Assessing Sporting Ability

[Paganman]

Jed, can you post more often please? It makes my day, a daily pick me up! I imagine most people feel the same way, so keep posting. We love it.

I absolutely agree with Lord Midol, I always enjoy your posts Jed I can tell your very knowledgable and someone whos had lots of experience with lots of dogs.You never sound rude or arrogant and you dont come across as a 5 minute expert like some people on dogz.

So yeah keep posting Jed

[Vickie]

I don't understand your animosity Jed? It seems out of character.

...but I am over people with smuck all knowledge arguing for pages about what rot standards are, and how crap purebred dogs are.

And I've owned and worked ONE herding dog - on properties - not in trials. And I've lived on more properties and seen more real working dogs than you will ever see - working in paddocks, working in yards, backing sheep, loading goats, working cattle.

And I'm not an expert by any means, but I am sick of people who rubbish purebred dogs, and standards they have never read, and are not interested in reading, and would not understand if they did read them, so generally know smuck all about it, simply because they think it is smart.

I don't understand why you are more entitled to an opinion than I am? I am no expert either, but my opinions are based on knowledge, research & experience. They just happen to be different to yours.

I don't say standards are rot and I appreciate the dedication & success that people put into achieving them. But for my breed, the Border Collie, I believe that focussing on a conformation standard is detrimental to the breed. This is not something I sat down & personally came up with on a rainy day, it is an opinion I share with those far more knowlegeable & experienced than I am. There are books written about it, the biggest purebred BC registry in the world took the Kennel Club to court over it. Surely you can be open to the fact that there is some merit in the discussion? The country of origin is still breeding outstanding dogs just as they have done for hundreds of years, without any attempt to focus on a conformation standard and the dogs still look and work just like they did before Australia tried to "improve" the breed.

There needs to be a distinction made between a farmer who puts 2 pure or crossbred dogs together to get pups and one who maintains pedigrees and breeds the best he can with certain traits in mind. The 2nd type of purebred breeder puts every bit as much effort into improving his lines as a dedicated conformation breeder does. If a conformation breeder breeds 2 dogs which have 6 generations behind them that resemble the standard very closely, the likelihood is that nearly all the offspring will also resemble the standard very closely. Same for the working breeder, 2 great workers with generations of great workers behind, will for the majority produce great workers. There are great breeders of conformation dogs and there are great breeders of working dogs...and there are also duds in both too.

I am happy for you to call me a smart arse know it all, but I think you also need to accept that the opinion I have about my breed is shared by many (actually the majority of Purebred BC breeders) with concrete facts & logical arguments and more experience than you or I will ever have with working dogs. I don't see them as "rubbishing the standards" so much as desperately & successfully trying to prove that one particular breed is better off without them.

Edited March 29, 2009 by Vickie

[JulesP]

Is the standard at fault though? Or is it the way it has been interpreted? Or changed. The judges are at fault that don't judge to the standard. ie placing heavy dogs with massive coats. There are some things in the BC standard that are just plain silly, like pricked ears & colour, but a lot of the standard gives the picture of a sound dog that can work, leg shape etc. Just finished reading Susan Garretts Shaping Success book and her dog Buzz was not in good shape due to his conformation. There are always some individuals that can work regardless of bad confirmation but I can't see anything wrong with trying to breed animals with correct conformation.

[Vickie]

I think to blame "the standard" or the way it is interpreted, (although there are some valid arguments for doing so) is missing the point Jules. The biggest issue the people I support believe is that since the traits required for herding are so incredibly complex, to introduce any other selection criteria (such as appearance) into breeding is to compromise those thngs they consider important and crucial to maintaining the breed as it has always been.

Here's an anaolgy, I was just outside looking at my ripening mandarins on our tree & it occurred to me (yes I know it's weird , but hey so am I). My mandarins look totally different to the supermarket ones, they tend to be on the small size, it varies a bit, they are full of seeds, their colour ranges from a pale lime orange colour to rich orange and they are sometimes a bit blemished. But they are the best damned mandarins I have ever tasted. They serve a purpose for me, my friends & family, we love them & can't get enough of them.

I don't buy mandarins from supermarkets. They look good, perfect uniform colour & shape, hardly any seeds & unblemished...but they serve no purpose for me b/c quite honestly they taste like crap. They may look good in my fruit bowl & I'm sure a lot of effort went into making them so perfect, but...I don't like them & won't buy them.

I know it is ridiculous to compare a dog to a piece of fruit, and I know the process of creation has few parallels. All I am saying is that sometimes in trying to achieve something else, you can lose aspects of what is really important and I believe that is what has happened to the conformation bred BC.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Vickie

[Keshwar]

The main problem I have with the split between show and working is that such a split exists at all.

IMO if a dog meets the standard for that breed is should be able to do what it is bred to do. Unfortunately, these days it is not always the case for a variety of reasons.

There seems to be an unhealthy focus, IMO, on the need to 'improve' the breed. I think there needs to be more maintaining of breeds than improving for improvements sake. Sure breed to improve health or temperament but I not sure that most breeds around today need to have the way they look 'improved'.

Bear.

[Alyosha]

The main problem I have with the split between show and working is that such a split exists at all.

IMO if a dog meets the standard for that breed is should be able to do what it is bred to do. Unfortunately, these days it is not always the case for a variety of reasons.

There seems to be an unhealthy focus, IMO, on the need to 'improve' the breed. I think there needs to be more maintaining of breeds than improving for improvements sake. Sure breed to improve health or temperament but I not sure that most breeds around today need to have the way they look 'improved'.

Bear.

[JulesP]

No point having a dog with brilliant herding ability if its legs are made in such a way that it breaks down at 5. All that training wasted. Conformation is not about appearance. It is about producing an animal that is sound. Anyone that doesn't get that is missing the point.

[Kavik]

But Jules, do you really think someone who breeds working dogs for ability would actually breed a dog that is that badly built? Good working dog breeders actually work their dogs in their field, most who I know have active sheep stations and their dogs are proper working dogs on the stations. A dog which is badly built physically is not going to be able to keep up and will not work for very long, thus will not be bred from.

Some things in the conformation ring ARE about appearance. Specific markings or ear sets which will not impact on its working ability.

[JulesP]

I've already said that I think that ear set and markings are a silly thing to have in the standard (unless a breed has a particular need for a certain ear set).

[Vickie]

Conformation is not about appearance. It is about producing an animal that is sound. Anyone that doesn't get that is missing the point.

and the best way to test that soundness is by comparing every aspect of structure to a piece of paper (that can & is interpreted in a number of ways)? or to have the dog move around a ring with a style of gait that is totally foreign to the task it is supposed to be bred for?

sound? sound for what?

My opinion is that the best way to test for soundness relating to what the breed is supposed to be able to do is to actually do it with the dog and it's parents and it's parents before that etc. I believe that is a much better test of whether a dog will break down or not, but that is just my opinion, I may be missing the point.

Edited March 30, 2009 by Vickie

[JulesP]

Not sure what a dog moving around a ring has to do with the standard? Don't think the standard says that the dog's gait should be tested in a show ring.

[Vickie]

Not sure what a dog moving around a ring has to do with the standard? Don't think the standard says that the dog's gait should be tested in a show ring.

I suggest you go & read the extended Border Collie standard, especially the movement section.

Interesting though that this was the only section of my post you commented on.

[JulesP]

Why do you want me to read the extended movement section?

Here it is so everyone can read it:

Standard - The movement is free, smooth and tireless, with a minimum lift of the feet, conveying the impression of the ability to move with great stealth. The action, viewed from the front, should be straight forward and true, without weakness at shoulders, elbows or pasterns. Viewed from behind the quarters thrust with strength and flexibility, with hocks not close nor too far apart. When trotting, the dog’s feet tend to come closer together as speed increases, but when the dog comes to rest he should stand four square. Any tendency to stiltiness or to cowhocks or bow hocks is a serious fault.

One of the characteristics of the Border Collie is to move with great stealth. This is best defined as “to pass by unnoticed”. While working it will seem as if it is crouching, the head and neck appear to become a continuation of the body. This is to help the Border Collie attract minimum attention to itself whilst working. It gaits with a moderately low head carriage - compared with most other breeds. The head is pushed forward and slightly higher than the level of the back.

The Border Collie is an agile dog able to suddenly change speed and direction without loss of balance and grace. It should have a smooth, balanced, low action, displaying a minimum of up and down movement giving the impression of being tireless. The head, shoulders, back and rump should not appear to rise and fall with each stride.

No reference is made to speed being desirable. Fast movement does not necessarily mean good movement. The dog should be moved at a speed that conveys the impression of a smooth, tireless gait with a minimum lift and maximum extension of the feet. When viewed from the side the stride should cover maximum ground with minimum effort. With correct extension and balance, an imaginary vertical line can be drawn from the nose to the extended foot - see page 21.

The words “free, smooth and tireless” eliminates short-stepping, strutting movement. Judges should not expect a high-headed, high stepping dog as this is not typical of the breed.

The only serious fault mentioned in the standard is “any tendency to stiltedness, or to cowhocks or bow hocks”. These would affect the dog’s movement and hamper endurance.

Any deviation to a sound moving dog is also a fault, e.g. crabbing which is usually associated with a short coupled or square dog. Overreaching, lack of reach and drive normally also relate to incorrect structure. In final assessment, gait is an essential factor confirming physical evaluation.

To appreciate the correct movement of a Border Collie it is preferable they be moved on a loose lead.

[jesomil]

IMO if a dog meets the standard for that breed is should be able to do what it is bred to do. Unfortunately, these days it is not always the case for a variety of reasons.

For some breeds that probably works but for dogs such as sheepdogs, they can have the best, most wonderful conformation but if they havent got what it takes in the head, they wont be a worker.

As Vickie said (great posts by the way), there are so many complex traits needed for working, that if you start breeding for anything other than them, you lose out.

No point having a dog with brilliant herding ability if its legs are made in such a way that it breaks down at 5. All that training wasted. Conformation is not about appearance. It is about producing an animal that is sound. Anyone that doesn't get that is missing the point

Working dogs arent bred for ability over everything. Conformation is very important also.

You will be hard pushed to find a working bred sheepdog with anything other than magnificent conformation. Their work is very hard on their bodies, so they are tested everyday. Only the best are bred from.

Because their bodies are worked hard breeders can see quite easily which dont make the grade.

[JulesP]

A dog that works well doesn't always breed well.

[Jed]

Tony, I don't think you quite understand Jed and Crisovar. Anyone who prefers working line dogs is instantly a standard hater and hates purebred dogs. It's just how show breeders view the dog world. I guess they don't like the fact that people actually produce working line dogs.

Further proof that you don't have a clue. Every post reinforces it.

Vickie, I don't have a problem with working dogs. nor do I have a problem with them having their own standard - particularly herding dogs. I have a minor problem with "working lines" in some other disciplines, but it doesn't affect me, and I don't have a great knowledge, so I keep my mouth shut, because I don't care all that much. I don't post much in here, rather leave it to those whose major interest it is.

What ticks me off, and obviously Crisovar too, is people who have no interest in purebred dogs, and worse, very little knowledge, mouthing off about standards in a denigratory way, simply because they can. Consequently, every discussion which should be rational and give more information and an exchange of ideas, is completely trashed.

tonymc just nips into these threads to knock purebred dogs at every opportunity. A review of all his posts on this forum is a relevation.

I personally don't care what he thinks, or others who mouth off. However, a lot of people who don't know much about dogs, working dogs, purebred dogs, standards etc. come and read these forums without posting.

So, if erroneous assertions by people who haven't the faintest idea what they are talking about are allowed to stand, those casual readers believe all purebred dogs are shit, or worse, and all registered breeders are shit, or worse.

Lots of registered breeders are not shit, or worse. They breed with dedication and ethics, and they try to produce dogs which are correct in every way - including having working ability. They don't come here, but they need a voice.

We already have enough problems with people wanting x bred dogs because "they are better, healthier, live longer, get sick less" blah blah. And that's fine with me too, because there aren't enough registered dogs to meet demand, and if someone wants a x bred, it's none of my business. but when they are basing their choice on uninformed, unresearched writings by people who have no experience or knowledge, I want to correct that.

I only come to this forum now to slap around those who have no respect for the interests and beliefs of others.

And there is nothing wrong with the standards. They describe a dog which has the physical form to function most efficiently at what he was designed to do. Problems arise in the interpretation of the standard, breeding for current fashion, and the difficulty of actually achieving dogs up to that standard.

Don't knock something until you have had a go at it.

Thanks Paganman

[WoofnHoof]

Looks to me like the fundamental problem is the lack of a comprehensive testing system that incorporates both conformation and performance based testing. I've said it before but it really does seem like this divide is not good for purebred dogs and there needs to be some sort of reconciliation?

I'm pretty sure warmblood stallions have a conformation assessment as well as performance testing which tests ability in a number of disciplines as well as temperament and rideability.

Surely there is something similar able to be set up for dogs?

[The Spotted Devil]

Looks to me like the fundamental problem is the lack of a comprehensive testing system that incorporates both conformation and performance based testing. I've said it before but it really does seem like this divide is not good for purebred dogs and there needs to be some sort of reconciliation?

I'm pretty sure warmblood stallions have a conformation assessment as well as performance testing which tests ability in a number of disciplines as well as temperament and rideability.

Surely there is something similar able to be set up for dogs?

Some years ago several Dalmatian breeders attempted to have an ET qualification as a requirement for a Dal to be recognised as an Aust Ch. Obviously, it didn't get up but the motivation behind the objection will remain a mystery

[Jed]

Consider, ladies, several factors....it needs a lot of time to train a dog in any discipline. There isn't time to show, breed, live, work, and do agility or something else. Consider also that 95% of pups will be used as pets.

All breeders hope that puppy buyers will take their dogs through some discipline - but it rarely happens. I have a friend who sells quite a few cockers to work - in the field - and they are successful - but no one hears about them. No one comes for a trial dog, so there is not much of "proving" the dogs.

I got a bit enthused about doggy dancing. The dog I thought would be good isn't. So I tried another one a few weeks ago - just off lead, in the back yard, for a bit of fun.

And knowing nothing about doggy dancing, I thought she had a bit of aptitude. She will follow my hand on the leg around me, run backwards, sit and stay, jump in the air at a signal, put out each paw on a signal, and she is learning to jump and turn, which is proving a bit of a challenge. I showed a couple of friends, who thought she was great. She loves it. Whether she would do it away from home is another matter. Probably.

I'd like to go and learn how to do it, and give it a go. But I don't have time.

And it probably wouldn't prove much. I don't think anyone would think being able to do doggy dancing was an attribute to the breed.

Unfortunately, while you are off doing agility of retrieving trials, or doggy dancing, the kennel maids are not feeding the dogs, cleaning the house, washing the car, weeding the garden, or earning a living.

The dogs of each breed who do succeed in any discipline are lost to the general public, so no one knows. I don't think any of us breeders care much, to be quite honest.

[The Spotted Devil]

Jed, absolutely! That's why I didn't leap in and accuse anyone that their dogs might not be capable of doing an ET. I don't know the full story and I haven't heard all 3 sides (remember....yours, the other fellow's and the right one? ). It could be a time factor, human handler capability, human handler interest, does it really test the dogs.....etc. etc.