.com Forum · Real Show Dogs
Replies in this thread : 38
Page : 1 2
<< prev page next page >>
| Seabrook Newfoundlands Basic User Posts : 33  |
No, the Papillon didn't pass, but I was actually kind of surprised at that. Its unfortunate that I am quicker to assume that a Border Collie would fail than a Papillon. |
||
| flamincomet Basic User Posts : 500+ |
this post has been edited 1 time(s) quoteIt is unfortunate, but sadly something that needs to be accepted. Maybe next time the nationals are in my area I'll go with my working like BC, and bring my papillon along for the ride and see what happens ^_^ Never know, he has so much drive and eager to please!  Yes it is very similar to GSDs.... and Goldens..... and Labs.... and Collies.... and JRTs/"Parsons" etc etc down basically the entire list of all breeds and dogs bred to a conformation standard (especially in AKC, where extreme is a blue ribbon). People will always bring it up, most of the people that bring it up legitimately do not understand and have no idea what they are unearthing. Either way, ONE side is going to be represented first, and then of course the other side is going to defend itself. It is a never ending cycle because as I stated before most conformation people refuse to accept that you can breed purely to a working standard, and that it is a REAL standard, and vise versa most working people refuse to accept that people CAN do whatever they want with their dogs (within the lines of reason...) and if they want to breed Fluffy to be the prettiest darn black and white retriever you have ever seen then by golly let them do it.  Autumn |
||
| Seabrook Newfoundlands Basic User Posts : 33 |
The way I see it, breeding is not black and white, pardon the pun. There is a lot more to breeding than finding two successful dogs and leaving them out in the backyard together for a bit, whether it is herding, conformation, agility, flyball... whatever it is. Those who are unwilling to learn about why good breeding and careful planning is important will never understand what makes a good dog good. Despite the fact that I am pretty set in my ways and have a type and a breeding program that I am satisfied with, its not my place to tell someone else that they are wrong to like a type other than mine. I am happy to tell people why I chose my type of BC, and I spend most of my time when not working with my dogs researching pedigrees, history of the breed, structure and behavior, and after all these years I'm pretty confident that I have a good knowledge of this breed. Of course I am always learning and unlike so many people I will never pretend that I know everything. I guess what that ramble was about is just that it is not cut and dry. And as someone who shows Border Collies, but also works them, I feel that the blanket terms "show lines" and "working lines" are extremely misleading, and if you really do your homework you'll find that there is so much more to this breed than "working lines" and "show lines". |
||
| sscressa11 Basic User Posts : 500+ |
quoteI couldnt find the info I had read but I had thought it was Wiston Cap who introduced the eye but after rereading thru the history it was Old Kep who did that. Wiston Cap is just the "trade mark" of our breed. He is what they currently use as a logo for ISDS and I want to say another registery(not sure of which one). I am curious though Wiston Cap has produced almost 2000 puppies(1933 to be exact). Why don't you think he had that big of influence of style? I was reading that he was awesome since he was able to produce good pups from total outcross bitches. quoteI should have clarified when people insinuate that the working border collies now aren't like the dogs of the past. If the main focus is the dog working sheep, why does it matter where the dog is located? And isnt there a worlds cup in herding for the USBCHA and ISDS trial dogs that test the best of the best from each country? From what I understand you cant tell the difference in the breed based on the dogs looks. quoteI wasnt trying to say all border collies are equal. Sorry for misleading! >.< Thought it was clear when I had said "if the breeding purpose is still the same". quote Yes I believe USBCHA. I know of at least 2 dogs who have done well(One was from conformation lines but not Aus, the other I think was AKC sports line). Ive learn never post breeders names or kennels names in boards or forum if you actually like them. So no, I won't post who they are. |
||
| Lilliput Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
quoteIt matters because location directly effects the type of dog needed to function in that environment. You see that even amongst the traditional Scottish breeds, I've heard the rough collie was mainly seen in the highlands were the coat gave it protection against the weather and the smooth collie in the lowlands, where it needed less coat. I've heard there used to be similar distinctions in the shorter vs longer coated BCs as well. And thats all in their native Scotland, which is not a very large country. You see it a lot in various hunting dogs- its how we got the English vs American foxhound. Because the terrain is different in America, the longer legged foxhounds did better here and ours evolved a different form. American lines of gun dogs also are often rangier and have slightly different hunting styles than their European counterparts, because here we have more ground to cover. The same holds true for herding dogs. A dog who performs well on flatland may not perform well in a hilly terrain. In countries with more hills, you'll see a different type of dog and form of working than in flat areas. A dog that has to herd in areas with brush may herd differently than forested areas that will herd differently than pastured areas. A dog working on a several thousand acres ranch may need different skills and style than one working a small farm. And a dog working a herd of a few hundred or thousand sheep, perhaps needing to work in tandem with other dogs, will need different skills than one who herds 5 or 10 sheep by itself. I'm not talking about on an individual basis (you farm is flat, your neighbors is hilly) but on a country wide level. Australia for instance, tends to have vast sheep stations with thousands of sheep. The type of border collie that performs well in those conditions may well be different in form and function than what is needed on a traditional Scottish farm. Over time, those dogs will become distinctly different, perhaps to the point of being a separate breed, or perhaps just as a variety within the BC breed, depending on exactly how different of a dog is needed. |
||
| griffin Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
There are also even more subtle effects, for instance if the farmers have very large adjacent fields they might need a dog very good at gathering but driving is less important, whereas a farmers who have very spread out small fields might need a dog really really good a driving but gathering is less important. Which can lead to differences in working style but not necessarily physical appearance. grif, |
||
| Cornus Basic User Posts : 301 |
In many breeds folks talk about the differences in the “show” lines and the “working” lines. Currently I have Belgian Tervurens and a Border Collie. All are shown in conformation, obedience, agility, rally and herding. On the farm we have between ~30 head of sheep each year and a large group of ducks. Every day my dogs do “farm” work. In both breeds I hear “you can’t do ……… with a working dog” and “you can’t do …… with a show dog.” So I just set out to prove folks wrong. I want a certain look in both types of dogs and I am also looking for a certain working ability/temperament. In both breeds it took me years to find what I wanted. And now I am going about my business doing what I love with my dogs. So my advice to find the dog that fits your needs and have fun with it. Don’t get hung up on what others say. Just quietly prove them wrong with what you accomplish with your dog (s). As they say,” the proof is in the pudding!” |
||
| Seabrook Newfoundlands Basic User Posts : 33 |
quoteI agree with you to a point, but I think everyone needs to understand that there IS a difference in lines. Not saying that means that certain lines can't do certain things... but there is a structural and mental difference in lines. Grif, thats just the thing. Physical appearance doesn't have to mean markings and coat type. Physical appearance, to me, is structure. Dogs who are bred to work different terrains change in structure to fit their area. Dogs who are bred to work cattle vs sheep require different structure to do their job successfully (of course there are dogs who do both, thats another story). Physical changes doesn't have to be scary or wrong- you just have to keep in mind what you're doing to the breed and why. Breeding with structure in mind is not destroying the breed- the problem is- most people don't really understand what correct Border Collie structure is! A Golden may have perfect structure but that doesn't make them a proper Border Collie, and unfortunately the show Border Collies are starting to look more and more like Goldens! Structure is not simple, and it takes watching a dog work and knowing what this breed was designed to do to really learn about it. Seeing a dog trot around a show ring or doing a jump in agility does not show you what is required of a BC structurally. If the show breeders understood what made a BC correct structurally, why are we seeing a flooding of straight fronts to match extremely over angled rears and sloping toplines in our rings today? Why are the fronts and rears getting wider and wider with time? Why are their coats cottony when a sleek, rough outer coat is called for in the standard? Honestly, I have no problem with show breeders who own up to being show breeders. That dog you posted, Merlin, his owner once told a stud client- "Honey, Merlin don't herd." I feel like that is honest, and you know what? I respect that. I actually have no problem with people who want to breed Border Collies to win in the show ring as long as they admit to it. I know why you'd want to, winning is fun! There's one breeder though- who claims her show bred BCs could win at the highest level USBCHA trials- her dogs could win the NATIONAL USBCHA trial. Yeah friggin' right! That level of trialing is extremely intense and most WORKING bred dogs can't even make it to that level! That takes a once in a lifetime dog who has the right combination of traits and a dang good trainer. My advice to all BC owners and breeders- BE HONEST. I will happily admit that I am not breeding dogs who are suitable for the highest level of USBCHA trials. Thats not my goal. I have placed puppies in herding homes and they do wonderfully, but I am not going to lie to my puppy buyers and tell them that my puppies are going to win National Stock Dog trials... Like I said, I think everyone has the right to choose whatever kind of lines or types there are. Its not my place, and honestly these lines already exist. Go ahead and get whatever kind of dog you want, just don't be shocked when people argue with you about it, and don't pretend that there is no difference between the lines. There is! You don't have to be ashamed of that, you probably want something different than I do, or that farmer does ,or that agility fanatic does, or whatever. You have to have conviction when in any of these breeds with a working/show split, and you have to have a tough skin, or just ignore it. |
||
| sscressa11 Basic User Posts : 500+ |
quoteWhat s/he said! To me i order to say show border collies can't herd. Has mutiple things wrong: 1. What do you consider herding? 2. What do you consider show line?(A pedigree full of CH?, just Parents are Ch?, breeding with the idea of conforming? The parents registy?) 3. Unless you have seen a majority of conformation border collies, you can't claim that statement as fact. I pointed out how many conformation border collies failed the HIT,but on a different note/flip side... Don't some working bred border collies take a couple time on livestock to turn on? Just because a dog doesnt turn on the 1st time it was exposed to sheep mean the dog is usless nor has no ability. WHile it doesnt happen often(from my understanding!), you can still get throw backs in the best of working bred litters where a pup just isnt insterested in livestock. Does that mean the dog isn't a border collie? I have to disagee with dogs difference depending on location but thats alright. We don't have to agree on everything! If the structure dictate with the dogs works best I would think you should be able to look at a dog and say hey you must be from X area based on XYZ. You don't have that in our breed. You have east coast dogs going to the west coast, north bred dogs going southner and visa versa. Dogs being imported from all over, dogs being exported. A mother from Wales is imported to the US and whelps a littert, 3-4 puppies get spread across the US, while another goes off to another country. If the structure was so important. How is that possible? Why would someone want a puppy from the "wrong" terrain to work with? And from my understanding,just because you breed two big, lanky dogs... doesn't always mean that is what you get in their offspring! Troys grandma is from Wales, grandpa is from ireland, they worked in TN, while his mom works in MI! I am pretty sure that is all different terrain to work. Why would a person who livihood depended on their dogs ability be willing to chance it, if it really did boil down to structure making or breaking a dog working ability for each terrain? Don't forget perception. What do *you want/need in a border collie. How do *you define a border collie? *(general you!) Sorry about going off topic! I have limited access to a couputer in my spare time and can't access it from my phone. Also sorry for any misspellings and grammer errors! |
||
| Anchor Paws Canines Basic User Posts : 1,000+ |
quoteThank you!  |
||
| Lilliput Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
quoteYou have to look on localized populations as a whole. You're looking at an individual level. Its absolutely true that different conditions will eventually make different types of dog. That's how we end up with all the different breeds- if "herding" was the same everywhere, you'd expect that ALL herding dogs look the same. But they don't. Different breeds have developed different coat types, body structures and herding styles based on the areas where they were expected to herd and they type of work they were needed to do. This is also how evolution occurs in nature- slight changes in enviroment or other selective pressures eventually cause part of the population to change so much that the become distinct. In today's world, where dogs and semen can be much more easily moved across continents there will probably always be some bloodflow between the different bloodlines. But at the same time, the MAJORITY of dogs in one area will look/act alike, but may be different from dogs in another area. Imagine an area where the majority of farmers have HUGE herds of thousands of sheep over vast stretches of land, where the weather is hot and dry and several dogs are needed to work the herd. Those dogs, I'd imagine may evolve to be slimmer, lankier, and able to work all day across those thousands of acres in the hot sun. They'll probably have short coats to keep themselves cool. And they'll work well with multiple other herding dogs. And probably be a bit more independent, because with a thousand sheep, the dog needs to know what to do even when the shepherd isn't looking , or cant see him. The shepherds don't need to be DLEIBERATELY breeding for these types of dogs, it will just gradually evolve. Shorter, slower, easily tired dogs, dogs with long coats, dogs who don't get along with other dogs, and who need constant direction just won't do well in those condittions, and so won't be bred. Yes, every litter throws some pups that maybe aren't great, but overtime, most of the population will be of a type that fits the enviroment. Thats how breeds evolve. Contrast that with an area with small farms, low numbers of sheep, where the dog only has to work a short period each day, and it can get cold and rainy. Also, maybe farmers in this area appreciate a dog who will guard the farm a bit. In this area, dogs who need LESS work, are happy with a few hours and maybe can't run ALL day are favored. Shorter dogs that conserve body heat with longer coats that insulate against rain, mud and cold. These dogs take the sheep out in the morning and then hang around the barnyard until its time to bring them back in. These dogs stay closer to the farmer because they don't have much land to work on, and take more direction because the herd is smaller and the directions more precise. They probably don't need more than one dog working the sheep. And they bark at strangers. A dog from situation A, would not work well in situation B, he'd be cold, chase the chickens all day, have too much energy, and perhaps not respond well to constant direction from the farmer. A dog from situation B would likewise do poorly in situation A. He'd overheat, tire long before the work was done, maybe not be able to keep up, injure himself trying to work that way, and perhaps not get along with the other herding dogs needed to work such a large flock and need constant direction from the farmer, who is busy trying to manage 5 dogs and a thousand sheep. Suppose Situation A is Australia, and Situation B is Great Britain. Continents, thousands of miles apart. Even with the small flow of blood between the continents, eventually, the populations WILL diverge to suit the distinct working conditions. There is sometimes value in bringing in a new dog, even if they come from a different "line", however, you take the characteristics you WANT and the ones that don't work so well for the area eventually get bred out, usually sooner than later. |
||
| griffin Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
quote |
||
| Leidenschaftlich Basic User Posts : 500+ |
My opinion, and this is coming from someone who is not very familiar with the BC. I just watched a documentary about the domestication of dogs. Certain types of dogs were developed for certain types of uses. Example is the Border Collie and others like it for herding livestock, or terriers for ratting, mastiffs for guarding, etc. At this time, utility was really the only thing important, because people (generally) never thought of dogs as anything more than dogs. Then there came a group of people who began creating newer, smaller types of dogs from an egotistical point of view - my dog is purebred, therefore it is more valuable than yours. This is one of the reasons why there are toy breeds or breeds that don't have a utility other than companionship. So conformation showing was more of a elitist thing (at that time. I'm sure people's views have changed on it since then..), because you could say that you had a "purebred dog"; therefore, it was more valuable than some "mutt" bred to no standard other than its working capability. Conformation showing turned into a "sport" that judged a dog based only on its looks, not on its temperament or ability to work. So, from then on, in numerous breeds, people's "standard" as to what they felt was a REAL so-and-so came down to preference. The very beginnings of almost all dogs started in the working field, but modern day, many people don't need a field dog to do anything for them. There is nothing wrong with that. There are many people also who do need a field dog with the type of body and coat and temperament that can complete a task for them. There is nothing wrong with that either. I think there are several breeds recognized by the AKC have some sort of of "strains" that people have moved into because of preference or needs. That's not to say one is the "REAL" so-and-so; I think that's irrelevant. Just pick which one suits you and go with that. I do understand how it gets on people's nerves b/c they are so passionate about the breed. But I have started to ask myself this a lot - What does it matter what it was 300 years ago? What matters is your dog right now, and how you can preserve or improve upon that. The rest is history. I think the GSD controversy is way scarier b/c there are actually health problems associated with it. The BC one (as far as I know) is basically an argument of type which, imo, is pointless because no one is going to change their views especially when they're so passionate about a breed or type. I can't imagine a show Border Collie without any drive. If that exists, then the fault goes to human beings and bad breeding practices. That doesn't mean its not a real Border Collie. It's just a BC with no drive. My opinion only! I realize this is a very hot subject for a lot of people! My favorite breed is slowly having the same thing happen to it which I am not happy about either. Reina |
||
| Anchor Paws Canines Basic User Posts : 1,000+ |
Another thing that really bothers me is how willing judges are to place a dog that nearly bites the judge over a nice-looking dog who has really well-behaved. (This wasn't with BCs, just something I observed over the weekend at a dog show I was at. Malinois.) Another thing, people are willing to "insult" my 10-Month-old BC pup because she has "too much enthusiasim". Do they know ANYTHING about Border Collies? I have seen what you mean when you say show-line BCs sometimes are not "true" because there was a dog who had not very much enthusiasim at all, and looked somewhat like an Aussie also at the show. And no, he was not aggressive, so it didn't bother me that much. (he was actually really good looking!) Sorry for my rant, it just makes me a little bit angry... |
||
| griffin Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
quoteCorrect me if I'm wrong but I think the old toy breeds came about in royal courts even before registries and conformation showing, where the utility of the dog was to be cute and friendly. The egotistical point probably also was around long before conformation showing. I'm sure hunters/hunters would brag about how good their dogs were which I suspect is how breeds were created prior to registrys, and also why there is so much redundancy in the breeds, eg. multiple farmers in scotland arguing over which was better a Rough Collie or a Smooth Collie or a Border Collie. They would have been just as prone to the internal bias that "my type is better than yours". Course once enough people could afford to keep and breed dogs (or decided to because of a fad) you get registrys popping up and turning it into a formal sport. grif, |
||
| Lilliput Basic User Posts : 3,000+ |
quoteCorrect me if I'm wrong but I think the old toy breeds came about in royal courts even before registries and conformation showing, where the utility of the dog was to be cute and friendly. grif, This is true. Many of the toy breeds outdate dog shows. Mostly they were descended from runts of the hunting and gun dogs kept by the nobility. They'd then give these undersized dogs to the ladies of the house to keep for their amusement. Then the ladies would be so taken by their small pets that they'd breed more of them, or the inevitable would happen in times before sterilization was common. Over time there developed strains of small house dogs for rich ladies. A few of the toy breeds have even richer history- the peke for instance, was bred to be a religious idol, resembling a lion but small and tame enough to keep in the monasteries and palaces. Their bowed legs were to keep them from wandering off. In some cases dogs were also used a hot water bottles, especially in the days before modern conveniences when real hot water bottles could be impractical and there were no microwaves, electricity etc. A small dog placed on the afflicted area acted as a natural heat source. In response to Reina, and her assertion that dogs were once viewed strictly as utilitarian, even the most primitive cultures seem to have a tradition of pet keeping. Tribes in the Amazon who still hunt and gather as a way of life for instance, may carry their pets with them from place to place. Pets who have NO practical purpose aside from being cute- baby monkeys acquired after the mother was killed for food for instance, or small exotic parrots, tortoises etc. The animals do no job for the people, but they keep them around anyway. There's something in human beings that craves the companionship of animals whether they work for their keep or not. They also gravitate toward the unique- while a runt may not make a great working dog, its small size and charm has the ability to save it as people delight in novelty. While utility certainly played a role in creating numerous dog breeds, I'm sure that novelty did as well- in a village with all black dogs, the first brown dog is going to be a source of much curiosity. This is not a modern phenomenon. |
||
| NissaV Basic User Posts : 500+ |
quoteThis is true. Many of the toy breeds outdate dog shows. Mostly they were descended from runts of the hunting and gun dogs kept by the nobility. They'd then give these undersized dogs to the ladies of the house to keep for their amusement. Then the ladies would be so taken by their small pets that they'd breed more of them, or the inevitable would happen in times before sterilization was common. Over time there developed strains of small house dogs for rich ladies. A few of the toy breeds have even richer history- the peke for instance, was bred to be a religious idol, resembling a lion but small and tame enough to keep in the monasteries and palaces. Their bowed legs were to keep them from wandering off. In some cases dogs were also used a hot water bottles, especially in the days before modern conveniences when real hot water bottles could be impractical and there were no microwaves, electricity etc. A small dog placed on the afflicted area acted as a natural heat source. In response to Reina, and her assertion that dogs were once viewed strictly as utilitarian, even the most primitive cultures seem to have a tradition of pet keeping. Tribes in the Amazon who still hunt and gather as a way of life for instance, may carry their pets with them from place to place. Pets who have NO practical purpose aside from being cute- baby monkeys acquired after the mother was killed for food for instance, or small exotic parrots, tortoises etc. The animals do no job for the people, but they keep them around anyway. There's something in human beings that craves the companionship of animals whether they work for their keep or not. They also gravitate toward the unique- while a runt may not make a great working dog, its small size and charm has the ability to save it as people delight in novelty. While utility certainly played a role in creating numerous dog breeds, I'm sure that novelty did as well- in a village with all black dogs, the first brown dog is going to be a source of much curiosity. This is not a modern phenomenon. There is evidence of lap-sized dogs in Ancient Rome--in large part, they and other pets were likely a status symbol: look at me! I'm so rich I can afford to feed this thing that doesn't do anything but be cute. My fun Peke fact? Some of them were bred to be an ancient form of mace. They were bred small enough to fit in ladies' sleeves, and trained to attack on command--so anyone who tried to affront said lady would suddenly find themselves dealing with an angry little dog. Novelty has indeed been a big issue in many breeds throughout history. In the Borzoi's heyday, for example--when it was at the center of royal hunts that involved hundreds of people--many kennels bred for certain colors and patterns, because those were their "trademark". |
||
| Leidenschaftlich Basic User Posts : 500+ |
Yeah, I didn't mean to say that conformation shows were the reason why toy breeds exist. Not that I know any facts; it was just a documentary I saw. Either way, that wasn't the point of my post. |
3/17/2012 12:13:55 PM
|
Replies in this thread : 38
Post Reply |
