I plan on having and breeding for it all.
This is something we hear about in modern "versatility" BC breeders now all the time. It has been the catch phrase since the BC was dragged into the AKC.
This battle cry has been fading away now, after ten years of experimentation. You hear much less of "doing it all" these days and specialization is creating subdivisions in the BC breed faster than probably any breed has ever experienced in the US.
Why is this? I believe there's two answers. First, I'd like to define success at creating a line which can "do it all."
- The kennel clubs define excellence in the breed foremost, as excellence in the breed ring. The breed clubs (kennel club parent clubs), follow suit. I'd like to define "Excellence" as being a contender. I'm not savvy in show terms, but this would be that your dogs would be the ones people are aiming to beat when you walk in the ring, from breed to group to BIS. The last two are very important. To be a contender at group and show, you must not only have a dog that is a competant example of the breed, but also a dog that has showmanship qualities. I have never heard a group or BIS judge describe these as being anything other than arbitrary and unrelated to function. Ultimately, to compete at this level, you must breed for show qualities like attitude, a showy gait at the trot (and the structure to support that), coat that may be more aesthetic than functional, symmetrical markings, and other non-functional traits.
- In the Border Collie, success as a working dog is almost unanimously defined as either working full-time on a commercial operation (ie, a family farm which produces most or all the family income - US Dept of Ag definition), or being a contender in USBCHA Open herding trials. Again, by contender I mean that the spectators do not pick your run as being a good time to get a bite to eat or visit the porta-jon. Most dogs that are in the second group are also in the first.
There are currently no dogs which meet the conditions in item 1, which also meet the conditions in item 2. Period. In the UK, they've had 23 years to try to produce a show champion, who could even make it around an Open course (same as ours). Two have managed to do it. And those dogs couldn't meet the second qualification in a trial sense - they weren't contenders, they were just barely competant. Because the UK club made awarding full championship status to dogs that could prove working ability, they now have decided to lower their original "working" standard to something along the lines of an instinct test.
I think there's a lesson in there. That's a breed that has bred true to work for 100 years, and in less than 20 years the show version can no longer demonstrate competency in the work that used to be the breed standard. It's like a GSD that can't achieve the very basic Sch title. Oh wait, there's plenty of those, too, I guess. :(
Why can't you breed for both? Why are some breeds, like guard dogs and scent hounds, more successful at crossover breeding than others?
I think the answer lies in how complex the work is. Herding breeds must balance many opposing temperamental and physical forces to be effective. They must be athletic without being fragile (like the whippet) or inflexible (like the mastiff). They must be independent thinkers without sacrificing biddability (like the coonhound). They must have split second reaction times, without sacrificing impulse control. They must be thoughtful without being hesitant (like the bloodhound). They must have the desire to control prey, without the tendency to "lock up" (like the bird dog).
The same is true to some extend of most work, but there are definitely some lines of work that are more complex than others. You can really measure it to some degree by how long it takes to train a dog to the level of basic usefulness. A guard dog puppy is born guarding and has bonded to the flock and knows the basics shortly after it begins to toddle around. It takes years and years, on the other hand, to produce a dog that an officer can confidently trust with his life.
So why can't you have police dogs that will win in the show ring? Why aren't there herding group Westminister winners that are also herding trial champions (competitive champions, not the titles awarded on the qualification system)?
The problem lies in genetics, and this is why wishful thinking, as I understand it, will never overcome the problem.
Performance levels in a breed depend on having a wide and varied gene pool to draw from. The balance which produces excellence in performance, must be refreshed in each generation, drawing from different lines all the time. The overall standard is homogenous, but there must be wide variation in the lines to maintain balance, because you can't breed for "balance." There are some traits which, when bred like to like, produce something different and nonfunctional.
Eye in BCs is a good example. If you breed moderate eye ("perfect" eye) to moderate eye, you will get a range of pups from strong eyed, to completely locked up. In the next generation, it's possible to breed the strong eyed dog to one with less eye again, which usually will produce pups with moderate eye again. Another less famous example is "hardness" - if you breed dogs that are very keen enough to work, but have just barely enough biddability, together, you'll end up with puppies that will sulk and refuse to work when the rules begin to be laid down.
So to keep all these traits in moderation, you need lines that will breed true to the varying degrees of traits. If I breed to Thomason's Burtersett Lad line, I know I'll get wide outrunning dogs. If I breed to Wilson's Roy, I know I'll get great stock sense and terrific temperaments. Without the lines that breed true, these traits die out, because of the way that breeding like to like tends to shift the trait to something cullworthy.
So what happens when you add to the selection process, culling for traits that have nothing to do with performance? Immediately you can see that you are narrowing your gene pool.
A very simplified example can demonstrate how culling for arbitrary traits can lower performance. You want the fastest racehorse. So you breed racehorses - you select only the ones with the best times over whatever standard you're using, as your foundation stock. But, now you decide that your fast racehorses must also have a tail that reaches below his or her hocks.
After many years you have a line of racehorses with long tails. Are they the fastest racehorses? Or the fastest with long tails?
In fact, if you know anything about horse breeding as well, you probably realize that these horses won't be particularly fast at all. So many factors go into the ability to sustain speed with a jockey on board (not even counting winning races), that throwing in one arbitrary trait can threaten the soundness and genetic health of your line.
Livestock breeders have known this for hundreds of years. This is why the sheep breeders who created the BC breed deliberately separated themselves from the notion of showing, right from the start. Awareness of what a threat the breed ring is to performance, has been part of the culture of BC breeding right down the generations.