Talk:Australian Shepherd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page)

Has some good information. The appearance section needs dividing into subsections to importve readability. Needs more references and citations. Temperament section has a somewhat informal tone sometimes ("The Aussie has its own unique smile by showing all the teeth, and often by snorting in a fashion that resembles sneezing"). That quote is a sweeping generalization (I seriously doubt that many Aussies snort and smile). --Pharaoh Hound (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I dealt with some of this. The whole article needs more basic copy editing. The info that I orginally put into the article on the breed's origin (and cited a reference) now doesn't generally match what's there, but no new reference was added. I know it's all a little vague, but that's why references are particularly important. Elf | Talk 05:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Aussies DO smile,but I dont know if they snort...real good article!
United States Portal
This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Origins

I am seeing a possible discrepancy in the introduction. It says that the breed was developed in the US, however a book on breeds I have lists the breed as having its "... beginnings in Spain and Andorra, where it worked with Basque shepherd. When the Basques followed the sheep-herding movement to Australia, the faithful dogs went along.. Then, when the Australian sheep were imported into the western U.S., once more the Basque herders and their dogs, now renamed the Australian Shepherds, made the trip."

Source: Dogs in Canada, 2005 Annual, pgs. 296-297

The History section of the article includes discussion of the Basque herding dogs, but from what I've read & learned from Aussie breeders, the breed developed from a variety of breeds here & received its name here. You'll see that the FCI, which organizes dogs by country of origin, also lists it as a US breed [1]. Elf | Talk 16:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image format

The images on this page are formatted supremely weird. I can only get them to approximate normalcy by shrinking my browser's width way down. I'd fix the formatting myself, but I don't know what the OP had in mind. Someone care to fix it. Perhaps a table would do the job? —Frecklefoot 17:33, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can you describe "supremely weird" with a little more detail? They look fine on my browser, of course, or I wouldn't have left them like this. :-) Elf 17:38, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doe! I should've thought of that. Too bad I don't have anyplace I can slap a screenshot, but I'll try to describe it. Instead of the "Red tricolor Aussie" image being below the "Blue merle Australian" image, like I think it is with your browser, it is shifted to the lower-right of the "Blue merle" image. All the accompaning text is then wrapping around the right side of the "Red tricolor" image until it falls back into place after the image. While this would look fine if the image was placed correctly, it looks funky for wider browsers (like mine). The "...agility pause table" image in the table looks fine. HTH :-) —Frecklefoot 17:52, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

OK, I just moved the 2nd image further down the page for now. Hopefully weirdness is no longer supreme. Elf 17:56, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That looks better to me, and will look even more so as the article gets longer -- sannse (talk) 20:03, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Looks much better. Still looks a little strange on my browser, but not weird. :-) And, as sannse noted, it will look better as the article gets longer. Kudos! —Frecklefoot 18:46, Mar 12, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] More photos

I saw the image request and uploaded 2 pictures, maybe you like them.

Image:Aussie puppy.jpg

Pharlap 18:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. The request is for an Aussie herding sheep, but the face shot of the 2 dogs is nice & I added it to the page. Elf | Talk 18:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh okay, I didn't see that, I was wondering already why you ask for more pictures since the pictures you included into the article are very nice. I do have a copy of a magazine, sent to me by a fellow aussie-lover, showing an aussie at work, herding sheeps. But I'm afraid that this one is copyrighted. I wish you good luck with the article and the pictures. You did good work ! :=) Pharlap 19:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Images for you here:

[[User:Maculated|Maculated]I can also get you an all merle Aussie photo.--Maculated 07:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blue Merle

I have noticed that all of these Aussie's have large amounts of white. Does the white develop as they age? I have an Aussie puppy that doesn't have any white and is black and grey. Is this what is called blue merle? The previous owner says that it is an Aussie. I could contribute some pictures of my dog if anyone wants. Jaberwocky6669 23:48, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Long answer: Most but not all Aussies have white as in the photos on this page; they're born with it if they're going to have it, so it won't develop over time. Blue merles do darken over time, though. There's an article on merle (coat colour in dogs) with photos from different breeds so you can see what blue merle looks like--it has nothing to do with whether there are white markings, even though all of these have them. That just makes them blue merles with white markings.  :-) If you have a dog whose breed identification is only "the previous owner says that's what it is", then who knows what it really is. But if it looks like an Aussie, it probably is one, but that's hard to say, too; Aussies still have a lot of physical variation even among documented purebreds. Elf | Talk 17:17, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
And, oh yeah, I'd love to see a nice photo of an all-merle dog. Elf | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Elf, they can develop more white as they grow. But I guess you are right; they're born with it. Lots of times, though, Jabberwocky, you might be able to find some under the coat that could develop. And they don't nescessarily darken with age so much as their black or darker colours will start to "bleed". So, I guess that is darkening. XD Never mind me. But, as to the original question, I'd have to see pictures. He could be a tweed or a harlequin, too, which are both pattern variants that occur in Australian Shepherds. Ruffie | Talk 17:31, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


"The Chinese Australian Shepherd (a rare form bread specifically to herd alpacas in the Tibetan mountains), has been observed by Western tourists in such obscure colors as magenta and a light shade of lilac. Geneticists believe this phenotype is the result of genetic abnormalities and nutritional deficiencies inherit to years of inbreeding and improper diet common in this region."

Okay, I have four huge, gaping problems with this 'tidbit': 1)Why would the Chinese or the Tibetans take a breed from either Western Europe, or the United States to use for herding? They have their own dogs. 2)If the dog did exist, and was being bred (not "bread", sorry I'm anal) in Tibet, why would it be called the "Chinese" anything? Tibet seems pretty fond of disassociating from China 3)Magenta? What? Show me one other mammal you could describe as magenta. Lilac I could almost see as a dilution of blue or the silver-grey in Weimaraners. But coloration being the result of nutrional deficiencies in a mammal...? Riiiiiigght. Flamingoes are pink because of what they do eat (though again, not a mammal). 4)My personal favourite, that just screams "horse puckey!", and nullifies the whole thing- alpacas are from South America, which is about as far away from Tibet as you can get. Can I ask where you heard of the "Chinese Australian Shepherd" originally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.147.73.32 (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No Tail

I have an Aussie and he was born with out a tail. I think this is something unique about the breed and should be mentioned in the article.

Good point. I mentioned it. There was already some info about it in the article on docking, so not sure how I managed to miss it in this article. Elf | Talk 22:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My understanding is that the gene responsible for a 'naturally docked' tail, is 1) Dominant, and 2) works by encoding for the deletion of a (variable) number of vertebrae beginning from what would be the tip of the tail and "working" towards the skull. Thus, two dogs both born with 'naturally docked' tails bred together will have a smaller than average size litter as ~25% of the puppies conceived will receive two copies of the dominant allele, and having ~ twice as many vertebrae "deleted", they will reach a certain point of development and then die, likely being reabsorbed by the mother, but I wonder if perhaps alternatively aborted (potentially endangering the remaining puppies...?). Perhaps this could be mentioned as well and tied to the note about mating two merle dogs together? (63.147.73.30 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Popularity of Aussies with veterinarians

I would encourage one of the principal authors of this article to address the enormous popularity of this breed with Vets for their personal pets. I know that there have been several articles written in Veterinary professional journals on this topic. Hokeman 05:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Be bold! I have no access to such articles, I don't think, but if you can cite one or some in References, go for it. Elf | Talk 16:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A mongrel is not a breed.

The indecisiveness of the constituancy of this breed IMHO makes it not a breed. Cattle mongrels that have been bred from working dogs brought over hundreds of years ago are invalid unless we can say they come from a discernable heritage (see: breeding) and thus can label it's breed.

Every dog in every picture looks entirely anatomically different, the only consistant element is they're all kelpie mongrels from appearance based on skull shape and the unmoveable white tufts of fur that never seem to breed out.

What's with all these 'Australian <insert real breed>' breeds of dogs around about anyway? Apparently, all these Australian <Breed> dogs are only known outside Australia? And oddly, none are recognised? Seriously, what's up with that? 211.30.71.59 16:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Kelpie"

[edit] Too many photos

There were an excessive number of photos. Please remember that WikiPedia is not a family pet album! --DrL 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Bull, photos are media, and they are extremely helpful. I think we need tons of photos of all sorts of these dogs to make a complete article. This isn't Encyclopedia Brittanica, its Wikipedia, the idea is to have everything about something. ReignMan 06:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Philosophy in dog articles (during the 2+ years I'd been working on them) was to try to have photos that showed new & useful encylopedic information about the breed. For example, because aussies have so many coat variants, it would be nice to have a good photo of each major variant, but not 3 or 5 of each variant. And you'd want a face-on shot or two if there are wide ranges there, and a couple of action shots showing what the breed does well. For Rottweilers, for example, there's only one color variant and not much variance in appearance, so one good shot of the whole body, one good face shot, and an action shot or two (or showing a couple of the jobs they usually do) would be more than sufficient.
    All additional shots--and I agree that it's useful to have many--belong in Wikimedia Commons, whose whole point is to provide access to tons of photos. But of course they should still be good-quality photos, not out-of-focus, blurry, etc. :-) See commons:Australian_Shepherd--there could be lots more there if people would log in and upload there. Elf | Talk 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Describing a dogs apperance with words is difficult photoes show us more than words can. One has to be carefull these days, we can describe thing by using 1)text 2) photoes 3)Videos 4) Graphic models. Maslows psychological theory about "needs" in psychology is well known to a lot of people becouse of the clever use of a "pyramid" shaped model. DNA and molecular structures are easier to understand when visualized in a clever way. This article describes a dog, that comes in many colours, even different eye colours and (two) sizes, its a "working" dog, good at agility. So its only fiar to have photoes showing just that instead of explaining it in words. So referring to "family pet album" is in imho a little besides the point.

--finn bjerke

[edit] Photo choice for red aussie

Originally this photo was included as an example of a red tri. Later it was removed because although purebred pedigreed working stock someone felt that it wasn't representative of the breed. Now there's a blurry photo of a red seen from the back from which you can't tell anything about the breed. I hesitate to put the original back because I took the photo (no, it's not my dog), but I think it's a good photo and the one that's there isn't particularly useful. So can someone else take action on this please? Thanks. Elf | Talk 06:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've placed it back into the article. It is important to show the major variations in the breed when possible, and there are no other photos of aussies from non-standard working lines. VanTucky 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smiling and showing teeth

This comment, or similar text, has been removed several times and then replaced with no citation:

"One interesting thing about Aussies is that they are seen 'smiling', pulling up their lips and showing their teeth. This is often mistaken as a challenge, but is actually friendly."

This is by no means a hallmark of all Aussies, and is in fact not unique to Aussies when it does occur in dogs. Many non-Aussie dogs do this, and it seems to be more an individual thing than a breed thing. If someone can point to a printed or reliable web reference that this is predominant in Aussies and also unique to the breed, it can go back in. Elf | Talk 04:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's not unique to Aussies. Which is why it is discussed on the main Dog page and not here. That's why it should be deleted. It's like including info about how Aussies bark. VanTucky 04:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistent quick facts

Forgive me all, but i don't know how to start a new subject, thats why i edit here. I wanted to tell you that the quick facts table in comparison with the text does not coincide. For example in the table height is 43-51cm, and in text says that is 46-58cm where the second is more correct. I don't want to edit anything so when you have time you can correct these "small" details. :) If i can help with something i would love to. Andreasch-cy 13:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I just inserted a heading for your topic so you can see how it's done. You're welcome to fix things like this. You just have to do a wee little bit of research. Because all the breed standards for all the different organizations are likely to be different, what I usually do is go to all of them, note the ranges that they all specify, and then update the article to include the whole range. (For example, if FCI says 46 to 58, and Canadian Kennel Club says 43 to 51, then the correct range for the article would be 43 to 58. Hope this helps. Elf | Talk 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

I just wanted to add that I have read many books on Australian Shepherds and its origin is for the most part unknown and a rather complicated tale. For this purpose, I don't believe we should just accept its origin to be American or more specifically from the United States regardless of how the Kennel Club classifies it. From my current understanding, coupled with close to 10yrs of post secondary education, there is world history and then there is American history. Since its history is still debatable, it should be noted as such in the opening paragraph.

I understand that this breed's origins, like that of many other breeds, is difficult to untangle. However, every reference I can find (web, articles predating wikipedia, books...) all list it as an American breed. Would love to see any references that state otherwise. Elf | Talk 02:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Double Merles

Just added some stuff about double merles.I know, all dogs with merle will get double merles, but I think it should at least be mentioned.I need to do more research on them now. I don't know much about them. --S'luki 02:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aussies as "Family" Pets

I keep seeing (and hearing) people talk about Aussies as being "good family pets" as though they were a Golden Retriever, Lab, or Hamster... and I'm always quick to add that they NEED someone to be a definitive leader for them, so I added the bit about "provided there's at least one shepherd-figure to act as a mentor/leader for the dog."

Whenever people see mine, they're seeing a "work in progress" or the finished product of hard work and training, and they automatically conclude that this dog with the attributes of "good manners and well-socialized" automatically equates to a "good family dog" without considering the work it took to get there.

Many of the reasons good Aussies end up in rescue is because people thought they would be the type of dog content to be a generic/neglected "family dog" who simply exists until you want to play with them. Aussies really need to be an active part of your life. It bothers me that the breed has gained so much popularity based on misconceptions of what makes a "good family dog" without qualifiers to show what's needed (from the owner/family) to meet them half way. So, at the very least, I feel it's ok to feel they're a good family dog, provided you understand that they need strong leadership to be manageable and happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiferjanis (talk • contribs) 06:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nearly any breed can be a good family dog. From Chihuahuas to Irish Wolfhounds,to bully breeds to Aussies. Any dog that is expected to "simply exist until you want to play with him" should be found a new home, because they are living animals not toys. Aussies are great for families that really want a real pet, not so much for those who want a pet as a toy.--Jess (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


I just want to say "Thank you". (63.147.73.30 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)) *and what's with this sign off?