merles that were "champions", as well as reds/livers. You can find most of the pedigree chains online, and the line breeding (or inbreeding, depending on the result) is intriguing if nothing else. >>

 

What do you mean by "champions" -- conformation champions, or something else? By "working the genetics," do you mean looking at pedigrees, or something else?

 

I mean herding. I don't have much experience with conformation dogs yet. I put champions in quotes because a large number had no method to claim a herding "title" or anything like that. They're champions, but aren't the "blue ribbon" kind that people might think about (HX, HCh... stuff like that). They herded, they did it very well; they're champs.

 

By working the genetics, I mean just that. Following possible genetic combinations to potentially identify traits and the likelihood of surfacing in a litter. In particular to help identify the potential that a specific herding line was responsible for a gene that caused the bleeding deaths of two dogs related to mine.

 

Sorry to ask so many questions, but I don't feel I understand most of what you're saying here well enough to address it.

 

Please do! I jumped into posting because I disliked the manner, not the content. I'm not trying to convince people of anything more than to conduct themselves with civility and without name-calling. My beliefs may be different than yours, they may not, but if the discussion leads people to sling mud, then, yes, I believe it's wrong.

[Marilyn T]

Regarding color of the working dog and does it affect their ability...... the most sensible opinion I have ever heard came from Alasdair. When he was asked why there is predjudice towards red or white dogs over traditionally colored dog he said (paraphrased)......

 

The sheep tend to look at an 'off' (for lack of a better term) colored dog more. An all white dog, or a red dog will make the sheep more curious and they will turn and look more and challenge the dog more often than a traditionally marked black and white. When the dog is young, it doesn't really matter. That dog has the power he has. However with a lifetime of being challenged more than average, the off colored dog will start to believe that they aren't as powerful, and thus lose some of their power.

 

I think this really applies in the area of trialing, where a dog is put on sheep that don't know it well. The home flock has no reason to question the home dog's power, so once a powerful off colored dog has educated the home flock, chances are they will be more reactive to that color of dog. I don't really know if this is true. The only example I have to go on is a friend who has a red dog, a mostly white bitch, and a traditionally marked male. Her strongest dog is the traditional one. Sheep at trials tend to challenge the other two more. Might be the above theory, or maybe the red dog, and white bitch just were never as powerful. I only know that if given the choice, she will not chose the off colored puppy any more. Trialing is hard enough, so if this theory is true, why further handicap yourself. Most of us are sufficiently handicapped to begin with

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Would this statement of yours be an example of name calling? Or would you consider that civility?

 

>

 

Well, let me try again. Are you referring to the fact that in some other countries a dog must pass a working test before receiving a conformation championship? Or something else?

 

>

 

The border collie breed was developed in the border regions of England and Scotland for the gathering, controlling and movement of livestock, over vast areas as well as in small areas. Typically, they use eye to move sheep and don't bark, but I wouldn't say that a loose-eyed dog or a dog who didn't crouch was not a border collie if it could do the work expected of a good border collie. And I would say a border collie is a descendent of those dogs who was bred for the ability to work livestock, or a dog who has demonstrated the above abilities to a high degree.

 

>

 

I would say that the article's conclusions can be stated with a high degree of genetic certainty, which I agree is not the same as absolute certainty.

 

>

 

Well, yes, the article specifically says that there's only one pair of each, you can't concentrate it further than that. But I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I referenced this article as a rebuttal to the conformation breeders' belief that herding ability will remain intact through generations bred only for looks, and it sounds as if you are agreeing with the article on that point -- that it will not. However, when you say "breeding only to 'fix' herding traits could lead to increased genetic anomolies by the same logic," you seem to be shifting to a different point -- that breeding only for herding ability would move the breed toward increased homozygosity, resulting in an increased surfacing of recessive diseases. Am I understanding you correctly? But as the article points out, herding characteristics are much less easily "fixed" than appearance characteristics, and consequently we do not do the kind of inbreeding that the conformation folks do to fix physical characteristics. As a result, I believe working border collies have one of the lowest COIs, if not the lowest, of any registered breed.

 

>

 

If what were true? And why do you say current lines differ drastically from the original BC stock?

 

>

 

Why not?

 

 

Me: "What breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, according to the conformation people?"

 

Strider: "They choose on looks. So if that's their basis, then obviously they would compare current dogs vs. the original "dog zero". I posted some photos of dogs that I consider awesome, but they certainly don't look that much alike, and the lanky, smooth coat for example bears very little resemblance to the progenitors of the breed." >>

 

Are you saying that the original "dog zero" border collie looked like the dogs currently being shown in the conformation ring?? You couldn't be! They have been greatly modified and "improved" (as the conformation people would claim) from the early border collies, in whom there was wide diversity of appearance, just as there is wide diversity of appearance in the working border collies of today. So even if you were judging only on looks, then it's definitely the conformation breeders who have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie.

 

>

 

How did you assess what dogs were champs when you were "working the genetics"?

 

>

 

Perhaps you would like to relate more about this experience -- the deaths, the search for answers, and the answers you found -- since it seems, judging from this post and one you posted on another thread ("We buried a BC puppy that bled out from his nose and eyes, only to find out that his herding line carries the autoimmune flaw. That is not satisfying. And I'while I'm sure that your preaching will write that off as a "bad" breeder, the truth is both sides have something to answer for."), to have embittered you toward "herding lines" and their breeders.

[kelpiegirl]

I have a question on appearances- what about ears? Back many decades ago, the BC's I saw, by and large all had down, or flop ears. Now I see way more prick ears. Is this a case for selecting for prick ears, or is the BC normally this way?

Julie

[juliepoudrier]

Julie,

This is an incomplete answeer because I didn't have time to spend a lot of time looking, but once again I paged through Barbara Carpenter's two books I mentioned above, and there were prick-eared dogs, as well as a lot of dogs with tipped ears (ears mostly standing with just little tips coming over to the front or side). The problem with these books is that you're looking at just one photo and so must make assumptions based on that one photo (for example, my Phoebe carries her ears pricked outside, but when hanging around in the house she's airplane-eared, so which is she?). Anyway, a couple of prick-eared dogs (from one photo) that stood out: Wiston Cap (1965 Int'l Supreme), Wisp and Bosworth Coon (the latter both had one prick and one tipped). Alasdair MacRae's Nan also appears to be prick-eared. Tim Longton had several dogs pictured with one ear up and one tipped. There's a picture of JH Wilson with Spot (IS 1991, 1994) and Peg walking across a field. Both dogs appear to have either prick ears or slightly tipped ears. Back in the early images are some dogs that are truly what I would call hound eared, but if the pictures in those books are any indication, then the ears really did have a wide variety all along, and if I had to pick what seemed to appear the most, it would be "high tipped" ears (that is, ears that mostly stand, with just the tips flopping over). Also, though, a lot of dogs are pictured with their ears back, so it's impossible to tell what their ears really did. And of course this is a limited population of National and National Supreme champions (but presumably they were bred from, which is why I pointed out that Wiston Cap appears to have been a prick-eared dog, since we all know how important he was to the breeding pool)....

 

So in answer to your question, it's possible that an increased incidence of prick ears in modern dogs is a result of breeding to particular key dogs that had prick ears--that is, it's a side effect of breeding from particular lines and not a conscious choice to attempt to get prick ears. This is just my opinion, though.

 

Maybe Becca will see this question and chime in--I know she's done a lot of pedigree research and probably has seen pictures of a lot of past dogs.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Hi Julie

That makes sense- I just never really thought of it. I think ears REALLY vary in BC's for the most part. As for the positions- one of my Kelpies has prick ears- one a bit less prick than the other, and I was warned about her ear maybe not standing, because in working Kelpies, that can happen (though they are supposed to be upright), and once I met her, knew her, and now see her work, well, it makes no never mind. It was so windy working yesterday that her ears blew over!

Julie

 

 

Julie,

This is an incomplete answeer because I didn't have time to spend a lot of time looking, but once again I paged through Barbara Carpenter's two books I mentioned above, and there were prick-eared dogs, as well as a lot of dogs with tipped ears (ears mostly standing with just little tips coming over to the front or side). The problem with these books is that you're looking at just one photo and so must make assumptions based on that one photo (for example, my Phoebe carries her ears pricked outside, but when hanging around in the house she's airplane-eared, so which is she?). Anyway, a couple of prick-eared dogs (from one photo) that stood out: Wiston Cap (1965 Int'l Supreme), Wisp and Bosworth Coon (the latter both had one prick and one tipped). Alasdair MacRae's Nan also appears to be prick-eared. Tim Longton had several dogs pictured with one ear up and one tipped. There's a picture of JH Wilson with Spot (IS 1991, 1994) and Peg walking across a field. Both dogs appear to have either prick ears or slightly tipped ears. Back in the early images are some dogs that are truly what I would call hound eared, but if the pictures in those books are any indication, then the ears really did have a wide variety all along, and if I had to pick what seemed to appear the most, it would be "high tipped" ears (that is, ears that mostly stand, with just the tips flopping over). Also, though, a lot of dogs are pictured with their ears back, so it's impossible to tell what their ears really did. And of course this is a limited population of National and National Supreme champions (but presumably they were bred from, which is why I pointed out that Wiston Cap appears to have been a prick-eared dog, since we all know how important he was to the breeding pool)....

 

So in answer to your question, it's possible that an increased incidence of prick ears in modern dogs is a result of breeding to particular key dogs that had prick ears--that is, it's a side effect of breeding from particular lines and not a conscious choice to attempt to get prick ears. This is just my opinion, though.

 

Maybe Becca will see this question and chime in--I know she's done a lot of pedigree research and probably has seen pictures of a lot of past dogs.

 

J.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

You'll see old pictures with lots of dropped ears thanks to the influence of Herdman's Tommy, but there were some key early dogs with fully erect ears, too - a key early dog with both prick ears, a lanky body, and smooth coat, was Loos II.

 

Down the road, Wiston Cap himself carried the prick eared genes, lanky bare coated dog genes, though he himself was rough and didn't literally have a smooth allele. He had many relatives that were bred, however, and hsi influence could definitely be said to introduce a great deal of smooths, and acceptance of them generally. The ears, of course, hark back to Cap directly.

 

Templeton's dogs were also tall, smooth coated, and prick eared - the Herdman's Tommy type but with great big mule ears and a smooth, Alasatian-like coat.

 

The Bwlch line introduced a lot of smooth coats (and the lanky body type) into the "Blu Ribband" - not directly, but through breeding. That was in the late sixties through contemporary times - the Moel line is the current standard bearer for these genetics.

 

There's more to the homogeny that you see in the Border Collie today, than simple prejudice. Early breeders often did believe that a pup that looked like the "old 'un", had the most potential to work the same (or better). I believe this idea still holds true among many working breeders. It's not really a selection principle - more of a hope that the one that looks the most like Mom or Dad will work more like them, all other things being equal. But of course this DOES end up being a selection principle - and if a dilute or red pops up, it will be more likely to end up rejected, sold as a pet, or sold into obscurity.

 

Merle MUST be perpetuated from generation to generation, being dominant. That's why we have so few merles today. Once the attention started focusing on the black dogs, "greys" were rejected for the reason mentioned above, very simply. There used to be a few lines of "grey dogs" around - but they petered out as farmers sought trial winners as studs. And it's not certain whether greys were dilutes, merles, or heavily ticked, since the term could refer to all three.

 

I don't know what Strider is talking about, honestly. In the old days, a dog that died before it was trained, didn't reproduce. Period. They lived, and still live, a really hard life. The diseases you mention aren't like mild CHD - you can't just "play through the pain." And the COI is very low in the Border Collie - one of the lowest of any registered breed. Its health isn't perfect, but the best way to maintain it is through breeding ONLY dogs that have been proven through very hard work. Not "titles" - hard work in real farm situations.

 

In answer to the original question, there's no perfect world. Therefore, people will use as selection standards what comes easiest. You can say, a dog that has this kind of front will crouch better than one that doesn't, and the dog that has a longer stride will have more endurance. Or you can go out and prove it by training the dog, then working the dog on livestock that require eye to control, and doing what I'm about to do right now - round up lambs for banding and tagging for a couple hours, sort sheep, check hooves, and then split the flock into two grazing groups. And then you can take that dog out and show that he's capable of even more refined training, adaptability, and soundness, as demonstrated on the Open trial field - or doing equivalent work on a variety of stock.

 

Do you really think that people will wait to start showing a dog, until the dog is running an Open trial course, training which takes a couple of years or more? No, they'd settle for some rudimentary standard, which would do even more harm than making the dog a pretty plaything.

[Strider]

<< No, I mean triteness and name calling. These boards occasionally disagree and discuss as if the people are more than teens, but I haven't seen much of it. >>

 

Would this statement of yours be an example of name calling? Or would you consider that civility?

Sorry? I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking if I was name calling there and being uncivil?

 

<< Arenas meaning places people do things, working display means herding affirmation (title in some cases), conformation application means show ring. Sorry, it's the academic in me I guess! (Sheesh, it does sound like a politician.) >>

 

Well, let me try again. Are you referring to the fact that in some other countries a dog must pass a working test before receiving a conformation championship? Or something else?

 

Yes.

 

<< No, I'm using it as a display of what people might use to define what a BC is. How would you define a Border Collie, for example? >>

 

The border collie breed was developed in the border regions of England and Scotland for the gathering, controlling and movement of livestock, over vast areas as well as in small areas. Typically, they use eye to move sheep and don't bark, but I wouldn't say that a loose-eyed dog or a dog who didn't crouch was not a border collie if it could do the work expected of a good border collie. And I would say a border collie is a descendent of those dogs who was bred for the ability to work livestock, or a dog who has demonstrated the above abilities to a high degree.

 

That's a great way to describe a border collie. Does it also mean then, that a herding dog bred with a standard collie or shepherd who exhibitis these characteristics is also a border collie? That's somewhat of an unfair question, because I realise it's difficult to put those definite lines around the definition.

 

<< You can predict with some degree of possibility what will happen, but you can't necessarily argue "this" vs. "that" with certainty. That's not genetics, that's belief. >>

 

I would say that the article's conclusions can be stated with a high degree of genetic certainty, which I agree is not the same as absolute certainty.

 

<< What is very valid is the argument that breeding for a specific item - such as looks - can erase other traits, especially in limited stud book environments. But that argument has two edges: breeding only to "fix" herding traits could lead to increased genetic anomolies by the same logic. And there's only one pair of each, you can't concentrate it further than that. >>

 

Well, yes, the article specifically says that there's only one pair of each, you can't concentrate it further than that. But I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. I referenced this article as a rebuttal to the conformation breeders' belief that herding ability will remain intact through generations bred only for looks, and it sounds as if you are agreeing with the article on that point -- that it will not. However, when you say "breeding only to 'fix' herding traits could lead to increased genetic anomolies by the same logic," you seem to be shifting to a different point -- that breeding only for herding ability would move the breed toward increased homozygosity, resulting in an increased surfacing of recessive diseases. Am I understanding you correctly? But as the article points out, herding characteristics are much less easily "fixed" than appearance characteristics, and consequently we do not do the kind of inbreeding that the conformation folks do to fix physical characteristics. As a result, I believe working border collies have one of the lowest COIs, if not the lowest, of any registered breed.

 

Registered with whom? Given Old Hemp's son Don's role in the Australian line, for example, the COI could not be "the lowest" there and stands a chance of rising significantly based on the growth of the early lines. Importing dogs has certainly diversified the math, as has the excellent records maintained for BC breeding. You know how COI is calculated, and it can fluctuate wildly within a breeder's line. A generalized coefficient of 6% or so for first cousins would rise dramatically if the product of that breeding bred with his female offspring.

 

If we're going to deal with genetics then let's do so: we know from Belyaev's work with wild siver foxes, for example, that his specific breeding for behaviour - in this case docility - resulted in spotted coats, dropped ears, and curled tails in a previously wild and homogenous population. Applying the logic of the paper you referenced means that if he had then turned around and bred for spotted coats, dropped ears, and curled tails the docility must disappear, which is false; it did not.

 

 

<< If this were true, then why do current lines differ so drastically from the original BC stock? In look or temperment? >>

 

If what were true? And why do you say current lines differ drastically from the original BC stock?

 

<< Why would afflications such as cerebellar apiotrophy and immune mediatated hemolitic anemia surface in rare births or be triggered by vaccinations? >>

 

Why not?

 

<< Strider: "the conformation people argue that the breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, despite its other abilities."

 

Me: "What breedings have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie, according to the conformation people?"

 

Strider: "They choose on looks. So if that's their basis, then obviously they would compare current dogs vs. the original "dog zero". I posted some photos of dogs that I consider awesome, but they certainly don't look that much alike, and the lanky, smooth coat for example bears very little resemblance to the progenitors of the breed." >>

 

Are you saying that the original "dog zero" border collie looked like the dogs currently being shown in the conformation ring?? You couldn't be! They have been greatly modified and "improved" (as the conformation people would claim) from the early border collies, in whom there was wide diversity of appearance, just as there is wide diversity of appearance in the working border collies of today. So even if you were judging only on looks, then it's definitely the conformation breeders who have produced a dog that is no longer a border collie.

 

I'm sorry, Eileen, I'm not sure where we've gotten to with this. The wild diversity of appearance in the border collie line came generations after the first "recognized" border collie so you must be referring to the post wartime images. The variety between Old Kep and Wiston Cap is great; between Old Hemp and Old Kep, not so much. Once again, I am not arguing on behalf of conformation breeders. Prancing border collies seem odd to me.

 

<< I mean herding. I don't have much experience with conformation dogs yet. I put champions in quotes because a large number had no method to claim a herding "title" or anything like that. They're champions, but aren't the "blue ribbon" kind that people might think about (HX, HCh... stuff like that). They herded, they did it very well; they're champs. >>

 

How did you assess what dogs were champs when you were "working the genetics"?

 

<< By working the genetics, I mean just that. Following possible genetic combinations to potentially identify traits and the likelihood of surfacing in a litter. In particular to help identify the potential that a specific herding line was responsible for a gene that caused the bleeding deaths of two dogs related to mine. >>

 

Perhaps you would like to relate more about this experience -- the deaths, the search for answers, and the answers you found -- since it seems, judging from this post and one you posted on another thread ("We buried a BC puppy that bled out from his nose and eyes, only to find out that his herding line carries the autoimmune flaw. That is not satisfying. And I'while I'm sure that your preaching will write that off as a "bad" breeder, the truth is both sides have something to answer for."), to have embittered you toward "herding lines" and their breeders.

 

Would you mind explaining to me - and I mean this with full openness - why there's a need to determine some prior psychological predisposition for my opinions? No, I'm not embittered towards herding lines and their breeders. I'm not even sure that I understand that. My dog broke his neck as a puppy climbing over the walls of a 4 foot high exercise pen. I'm not embittered towards the pen.

 

I am greatly disappointed in breeders that continue to breed known genetic flaws into subsequent generations. Flaws; not curly tails, or puffy coats, or long legs - but CEA, predisposition to IMHA, etc. I would be happy to share anything that I can. Have you read the verterinary pathology paper on Cerebellar Apiotrophy in a Family of Border Collies? There's also a study at the Univeristy of Minnesota into IMHA, but not specifically towards BCs.

 

However, I'm not in a "rage", I'm not "angry", and I'm not "defensive of my conformation bred" border collie. If the use of the dog is how this board is defining its line, then mine is "flyball bred" since that's what he does most often. My opinion of my dog is ridiculously unsupported and completely irrational since I'm prone to believe he's the best dog on the planet, but he can stand in his own defense until he gets to human hatred. Like name-calling.

 

I didn't like it when I showed the photo of the smooth coat and had it called a "Franken-herder", and I don't like the "barbie collie" comment. Both audiences received the same reaction however you choose to justify it.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Yes. And I could take additional examples from your other posts, that would seem pretty similar to the posts you condemn.

 

>

 

Yes, if it herds to a sufficiently high standard to be registered on merit. The catch being that border collies have been bred for herding excellence so consistently and rigorously that the chances of a Lassie collie or shepherd meeting this standard is very unlikely.

 

>

 

I'm not sure this is true, but I have no knowledge of the statistics in Australia. I feel sure the COI of dogs registered with the ANKC is not the lowest! I was speaking breedwide of dogs registered with the ISDS and ABCA. And certainly the offspring of a sire-daughter breeding would have a higher COI, but such breedings are very uncommon in working border collies -- much more uncommon than in show-bred dogs.

 

>

 

IMO you are not applying the logic of the paper correctly here. The silver fox project was a situation where physical traits previously unexpressed in the population appeared because of breeding for a single relatively simple behavioral trait -- docility. Those physical traits were obviously closely linked to the behavioral trait. The paper I referenced is addressing a situation where physical traits that ARE expressed in the base population are assembled in a particular way for the sake of those physical traits themselves, without regard to (indeed, without knowledge of) their linkage vel non to a very, very complex set of behavioral traits, where many of those behavioral traits are needed in a modulated rather than an extreme form. Each of those factors contributes to the paper's thesis. The situations are so completely different that what would happen if the docile foxes were bred for the traits linked to their docility is not at all probative of what would happen if working border collies are bred to meet a specific appearance standard. Docility was "fixed" in the spotted, drop-eared, curly-tailed foxes in a way that the complex of traits constituting working ability could never be "fixed" in border collies.

 

>

 

The ANKC adopted a show standard for the Border Collie in 1963. They generally regard themselves as having created the Border Collie (meaning, of course, the show Border Collie), and I'm not aware of any previous serious conformation standard, although certainly border collies began to be bred for their appearance by "the fancy" in Queen Victoria's time (resulting in the show collie). The Kennel Club of Great Britain did not recognize the Border Collie for conformation showing until 1976. The "wild diversity" in the border collie existed way before that. I'm not sure what you mean by "the first 'recognized' border collie." I took you to be using "dog zero" as a theoretical construct, since obviously there is no "dog zero" or first recognized border collie. Sheila Grew writes in Key Dogs of the Border Collie Family:

 

The Working Collie was bred for one purpose only in those days [i.e., prior to 1860] -- for work. There was probably occasional cross-breeding with other good working farm dogs such as the beardies, drover's dogs, pointers and Gordon Setters. . . . It is not surprising that there are several different types of present day working Border Collie with such a mixed ancestry in their background, and that in a litter of pure-bred puppies not one may be alike. Even the introduction of the International Sheep Dog Society's Stud Books, which has registered dogs from 1908 onwards has not standardised the working Border Collie either in appearance or temperament. . . . In tracing the history and breeding of the key dogs back to the first dogs recorded in the I.S.D.S. Stud Books it became apparent that there were at least four main types of Border Collie, all highly successful in their work, all originating from the border country, and therefore all true "Border Collies." There is no way of proving which of these was the original type, and for the working collie it really does not matter. . . .

 

 

One of the four types Ms. Grew identifies -- the "Nap" type -- was smooth coated and would no doubt be considered lanky by conformation folks. An early exemplar was Telfer's Queen (ISDS #533), International Supreme Champion in 1932. An even earlier example of a smooth coated key dog, as Becca mentioned, was Loos II (ISDS #435), born in 1921. There are many others, all dating from well before the current conformation ideal was established. If you look through Key Dogs or The Blue Riband of the Heather you will see tremendous diversity, not just in coat length but in many other physical characteristics as well. True, most of these photos are post WWI, but photos are sparse before then, and just because two early photos may show similar-looking dogs does not mean that they all looked like that. On the contrary, one would expect physical diversity to diminish rather than increase as outcrossing diminished after the studbook was established, not the reverse.

 

>

 

Silly example, isn't it? People often become embittered towards human beings for conduct they consider blameworthy, but rarely if ever become embittered toward inanimate objects. I thought your comment radiated bitterness, and that if you elaborated on it, it might make it easier for me to understand your point of view. Understand cryptic comments like, "You are not right, the AKC is not right," for example. I guess it's obvious I'm having some trouble following your turn of phrase, for some reason, and the only opinion that's come across to me clearly is your low opinion of the posters on these boards. I guess I was looking for something that would help me to follow what you are saying better. But no, there is no need to determine some prior psychological predisposition for your opinions.

 

>

 

The weighing of "genetic flaws" in the breeding of working border collies is an interesting subject, but hard to discuss in the abstract. I have not read the paper you refer to. I have no way of evaluating whether some breeder did wrong by your pup without more facts than I have now, but if that isn't a matter you want to discuss, that's fine with me.

 

>

 

It's a poor person who doesn't think his dogs are the best on the planet. I hope we all do. But I think it's totally bizarre for you to infer (as I gather you are doing?) that anyone here hates your dog. TOTALLY bizarre.

[Katelynn & Gang]

The wild diversity of appearance in the border collie line came generations after the first "recognized" border collie so you must be referring to the post wartime images.

 

I'm lost. If I am correct, the ISDS registered dogs because of their ability to move livestock, making them Border Collies. I must have missed their standard that was crushed and ruined after the War with our wild healthy diversity of different looking dogs (those different coats, ears and markings did it).

 

Could you point me to the list of dogs before the War that all looked like clones? I feel silly that I never noticed.

 

I am greatly disappointed in breeders that continue to breed known genetic flaws into subsequent generations.

 

Far as when I last checked, all the breeders of Open trial dogs do test for the genetic flaws that could possibly affect their working bred dogs. I know mine are OFA'd, CERF'd and DNA tested for CEA.

 

Still yet to lose a dog or puppy to any of the rare crap the Barbies (please tell me what you want me to call them because this isn't a insult, its just splitting the two breeds down so whomever is reading gets the idea of what side of the split I am talking about) have in their very limited gene pool. I guess I can let you know when I do but 12 puppies and dogs later, even some from a line of Tommy, I’m not sure I’ll ever have anything to tell.

 

If the use of the dog is how this board is defining its line, then mine is "flyball bred" since that's what he does most often.

 

I’m not sure, you’d have to sit down and ask your breeder that. I’m shocked you didn’t do that when purchasing the puppy but maybe asking my breeders what the purpose of breeding was is just something I’d ask.

 

I’ve sold a puppy into a flyball home. He is strictly “working bred.” His handler wanted a strictly "working bred" pup. If you put him on sheep, he’d go to work like he’d been doing it all his life and he’d be extremely well at it. Flyball is something he was trained for, herding is something he was bred for.

 

My opinion of my dog is ridiculously unsupported and completely irrational since I'm prone to believe he's the best dog on the planet, but he can stand in his own defense until he gets to human hatred. Like name-calling.

 

I must have missed the name calling directed at your Strider? Could you point that out?

 

I didn't like it when I showed the photo of the smooth coat and had it called a "Franken-herder", and I don't like the "barbie collie" comment. Both audiences received the same reaction however you choose to justify it.

 

Franken-Herder? lmao I love it! If only they did really believe that! Maybe they’d stop registering our dogs and breeding to them then!

 

Could we get so lucky?

[Strider]

<< Sorry? I don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking if I was name calling there and being uncivil? >>

 

Yes. And I could take additional examples from your other posts, that would seem pretty similar to the posts you condemn.

 

My apologies if you read them that way. I heartily disagree with you, and feel that you're projecting something into the tone of the words that isn't there. I have not suggested that people do not know what they're talking about, nor have I taken the liberty in assuming why people respond the way they do, or ascribing emotional weight such as hostility or anger.

 

Would you consider showing me in a direct message? I could then see your point of view without either of us natting about it in a public forum.

 

<< If we're going to deal with genetics then let's do so: we know from Belyaev's work with wild siver foxes, for example, that his specific breeding for behaviour - in this case docility - resulted in spotted coats, dropped ears, and curled tails in a previously wild and homogenous population. Applying the logic of the paper you referenced means that if he had then turned around and bred for spotted coats, dropped ears, and curled tails the docility must disappear, which is false; it did not. >>

 

IMO you are not applying the logic of the paper correctly here. The silver fox project was a situation where physical traits previously unexpressed in the population appeared because of breeding for a single relatively simple behavioral trait -- docility. Those physical traits were obviously closely linked to the behavioral trait. The paper I referenced is addressing a situation where physical traits that ARE expressed in the base population are assembled in a particular way for the sake of those physical traits themselves, without regard to (indeed, without knowledge of) their linkage vel non to a very, very complex set of behavioral traits, where many of those behavioral traits are needed in a modulated rather than an extreme form. The situations are so completely different that what would happen if the docile foxes were bred for the traits linked to their docility is not at all probative of what would happen if working border collies are bred to meet a specific appearance standard. Docility was "fixed" in the spotted, drop-eared, curly-tailed foxes in a way that the complex of traits constituting working ability could never be "fixed" in border collies.

 

I see your point, but think some of your assumptions overstep. For example, how is a behavioural trait simple or complex? All genetics are genetics, and reducing one or its chain based on your application of the science doesn't work in my opinion. You cannot say that a simple gene produces docility, and in fact the application showed that this wasn't the case. In particular the chain impacted visual and behavioural expression, arguably reducing those defensive traits that predominated in a non-docile pack. The traits that expressed themselves following behaviour specific breeding had to be present, but potentially masked or recessive to other autosomes. I agree, that it is very complex all around.

 

<< Would you mind explaining to me - and I mean this with full openness - why there's a need to determine some prior psychological predisposition for my opinions? No, I'm not embittered towards herding lines and their breeders. I'm not even sure that I understand that. My dog broke his neck as a puppy climbing over the walls of a 4 foot high exercise pen. I'm not embittered towards the pen. >>

 

Silly example, isn't it? People often become embittered towards human beings for conduct they consider blameworthy, but rarely if ever become embittered toward inanimate objects. I thought your comment radiated bitterness, and that if you elaborated on it, it might make it easier for me to understand your point of view. Understand cryptic comments like, "You are not right, the AKC is not right," for example. I guess it's obvious I'm having some trouble following your turn of phrase, for some reason, and the only opinion that's come across to me clearly is your low opinion of the posters on these boards. I guess I was looking for something that would help me to follow what you are saying better. But no, there is no need to determine some prior psychological predisposition for your opinions.

 

No, not silly at all because I don't apply a blanket statement such as "people often become...". I don't detect bitterness in my posts, but I've been accused of hostility, anger, defensiveness, bitterness... why? If you agree that applying a moniker like "barbie collie" is justified, then potentially you see an opposition that is wider than my intention. Please don't paint an AKC target on me; I did not and have not justified breeding on either side. You'll perhaps forgive the metaphor, but to a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

 

<< I am greatly disappointed in breeders that continue to breed known genetic flaws into subsequent generations. Flaws; not curly tails, or puffy coats, or long legs - but CEA, predisposition to IMHA, etc. I would be happy to share anything that I can. >>

 

The weighing of "genetic flaws" in the breeding of working border collies is an interesting subject, but hard to discuss in the abstract. I have not read the paper you refer to. I have no way of evaluating whether some breeder did wrong by your pup without more facts than I have now, but if that isn't a matter you want to discuss, that's fine with me.

 

Again, my apologies, Eileen. I'm not asking you to weigh in on the breeding issues that may have impacted my dog's lines. I feel fully able to evaluate the genetic potential, and in some cases, trace the antecedent of particular occurrences. I shared my opinion. I would be happy to talk with you about genetics until the cows come home, and apply some specifics from my own experience with dogs that have expressed IMHA or seizures, for example. If you're interested in my particular case, I'd be happy to share.

 

<< My opinion of my dog is ridiculously unsupported and completely irrational since I'm prone to believe he's the best dog on the planet, but he can stand in his own defense against until he gets to human hatred. Like name-calling. >>

 

It's a poor person who doesn't think his dogs are the best on the planet. I hope we all do. But I think it's totally bizarre for you to infer (as I gather you are doing?) that anyone here hates your dog. TOTALLY bizarre.

 

Again, please let me be perfectly clear. PERFECTLY CLEAR. What you feel or don't feel about my dog is irrelevant. I personally can't imagine anyone hating my dog! My dog is not the issue, and from my obviously ridiculously biased point of view, none here has the ability to judge my dog.

 

I urge you to read my words without trying to read between them. I do not like the name-calling and since voicing my opposition to that, and to what I feel are the "slappy" responses to people on the postings, I've definitely come to feel defensive. How could I not? I would point to the post immediately above this: clones? Shocked? The rare crap the barbies have in their very limited gene pool? It does have a sensational flare.

 

My original point stands, but I think has become lost. If you feel the need to marginalize dogs with silly names, then apparently I am, indeed, in the wrong place.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Good idea. I'll be glad to.

 

>

 

I certainly can't, I never would, and I never did. I said docility was a single, relatively simple behavioral trait, compared to the very complex set of behavioral traits that combine to form herding ability. Yes, docility has visual and behavioral expression. But a working border collie must have the docility (if you will) to accept the direction and training of his person and to subordinate his prey drive to his person, while at the same time not be so docile that he is unwilling or afraid to dominate livestock and make them submit to him. A balance, not an extreme, and therefore much more complex and difficult to achieve. And speaking of balance, he must also have the ability to read stock and judge the point at which he must be to move and/or control livestock without evoking their fight-or-flight response, and to get to that ever moving point, and to feel that point, and yet to give up that point when asked to do so. And this only touches the surface of the complex of traits needed to be a useful working border collie. There is simply no comparison. The likelihood that you can preserve this complex of traits in useful proportions while breeding for physical traits that have no known relationship to them is minuscule; the likelihood that you can preserve docility in a population bred for it by breeding for the traits that have been proven to be linked to docility is very great.

 

>

 

Again, I'm not really sure what you're saying here. Do you disagree that "people often become embittered towards human beings for conduct they consider blameworthy, but rarely if ever become embittered toward inanimate objects"? If you agree, then wasn't your example ill-chosen? If you disagree, then all I can say is that our life experiences and observations are different. I think you may have painted an AKC target on yourself by some of what you said, but that too is probably best pursued in a direct message.

 

 

I urge you to read my words without trying to read between them. >>

 

I was trying to read your words. What you wrote was that your dog "can stand in his own defense against until he gets to human hatred. Like name-calling." What I took that to mean, trying my best to interpret it, was that you inferred people on this board felt "hatred" (your word) for your dog, as evidenced by their calling conformation-bred dogs "Barbie Collies." If you didn't mean that, what did you mean?

 

>

 

I do feel the need to oppose the breeding of border collies for conformation, and I would indeed like to marginalize the conformation-bred dogs. I think it's important to the future of our breed that I and others do our utmost in this regard -- otherwise the conformation version will become the breed norm and marginalize the traditional working dog, as has happened in breed after KC breed, and which would be a tremendous loss, especially to those who need a good working dog. The term "Barbie Collie" is dead-on perfect in expressing what I want to express. Just as the point of a Barbie doll is how she looks, so too the point of a conformation-bred Border Collie is how it looks. Just as all Barbie dolls look alike, so too the conformation standard and the way it is applied in the breed ring result in all Barbie Collies looking alike. It also expresses the truth that breeding for conformation is producing a different breed that ought to be called by a different name. And finally, the allusion to Barbie dolls in the name conveys how frivolous and shallow I think this attempt to redefine and reshape our breed is. This is an uphill fight -- perhaps a hopeless fight, ultimately -- because the AKC is powerful and its definition of a dog as what it looks like is pervasive in our society, but those of us who think as I do have to try to make the point as best we can, and seldom has a thought been so eloquently and succinctly expressed as the thought expressed in the term Barbie Collie.

 

I am not disparaging your dog. (In fact, I am on record as saying that I would cease using the term if ever it was proved to me that it had hurt a single dog's feelings.) I am disparaging an ideal -- the conformation ideal of a Border Collie. And I'll continue to use the term, because of the chance that it may make one listener or reader reflect on what the implications of conformation breeding, judging and showing are for our breed. How much we stand to lose, to achieve something not worth having in the first place.

[Strider]

This conversation is done.

 

I now find it difficult to not be angry. I've heard your particular brand of justification used too many times against both people and animals to give it air here. I'm sure the cast-off attitude isn't what you meant inside, but it certainly is what you display at the surface. I hope that your goal is loftier than your words, and that something survives your war. The reasoning appears to be identical on both sides.

 

I wanted to understand; to discover the ideal, to reason through the pastiche of flawed genetic "research" and obfuscation. I'm sure your membership follows your mindset. You will find it difficult to convince others. You really should study law, it would appear to connect well.

 

Perhaps I can make a difference. As a Canadian I do have influence on your latest warfront, but I could never justify letting your mindset impact any dogs in my country.

 

Good luck.