the more insidious dangers to the bc...(and all breeds for that matter)

[Katelynn & Gang]

But now we're considering a litter (from 2 working, non-agility parents) where the waiting list is almost entirely agility people, and I'm thinking carefully about the implications... I think it makes them a sports-bred litter, even if both parents are full time working farm and trial dogs.

 

I believe your second guessing is correct. I believe you cannot bred two working dogs and sell all the puppies into agility homes and know it was a good breeding.

 

How many puppies are proving themselves on farms or the trial field? How many are not? I think that will give you your answer.

 

I understand what you're saying, but that's also dependent on how much effort you put into selecting homes. I know of lots of cases of pet owners choosing euthanasia over vet bills for injuries like leg fractures or snake bite too.

 

This is also correct in sport homes. I have a rescue dog that caused a lot of problems getting here. She was stolen and ended up in a home where the owner ran flyball and was retiring (*cough* gettin rid of *cough* because it slowed her down and took up room for younger faster dogs) one of her dogs to rescue because it busted its leg and could no longer run. Good thing we got the little rescue back, she has some problems in her shoulders and slamming that box would have really crippled her before she was retired to rescue. She was about a 12 in. dog at the time, conformation bred with a over bit that was tossed out in some small farm town because she just wasnting going to cut it in the show ring.

 

Anyway, mjk05, decided what you really want and need in a dog and find a breeding whose puppies are proven in that.

 

Either way, a working bred litter is going to give you everything you need in a working dog or a sport dog and I am a firm believer in this.

 

*Thinks of one dog she sold into a sport/flyball home that would have (and really should have *sigh*) made a rockin working dog on the trial field but runs about 3.96 whose breeding had no care to how fast the dog could be, just how well it could move the sheep.*

 

Katelynn

[Catu]

It's what sport world do, in every sport, in every place.

Human sports moves money, dog sports maybe (and just maybe) don't move as money, but they move human egos, which at the end is the same

[zenotri]

I'm not even sure its possible to really "breed for work and sell to agility" as a consistent philosophy. Yes, we can breed from 2 working-bred dogs for agility homes, but that's not the same thing as "breeding for work". Personally I think that even if the parents of a litter are both working-bred, and even used for some stockwork themselves, if they are bred specifically to produce pups that will supply the agility market, its a sports breeding (albeit from working lines).

 

Since you are quoting my post in your response, I feel the need to point out that nowhere in my post did I suggest a consistent philosophy, "all/most" of a litter or "specifically" breeding if the total market is for the purpose of agility. My statement was simple: I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding dogs for work & selling to agility.

 

For a start, if you sell most of your pups to agility homes, you don't have any way of assessing the working ability of the pups you are producing.

Just playing devils advocate here, but what is the difference between breeding 2 working dogs and:

selling some to agility where their ability will never be assessed, even though others in the litter will be assessed.

selling some to working homes & losing track of some of them?

 

The end result is the same, isn't it? You can only assess what you keep or keep in contact with.

 

We've had one pup in a litter go to pet or sports homes previously, and I'm happy for them. But now we're considering a litter (from 2 working, non-agility parents) where the waiting list is almost entirely agility people, and I'm thinking carefully about the implications... I think it makes them a sports-bred litter, even if both parents are full time working farm and trial dogs.

 

I am sure you will make the right decision. By your theory, I can't see how it makes them a sports bred litter, unless you decide to breed them with sports in mind, for the purpose of supplying the agility market. I have to wonder though what has changed? Since you have only ever placed one pup into an agility home before, why have you chosen to have a wait list for agility people rather than the working homes you would normally sell to? Is there no demand for farm working & trial dogs over there at the moment?

[Katelynn & Gang]

*Thinks of one dog she sold into a sport/flyball home that would have (and really should have *sigh*) made a rockin working dog on the trial field but runs about 3.96 whose breeding had no care to how fast the dog could be, just how well it could move the sheep.*

 

Sorry by this I mean a puppy I sold into a sport/flyball home.

 

Katelynn

[mjk05]

Katelynn wrote:

Anyway, mjk05, decided what you really want and need in a dog and find a breeding whose puppies are proven in that.

 

Either way, a working bred litter is going to give you everything you need in a working dog or a sport dog and I am a firm believer in this.

Oh, its not me looking for another dog, we have plenty I'm just musing on breeding philosophy.

 

And I'm not sure the second statement is entirely correct. Firstly, it depends what work we're talking about- all "working-bred" litters aren't equal, depends on what sort of work we're talking. And I don't think "working-bred" automatically confers sports-ability. I have one dog of my own who has some pretty good working breeding, on farm and in trials (both his parents have represented our state/country multiple times)- and he's really not ideal agility material. His conformation just isn't right. He is a pretty good farm dog though.

 

That's where things get interesting- I don't think you can just go out and pick from a working-bred litter, even one that's well-bred as far as work goes, and automatically get a dog that's top class sports material. In many cases you can, but its not automatic. The requirements of a good working dog and a good sports dogs might be similar in many ways, but not all. Some lines and types of working dog are more suited to certain sports than others- and that's where people start to be selective about producing "working-bred" litters specifically for sports.

 

zenotri wrote:

I feel the need to point out that nowhere in my post did I suggest a consistent philosophy, "all/most" of a litter or "specifically" breeding if the total market is for the purpose of agility. My statement was simple: I don't think there is anything wrong with breeding dogs for work & selling to agility.

Understood. But if we're considering the practise of breeding dogs when the majority of the offspring go to sports homes, maybe that's what I'd start to consider "sports breeding", albeit from working bred dogs. Especially if we'd only sell to sports homes, or if we started to make decisions about which dogs to breed based even slightly on what our puppy buyers would want.

 

I believe there's a philosophical difference between breeding with the intention of producing dogs to go to working homes (and selling one or two leftover pups to sports or pet homes) - and breeding with the intention of those pups going to sports/pet homes, even if the dogs we're breeding from are the exact same working-bred dogs.

 

Just playing devils advocate here, but what is the difference between breeding 2 working dogs and:

selling some to agility where their ability will never be assessed, even though others in the litter will be assessed.

selling some to working homes & losing track of some of them?

There isn't any- so if you have a litter of 8 pups, and 2 go to non-working homes you'll only be able to assess 75% of the dogs you produce. Likewise if you sell them all to working homes, and lose track of 2 of them. Only a 75% follow-up rate.

 

But if all 8 pups go to non-working (agility/flyball/pet) homes, you're not assessing any of them.

 

By your theory, I can't see how it makes them a sports bred litter, unless you decide to breed them with sports in mind, for the purpose of supplying the agility market.

They'd be first-generation sports bred, I think, if they all went to sports homes.

 

I have to wonder though what has changed? Since you have only ever placed one pup into an agility home before, why have you chosen to have a wait list for agility people rather than the working homes you would normally sell to? Is there no demand for farm working & trial dogs over there at the moment?

Of course there's demand, Vickie But as I said above, there are some working-bred dogs that appeal more to agility people than others. Long legs, light frames, "high drive", certain temperaments, certain colours, etc. So those people will tend to seek out those dogs to get pups from. Other types of working-bred dogs appeal more to certain working situations (which tends to differ depending on the work, trialling etc).

 

The litter we've just had was basically bred because we had a long waiting list of people from surrounding farms and working situations who had requested a pup from those parents, based on the previous litter. If there'd been 30 pups, we could have sold them all to working homes. As it is, one pup will probably go to an agility home (because its someone we know)- as one pup from the occasional previous litter has gone to a pet or agility home with friends. The mating wasn't done with any agility homes in consideration though- they were bred to be working dogs.

 

But we've also had a number of requests from agility people for pups from another potential mating. I would like one of those pups, and we would be able to sell them to working homes too. But I can't say they will be in so much demand for either farm or trial homes, even though the parents are working/trialling. For one thing, its an untried mating, and for another, one parent is good trialling material but not ideal on the farm, and the other is sort of the opposite. Its a gamble, and the pups might turn out, or not. But for various reasons, they appeal to agility people in ways other working dogs available now don't.

 

So we could sell them all to those very keen agility homes (maybe keep one or two to run on ourselves, and ask the owners to at least try them out on sheep, for the little that's worth)- and as you've said, I know they'd be looked after well. If we required sterilisation, we'd also be reassured we wouldn't be contributing to further sports-breeding. We wouldn't generally breed a litter unless we had homes waiting for a good number of pups, even if we want one ourselves, and so the thing allowing us to go ahead with this litter would be the agility homes waiting. That means it would be a first-generation sports-bred litter, from working-bred parents. Its an interesting philosophical situation.

[Kyrasmom]

I think, and this comes from someone invested in neither camp, if you breed from two working dogs (who actually work) you've got a working bred litter that could be sold into sport homes, working homes, and pet homes.

 

I think if you breed two dogs who do not work sheep, have never been assessed on sheep, probably are too driven for sheep but are competing in sports, then that defines the sport bred litter. I don't see much difference in breeding for sports than breeding for looks, either way it's to soothe the egos of humans and brings no real usefulness to the breed as it was meant to be.

 

I'm not saying that to offend anyone who thrives on agility, I run my dogs for fun and play and think it's great fun, but it's only fun for me and a way to exercise and play with my dogs. I'm so invested in it that my Pit mix has as much fun with it as the rest of the crew...which basically mean we do it for kicks.

 

The notion of selection of characteristics (some/most of which make for an unstable dog)for a game is very distressing.

 

 

Maria

[kelpiegirl]

I agree that if you have two working dogs, breed them for working, and your plan is to have the pups work sheep, they are a working bred litter. If you end up with pups that either don't cut the mustard in working sheep, or have say a HUGE litter, and some pups go to agility homes, then you have working bred pups going to agility homes.

Julie

 

 

I think, and this comes from someone invested in neither camp, if you breed from two working dogs (who actually work) you've got a working bred litter that could be sold into sport homes, working homes, and pet homes.

 

I think if you breed two dogs who do not work sheep, have never been assessed on sheep, probably are too driven for sheep but are competing in sports, then that defines the sport bred litter. I don't see much difference in breeding for sports than breeding for looks, either way it's to soothe the egos of humans and brings no real usefulness to the breed as it was meant to be.

 

I'm not saying that to offend anyone who thrives on agility, I run my dogs for fun and play and think it's great fun, but it's only fun for me and a way to exercise and play with my dogs. I'm so invested in it that my Pit mix has as much fun with it as the rest of the crew...which basically mean we do it for kicks.

 

The notion of selection of characteristics (some/most of which make for an unstable dog)for a game is very distressing.

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

I don't have a problem with people breeding dogs for work & selling to agility. The fact is that agility people mostly make very good owners. I will never breed but if I did I would be very careful about placing dogs in working homes here in Australia. Often they just don't treat their dogs well, they can be cruel and they don't have the same respect for their dogs that you guys seem to have. Since they often don't put the same amount of effort into training them, the dogs are replaceable. If they are bitten by a snake or die as a pup from a tick, then they just get another one. I once saw a guy, bring a working dog who obviously worshipped him into a vet. His word were "A shame, because he's the best dog I've ever had, but if you can't fix him up for $100, just let him go." It was one of the saddest things I have ever seen.

 

This is something I've seen a lot of in Italy as well, I remember we had a landlord once who shot his dog (really) because a license fee was imposed on farm dogs when previously they were exempt. The fee was absurdly low but he was adamant that he would not pay it. I think things are changing now, people are caring for their animals more, even farmers, and vet bills are even tax deductible. I wish they would do that here in the US.

 

But I think the key, as others have pointed out, is that you pick well. Neglect can be anywhere and you'd be very surprised to see how many really nice people with BMW's dump their dogs or not care for their dogs simply because they don't match the carpet. I'll never forget a woman I met who had two purebred rotties, beautiful dogs, they had the run of the house, coddled and cared for, but who looked at her mutts with disdain and fed them just enough so they wouldn't starve and housed them ourdoors with no shelter.

 

Maria

[Kyrasmom]

And please forgive the double posting and possibly rambling but I believe as Katelynn said that you can have everything you need for agility in a working bred pup (paraphrasing) as they bring both physical and mental qualities to the table in loads. And I agree.

 

But as BC's seem to dominate certain levels of competition...and breeders are just basically outdoing each other at every turn. Where does it end? How fast, or short, or tall, do they have to be as we go forward?

 

Maria

[IronHorse]

So we could sell them all to those very keen agility homes (maybe keep one or two to run on ourselves, and ask the owners to at least try them out on sheep, for the little that's worth)- and as you've said, I know they'd be looked after well. If we required sterilisation, we'd also be reassured we wouldn't be contributing to further sports-breeding. We wouldn't generally breed a litter unless we had homes waiting for a good number of pups, even if we want one ourselves, and so the thing allowing us to go ahead with this litter would be the agility homes waiting. That means it would be a first-generation sports-bred litter, from working-bred parents. Its an interesting philosophical situation.

 

Call it what you want but I don't see where this is a "philosophical situation".

Your contemplating putting a litter on the ground with no intention of the pups going to "working" homes and every intention to them going to "sports" homes.

You have a waiting list of what you feel will be good homes, and as long as you impose and enforce a sterilisation clause in your sale contract then where is the negative?

Everyone gets what they are seeking,,the buyer gets a pup from parents they admire that they wish to use for something other then "breed intention" without the ability to continue the genetics along a less then desirable path.

You profit $$ wise as well as potentially keeping these same buyers from encouraging a litter to be produced from a "sports-breeding" line.

Everyone's happy and working lines are not diluted.

The key here is the enforcement of the "sterilisation clause".

 

One man's work is another man's hobby and vice versa, just don't allow the one to take away your work by selling him your tools

[Katelynn & Gang]

Agility is a sport and their are millions upon millions of rescues out there that would jump at the chance to have the loving home and human canine bond that agility offers. Why bred more when there are already so many dogs out there willing to offer what any other dog, puppy or not, could offer?

 

To me, breeding for sport is the same as breeding for beauty. Its useless and for human gain.

 

If you are breeding two animals with the purpose to sell into a certain sort of home, that home makes you a breeder and in return it names/lables the type of breeder you indeed are.

 

Katelynn

[Shetlander]

Everyone gets what they are seeking,,the buyer gets a pup from parents they admire that they wish to use for something other then "breed intention" without the ability to continue the genetics along a less then desirable path.

 

I think this is a very reasonable approach. If working breeders won't sell or will only sell an occasional pup to sports people, then they are going to turn to other breeders for puppies. I really hope I can find my next dog in Rescue but for those who want a puppy, they need working breeders who will see them as appropriate homes. You can't force people to choose rescue but you can help drive them to breeders you feel are harming the Border Collie.

[IronHorse]

Agility is a sport and their are millions upon millions of rescues out there that would jump at the chance to have the loving home and human canine bond that agility offers. Why bred more when there are already so many dogs out there willing to offer what any other dog, puppy or not, could offer?

 

example

Auto racing is a sport and there are millions and millions of stock vehicles available,but that does not mean that any of those vehicles are best suited for the individual requirements or desires.

To compete successfully the individual will seek out what in their opinion is the best possible source of the vehicle that best suits their requirements.

 

The exsistance of "millions and millions" of rescues is NOT the result of the practices of responsible breeders nor responsible owners!

 

In fact it is my opinion that responsible breeders and their practices as well as responsible owners and their practices are the solution to declining the numbers of rescues and unwanted individuals.

It is not they who should be dissuaded from their intentions.

These are the people who shall endeavor to preserve the intergrity of the breed.

The problem is dissuading the irresponsible asshats out there from their intentions.

 

To me, breeding for sport is the same as breeding for beauty. Its useless and for human gain.

 

The terms sport and beauty are far to subjective and debatable to suggest that to breed for either is useless.

ANY planned breeding is done for human gain in one fasion or another.

 

If you are breeding two animals with the purpose to sell into a certain sort of home, that home makes you a breeder and in return it names/lables the type of breeder you indeed are.

 

I totally agree

This is not to suggest that a breeder cannot be labeled with a varity of tags that are viable as well as desirable.

 

I would think that there would be a great deal of data available to a responsible breeder (whos primary goal was the betterment of the working ability of thier bloodlines)derived from pups placed in non traditional venues that would aid said breeders future breeding program.

After all a responsible breeder is going to follow up on dogs their have placed and evaluate development as it pertains to their primary breeding critia.

 

many improvements to the standard have come from the racetrack

[Eileen Stein]

Auto racing is a sport and there are millions and millions of stock vehicles available,but that does not mean that any of those vehicles are best suited for the individual requirements or desires.

 

Perhaps the difference is that there are a lot of people who can come to see the good in giving a home to a dog in need, and a lot of rescue dogs that would be suitable for agility. The same is not true of racing cars.

 

The exsistance of "millions and millions" of rescues is NOT the result of the practices of responsible breeders nor responsible owners!

 

No, but nevertheless they exist, it is good if they can find loving homes, and among them there are dogs who would suit the needs of the vast majority of agility competitors.

 

The terms sport and beauty are far to subjective and debatable to suggest that to breed for either is useless.

 

Really? I don't see why. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, and thus it may be open to dispute whether a particular dog is or isn't beautiful, but it's not usually hard to tell whether it was bred for the purpose of being beautiful. One may think breeding for beauty is a great idea or that breeding for beauty is useless, but that's not because the term "beauty" is subjective and debatable. Ditto for sport. Many, many websites proclaim that their dogs are bred for the sport of agility. What is subjective or debatable about that term?

 

I would think that there would be a great deal of data available to a responsible breeder (whos primary goal was the betterment of the working ability of thier bloodlines)derived from pups placed in non traditional venues that would aid said breeders future breeding program.

 

I can think of virtually none, myself.

 

After all a responsible breeder is going to follow up on dogs their have placed and evaluate development as it pertains to their primary breeding critia.

 

Yes, but if the dogs aren't working, what can you tell about their working ability? That they can run fast, and are smart enough to learn to run an agility course? That's good, but it doesn't get you very far in evaluating their working ability.

 

many improvements to the standard have come from the racetrack

 

Name one.

 

I agree with mjk05 that when you are selling only to sports homes, or are making decisions about which dogs to breed based on what sports buyers would want, then you are a sports breeder, even if the dogs you're mating were themselves working bred. If you sell incidental pups -- or even one whole litter -- to a sports home, but you made the decision to breed those parents using the same standards as you would for producing good dogs for working homes, I don't believe you have thereby become a sports breeder or the litter has become "sports-bred," but if you only or predominately sell to sports homes I think you do become a sports breeder, because you are getting no feedback to keep your breeding program on track for producing working ability.

[IronHorse]

Name one.

 

Seatbelts

[IronHorse]

No, but nevertheless they exist, it is good if they can find loving homes, and among them there are dogs who would suit the needs of the vast majority of agility competitors.

 

So are you suggesting that the dog "sport" competitors should rely upon the well of rescues?

That seems unrealistic to me.

Would seem to me the better course would be to pursue avenues that lessen the numbers of dogs going into rescue in the first place.

 

Really? I don't see why. Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, and thus it may be open to dispute whether a particular dog is or isn't beautiful, but it's not usually hard to tell whether it was bred for the purpose of being beautiful. One may think breeding for beauty is a great idea or that breeding for beauty is useless, but that's not because the term "beauty" is subjective and debatable. Ditto for sport. Many, many websites proclaim that their dogs are bred for the sport of agility. What is subjective or debatable about that term?

 

The very definition of the words is subjective as well as debatable.

[mjk05]

kelpiegirl wrote:

I agree that if you have two working dogs, breed them for working, and your plan is to have the pups work sheep, they are a working bred litter. If you end up with pups that either don't cut the mustard in working sheep, or have say a HUGE litter, and some pups go to agility homes, then you have working bred pups going to agility homes.

OMG, I totally agree with you, Julie

The grey area for me is what I'd be producing if, say, I bred two working-bred dogs with the intention that all the pups go to agility homes- maybe because, as zenotri noted,agility homes might be more acceptable (less chance of pups getting returned, shot, run over etc), or even because that's who wanted the pups (if I have 8 agility people wanting these pups, I'm unlikely to spend money advertising them to working homes instead).

 

I guess if I bred the litter with the INTENTION of producing working ability (wanting a pup or two for myself), and the rest happened to go to agility homes, it could be considered "working-bred". But if I decided from the start that all pups would be going to agility homes, I think they'd be "sports-bred", regardless of the ability of the parents. Either way, I'm not going to be able to fully assess the working qualities that litter produced in the same way I would if all the pups went to working homes... So my preference would be to think of that litter as "sports-bred", from working parents.

 

Basically Eileen said it all:

if you only or predominately sell to sports homes I think you do become a sports breeder, because you are getting no feedback to keep your breeding program on track for producing working ability.

 

IronHorse asked if there's anything wrong with sports breeding (either as a one off, or even as a program for repeated breeding), if the pups are going to be sterilised...

 

That's something I can't decide on. Personally I'd prefer that people wanting sports-specific dogs looked either among rescue dogs (and there are a LOT to choose from) or for "failed" or spare working bred dogs or pups. That's where I got all my agility dogs, and since we take in other people's unwanted or unsuccessful working dogs for rehoming, I see a heap of potential sports dogs from those sources. But as Iron Horse said, some people don't want rescue dogs/pups, for whatever reasons, and no amount of convincing will change their minds. So is it OK to "supply a market" by breeding pups from working-bred parents just to sell to agility homes (even if they are sterilised?)? I don't know.

 

Does it mis-label working-bred dogs? ie, does it give people a false idea that all working-bred dogs have certain characteristics? Does it increase the sports market for "working-bred" dogs, because people see successful sports-bred dogs from working lines- and thus increasing the market and the pressure for people to breed working-bred dogs specifically for sports? Probably.

 

And if I, as a general practise, breed 2 working dogs with the plan of selling only to sports homes, even if I consider that I'm breeding for working ability and do consider that when doing the mating, I will be subject to different pressures in what I produce. I'll be working with the preferences of the sports homes, not the working home, and over time, that has to have some influence on my breeding decisions, even if I try to avoid it. After all, no-one wants to produce pups that disappoint their owners, whether they go to sports or working homes.

 

Not all good working dogs make great sports dogs (even if many do)- two of our boys come from brilliant working lines, and are both good working dogs. They are smart and biddable and have fantastic stock sense. I'd have another one of them in a heartbeat. But they jump like half-paralysed camels. Their structure is fine for the working environment, their parents were still working and trialling in their teens, but they really aren't ideal sports dogs physically. And the reverse situation applies- there are plenty of athletic smart sports dogs that LOOK like ideal working dogs, but aren't.

 

Kyra'smom wrote:

I think if you breed two dogs who do not work sheep, have never been assessed on sheep, probably are too driven for sheep but are competing in sports, then that defines the sport bred litter.

What's "assessed on sheep" though? An instinct test?

 

Its also my feeling that just because two dogs both work stock pretty well, their offspring aren't necessarily "working-bred". There's a difference between breeding 2 working dogs with the aim of getting certain working traits, and producing better working dogs, and breeding 2 working dogs with the aim of getting nice colours, or nice "drive", or long legs. To be working-bred, I think you need to be trying to match 2 dogs with the aim of producing working ability.

 

Eg Hypothetical:

we have two tricolour dogs. They both work on our farm and trial, but from knowing their individual working traits, their lines and the results of their relatives and similar matings, we have a pretty good idea that they wouldn't produce good pups if mated together. The pups would probably work, but they wouldn't be an improvement on their parents, and probably wouldn't suit anyone looking for a working dog.

 

We are approached by some agility competitors or pet owners who specifically want tricolour dogs. So we do the mating, and all the pups go (sterilised) to agility/pet homes. A few of them also do the odd bit of recreational herding. To my mind, that's a non-working-bred litter, even though both parents are fulltime working dogs. Its the same thing if instead of tricolour, those agility people were wanting dogs with long legs and light build, or certain temperament traits. Or if we'd done a mating before that produced average working dogs, but a couple of awesome agility dogs. If we repeated that mating just because we had agility people clamouring for pups- isn't that a sports-bred litter, even if the parents are fulltime farm dogs?

 

I have to agree with Eileen that its almost impossible to get much information on what you're producing in terms of working ability if all the pups go to non-working homes. The odd bit of weekend herding doesn't give you half as much useful information as the feedback from someone who trains and works their dog on stock regularly. We've asked the couple of people who have our pups in pet or agility homes to bring them down to start on sheep, which they have, but given that those dogs might see sheeep every few months maximum, we've got very little idea about their real qualities and how they'd work out in the same situations as their litter siblings.

[IronHorse]

Eg Hypothetical:

we have two tricolour dogs. They both work on our farm and trial, but from knowing their individual working traits, their lines and the results of their relatives and similar matings, we have a pretty good idea that they wouldn't produce good pups if mated together. The pups would probably work, but they wouldn't be an improvement on their parents, and probably wouldn't suit anyone looking for a working dog.

 

IMO there would be no reason to breed this pair under these circumstances.

 

We are approached by some agility competitors or pet owners who specifically want tricolour dogs. So we do the mating, and all the pups go (sterilised) to agility/pet homes. A few of them also do the odd bit of recreational herding. To my mind, that's a non-working-bred litter, even though both parents are fulltime working dogs. Its the same thing if instead of tricolour, those agility people were wanting dogs with long legs and light build, or certain temperament traits. Or if we'd done a mating before that produced average working dogs, but a couple of awesome agility dogs. If we repeated that mating just because we had agility people clamouring for pups- isn't that a sports-bred litter, even if the parents are fulltime farm dogs?

 

Under these circumstances imo there might be validity to the breeding.

Your suppling dogs to the sports oriented people who have approached you.Assuming these people check out as good homings per your critia then the potential exsist that you are taking business away from a breeder who is breeding strickly for sports and has moved their bloodlines many generations from the working heritage thus making it less desirable for such a breeder to continue.

Your dogs on the otherhand will never be more then one generation from that working heritage.

Even though it is a "sports-bred litter" it comes from working bloodlines and perhaps some may prove to be stellar dogs of working ability.

If the sports people are happy and the dogs are happy and well homed and nobody winds up in rescue or shelters and your happy with the results then imo this would be a good breeding.

If the end result is that breeders who are intentionally breeding away from the core working ability are hurt in their pocket to the point that they put fewer litters on the ground then all the better.

[Katelynn & Gang]

Auto racing is a sport and there are millions and millions of stock vehicles available,but that does not mean that any of those vehicles are best suited for the individual requirements or desires.

To compete successfully the individual will seek out what in their opinion is the best possible source of the vehicle that best suits their requirements.

 

I wouldn't consider racing equal to "sports" in this scenario. Racing would be working (ie herding) and driving would be sports. Most cars can drive well but not all can race. So why waste time making (breeding) more cars that can drive (sports) when there are already plenty out there that drive nicely?

 

I drive a Mustang in the summer and not to many cars can touch it off the line (not many dogs are "ideal" herders either). But in the winter I drive whatever runs which is whatever car I can afford to by at the end of the summer and just about any car will do because I just need one that will drive. Whatever car I get, its more then likely equal to the Mustang in the driving part (sports) though it may never win the drag races (herding) that my Mustang will.

 

Then I can give another scenario.

 

My sister has a rescue conformation Border Collie. Nice little dog but she'll never herd (race) and she isn't very Border Collie like. Then I have three working bred Border Collies that will herd (race) anything and everything you ask them to. We do a little bit of obedience and agility (driving) in 4H and her conformation Border Collie can and will keep up just great with my dogs, including a few obedience scores of 196 or so, just like mine. Being able to do "sports" (driving) this dog is equal to my dogs but in herding (racing) she couldn't stand a chance.

 

The [existence] of "millions and millions" of rescues is NOT the result of the practices of responsible breeders nor responsible owners!

 

You are correct. So, if we shouldn't recommend rescues to "pet" homes, what should we do with the millions and millions of them? Let them die? Because of human stupidity?

 

As a "responsible" breeder, there are plenty of homes suitable for my puppies to do the things I've bred them for. When a home pops up that is looking for a pet or sport dog, I recommend rescue because I know there are millions of dogs that could fully fulfill every need and want of a pet or sport home.

 

I think most responsible breeders do recommend rescue to homes that do not suit the goal of their breeding. I believe that its not only the job of a breeder to improve their breed but also help the breed as well.

 

Me sending a few of my buyers to rescue would never or will never put a strain in homes for any dogs or puppies I have. Supporting correct breeding is important as a buyer but supporting rescue as a breeder is just as important (I think so anyway).

 

This reminds me of the commercial where the person throws the trash on the ground in the middle of the city and everyone stops to complains but no one picks it up. Then out of no where, some guy minding his own business, clearly in thought of what his daily plans are, picks it up, throws it into the trash and keeps on a walking. He doesn't hear a word of what the people are complaining about and he really doesn't care, he just does the right thing because he knows its right, he didn't even have to think about it.

 

Just because I didn't breed or misplace the dogs doesn't mean I shouldn't try and help when I find the ability to do so.

 

I would think that there would be a great deal of data available to a responsible breeder (whos primary goal was the betterment of the working ability of [their] bloodlines)derived from pups placed in non traditional venues that would aid said breeders future breeding program.

After all a responsible breeder is going to follow up on dogs their have placed and evaluate development as it pertains to their primary breeding [criteria].

 

Maybe if you where trying to breed "versatile" dogs or something but we all know how detrimental to the breed that is.

 

How can you evaluate a race car just driving? Its impossible. The data that would/could be collected from that would be of little to no importance to the race car maker.

[Eileen Stein]

QUOTE

many improvements to the standard have come from the racetrack.

Name one.

 

Seatbelts.

 

I guess I should have asked you what you meant by "the standard."

 

What is your point here? That improvements to working border collies can come from those placed in sports home? I don't think so.

 

So are you suggesting that the dog "sport" competitors should rely upon the well of rescues?

That seems unrealistic to me.

 

Why?

[IronHorse]

How do you find rescuing to be supporting bad breeders or owners is what I want to know? Most people do not go out and buy their rescue dogs straight from the puppy miller, back yard breeder or irresponsible owner though some do which I would never ever agree with. But when I say rescue, I mean a rescue non profit group that saves and cares for hundreds of dogs every year.

 

I have never implied that rescue supports bad breeders or owners.

I have implied that rescue is the result of such.

[Katelynn & Gang]

I have never implied that rescue supports bad breeders or owners.

I have implied that rescue is the result of such.

 

Gottcha. Read it wrong, way over my head. Sorry . . . I'll remove that.

 

I still do not see the reasoning on why sport people shouldn't/couldn't look at rescues first for a dog. There is so much more you can get about a older dogs value as a "sport" dog then a puppy.

 

Katelynn

[IronHorse]

I still do not see the reasoning on why sport people shouldn't/couldn't look at rescues first for a dog. There is so much more you can get about a older dogs value as a "sport" dog then a puppy.

 

Oh I totally agree with you that sport people should by all means use rescue as a source for dogs.

But I also believe that they should have options that would dissuade them from seeking and supporting the "sport breeding miller" if rescue is not the source they wish to use.

 

I do not suggest I have the answer,I only have opinions and feel that this is one place that opinions should be shared so that perhaps some viable solutions can be formulated.

[mjk05]

This is a really interesting discussion.

 

IronHorse- re my hypothetical about the 2 tricolour working dogs:

Your initial response was

IMO there would be no reason to breed this pair under these circumstances.

given that I am pretty sure, from knowing the dogs, that together they wouldn't produce better-than-average offspring.

 

But if agility or pet people wanted the pups, based on their colour (or could be structure/temperament/agility pedigree), you thought it might be considered a valid breeding. They are the exact same dogs- even though there's a chance they might surprise me and produce outstanding working offspring, the chances are low, and given they will be sterilised and in agility/pet homes, I won't ever really find out.

 

Yes, they'll be 1st generation sports-breeding, only one generation from working parents- but isn't that the start of the slippery slope? Is it much different to 2 generations from working offspring, or even those sports/show bred dogs that have lots of famous working dogs in their 5 gen pedigree?

 

You wrote:

Even though it is a "sports-bred litter" it comes from working bloodlines and perhaps some may prove to be stellar dogs of working ability.

If the sports people are happy and the dogs are happy and well homed and nobody winds up in rescue or shelters and your happy with the results then imo this would be a good breeding.

But I think there is a down-side, or fall-out, from this sort of breeding, especially if it becomes a regular occurrence.

 

I wrote earlier- Does it mis-label working-bred dogs? ie, does it give people a false idea that all working-bred dogs have certain characteristics? Does it increase the sports market for "working-bred" dogs, because people see successful sports-bred dogs from working lines- and thus increasing the market and the pressure for people to breed working-bred dogs specifically for sports? Probably.

 

And if I, as a general practise, breed 2 working dogs with the plan of selling only to sports homes, even if I consider that I'm breeding for working ability and do consider that when doing the mating, I will be subject to different pressures in what I produce. I'll be working with the preferences of the sports homes, not the working home, and over time, that has to have some influence on my breeding decisions, even if I try to avoid it. After all, no-one wants to produce pups that disappoint their owners, whether they go to sports or working homes.

 

I guess what I'm worried about is that that one-off sports-bred litter will

a) increase the popularity of working-bred dogs (of the tricolour, long-legged, "high drive" variety), and there will be more agility people knocking on our door wanting a repeat breeding, or approaching other people with dogs from similar lines. Maybe I'll be strong enough to say no, maybe I won't... its been a very bad year for farming, we have a new baby... and I'm pretty sure other people with dogs from these lines won't all say no. And maybe they won't all take as much care with placing the pups, or ensuring they are sterilised etc.

 

if we, and other people, make a habit of breeding litters of pups designed specifically for agility people, those pups won't necessarily have the same qualities as pups we might produce when looking for working ability. So we'll be starting to add to the misrepresentation of the border collie in the general community, and people will start to believe that all "working-bred" collies are just like these pups we've produced for sports.

 

Other than those concerns, I guess it probably isn't causing any major problems- especially if its a one-off breeding, and the pups are all sterilised. But maybe other people can think of some?

 

Katelynn wrote:

As a "responsible" breeder, there are plenty of homes suitable for my puppies to do the things I've bred them for. When a home pops up that is looking for a pet or sport dog, I recommend rescue because I know there are millions of dogs that could fully fulfill every need and want of a pet or sport home.

Me too. In fact we usually have a few dogs from pounds or from unsuccessful working situations that are looking for homes. Given that all my 4 past/present agility dogs have been rescues/rehomes, I think that's a really great place for people to get new sports dogs, and I believe if people take as much care in finding their new dog in rescue as they do in looking for a new puppy, they'd have just as much chance of getting a great one.

 

But the facts are that many sports people (especially the "top level" handlers) just won't consider rescue. It doesn't matter what I say/do, in my part of the world anyway, its practically impossible to place a rescue dog in an agility home. I've had a range of young, athletic, intelligent, biddable, toy-focussed, stable tempered dogs given to us for rehoming in the last couple of years. Most of them were working-bred, some closely related to some successful local agility dogs. They've all gone to active pet homes.

 

We even had a litter of baby pups who were bred accidentally by a neighbour, and we took them on to rehome- we knew the parents well, had owned the pups' aunt/uncle, and knew that they were from sound athletic working lines, with BRILLIANT temperaments, perfectly suited to agility homes. It was the perfect rescue situation for sports-homes- known history, pups raised and socialised by us with agility etc in mind, even possible to meet both parents and a number of relatives at our neighbours' place. Because we wanted to get more rescue dogs into the agility scene, and they were so perfect for it, they were free to agility homes, even with vet work done- but no-one wanted them. We sold them all (at a decent price) to local working homes, where (because their parents are handy dogs) as expected, they are going really well.

 

People just don't want rescues. It ticks me off, but that's the situation. Right now, what they all want is pups from specific breedings from certain working lines.

[Eileen Stein]

And if I, as a general practise, breed 2 working dogs with the plan of selling only to sports homes, even if I consider that I'm breeding for working ability and do consider that when doing the mating, I will be subject to different pressures in what I produce. I'll be working with the preferences of the sports homes, not the working home, and over time, that has to have some influence on my breeding decisions, even if I try to avoid it. After all, no-one wants to produce pups that disappoint their owners, whether they go to sports or working homes.

 

I couldn't agree with you more, mjk05. We are seeing that slippery slope here, exactly as you describe.