I had an interesting chat with my postie on saturday.

He is a dog lover and we have spoke about my dogs before, he was asking how they are and if i intend to breed. I told him no and asked what type of dogs he had he replied CKCS and he breeds them.
He went on to say how difficult it was to find a good stud dog for his bitch that had all the tests done, i asked what tests he had done (i had an inkling anyway) and he said he had hips, MRI, heart and i think he said eyes but i cant quite remember.
He then asked who my dogs were registerd with, and it threw me for a second as i didnt understand what he was asking, he then said are they with DL or the KC? i said they are all KC reg and he went on to say although his dogs are KC reg, he registers puppies with DL. I didnt have time to ask why as the neighbours were literally swarming around him asking for their post but it has made me wonder, if he is spening the money to get his girls correctly health tested and he is going out looking for a stud with similar health tests why would he not just get them KC reg? Also i have had a thought just now, he didnt mention him showing them so i suppose he doesnt?

How does everyone feel on this subject? He is doing everything he should be as a breeder but showing them and if he knows what a good example should look like does he need to show? I am unsure on the subject myself just wondered how others felt.

> if he knows what a good example should look like does he need to show?

Kennel blindness is a very easy pitfall - the eye becomes accustomed to what it sees, and assumes that what it sees is 'right'. It's good every so often to have this viewpoint checked (and hopefully verified!) by an unbiased person.

As for registering with DL - what a waste. If those puppies are from good, typical, healthy stock then they'd be of value to the show world gene pool. Instead they're effectively being thrown away.

> He is doing everything he should be as a breeder

I often find that people like this talk the talk but dont actually walk the walk. Out of interest ask to see one of his MRI certificates one day.

You would not believe the number of people who back out of a conversation when asked to produce the proof.

IMO the paltry sum he would have to pay out to register the pups in the  size of litter common in CKCS is miniscule in relation to those health tests mentioned.

Why save a fiver a pup when youve just shelled out hundreds?  Doesnt stack up.

The main neurologist who devised the scanning protocol for the breed, acknowledges that it is used predominately by breeders of KC registered animals and, indeed, the newly proposed reporting/ data storage/KC-BVA certification relies on that fact.

This postman is as likely to find an appropriately MRI/Heart/eye/patella and hip tested stud amongst the non-KC population as being struck by lightening.   

I don't agree that showing is something all breeders should be doing.  I don't show, but where appropriate my dogs are KC registered.  With border collies there is a huge divergence over show dogs and other dogs - many of the 'other dogs' owners wouldn't touch show dogs with a bargepole!  My collies are a mixture of 'working' and 'show' but some of the modern versions of collies don't appeal at all!  Have a look at the wide divergence of border collies and accept that they are mostly what they should be, just not carbon copies!

I've bought one ISDS boy (sire dual registered, mother ISDS only) and he is registered with the KC, however most working ISDS dogs are only on that register and most shepherds don't even consider KC registration as they have no intention of showing, just working their dogs.

Now dogs simply bred for the show ring may be different, but not sure they should be!  The split between showing and working of many breeds shows, imo, that the show lines aren't always 'right'.

Having said that it sounds like he's just a back yard breeder! 

Thinking from a cynical point of view, I wonder if he is registering them with an alternative 'scheme' so that the KC can't keep tabs on how many litters and how frequently he is breeding from the same bitch, but can still tell unsuspecting buyers that they are 'registered'!

Well he did mention that he said he was having a last litter as she is 6 soon and as he follows the KC rules he wont be using this bitch again.

I wonder if his animals are endorsed so the offspring couldn't be KC registered anyway.

I don't agree that showing is something all breeders should be doing.

For breeders that don't show (or have puppy buyers that show I guess, and ensure to breed according to looks), their dogs eventually end up looking different from what the breed should. For breeders who don't work their dogs (ditto to above with buyers), the breed often ends up losing the working ability. In the ideal world nobody should be breeding dogs that didn't BOTH have the looks the breed standard asks for AND the working abilities they were originally bred for (within reason -no need for bull fighting dogs for instance). Why else have different breeds at all?

For breeders that don't show (or have puppy buyers that show I guess, and ensure to breed according to looks), their dogs eventually end up looking different from what the breed should. For breeders who don't work their dogs (ditto to above with buyers), the breed often ends up losing the working ability. In the ideal world nobody should be breeding dogs that didn't BOTH have the looks the breed standard asks for AND the working abilities they were originally bred for (within reason -no need for bull fighting dogs for instance). Why else have different breeds at all?

"LIKE!" :)

Of course it can be said that dogs shown can end up looking nothing like they're supposed to look!  Many breeds have changed beyond all recognition in the show ring - look at bearded collies... border collies are going a similar way with the same look doing well, but it's not a look that most shepherds would recognise!  collies are by necessity different - for different areas of work and demands, plus the need to tell them apart at great distances.  For shepherds like some variety in their dogs and they they work well, otherwise they're not that bothered what they look like.  Agility dogs tend perhaps to be 'prettier' and with more colours, but they should 'work' well, albeit with agility equipment rather than sheep, agility people do tend to go to working lines as well as show lines.  For me showing can damage a breed as well as 'improve' it.

I have never had much to do with BC's but our first dog as a child was a collie. Bought from a farm (50 years ago) and from hard working parents. No thought of KC reg then, they were posh dogs for the better classes to show!  He was a typical "Black Bob " (Those of you old enough may remember one of my all time fav childrens books) black back, white paws, white and very fluffy bib, White collar, white tail tip and black face with wide white blaze. He stood quite tall and never stopped moving, he would round up anything, kids, cats, sheep, cows, ducks, and even try with trees etc.. LOL He was quick to snap at my brother and I if we took liberties, his coat was flowing and his tail a huge plume. We loved him to bits, lived in the country and he went to work every day with my father who made cheese at the farm. The shepherd collected him and took him of to work with him all day. He would come home after a days work eat his tea and then fetch his ball and spend hours in the garden retrieving to anyone whowould throw it again for him. He slept out in the lean to by the back door and kept the fox's away from our chucks and ducks. i dip in the river most days kept his coat clean and a brush once a week by my mother on a Sunday sorted out the tangles. He would ignore other dogs but when challenged could give a good account of himself with the other farm collies that frequently droppen in in the back of a land rover  accompanying thier owners. He would disspear for days when a neigbouring bitch was in heat and be returned  by the farmer if he became a nusance, (Or he had done his bit and mated said bitch..no stud fees then )
I still carry a couple of small scars from his sharp nips !! taught me how to behave round dogs ! I was looking at the collies at Windsor and reminising but have to say they were at least 3-4 inches shorter than him and he was considered a fine specimine back then. Funny how a breed can change subtally over the years, he was never considered to big in the late 50's early 60's. He fathered many a litter of working collies all like little carbon copies of himself!

Aileen

Merlot - only in the show ring!  My rescue collie (lost earlier this year) was 24" tall and I have an ISDS red tri fool of a dog who's 25" tall and solid with it, they're not the biggest collies I know but are taller than the average.  The average show collie must now be 20" tall, with bitches even more petite.  Fortunately show dogs are a minority and there are still the size ranges and colours available, indeed with the new 'red' colour coming in from Australia.  True red as opposed to our own red/brown which increased in numbers because a well used dog (now in 99.9% of pedigrees) carried brown/red.

Hmmmm for the show ring we are supposed to work to a standard which say dogs 21" bitches slightly less. My own working bred bitch is exactly the same size as her show bred counterparts although her conformation leaves alittle to be desired shes still boss of all these young whippersnapers. Windsor had a low entry this year although its intersting to note that the BOB needs one more CC and he will become only the second BC to become a full Champion having passed his working test.

Hmmmm for the show ring we are supposed to work to a standard which say dogs 21" bitches slightly less. My own working bred bitch is exactly the same size as her show bred counterparts although her conformation leaves alittle to be desired shes still boss of all these young whippersnapers. Windsor had a low entry this year although its intersting to note that the BOB needs one more CC and he will become only the second BC to become a full Champion having passed his working test.

Exactly my point!  The show arena trying to change the breed I'm afraid!  Good job lots of people don't take any notice of the show 'breed standards' ;-)

I have one bitch who'd do ok in the show ring - she's about 19/20" and nice looking, her sister has done very well.  She's not really my 'type' as I'd like another inch or so, but she has given me a very nice red tri bitch who's about 22" - mated with my 26" collie.  Unfortunately these days there is 'demand' for smaller collies for -'medium' agility - under 17" - so there's now lots around.  The show type collie is now becoming very different from the working - not just height but looks and working although the working test is still useful, it's a pity really that it's just a 'test for show dogs'.  A friend of mine lost out on the full champion because her dog failed the test many years ago, although an excellent herder the examiner didn't think so, sadly.  The days have definitely gone though where a good working dog could do well in the show ring.  A few years ago this was still the case and my 8 year old's sire did quite well - a lot of the working show people have stopped showing as the dogs have polarised :-(

My point which you missed is that working collies do not all stand 24 -25 inches tall either. Infact there are quiet a few that run small in agility are there not so you cannot say it is "only in the show ring" The standard was written when the bred was first recognised by people who were from obedience and working backgrounds and to my knowledge the size has never changed so do you think they deliberatly wrote the standard smaller?

Oh dear :-( you have missed my point completely which was that border collies are a diverse bunch (apart from in the show ring) they vary from very small (14") to very big (over 26"). Interestingly when the border collie was recognised by the KC only people with a 'showing' interest had much to do with it - many obedience people had so little interest that they deliberately didn't register their dogs with the KC and many of these are currently WSDs - although this may change with the 'opening' of the KC register to any border collie rather than as before (when the border collie register was the only 'open' register) to ISDS registered dogs and their progeny.  My earlier point of people breeding deliberately dogs under 17" sort of highlights my understanding that collies come in all sizes - the point of my original posting.

The breed standard had and still has very little relationship with the majority of border collies and their appearance in the show ring has continued to polarise. I would imagine that someone wrote what they believed to be right at the time - or probably what they felt should be 'aimed for' - it has no relationship of course to the 'working' border collie where appearance means absolutely nothing.  They come as they come - but to be used for breeding they work well.  Of course this isn't necessarily the case outside the working area - there are a lot of people breeding all breeds with little clue, putting merles together and white factored dogs without any knowledge of the health issues.  Even worse a breeder with much experience has bred a litter with one suffering from TNS - something so totally unnecessary now we have DNA tests and when the TNS status of the sire's sire was known to be 'carrier' totally unacceptable.

Just to say that there aren't many (are there any) collies running in small agility - some collie crosses but I don't think any full collies... there are, however, as I've said earlier collies running 'medium' which is the under 17" category

Crikey under 17 inches, my 4 1/2 month old Elkhound puppy is over 17 inches and the desired height for the breed in bitches is 19 1/2 and 20 1/2 for dogs and I generally say to be people they are Border Collie sized as that is the size of most of the ones I know and they are mostly Obedience ones, hardly any KC reg ones that also seem to be smaller than the standard calls for.

Sizes do seem to creep up and then when they become general the show breeders wake up and correct it, not a problem in the medium size dog but a problem in the larger breeds as is producing tiny or tea cup dogs.

There is no reason to suggest that the working variety of a breed will be any different to the show type the only difference in breeding is that the show people breed to standard (that is as the dog was when it was originally written).

The working breeders do not care what the dog looks like or what size or even if it has the correct conformation they are only interested in the working ability so if you get a great working dog that is ugly and far too small or tall that is the way the breed will go - show people breed to standard.

Bad practice in breeding is bad practice whether it be by show breeders or working breeders so breeding a TNS puppy is hardly anything to do with  the debate in question it is just plain bad breeding.

They may well be a diverse bunch but breeding with no thought to any kind of standard also means they no longer look like the breed they are supposed to be why have a breed name why not go back to just having cur's. The ISDS was formed to register dogs that worked in a certain way and yes that has included other breeds in the past however you only have to look through The Blue Riband of The Heather to see that on the whole the dogs stood usually around knee height and looked on the great scale of things very similar (i.e not many dalmatians or any other random breed type among them ) Now that possibly could be down to the nutrition of the day or it could also be because the best working dogs were around that size.  As I said earlier my purely working bred bitch and I mean work rather than agility or obedience bred is the same size as my show bred bitches although infact my blue and white show bred  bitch is bigger.

The whole premise for KC recognition is that the dogs should breed true to a type and any dog that will be added to the registry (other than ISDS registered) will be assessed against the standard just as the ISDS assess the working ability for registration on merit.

Of course they look similar! lol! they eventually moved to the 'border collie' and the ISDS register stopped any other breed, although it hung on with the beardie collies longer than most. Look at the 'English Shepherd' in USA to see the forebears of border collies - although this is now settling into a similar 'type' although showing more divergence and it's likely that this will be recognised at least by the USA KC.  Border collies were created for a job using the best working dogs available - other breeds moved more to show as the working requirements (for example the droving abilities of the Old English Sheepdog) and these really moved to the show ring for their looks - same with rough/smooth collies.  It's also true that the current sheltland sheepdog never worked farms on shetland, but has been created from the little working dogs for the show arena. That they retain their basic shetland instincts of working animals and acting as a watchdog is a credit to the pioneering people of the breed - but they do look very different.

However, it must be said that border collies, within the type, have a greater variety expressed than purely in the show ring - from size to colour to coat type.  It would be detrimental if the only collies accepted onto the register fit tight show criteria as this really isn't the 'border collie' on the ground.  It will be interesting to see how many smooth coated dogs are included!  Many of these unregistered dogs have pedigrees going back to the early ISDS dogs in the early 1900s, same as the current KC registered (and ISDS) dogs.  Now if you can pass the ISDS criteria of workability (those who have a known pedigree) they will be added to the KC breed register on application.  So currently it's based on work and the ISDS register. If it becomes solely down to if they'll do well in the show ring there wont be many dogs accepted sadly.

Smooth coat is within the standard.

Yes, but if you have one, don't bother showing it!

That was not the point though was it? Suggesting they wouldn't be accepted on to the registry because they are smooth coated. We weren't talking about whether they would be successful show dogs.

That's just judge and exhibitor bias, same as some colours in breeds don't seem to do as well, for example Blue and Black great Danes and Whippets, Black and White Basenji's and Shelties (have you ever even seen a  Black and Tan Sheltie?).

You tend to find in breeds with multiple colours that the most common colour also wins most often, so people assuming the other colours won't and it gets perpetuated when you see the other colours coats, ear carriage less often so they then look the odd man out.

I'm sure that sense will prevail and that the 'show type' dog will not be the only ones admitted to the register - although it will depend on the judges making the decisions.   Of course any smooth coated dog entering a show will be discounted immediately - even though they may fit the 'show standards'. A dog not fitting the show standard as well as the smooth coat may well win the class - if only two dogs were entered the rough coated could have all sorts of 'faults' but likely still to win! Faults are faults and of course having a smooth coat isn't a fault!  However, not quite fitting the perfection of the show standards doesn't stop a dog entering those classes and shouldn't stop a dog from being on the KC register.  With a dog as diverse as the border collie it shouldn't stop those dogs - as long as they are clearly border collies - from being admitted onto the register.  It's a shame that people 'in showing' would like to prevent the wider gene pool that is available to the breed from being included and this can only be to the detriment of the breed - as well as being somewhat churlish (we're on the registry but we don't want you to be!).  Fair enough with dogs whose ancestry is unknown to be cautious, but not with dogs who have a known pedigree and who clearly are border collies (well WSD at the moment ;-)). 

I wouldn't think that attitude is universal, the standard for the Border colie is pretty broad giving an ideal height and allowing different coat types and ear carraige, and colours, even though teh full coated semi prick eared black and whites tend to dominate.

A lot of them see much smaller than the ideal 21 inches too.  As I see few that are bigger than my Elkhounds (my dogs are 19 1/4 to 20 1/2), even with the heavier coats

I cant see where any show person has said (that includes me) that the breed should all be black and white long coated with semi errect ears or where it has been said that any dog shouldn't be admitted on to the breed register just because it isn't a "perfect"specimen. However just as the ISDS has a selection process, which isnt down to proof that the dogs  have ISDS pedigrees if you go far enough back as all my dogs do, the KC will use the selection process which they believe is appropriate to them.
I have a blue merle a tricolour a blue and white and yes a number of black and white all equally border collies all with faults (but not in my eyes)

Lol, no just mostly in the outcome of shows ;-) don't forget the 'classic markings' but this is very much a digression of the request of the OP - I doubt a border collie is the dog of choice for them!

I have all tri colour collies at the moment - black, red and blue merle currently.  I lost my first (rescue) earlier in the year, he was a big farm collie without any 'pedigree' but was just perfect, we had a lovely time in and out of agility together, even doing a bit of heelwork to music, made difficult because he was very sensitive to touch.  My others can be traced back as far as you can with border collies (thank goodness for Anadune!), some via New Zealand and Australia, but going back to the earliest ISDS which is as far as you can go :-)  I have a lovely blue tri merle who was from show/agility lines but would have made an excellent herding dog.  My ISDS is the big red clown of a dog. My older bitch is black tri and she's the only one who would have done ok in the show ring.  My young red bitches are perfect in my eyes, one on the working register following the knee jerk reaction of the KC to 'that' programme as she was a very accidental mating of father/daughter. They're diverse, just like the rest of the 'breed' :-)

Your blue & white has many common ancestors with most of mine :-)

Yes have to agree we have digressed but it wasnt the thread looking for a breed it was a thread about why would you not register ;-)

omg! now I really have lost the will to live :-(

The English Shepherd Club did a poll of its members to see if they would accept registration to the AKC. 95% said NO. They don't agree with showing, and want the English Shepherd bred for its working ability above all else.

Good for them - most of the border collie people in this country would wholeheartedly support them... many are concerned at where the breed has gone in the show ring fortunately we have a good number of working collies and a good number in sports/hobbies that they'll at least keep the work ethic. Plus of course there is some effort to keeping the working ability - although many with show collies have said that they don't necessarily have the instincts anymore and a lot more teaching is required, how much is true I don't know.  My own dogs aren't that keen on sheep - Jed and Oswy being terrified although Jed's parents both working dogs and Oswy sire was a working dog, grandsire being int sup champion twice!  He takes after his mother though :-(  Not sure what some of the others would make of sheep - my merlie boy from show/agility lines def would have made it in the herding game.