diddy wrote:



What about Borderjacks that have been bred specifically for competing in
agility. The dog itself might be speutered, but the parents didn't have the
same criteria....or they wouldn't have been parents (duh)

Borderjacks are far more seen in flyball and agility, and where they are
seen in agility it's in venues that don't demand you alter mixes (i.e.,
USDAA).

Robin Nuttall wrote:
diddy wrote:



What about Borderjacks that have been bred specifically for competing
in agility. The dog itself might be speutered, but the parents didn't
have the same criteria....or they wouldn't have been parents (duh)


Borderjacks are far more seen in flyball and agility, and where they are
seen in agility it's in venues that don't demand you alter mixes (i.e.,
USDAA).


Let me rephrase that. Borderjacks are seen far more in flyball THAN
agility. They're a height dog. Really, even with the ability to keep
dogs intact in alternate agility venues like NADAC and USDAA, the great
majority of dogs are still purebred.

elegy wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:38:57 GMT, Robin Nuttall
wrote:

i met my first borderstaff at a flyball demo awhile ago. i've got to
admit, she was a really cool dog.

Yeah, but the question is, would all borderstaffs be that level of cool?
And is it right to breed dogs just to be height dogs for flyball? It's a
thorny question, and right now I'm on the side of no. Because I truly
believe very few of the people doing these crosses are also doing their
homework on things like livable temperaments, genetic health, solid
pedigrees full of long-lived dogs, and structure that will hold up over
time. I think they're going "OOO! Drive! Size! Let's do it!! And get
even more insane drive!! In a little package!!!!"

Robin Nuttall said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

Yeah, but the question is, would all borderstaffs be that
level of cool?

The answer is obviously no. I have the nicest purposely-bred
Labrador Retriever X Poodle in my daycare. It's wonderful dogs
like Sam which make people want them.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

Robin Nuttall wrote:
elegy wrote:
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:38:57 GMT, Robin Nuttall
wrote:

i met my first borderstaff at a flyball demo awhile ago. i've got to
admit, she was a really cool dog.

Yeah, but the question is, would all borderstaffs be that level of cool?
And is it right to breed dogs just to be height dogs for flyball? It's a
thorny question, and right now I'm on the side of no. Because I truly
believe very few of the people doing these crosses are also doing their
homework on things like livable temperaments, genetic health, solid
pedigrees full of long-lived dogs, and structure that will hold up over
time. I think they're going "OOO! Drive! Size! Let's do it!! And get
even more insane drive!! In a little package!!!!"

God knows that very priority is what I HATED
about the Schutzhund trainers I was studying
under way back when.

In article ,
elegy wrote:
is it wrong to breed sporter collies even though they're purebred? is
that any different than breeding borderstaffs or borderjacks or
whatever?

Yeah, I think this is an issue in pretty much any
discipline. I know of someone in Ohio who's breeding
Airedales specifically for mushing. I think that's pretty
wrong, in the sense that it's not improving the breed as a
breed.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

Prouder than ever to be a member of the reality-based community

Tara Green wrote:
Robin Nuttall wrote:
I think they're going "OOO! Drive! Size! Let's
do it!! And get even more insane drive!! In a little package!!!!"


God knows that very priority is what I HATED about the Schutzhund
trainers I was studying under way back when.

Yep. It's not limited to just just flyball or agility. And I do get
annoyed with people who point fingers at the breed people for breeding
"only for pretty" who then turn around and breed only for drive.

elegy wrote:

On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 01:50:53 GMT, Robin Nuttall
wrote:


but do the people doing it poorly make it a wrong thing to do? there
are lots and lots of dogs being bred for the conformation ring without
regard to a lot of things that i think are mighty important (health,
correct temperament) but does that mean that it's wrong to do in
general?

I think two wrongs don't make a right. I think that ANY breeder in ANY
discipline who breeds specifically for one or two major traits (drive, a
perfect head, whatever) is doing dogs a disservice. Breeding is an
incredibly complex balance and I think a huge majority of the people
breeding "only" for X, Y, or Z end up screwing things up.

I know I've told this story, but when we bred Viva we could have chosen
any male Doberman in the Western hemisphere (we seriously considered a
South American dog). But when we really started looking at pedigree,
longevity, health issues, temperament, drive, and structure then began
trying to find a dog whose strengths balanced Viva's weaknesses, our
list dwindled very rapidly to just two or three dogs. I just don't see
these Borderjack/whatever breeders giving it that kind of thought. And
frankly, almost all the really good breeders I know wouldn't be caught
dead allowing their dogs to contribute to such a cross. So I
automatically have a view that the dogs going into such a cross would be
less likely to be truly quality dogs in all the aspects I'd be looking at.

is it wrong to breed sporter collies even though they're purebred? is
that any different than breeding borderstaffs or borderjacks or
whatever?

No, I don't think it's better. I think that breeders need to at least
give consideration to what the breed was meant to do when they breed. I
tend to think the best agility BC come from strong herding stock. But
that's me...

Robin Nuttall said in
rec.pets.dogs.behavior:

And I do get
annoyed with people who point fingers at the breed people
for breeding "only for pretty" who then turn around and
breed only for drive.

One year at the agility nationals, I saw a sub-16" Border
Collie.

--
--Matt. Rocky's a Dog.

elegy wrote:
i haven't met any borderx breeders so really i can't say what they're
doing with their programs. all of the really good breeders wouldn't
allow their dogs to be crossed, but is that because crossing breeds is
"bad" or because we're all so caught in this purebred = good thing?

When you have a breed like BCs with a set of highly specific, highly
developed instincts, crossing those dogs with another breed with differing
or contrary instincts can make for very muddled-up puppies. Think Basset x
BC, for instance.

Long ago, I read a paper on the behavior of lovebird crosses. I don't
remember the exact cross, but the nest-building behavior of the parent
species were very distinct. Ah. A short description is he
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientis...or_nature_or_n
u.php

There's a link to a .pdf of the original publication at the bottom of the
page.

Humans have taken full advantage of the variability and adaptability of
dogs, breeding for extremes of size, temperament, and behavior. Breeding
herding dogs to retrievers can result in a dog that doesn't know whether to
herd ducks or retrieve them.

Of course, if you're using dogs with little or no tendency to do what the
breed is meant to do, conflicts should be fewer and less damaging to the
dog's overall well-being.

--
Mary H. and the restored Ames National Zoo:
The Right Reverand Sir Edgar "Lucky" Pan-Waffles;
U-CD ANZ Babylon Ranger, CD, RE; ANZ Pas de Duke, RN; and rotund Rhia