Breeding for standards, work, temperament, health or all.

Most people do not want and cannot handle a working dog.

See, this I don't get.  Why get a working dog, then?  Those dogs were all bred for many generations without regard to anything other than work and made GREAT family dogs.  There weren't any "temperament" or "healthy pet" breeders.

If you don't want a BC because you have to keep it from herding cars/cats/kids, get something else, not a fake BC.  Ditto German shepherd, Aussie, etc, etc, etc.

After many years of rescuing, I still cannot understand the reasoning behind, "I want an X, but I don't want one that ACTS like an X."  To me that's like saying, "I want a Great Dane, but I want one that is under twenty pounds."  Or, "I want an Irish Setter, but I don't like red hair so I want a black one."

Brookcove, I understand what you are saying, but the bench people will say that they are testing the best breeding stock at the dog shows.  Many of the "show quality" dogs are not built, do not have the coat, temperment or drive to do the task that they were originally bred for.  Go figure. Yet they are considered the "highest quality".  So are they fake or just bred for a different perspective?  It's a riddle. 

I think that if people who buy the designer dogs for big bucks are proud of their dogs, treat them well and enjoy them, more power to them. 

see, I don't get people who breed ONLY for looks, or only for temperament, or only for health-- why you can't breed for all three if you put your mind to it? Sport-bred arabs are gorgeous, mentally stable, stay sound into their 30's, and are capable of performing to high standards in any sport of your choosing-- or baby sit your kids who are learning to ride. Your silly halter-bred arab only meets one of those criteria-- so therefore they are inferior by any objective standard and should not be bred.
Same with "bench setters". Why on earth would anyone want a setter who couldn't hunt? They should also be pretty and healthy and pleasant to have around, sure. A border collie who can't herd? forget it. There are always going to be "wash outs" from any breeding program-- the setter who wasn't birdy enough, the border collie who just didn't have enough drive to actually work sheep, and these dogs are more than capable of fulfilling other roles in other people's lives (after being neutered of course). No need to try to breed for less than perfection.
When you get to breeds whose traditional "use" has been lost, the argument gets a little blurry. But no one wants unhealthy dogs with nasty temperaments who can't be trained in basic obedience.

i couldn't care less about looks...if the dog is good-looking, great...if not, i really don't care, as long as he looks like a normal dog.
 
i want a sweet dog, that doesn't look scary, that loves to: play, meet people and other dogs...is smart, obedient on the important stuff, is healthy and athletic, etc...
 

ORIGINAL: brookcove

Most people do not want and cannot handle a working dog.

See, this I don't get.  Why get a working dog, then? 

 
I didn't!  I got a conformation bred Labrador Retriever.  He's NOT a working dog, he's a family pet.  He is an intense retriever with a bumper or a ball - but he's not birdy.  He's been bred to be adaptable and easy going - not driven and high strung.   I agree with you in regards to most of the herding breeds.  The inherent working traits that are still very much intact, do not lend themselves to make a great family pet.  Not only does JQP not work his dog, he doesn't even know what it was bred to do! 
 

Those dogs were all bred for many generations without regard to anything other than work and made GREAT family dogs.  There weren't any "temperament" or "healthy pet" breeders.

 
Agreed.  But that was then and this is now.   The dogs that were bred without regard to anything but work - had actual work to do!!  It all fell into place very nicely.  How many dog owners in 2006 actually have work for their dog to do??  As I stated in my first sentence, I do not hunt and I will never hunt.  Why would I get a dog that is bred to hunt?  I wouldn't.  I will get a dog that is conformationally sound and the result of a consciencious breeding program. 
 
I also worked in Rescue (Lab) for 15 long hard years and saw first hand the result of people getting a Lab because they make such perfect family pets, right?  Right, as long as you don't get one from field lines, then force it into the life of a pet.  Essentially, I absolutely agree - don't get a working dog, if you're not going to work it.  The fact remains that very few people work their dogs, which is part of the reason for many of the breed splits we see today.  I just don't think that the split between conformation and working lines is a bad thing. 
 

ORIGINAL: mudpuppy

see, I don't get people who breed ONLY for looks, or only for temperament, or only for health-- why you can't breed for all three if you put your mind to it?

 
That's exactly what the conformation folks are doing.  Breeding for all three. 
 

When you get to breeds whose traditional "use" has been lost, the argument gets a little blurry. But no one wants unhealthy dogs with nasty temperaments who can't be trained in basic obedience.

 
Haven't all breeds traditional "use" been lost though?  Except in very small percentages?   The Setter that won't hunt - how many people actually hunt?   For those that do, they have their own breeding programs.  How about the Setter that *will* hunt? That *needs* to hunt?  He ends up in a shelter, or in rescue because the family that bought him wanted a family pet, not a hunting companion.  He's screwed.  Nobody wins by insisting on breeding for very specific traits that maintain the exact original purpose of  these breeds. 

I've learned alot about this whole issue since getting Marlowe. Previously I'd only had pound mutts, so the whole breed-standard thing was a non-issue. The mutts were accidents and in a perfect world they wouldn't exist, but in an imperfect world, I'll give them a good home.
 
Now that I know more about pure-bred dogs, I'd have to tend to agree with mudpuppy on this one. Why can't a dog be both able to show on the bench and work and pass a temperment evaluation? Why do people only breed for one thing at a time? And as far as who gets to breed, we need to use some criteria, folks. Not using any, well, that's what created the situation we have now.
 
The one thing I can't decide about is the breeding out the working drives from traditionally working dogs. I'm not a big fan of most of the companion breeds (too needy, too posessive, too single-person-dog) and I'd hate to be relegated to just having those breeds to choose from (in my perfect world where there are no more pound dogs that need homes). Yet, I don't do any of the things that dogs are traditionally bred for. I don't hunt, I don't have a farm, I live in the city. But I'd be afraid that by selecting for lower working drives, the fundamental nature of the dog would change to the point where it wouldn't be that breed anymore. If the ridiculous prey drive and instinctual treeing behavior of the coonhound was bred out, would they still have the stubborn, independent temperment that I love so much? If it was no longer of concern whether or not they be able to hunt in packs, would their ability to get along so well with other dogs be impacted?

He's been bred to be adaptable and easy going - not driven and high strung.   I agree with you in regards to most of the herding breeds.  The inherent working traits that are still very much intact, do not lend themselves to make a great family pet.

No, I'm actually saying the opposite.  A well-bred working dog isn't "driven" (by that I assume you mean unable to settle) and high strung.  It's another aspect of the balance I was talking about.  A good working dog needs to be able to "turn it off" - or he will drive himself and everyone around him nuts. 

Pet dogs and working dogs have always come from the same litters in BCs - it is impossible to tell which pups will make it at that age, so working breeders put together the best match possible and then often will simply sell the pups and take whatever is left for themselves, or pick the only male, or the one that looks like a favorite ancestor, or some other arbitrary method.  The other pups go work on small farms, go to someone who takes lessons and trials on weekends, does dog sports, or just wants a family pet.

Working Border collies (and, from what I've seen, other true working lines) make fine pets for someone prepared to offer the breed what it needs.  Where they crash and burn as pets, is with people who aren't prepared for any high-need dog.  They probably wouldn't do well with most dogs, much less a dog that needs lots of structure and time with "the master".

I've brought home a hundred or more dogs straight off the farm, or out of high-end training operations.  These dogs settle happily in home life with no problem, and they don't need to work my sheep to adjust or fit in the family (heck, they are just as glad not to mess with that anymore).  Again, another characteristic of a working dog is the ability to adjust quickly to new circumstances and under extreme pressure - what we'd call a super stable temperament.

I've got a terrific boy right now named Curly.  Curly is a homely fellow, six years old, literally has never been anywhere except the farm he came from - except when he was brought there as a six-week-old pup.  He's from outstanding working lines.  I took him to Pet supplies Plus the second day I had him - after a little suspicion of the automatic door and the shiny floor, he quickly warmed up to the place, schmoozing with the clerks, trying to sneak treats out of the bins.  He's visited church, other stores, parks, and has taken to it all.  This is pretty typical, though he's right at the top of the confidence scale from what I've seen.  He lost his previous job through no fault of his own, or anyone else's - a gate fell on him while he was helping load cattle in a barn, and ever since he's been a little hesitant while working in the chutes.  Being distracted will get you killed when loading a hundred bulls twice a day

We warn people "do not get a BC if you do not want a BC"  That makes sense, doesn't it? What we want to keep is our good all-around dogs, not see the breed seperate into crazy dogs nobody wants around and that are doomed to live in a crate all their lives, and Golden retrievers in tuxedoes that can't even catch a Frisbee well, they are so squared off, dumbed down, and coated up.

It may be different for hunting breeds.  I believe the skillset may be inherited differently and allow for less directed breeding.  But there is no doubt that it is NOT possible to breed for the same skills that the Border collie requires now, AND anything else.  Nothing else.  Period.  We even agonize over thinning out the gene pool by culling dogs where we can predict the heritability of the disease.  The working club and registry has been pushing gene id and location so we can balance maintaining the gene pool and improving soundness.

I think in breeds that have rejected their working heritage for the most part, there's no real issue in their continuing to focus on the conformation standard.  But I do not ever want to place my life in the hands of a dog that has been bred for anything other than the work I depend on.  The problem is, if conformation comes to be accepted as THE standard for a working breed, can I find a dog that has been bred ONLY for work in the future?

I do have to say that there are breeds that do well both on the bench and in the field.  Many of the birddogs (Pointer, GSP, GWP, Vishla, etc) are bred to do both.  Too bad that there is such a split in others.  For a while, years ago, you were seeing more field type retreivers doing well on the bench.  Now the bench variety of Lab is extremely different. 

The German Shepherd is a classic example, I think, of a breed that differs greatly according to many lines. 

I agree, Mudpuppy about the halter arabs.  Some of them are so extreme that they are frightening.  Nothing better than an endurance bred Arab, though. 

I think a Beagle is another good example.  It's why I hesitate to generalize on this issue as so many of my cohorts do.  I think you see a lot of pressure from within the clubs and breeders staying true to the working characteristics, in those breeds.  Plus as I said, the very nature of hunting instinct may be (actually, I'm pretty sure it is), more stable.  After all, probably hunting was the first "job" which created the dog as the very first domestic species.

But it seems pretty clear that herding is a less natural activity that has to be maintained at a high level from one generation to the next, or it will be lost.  I'm talking about the ability to contribute usefully to a commercial operation, as opposed to winning ribbons in an arena (which I have nothing against, obviously, since I do it too - that just not the standard that will maintain a breed as a working breed).

"We warn people "do not get a BC if you do not want a BC"  That makes sense, doesn't it? What we want to keep is our good all-around dogs, not see the breed seperate into crazy dogs nobody wants around and that are doomed to live in a crate all their lives..."
I agree with this and spread the word as much as possible.  I can't tell you how many people have met my dog at the park or elsewhere and said "we'll have to get one of those."  I firmly explain to them that I don't have 5 kids, nor do I work 60 hours a week.  I believe that my dog is a product of my research and my countless hours of work and exercise.  There are far too many BC's that end up in shelters because people meet a "cool" one and go out and get their own.  I also totally agree with the point about being able to turn the herding on and off.  My dog will get going, and with the command "we're done now" she's totally over it!  I'm blessed, because that could absolutely wear you out!
 
I'm so glad that the Border Collie people are chiming in on this.  I've read many of the posts and agree with several points from all different perspectives.  I have been to shows and seen some gorgeous examples of BC's with smooth long coats and symmetrical coloring, but they seem to be missing that infamous BC 'look in their eye.'  But I have also been fortunate to spend a week on a working ranch in West Texas.  I was absolutely amazed at the work ethic of these dogs and they made it clear what their sole purpose is.  I don't want to hurt their feelings, but clearly wasn't for their appearance
. 
After much research towards the decision, I now own a 7 year old BC that I got as a puppy from a breeder. I don't have a surplus of herdable stock, but I do have horses and wanted a BC that was athletic, intelligent, able to enjoy a farm, and who was first and fore-most healthy.  Looks were of minimal importance, but I do admit that the cuteness factor assisteded in my choice of 6 week old puppies.  I definitely wanted to meet both parents to check out the foundation of my puppy.  Her parents worked recreationally on a daily basis by herding the family farm animals under the supervision of their owners, but they were also pets.  At the time, I was going against the grain because I was in college, lived in an apartment and knew that I would have to be absolutely dedicated in the exercise and training of my dog, and myself.  I wanted a BC for their trademarked qualities, but I wasn't looking for a dog that would eat, breathe, and sleep herding.  I could have gone to a shelter (which I do advocate as a wonderful way to get a dog) but I chose to go to a breeder based on the ability to "eyeball" her parents, environment, health, etc.  For those who suggest that pet quality dogs should be gotten from a shelter...how do you know if you're getting pet quality.  You might get home with an intense working dog, which would then go against the theory of adopting a pet quality dog.  I looked at several litters, and felt comfortable with the choice I made and thusfar it's proven to be a great owner/dog combination.  My vet and others who know BC's have commented that she has a great herding instinct and intelligence, but after the trip to texas, I think that their opinion is somewhat city-fied.  She's perfect for me - above average in most categories and is impeccably well behaved, smarter than your average human, and wonderfully dispositioned but she's not over the top with her work ethic nor is she lazy.  So in my situation, I was actually SEEKING pet quality.  If I were looking for a super-model of a dog, or a die-hard herdaholic, I would be able to search and find one amongst the different breeders. So, if it's okay to search for those qualities, why wouldn't it be okay to search for "average" qualities.   Especially if there's a demand.  And I repeat, I am a huge advocate of shelters, and don't condone backyard breeding, but I must say that I am "pro-choice" on being able to choose the qualities that you want in a dog.

Some reading material:

The instinct:http://www.bordercollie.org/ed1.html

The work:http://www.bordercollie.org/nt.html

The standard:http://www.bordercollie.org/ud.html

Breeding the working dog:http://www.bordercollie.org/kpwhat.html

Why conformation has no place in breeding working dogs:http://www.bordercollie.org/kpmany.html

And the genetics of behavior (why it is harder to breed for, than conformational characteristics):http://www.bordercollie.org/kpbehav.html

Yeah, generalization on this topic is fruitless! The more we talk about it, the more I realize that all breeds are not the same. My focus is narrowly geared toward Labs and sporting breeds. I have seen WAY too many field line Labs, Weims, Goldens, etc. that just don't do well in a "strictly pet" household. My sister for example, (admirably) rescued a field bred Weim. She read that Weims would make a great family pets and would do very well in her very suburban environment. This poor dog is miserable. She (the dog, Nya) is totally frustrated, destructive, high strung, etc. because my sister, with her 2 kids - cannot satisy Nya's inherent need to work. Nya ended up in rescue because she couldn't cut it in the field. What to do? There are only so many homes who have the time, energy, money and inclination to give their working dog a proper job. A field bred Lab is high strung and unable to settle unless it is able to do what it's been bred to do (or some similar variation) What's the answer? Support the split in certain breeds, not support it in others? And if the split becomes so wide that you essentially have created 2 different breeds, is that acceptable?

So in my situation, I was actually SEEKING pet quality.  If I were looking for a super-model of a dog, or a die-hard herdaholic, I would be able to search and find one amongst the different breeders.

That's a really good point.  Another characteristic of working lines is that they work with people, and different people need different types of dogs.  So there's a lot of variety built into these lines with that fact.  I'm with you - I love my laid back dogs and after almost twelve years in the breed, I'm just starting to understand what lines yield that great attitude that I like.  Some people like a dog that's a little more intense - they really like being pestered all the time with the soggy tennis ball, etc. 

But, most dogs can adapt IF you are prepared to meet their minimum needs.  For a BC, it's the need for a job, a leader, and structure.  For my Marremmas, they need to know what is "okay" and "not okay" in their environment, and they need to know who's in charge, but don't need constant direction like the BCs.

If you propose to take a working breed into your home, it stands to reason that you need to adapt to the dog's needs, if you don't already lead a lifestyle where such a dog would fit in.    I don't understand why people would want to change the breed to fit their lifestyles.  I'm sorry, but that seems, well, kind of selfish.

I just checked.  The AKC registers over 150 breeds.  Not enough?  The UKC has over 300 and the FCI recognizes about the same number, but many different breeds.  Surely in all those dogs, and all the millions dying in shelter, there is just one that might work in for a casual dog owner better than a working breed.

If you read any old text on Terriers or Gundogs, or Hounds...the words "handsome"..."stylish" etc are used again and again...it AIN'T a sin to be pretty folks...in fact it was considered an asset to many breed developers....it was important...alway has been, in many breeds.
 
IMO people who breed solely to show are doing no more damage than those sacrificing liveable companion (the actual universal "job" of any dog) temperament to win the next trial or attain the next title on their dogs.
 
I urge anyone who has a gundog or hound or Terrier...really consider outside this American sphere and look into the history and the people who first brought these breeds into being....what were they like? what was their vision? what did they value? were they workman like blue collar types who had to hunt to survive...or were they living some cushy life where one would contemplate the beauty and symmetry of a dog just as much as the function? You might be suprised just how much "looks did matter" to these people in some breeds,...and how little it did in others.
 
In my breed for ex the English wanted a DRASTICALLY different dog than American hunters do...the hunting itself is even different..so the dogs look quite a bit different...
 
I feel I understand their (the English founders of the breed) vision of the "merry little hound" quite well. Many lines fell by the wayside, simply because they were unattractive...lol.
 
Balance is indeed key!