Talk:English Shepherd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

[edit] Breed Standard

As a sideline observer to the ongoing struggle between the English Shepherd Club and the UKC, I would like to point out that the choice of linking to the UKC standard instead of the ESC standard will NOT go down well. Up until a few years ago they were the same. Then the UKC broke an agreement with the ESC and required that the English Shepherd be shown in conformation. Since the English Shepherd is strictly a working dog, this led to a split between the ESC and the UKC. Since then the two standards have evolved in different directions. The UKC standard has evolved toward much stricter physical appearance and the ESC stardard toward more emphasis on work.

Although I didn't make the change to link to the ESC standard, I do support their position. I would strongly argue that linking solely to the UKC standard defintely expresses a POV. This is every bit as contentious as the Jack Russell Terrier and Border Collie disputes. I just reviewed those pages and note that the only links are to the "big" registeries. I would argue that is incorrect as the breed clubs existed for years without the "support" of the big registeries. Failure to link to the original breed club is a pov asserting that the big registeries are more legitimate than the original breed club, even when the original breed club registers more dogs of that breed than the big registeries.

The ESC/UKC case is less clear cut since they worked together more or less in harmony for decades. It has only been within the past few years that the UKC has demanded that English Shepherds be shown in conformation, thus creating the split between the ESC and the UKC. Still, one can readily argue that the ESC standard is every bit as legitimate as the UKC standard. For this reason I am going to include links to both. Clearly to leave out the UKC standard, as I would prefer to do, expresses a POV. Dsurber 06:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am, not against the ESC but I removed the link from the breed box as I feel it should not be there, of course i may be wrong. I did however let it remain in the external links at the botom of the page. I am still unsure about its position in the breed box as from what i know, that is for major registries. Perhaps it deserves a position in the article itself? Allowing it a more detailed description of why it is there and the diffrences between the ESC and UKC! Tekana 15:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment about the breed box being for "major registries" is a point of view. That is why I assert that the ESC should be given equal importance with the UKC. I think this is more clearly demonstrated with the Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, and Jack Russell Terrier. In those three breeds the breed specific registry has existed for many years longer than the AKC's involvement and at least for the Border Collies, still registers more dogs. The ESC is a very old club but has not had a registry for long because up until recently, they got along well with the UKC. Since the UKC has changed their policies, the ESC disassociated themselves from the UKC and started their own registry. Similarly for the breed standard. Up until a few years ago they were the same. Then the UKC started focusing on conformation and since then the UKC and ESC standards have moved apart. I maintain my assertion that restricting the breed box to "major registries" is a pov. Not including every tom-dick-n-harry registry is fine, but an automatic exclusion of any registry not a "major registry" is not justified. If a registry is omitted it must be for a more substantive reason than "it's not the AKC." Dsurber 23:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Because the dog breeds project agreed (on more than one occasion, I believe), that the table will include only major all-breed clubs from the various countries. Everything else goes in external links or in a (hopefully) NPOV section of the article. Please bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds if you want to open the discussion again. Elf | Talk 23:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly want to reopen the discussion about all breeds in general. I don't have enough time to do the important things I would like to do for Wikipedia much less that. I stand by my assertion that a blanket policy restricting the breed box to "major registeries" is a pov asserting that only "major registries" are important/legitimate. Anyone making such an assertion should look carefully at the history of the Border Collie and Jack Russell Terrier. In both cases the breed club existed for decades before the AKC got involved. I find omitting the JRTCA from the JRT breed box unfathomable. The JRTCA has a much longer history with the JRT than the AKC.

There is a fundamental disconnect between the majority of the people interested in dogs and those people intersted in working dogs. The majority are perfectly happy with the AKC (and UKC) and accept them as the US authority on dogs. The minority involved in working breeds know differently. Whenever there is a conflict between the working dog people and the AKC, the AKC always wins because the average dog person just doesn't have the same perspective as the working dog person. That's why working dog people want to stay as far away from the "major registries" as possible; we never win any battles. I've been involved in too many of these "convince the pet/show people and you can have what you want" situations. I can't convince the pet/show people and it really is no longer worth the effort to try. The English Shepherd is a working breed. It is just wrong to have the content of the ES page be dictated by a blanket policy established by people who are not involved with the breed. Sorry if I seem bitter, but working dogs have lost too many of these battles. Just ask the ABCA or JRTCA people. Dsurber 00:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand how you can label the "only majour registries" rule as POV. Is not your plight to have the working registries included equally so? What you must understand is that working and show strains in breeds can be very different, even you the point of contradicting each other.

You have already been invited to add a NPOV statement or paragraph into the article, if you were to do that, would that not help people understand the ESC more than simply sticking the link in a little box in the corner? Tekana 10:17, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

The "only major registries" rule is clearly pov. Please read this article. The pov of this rule is that only a few registries (AKC, UKC in the US) are important enough to be included in the box. All other registries are ignored no matter their significance to the breed in question. The overwhelming numbers of Jack Russell Terriers, Border Collies, and Australian Shepherds registered by their single breed clubs are effectively marginalized by mentioning only the AKC and UKC in the breed box.

People come to these Wikipedia pages for information about a breed they are interested in. By marginalizing the single breed registeries, this policy gives the impression that only AKC and UKC registered dogs are legitimate. Yes, one could write a paragraph that outlines the controversy, but the strong initial impression remains that only the AKC and UKC are legitimate. This policy puts the single-breed registries behind at the starting line and that is clearly pov.

I agree with the previous comments. The policy that *only* major registries may appear in the key breed box on the upper right side of breed pages is a POV that pet dog / show dog registries are more important than the working dog registries. This policy is harmful to the preservation of dog breeds for their original purpose... as working dogs. 24.4.150.21 05:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

	It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality, if possible. Preferred photos show the complete animal, head to tail. Additional photos should add information, such as a face-only shot or distinct coat color or texture variants. Please do not include restricted copyright or "fair use" images.
	Special request: A photo that shows the dog "stacked" (in show stance)

The facts get a little skewed. ESC had agreed to certain things with UKC many years prior to the split, including conformation, but they did not follow through. ESs had been shown long before the split at various intervals. UKC informed the ESC they were being removed as the parent club because of non-compliance to these agreements and ESC choose by a much narrower vote than is portrayed within the club not to try to salvage the relationship. The current ESC standard was written before the ESC/UKC split but not submitted to UKC. The current UKC standard is probably slightly looser than previous UKC standards, not tighter, on general physical characteristics. Conformation showing has never been strong in the breed either now or before but it did exist from Preston Search's dogs in the 1950's if not before. ````

[edit] Origin of Breed

Despite its name, the English Shepherd breed originates in the USA. The ES breed was mainly developed from dogs imported to the USA out of the landrace of collie/shepherd dogs that was once common in the UK. But the ES breed also incorporates breeds from other parts of the world, for example it's documented that Beauercon were mixed into the ES breed. The English Shepherd was not developed into a breed in the UK. It was developed into a breed to meet the needs of farmers on small farms in the eastern and midwestern states of the USA.

Numerous references for the American origin of the English Shepherd breed can be found, for example:

- In an article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences entitled "Breed distribution and history of canine mdr1-1delta, a pharmacogenetic mutation that marks the emergence of breeds from the collie lineage" by Neff, et.al., the authors state "Thus, the ancestral population that produced mdr1-1delta was probably an admixed population of working sheepdogs. The ancestors of the Australian Shepherd, English Shepherd, and McNab also trace back to this ancestral population, roughly defined. Although these latter breeds were developed in North America in the 1900s, they were most likely derived from nondescript farm collies imported from Great Britain and Australia in the 1800s and early 1900s." PNAS August 10, 2004 Vol. 101 no. 32 11729 http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0402374101v1.pdf

- Linda Rorem's authoritative "Herding on the Web" site references "English Shepherd - An American Breed" http://www.herdingontheweb.com/dogs.htm

- the website of the largest club for the breed, the English Shepherd Club, lists the ES breed as "America's Heritage Farmdog" http://www.englishshepherd.org/

Sardog1 (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)