Comparisons of working, conformation, & pets in your breed

Pwca

I've read that CleanRun article, and I think it's true that it *does* impede quick turns- but you know what? Not ever breed SHOULD be as agile as a BC. Is breeding for better performance in agility superior to just breeding for conformation alone? I'm not so sure it is.

 Right now in collies, we are seeing a lot of UNDER angulated dogs with no drive from the rear. This is one of Mal's strongest assets- and he's *far* from overangulated. (Wll get pictures for ya'll this week.)

 I have at least loosely followed collies for years now - I bought mine in 94 but sadly he didn't live past six :(

 I think collies have show related structure issues but they are a different sort. Namely that they are a "head breed" and judged so largely on their head/expression that many breeders are overlooking poor, non-functional structure in favor of pretty heads. I have seen many, many collies with excessive bone and flat out bad conformation. Several years back when I took some of the Belgians to a multi-breed judges education seminar we were asked by several judges-to-be about how important heads are in our breed. Seems they had just been to the collie judges education and it was stressed that the head and expression should be what they base 70% of their judging on. So if you are basing 70% of judging on heads, show breeders are going to heavily base their breeding choices on what will produce pretty head and expression if they want to keep winning.

 FWIW at a herding seminar. a BC man told me that he felt my collie had good working ability and could likely make a useful, small farm dog. He was much more drivey than most other collies I have been around. He was tug obsessed, would fetch until he was exhuasted and was super trainable. He had a similar temperament to my male Belgian. He was pet bred with some older show lines in his pedigree - he resembled a lot of older show collies but would have looked greatly out of place in today's ring. Before I got my male Belgian I looked and looked for another collie. I visited litter after litter but none of the dogs had the temperament I wanted, not that they had bad temperaments.

 While not all breeds should have the same structure as a BC, all herding breeds should be agile and athletic. Excessive angulation hinders that but so does poor structure, of course. No one is saying that working BCs should have poor structure, just that what the show ring considers "good structure" tends to be generic from breed to breed and not always what is proper in the dog for work.

Pwca

Not ever breed SHOULD be as agile as a BC. Is breeding for better performance in agility superior to just breeding for conformation alone? I'm not so sure it is.

     While that's true, there are dozens of other working, herding, sporting, hounds that should retain some degree of agility and the fact of the matter is not which is superior (conformation vs working) but how conformation structure is so off the mark in some breeds there is little point in breeding for "dual purpose" qualities. For Beagles, our conformation dogs are not as far removed from working stock & there have been improvements in the past few years with the breeding for longer backs and the abandonment of the stub feet that take "cat footed" to the extreme. We can still cross over field/show lines - and so long as it's done carefully - we can get a hound that will be acceptable in both arenas. 

     IMHO, breeding for performance gives us dogs that are quite different than their conformation counterparts. In some breeds, the show dogs are merely intimations of the working dogs, and along with that we loose structural integrity, defining personaility traits, and in rare cases, temperament. Some breeds have been taken to such an extreme in the show ring it's outrageous to suggest breeders are bettering the breed or that their dogs are good representations of the breed. In my breed, even though there isn't much of a rift between working and conformation as there is in the BC or GSD, the conformation dogs vaguely resemble our working dogs. And the hunting hounds NEED to look the way they do for a reason. Take the over angulated rear legs for instance - show breeders have told me my dogs do not have good structure because they lack that over angulated hock that makes for a nice freestack in the ring ... I don't understand how they come to this conclusion, because it is conducive, rather than a hindrance to performance & the way all well built hunting hounds should look. With Beagles, there are many conformation aspects that one must take into consideration when choosing a hound that is built for performance. So in that regards, the show breeders are correct that certain builds will not get the job done ... unfortunately, they need a better understanding of how a hunting dog moves - most have never seen a hunt. There is, I've noticed, some change in regards to how show breeders interpret the Standard - and it's coming from those who have watched a hound on a hunt. 
     
     I'm curious as to your reasoning why breeding for conformation would be superior to breeding for performance? Breeding for the show ring tends to cause unnatural exaggerations within a breed that does effect the breed as a whole. Besides that, breeding for those exaggerated traits are usually defended/advocated because it's claimed that was the original look of the breed & would be conducive to function. Such as the English Bulldog breeders who have created a monstrosity that cannot even whelp naturally and are so heavy in proportion to their frame the breed is riddled with hip dysplasia. If you've ever seen the original bulldogs, they were very similar to the Am Bulldogs of today, longer of leg and with a less blocky head. Their faces are not pushed in, yet they do have a noticable overbite. I love when English Bulldog breeders claim their face is the shape it is to allow the animal to breathe while clamped down on whatever it was fighting - that's hard to imagine since the structure of the head of today's bulldog makes the animal prone to breathing abnormalities just from everyday activity. Breeding for the show ring alone does not provide a test of endurance, health, soundness, intelligence and breed personality. While when I choose a pup to remain on for hunting purposes, I look at intelligence first and foremost, desire, heart, nose, line control upper med/fast foot speed, "rabbit sense", and voice, to name a few. It usually works out that I don't keep the best pup, conformation wise, from my litters because while they offer good show dog looks, they lack in another area. I'm not willing to loose those other traits to keep a pup that will win ribbons.

HoundMusic

I'm curious as to your reasoning why breeding for conformation would be superior to breeding for performance? Breeding for the show ring tends to cause unnatural exaggerations within a breed that does effect the breed as a whole. Besides that, breeding for those exaggerated traits are usually defended/advocated because it's claimed that was the original look of the breed & would be conducive to function.

 Oops! That's not what I meant- sorry to be unclear. What I meant was, breeding for any one venue, to the exclusion of all others, with the possible exception of working dogs (and to be honest? I'd limit that to GSDs and the other police breeds, BCs and other working sheepdogs, and then working pack hounds, as my defition of working- not a dog who hunts two weekends a year OR a dog who does field trials that are very far afield from what a serious weekend hunter wants as far as speed and distance), can change a dog, line, or breed (depending on the influence of the individual) significantly. An agility person I know locally has a dog she plans to breed who is, IMO, borderline psychotic. He has NO ability to switch off and NOT work, screams, lunges, and cries when he has to watch her working other dogs, and she excuses his creeping on startline stays as part of his desire to work. (That, I think is a training problem though- nothing genetic). He comes from a pedigree of big-winning agility dogs, and the others from this family I've met are all the same. I've never been to her house and I don't know what he's like there, but in classrooms and at hotels, he is constantly whining,whining, whining, and he's pretty reactive- he just seems to typify, fo rme, the negative aspects of the BC, without any of the positive.

You've also got lines like Mal's- he's from a pedigree of mostly conformation dogs, from a cross that produced unexpectedly drivey puppies that NO ONE expected. (The pick male ended up getting neutered due to being a bit more than his owners were expecting, unfortunately.) I know with Lizzie and the spitz, my goal is going to be to keep titles at both ends, soundness paramount, and coats moderate. They're a companion breed, not a working breed, so I think versatility and trainability is a little more important in their case than anything else- and there's a fair bit of weight to the argument that collies are in the same boat. But I also don't think that breeding for dogs who are pretty good at multiple things (and by things, I mean sport/performance, conformation, and actual working), rather than spectacularly good at one, is a bad thing.  
 

Pwca

But I also don't think that breeding for dogs who are pretty good at multiple things (and by things, I mean sport/performance, conformation, and actual working), rather than spectacularly good at one, is a bad thing.   
 

  That IMO depends on the breed. Collies haven't been true "working dogs" for a long time and I'd agree that what I'd look for in a collie breeder is someone who "does stuff" with their dogs - a variety off performance venues would be great. There are a lot of other breeds who have long since gone to being companion breeds and I think to keep breeders in mind of breeding for temperament and trainability, it is ideal if they do stuff with their dogs. However some breeds like BCs are defined by their working ability. They aren't meant to be good at doing a lot of stuff but rather be outstanding in one area.

Well I dont know about no working collies.  Sherry Moss is doing a good job breeding and trialing some very talented smooths and roughs (competitive with BCs)

mrv

Well I dont know about no working collies.  Sherry Moss is doing a good job breeding and trialing some very talented smooths and roughs (competitive with BCs)

  I have heard good things about her dogs for sure but I wouldn't say they are "competitive with BCs". None the less, she seems to be more consistently produces collies that can herd or "do stuff" more than most any other collie breeder. I also think Kings Valley produces at the very least nice, versatile dogs although their breeding dogs are not heavily titled.

 To be fair, the collie shouldn't really be compared to the BC to judge working ability.  Instead, if I were working on reviving working ability in the collie, I'd look to the English Shepherd as a guide.  Collies were refined into their show version before their working cousins began to be bred strongly for trial success. 

So it's not as if the collie fell away from the BC's trial standard of work - the dogs that were picked for the show dog material were general purpose shepherd's dogs, mostly the yard dogs that the highbrow fanciers saw most with the Scottish sheep handlers.

Bearded collies are actually closer to BCs, genetically, having split off rather later (and with some Beardies still popping up in the BC gene pool).  The few lines of working Beardies that are left, work with eye and have natural outruns like their BC cousins, though not quite as refined. 

Collies are plain workers, more task oriented than pressure sensitive.  Eye and pressure sensitivity (they are related) is the first thing to go when one abandons breeding for stock work, and it's the hardest to get back without outcrossing or inbreeding to unsafe ratios.  Eye is required to work stock in very large areas, such as commercial breeders of thousands of head graze in.  Not too much eye, but enough that the dogs can save steps over the miles they cover on big gathers - otherwise dogs that have to control stock with movement rather than eyeballing them, end up exhausted before the first hundred or so head are taken up.

New Zealand sheep management is an interesting example of how selecting for one physical trait other than work, can affect your gene pool and limit its working ability.

Border Collies in the UK work great steep hills, plains, stockyards, chutes, drive sheep to market, and work all kinds of stock.  They do here in the US as well, and in fact have proven their effectiveness in an even wider range of working environments:  desert, heavy brush, dense woods, tidal islands, herding goats, wild cattle, feral sheep, fallow elk and deer, swine, buffalo, and many other types of stock the original developers of the breed never dreamed of.

In New Zealand and Australia, sheep ranchers prefer smooth coats in their dogs.  It's a highly practical choice, particularly in Australia, where the long coat can hide all kinds of horrible parasites and critters and potentially deadly foliage bits.

Smooth coat is dominant, meaning one has to keep culling the gene pool each generation as the recessive long coats will pop up over and over.  

Starting from the same genetics as today's BCs, ranchers over there have basically three choices of dogs to work with:  smooth coated lines of dogs that either head, or drive, or work yards; or  Border Collies that can do any of them, but will throw rough coats.

What is generally done, in fact, is to have teams of dogs from all these groups - this works just fine (and the dogs are very cool - I'd love to have a NZ Heading Dog someday).  NZ Headers work their way, and are supremely useful.  The Huntaway is really unique and a dog I'd like to see more of over here.  I have friends with Kelpies and I love their style.  All these are great examples of dogs that have different working standards from the BC, and breeders have made sure that they breed true to these standards.
 

brookcove

 To be fair, the collie shouldn't really be compared to the BC to judge working ability.  Instead, if I were working on reviving working ability in the collie, I'd look to the English Shepherd as a guide.  Collies were refined into their show version before their working cousins began to be bred strongly for trial success. 

 I actually meant to say this as well. They are not and were never such a "specialized" herding dog as a BC, more of a general useful farm dog. I don't know if the Nirvana collies are or are not true to their original function but they certainly get high end herding titles (along with being competive OB dogs) and have a reputation for having good working temperaments. Most of the collies in my area are mellow, low drive dogs who I couldn't imagine being interested in herding :(

There are a number of folks with "Off" breeds who are able to be competitive in trials with border collies.  True, border collies by breeding and numbers are the more successful in many of the trials.  However, I find the "tone" of the comments to lend toward,,, if you have an "off" breed, why bother..... That just makes me feel bad.... There are many breeds who were general farm dogs who did herding duties.  Maybe they dont do it like BCs but there is more than one way to accomplish a goal.

Have to admit,,, I really smile when an Off breed does well at a trial... not that I dont appreciate what  border collie does.  I just think there is value in diversity.  I think if you look at belgians in particular and some collies,  they come much closer to dogs that can compete in multiple venues (as noted in the subject line of this thread).  I guess I prefer generalists.

mrv

There are a number of folks with "Off" breeds who are able to be competitive in trials with border collies.  True, border collies by breeding and numbers are the more successful in many of the trials.  However, I find the "tone" of the comments to lend toward,,, if you have an "off" breed, why bother..... That just makes me feel bad.... There are many breeds who were general farm dogs who did herding duties.  Maybe they dont do it like BCs but there is more than one way to accomplish a goal.

Have to admit,,, I really smile when an Off breed does well at a trial... not that I dont appreciate what  border collie does.  I just think there is value in diversity.  I think if you look at belgians in particular and some collies,  they come much closer to dogs that can compete in multiple venues (as noted in the subject line of this thread).  I guess I prefer generalists.

 

 I don't think that at all and am not sure what you mean by "off breed". I have Belgians myself and I hope to soon be able to work my dogs on stock regularly. There are still Belgians which can be useful farm dogs, so I don't think of them as an "off breed" at all. I actually encouraged my neighbors to have their herding breed mix dog herding tested when their was a test nearby. If the dog can do the work, it doesn't matter what breed they are, although non herding breeds aren't eligiable for titles in the US (I think).

mrv

There are a number of folks with "Off" breeds who are able to be competitive in trials with border collies.

It's time for some clarifications.  The trials that define Border Collies are the ISDS style trials.  These are not found in ASCA, AHBA, or AKC/UKC venues.  Stock are not usually dog broken and have often not even been worked in groups smaller than a couple hundred at a time.  Distances are measured in hundreds of yards, not feet, even at the novice levels.  At my first trial with baby Ted I'll expect to have to pick up sheep 250 yards away, drive them about two thirds that distance back, then across that same distance, then back to a pen that is free standing, not located in a fence.  I could put a championship title on him in any of the other venues, without his ever needing to pick up sheep farther than 150 feet away, or working stock other than school stock that is demonstrably used to dogs and trialing.

True, border collies by breeding and numbers are the more successful in many of the trials.  However, I find the "tone" of the comments to lend toward,,, if you have an "off" breed, why bother.....

I fear you have been hanging out with the wrong crowd.  The ISDS people at the upper levels take what they do very seriously.  Therefore, they take anyone very seriously who respects what they do.  They may see the faults in your dog as they would any dog, but I've never met a top level trainer who I respected, who has a bad attitude towards people who choose to work non-Border Collies.  I have a friend who trials in Open with a Bearded Collie, and another who trials Aussies in Open when he has one capable of it.  And there's many Kelpies who trial USBCHA.  I've even heard of an ACD who made it to Open and even ran in the Finals one year.

To us, a dog is a dog and if your dog has got it, we want to see it.

A friend who is a well-known trainer was talking about how he was asked to do a clinic at a big ASCA get together (actually, he does it every year, not sure where).  Some of the top names in Aussies were there.  He gave a talk on the dogs during it, and somewhat to their suprise, he didn't tell them that they should get BCs.  Nor did he say they were great dogs, "Considering."  That stuff is just rude and I hate it as much as people with those breeds.  He said that their dogs were capable of great things and they needed to stop making excuses for them, and start breeding for those qualities before they were lost to the breed forever. 

That just makes me feel bad.... There are many breeds who were general farm dogs who did herding duties.  Maybe they dont do it like BCs but there is more than one way to accomplish a goal.

Actually, all control of stock comes down to some basics that every dog must have.  The differences lie in what happens to the stock once they are under control - is the goal to keep them in one place, move them through crowded chutes, catch them in large open fields, move them on very straight lines, or finesse huge flocks into shearing barns?

I just think there is value in diversity. 

Me too.  That's why it makes me sad to see the overall ability of a breed, fade with attention paid to other things.  Please note that Border Collies are specialists, like a brain surgeon.  But that doesn't mean that they have a lack of ability to do other things, in fact they tend to be rather good at those things, too - just as a brain surgeon is much better at general surgery than a family doctor, though they are both doctors.  I don't think "other" breeds need to be afraid of refinement - I just wonder whether it's less about preserving a notion of "generalization" and more about not wanting to commit to what is bound to be a difficult journey.

I, like my friend Jack, am sad to  see the excuses.

brookcove

I fear you have been hanging out with the wrong crowd.  The ISDS people at the upper levels take what they do very seriously.  Therefore, they take anyone very seriously who respects what they do.  They may see the faults in your dog as they would any dog, but I've never met a top level trainer who I respected, who has a bad attitude towards people who choose to work non-Border Collies.  I have a friend who trials in Open with a Bearded Collie, and another who trials Aussies in Open when he has one capable of it.  And there's many Kelpies who trial USBCHA.  I've even heard of an ACD who made it to Open and even ran in the Finals one year.

   That's why it makes me sad to see the overall ability of a breed, fade with attention paid to other things.  Please note that Border Collies are specialists, like a brain surgeon.  But that doesn't mean that they have a lack of ability to do other things, in fact they tend to be rather good at those things, too - just as a brain surgeon is much better at general surgery than a family doctor, though they are both doctors.  I don't think "other" breeds need to be afraid of refinement - I just wonder whether it's less about preserving a notion of "generalization" and more about not wanting to commit to what is bound to be a difficult journey.

I, like my friend Jack, am sad to  see the excuses.

 Great post! When I mentioned not knowing about the Nirvana collies being "competive with BCs" I was thinking about USBCHA trials. Not that collies should be able to do that work but that is where the competive BCs are.

 I am sad to see so many breeds where their true temperament is being "watered down" or made to be generic. To me a breed is much more than just how they look. Belgians, I believe where always a multi-purpose breed. They were herding dogs for sure (and really probably first and foremost) but also were guards of their owner's property, military dogs, messenger dogs and carting dogs. IMO the instinct that made them good at their herding job, also lent itself well to making them good at the other stuff.

Ok one more try.  I used the word "off" when I should have used Loose Eyed.  Trials described by Brooke Cove are very difficult for loose eyed dogs.  These animals by genetic selection were up right in their herding style in all likelyhood to meet the requirements of the general breed description "living fences". 

I will further clarify that when I used competitive I was speaking of the more generalist herding trials typically held by the AKC and AHBA.  Granted they are not the specialist kind of events typically thought of as herding (by the general public).

 My concern about the thread were the posts that this breed can't, and this breed can't.  I even know of (not personally but through club association) Belgians that do work wide open spaces (California working sheep; Wyoming working cattle).

 Although I may never have the chance, I think Large Flock French trials are an excellant example of the style herding Loose eyed, up right dogs were designed to address.  Those closely packed common grazing fields are thing of the past.  So when I see a breeder of an "Off breed" working hard with their own stock and then trialing I am encouraged, ( I am offering this in a respecful tone) I find that comments there no herding/working dogs within a specific breed devalue those efforts. It was not my intent to insult or antagonize but to point out that posts can be read multiple ways.  The OP wanted to know about dogs within breeds who had examples that demonstrated "excellance" in multiple venues.  I was offering examples of individuals I know who are doing just that.

 There are two questions that need to be kept separate here.  I feel as if the discussion and sentiments raised keep crossing back and forth.

1. Can the breed in question still consistently produce dogs that are useful in the function that is traditionally - or currently attached - to the breed?  Note I add the second because obviously bulldogs have had to find a modern place in the kinder segments of society.  Bulldogs were once stockdogs, way before they were fighting specialists, and were bred to work feral stock in pioneer times.  By "consistently produce" I mean, if someone gets a Golden Retriever, are they pretty much guaranteed that they'll have a useful retrieving dog?
   
2. Other people have pointed out, in response to the above question, individual dogs or kennels that, "Wow, still do X!"  That not only does not answer the above question, it is in fact a great example of the exception that proves the point.  The fact that such dogs are standouts in the breed, is a sad reflection of the status of the breed with regard to work.

I am not picking on you, mrv, you know that - you know I just love a good discussion on this point.  [lol]  To wit:

Trials described by Brooke Cove are very difficult for loose eyed dogs.  These animals by genetic selection were up right in their herding style in all likelyhood to meet the requirements of the general breed description "living fences".

Two points again:

1. Some people classify breeds with a broad brush as being "loose eyed" or "eye dogs", and usually BCs are the main dogs within the "eye" class, with every other breed being classified as "loose eyed."  Border Collies, however, can be either strong, medium, or loose eyed (I have one who works like an English Shepherd) - and in fact very high level competitors prefer loose eyed dogs because the range sheep used at the big trials, require less eye.  A strong eyed dog makes them turn and fight.  Eye and the degrees thereof is just one trait that is part of the package that helps a dog control sheep.  Every dog needs some to be effective on anything other than trained sheep.  So, this becomes another one of those excuses - "My dog is a loose eyed breed and can't do that stuff."  There are ways to train that turn the loose eyed trait into a strength rather than a weakness in BC trials.  My youngster is quite loose eyed and my experience with my older dog, Ben, is helping me out greatly (is is my instructor, who ran a similarly loose eyed dog as her first dog in Open also).
2. I'll return to the point that all herding dogs are often classified as "loose eyed" or "eye dogs" to explain the huge gulf between the BC as a breed and whatever the favorite non-BC breed of the speaker.  So, there's BCs, and "loose eyed breeds."  To lay aside the point that eye is a trait with degrees within every line of herding-bred dog, you can't argue that all dogs that performed functions other than working big fields, were deliberately bred with no eye.  First, because when BCs first began to be developed, there were about an equal number of "plain working" dogs and strong eyed dogs (with many strong eyed dogs being hampered by their eye).  It was not the eye that was selected, but the middle road between plain working and eye, with more plain workers remaining in the gene pool - required to refresh the eye as it got too strong.  Second, not every plain working dog worked as a "living fence" dog.  That function wasn't required in the hills, where natural boundaries and the instinct of sheep to return to the spot where they last lambed, kept the flocks where they belonged all summer.
   

Although I may never have the chance, I think Large Flock French trials are an excellant example of the style herding Loose eyed, up right dogs were designed to address.  Those closely packed common grazing fields are thing of the past.

I've seen videos of those trials.  I've also seen videos of common grazing fields in the Netherlands, where Texel sheep are used to  control vegetation on the dykes, and in Switzerland and Italy.  I don't think those fields are a thing of the past - the shepherds just have slightly adjusted their methods and they now use Border Collies, mostly.   Certainly, BLM lands are still being grazed here in the US - I have many friends who work these areas.  I have two other friends who had businesses grazing powerlines.  They each employed half a dozen shepherds and two to three dogs each.  The work is still there, I believe it's the dogs who have changed, sadly.

brookcove

 There are two questions that need to be kept separate here.  I feel as if the discussion and sentiments raised keep crossing back and forth.

1. Can the breed in question still consistently produce dogs that are useful in the function that is traditionally - or currently attached - to the breed?  Note I add the second because obviously bulldogs have had to find a modern place in the kinder segments of society.  Bulldogs were once stockdogs, way before they were fighting specialists, and were bred to work feral stock in pioneer times.  By "consistently produce" I mean, if someone gets a Golden Retriever, are they pretty much guaranteed that they'll have a useful retrieving dog?
   
2. Other people have pointed out, in response to the above question, individual dogs or kennels that, "Wow, still do X!"  That not only does not answer the above question, it is in fact a great example of the exception that proves the point.  The fact that such dogs are standouts in the breed, is a sad reflection of the status of the breed with regard to work.

 I do agree with that. I used to be very interested when I would hear about "working lines of corgis" still be bred. These never turned out to be working lines of corgis, not really. They always turned out to be those rare exceptions you mention more than a line of working corgis, different from show corgis. I was interested in working corgis not only for temperament but structure - how cool it would be, I thought to find corgis that still looked like traditional corgis! I was looking for an "unimproved" corgi so to speak. After several years of searching, I have accepted that such corgis likely no longer exist at least or at least they don't in any great numbers.

 GSDs were bred primarily for tending style herding but I don't believe most other "loose eyed" breeds were. At the BSCA national the HICs come with a written evaluation and testers tend to work the dogs a bit more and give more feed back than most HICs. I found it interesting that the tester felt Zette had a medium eye, although I don't think it was in comparison to a BC but to other Belgians. The tester liked Zette a lot and asked me quite a bit about her breeding. I will hopefully see how my dogs do with herding training this summer, as I may finally have access to sheep and instruction with in a reasonable distance. I would love to have a place to work them daily but it just isn't going to happen right now :( I do expect and breed for certain temperament traits that I feel are good general working traits but I realize it doesn't mean they could actually work.