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

[kelpiegirl]

I would like to add a bit to this. There are still quite a few breeders who produce pups with working ability as the first and foremost quality in their dogs- and we shouldn't forget that they do exist. And, I will say, word of mouth travels fast, and those looking for working dogs will begin to see a pattern when someone who produces pups, and many "seem to end up" in agility/sport homes, and can then be forewarned. The slippery slope, in my opinion is only applicable to those who have oil on their feet, in the name of cranio-colonic inversion, wherein they are kidding themselves, and no others, that they are indeed producing (and in their gut they know it) solely for sports.

Julie

 

 

[/b]

 

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

[Kyrasmom]

kelpiegirl wrote:

 

 

 

Kyra'smom wrote:

 

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.

 

And I agree, because the scope of the breeding was not to produce better working dogs but dogs for agility. If a pair of dogs are bred for "sport" even if they work but would not be matched to produce better working dogs, then I agree that it's a sport bred litter because the initiave behind it was not betterment of breed but betterment of sport. But if you have two dogs that you would have bred for betterment of breed (as in working) and they all go, by chance, to sport homes, I still feel that is a working bred litter...which unfortunately will not give any feedback and thus be a potential loss for the breeder unless the goal is of the economic type.

 

I'll take it a step further, if such a pairing is made to cater to sport people (even if it's match made in working heaven) maybe the breeder is not so responsible after all because he's not bringing anything to the table to improve the breed as the litter will go untested. He will perhaps put on the market otherwise good dogs and hinder the efforts of official "sport breeders" but what he gives back to the gene pool is negotiable.

 

Maria

[Bill Fosher]

My feeling about breeding any litter where the pups would all go with a spay/neuter contract would be that it was a waste. If you have that little confidence in the breeding or the intentions of the people you're selling the puppies to, don't produce the litter.

 

In my mind, a good breeder is looking to produce puppies that are worth breeding. As soon as you start producing puppies that you don't want bred, you've abandoned your standards. You're breeding for the pet market, the sport market, or whatever.

[HighDesertSpice]

I have just recently started teaching agility again after a several-year hiatus - I teach a small class one day a week, and am doing a few seminars locally on my method for teaching running contacts.

I am stunned at how many people don't want to let their dogs THINK things through. They turn to aids and props rather than stepping back and allowing the dog to think.

I have actually learned a lot about my dog from working stock with him (we could do basic AHBA, and maybe Novice/Novice at this point), but the greatest moments are when the little light goes on in his head and he fetches them out of the corner, or stops them from busting away down the hill, or lifts them 'ever so lightly', or learns to apply pressure without speeding up unnecessarily. . .

Yet in agility, people don't want to let the dogs figure out how to get on a flippin' dog walk unassisted. Present it slowly, I swear to you he'll figure it out!

My point is this: if we never let agility dogs THINK, you guys are correct, we'll never know what kind of mind they have! My dog's parents both work, but his mother is primarily an agility dog. His father never even saw equipment. He's coming along nicely and I'm proud of my 'agility dog'; I'm also VERY glad he's not a purely sports-bred dog. Was his mother truly 'proven' as this board might like? Maybe, but I doubt it. But he's turning out to be useful and I would like to trial him as I can (he's only 4). But more than trials, I'd like to learn how to use him in useful farm situations by helping out my instructor as much as possible! I'd like to see HIS MIND at work!

 

My instructor has never seen a dangerous sports collie, and in fact most of the sports collies I know who aren't decent on stock are more like Barbies in that they just sort of look at Mommy or eat sheep-doo. I can see how it would happen though.

Most sports-breeders I know of DO think that an off-switch is important. As someone mentioned, not ALL their pups can go to top handlers, and even top handlers don't want a dog that can't sit still.

 

Sorry I ramble, but I'm just trying to put my thoughts as a 'top agility handler' out there.

Marcus Topps' Juice has a littermate competing in Open, so there is a dog who does VERY well and is working-bred.

 

Hello: new to the boards and learning tons. I'm really glad to hear you advocate allowing/ leading the dog to think things through. I'm a proud owner of a bc mix and am pondering the direction to go. I've read about BC's learning by observing and am going to experiment with this. Can you point me to some good training sources? I don't know what my dogs native abilities are....she is just fun and smart and wants to learn new things.) Thanks.

[bcnewe2]

In my mind, a good breeder is looking to produce puppies that are worth breeding. As soon as you start producing puppies that you don't want bred, you've abandoned your standards. You're breeding for the pet market, the sport market, or whatever.

 

I’ve been reading this whole thread and couldn't put my finger on what I thought was wrong with most of the breeding ideas (not the ones presented here in particular but in general). Bill has summed it up for me.

 

I think that when someone breeds a dog that’s not running in an Open class for quite some time and winning consistently with more than one dog, should not be breeding these dogs. There are enough ill informed people out there that are not changing their minds about their breeding programs, and will continue what ever they breeding for. I don't see the need to produce anymore even though I think I know a bit about these dogs.

 

When I first started in working dogs I thought that one day I might like to breed my dogs. Not anymore. I won't say never, but surely not now, and I think I know what I like in my working dogs. I'm still learning tons with way more to learn so I won't be doing any breeding soon.

 

Somehow people equate breeding their dog to mean that their dog is "the best" out there. Or they’re breeding for the dollars. There are lots of folks breeding for those reasons. Let the sport people find them, or run across the true working breeders with the odd extra pups. Anyone not keeping a dog or two out of a litter they bred for working stock should be a huge red flag.

When you and your dog can walk the walk, go ahead and breed. But usually the dog is only the “best” to you not others.

 

How many open handlers even go out looking for a dog? They know what they want and where they want it from. They won't be finding it through any way other than watching the dogs they admire work or breeding the dogs they are working or trialing with at an open level.

 

Someone mentioned that they would breed their dog if their open level trainer/breeder wanted to breed their dog. Been there, said that, didn't happen.

That open level handler has lots of good dogs to choose from, they most likely will not be truly asking you to breed your dog. So I would say cross that bridge when and if it comes.

 

Usually a friendship develops between mentor and student. There are sometimes dogs passed between the 2. Do you know of any students that have bred and sold a dog to their mentors or trainers until they were actually competing with them at their level?

 

Such a slippery slope with not many wearing their rubber shoes to navigate it. We can rant, rave, and try to teach. But please don't breed your dog till you've been an open handler, placing consistently for quite some time. By then you'll know what this conservation is truly about.

 

JMHO

Kristen

[Bo Peep]

I had a BC gal that had very short legs. She was about 16 inches tall. Didn't seem to bother the sheep with her height. She moved them very nicely. After my divorce and I "lost the farm" literally- I kept her active in agility. She loved it. It was a bonus she was short. Fit into the sheltie category and always took first place. She was out of working lines and not bred for agility. Only had 2 litters in her wonderful 15 years of being with me. She just loved any sport that I could put her into and we enjoyed our time together. I would NEVER think about breeding her for agility yet alone AKC. I have been a lifetime member of the ABCA for over 20 years. BUT..........it WAS a plus she was short. LOL.

I think any activity you can do with your dog being it herding (even it you aren't the best) or agility, or obedience, or running or simple trick shows. Like skid boot-(not a BC) just them being a part of your life - is the best thing anyone can do for their dog. There are many border collie herding dogs that spend their lives in kennels. Some of mine did. Only to get out to play Frisbee for AM exercices, herding all day, back in kennels for feeding, more playtime, more training, health care, training, feeding and back in their kennels. Some never get out-very rarely, so ....I say. Spend time with your dogs, let them enjoy and you enjoy too and you will have a happy dog and a happy owner!!!

[Bill Fosher]

I think that when someone breeds a dog that’s not running in an Open class for quite some time and winning consistently with more than one dog, should not be breeding these dogs. There are enough ill informed people out there that are not changing their minds about their breeding programs, and will continue what ever they breeding for. I don't see the need to produce anymore even though I think I know a bit about these dogs.

 

I'm going to disagree with you on this point. There are lots of good dogs out there that are not on the trial circuit. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, but there are those who argue that breeding dogs based on trial performance is just another form of sport breeding.

 

I think that it's important to test potential breeding dogs in lots of difference circumstances on different kinds of sheep, different terrain, etc, etc. Trialing is one way to do that, but it is not the only way. But if the breeding program were limited to trial-winners being handled by experienced trial-winning handlers, at any given point we might have no more than 50 to 100 dogs in the gene pool. Nowhere near enough.

[Dixie_Girl]

Quote"I'm going to disagree with you on this point. There are lots of good dogs out there that are not on the trial circuit. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with them, but there are those who argue that breeding dogs based on trial performance is just another form of sport breeding.

 

I think that it's important to test potential breeding dogs in lots of difference circumstances on different kinds of sheep, different terrain, etc, etc. Trialing is one way to do that, but it is not the only way. But if the breeding program were limited to trial-winners being handled by experienced trial-winning handlers, at any given point we might have no more than 50 to 100 dogs in the gene pool. Nowhere near enough." End quote.

 

I have to go along with this. Most of the trialing people I know, also have working ranches, where the dogs are used on a day to day basis. And when it comes to breeding their dogs, they don't pick just from the ones that trial good. They pick from the ones that work good. And there is a big difference there. A dog can do fine in a trial, but mean while, back at the ranch, they fold under an angry mom trying to be sepperated from her lamb. Or when it is thundering and the wind is blowing, and it is pouring buckets. Trialing really only shows how much the dog can take direction, working shows how much heart and brains they have.

 

ETA: the quote feature didn't quite work out the way I thought it would! So I just added my own!