I don't want to continue the arguement... as it has kind of gone off-track. However, I do have something to add about the AKC, their standards, and the judges they appoint being utterly innocent and breeders being those who perpetuate the problem. Look at a typical winning show Border Collie: are they adorable? Yes! Are they practical for working all day? Heck no. My friend's BC, Layla, is a very rough, fluffy-coated show-bred BC. We go to the lake together a lot, where we walk around through brush and down to the lake. Her poor Mom spends hours after every trip to the lake picking burrs, cat-tails, dirt, slime, etc, out of her beautiful coat! And this is after Layla is clipped every month to prevent this. Her coat just clings to every burr & cat-tail in sight! Gonzo, on the other hand, is perfectly clean after a swim with his much shorter, much lower maintanence coat. Then, look at the build... stockier legs, larger feet, broader muzzles. Those stocky legs are not favorable for running for miles. Larger feet, as opposed to the preferred tight feet of working dogs, are much more prone to injury and cannot keep balance on treacherous terrain. Broader, shorter muzzles, would of course be a huge disadvantage to dogs working in both hot and very cold temperatures - the longer muzzle allows a greater ability to adjust the temp of the air being breathed in. If we're talking about basing a dogs ability to work on appearance, AKC judges are consistently favoring "pretty" dogs to dogs who are built to work, generally. In my experience, I know several people who have basically been laughed out of the ring when they attempted to show their working-bred BC's. Not even close to placing, when placed next to dogs who are nowhere near being built to work in rough conditions, and dogs who had no titles or training besides conformation.