Testing For Breed Function

[Kavik]

I don't know as much about Flyball (the noise is too much for me) but IMO the qualities that make a dog a good sheepdog make a dog a good agility dog (athleticism, functional structure, good drive levels, stable temperament, biddable/ability to take direction) so you can source good agility dogs from those who breed for sheepwork.

But breeding for sport such as Flyball will change the dogs.

I agree you can source a good agility dog from a dog bred for sheepwork- but can you get a BETTER dog for agility from a dog bred for agility? And will that dog be as competitive with a dog bred for sheep work? Or a dog selected for sheep work?

I don't know if a dog bred for sheepwork would be better than a dog bred for agility for competing in agility. But I think Telida Whippets raised some concerns regarding the temperament of sports dogs, and certainly within working GSDs and other breeds that do bitework there are also concerns about the temperament of those bred for sport as opposed to those bred for work (in those cases dogs with very high prey drive, but not serious enough for real work). Remembering again as you pointed out altering one thing can also alter others.

[Kym]

elevenoclockish - but I agree with you. There are some show line dogs who can work and some working line dogs I wouldn't want to live with. Everyone's idea of what is "fit for function" is different depending on what the dog's role is, thus a 'test' doesn't really tell us anything. Only that the dog can do that test - maybe it tells us more about how good the trainer is!

Oh, I realise that! I don't have a problem with the split in the show/working lines in Springers either. If anything, it creates a diversity that will help to preserve the breed in the future (i.e., if one side goes too far in a particular direction, there will always be other lines out there that can help to restore the breed to a happier medium). I was merely pointing out for people who perhaps aren't as familiar with Springers as you that there are show type Springers out there who can still perform the function they were originally bred for (even if Field Trials have evolved to such a point that they wouldn't be competitive in that particular environment) and that Field Trials have been responsible for making "changes" to the breed in addition to the show ring.

My youngster is a very intense little worker but walk in the front door or put her in the back of the car and she relaxes and sleeps, even with gunfire indicating another dog is working. Her breeder calls her Jeckyll and Hyde. I think that is a wonderful trait to preserve.

Absolutely! I think that a good on-switch AND a good off-switch are essential characteristics of Springers no matter whether they are from show or field lines. I'm so pleased that my current girl who is from show lines has the same traits: she would train all day if I let her but she has a wonderful off-switch once she knows that training has finished. Lacking either trait (on-switch or off-switch) is undesirable IMO. As an aside, I would have loved to have tried her in the field. I know she definitely wouldn't have had the speed to be competitive, but I do know that she would have had a ball giving it a go. :laugh:

And for the record, even though I rarely post, I've always admired your Em. She's a gorgeous and very clever girl. :)

Edited March 17, 2012 by elevenoclockish

[The Spotted Devil]

Thanks for your considered response - it's nice to discuss these things logically and respectfully We are all, at least, passionate :laugh:

elevenoclockish - a couple of comments which I'm hoping you can contribute to. Structurally the biggest difference between show/working ESS is the shape. Show dogs are square (ish) and working dogs are longer than they are tall. I suspect this accounts for differences in movement especially when they are flat out running (think of how a fox covers the ground). I often wonder why the difference occurred - certainly field trials may have required a quicker dog but perhaps also the nature of the cover has changed as a result of human intervention and the working ESS evolved to suit the environment. Any other ideas welcome. I know a number of working ESS breeders who are passionate about good structure, by the way. As I said earlier the excess skin and longer ears in show ESS is not my preference - interestingly the standard is very vague on both these features. I can't see any benefit in them myself but would be interested in your views.

[The Spotted Devil]

*gremlins*

Edited March 17, 2012 by The Spotted Devil

[mita]

I must admit there was a great deal of mirth in our household reading a post in one of these many threads that was talking about the inability of show Labs to swim.

Not a show Lab, but a failed guide dog trainee Lab. This fellow couldn't swim, in his new home, so his owner gave him swimming lessons.

[Crisovar]

I must admit there was a great deal of mirth in our household reading a post in one of these many threads that was talking about the inability of show Labs to swim.

Not a show Lab, but a failed guide dog trainee Lab. This fellow couldn't swim, in his new home, so his owner gave him swimming lessons.

I have never met a Lab that couldn't swim, and swim very well maybe it is just as well this boy is out of the gene pool. It doesn't look as if he is lacking leg or suffering from barrel disease :) Out of curiosity do you know why he failed his GD training?

[espinay2]

Really? How would one go about this? There is a very small percentage of ANKC registered Border Collies in the country who have been bred based on their working ability & none of them, that I know of, meet the breed standard. So where do you start? Maybe pick the 10 closest to the standard and water down their working ability by breeding them to dogs who do meet the standard?

Yes, you pick dogs that meet the standard as closely as possible that also display good working instinct to pass on to their progeny. If you choose wisely by using a dog that is prepotent for its working ability there is no reason that the trait would be 'watered down' in all its progeny. You then need to be selective in which puppies you choose to breed on with. Working to achieve a breeding goal is something that is generally achieved in more than one generation of course as any good breeder will know.

There are currently 44 BC puppy listings on DOL. 11 of those mention herding, and all in the same breath as obed. & agility. Most of them do not show dogs. Some Sires &/or Dams of those 11 litters have HT titles...which mean they have enough instinct/ability to move sheep around a cone on a small yard. Is this the starting point if one wanted to "choose" to breed dual purpose dogs?

Given that this thread is a discussion about testing for breed function, perhaps border collie folks such as yourself can tell us? What is a suitable test for border collie breed function that can be utilised by breeders who want to breed dogs that both meet the standard AND have the ability to work at their traditional role? Is the HT a suitable test? We have already discussed how it is possible that tests such as obedience anf agility are perhaps changing what is being selected for in dogs bred for these sports. Rather than be negative and say it cant be done, lets ask the postive question - if a border collie breeder wanted to have it all, how would they test for breed function? I would like to hear your views and the views of other border collie breeders/enthusiasts.

But my question is WHY would they want to? When working dogs work better than show dogs? And your livelihood depended on the dogs? Maybe the difference in construction of the working dogs is part of the reason they are better?

Isn't the point to breed your best working dogs? Why would somebody compromise this? Why are you suggesting they should?

Lets look at it from the other direction. Why shouldn't people who show be able to breed dogs that are also good working dogs? Wouldn't selecting for dogs who retain sound breed function and working ability be a good thing for people who show their dogs to be doing?

I guess I just don't see how breeding a dog that is both 'good looking' and able to perform its job well is something that needs to be mutually exclusive. I was contemplating that point today in between replying too as I drove to and from a sheep breed association AGM and considering it too while we were examining some stud sheep at the property we were on. When I breed a good ewe or ram that is fit for purpose I want it to be structurally sound and 'good looking ' too. Structure and how the sheep conforms to the standard is just as important to its future commercial value and 'worth' as a working animal as any other trait. Personally it is the same thing I look for in my dogs.

Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2

[aussielover]

I must admit there was a great deal of mirth in our household reading a post in one of these many threads that was talking about the inability of show Labs to swim.

Not a show Lab, but a failed guide dog trainee Lab. This fellow couldn't swim, in his new home, so his owner gave him swimming lessons.

I have never met a Lab that couldn't swim, and swim very well maybe it is just as well this boy is out of the gene pool. It doesn't look as if he is lacking leg or suffering from barrel disease :) Out of curiosity do you know why he failed his GD training?

Well, obviously not every puppy in the litter is going to be fit for intended function. Although it is a bit sad this poor pup failed his guide dog training and couldn't swim!!! At least he is very handsome though ;)

I think its fine that some members of the breed can't swim/dont like water, aren't fit for function as working dogs (but make nice pets), however, it is important that these dogs aren't bred from. Which I think is the point of the fit for function tests suggested= to weed out dogs that completely lack ability or instinct required for their intended function.

I'd say labs who can't or don't swim are quite rare, just as I am sure you can get border collies who are disinterested in sheep or exercise but it would be rare.

My pup was bred for guide dog work and although she failed at that, she was swimming at 3 months old and adores water!!!

[Kavik]

Hi espinay

Sure, I think people who show should most definitely select dogs who retain sound breed function. What do you think would be a good way to motivate them to make functionality a priority?

Edited March 17, 2012 by Kavik

[mita]

Aussie, no one took it seriously that Dougie the ex-trainee guide Lab couldn't swim. It was because it was so exceptional in a Lab that everyone in his new pet home, thought it was a hoot. :) Which is the reason for posing him with his towel at swimming lessons.

I don't know.....it may have been that he simply was unfamiliar with water. Who knows, maybe it was part of his training not to encourage that aspect of being a Lab???

By the way, all the 'stuff' he did learn in his cut-off program, proved a great asset in his new home.

Even his reason for 'failing' was OK in a pet home. He wanted to play with every dog he met. Now he can play , full-time, with his family's other dog.

Edited March 17, 2012 by mita

[espinay2]

Hi espinay

Sure, I think people who show should most definitely select dogs who retain sound breed function. What do you thibk would be a good way to motivate them to make functionality a priority?

Work WITH them. Work to lessen the divide between work and show. HELP them devise suitable working tests. IMO it is the work is work and show is show and never the twain shall meet attitude that makes the gap wider. BOTH sides have to work together.

Don't tell them their dogs are crap because they look pretty but can't work. Look at the strengths they have and then HELP THEM to improve on areas that need improving. IT is about being positive and working towards a goal. Not about saying it can't be done.

Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2

[Kavik]

The show people would first have to show that they wanted the help of the working people, that they were keen to improve their stock, and ask the experienced working people. Because the people putting the hard yards in with working stockdogs are out there working their dogs, running the farm and moving stock. I don't think they have the time or inclination to try to persuade the show fraternity.

It is different with GSDs, where the work/sport is not necessarily so time and life consuming as running a farm/stock. With GSDs some of the issue is that the show fraternity is actually helping to block the implementation of proper working tests for the breed. Some people think it is because the show people do not think their dog would be able to do the work, or don't want to do the training involved. They are fighting against legislation and against the show people who do not want to test functionality. The working GSD people are trying to figure out the best way to go about testing and working their dogs, but finding it difficult with the show people and the ANKC and legislation against them.

Edited March 17, 2012 by Kavik

[Weasels]

I personally have a dog that I think (from the small amount of herding that I done) is much better at herding than the dog that I am currently training. The dog good at herding keeps chasing after the other dogs- because I was still learning when I trained him and I stuffed up. His instinct is making it hard to fix my problem because I need to overcome it. The dog with less herding ability (again IMO) is proving much easier to train for flyball and I think will be the better dog. I don't think this is entirely based on the herding ability but at some level it does contribute to the training issue I have been having. Had I been a better trainer I possibly could have nipped the dogs problem

With my limited sample size of 2, this has been my experience too (and by accident rather than design, since they are 'lucky dip' shelter dogs). Everything that makes Fox a beautiful agility dog causes her trouble in herding, and vice versa for Weez. The main things with Fox are that she has so much people-focus she will sometimes stop in the middle of an outrun to look at her handler, or even trot over to him if she's not sure what to do. She is also so kinetic and loves to move which means doing an agility course is quite self-rewarding but it's a bit too much for working sheep through a chute. She's still got her PT and will be trialling this year, it just takes a bit more thought and time to teach her some aspects of herding.

Weez on the other hand is more inclined to listen to his instincts than Fox is, which makes him able to herd nicely with less direction. But in agility makes it harder to keep him focussed and I have to work more to ensure he is actually listening to me. He is also more 'efficient' (lazy) which keeps the sheep calmer but means he needs to be rewarded more often in agility. So I would say there are different traits I would look for if I wanted a dog specifically for one sport or the other in future. And if I had to pick only one of my current dogs for each sport it would be a no-brainer. Although as it stands they're both going to have be happy with herding since our agility club has folded

[Kavik]

I haven't had that issue Weasels

Though I have only done a little herding, the instructors were all impressed with the instinct that Kaos showed (I haven't done enough to polish it or anyhing) and he is certainly fast and keen enough in agility, certainly does not have any jumping style issues or anything like that. I have had a few focus issues with him running out of the ring, but we are working on that, I don't contribute that to being working line.

[espinay2]

The show people would first have to show that they wanted the help of the working people, that they were keen to improve their stock, and ask the experienced working people. Because the people putting the hard yards in with working stockdogs are out there working their dogs, running the farm and moving stock. I don't think they have the time or inclination to try to persuade the show fraternity.

In my area that actually happens. We have working dog breeders and triallers here - tough farm blokes etc - who run classes and teach on their properties and folks with 'show dogs' who are more than keen to go along to learn and work with their dogs. (BTW, many 'show people' have busy working properties too ;) and you don't move stock every day or even every week - sometimes we don't move them for several months or more).

There are plenty of show people out there keen to test and work their dogs if given the opportunty. Look at the ones going along to do HT and herding training and so forth when and where it is offered. Access to stock and someone to teach them is the biggest issue for most. Given the opportunity (and when they are made to feel welcome in a positive manner and encouraged to learn more ) IMO there would be a LOT more out there learning to work with their dogs and seeing how they work with stock. Much better than telling them 'you don't have real working dogs so go away and leave it to the people who have'.

Edited to add for those in the Canberra region who are interested in learning sheepwork and want to know who to contact.

Taken from here: http://www.crystalle...rderCollies.htm (yes, a 'show persons' page ;) )

Q: I

have recently acquired a 2 year old border collie. He is extremely bright and I

will be taking him to obedience classes in Canberra soon and then on to do

agility and fly ball if that appeals to him. I am also interested in learning

about classes to train him to do sheepdog work as he loves to run and he is

very fast. Are there any classes in the Canberra/Yass/Goulburn

area?

A:

We have

used Laurie Slater, Barton Highway, Murrumbateman and Deb Kelly, Jugiong. Their

telephone details can be found in the white pages.

Edited March 17, 2012 by espinay2

[Podengo]

I think it's a lot to ask of someone, being involved in multiple venues, if you have multiple dogs, a job, a family, a property to maintain...

I saw a neat idea in the USA where breeders offered money back to puppy owners who titled their dogs, so while the breeders may just show (and only have time for that), they were trying to breed dogs who could perform in obedience & agility and essentially were getting other people to handle and train for them. A good incentive to get the dogs you've bred out there doing stuff! If I could see a breeder's website and see that they have produced quite a few dogs with sport titles (no matter how insignificant), it would make me feel a bit better!

[espinay2]

I think it's a lot to ask of someone, being involved in multiple venues, if you have multiple dogs, a job, a family, a property to maintain...

I saw a neat idea in the USA where breeders offered money back to puppy owners who titled their dogs, so while the breeders may just show (and only have time for that), they were trying to breed dogs who could perform in obedience & agility and essentially were getting other people to handle and train for them. A good incentive to get the dogs you've bred out there doing stuff! If I could see a breeder's website and see that they have produced quite a few dogs with sport titles (no matter how insignificant), it would make me feel a bit better!

You may be surprised at the number of breeders that are active in multiple venues already. Certainly a large number of the ones I know are. They don't necessarily compete in all venues at the same time all the time though - often doing it in 'cycles' depending on what stage their dogs are at. They may show to a title for instance, then concentrate more on another field with the dog for a while while either taking a break from showing or just doing the odd show, then may later on campaign the dog in the show ring a bit more. Healthy for the dogs too as they don't go 'sour' doing one thing all the time and healthy for the owners too as they get to take on a variety of challenges.

Having 'puppy owners' who do different things with dogs they have bred is also as you say good too and a lot of breeders do love to see that IMO.

Dedicated people though do tend to be busy. I see it in dogs, dog sport and dog clubs and associations of varying types, I see it in the livestock and poultry clubs and associations I belong to. Dedicated people with busy lives getting involved in a wide range of venues. All of them with jobs, families and properties to maintain. Not all maintain the same tempo consistently for years and years, but most have fingers in multiple pies to greater or lesser extents at different times.

[Kym]

elevenoclockish - a couple of comments which I'm hoping you can contribute to. Structurally the biggest difference between show/working ESS is the shape. Show dogs are square (ish) and working dogs are longer than they are tall. I suspect this accounts for differences in movement especially when they are flat out running (think of how a fox covers the ground). I often wonder why the difference occurred - certainly field trials may have required a quicker dog but perhaps also the nature of the cover has changed as a result of human intervention and the working ESS evolved to suit the environment. Any other ideas welcome. I know a number of working ESS breeders who are passionate about good structure, by the way. As I said earlier the excess skin and longer ears in show ESS is not my preference - interestingly the standard is very vague on both these features. I can't see any benefit in them myself but would be interested in your views.

As I'm not a breeder or judge, I honestly don't think that I would be the best person to give an opinion. I'm just a passionate Springer owner who is interested in a number of different dog sports, happens to read a lot (I'm a researcher by profession so I guess it comes with the territory), and who would one day like to title a Springer in the show ring that also has proven working ability. Honestly, I'd love to talk with you more about these sorts of issues as I find them fascinating, especially in light of the controversy at Crufts, but any opinions I give you would just be my own hypotheses.

In saying that, if you don't already have them, I would strongly recommend getting copies of The English Springer Spaniel: A Complete Anthology of the Dog and The Complete English Springer Spaniel as they might be able to shed some light on the issues you've raised. The first is a collection of chapters from vintage dog books on the Springer ranging in date from 1903 to 1935. It's a small book but is a truly fascinating read and may provide you with some insight into why the standard developed into what it did. The second book contains an excellent chapter on breed standard interpretation with references to why some traits are more or less desirable with respect to function. I have a number of different Springer books but those two have become my bibles.

Edited March 17, 2012 by elevenoclockish

[voloclydes]

gosh this is such an interesting and broad thread.

i have owned and worked sheep dogs but pounding round doing yard dog trials.... would bore me to tears..... but as said above most working farms rarely have one do it all dog..... a great paddock dog is not often your best yard dog... a shy but steady paddock dog is often best with yard dogs a more out going and even bitey dog is required to nip heels.

i got my dals for the purpose in which they were bred one i think will do the whole cart horse following, but is unlikely to sit on the lorry and ride. the other is unlikely to follow any great time... she prefers to sit in the shed or on the couch... in fact the speed at which she vacates when the horse is pulled out is quicker than a human eye can follow.

for fun their human owner want to do pretty obience trials.... :rofl: to show mr clydes they are far from dumbmations...

[Sheridan]

Lets look at it from the other direction. Why shouldn't people who show be able to breed dogs that are also good working dogs? Wouldn't selecting for dogs who retain sound breed function and working ability be a good thing for people who show their dogs to be doing?

I guess I just don't see how breeding a dog that is both 'good looking' and able to perform its job well is something that needs to be mutually exclusive. I was contemplating that point today in between replying too as I drove to and from a sheep breed association AGM and considering it too while we were examining some stud sheep at the property we were on. When I breed a good ewe or ram that is fit for purpose I want it to be structurally sound and 'good looking ' too. Structure and how the sheep conforms to the standard is just as important to its future commercial value and 'worth' as a working animal as any other trait. Personally it is the same thing I look for in my dogs.

While acknowledging there are breeders on both sides that have good looking dogs that are able to work, I find the conversation that's now taking place a bit ironic. We're told the standard is what makes a dog able to do the job for which it's breed yet the argument that seems to be made here is that dogs that meet the standard are unable to work and dogs that are able to work are unable to meet the standard.