From: \

I'd say breeding for the sports market is a pretty big problem.

Why, if it's done responsibly? {Let's just define 'responsibly' as what
passes for responsible within this newsgroup.}

There's a hell of a lot more dogs competing in agility than herding, or
being used as 'real' working dogs. Why is it a bad thing to produce
dogs specifically for that sport if the dogs are sound, health tested,
and placed with care? As a potential owner, I"m more apt to go to a
breeder that understands my sport and knows what I'm looking for and
need, rather than someone who has a 1,000 acre sheep farm and hasn't a
clue.

When I was looking for my GSD pup, I went to straight working lines,
with dogs up close that had done well in National and World
competitions, and had produced successful sport dogs along with working
K9's. I wanted damned near over-the-top drive, confidence, and hard
temperament. Moderate bone and angulation. And I got what I wanted.
Should I decide to go with a BC as my next pup, it just makes sense to
me to follow the same criteria I used in selecting Kira. I truly don't
understand why that's a bad thing. I want a sport dog, makes sense to
me to go to a breeder that breeds for sport. She's health testing,
guaranteeing the pups, has a first refusal clause, requires OFA, and
spay neuter. All the things the regulars in these parts find acceptable.
*And* the dogs she breeds are proven in my sport. What's the problem?

Debbie

Melanie L Chang wrote:
Debbie S ) wrote:

: There's a hell of a lot more dogs competing in agility than herding, or
: being used as 'real' working dogs. Why is it a bad thing to produce
: dogs specifically for that sport if the dogs are sound, health tested,
: and placed with care?

Because sports breeders ignore breed type, which for this breed has
nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with ability. A dog
who is bred for "performance sports" may well be a perfectly nice dog,
but it is not a good example of a Border Collie. As I've said before, it
makes about as much sense to me as breeding giant Chihuahuas, or
Dalmatians without spots.

you are incredibly freakin' stupid for a grad student.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



this is michael
reporting live...
http://dogtv.com

Melanie L Chang wrote:
Debbie S ) wrote:

: There's a hell of a lot more dogs competing in agility than herding, or
: being used as 'real' working dogs. Why is it a bad thing to produce
: dogs specifically for that sport if the dogs are sound, health tested,
: and placed with care?

Because sports breeders ignore breed type, which for this breed has
nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with ability. A dog
who is bred for "performance sports" may well be a perfectly nice dog,
but it is not a good example of a Border Collie. As I've said before, it
makes about as much sense to me as breeding giant Chihuahuas, or
Dalmatians without spots.

you are incredibly freakin' stupid for a grad student.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------



this is michael
reporting live...
http://dogtv.com

you're an idiot.

Melanie L Chang wrote:

Debbie S ) wrote:

: *And* the dogs she breeds are proven in my sport. What's the problem?

Another thing is that I think it has been proven many, many times that a
dog does not need to be bred specifically for agility to be an outstanding
agility dog. The aptitudes that make for a great agility dog are fairly
generic, and tend to be met with ease by purpose-bred herding dogs --
which is how Border Collies became a sport dog of choice to begin with. I
look at breeding specifically for agility (don't even get me started on
flyball) as watering down a breed that has much more to offer, and losing
the essence of what makes the breed unique.

I'm not saying they aren't nice dogs, and I'm sure the people who have
custom-job "sport-bred" Border Collies are happy with them. But I do
think that the end results of such breeding programs will no longer be
what I recognize and love as Border Collies, when they have lost their
nature and heritage as true working dogs. Since you have a true working
GSD, you must understand this. Working stock isn't just something Border
Collies do; it is what defines them. Not generic traits like "drive" or
"crouchiness" or "athleticism." A true working dog has a brain that is
wired differently. That is what constitutes BC "breed type."

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

you're an idiot.

Melanie L Chang wrote:

Debbie S ) wrote:

: *And* the dogs she breeds are proven in my sport. What's the problem?

Another thing is that I think it has been proven many, many times that a
dog does not need to be bred specifically for agility to be an outstanding
agility dog. The aptitudes that make for a great agility dog are fairly
generic, and tend to be met with ease by purpose-bred herding dogs --
which is how Border Collies became a sport dog of choice to begin with. I
look at breeding specifically for agility (don't even get me started on
flyball) as watering down a breed that has much more to offer, and losing
the essence of what makes the breed unique.

I'm not saying they aren't nice dogs, and I'm sure the people who have
custom-job "sport-bred" Border Collies are happy with them. But I do
think that the end results of such breeding programs will no longer be
what I recognize and love as Border Collies, when they have lost their
nature and heritage as true working dogs. Since you have a true working
GSD, you must understand this. Working stock isn't just something Border
Collies do; it is what defines them. Not generic traits like "drive" or
"crouchiness" or "athleticism." A true working dog has a brain that is
wired differently. That is what constitutes BC "breed type."

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
|
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Debbie S" wrote in message
...

Why, if it's done responsibly? {Let's just define 'responsibly' as what
passes for responsible within this newsgroup.}

There's a hell of a lot more dogs competing in agility than herding, or
being used as 'real' working dogs. Why is it a bad thing to produce
dogs specifically for that sport if the dogs are sound, health tested,
and placed with care? As a potential owner, I"m more apt to go to a
breeder that understands my sport and knows what I'm looking for and
need, rather than someone who has a 1,000 acre sheep farm and hasn't a
clue.

When I was looking for my GSD pup, I went to straight working lines,
with dogs up close that had done well in National and World
competitions, and had produced successful sport dogs along with working
K9's. I wanted damned near over-the-top drive, confidence, and hard
temperament. Moderate bone and angulation. And I got what I wanted.
Should I decide to go with a BC as my next pup, it just makes sense to
me to follow the same criteria I used in selecting Kira. I truly don't
understand why that's a bad thing. I want a sport dog, makes sense to
me to go to a breeder that breeds for sport. She's health testing,
guaranteeing the pups, has a first refusal clause, requires OFA, and
spay neuter. All the things the regulars in these parts find acceptable.
*And* the dogs she breeds are proven in my sport. What's the problem?

No problem to me, Debbie. I'm in 100% agreement.

Christy

"Debbie S" wrote in message
...

Why, if it's done responsibly? {Let's just define 'responsibly' as what
passes for responsible within this newsgroup.}

There's a hell of a lot more dogs competing in agility than herding, or
being used as 'real' working dogs. Why is it a bad thing to produce
dogs specifically for that sport if the dogs are sound, health tested,
and placed with care? As a potential owner, I"m more apt to go to a
breeder that understands my sport and knows what I'm looking for and
need, rather than someone who has a 1,000 acre sheep farm and hasn't a
clue.

When I was looking for my GSD pup, I went to straight working lines,
with dogs up close that had done well in National and World
competitions, and had produced successful sport dogs along with working
K9's. I wanted damned near over-the-top drive, confidence, and hard
temperament. Moderate bone and angulation. And I got what I wanted.
Should I decide to go with a BC as my next pup, it just makes sense to
me to follow the same criteria I used in selecting Kira. I truly don't
understand why that's a bad thing. I want a sport dog, makes sense to
me to go to a breeder that breeds for sport. She's health testing,
guaranteeing the pups, has a first refusal clause, requires OFA, and
spay neuter. All the things the regulars in these parts find acceptable.
*And* the dogs she breeds are proven in my sport. What's the problem?

No problem to me, Debbie. I'm in 100% agreement.

Christy

Melanie L Chang wrote:

At the same time, the
breeders I know care about where their puppies go and will place one in a
good sport home before a working home where the dog will be treated like
a tool.

But isn't that where it all started anyway? Aren't border collies what
they are today because they were the best tool for working farm homes?
They are a living tool that enjoys that work, but isn't that magic you
experience with herding your bc's largely because of their "tool"
aspect? Of course you also live with and love your dogs, but bc's are
not happy being lived with, they are happy being used for what they were
fashioned to be, herding tools. What is wrong with acknowledging that
aspect of a bc's development and current makeup? When we complain about
people choosing a dog by what it looks like or what is in the most
popular ads or tv shows instead of what it was bred for, we are, in
essence, acknowledging that the most important thing to acknowledge in a
breed is what it was *used* for when the breed was being developed.
IOW, its tool factor. That's not a bad thing, it is a recognition of
what makes the dog tick and what it lives to *do*, which, for a working
dog, is the essence of what it lives to *be.*

--
Paula
"Where would Science be if every new idea that came along
were greeted with "That won't work", instead of "Let's
TRY it!" You first." -- Doctroid Holmes

Melanie L Chang wrote:

At the same time, the
breeders I know care about where their puppies go and will place one in a
good sport home before a working home where the dog will be treated like
a tool.

But isn't that where it all started anyway? Aren't border collies what
they are today because they were the best tool for working farm homes?
They are a living tool that enjoys that work, but isn't that magic you
experience with herding your bc's largely because of their "tool"
aspect? Of course you also live with and love your dogs, but bc's are
not happy being lived with, they are happy being used for what they were
fashioned to be, herding tools. What is wrong with acknowledging that
aspect of a bc's development and current makeup? When we complain about
people choosing a dog by what it looks like or what is in the most
popular ads or tv shows instead of what it was bred for, we are, in
essence, acknowledging that the most important thing to acknowledge in a
breed is what it was *used* for when the breed was being developed.
IOW, its tool factor. That's not a bad thing, it is a recognition of
what makes the dog tick and what it lives to *do*, which, for a working
dog, is the essence of what it lives to *be.*

--
Paula
"Where would Science be if every new idea that came along
were greeted with "That won't work", instead of "Let's
TRY it!" You first." -- Doctroid Holmes

Gwen Watson wrote:


IMO, we all see magic in our dogs. Even when they are mixes.

The magic I see in my dogs is that they are all still alive. They
survived at least one abandonment before they got here and they haven't
driven me to strangle them since.

--
Paula
"Where would Science be if every new idea that came along
were greeted with "That won't work", instead of "Let's
TRY it!" You first." -- Doctroid Holmes