Coton de Tulear price range?
asah...@nospam.com
interested in showing the dog so we are definitely open to a pet quality
dog at a lower price. Is $2200 too high? A quality family pet Coton is
what we are after. Thanks for any input,
Scott
Jo Wolf
to ask! These dogs are still in the rare breed category. You *might*
find a contact in the classified ads of Dog World magazine... but be
very cautious as not all advertisers are responsible breeders concerned
about the welfare of the individual dog and the breed as a whole. Most
will have a waiting list, and it could take a year or more to get to the
top of a list.
Jo Wolf
Martinez, Georgia
Robyn Rosenthal
contract by responsible breeders) will run between $1800 and $2200 with
show/breeding prospects (generally not sold to people not known to the breeder)
running between $2500 and $3000.
BE WARNED: there is a broker selling milled pups from Eastern Europe and
calling them "Russian Championship Lines." There are no cotons being shown in
Russia and we do not know what these dogs are.
There are a few BYB/mini-mill types out there that you need to watch out for,
so be aware and ask questions.
If someone offers you a pup for a much lower price, there is probably a reason
and be skeptical when they say that they don't belong to any breed clubs
becuase of "politics." There are several competing clubs with different
philisophical outlooks and there IS a club for anyone who care to get involved
with the coton world.
****There are exceptions. In 1995 I bought a dog from a VERY responsible
breeder who had been involved with cotons for many years both in Europe & here
and at the time, there was only ONE coton club in this country and it was run
by someone who hates French dogs. That was then, this is now!
Ask a lot of questions, ask to see health test results. A big part of the
reason cotons cost so much (other than basic supply & demand) is that most
coton breeders are testing like mad to keep our gene pool as healthy as
possible and if you are spending $2000 on a pup, you need to make sure that you
are indeed getting a $2000 pup.
Hope this has been of some help:)
>Subject: Coton de Tulear price range?
-Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 20:32:06 EDT
>Organization: RoadRunner - Tampa Bay
***********************************
Robyn Lori Rosenthal
Sterling Cotons and Park Place Grooming
Sterling, VA USA
***********************************
Jo Wolf
suspected) problems in the breed? What are the tests most breeders are
currently doing?
In my breed, as numbers go up, we are finding a few more problems that
have been un- or under-reported in the past. In other words, asking
around, we can find people who have had a dog with this set of signs or
that set... or have known someone else's dog that has had. And we don't
have tests yet for these... and in one case, are having difficulty
figuring out the mechanics of management. In the meantime, pedigrees
have been badly contaminated by this one....
Jo Wolf
asah...@nospam.com
coto...@aol.com (Robyn Rosenthal) wrote:
Thanks for the reply Robyn,
The breeder who we are talking to is in Tampa(I won't name names yet)
and she seems like a responsible breeder. Her dogs are in the
$2200-$2800 range. She says she does her own testing. Is this OK or
should I check into it more? Also, what are the differences between the
USACTC and the CTCA. The breeder we are talking to is a member of the
USACTC. Thanks again for the input,
Scott
Robyn Rosenthal
>Robyn, for my education... What are the known genetic (known or
>suspected) problems in the breed? What are the tests most breeders are
>currently doing?
Almost all breeders are doing eye testing, checking hips & patellae and doing
full blood chems including a thyroid panel.
PRA is turning out to be more of a problem than we had thought. There is some
question as to eye status of a couple of European dogs that are very close to
the beginning of the European/North American gene pool and thus heavily
represented in today's pedigrees.
Patellar luxation is common.
Thyroid problems are not common, but are seen.
Hip problems are Legg-Calve-Perthes, not dysplasia, but a lot of people are
x-taying hips just to avoid surprises later on.
Worst problem is neonatal ataxia -- very rare, but always fatal and a very
sneaky recessive.
Several different researchers on working on it, but no answers as of yet.
Robyn Rosenthal
>The breeder who we are talking to is in Tampa(I won't name names yet)
>and she seems like a responsible breeder. Her dogs are in the
>$2200-$2800 range. She says she does her own testing. Is this OK or
>should I check into it more? Also, what are the differences between the
>USACTC and the CTCA. The breeder we are talking to is a member of the
>USACTC. Thanks again for the input,
>
>Scott
>
Does her own testing? I don't quite understand.
If she means that she keeps all of her own test results rather than sending
them in to OFA, etc. that is fine, she should have copies available to show
you.
Otherwise, I am not sure how she could do her own testing unless she is a vet
and again, she should be willing to provide copies to you.
As for the difference between the CTCA and the USACTC, that would be a term
paper I don't have time to write...
Quick summary:
USACTC = supports and encourage dog shows. Some, but not all in the leadership
actively lobbying for full AKC recognition. Breeders Code of Ethics is a
"recommendation" not a "requirement." Elected board, run pretty much the same
as any breed club that maintains its own registry. All registration data is
verified before papers are issued to help prevent people from buying a dog on a
spay/neuter contract and then breeding it.Working with Dr. George Padgett to
develop a database of health issues in the breed.
CTCA = is vehemently opposed to conformation shows on the grounds that they
encourage breeding for looks rather than temperament and health. Awesome Code
of Ethics, complete with strict penalties for infractions. Full health screens
REQUIRED for all breeding animals and strongly urged for all. Head of the CTCA
requires that all CTCA members agree 100% with everything that he says and does
and anyone that expresses any opposition to his policies is ostracized. Seems
to believe that the "masses" are not capable of thinking for themselves and has
openly stated that democracy is the death of a breed club.
If you want to be virtually guaranteed a healthy dog (with no promises as to
conformation) the CTCA is the way to go, but I can't deal with the groupthink
aspects of it.
You will find both CTCA and USACTC breeders that are breeding for all three
"legs of the stool," health, temperament and conformation -- just ask them a
lot questions:)
asah...@nospam.com
coto...@aol.com (Robyn Rosenthal) wrote:
Thanks again Robyn for the great info and I will make sure to ask more
questions. Have a good one,
Scott
Lucretia True
> >
> >The breeder who we are talking to is in Tampa(I won't name names yet)
> >and she seems like a responsible breeder. Her dogs are in the
> >$2200-$2800 range. She says she does her own testing. Is this OK or
> >should I check into it more? Also, what are the differences between the
> >USACTC and the CTCA. The breeder we are talking to is a member of the
> >USACTC. Thanks again for the input,
> >
> >Scott
> >
>
> Does her own testing? I don't quite understand.
>
> If she means that she keeps all of her own test results rather than sending
> them in to OFA, etc. that is fine, she should have copies available to show
> you.
>
> Otherwise, I am not sure how she could do her own testing unless she is a vet
> and again, she should be willing to provide copies to you.
>
> As for the difference between the CTCA and the USACTC, that would be a term
> paper I don't have time to write...
>
> Quick summary:
> encourage breeding for looks rather than temperament and health.
SURELY the tendency with AKC show dogs is for the health and
temperaments of the animals to take a back seat to physical
conformation.
I've heard of a few breeds, such as Labs who are both show and field
dogs... but this is certainly the exception.
> Awesome Code
> of Ethics, complete with strict penalties for infractions. Full health screens
> REQUIRED for all breeding animals and strongly urged for all.
Most purebreds are bred with health screening. I have yet to see it
proven this ensures better health for the dogs.
Americans don't like to hear it put this way.... but I take exception
to the whole concept of conformation in dogs. It's a road that only
leads to the degradation and eventual loss of the breed.
>Head of the CTCA
> requires that all CTCA members agree 100% with everything that he says and does
I doubt that very much. The only issue here appears to be
conformation. Which breeders do not go along with health checks?
> and anyone that expresses any opposition to his policies is ostracized.
He appears to say in so many words he views conformation showing to be
wrong. No hidden message. It's the basis of the group's moral code. If
someone opposes their basic philosophy, then yes, I'd say the group
would take exception and not want to deal with that person.
>Seems
> to believe that the "masses" are not capable of thinking for themselves
When did the "masses" start thinking for themselves? The
misconceptions about purebred dogs are rampant, and nowhere more so
than with dog fanciers.
>and has
> openly stated that democracy is the death of a breed club.
Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. ;)
> If you want to be virtually guaranteed a healthy dog (with no promises as to
> conformation) the CTCA is the way to go, but I can't deal with the groupthink
> aspects of it.
People say the same thing about the AKC.
> You will find both CTCA and USACTC breeders that are breeding for all three
> "legs of the stool," health, temperament and conformation -- just ask them a
> lot questions:)
I plain do not believe you can get cookie cutter conformation and
retain breed health and temperament. It's the holy grail of dog
breeding. It's the myth that keeps people involved with the AKC.
Jo Wolf
threads. Tonight I read the rest of the thread on breeders, then this
one.
There's a feeling of the bizarre. Good show breeders Are breeding for
health, temperment and structure in many, even most, breeds. Note that
I qualified it with "Good". There are far more "good" show breeders
than some of you are willing to admit. Such snobbery! Egad!
Something to remember in the small numbers breeds, such as the Coton...
based on my observation of Border Terriers, which have grown in numbers
significantly since I got my first in '83... you have to have size of
population before you even realize what the breed's health problem
potential IS. If "x" is seen in one, or even two dogs, it's "just
there" and "must be happenstance", if the total number of dogs is small.
As the numbers increase, you see 12-16 dogs with "x" , it can be
accepted that "Oops, a problem".
But also as the numbers increase, "new " problems are seen... yet you go
to the breeders, say, in the UK in my breed, and they say, "Oh, sure.
We've seen it for years...not many, but some," and you cross into
Germany, to find that a frighteningly high number of the dogs there are
effected. And a gutsy breeder/vet says, "Send me names and pedigrees,
and I'll post them." And the world can see, and breed accordingly, even
as research is being organized. Even had the problem been discussed
before this era, the cause and eventual management couldn' t have been
determined. The right technology was needed. Better education of
general practice vets was needed. Easy access to pedigrees,
internationally, was needed.
The internet has connected plain ol' petowners with breeders with
working dog owners, without labels on them, and they're talking, and the
horrible realization hits that communication hasn't been very darn good.
Despite dog-shopping trips abroad, breeders that Do follow puppies, the
telephone and letters. And now we have a mess on our hands! Who is at
fault? Everyone and no one. Who will benefit? Everyone, because today,
dirty little secrets are a whole lot harder to hide behind national
borders and kennel fences.
Jo Wolf
Toni
"Lucretia True" <Lucret...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >
> Most purebreds are bred with health screening. I have yet to see it
> proven this ensures better health for the dogs.
>
*Most* purebreds are bred *with* health screening??
Beg to differ.
*Most* purebreds are bred by clueless byb's who haven't any idea what health
screening even IS.
--
Toni <hoping I read that out of context>
http://www.irish-wolfhounds.com
Robyn Rosenthal
>> If she means that she keeps all of her own test results rather than sending
>> them in to OFA, etc. that is fine, she should have copies available to show
>> you.
>>
>> Otherwise, I am not sure how she could do her own testing unless she is a
>vet
>> and again, she should be willing to provide copies to you.
>>
>> As for the difference between the CTCA and the USACTC, that would be a term
>> paper I don't have time to write...
>>
>> Quick summary:
>> CTCA = is vehemently opposed to conformation shows on the grounds that they
>> encourage breeding for looks rather than temperament and health.
>
>SURELY the tendency with AKC show dogs is for the health and
>temperaments of the animals to take a back seat to physical
>conformation.
>
>I've heard of a few breeds, such as Labs who are both show and field
>dogs... but this is certainly the exception.
>
Cotons are a companion breed.There are no "field" lines. There is,however a
requirement that they have a suitable temperament to be a companion animal.
>> Awesome Code
>> of Ethics, complete with strict penalties for infractions. Full health
>screens
>> REQUIRED for all breeding animals and strongly urged for all.
>
>Most purebreds are bred with health screening. I have yet to see it
>proven this ensures better health for the dogs.
>
REALLY? I have worked in the pet care industry for 10 years and at least 90% of
the animals I see are from completely untested (in ANY venue) stock.
>Americans don't like to hear it put this way.... but I take exception
>to the whole concept of conformation in dogs. It's a road that only
>leads to the degradation and eventual loss of the breed.
If that is one's ONLY criteria for evaluating suitability for breeding, I
agree.
>
>>Head of the CTCA
>> requires that all CTCA members agree 100% with everything that he says and
>does
>
>I doubt that very much. The only issue here appears to be
>conformation. Which breeders do not go along with health checks?
>
>
No, you are 100% wrong. He has made it a n official CTCA position that all CTCA
rescue resources are to go only to CTCA registered dogs. My point being that if
a breeder follows the Code of Ethics which requires them to take responsibility
for all pups they produce for the life of the pup -- there should be very
little need for assistance from rescue, thereby freeing up resources to help
others in need. A philosophical difference.
Also, he strongly urges that health test data be only submitted to the CTCA, no
where else.
Some breeders prefer to use open health registries.
Again, these are people that are still dilligently following all of the tennets
of the Code of Ethics, but have philosophical differences over things such as
rescue,e tc.
>> and anyone that expresses any opposition to his policies is ostracized.
>
>He appears to say in so many words he views conformation showing to be
>wrong. No hidden message. It's the basis of the group's moral code. If
>someone opposes their basic philosophy, then yes, I'd say the group
>would take exception and not want to deal with that person.
>
>
>>Seems
>> to believe that the "masses" are not capable of thinking for themselves
>
>When did the "masses" start thinking for themselves? The
>misconceptions about purebred dogs are rampant, and nowhere more so
>than with dog fanciers.
>
I am sorry, but I am deeply offended by an attitude of "you are not smart
enough to understand the issues, so just think and do as I say."
My basic philosophy (on everything, not just dogs) is to provide people with
enough information on which to base their decisions and then let them choose.
Yes, there are a lot of "stupid" people out there, but I have confindence that
given access to enough information, most people will learn.
>>and has
>> openly stated that democracy is the death of a breed club.
>
>Democracy: two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. ;)
>
As opposed to "benign dictatorship?"
>> If you want to be virtually guaranteed a healthy dog (with no promises as
>to
>> conformation) the CTCA is the way to go, but I can't deal with the
>groupthink
>> aspects of it.
>
>People say the same thing about the AKC.
You are right. You probably won't find anyone more anti-AKC recognition than I.
All of my contracts include a prohibition on registering any of my pups with
the AKC-FSS.
>> You will find both CTCA and USACTC breeders that are breeding for all
>three
>> "legs of the stool," health, temperament and conformation -- just ask them
>a
>> lot questions:)
>
>I plain do not believe you can get cookie cutter conformation and
>retain breed health and temperament. It's the holy grail of dog
>breeding. It's the myth that keeps people involved with the AKC.
>
I wouldn't know, I am not involved in the AKC. What I do know is that if you go
to an ARBA show, you will NOT see "cookie cutter" conformation or generic show
dogs.
You will see dogs that are all recognizable as COTONS not bichon frise or
maltese or shih tzus. That doesn't mean that they are all clones of the top
winning dog. Your arguement has the same flaw as that of the head of the CTCA
-- looking at the most extreme of the show world and calling it the norm.
Amanda Tikkanen
"Robyn Rosenthal" <coto...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020918094226...@mb-dd.aol.com...
> You are right. You probably won't find anyone more anti-AKC recognition
than I.
> All of my contracts include a prohibition on registering any of my pups
with
> the AKC-FSS.
*clap clap clap* Good for you!
Oops! Was that out loud... silly me. <G>
-Amanda
http://www.uberpest.com
Amanda Tikkanen
> Amanda, do Catahoula people fear that the AKC will recognize the breed?
Yes.
> How do they feel about it?
There is a popular banner for websites out there that says "Please do not
ruin the Catahoula. Say no to AKC". To say people in the breed (on the
whole) hate AKC doesn't even begin to describe it. Some people who are more
or less pet owners want AKC recognition so they can do doggie sports. (not
realizing that we can already do all those sports without the AKC).
Is there a show/working split? Are there any
> plans in place to deal with the possibility?
Yes and yes....
There are a number of dogs who the closest thing they've seen to a cow is
the kibble in their dish. There are even some big time folks who say their
dogs are "working lines." Equate that to "show lines" in most AKC breeds.
[Beau's grandparents are cowdogs, as are most of his siblings and cousins.
His parents are tree dogs, like he is. Now, if I could get him to leave
those stupid possums alone I'd be much happier].
There are people who will not buy a dog who's parents have any type of show
title, or any titles at all. Some won't buy health tested stock. They want
working *only* and are vehement about that.
I'm of the opinion that you should do the very best to determine which dog
is worth breeding. Is it healthy? Okay, then can it work? Cool, does it
resemble the standard fairly well? and so on.
We know the AKC will eventually get the Catahoula. They'll get a fight, but
we're not sure how much good that is actually going to do. What we *can* do
is like what's been done in other breeds- refuse to enter the stud books and
create a big split in bloodlines- pretty much like BCs. For the most part,
that's what's likely to happen.
We did have a bit of a takeover a few years ago. A 'new' breed club (given
provisional parent club status) formed to be the national parent club for
the UKC. These were the same people who didn't think they could get enough
dogs to come out for a show, yet now they have a whole club and hold
'specialties' that aren't open to anyone but club members. They got info
from the NALC to form a local chapter, but used that to make their own
club.... they're now also 'parent' club for two other breeds (one of which
has yet another UKC parent club forming). Many of the members of this club
have never owned a Catahoula and yet they got together- before there was a
club- and rewrote the standard without input from the breed community. The
UKC has, since, said they won't revise the standards of *other* breeds
before they have a parent club in place. Right after this, one person in
the UKC (who HAS admitted this) changed the standard *again* without consent
of even the provisional parent club. (one of the most notable things that
happened was that the bobtailed Catahoula was DQ'd, even though there were
already a large number registered with UKC. We got that and some other
goodies- like tail carriage, coat color, head shape- it's supposed to be
flat, not domed- returned to their original status. The bob is still a
fault, though not a DQ, but as you can tell, that doesn't stop me from
trying to get my guy's CH. In the three weekends we went out an there were
other Catahoulas he got competition wins at two of them. he's been out five
weekends). [as another aside, the number of natural bobtails registered
with the NALC has risen tenfold in the last five years and the attitude
towards them as changed dramatically- they're still not fully recognized,
but they aren't looked down upon so much and they're recognized as part of
the origin of the breed- because they WERE there from the beginning. :)]
The ACA attempted to become the breed club for the Catahoula, and was told
they could still hold non-UKC events using their own by-laws and standard...
but once the paperwork was sent in the UKC said nope- you have to use the
UKC standard and rules. The ACA pulled out and said they could hold their
own events just like they always did.
This all left a bad taste in our mouths and reinforced WHY we don't want AKC
to get the breed.
At one time I asked the AKC who the FSS contacts were (not to harrass or
anything, just wanted to know) and they told me. When I asked how many
Catahoulas were FSS registered the AKC said they'd email it to me by the end
of the week... that was two years ago.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how all the other Curs are in the
Scenthound group, but we're all by ourselves over in Herding. I'd like to
be in with the rest of the Curs. :(
BOY that was long! Whew!
-Amanda
http://www.uberpest.com
Amanda Tikkanen
They're terrified that it's going to turn into the GSD or Poodle. Very few
of those that you pull out of the show ring would be able to do their
intended function. Since this is and has always been a working breed, a
'show only' Catahoula isn't going to cut it. Our job as breeder and breed
lovers is to preserve the breed.
Don Abney wrote a series of articles on his site, and one specifically to
this: http://www.donabney.com/Work.html
Some of it is also the popularity factor. If Joe Sixpack is sitting at home
and sees a "Purdy Cat Dog" on TV, he's going to want one. It's not an easy
breed to live with and in the wrong hands can easily turn into a monster.
(many Catahoulas are put into rescue for biting, which stems from being
overly guardy- especially for snipping the neighbor kids for roughhousing
with "his" kid- being hyper, nasty to strangers, etc. In otherwords, for
being a GOOD Catahoula). Wouldn't take long to ban Catahoulas, so even
those who need them can't have them (The British Cayman Islands won't let
the breed enter because it's an "agressive breed"... full story is here
http://www.donabney.com/Cayman.htm)
-Amanda
http://www.uberpest.com
Melinda Shore
Amanda Tikkanen <uberpes...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>A lot of the problem Catahoula folks have is like you said- the show split.
>They're terrified that it's going to turn into the GSD or Poodle. Very few
>of those that you pull out of the show ring would be able to do their
>intended function. Since this is and has always been a working breed, a
>'show only' Catahoula isn't going to cut it. Our job as breeder and breed
>lovers is to preserve the breed.
This has happened in Siberians, too, to the point where
people with a particular strain of racing-oriented dogs have
created a new "breed" and established it with (gak) the
ConKC.
I'm not familiar with what's going on in other working
breeds, but certainly part of the reason behind the big
show/sledding split has been that the people who run their
dogs don't get involved with the breed clubs, and of course
it's the breed clubs that define the breed standards and
where the people who eventually become judges focus their
breed-related activities. In the case of Sibes, I'm afraid
that a big part of the reason that the show Siberian Husky
has turned into a stubby fluffball is that mushers are not
involved in breed activities. I realize that people who
show their dogs have nowhere else to go besides the breed
associations and the people who run their dogs tend to be
more involved in activity-oriented organizations than in the
breed clubs, but those who do the work set the rules.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
TO...@dog-play.com
> All I want is to be able to find dogs like mine twenty or thirty years
> from now, and I don't want to have to search out some tiny little
> "working dog" outpost to be able to do it.
Since open lands are decreasing and keeping sheep (for profit) is
descreasing the population of dogs with true working backgrounds will
inevitably descrease. Small but carefully guarded gene pools aren't the
worst thing in the world. The main problem as I see it is that so many
of the "working" folks are as single minded as the conformation folks.
Work and work alone is their criteria for breeding. That is really a
dangerous philosophy in a small gene pool.
Generally speaking no matter what the breed if what you want is a
carefully preserved reflection of the "original" of the breed you will
have to hunt out a small speciallized subsection to do it. That has
always been the case. What is new is the widespread availability of
purebred dogs - that is dogs promoted based on pedigree to everyone, not
just those for whom the qualities of the pedigree were important.
Hmmm - I wonder if there is a realtionship to our increasing diversity in
our human cultures. Used to be getting a pup from the folks down the
way was satisfactory because chances were you wanted to the same
qualities out of the pup. If they were farmers, likely you were. If they
were hunters, likely you also engaged in that activity.
Diane Blackman
Lisa Baird
> Having become recently highly enamored of a breed that is currently
> involved in some really awful AKC-related battles, this issue interests
> me greatly.
Unfortunately, the anti AKC BC groups is out to fulfill their own prophecy, or
so it appears They are working so hard to prevent dual registration, that no
"real" BC will be able to be AKC registered. Voila! No AKC dogs will be
"herding dogs", thanks to McCaig et al. Nothing like predicting doom then doing
all in your power to see it happen.
JMO.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa Baird - Haleakala PWDs
"Truly" - CH Fantaseas Truly Scrumptious, CD, AAD, AX, NAJ
"Havoc" - Stargazer Come Hell'R HiWater (puppy with promise!)
Wiley MAD, SM, JM, RM - Beloved All American
Buckeye Region Agility Group <http://www.bragagility.com/>
PAWZitive Beginnings Dog Training <http://www.PAWZitiveBeginnings.com>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lisa Baird
> to prevent this. It's all very ugly and I wish the AKC had never
> recognized the breed. I don't know that it will end well.
>
What are people worried about? Hip dysplasia? Nope, pre-dated AKC. Eye
problems? Nope, pre-dated AKC. Epilepsy? Nope.... Puppies totally unsuitable
for pet homes being sold with a sign at the end of the lane, or the Farmer's
Market? Nope, it was already there.
diddy
That's interesting and a shame. We have a catahoula/lab mix that's been
in our shelter for a year and 3 months. She was born there. Her mother
(catahoula) was one of the sweetest dogs ever. She was laid back,
watchful, gentle, had great "EYE", desire to please, quiet, well
mannered, observing and analyzing.
Amanda Tikkanen
"diddy" <di...@diddy.net> wrote in message
news:3D88C73A...@diddy.net...
> That's interesting and a shame. We have a catahoula/lab mix that's been
> in our shelter for a year and 3 months. She was born there. Her mother
> (catahoula) was one of the sweetest dogs ever. She was laid back,
> watchful, gentle, had great "EYE", desire to please, quiet, well
> mannered, observing and analyzing.
Check out http://www.geocities.com/catahoularescue
there's a link for a submission form on the main page.
-Amanda
http://www.uberpest.com
dianne marie schoenberg
>We know the AKC will eventually get the Catahoula. They'll get a fight, but
>we're not sure how much good that is actually going to do.
Amanda, here's the truth: it *is* possible to fight the
AKC and win. The Kelpie people id it. They were able to
do it because they'd kept their numbers small. They really
were breeding working dogs and placing them in working homes.
And when the AKC said, "Get in or get out," they decided to
get out. Their community was small and tight-knit and worked
as a team. I have to admire them for that.
If, on the other hand you WANT to guarantee a huge split in
the breed, I would suggest you breed tens of thousands of
puppies and place them in homes that have no intention of
working them. A good way to assure this is to have someone
write books presenting a highly romanticized vision of the
breed and assure people that "these are VERY special dogs
and only very, VERY special people should own them." After
the puppy factory has been in place for a number of years,
THEN decide that you've got the right to dictate to those
tens of thousands of owners 1) where they register those
dogs, 2) what activities they should do with them, and
3) how (in very vague unspecified terms) they should be
breeding them. This strategy could best be characterized
as trying to close the barn door long after the horse was
sold for $100 or so.
The AKC isn't the Borg--though I can certainly see why
people in certain breeds perceive them that way. It *is*
very feasible for a breed to stay out of AKC... but that's
true if and only if the breed has been well-managed all along.
JFWIW,
Dianne
Lisa Baird
> What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered?
A lot more health testing?
> I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
But the BC club is making it impossible for someone to.
> Why would any breed club or registry want willingly to give up control
> over its breed? I don't want to argue; I'm just curious. I'm also very
> curious to hear the arguments of those people who have working dogs and
> are pro-AKC.
Claudia Frank is the main person I know of, but I am not heavily involved with the BC
community. I just saw what a dreadful shape it was in pre-AKC, and I see it very
little worse now.
dianne marie schoenberg
>What are people worried about? Hip dysplasia? Nope, pre-dated AKC. Eye
>problems? Nope, pre-dated AKC. Epilepsy? Nope.... Puppies totally unsuitable
>for pet homes being sold with a sign at the end of the lane, or the Farmer's
>Market? Nope, it was already there.
To add to that: prior to AKC recognition, the ABCA--one of the
three BC registries in the country--was already registering
more than 20,000 Border Collies a year. (The other two BC-only
registries don't make their statistics public.) Agricultural
conditions in the US are far different from those in Scotland
and it's in fact pretty rare for an American farmer to need a
dog with the BC's particular gifts. In most cases it takes a
great deal of time, effort and/or money to duplicate the
conditions of Scotland sufficiently to truly evaluate a BC's
abilities. The numbers of people doing so are but a small
fraction of the total population of BC owners.
In short--while many in the BC community apparently want to
deny it--it appears that the majority of BCs were being bred
for reasons other than herding ability prior to AKC recognition.
And the blame for that lies with squarely with the BC community
itself, not on the AKC.
Dianne
Mary Healey
> Lisa Baird (agi...@columbus.rr.com) wrote:
> : Unfortunately, the anti AKC BC groups is out to fulfill their own prophecy, or
> : so it appears They are working so hard to prevent dual registration, that no
> : "real" BC will be able to be AKC registered.
>
The dogs themselves? Nothing.
> What are they missing out on by not being AKC registered?
More to the point, what are breeders potentially missing by deciding
that the first criterion of breedworthiness is the presence/absence of
AKC registration?
> I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
Because they could be exemplars of BC herding and they still wouldn't
breed to it.
Making AKC registration and ABCA registration mutually exclusive
guarantees both a split in the breed and a reduction of the two
subpopulation gene pools. A split determined by human action or
inaction and nothing to do with the dogs. In ABCA's attempt to exclude
AKC-registered dogs that are in all other ways qualified for their
registry, they've only succeeded in changing the focus of their registry
from herding performance to paperwork.
> The feeling is that AKC culture is not conducive to preserving the Border
> Collie as it is regardless of which dogs get registered into it,
"AKC culture"? As always, the breeders are the determining factor - not
the registry.
> and that
> the majority of dogs will be produced in this culture, and that in the
> future the true working dog will be relatively rare.
In the present, true working dogs are relatively rare. Particularly in
BCs, where many breeders are more concerned with other performance
sports.
--
Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001),
Ranger, Duke,
felines, finches, and fish
Melanie L Chang
: worst thing in the world. The main problem as I see it is that so many
: of the "working" folks are as single minded as the conformation folks.
: Work and work alone is their criteria for breeding. That is really a
: dangerous philosophy in a small gene pool.
And to me, that is more a "crappy breeder" issue than a "working breeder"
issue. The working breeders I know don't breed unsound, shy, spooky dogs
just because they can get around sheep. Likewise there is this urban
myth that working breeders don't do any health testing. That's not
true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy farm breeders out there who
conform to this stereotype, but they are not the guardians of the working
dog, any more than the BYBs out there are the guardians of the purebred
conformation dog.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
mlc...@sas.upenn.edu |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
shelly
"dianne marie schoenberg" <dia...@u.washington.edu> wrote in
message news:amam89$14om$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> To add to that: prior to AKC recognition, the ABCA--one of
the
> three BC registries in the country--was already registering
> more than 20,000 Border Collies a year.
wow! that's more than 11x as many BCs as were registered by
the AKC last year.
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
TO...@dog-play.com
> TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
> : worst thing in the world. The main problem as I see it is that so many
> : of the "working" folks are as single minded as the conformation folks.
> : Work and work alone is their criteria for breeding. That is really a
> : dangerous philosophy in a small gene pool.
> And to me, that is more a "crappy breeder" issue than a "working breeder"
> issue. The working breeders I know don't breed unsound, shy, spooky dogs
> just because they can get around sheep. Likewise there is this urban
> myth that working breeders don't do any health testing. That's not
> true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy farm breeders out there who
> conform to this stereotype, but they are not the guardians of the working
> dog, any more than the BYBs out there are the guardians of the purebred
> conformation dog.
Guess I've been reading too much from McCaig and others that follow his
line of thinking.
Diane Blackman
Lisa Baird
> Likewise there is this urban
> myth that working breeders don't do any health testing. That's not
> true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy farm breeders out there who
>
Really? Is this relatively new? Because it is just not what I've been told,
or know of. (and I do know several people with BCs from serious working
people. None come with any background of health testing. Recently, one got
returned for PRA. Family background? Who would know?!
I am not saying AKC is the end all be all. I don't even agree with a lot of
what some AKC advocates do. I just don't se that becoming separate answers
any problem, except letting well known individuals be able to say, "See, I
told you so." in years to come.
It's not like the BC community was regulating breeding before. The JRt,
Cavalier, etc. clubs DO control what is bred and registered with them. They
ARE trying to maintain type, health, etc. This was just NOT the case with the
BC.
ANd I'm not trying to pick on you Melanie, really. <g> As I said, I am not a
huge AKC fan, in many ways. I just hate to see them blamed for things they
AREN'T really at fault for. Goodness knows there are plenty of legitimate
reasons to come up with! <G>
Lisa Baird
> wow! that's more than 11x as many BCs as were registered by
> the AKC last year.
I'm sure it must have been AKC's fault though. <g>
shelly
"Lisa Baird" <agi...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D88DA38...@columbus.rr.com...
> Melanie L Chang wrote:
>
> > What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered?
>
> A lot more health testing?
really? unless i've missed something, the AKC doesn't require
or even especially promote health testing.
Lisa Baird
> : A lot more health testing?
>
> How does being AKC registered translate into "more health testing?"
>
I see many more AKC folks, and yes, the dreaded" sports breeders" testing tan I do stock
dog folks. Mainly because their "clientele" demands it.
> : Claudia Frank is the main person I know of, but I am not heavily involved with the BC
> : community. I just saw what a dreadful shape it was in pre-AKC, and I see it very
> : little worse now.
>
> By dreadful shape, what do you mean? I don't see a community in dreadful
> shape. It's got its share of breeders who are less than responsible, and
I'm not saying it's worse than many others, just saying that it was already a breed rife
with health problems and BYBs and irresponsibly placed puppies. Those are the types of
things the Cavalier and JRT people use(d) as arguments against AKC, and with validity.
The BC was already in the same state as many too popular AKC breeds. I worked at a vet's, I
teach public obedience and agility, I have many BC rescue friends, and I know a number of
people with dogs from working only lines. I see the "sports" breeders testing, the stock
dog people not, just like when BCs were only ILPd.
TO...@dog-play.com
> Lisa Baird (agi...@columbus.rr.com) wrote:
> : Unfortunately, the anti AKC BC groups is out to fulfill their own prophecy, or
> : so it appears They are working so hard to prevent dual registration, that no
> : "real" BC will be able to be AKC registered.
> What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered? What are they
> missing out on by not being AKC registered? Nothing, far as I can tell.
I don't think that's the point. The point is that McCaig and his
followers are doing EXACTLY what they complain that AKC does. They are
judging the dog based upon some criteria other than working ability.
They are rejecting a dog based solely on registration. What they are
saying is "we don't care if your dog is a great worker - if you join the
evil empire we don't want your dog's bloodlines"
> : Voila! No AKC dogs will be
> : "herding dogs", thanks to McCaig et al. Nothing like predicting doom then doing
> : all in your power to see it happen.
> I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
Sure they do.
> The feeling is that AKC culture is not conducive to preserving the Border
> Collie as it is regardless of which dogs get registered into it, and that
> the majority of dogs will be produced in this culture, and that in the
> future the true working dog will be relatively rare.
Of course they will be relatively rare. How could it be otherwise when
there is so little work to do?
> Why would any breed club or registry want willingly to give up control
> over its breed? I don't want to argue; I'm just curious. I'm also very
> curious to hear the arguments of those people who have working dogs and
> are pro-AKC.
I'm neither pro-AKC nor anti-AKC though I have anti-AKC tendencies. But
I do think that if a registry claims to be concerned about working
ability then they ought to keep that focus and (a) not register dogs
without proven working ability and (b) not reject dogs with proven
working ability. The registery of only working dogs should drop
dramatically in numbers as so few dogs work, even in sports. But that's
what it takes to perserve the working qualities of the dog.
Diane Blackman
Lisa Baird
> "Lisa Baird" <agi...@columbus.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3D88DA38...@columbus.rr.com...
> > Melanie L Chang wrote:
> >
> > > What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered?
> >
> > A lot more health testing?
>
> really? unless i've missed something, the AKC doesn't require
> or even especially promote health testing.
But a lot more AKC BCs have been OFAd and testing for other hereditary
problems than the stock dog community does.
TO...@dog-play.com
> TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
> : Guess I've been reading too much from McCaig and others that follow his
> : line of thinking.
> Which writings are you referring to?
His discussions that have appeared from time to time on Sheepdog-L
Diane Blackman
shelly
> But a lot more AKC BCs have been OFAd and testing for other
hereditary
> problems than the stock dog community does.
that is likely true for a subset of breeders, but there are a
whole lot more BYBs who aren't doing health testing than
responsible breeders who are. i wouldn't assume that the
subset of AKC breeders who are doing health testing is
necessarily any bigger than the subset of non-AKC breeders who
are doing health testing. and, when you factor in the huge
discrepancy in numbers of dogs registered between AKC and
working BC registries, i would be willing to believe that
there are as many working BC breeders doing health testing as
there are AKC breeders. (again, 11x as many!!! wow!)
Mary Healey
> ...Right now, the "working" (in quotes because they aren't all working
> dogs) gene pool is much larger than the AKC gene pool.
So, finding a real "working" BC in the "working" BC registry is already
a crap shoot? Other than their own egos, what exactly are McCaig et al.
trying to preserve?
> ...If enthusiasts in other breeds can kick up a fuss over recognizing a
> disallowed color or another, how come no one can understand why people who
> have always judged dogs according to working ability might have an issue
> with the idea of breeding them for looks?
People who've always judged dogs according to working ability will not
be affected by AKC recognition of all or even some BCs. They'll still
judge dogs according to working ability, and ought to be able to
consider AKC-registered working dogs as readily as ABCA-registered
working dogs. And they'll still have to wade through all those
non-working, ABCA registered critters.
dianne marie schoenberg
>Likewise there is this urban myth that working breeders don't do any
>health testing. That's not true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy
>farm breeders out there who conform to this stereotype, but they are
>not the guardians of the working dog, any more than the BYBs out there
>are the guardians of the purebred conformation dog.
FWIW, I fairly recently read an article on the web by Donald McCaig
in which he disavowed his previous pro-eye-testing writings and went
back to the old-line stance that "CEA isn't a problem in working
lines dogs; the work must screen for it adequately." Can't find it
now; it seems to have disappeared. But considering that McCaig is
a director of both the ABCA and the USBCHA, I think most would
classify him as a "guardian of the working dog" rather than as a
"crappy farm breeder."
Dianne
dianne marie schoenberg
>when you factor in the huge discrepancy in numbers of dogs registered
>between AKC and working BC registries, i would be willing to believe
>that there are as many working BC breeders doing health testing as
>there are AKC breeders.
In terms of raw numbers, you're right; between 1997 and 2001 there
were somewhat more non-AKC[1] Border Collies certified by OFA than
there were AKC-registered[1] Border Collies. However, look at the
proportions:
Non-AKC AKC
---------------------------------------------------------
Registrations: 104,151[2] 7,862
OFA certifications: 1,113 862
---------------------------------------------------------
Ratio of registrations
to certifications: 1.06% 10.96%
[1] Organization that the dog was registered with was determined
by examining the registration number in the OFA records.
[2] These numbers actually represent registrations with the ABCA
only; there are two other major Border Collie only registries in
the US but they do not make their statistics public.
[3] All figures represent the period 1997-2001.
JFWIW,
Dianne
Edgar S.
> On 18 Sep 2002 17:57:01 GMT Melanie L Chang <mlc...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> whittled these words:
> > All I want is to be able to find dogs like mine twenty or thirty years
> > from now, and I don't want to have to search out some tiny little
> > "working dog" outpost to be able to do it.
>
> Since open lands are decreasing and keeping sheep (for profit) is
> descreasing the population of dogs with true working backgrounds will
> inevitably descrease.
That's sure not my case. We lived in the city for many years, but
chose to become rural. We raise sheep and goats. Our small home flock
providing the household with meat and wool.
It wasn't too long before we came to require a livestock guardian dog.
Lots of predators out here.
> Small but carefully guarded gene pools aren't the
> worst thing in the world.
Actually, we picked a hybrid who was a livestock guardian. He's thick,
stubby and would NEVER win am AKC doggie beauty contest. Yet... he's
quite beautiful to us,'cause we know and love him.
He's our partner too, and helps us and the flock feel safe.
We intentionally picked from an open genepool; all we cared about was
how WHO he was, and what he could do. NOT how he looked. At least not
outside of glowing good health...
> The main problem as I see it is that so many
> of the "working" folks are as single minded as the conformation folks.
Ok. guess I can live with that.
> Work and work alone is their criteria for breeding.
Well... yes. The ability to work, fit into the household, four legs
that work, eyes that see, heart that pumps blood, digestive system
that can handle real food.
> That is really a
> dangerous philosophy in a small gene pool.
I don't even know what that means.
> Generally speaking no matter what the breed if what you want is a
> carefully preserved reflection of the "original" of the breed you will
> have to hunt out a small speciallized subsection to do it.
Unless you maintain your own line....which country people can easily
do.
That has
> always been the case. What is new is the widespread availability of
> purebred dogs
Yes, in fact, it has only been in our own lifetimes we developed the
whole concept of a "purebred" dog. It was only with the advent of the
AKC that gene pools were closed and it became "cheating" to mix in
other types of dogs from different "breeds".
>- that is dogs promoted based on pedigree to everyone
commoditizing and mass producing dogs.
, not
> just those for whom the qualities of the pedigree were important.
> Hmmm - I wonder if there is a realtionship to our increasing diversity in
> our human cultures.
It's really only in the West we can afford to indulge in the "purebred
dog" craze. In other places, basically their only choice is a pup from
one of the dogs down the street.... unless they are with the a
privileged class who indulge the hobby.
dianne marie schoenberg
Edgar S. <edga...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Yes, in fact, it has only been in our own lifetimes we developed the
>whole concept of a "purebred" dog.
You're hundreds of years old? That would certainly explain why you're
so cranky. <*g*>
>It was only with the advent of the AKC that gene pools were closed
>and it became "cheating" to mix in other types of dogs from different
>"breeds".
Nope. Try again. The AKC was far from the first registry for dogs,
and dogs weren't the first animals to have closed stud books, either.
Dianne
Robin Nuttall
Melanie L Chang wrote:
> And to me, that is more a "crappy breeder" issue than a "working breeder"
> issue. The working breeders I know don't breed unsound, shy, spooky dogs
> just because they can get around sheep. Likewise there is this urban
> myth that working breeders don't do any health testing. That's not
> true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy farm breeders out there who
> conform to this stereotype, but they are not the guardians of the working
> dog, any more than the BYBs out there are the guardians of the purebred
> conformation dog.
I'm sorry Melanie, but you're really a bit starry eyed here. McCaig
himself has been quoted on many boards (including cangen-l, which I used
to be a member of) as saying that working border collies simply don't
HAVE genetic problems--it's an invention of the AKC folks. Which is
totally ridiculous as I'm sure you'll agree.
His attitude is "oh, they can't have hip dysplasia or they wouldn't be
able to work all day."
The truth is that there were already huge numbers of BCs being bred
before the AKC accepted them--and that there was a group of BC breeders
who *wanted* to be accepted.
If you truly care about the breed, you don't divorce yourself from any
part of it. AKC registered BCs are not going to magically disappear
because the working BC people stomp their feet, fold up their tents and
go home. So you have a choice. You can split, and say that those dogs
should be trashed, knowing they won't be. Or you can work within the
system to strengthen the working BC presence amongst AKC competitors and
breeders, using the things that the AKC does well (health testing for
one) to strengthen the breed.
Robin Nuttall
Melanie L Chang wrote:
> TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
>
> : Guess I've been reading too much from McCaig and others that follow his
> : line of thinking.
>
> Which writings are you referring to?
>
McCaig has some rather whacko ideas about genetic inheritence of health
problems--mostly that working BCs simply don't get them, can't get
them--period. After all, they run sheep all day, so they couldn't
possibly have hip dysplasia, right? As for epilepsy and eye problems
why, he's never seen a single working BC with any of that stuff, so of
course they don't get them!
This opinion was expressed numerous times on the canine genetics list
out of UOttawa, Canada that I used to be on. McCaig is a good fiction
writer and I have no doubt whatsoever that he loves his dogs deeply. But
he exemplifies the attitude of many working dog breeders of ALL breeds
(hunting, herding, etc.) I don't have it, so of course I don't need to
test for it.
Chris Jung
Oh that's a weird viewpoint. The proper time to screen for CEA (unless BCs
have some sort of strange version of it) is at 7-9 weeks. Its ridiculously
cheap (roughly $20 per pup) and easy to do a litter. Well, one does have to
find a veterinary ophthalmologist, but collie folks do it all the time. And
as the collie people learned so long ago, dogs that have the serious signs
of CEA (colobomas and tortuous blood vessels) can often see remarkably well
and it's those dogs that beget the blind pups. If the breeders pretend that
this problem isn't important, it will rear up and bite them in the butt. (I
shudder to think of a high drive BLIND BC.) And if they tackle it head on,
it's a relatively easy problem to manage.
Chris and her smoothies,
Zeffie and Pablo
> Dianne
Chris Jung
"Melanie L Chang" <mlc...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:amao7h$gcd$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> Lisa Baird (agi...@columbus.rr.com) wrote:
>
>
> You can't run a dog at the Finals unless it's eye tested.
>
> What -is- an issue is that so many of the U.S. breeding and trialing dogs
> are imported from Britain, where eye testing is common but hip testing is
> basically not done.
As I'm following this discussion, I get the impression (correct me if I'm
wrong) that BC folks are often having their dogs eyes tested at adulthood?
If it's for CEA, that's rather odd and inefficient.
And another question, if the finals require an eye check, what does that
mean? If a dog has mild CEA can it run? What about moderate CEA?
Chris and her smoothies,
Zeffie & The Pab
Lisa Baird
> As I'm following this discussion, I get the impression (correct me if I'm
> wrong) that BC folks are often having their dogs eyes tested at adulthood?
> If it's for CEA, that's rather odd and inefficient.
>
> And another question, if the finals require an eye check, what does that
> mean? If a dog has mild CEA can it run? What about moderate CEA?
I believe PRA is thought to be more of a problem in the breed? I know my friend
who recently had to return her new stock dog found he had PRA when she took him
to the ophthalmologist. She got this dog from a fairly well known stock dog
person as a partly trained young adult because her own dog had a serious
orthopedic injury, requiring extended time off. Her young bitch was not able to
work the farm on her own (big farm, big flock), especially in this heat, so she
needed a new dog to work and she needed one now.
The seller let her put a deposit and bring him oem, then she had him tested for
Heartworm, hips and elbows done, and checked by the ophthalmologist.
Unfortunately, the eyes were the last thing she did, so she invested in all
three, then had to return him. : (
Good news is, Ned (her own dog) is recovering nicely and will be able to get
back out and work soon, hopefully. She has pretty well given up on getting
working pups from any health tested background, she just takes her chances.
When she bred her own bitch some years ago she paid the owners of each stud dog
she was interested in to have dog's hips checked and send he the x-rays!
Melanie, are these "trialing dogs" that are being health tested owned by the
real stock dog folk, or the new yuppie sheep dog people who drive their SUVs
out on weekends to trial?
Melinda Shore
Lisa Baird <agi...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
>Melanie, are these "trialing dogs" that are being health tested owned by the
>real stock dog folk, or the new yuppie sheep dog people who drive their SUVs
>out on weekends to trial?
I don't quite understand that question. Things may be
different in other parts of the country, but around here the
professional sheep people use four-wheelers to move their
herds. The only people I know who use put their dogs on
their sheep either are training their dogs or are hobbyists
of various stripes. I think it's generally the case that
it's hobbyists who are keeping many, many traditional skills
alive.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - sh...@panix.com
If you send me harassing email, I'll probably post it
Lisa Baird
> In article <3D89C433...@columbus.rr.com>,
> Lisa Baird <agi...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
> >Melanie, are these "trialing dogs" that are being health tested owned by the
> >real stock dog folk, or the new yuppie sheep dog people who drive their SUVs
> >out on weekends to trial?
>
> I don't quite understand that question. Things may be
> different in other parts of the country, but around here the
> professional sheep people use four-wheelers to move their
> herds. The only people I know who use put their dogs on
> their sheep either are training their dogs or are hobbyists
> of various stripes. I think it's generally the case that
> it's hobbyists who are keeping many, many traditional skills
> alive.
Melanie maintains that the "serious trial" people DO health testing, and that to
suggest otherwise is perpetuating an urban legend. Well, the people I know who
got their BCs from what *I* consider "real" stock dog people (with farms and
hundreds of head of stock to care for daily, trialing to "prove" their real
working dog's talents) don't deal with folks who believe in health testing. Why?
Because they apparently can't be found. <g>
I am just trying to figure out if Melanie and I are talking about the same group
of people. "Hobbyists" keeping working dogs going is fine, but the dog that
really runs the farm and can do the work, not JUST go out and pass a trial, are
the ones I am speaking of.
Edgar S.
> as the collie people learned so long ago, dogs that have the serious signs
> of CEA (colobomas and tortuous blood vessels) can often see remarkably well
> and it's those dogs that beget the blind pups. If the breeders pretend that
> this problem isn't important, it will rear up and bite them in the butt.
Is this form of blindness common in Border Collies? If so...when did
it rear it's head?
Lisa Ochoa
Melanie L Chang wrote:
>
> From what I understand the AKC BC parent club (which was not and is not
> the majority BC club in the States -- that would be the USBCC) is running
> a number of campaigns to increase the number of ABCA-registered (that
> would be the main BC registry) dogs going into AKC. The ABCA is working
> to prevent this. It's all very ugly and I wish the AKC had never
> recognized the breed. I don't know that it will end well.
Actually, this statement isn't quite true. The BCSA (Border Collie
Society of America -- AKC parent club) isn't trying to increase *only*
cross-registrations from ABCA. What is wanted is a permanent open
registration, regardless of what organization initially registered the
dog. The reasons behind this are because -- contrary to the prevailing
propoganda -- there are a lot of folks who would like to the AKC BC to
be a real herding dog. (And -- believe it or not -- there are breeders
out there who produce AKC BCs who can do more than trot around a show
ring.) They want the ability to breed to a good working dog regardless
of its registry, and they want to be able to register the offspring with
the AKC.
> The objection
> among Border Collie people is that the breed standard adopted by the AKC
> is not compatible with the breed standard that has been in place for
> hundreds of years (appearance vs. working). Change the standard, change
> the breed. A simple working/show split is not really an option for the
> BC because it has become the "premier sports dog" and the breed has a
> very large dog sports community that draws from both pools. There are
> also a growing number of "sport BC" breeders out there that breed nice
> dogs, and I'd rather they be bred for agility than for looks, but
> selecting on the basis of sports performance rather than work also
> changes the breed. Anyway, because of the sports component, the
> situation is much more complicated than it might be.
>
> All I want is to be able to find dogs like mine twenty or thirty years
> from now, and I don't want to have to search out some tiny little
> "working dog" outpost to be able to do it.
Not to worry, Melanie, as long as there's an ABCA you can find all kinds
of great working-bred BCs in rescue. Contrary to what you apparently
believe, ABCA dogs are *not* bred just for work. The ABCA is the cash
crop registry for most people producing BCs as a money-making venture --
you can find ABCA dogs in pet shops, shelters, and rescues, and most of
the "BC pups$ for sale CHEEP" ads you see are for ABCA registered BCs.
I am told that last year the ABCA registered over 20,000 BCs. Tell me
please, why there is a need for 20,000 new BC pups if they are only bred
for "working" homes? I can tell you where a huge proportion do end up,
and that is homeless.
Right now, Petfinders shows 1855 BCs in shelters around the country.
This number does not include the ones in rescues, nor the ones that are
tied up in backyards or locked in garages or basements, nor the ones
that died before someone could make any attempt to save them.
Of the hundreds of rescued BCs I have seen and/or fostered in the past
five or six years, only a handful (read: fewer than 10) have been AKC
registered. (Incidentally, only two of our fosters have been ConKC
registered, and both were obvious mixes.) All the rest of the ones we
have received papers on came from the ABCA. Quite a few of these dogs
had very nice lines, and several could be considered very well-bred
indeed (I don't know all that much about herding pedigrees, but I have
run them by people who do). Heck, I've gotten *eighteen* dogs from the
same breeder in the past two years, plus an equal number of others from
him that were brought to me for evaluation and resolution of behavioral
problems. This guy breeds four or five litters every year, and places
them in some of the MOST inappropriate homes imaginable. The fact that
he has bred a number of dogs with bad hips and knees, and the fact that
about 30% of them have highly unstable temperaments doesn't matter a
whit to him. Nor does it to the ABCA, apparently, because I have written
to them requesting some sort of action and thus far have been ignored.
I have said this before, I'll say it again, and I will keep on saying it
till someone gives me a good reason not to:
I would bet that if a BC ever shows up in the BIS ring at Westminster,
we won't see a proliferation of fluffy fat conformation dogs. What we
WILL see is a whole lot more HERDING dogs being sold into inappropriate
homes, being bred by the ignorant, the greedy, and the unscrupulous. And
almost none of them will be AKC-registered.
I am no fan of conformation showing and I am certainly no fan of
conformation dogs (my one AKC-registered dog is a race-bred whippet).
But the idea that AKC is "ruining" the BC is simply ludicrous. The
people breeding the dogs I am seeing don't give a rat's ass about the
herding abilities of the parents, they certainly don't care about the
health or temperaments of the puppies they are producing. And the public
-- who is probably NOT seeing BCs at conformation shows, instead they
are seeing them in TV commercials, and on Animal Planet in agility
events, etc. -- don't seem to care about AKC registration when it comes
to BCs.
I find it incredibly ironic that herding people "protect" their lines
from the taint of the AKC, but will sell their well-bred dogs to farmers
to turn into cash crops, or to novice pet owners, or to just about
anyone who shows up at the door with cash in hand, without a second
thought. And that goes for the owners of dogs at stud as well as the
breeders producing puppies.
BCs have been eligible for AKC registry since 1995. The number of
AKC-registered BCs is miniscule compared to the number of BCs registered
with the working registries. Irresponsible breeders do not appear to be
leaping onto the AKC bandwagon. Oh, I am sure that some have, don't get
me wrong! But all the pet shop dogs I get in are still being registered
with the ABCA or the AIBC -- and people buy them just the same.
I am not trying to say that AKC BCs are "better" than herding-bred (I
certainly do not agree with that!), or anything along those lines atall.
I *am* saying that for herding breeders to turn up their noses at the
AKC and then sell a dog to someone who will lock it in a dark barn and
breed it to death is an exercise in extreme irony. Bashing a registry
and blaming all the problems in a given breed on the said registry is an
exercise in futility.
When working registries start cracking down on breeders who are not
producing working dogs, when herding people start policing themselves
and screening their buyers, etc, THEN they will have every right to
point fingers at those who cannot or will not follow suit.
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa's House of Dog Toys
Home of Archie, CGC (11yo Doberman); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous
12yo Lady Whippet); Ripley, CD NA NAJ FDCH CGC (6yo BC);
Luke, CGC (6yo BC Extraordinaire); Solo, CGC the Son's Dog
(9yo BC); Banjo ARX TRP CGC (Whippet); fosters; and at the Bridge:
V Oliver, CDX HT NA FM CGC (BC - 1989-June 4, 2002)
Lisa Ochoa
I don't post many one-line responses, but:
DAMN, I wish I'd said all that! Thank you, Diane, for putting my
thoughts so neatly (and politely!)
TO...@dog-play.com wrote:
>
> On 18 Sep 2002 19:43:43 GMT Melanie L Chang <mlc...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> whittled these words:
> > Lisa Baird (agi...@columbus.rr.com) wrote:
>
> > What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered? What are they
> > missing out on by not being AKC registered? Nothing, far as I can tell.
>
> I don't think that's the point. The point is that McCaig and his
> followers are doing EXACTLY what they complain that AKC does. They are
> judging the dog based upon some criteria other than working ability.
> They are rejecting a dog based solely on registration. What they are
> saying is "we don't care if your dog is a great worker - if you join the
> evil empire we don't want your dog's bloodlines"
>
> > I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
>
> Sure they do.
>
> > The feeling is that AKC culture is not conducive to preserving the Border
> > Collie as it is regardless of which dogs get registered into it, and that
> > the majority of dogs will be produced in this culture, and that in the
> > future the true working dog will be relatively rare.
>
> Of course they will be relatively rare. How could it be otherwise when
> there is so little work to do?
>
> > Why would any breed club or registry want willingly to give up control
> > over its breed? I don't want to argue; I'm just curious. I'm also very
> > curious to hear the arguments of those people who have working dogs and
> > are pro-AKC.
>
> I'm neither pro-AKC nor anti-AKC though I have anti-AKC tendencies. But
> I do think that if a registry claims to be concerned about working
> ability then they ought to keep that focus and (a) not register dogs
> without proven working ability and (b) not reject dogs with proven
> working ability. The registery of only working dogs should drop
> dramatically in numbers as so few dogs work, even in sports. But that's
> what it takes to perserve the working qualities of the dog.
>
> Diane Blackman
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa's House of Dog Toys
Home of Archie, CGC (11yo Doberman); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous
12yo Lady Whippet); Ripley, CD NA NAJ FDCH CGC (6yo BC);
Luke, CGC (6yo BC Extraordinaire); Solo, CGC the Son's Dog
(9yo BC); Banjo ARX (Whippet); fosters; and at the Bridge:
V Oliver, CDX HT NA FM CGC (BC)
Lisa Ochoa
Melanie L Chang wrote:
>
> Lisa Baird (agi...@columbus.rr.com) wrote:
>
> : Unfortunately, the anti AKC BC groups is out to fulfill their own prophecy, or
> : so it appears They are working so hard to prevent dual registration, that no
> : "real" BC will be able to be AKC registered.
>
> What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered?
What do they get out of being ABCA registered? About the same as if they
weren't registered at all, I'd say. After all, the dogs don't care about
the bits of paper we humans think are so important.
> What are they
> missing out on by not being AKC registered? Nothing, far as I can tell.
Tell me, Melanie, have you ever actually SEEN an AKC-registered BC?
Because I have, and I'll let you in on a little secret. They're not all
fat, short-legged, hairy dogs with perfect ears and markings. And
further, there ARE breeders out there who don't have any interest in
producing AKC BCs who fall into this category.
And, oh yes! There are working-bred conformation champions (who go out
and HERD) that don't fall into this category either.
And, FWIW, there are plenty of responsible breeders in other AKC breeds
who don't make their breeding decisions based on what a dog has or has
not done in the conformation ring.
My other breed is whippets. My one and only AKC-registered dog has a
champion sire, but that is not the reason Banjo's breeder selected him
for her bitch. She selected that dog because he was also a successful
straight racing dog from a line of noted straight racers, and had the
qualities she wanted to improve in the bitch she was breeding. Banjo's
dam has never set foot in a breed ring, but she is both a straight
racing and oval racing champion. That is the work that whippets were
originally bred to do, and that is the primary quality that Banjo's
breeder was looking for. Of course, there is no real split in whippets
-- there are breeders out at both ends of the spectrum producing ONLY
show dogs or ONLY race dogs, but there are quite a few who work hard
trying to produce dogs who can do more than one thing well. That's the
kind of breeder I went to, and what I got is a talented racing dog that
LOOKS and ACTS like a whippet. (For the curious, you can see Banjo and
his pedigree at http://www.illinibcrescue.org/banjo.htm ).
To apply this to the AKC BC, you apparently believe that BCs are capable
of being or doing only one thing. I don't agree with this philosophy,
because I have personally seen some excellent working dogs who also
happened to be conformation champions. And I would encourage those who
want to take a stab at producing a dog that can succeed in any venue.
> I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
Don't kid yourself. A LOT of people care, but you'll never find them if
you don't look. And you can't look if you have your head buried in the
sand.
> The feeling is that AKC culture is not conducive to preserving the Border
> Collie as it is regardless of which dogs get registered into it, and that
> the majority of dogs will be produced in this culture,
Let's see, the ABCA registered 20,000 dogs and the AKC registered about
a tenth of that. This statement doesn't really make sense.
>
> Why would any breed club or registry want willingly to give up control
> over its breed?
See, here is the crux of the problem. I don't believe that ANY breed
belongs to a club or registry. A club or registry may work to promote
what they believe is in the breed's best interests, but that doesn't
mean that others might not want to do the same from another perspective.
>I don't want to argue; I'm just curious. I'm also very
> curious to hear the arguments of those people who have working dogs and
> are pro-AKC.
I am too blind to work dogs on sheep, though I have a friend who takes
them out for me, so I don't own any working dogs. However, at the moment
I have several working-bred dogs in my house (all from shelters or
people who didn't really WANT a working dog to begin with). I have had
plenty of those.
I'm not really pro-AKC, either. I'm not PRO any registry at the expense
of any other (though I am a BCSA member). What I don't like is all this
endless bullpuckey about the saintly ABCA and the EEEEEEVIL AKC.
Lisa Ochoa
Chris Jung wrote:
>
> "dianne marie schoenberg" <dia...@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:amaq46$tnk$1...@nntp3.u.washington.edu...
> > Melanie L Chang <mlc...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu> wrote:
> > >Likewise there is this urban myth that working breeders don't do any
> > >health testing. That's not true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy
> > >farm breeders out there who conform to this stereotype, but they are
> > >not the guardians of the working dog, any more than the BYBs out there
> > >are the guardians of the purebred conformation dog.
> >
> > FWIW, I fairly recently read an article on the web by Donald McCaig
> > in which he disavowed his previous pro-eye-testing writings and went
> > back to the old-line stance that "CEA isn't a problem in working
> > lines dogs; the work must screen for it adequately." Can't find it
> > now; it seems to have disappeared. But considering that McCaig is
> > a director of both the ABCA and the USBCHA, I think most would
> > classify him as a "guardian of the working dog" rather than as a
> > "crappy farm breeder."
>
> Oh that's a weird viewpoint. The proper time to screen for CEA (unless BCs
> have some sort of strange version of it)
They don't.
> (I
> shudder to think of a high drive BLIND BC.)
Even worse is a high drive DEAF BC. Yes, they're out there, and growing
more common. And most of them are registered with the ABCA.
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa's House of Dog Toys
Home of Archie, CGC (11yo Doberman); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous
12yo Lady Whippet); Ripley, CD NA NAJ FDCH CGC (6yo BC);
Luke, CGC (6yo BC Extraordinaire); Solo, CGC the Son's Dog
dianne marie schoenberg
>Melanie L Chang wrote:
>
>> From what I understand the AKC BC parent club (which was not and is not
>> the majority BC club in the States -- that would be the USBCC) is running
>> a number of campaigns to increase the number of ABCA-registered (that
>> would be the main BC registry) dogs going into AKC. The ABCA is working
>> to prevent this. It's all very ugly and I wish the AKC had never
>> recognized the breed. I don't know that it will end well.
>
>Actually, this statement isn't quite true. The BCSA (Border Collie
>Society of America -- AKC parent club) isn't trying to increase *only*
>cross-registrations from ABCA.
I just realized that there are probably many people reading this
that are missing out on a lot of the background here. The documents
which lay out each organization's respective position on this issue
can be read at the following URLs:
From the BCSA (AKC parent club):
http://www.duke.edu/~awho/stdbk2002.pdf
From the ABCA (one of the 3 major BC registries in the US):
http://www.americanbordercollie.org/AKC2.htm
Actually, I would very much encourage everybody to compare the
quality and depth of the information on the BCSA's web site
(http://www.bordercolliesociety.com) to that on ABCA's web
site (http://www.americanbordercollie.org). Decide for yourself
which one is doing the most to promote responsible breeding
and to preserve the breed's herding ability.
Dianne
April Quist
> Likewise there is this urban
> myth that working breeders don't do any health testing. That's not
> true. Yeah, there are a lot of crappy farm breeders out there who
Wow, Melanie... you're really getting into these crazy critters,
aren't you? Did you ever think when you got Solo a couple years ago
that you'd be following the rest of us crazies, and getting addicted
to the breed and to herding? (By the way - I've taken lessons with
Epic from John Atkinson (aka Whiterose) when he's been here in
California - I've learned a lot from him.)
Saying that it's an urban myth that working dog breeders don't do any
health testing might be stretching things a bit. They've gotten much,
much better in the past 5 or 10 years, and I have no doubt they'll
continue to get better in the next 5 or 10 years. There are a lot of
trial people out there who are much more interested in making sure
their dogs' hips and eyes are clear (and it's required that dogs
running in the sheepdog finals have a clear CERF).
But I also know personally of several well-known trial people who
"cheat." If you take your dog to enough eye doctors, you can often
find someone who will clear a dog's eyes. The inability to clear OFA
can be passed of as "Oh, he was injured when he was young." I know of
one particular very popular stud who's passing on both CEA and hip
dysplasia, and possibly also epilepsy (which is even easier to hide).
I also know of a litter belonging to another trial person... the bitch
was imported pregnant from the UK, and when the litter was whelped,
three of the nine puppies had to be put down because of a bone
deformity. One had OCD bad enough that he had to have surgery. But the
owner of the litter didn't talk about it unless she was asked
directly. (This is someone I know *very* well - I saw these puppies
myself, including the deformed ones.)
Many of the trial people still see their dogs basically as livestock.
They live in kennels except when they're working, they whelp puppies
in kennels, and they sell puppies cheap (I consider $300 for a BC to
be cheap). If the puppies aren't sound enough to trial for whatever
reason, they're placed somewhere else.
Most of all... most don't put too much effort into helping out when
one of their puppies comes into rescue, which lots of them do because
they're being sold to inappropriate pet homes.
April with Levi, Caper, and Epic
April Quist
> What do Border Collies get out of being AKC registered?
We get another venue for herding, for one thing. In spite of what the
trial people who've never tried AKC herding like to say, the AKC
herding courses aren't so laughable. Try an A (arena) course
sometime... it takes a lot of control on a dog to maneuver sheep
through an obstacle. And the B courses are minature Open courses, that
include a pen and a simple shed. Yes, the outruns and drives are
usually much shorter than an Open or Pro-Novice course, but they're a
great way to get started in herding if you're new, and a great way to
get many more chances to work at different places on different sheep.
> I don't think anyone really cares if AKC dogs are "herding dogs" or not.
I'm an active member in the Border Collie Society of America - the BC
parent club. The membership at present is around 75% or 80% people who
DO NOT do conformation - people who are doing agility, obedience,
herding, etc. You have no idea how hard we're working to get the
message across that the BC's working ability it THE thing that makes
these dogs what they are - it's the reason they're so versatile, and
can do any sport really well. And you have no idea how hard we're
working to stop the trend toward the huge-coated, short-legged,
short-muzzled dogs that are winning in the conformation ring. There's
a committee working on a new conformation standard right now that will
emphasize the need for dogs built for speed, agility, and stamina.
Obviously there's no way to tell in a ring if a dog has the instinct
and ability to herd, but at least we're trying to stop the dogs from
winning that don't have a body that can easily do a 300-yard outrun.
> Why would any breed club or registry want willingly to give up control
> over its breed? I don't want to argue; I'm just curious. I'm also very
> curious to hear the arguments of those people who have working dogs and
> are pro-AKC.
Again - I'm not really pro-AKC, but I decided a long time ago that I
don't want an animal being called a Border Collie that looks like a
cross between a Golden Retriever and an Aussie. I decided to try and
keep the BC looking like it should - a hard-working dog. And we
*haven't* given up control. It's the parent club that has control over
the breed in the AKC, and those of us who are working with the BCSA
are working very hard to keep this dog a herding dog, no matter what
the conformation dogs in Australia look like.
We might very well fail. That would be depressing, but if it happens,
those of us who love the working dog will give up then. Now isn't the
time - we seem to be making progress.
April with Levi, Caper, and Epic
April Quist
> ...If enthusiasts in other breeds can kick up a fuss over recognizing a
> disallowed color or another, how come no one can understand why people who
> have always judged dogs according to working ability might have an issue
> with the idea of breeding them for looks?
There are a lot of people like me, Melanie. Epic is my sheepdog, and
he's a pretty darn good one (Levi, who's out of pure working stock,
will eat sheep; Caper, again out of pure working stock, has instinct,
but not a lot of stock sense). I have a 14 sheep on 10 acres, and when
Epic was injured a couple months ago, I was lost without him - I had
to gather the sheep myself at night, and I couldn't do any chores,
like worming, vaccinations, hoof-trimming... I know some people who
raise sheep get along without dogs, but I sure don't know how they do
it.
Epic is my sheepdog first, and he's a very useful one. We started
running in Pro-Novice this year, and he did a reasonable (not great,
but he has kind of an inept handler :-) job of it among some very
competitive trial people.
I also sometimes show him in conformation because he's a nice-looking
dog and, though he looks like a working-bred dog, most people think he
can finish an AKC Championship. It's a silly game to me, I'll admit,
but I figure the judges out there need to see the working types so
they know what a BC should really look like. There are a lot of
working dogs out there who could finish a Championship.
You know... I know a lot of trialing people who breed for looks in
their own ways. In this area, many like smooth coats (sure helps when
it's foxtail season in California), so that's what they're breeding.
Many don't like red dogs, so they're breeding only black and white or
tris. A lot of them have a preference for ear set. My instructor has
this "thing" about which side of the head most of a dog's white should
be on - she's sure that's tied into working ability. Don't fool
yourself that looks don't matter - people like nice-looking dogs and
if someone is choosing between two studs with equal accomplishments
for a bitch, they're going to choose the one whose looks they like the
best.
Manadero
>Not to worry, Melanie, as long as there's an ABCA you can find all kinds
>of great working-bred BCs in rescue.
Absolutely. My most recent foster came from a die hard " AKC is evil", owner
who never worked her bitch (she literally lived in the backyard playing ball
and frisbee), never did any health testing and bred her several times. When I
picked up this sweet, VERY well bred girl, complete with ABCA papers, at almost
nine years of age, our first stop was the vet clinic to have the choke chain
surgically removed from her neck. Her pups, most likely, were placed in homes
just like hers... pet people with nary a clue... I concur with Lisa that the
dogs we see in rescue 99.9% of the time are ABCA registered... sorta like NSD
for Aussies. It's a true registry, no doubt, but to hold it up as the
protector of the breed is downright laughable. It seems to have fallen by the
wayside as an "easier and cheaper" option for farmers and bybs.
>Contrary to what you apparently
>believe, ABCA dogs are *not* bred just for work.
No, they aren't. In fact, the vast majority of them never work a day in their
life. They are sold in the newspapers as pups fer bucks (seven ads today
alone, not ONE AKC ad), at flea markets, in the farmer's bulletin.
>The ABCA is the cash
>crop registry for most people producing BCs as a money-making venture --
>you can find ABCA dogs in pet shops, shelters, and rescues, and most of
>the "BC pups$ for sale CHEEP" ads you see are for ABCA registered BCs.
Absolutely true. Even the "big hats" with the well known breeding programs
place their fair share in performance homes. Sure, they loudly claim that AKC
is ruining their breed, but will they sell a pup to an AKC competitor? As long
as the check clears, you bet!
>I would bet that if a BC ever shows up in the BIS ring at Westminster,
>we won't see a proliferation of fluffy fat conformation dogs. What we
>WILL see is a whole lot more HERDING dogs being sold into inappropriate
>homes, being bred by the ignorant, the greedy, and the unscrupulous.
I agree 100% with this. The "just like xxx (insert your favorite
movie/commercial here) dogs" I've seen are ABCA. I've been to some of these
'breeders', scary scary places (um, you know, like a mill) and they are
absolutely the $250 cash, take your pick and never hear from me again types.
My most recent addition is AKC registerable (his sire and dam are) and both his
sire and dam are conformation CHs (though they are in no way fluffy, down eared
dead heads). They also live and work on a huge cattle/sheep/llama farm and are
bred first and foremost for working ability. He was showing great promise at 7
- 8 weeks and, once he is a bit more mature, will be training with one of our
local BC people and trialing himself. It really wouldn't have mattered to me
one way or another that he was AKC registerable, but I had a damn hard time
finding "working" (only) breeders who I would reward with my $$$.
Will I show him in conformation? Perhaps, if he is finishable, but that isn't
the reason I bought him, and it's not our main focus. We won't be lost in the
fluffy crowd, however, since my pup is a very gangly semi rough, not at all a
fat, fluffy thing...
I understand the anti AKC sentiment, I do, it just doesn't make much sense in
the face of the fact that ABCA apparently has no inclination to govern
themselves and the dogs already produced inside their registry. Whomever
compared it to the JRTs was dead on.. If ABCA is to have any teeth as a
"working" registry, they need to start having some sort of basis for that
claim. I'd happily prove my pup's abilities for that slip of paper.
Robin
Shelly
"Melanie L Chang" <mlc...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu> wrote in message
news:ame270$mb4$2...@netnews.upenn.edu...
> April Quist (shi...@yahoo.com) wrote:
>
> : Wow, Melanie... you're really getting into these crazy critters,
> : aren't you? Did you ever think when you got Solo a couple years ago
> : that you'd be following the rest of us crazies, and getting addicted
> : to the breed and to herding?
>
> all your existing friends think you've gone totally insane, eats up all
> your free time, and requires intensive study of animals you've never been
> at all interested in (i.e., sheep). I used to take dressage lessons, now
> I just go dogging. My mother wishes I was still riding. I said, "Mom,
> riding is SO dangerous, you should be glad I'm working dogs instead."
> She answered, "But rich, quality people go riding. Who will you meet out
> there in sheep fields?" (Her goal is to get me married to someone as
> well-heeled as possible, and to not be embarrassed when she tells her
> friends what I do for fun. Oh, well.)
Well, herding isn't exactly cheap! So...maybe you'll luck out & meet
some really nice guy who has a really nice dogs, and who would have
decent money--if only he didn't spend it all on his dogs. Oh yeah, and
he would have a small parcel of land, enough to have said dogs, and
oh, at least 3 or 4 sheep on. And maybe even room for a horse. ;-)
You've got to have some priorities, you know! <grin>
We have room for a few sheep, but do you think I can convince my husband
that we need to have X number of specimens of "The world's dumbest
animal" (as he so kindly puts it!) running around...worse yet, "for the
dogs"!! <laugh>
He thinks I'm insane. I'd get ducks, but don't like most birds (Sorry,
fear
thing, never have liked birds, particularly poulty/fowl since childhood).
And,
it's way too dry here, I'd have to dig a mini-pond! And disgusting as it
is,
at least you can use a pitchfork to clean up after sheep. There isn't
anything
going to get duck poop off my walk-way, front porch, wherever they want to
go, they'll go...<sigh> So, I'll probably stay livestock-less...
Shelly & Coda (I want sheep, I want sheep, I want sheep!)
Edgar S.
>
> > : Unfortunately, the anti AKC BC groups is out to fulfill their own prophecy, or
> > : so it appears They are working so hard to prevent dual registration, that no
> > : "real" BC will be able to be AKC registered.
>
>
>
> followers are doing EXACTLY what they complain that AKC does. They are
> judging the dog based upon some criteria other than working ability.
> They are rejecting a dog based solely on registration.
Nope. Flaw in your reasoning. They reject AKC dogs because AKC only
considered conformation. The only thing an AKC dog needs to do it get
through a show standing up and not bite a judge.
You are referring to the INDIVIDUAL AKC dog who might, but some fluke
retain a whit of working ability? Why bother? They be working against
themselves to even go there.
> What they are
> saying is "we don't care if your dog is a great worker - if you join the
> evil empire we don't want your dog's bloodlines"
They obviously don't need the aggravation. You either agree with AKC
and their standards or you don't. The only REAL AKC standard is
appearance/conformity.
>
>
Edgar S.
> I'm neither pro-AKC nor anti-AKC though I have anti-AKC tendencies. But
> I do think that if a registry claims to be concerned about working
> ability then they ought to keep that focus and (a) not register dogs
> without proven working ability and (b) not reject dogs with proven
> working ability.
this is the small view that ignores the morality of the issue. AKC
will be the death of many breeds. Although the dogs in question might
not be doing "bad things", they function as AKC representatives; who
do reprehensible things to good breeds.
This is like the gang of armed robbers who have a garage sale on
saturday. Is it ok to buy from them?
Edgar S.
Lisa Ochoa <l-o...@uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:<3D8A3206...@uiuc.edu>...
Lisa Ochoa
Melanie L Chang wrote:
>
> [tapping loudspeaker] Is this thing on?
>
> OK, OK OK! Hold on a second. There are some things I said and some
> things that were imputed and a lot of things I feel like I have to clear
> up here... I also think it's rather unfortunate that I've somehow become
> the "voice of the ABCA" when I'm neither qualified nor inclined to do so.
I don't think of you as the "voice of the ABCA" at all. However, I have
seen you initiate this same discussion at least three times in the past
year or so, always from the standpoint that the AKC BC is an EVIL thing
that will destroy the working BC if allowed to continue. And each time,
you have heard from those of us who have looked at this question from
both sides and concluded that this is not the case. Despite this, you
have apparently chosen not to look at the other side of the coin --
defined in this case as actually looking at typical AKC BCs (which, by
and large, are NOT fat, fluffy, or perfectly marked), talking to BCSA
members about the work going on to keep the AKC BC a working dog, or
doing anything else that might provide evidence that could upset the
assertion that AKC + BC = DOOM for BCs.
I don't understand this position at all. I know you are a better
researcher than this, and I know you're not stupid.
> I'm not denying that there's a lot of cleaning house the ABCA needs to
> do. And I am well aware that the vast, vast majority of rescue and
> shelter BCs are ABCA registered (hey, I have one -- fairly well bred,
> too).
I've had TONS, some *very* well bred indeed. Heck, sleeping on the couch
in my house as we speak is a dog whose sire is an internationally
renowned herding champion import. Too bad he had to spend the first five
years of his life living in a basement, because the suburban family he
was sold to couldn't begin to handle his serious working temperament.
But what the hell, they had the $$ to pay for him, so the breeder took
the check and let him go without a second thought about his "working"
future.
> I think this is largely due to simple statistics, because there
> are far more ABCA-registered BCs in the States than there are
> AKC-registered dogs. If the proportions were reversed, I imagine the
> numbers in rescue would also flip-flop.
Who says the numbers would flip-flop? Most of the AKC BC breeders I know
don't think there should be 20,000 BCs bred and registered every year
PERIOD -- regardless of the registry. That is simply too many dogs of a
breed that is not cut out to be a pet dog for 98% of the population.
> This isn't saying anything
> except that the ABCA is just as bad at policing breeders as the AKC is.
Well, let's stop and think about this one for a second. The AKC has the
Frequent Sires Program (which has driven quite a few millers to the
ConKC or other bogus registries). Further, the AKC *will* suspend
registration privileges for breeders who are convicted of animal cruelty
or neglect (check out the Board minutes at the AKC website). The AKC
also has limited registration, so that breeders can designate through
type of registration which dogs should be bred and which should not.
That's global, across the board for all breeds. As you know, each breed
also has a parent club, which is intended to work for improvement of the
breed. The AKC's BC parent club works to promote responsible breeding,
including health testing (you can see the results of health testing for
BCs at the BCSA site), and also is a strong supporter of rescue. Did you
know, Melanie, that at the BCSA's national specialty every year there is
a *huge* rescue benefit that raises literally thousands of dollars for
rescue (last year, almost $5000 for one evening, and that's not counting
the support shown at the rescue booths set up all week long)? It has
become one of the most popular events of the whole Specialty, I am told.
The BCSA also has a rescue committee, whose primary charge is reducing
the number of BCs in rescue (education, education, education -- so the
BCSA also has a general education committee that works with the rescue
committee, and the Ethics Committee is preparing to revamp the Code of
Ethics to give it more teeth, something else that the rescue committee
is involved with), while providing support to rescuers? All this, even
though the VAST majority of BCs in rescue are NOT AKC registered.
In comparison, the ABCA does -- what, exactly? Besides promoting itself
as the "working" registry, of course.
> Another reason for the number of dogs in rescue is, I believe, breed
> culture.
I agree that this is the *big* reason. But the "breed culture" is not
going to be fixed by sneering at another registry.
> I know some anti-AKC people who lay the rescue problem at the AKC's feet,
> and I -don't agree with them- (pretend there are italics there, humor me).
> The rescue problem has nothing to do with AKC.
The rescue problem has to do with the BREEDERS who contribute to it, and
the clueless, uneducated people who buy from them because they want a
medium-sized, pretty, black-and-white "smart" dog.
At least the AKC's parent club is trying hard to do something about the
situation, which is more than can be said for the ABCA.
> There is one part of the objection to AKC that I have a lot of sympathy
> with. That is the fact that the stated breeding goals sanctioned by each
> registry are not compatible with each other. We all know that most
> breeders are not paying attention to breed standards at any rate, but
> that is no reason to throw the standards away, or to stop using them as a
> means to evaluate potential breeding animals. The best breeders of dogs
> evaluate them according to standards that are appropriate to their
> breed. And you can't judge working ability in a conformation ring, any
> more than you can assess correct bite by watching an outrun.
Let me ask you a question: what makes you think that ALL AKC breeders
make their breeding decisions solely on what happens in the conformation
ring? Sure, some do, but they are (really and truly!) in the minority.
A conformation CH is a nice thing, but it is by no means crucial to
people who are trying hard to produce dogs that can do a job. A lot of
people put their dogs in the ring because it can be fun for the dogs,
they have a nice-looking dog, or they want to show the judges what a
real BC looks like.
Take April Quist's Epic, for example. I have met this dog, and I am here
to tell you that Epic is REALLY nice, no matter how you slice it. He's
got plenty of sheep ability, not only for trials but also for day-to-day
work (what BCs were originally bred for, after all). Yet he also won an
Award of Merit in the conformation ring at least year's national
specialty. He's not short-legged, fat, or particularly hairy. He didn't
have a big-name professional handler. He's just a really well
put-together dog that happens to be pretty. He's also got a really sweet
and biddable nature.
In short, this dog is the total package -- he has working ability,
health, temperament AND looks. But *just because* he is registered with
the AKC, he is somehow tainted?
I'll tell ya -- if I were going to actually go to a breeder for a BC
(not necessary for me because of all the outstanding dogs flowing
through rescue), I would pick someone like Epic's breeder before I'd
pick someone who bred for ONLY working ability, without regard for
health, temperament, or where the puppies would end up (come to think of
it, when I DID go to a breeder, I selected one like Epic's breeder!)
> Compared to the AKC, ABCA operates on a shoestring budget. Because the
> ABCA is affiliated with the USBCHA and USBCC, ABCA revenues directly fund
> events that are intended, in addition to being a fun time for dogs and
> handlers, to be the arenas in which breeding animals are evaluated.
How is this different from the AKC? (leaving aside the fact that the
vast majority of dogs from both registries are not evaluated in any way
before breeding) Or do you think that breeders disregard what happens in
herding, agility, obedience, racing, lure coursing, earthdog, etc, when
making breeding decisions?
> Without ABCA revenues, there would be no National Finals, no funding for
> the CEA DNA marker project, no funding for the novice handlers program,
> no funding for clinics, etc. The culture surrounding this breed would
> change considerably.
Considering that the culture of this breed supports treating the dogs
like livestock, I'm not sure that's altogether a bad thing.
No, I would not want the good things the ABCA does to go away. But their
culture has its own bad smells -- just like AKC, imagine that! -- and
there's no point in pretending otherwise.
There is a very great fear that the AKC would
> eventually wield such hegemony that there would be no more ABCA. I'm not
> sure this is an idle fear.
Um, yeah, it is.
As an analogy, take a look at the Field Dog Stud Book, which registers
sporting breeds. The FDSB has been around for a LONG time (eighty years
or more). It does many of the same things in terms of events and support
of working dogs as the ABCA, except that it also apparently interested
in trying to maintain its integrity through action, not talk (see
http://www.nalba.org/ ).
There are PLENTY of working sporting dogs out there registered with the
FDSB. These are serious working and trial dogs that most likely will
never set foot in any show ring -- just the sort of dog the ABCA says
will become extinct if the Evil Empire AKC has its way. The FDSB doesn't
care about the AKC, they don't care if someone wants to sell or breed a
FDSB dog that will end up being AKC-registered. They're not threatened
in any way by the AKC.
Is there a split between the field dog and the show dog? Yep. But there
are always going to be dogs -- of any breed that has a job -- on
extreme ends of the spectrum. To my mind and IME, the ones who most
truly represent what the original breeders envisioned are the ones that
fall in the middle -- healthy dogs with sound temperaments that can do
the job they were bred for and do it well, and that are immediately
identifiable as a specific breed.
Has one extreme yet managed to destroy the other? Hasn't happened with
sporting dogs, and it's not going to. Hasn't happened with BCs either,
so far. Seven years is a fair amount of time, and still the vast
majority of AKC BCs haven't turned into fat hairy dogs held together
with chalk and hair spray.
> If the worst-case scenario comes to pass, ABCA folds or becomes
> marginalized, and AKC is left as the only real game in town, that will
> mean big changes for the breed. For one thing, it will create a big rift
> between the working community here in the States and the parent community
> in Britain, as ABCA has a lot more cultural continuity with ISDS than AKC
> does. For another, the main venues in which breeding animals are
> evaluated would be completely different.
> In addition, selection for
> herding ability would be diluted by selection for other unrelated
> characters, like profuse coat, perfect ear set, etc. I understand that
> BCSA doesn't want this to happen and is fighting against it. However, I
> think they will lose.
Why?
> You all are right that ABCA does not require working tests for
> registration, any more than AKC requires conformation titles for
> registration. Yet, AKC is still promoted as the registry that looks out
> for the interests of the "purebred dog." There has been a great deal of
> discussion over a working test for ABCA registration. It may happen,
> although it would mean the registry would end up being a lot smaller.
> There's also discussion of a tiered registration system, with top-level
> dogs being designated "breeding quality" or the like, another tier of
> possible breeding quality (breeding quality parents, not yet tested) and
> a third of pet/nonbreeding quality.
> The problem is that I don't think
> ABCA has the money or manpower to implement this.
Not with 20,000 dogs being bred every year without regard for working
ability -- you're right about that.
>
> There's no way of predicting if allowing dual registration would
> eventually lead to most BCs being only AKC registered.
Probably not. It hasn't happened with other breeds, and there is no
reason in the world to think it would happen with BCs.
> Banning dual
> registration is only one of the possible actions being considered by the
> ABCA board, but it seems to be a popular one.
Well, it's a lot easier to throw stones at your rivals than fix the
broken panes in your own glass house. So of course that is going to be a
popular action.
> I'm on the fence as to how
> I feel about it. I think the idea is to force people to cast their lot
> with one registry or another, and stop them from drifting over to
> AKC-only in the future. I don't know that this is a good idea. For one
> thing, I think (and have stated in a relevant ABCA members discussion)
> that this will mean ABCA will lose pretty much all the sport BC people,
> many of whom are loyal to the sport before they are loyal to the breed.
What they need to do is encourage those of us who are loyal to the breed
before we're loyal to a registry.
> What if AKC suddenly told Doberman people that white
> dogs were OK, to hell with the protection dog thing since no one really
> needs protection dogs anyway, why not breed the pretty white dogs?
If they did this, what makes you think that the people breeding working
Dobermans would suddenly quit breeding working Dobermans and start
breeding pretty white dogs instead?
Your analogy works ONLY if the AKC said, "from here on out, the only
Dobermans that are acceptable for registry are the pretty white ones."
> The
> problem that working BC people have with the idea of AKC recognition and
> all the possible changes that entails is not really that much different
> from how GSD people feel about Shiloh Shepherds,
Or whippet people feel about the so-called "long-haired whippets." And
once those so-called LHW had a different name and were stated to be a
different breed (like GSDs and Shiloh Shepherds) whippet people quit
getting so tanked over it.
> There is a standard, an archetype, by
> which this breed has been defined, which makes it distinct from any other
> Despite the fact that
> there are shitty farm breeders out there and people who don't care where
> their puppies go, this is true, just as it is possible to define a
> well-bred Labrador Retriever even though the vast majority of Labs in this
> country come from mills and BYBs.
The difference is that the breeder of a well-bred Lab is a lot less
likely to sell it into a less-than-adequate home.
> I'll be happy if AKC hegemony means that there are less BCs in rescue and
> less poorly-bred BCs (though I doubt that will happen), but I won't be
> happy at all if the abilities, aptitudes, and characters of the best-bred
> dogs changes.
Neither will the breeders who register their dogs with the AKC.
You know, there are breeds that have avoided a show/work split to at
least some extent. (Whippets and Viszlas immediately come to mind as
examples of this phenomenon.) What do they have in common? They have
healthy but relatively small gene pools, for starters -- they're not
anywhere close to being the most popular breeds, but they are not rare
breeds, either. The vast majority of people involved with these breeds
are not doing it to make money. Therefore, they can afford to make sure
that all health checks are done, that the dogs they're breeding are
physically and mentally sound and capable of doing the work they were
bred for, and that any puppies not kept by the breeder are placed into
carefully screened homes. (Whippet rescue sees about 40-50 dogs per
year, mostly older. They have waiting lists of adopters. Compare that to
what is happening with BCs!) Why can't the ABCA shoot for something like
this, instead of wasting all their energies bemoaning the existence of
the AKC?
Bottom line for me is that there are a LOT of things the AKC does that
really frost my butt. There are a LOT of things the ABCA does that
really frost my butt. One is not better than the other. Pointing fingers
and claiming that a REGISTRY is responsible for the possible ruination
of a breed only serves to avoid correcting the root of the problem --
BREEDERS who produce dogs without thought for health or temperament, and
then place those dogs without a consideration for the dog's future.
When the ABCA starts addressing that one, I will start supporting their
right to be known as the "working" registry.
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa's House of Dog Toys
Home of Archie, CGC (11yo Doberman); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous
12yo Lady Whippet); Ripley, CD NA NAJ FDCH CGC (6yo BC);
Luke, CGC (6yo BC Extraordinaire); Solo, CGC the Son's Dog
(9yo BC); Banjo ARX TRP CGC (2yo Whippet); fosters; and at
Elizabeth Naime
20:16:37 GMT,
>ABCA has a ROM program that would not change if the registry in the end
>decides to go ahead and exclude AKC-registered dogs. An entirely
>AKC-registered (no working registered ancestors) dog can be RedOM into
>ABCA if it meets the working standard.
Are you sure? Because this would seem to say otherwise:
------
Dogs with the following are ineligible for ABCA registration:
1. Dogs having any ancestor that is registered with a registry that
promotes conformation showing of Border Collies (American Kennel Club,
British Kennel Club, Fédéracion Cynologique Internationale, Australian,
or New Zealand Kennel Clubs, etc.)
2. Dogs registered or having ancestors registered with any other
organization not mentioned previously whether they have a conformation
program or not (United Kennel Club, National Stock Dog Registry, Animal
Research Foundation, etc.)
-------
From http://www.americanbordercollie.org/, link to "Registration
requirements and procedure". There's also a line in the FAQ saying they
won't register a dog with an AKC BC anywhere in the pedigree, though
they won't (at this time) cancel a registration if you register with
them first and later with the AKC.
I'm not 100% clear on how this interacts with the registration on merit,
but " ineligible for ABCA registration" and "ABCA (...) will not
register a dog if there is an AKC registered dog anywhere in the
pedigree" could be read as trumping registration on merit (since both
are referred to as registration). If anyone has actually asked outright,
I'd be interested in knowing the answer.
Oh, and may I, in a friendly way of course, give you a nudge off of that
fence your sitting on vis a vis what to do about the AKC parent club
wanting to keep the stud book open to ABCA dogs? Why not support ABCA
registration on merit only. Don't register puppies, and don't register
on ancestry alone. There would be a lot fewer dogs registered, of
course, but they would be working dogs with health checks -- the right
dogs.
Just a thought, though I don't see this option on the ABCA's discussion
page.
-----------------------------------------
Only know that there is no spork.
dianne marie schoenberg
>Flaw in your reasoning. They reject AKC dogs because AKC only
>considered conformation.
You're clearly unaware that the AKC now sanctions more herding
trials than the Border Collie folks do.
>You are referring to the INDIVIDUAL AKC dog who might, but some fluke
>retain a whit of working ability? Why bother?
I'm really surprised that you'd argue in favor of taking a good
working dog out of the gene pool just because there's a piece
of paper somewhere with its name and a particular three-letter
acronym on it. Since when have you ever believed that a piece
of paper has anything to do with a dog's quality?
>The only REAL AKC standard is appearance/conformity.
AKC doesn't breed dogs. Breeders breed dogs. The majority
of AKC-registered dogs were produced without any regard to
"appearance/conformity". Some of those were even solely
with working ability in mind. I realize that you don't want
to accept that, but it's true.
Dianne
Lisa Ochoa
"Edgar S." wrote:
>
> Sure would be on SORRY breeder who could manage to mess up a sighthound.
>
May I ask what this remark is in aid of? Besides proving that you know
JACKSHIT about sighthounds (and, apparently, BCs), of course.
--
Lisa Ochoa, Proprietor, Ochoa's House of Dog Toys
Home of Archie, CGC (11yo Doberman); Nell, CGC (Gorgeous
12yo Lady Whippet); Ripley, CD NA NAJ FDCH CGC (6yo BC);
Luke, CGC (6yo BC Extraordinaire); Solo, CGC the Son's Dog
April Quist
> Melanie L Chang wrote:
> Take April Quist's Epic, for example. I have met this dog, and I am here
> to tell you that Epic is REALLY nice, no matter how you slice it. He's
> got plenty of sheep ability, not only for trials but also for day-to-day
> work (what BCs were originally bred for, after all). Yet he also won an
> Award of Merit in the conformation ring at least year's national
> specialty. He's not short-legged, fat, or particularly hairy. He didn't
> have a big-name professional handler. He's just a really well
> put-together dog that happens to be pretty. He's also got a really sweet
> and biddable nature.
No comment on that - just figured I'd repeat it to make sure everyone
saw it.
:-)
On second thought, I *will* comment... just to say that, before
winning the Award of Merit in conformation at the AKC BC National
Specialty last year, Epic and I placed 5th on the B course (that's the
Open-type course), competing against handlers who had gone to and done
well at the USBCHA Sheepdog Finals (there are some who are competing
at both). As I've said in previous posts, he's a working dog first.
> There is a very great fear that the AKC would
> > eventually wield such hegemony that there would be no more ABCA. I'm not
> > sure this is an idle fear.
The BC has been recognized by the Kennel Club of Great Britain for a
lot longer than it has by the AKC. There are many more BCs doing
conformation in the UK than in the US (the breed is much more popular
there, for some reason :-), and most of the KC dogs are no longer
registered with the ISDS. The ISDS hasn't gone away, and trial people
in the US are still going to the UK to import working dogs (right,
Melanie? :-). If that's the case in as small a country as Great
Britain, why do people think it'll be any different in the US?
AND - I think most important - as far as I know, the ISDS has no rules
about ISDS-registered dogs being or not being dual registered with the
KC. They can't go backwards - ie, the ISDS won't register dogs that
are only KC-registered (except, I believe, on merit). If the ISDS
isn't worried about it, why is the AKC? In fact... the ISDS doesn't
say anything about ISDS-registered dogs being registered with the AKC
(which they can be).
I just think there's a huge paranoia toward the AKC in the US which is
irrational, and the paranoia is being fanned by certain members of the
USBCC (who shall remain nameless).
April with Levi, Caper, and Epic-the-Brilliant-and-Beautiful
shi...@yahoo.com
April Quist
> Quoth mlc...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Melanie L Chang) on 18 Sep 2002
> 20:16:37 GMT,
>
> >ABCA has a ROM program that would not change if the registry in the end
> >decides to go ahead and exclude AKC-registered dogs. An entirely
> >AKC-registered (no working registered ancestors) dog can be RedOM into
> >ABCA if it meets the working standard.
>
> Are you sure? Because this would seem to say otherwise:
Melanie is right, at least last time I checked with the ABCA, thinking
about trying to ROM Epic. I'm not sure it would be right if the ABCA
decided to ban dual registration, but I guess that's not the point
right now.
But have you looked at the requirements for ROMing a dog? The only dog
they're going to ROM is the best of the best, so it's not something a
good (but not great) dog is going to be able to get, or something a
fair handler is going to be able to get on any dog. For all intents
and purposes, the ROM is intended for an Open dog that's consistently
competitive. I have no problem with that, if the Board of Directors,
who has to make the decision, can be objective about a dog. But you
also have to send in a pedigree, and 11 of the 12 directors has to
vote in favor of the ROM. With the feeling against AKC, how likely is
it that 11 of 12 ABCA directors will be willing to ROM an
AKC-registered dog? And if they don't, I've lost $100 plus all the
effort I've gone to to meet the requirements of a certain number of
Directors, who are spread out all over the country, seeing my dog in
person.
April with Levi, Caper, and Epic
diddy
What the ABCA SHOULD have done was to initially join the AKC (before the
fraction did) and set it's own rules and standards. (water over the dam
now)
It should dictate that as herding is a requirement of a working breed,
no AKC Champion titles would be awarded until the individual had met a
working standard for the breed. A breed club CAN do that.
diddy
>
> diddy (di...@diddy.net) wrote:
>
> : It should dictate that as herding is a requirement of a working breed,
> : no AKC Champion titles would be awarded until the individual had met a
> : working standard for the breed. A breed club CAN do that.
>
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Melanie Lee Chang | Form ever follows function.
> Departments of Anthropology and Biology |
> University of Pennsylvania | -- Louis Sullivan
> mlc...@sas.upenn.edu |
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
When approached about making changes to our breed requiring health tests
to obtain a championship, The AKC said, it had to be approved by the
breed club. Interesting that they imply that health testing "might" be
accepted into the standard with breed club change endorsement, but
having a working title would not.
Melanie L Chang
: When approached about making changes to our breed requiring health tests
: to obtain a championship, The AKC said, it had to be approved by the
: breed club. Interesting that they imply that health testing "might" be
: accepted into the standard with breed club change endorsement, but
: having a working title would not.
I think the bigger problem that USBCC (not ABCA, which is a registry and
not a club) had with the idea of writing a standard for the breed is that
they found it impossible to describe the ideal Border Collie in terms of
a physical standard. So, they said "no thanks, we can't do that" and AKC
said "see ya" and found another club who would do it. And the BCSA did
as good a job as possible as far as making the standard very broad and
inclusive of all the different morphologies in the breed, but it still
doesn't fix the problem that you can't tell a good sheepdog by looking,
and that definition and interpretation are two different things.
Recently I read an article by a conformation exhibitor (with
Australian-bred show dogs) who said something about starting a campaign
to rid the standard of the part that says slight cow hocks are OK because
it was encouraging really bad hind assemblies or something like that.
The vast majority of good working dogs, like cutting horses, are slightly
cow hocked; it helps them corner and change direction better. But it
doesn't conform to what a lot of exhibitors think of as a theoretical
ideal for show conformation. There seems to be a certain subset of show
exhibitors who are just as at odds with BCSA as they would be with the
USBCC who really want their dogs to be show animals first and foremost
and don't consider them working dogs at all.
Another question would be, what working title would be required for a
championship? A working championship could be won entirely on course A,
which is a difficult and intriguing course, but it is an arena course and
more suited to close-in workers. A good Border Collie should be able to
do this course but it's not intended for big-outrunning gathering dogs.
The course B minimum outrun is a hair over 100 yards for the advanced
class (the minimum is 150 FEET for the started class), which means a dog
could attain a herding championship on course B without ever going
farther than 100-some yards on an outrun. That's the length of the
novice/novice outrun in USBCHA trials. From what I understand, the
maximum advanced outrun of 400 yards is almost never offered because of
the difficulty of finding fields that big and fields are usually a lot
closer to the minimum. That's not an adequate test of a top-level
working dog. Any decent novice dog should be able to do a 100-yard
outrun. Heck, Solo can do more than twice that without problems.
I'm not saying that it's easy to run in AKC herding. I've never done it.
I know some people who either used to do AKC or do it with other breeds
and it's a trial situation with all the difficulties that implies. But
I'd like to see a herding champion AKC dog be able to do an Open-level
USBCHA course and as far as I can tell most of them don't try. Why?
TO...@dog-play.com
BCSA tried that and was refused. So what club has done it?
nomad
news:amhso8$uv1$1...@netnews.upenn.edu:
> big-outrunning gathering dogs. The course B minimum outrun is a hair
> over 100 yards for the advanced class (the minimum is 150 FEET for the
> started class), which means a dog could attain a herding championship
> on course B without ever going farther than 100-some yards on an
> outrun. That's the length of the novice/novice outrun in USBCHA
> trials. From what I understand, the maximum advanced outrun of 400
> yards is almost never offered because of the difficulty of finding
> fields that big and fields are usually a lot closer to the minimum.
> That's not an adequate test of a top-level working dog. Any decent
> novice dog should be able to do a 100-yard outrun. Heck, Solo can do
> more than twice that without problems.
I believe that the outrun in one of the trials last year hosted by Scot
Glen, in Buffalo, Alberta was something like 1100 yards.
Ken, Geordie and Cactus
Patty Lacey
have everything you want: a small well-managed gene pool of healthy,
health-tested, versatile dogs who are good at everything, and an
awesome breed club. They on the other hand have thousands too many
dogs, few of whom actually work, most of whom are unhealthy and badly
treated, and placed in unwuitable homes by breeders and puppy millers
who don't believe in health checks and are just breeding for bucks.
You hate them and they hate you, or at least you hold each other in
very low esteem. If they want you both to go your own seperate ways,
why aren't you saying hallalujah?
staf...@webtv.net
< AKC said "see ya" and found another club who would do it.>
Really? It's my understanding that breed clubs *go to* the AKC, not the
other way around? Anyone?
I'll admit I really don't read the Gazette, I only take it to get
'Events'. :-)
Debbie
diddy
AKC DID court the Border collie, and found a faction group to approve
AKC registration
April Q
"diddy" <di...@diddy.net> wrote in message
news:3D8C608F...@diddy.net...
No. They can't. The BCSA tried to get the AKC to go for that, and they
refused.
April
shi...@yahoo.com
April Q
There seems to be a certain subset of show
> exhibitors who are just as at odds with BCSA as they would be with the
> USBCC who really want their dogs to be show animals first and foremost
> and don't consider them working dogs at all.
Ain't it the truth. If it doesn't look like an Australian-bred show BC, it's
not a "nice" BC.
> Another question would be, what working title would be required for a
> championship? A working championship could be won entirely on course A,
> which is a difficult and intriguing course, but it is an arena course and
> more suited to close-in workers. A good Border Collie should be able to
> do this course but it's not intended for big-outrunning gathering dogs.
> The course B minimum outrun is a hair over 100 yards for the advanced
> class (the minimum is 150 FEET for the started class), which means a dog
> could attain a herding championship on course B without ever going
> farther than 100-some yards on an outrun. That's the length of the
> novice/novice outrun in USBCHA trials. From what I understand, the
> maximum advanced outrun of 400 yards is almost never offered because of
> the difficulty of finding fields that big and fields are usually a lot
> closer to the minimum.
At the Border Collie National Specialty in St. Louis every year, the outrun
is 1/2 the maximum (200 yards, which is probably about the average
Pro-Novice outrun, at least where I live). I've never seen anything but the
minimum outrun offered at any other AKC trial.
But you know, Melanie... when you ask what working title would be
required... as far as I'm concerned, almost anything would be a start. If we
could even get the AKC to agree to requiring a Started A title before a dog
could be called a Champion, it might start nibbling away at the AKC's
set-in-stone requirements.
April Q
> staf...@webtv.net wrote:
> > Really? It's my understanding that breed clubs *go to* the AKC, not the
> > other way around? Anyone?
>
> AKC registration
Not exactly. Or rather, it was a bit more complicated than that.
The BC had been in the AKC's Miscellaneous group since 1955 or 1956. We were
happy there... we couldn't do other performance events, like agility or
herding, but there were other venues for those. We *could* do obedience,
where there isn't really another good venue.
Then the AKC decided they were tired of the few breeds that had been hanging
out in the Misc group all that time, and decided they needed to turn the
Misc group into what it was really intended to be - a place to put breeds on
their way to recognition. So we were all told that the BC either had to be
reconized, or it was out. The BCSA was formed, when the USBCC opted out. But
the BCSA was the group that wanted the herding title a requirement for
recognition... and there was something else I can't remember off the top of
my head (it'll come to me). BCSA members who were mostly interested in
conformation were unhappy with that stance, and afraid it'd get the BC
thrown out altogether, so they split and formed another club to vye with the
BCSA for parent club status.
So here we have a club that's mainly interested in conformation and doesn't
give a whit about working ability, and we have the BCSA, which was mostly
obedience people who were dabbling in other things (the AKC's herding and
agility programs were still pretty new at the time). And those of us in the
BCSA had a choice - give in a bit to the AKC (ie, especially on the working
requirement), and end up being the club to help determine the future of the
BC in the AKC, or else give up and let the other club take over and turn the
AKC BC into just another conformation dog. Some people decided not to play
the AKC's game, and they gave up. I don't really blame them - a lot of
compromises have had to be made. The rest of us decided it was better to
work from the inside.
April
shi...@yahoo.com
April Q
> Because I think the culture there is pretty different -- it's the country
> of origin,
Not if you ask the conformation people. The country of origin they give is
Australia.
Just figured I'd throw that in for a giggle. But honestly - it's true.
and they have an understanding of the breed as a working breed
> that I don't think we really have here. In the States I think the breed
> is seen more as the premier sports dog than the premier sheepdog. And
> there's nothing wrong with sports dogs, but I like the specific sheepdog
> version a lot!
:-) Me too.
> I'm more worried about the working dog being changed into a sports-only
> dog or an all-arounder. While BCs are excellent at a number of
> activities, I think their unique identity comes from being selected
> primarily for this one thing -- work
I couldn't agree more. I hate the idea that BCs are being bred for
"versatility" - that there are flyball dogs and agility dogs and obedience
dogs... I firmly believe that it's the working/herding dog's drive,
biddability, work ethic, intensity, energy, <insert all other apt
descriptions>, that makes the breed good at agility, flyball, obedience,
etc.
And by the way... I have said and will say again that I have sympathies with
the people who won't register their dogs with the AKC. I wish they would,
but as far as I'm concerned, if they did it really only benefits the AKC
BC - it doesn't really help them (unless they want the AKC performance
people as an option for puppy buyers). Working trial people don't need the
AKC. It's the BCSA and the AKC BC that needs *them*.
April
shi...@yahoo.com
April Q
"Patty Lacey" <Patty...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7a050cb.02092...@posting.google.com...
The working BC people - the ones who are anti-AKC - ARE going their separate
way. They *don't* need the AKC BC. That's what this is all about.
The AKC BC *needs* more working dogs to register. Our gene pool is very
small at this point, especially our gene pool of working dogs. There are
some very, very nice, well-bred working dogs out there, and their genes
would greatly benefit the AKC BC. They could help us keep the AKC from
turning into a pretty but fairly useless (in sheep work, anyway)
conformation dog. The stud books are currently open, so the working dogs can
still be registered. But they'll close in a couple of years, and we're out
of luck
And no... we don't hate them. We need them.
April
shi...@yahoo.com
staf...@webtv.net
From: di...@diddy.net (diddy)
<AKC DID court the Border collie, and found a faction group to approve
AKC registration>
How? Did they send pretty boxes full of dog cookies? Or stuffies
stuffed with dirty wool? {Winston's fav!} :-)
And why? I truly don't understand why they'd care if BCs 'belonged' or
not. I don't understand how it could be a money thing, since anyone who
has been in dogs more than two minutes would foresee the split/brouhaha
over AKC registration of a 'working' breed, and the limited numbers that
would desire AKC recognition.
Debbie
April Q
> I'm not sure that's a valid fear. If the dog can do it, they'll ROM it.
> They'd ROM a conformation-bred poodle if he could do it.
Have you asked the ABCA about that? :-) I think they DO stick to Border
Collies. I don't know about the ABCA, but a few years ago the ISDS was very
unhappy with the rumor that they'd register any breed that could work. They
came out with a statement that no, that wasn't true - they registered ONLY
Border Collies.
Frankly, I've
> been told numerous times that if there is an AKC dog out there who can do
> it, they really want to see him or her. The thing you have to remember
> is that most of these people just don't see good AKC dogs, because most
> of the AKC people play in another part of the pool. Most of the good
> handlers in USBCHA trials who dual register dogs are people who
> "primarily" ABCA and happened to register their dogs with AKC for one
> reason or another, not people with "AKC-bred" dogs (whatever that means
> in this context). We talk about why don't people with working dogs let
> breed judges see what they look like, but more AKC people could run in
> USBCHA trials and expose the judges to what their dogs can do. In my
> area there is basically no overlap. People with AKC dogs do AKC and
> AHBA, people with ABCA dogs do USBCHA, and never the twain shall meet.
Are you sure? Do you really know which dogs are AKC-registered? Personally,
when I take Epic to a USBCHA trial, I don't talk about his registration.
It's just too touchy an issue.
Around here, at least, more and more "AKC people" are getting interested in
running their dogs in the USBCHA trials. I think it's just too soon - there
just aren't very many AKC people who've had enough experience at this point
to do it. But there are a lot of people who are working on it.
I have to say... I remember a trial a couple years ago... Harley (Epic's
littermate sister) had been in training with our instructor for a couple of
months, and Suzy was going to run Harley for the first and second times one
weekend in Pro-Novice. Harley was also being shown in conformation at the
time, and a lot of the trial people knew it. I watched the first day, when
Harley didn't do so well, and heard lots of derisive comments about the
"beauty queen."
I missed the second day, when Harley took first place in a large Pro-Novice
class of very competetive handlers and dogs. :-) HA! :-)
BUT - for the most part, AKC herding BCs *are* ABCA dogs. There are some
nice dogs with some conformation lines in them (like Epic and Harley) that
*can't* be ABCA registered, but it's risky. I wouldn't take a chance and buy
another dog that's half and half - herding ability has become too important
to me. And I wouldn't breed to a non-working dog. The UK conformation dog
that sired Epic's litter had herding lines very close in... but I haven't
yet seen a conformation/AKC dog from purely Australian lines that has much
in the way of speed and/or stock sense and/or real, natural ability.
April
shi...@yahoo.com
staf...@webtv.net
Debbie
Bethgsd
>I don't know of any AKC breeders who are testing their dogs by evaluating
>them at USBCHA or ISDS type levels.
Check out the Laceys. Didn't Tom Lacey judge the trial where you did so well
with Fly? Several people around here buy dogs from them to use as obedience or
agility dogs.
FWIW, I have doubts about their breeding program, and it isn't obvious to
everyone why. Unless they've changed their website lately some people here
might be able to guess:-)
I think the website is www.laceysbordercollies.com
Beth
shelly
"Bethgsd" <bet...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020924102755...@mb-cf.aol.com...
> FWIW, I have doubts about their breeding program, and it
isn't obvious to
> everyone why. Unless they've changed their website lately
some people here
> might be able to guess:-)
i don't know enough about BCs to know what to look for. the
sheer number of pups is a concern, though. Six BC litters, a
litter of Maremmas, plus more BC litters planned for fall.
that's a *lot* of puppies.
> I think the website is www.laceysbordercollies.com
http://www.lacysbordercollies.com/ (there's no e in Lacy)
--
shelly and elliott & harriet
http://home.bluemarble.net/~scouvrette
Bethgsd
>i don't know enough about BCs to know what to look for. the
>sheer number of pups is a concern, though. Six BC litters, a
>litter of Maremmas, plus more BC litters planned for fall.
>that's a *lot* of puppies.
ding ding ding! We have a winner!
>http://www.lacysbordercollies.com/ (there's no e in Lacy)
>
>--
Thanks for putting the correct site up.
Beth
Patty Lacey
> And no... we don't hate them. We need them.
You may need them, but you sure don't seem to like them much!
I still don't get this part, where you say "Our gene pool is very
small at this point, especially our gene pool of working dogs." I
don't know the figures, but I bet there are more BC's in AKC than most
other breeds. More BC's than whippets, I bet. So why do you say your
gene pool is small? And if you want more working dogs in it, why
don't you just train more of them?
shelly
> I still don't get this part, where you say "Our gene pool is
very
> small at this point, especially our gene pool of working
dogs." I
> don't know the figures, but I bet there are more BC's in AKC
than most
> other breeds.
according to the 2001 registration stats, BCs are 61st (1796
registered) out of 150. when compared with the top breed,
Labrador Retriever (165970 registered), the BC's numbers *are*
small.
http://www.akc.org/breeds/regstats2001.cfm
> More BC's than whippets, I bet.
yes, but not many. Whippets were 67th with 1685 registered.
> So why do you say your
> gene pool is small? And if you want more working dogs in
it, why
> don't you just train more of them?
working ability isn't a matter of training.
April Q
Personally, I like many of them a lot. My own herding instructor won't
register her dogs with the AKC, and she and I are friends. In fact, it looks
like I'll be getting a new dog from her, maybe in the next couple of weeks.
I like a lot of people who are vehemently anti-AKC. The ones I don't like I
wouldn't like if they were pro-AKC.
It's possible to like people that you disagree with, you know. I've "known"
Melanie for many years in these groups - while I don't agree with everything
she's saying on this topic (and probably others :-), I've usually liked and
respected what she's had to say on a lot of things. Heck - I respect what
she's saying about this, even if I don't agree with everything.
> I still don't get this part, where you say "Our gene pool is very
> small at this point, especially our gene pool of working dogs." I
> don't know the figures, but I bet there are more BC's in AKC than most
> other breeds. More BC's than whippets, I bet. So why do you say your
> gene pool is small? And if you want more working dogs in it, why
> don't you just train more of them?
The BC isn't as popular in the AKC as you seem to think.
And it's not as simple as just training more working dogs. Not everyone with
an AKC BC is interested in getting involved in a sport as time-consuming and
expensive as herding. Opportunities are limited - you have to be within a
reasonable distance of a herding instructor (and some herding enthusiasts
consider a "reasonable distance" to be a 5-hour one-way drive!). And then,
not all BCs are even trainable - they need good, solid working genes, and
even many of the most well-bred dogs from herding lines don't get "the right
stuff." They also need to be sound, as free of heritable diseases as
possible to be considered as breeding stock.
April Q
Shi...@yahoo.com
shelly
"April Q" <shi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:amt13c$90fkp$1...@ID-162185.news.dfncis.de...
> It's possible to like people that you disagree with, you
know.
no kidding! if i disliked everyone i've disagreed with, i
wouldn't like *any*one. many of the people i disagree with
most vehemently and regularly--both here and in real life--are
my favorite people.
April Q
> April Q (shi...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> The thing is, no one with Border Collies who are bred to do what they're
> supposed to do should be afraid of USBCHA trials. Should they?
Nope. Not if they can do the work. But in case you haven't noticed :-)
herding is expensive and time-consuming. There are lots of people getting
into it who think that they can do it once a week and have a great herding
dog. That might get you into Novice-Novice, but it won't get you past that.
A lot of "dabblers" are getting hooked now, doing crazy things like I did a
year ago (ie, buying a ranch and sheep for my dogs). Give it time.
The only
> problem I have is people making breeding decisions on the basis of AKC
> herding titles.
Oh, you and me both. I know a (conformation-bred from well-known Australian
lines) dog with an AKC Herding Ch. The only way she got that title was
because her owner is an *excellent* handler. This dog had to have tennis
balls tied to the horns of some sheep before she'd even pay attention when
she first started. And she won some AKC trials (including the B course)
because her handler knew where to put her at the right time to move the
sheep in the right direction, and she was a very obedience dog. She had
little natural talent. He ran her in Pro-Novice a couple of times and gave
up. He now has a couple of nice working-bred dogs.
> : I missed the second day, when Harley took first place in a large
Pro-Novice
> : class of very competetive handlers and dogs. :-) HA! :-)
>
> Nice name. I like it.
:-) I thought you might.
> Well, you hear the same sort of thing when people run red dogs. If a red
> dog doesn't do well, it's because he's red. If he does do well, it was a
> fluke. The thing is, it could be a fluke unless the dog does it again
> and again and again. I'm always at the sidelines cheering for the red
> dogs. But I'm a bit partial that way. (I wouldn't buy a dog just
> because he was red. Besides, after Solo, none other will compare.) I
> have been known to turn to my trainer after a red dog lays down a nice
> run and say, "See, there is NOTHING wrong with red dogs."
:-) Exactly.
but I haven't
> : yet seen a conformation/AKC dog from purely Australian lines that has
much
> : in the way of speed and/or stock sense and/or real, natural ability.
>
> Me either, not that I've seen many -- only a handful who come to my
> trainer for lessons. The ones I've seen have the rudiments of balance
> and want to go around the sheep sometimes, but that's it. Otherwise,
> they sniff around and eat sheep poop, or pee on the gates, or they just
> chase and split sheep over and over. It's like they have parts of the
> package but are missing most of it, which is what I expect happens when
> you stop selecting for it as it can't possibly be inherited in anything
> but the most complex fashion.
Not to mention that the tendency these days is for very short legs on
conformation dogs. Even if a fluke pops up that has what it takes in his
head, chances are his body isn't going to be able to get him where his
instincts tell him he needs to go.
I'm not gonna say there will NEVER be a pure conformation dog that won't
excel at herding. It'll probably happen. But it *will* be a fluke. The stars
will have just lined up right, and the dog will have somehow managed to
inherit what he needed.
> The problem that I have with the AKC breeders I know/know of, which is I
> think the heart of the AKC/ABCA problem (other than the bad feelings
> stemming from the "hostile takeover" in the first place) is that the
> working folks in AKC have very different standards of work than the
> working ABCA people do. I personally believe that the USBCHA (and by
> extension ABCA) standard of work is the more appropriate one.
I agree. And lots of us do.
I am an
> obsessive web surfer and often look at the pages of kennels breeding AKC
> Border Collies, and nearly all of them advertise dogs as "working dogs"
> or "perfect for herding" while breeding from dogs who have at most an HS,
> more often something like a PT, or maybe only instinct tested.
Yeah, I just love those.
Even an
> AKC herding champion, if his owner is careful to only enter him in trials
> with short outruns (and the outrun length must apparently be printed on
> the premium, so it would be easy to avoid long ones),
Not hard to avoid - the only club I know of to make the outrun longer than
the minimum on any course is the BCSA during the National Specialty.
might be comparable
> only to a decent novice dog. He might never even have run on course B.
> That's really problematic. It might be a good selection program for
> yard/chute dogs, but that's not what Border Collies are supposed to be.
Again, I agree.
> I don't know of any AKC breeders who are testing their dogs by evaluating
> them at USBCHA or ISDS type levels.
Epic's mom (a pure working-lines dog) ran in Pro-Novice several times and
did some winning. Another bitch from that breeder did the same.
Most of them are breeding
> "versatile" dogs who are primarily sports dogs with maybe a lower-level
> herding title thrown in. Thus, my slippery slope fears.
Mine too - and the fears of a lot of the really active BCSA members
(including at least half the current board).
If AKC dogs
> became the majority of the breed, it is possible that most of them will
> be tested and bred according to the standards of work most common among
> the "AKC culture." This is a different standard than the USBCHA/ABCA
> standard. It means that the best dogs of the breed (because most dogs
> aren't bred to any standard) will change, and not in a way that I think
> is good. That's my real fear. It's not founded in superstition or some
> sort of generalized "ooh, the AKC is icky" sort of attitude. It's based
> on the actual published working standards of the two opposing groups.
All I can say, Melanie, is that the BCSA needs more members who feel that
way to keep that from happening. That's exactly why I'm an member - in the
hopes that I can make a difference that way. We would *love* to get an
influx of working trials people as members. We have a few... people who
trial successfully at the Open level. We have around 500 members, of which
I'd estimate that 100 are *staunch* working dog supporters, maybe 100 are
staunch conformation people, and the rest are "performance" people (agility,
obedience, dabblers in herding, flyball, etc.) who are at least suspicious
of conformation-only dogs and tend to have sympathies/preferences for the
working-bred dog.
If you decide to join, I'll sponsor you any day. :-)
AprilQ
shi...@yahoo.com
April Q
> April Q (shi...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> : Personally, I like many of them a lot. My own herding instructor won't
> : register her dogs with the AKC, and she and I are friends. In fact, it
looks
> : like I'll be getting a new dog from her, maybe in the next couple of
weeks.
>
Oh, it's not a huge deal, really. It's kinda still in the works. Epic was
injured fairly seriously a couple months ago, and couldn't work for a month
or so. For a few days I wasn't sure it wasn't something VERY serious and
permanent (it wasn't). It made me realize how tough it is to get along
without a dog, even with just 14 sheep on just 10 acres. So I started
looking for a reliably trained dog that I wouldn't have to put a lot of time
into, because I just have my hands full right now, and couldn't do another
trial dog justice. I don't want to say a lot about this dog right now
because deals are still being worked out, but it's an older Open-trained dog
who was injured so she can only do light work, but she's impressive enough
when she can work that my instructor would like a couple litters out of her.
I'll keep the dog for the stuff I need her for and give her a good home, and
my instructor will get her puppies. (Who knows - she may be where my next
puppy comes from...)
AprilQ
shi...@yahoo.com
April Q
> April Q (shi...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> This is one of the ways that UBSCHA has a tough time competing with AKC.
> I believe that most people -- meaning most humans, regardless of whether
> or not they have Border Collies and herd with them -- appreciate instant
> gratification. Gratification in UBSCHA trials is not very instant --
You can say that again!
I've
> been working Solo for a year and half on the once/twice a week plan
> (except for the big bump he got this summer that I wasn't around for),
But see... that's the way you have to do it when you don't know what you're
doing, and when you don't have your own sheep. I put Epic in training for a
month to start him. Then he went for another month about a year later, where
he learned to drive, and he learned to respond to whistles. He's going in
again for another month this winter. The nice thing about it is that it's
pretty darn cheap to do it this way. But you have to be willing to let your
dog go live in a kennel for however long. Sure helped me, though. It's so
much easier to learn what you're doing by working a trained dog than it is
to learn when the dog and sheep are running here and there and the
instructor is pulling you this way and that and you have no idea why you're
here and what the heck is going on...
If I'd gone the AKC route with him, he
> would probably have a number of lower-level titles by now. Also, in
> USBCHA, only the top dogs in each trial get recognized (much like a
> conformation class), and there's no collecting points or legs that will
> add up to a title even if a dog wins hardly any classes.
No legs... but you do collect points that get you (or not :-) to the
sheepdog regionals and/or finals.
> But do you think that attitude can really change within the "AKC culture"
> (sorry, I don't know what else to call it)? I think this is where you
> and I part ways. I don't think it can. It seems a lot more likely that
> the culture in BCs will become more like that of other breeds than it
> will stay true to the working dog.
You may very well be right. In the meantime, working from within, I can try
to keep that from happening. There's plenty of time to opt out later, if
that happens.
> I know exactly who you're talking about. Wow. So it wasn't just a nasty
> story that herding people tell to each other after all?
Nope. Got it from the horse's mouth. The dog's owner/handler told me
himself, and so did his instructor (a fairly successful trial person).
> : Mine too - and the fears of a lot of the really active BCSA members
> : (including at least half the current board).
>
> What are they doing about it?
Trying to "evangelize" the people who think it's ok to breed unproven dogs.
> With a three-to-one ratio of sports people to working people, and
> presumably a three-to-one ratio of people who breed for "versatility"
> rather than working and see herding as just another sport, how much of a
> difference do you think you will make.
Oh... maybe not much, maybe none. But some of us have to try. And there are
signs of progress here and there, so it's not time to give up yet.
> What would they (I'd love to say "we," but I'm just some random shmo with
> one rescue dog and one bought dog) get out of being part of BCSA?
The satisfaction of knowing they're trying to create a positive outcome for
one single breed. :-)
Maybe fifty years from now when the people
> who remember are all dead. I hope that by then the AKC herding program
> has changed considerably.
The thing is, Melanie, the AKC herding program is for all herding breeds.
Most of the other breeds have a different herding style than the BC, most
aren't as fast as the BC, etc. Ideally, each breed or type of herding dog
would have its own course, but that would segmentalize things so bad that
there'd be three entries per herding trial. :-) And I definitely support the
efforts of people to bring stronger instincts and working ability back into
their breeds - I've seen a few nice-working dogs from other breeds. I've
seen some nice-working Briards, Rotties, Shelties (yes, really!), GSDs,
OESs, Belgians, Aussies... they're *different* from BCs, but it's SO COOL to
see that some of the individuals in these breeds DO have some ability and
stock sense.
And AKC really is a good place to get your feet wet in herding.
If you ever get a chance, though, check out the BCSA National Specialty's
herding trial, which is ALL BCs, and almost always fills the first day the
entries open (and the B course fills the quickest). It's very encouraging to
see some of the nice dogs that come. Last year was the first year I ran a
dog (Epic of course) in herding, and there were several Open trial handlers
there (one team that had come in in the Top 10 in the handlers' finals just
weeks earlier). I was there for the first one in 1997 and the following one
in 1998. I didn't know what I was really seeing either time, but in 1998 the
improvement in the competitive was great enough that even I noticed. That
year, Claudia Frank cleaned up and people went home determined to beat her
the next year. The level of competition there keeps improving.
> Much as I'd like to sit at the same table with you on these issues, I'm
> afraid that's probably not going to happen. The part I can't figure out
> is why you're with "them" and not "us."
I wonder that myself sometimes. It's partly because I still love obedience
competition (I plan for Epic to be my first OTCh, in addition to hopefully
making it to Open), and if I give up on the AKC I have to give up on that.
It's partly because, way back when the BC was in the process of being
recognized, my friends with BCs were all obedience people who didn't want
the breed to turn into just another show dog.
And I guess most important is that I go to shows and watch the dogs that
they're calling Border Collies, and I know those dogs don't have what it
takes to "earn" the name, and I hear some of the idiotic comments some of
the judges make about the working dogs, it just makes me want to keep
trying.
Like I said, there's plenty of time to give up.
AprilQ
shi...@yahoo.com
dianne marie schoenberg
>Gratification in UBSCHA trials is not very instant -- I've
>been working Solo for a year and half on the once/twice a week plan
>hope that he'll be ready for novice/novice by December (I have a plan up
>my sleeve) but he might not be. If I'd gone the AKC route with him, he
>would probably have a number of lower-level titles by now.
Uh... and you really think that people would be falling over
trying to kiss your butt because you had a dog with an HT and
a PT? Uh... no one who knew anything about herding would be
too impressed :-). Now a novice dog and handler that went
from nothing to an HCh in 18 months training once a week--
yeah, *that* dog might be worth taking a look at.
You do have a point that the AKC program is partly designed
to encourage people to get out and work their dogs, and the
"rewards" start at a fairly low level. However, I hope you
really don't believe that people's brains fall out of their
heads just because they might happen to sometimes compete
under a set of rules than USBCHA's.
And, truth be told, I wouldn't have gotten involved in the
AKC herding program had I not perceived it as having a low
bar to entry. And had I not gotten involved with AKC herding,
I would not have encouraged you and April when the two of
you were both starting out.
>Also, in USBCHA, only the top dogs in each trial get recognized (much
>like a conformation class), and there's no collecting points or legs
>that will add up to a title even if a dog wins hardly any classes.
You're forgetting the flip side of that, namely the possibility
of getting the highest score out of 20 advanced dogs, and getting
for that... nuthin'. I can definitely see pros and cons each way.
>http://www.bcrescue.org/bcwars.html
She makes some good observations--thanks for the pointer to
that article.
>But do you think that attitude can really change within the "AKC culture"
>(sorry, I don't know what else to call it)?
Ah. *Here's* where I think there may be a huge major misunderstanding.
Melanie, I know that Solo and Fly are only your second & third
dogs, and IIRC you didn't get involved in any kind of breed
activities with Harley--am I correct? If that's the case, you
are probably unaware that there is NO one such thing as
"AKC culture." Culture varies a LOT between breeds.
Let me give you an example: here are two breeds. I'll call them
A and B in order to avoid putting anyone's noses out of joint.
Both A and B are fairly popular breeds. In both A and B there
are sizable populations of working dogs (yes really) as well
as well-established "show" lines... and lots of pet/BYB/puppy
mill dogs. IOW, the makeup of both breeds are very similar to
that of the BC.
Personally I find the ethics in Breed A to be appalling. You
would have no problem finding either a show or a working breeder
of breed A that would sell you an intact puppy, no questions
asked. Health and temperament problems are rampant in all three
populations (show, working and pet); the rescue problem is
*huge*. Want to breed your pet to either a show or a working
dog? No problem. IOW, if you look at what's going on in that
breed, it's a mess.
Breed B's a different story. If you want to be known as a
reputable breeder in Breed B, you toe the line. You do your
health certifications, you screen your puppy buyers, you take
back dogs of your breeding... or else you are tossed out of
the breed club and you're mud in everyone's eyes. Peer pressure
is a pretty wonderful thing. The working people are maybe less
strict than the show people are--that is, you could probably
get an intact working-bred bitch merely by assuring the breeder
that you planned to work her. The show, working and pet lines
in this breed are remarkably distinct, and the peer pressure
works to keeps it that way.
If I had a choice about things, I sure know which of those
two ways I'd want MY breed to go.
>It seems a lot more likely that the culture in BCs will become more
>like that of other breeds than it will stay true to the working dog.
There you're wrong. I personally believe that the good herding
BC breeders will keep training, trialling and breeding dogs for
their own needs just as they always have no matter who is handing
out the dogs' pieces of paper. There are "working cultures" within
many different breeds. But if you haven't looked for them, you
wouldn't be aware that they exist.
Actually, you made a post a few days ago that made things very
clear to me (that was the first post in the "AKC and Border
Collies" subthread). I know you're going to cringe when I say
this, but here's what I took away from that.
The battle at this point is over the BYB/puppy mill dogs. ABCA
wants them. They want to keep the moral high ground of being "the
working dog registry" without doing anything to keep any herding
ability in the great mass of ABCA dogs. They want to keep control
over the $160,000 a year that their registrations bring in so
that they can do things like pay thousands of dollars to the top
handlers at the national finals. They can't figure out any other
way to raise money for that without registering a gazillion BYB/
puppy mill dogs each year, and without that, "BC culture" would
totally collapse.
Maybe that's not what you meant to say. But between what you've
said here, and read from the ABCA directly, that's the message
that's coming through.
>I'm not saying there's anything wrong with those other breeds, but most
>of them have always fit into the sort of "dog fancy" culture better than
>perhaps this hardscrabble working dog does.
Like the English and American Foxhounds do, maybe? Or Coonhounds?
Greyhounds? Llewellin setters?
There's a lot more I *could* say, but I think I'll shut up
now :-).
Dianne
Robin Nuttall
> By your reasoning, neither April nor I have anything to worry about. I
> do agree that there will always be good working dogs, and I think she would
> say the same thing. The question is, will they become relatively rare?
> Because right now, although the majority of individuals of the breed are
> not, there are still plenty of them, and they are not difficult to find.
> And how will the breed be defined in the future? Will it still be
> epitomized by the working dog, or will the working dog be a marginalized
> minority in a breed that is widely known to have been useful in the past,
> but they don't breed them like that anymore?
Melanie, I still you're buying into the "AKC is Evil" and "AKC Ruins
Breeds" argument.
Look. I own a breed which has been a "big" AKC breed since it was
imported to this country. We have have *done* the "breed pretty to
pretty" thing. We've *done* the huge population explosion thing (for a
while Dobermans were number 2 on the breeds listings). And we've *done*
the working/show split thing. That latter happened in 1989 when the AKC
threatened us and we decided to not allow schutzhund trials at our
National.
The Doberman is still a hugely popular show breed. And we still have 2
main breed clubs--the DPCA which is the AKC club, and the UDC, which was
a group of people who split in 1989 when it was decreed there would be
no more schutzhund in the DPCA.
So for every fear and theory you are trotting out, we can say "been
there, done that."
Now let me tell you a bit about the other things we have done. We were
the first AKC breed club to have a breed specific health organization.
We were the first AKC breed club to have a National rescue organization.
We were the first AKC club to institute a longevity program to reward
dogs and lines of dogs who live long, healthy lives. Many other breed
clubs have copied what we pioneered.
One thing about AKC that is more apparent all the time is that the
CLIMATE amongst AKC breeders in many breeds is to do health testing.
Hence the much higher proportion of AKC BCs being tested than ABCA dogs.
It is becoming pretty much impossible to hide from that. And guess what
else. It's also becoming increasingly difficult to pretend you have a
great dog if all it has is a Ch.
And finally, let me tell you what else is happening. The UDC and the
DPCA are coming back together. We will have a UDC sponsored schutzhund
trial AT the DPCA National this year for the first time since 1989, WITH
sanction from the AKC.
So having gone through all this, with all the histrionics and hand
waving and the screeching that show dogs are crap and working dogs are
ugly, and we should split the breed--we have finally started to emerge
on the other side. Where each side gets respect, and show dogs are
expected to work, and working dogs are expected to meet a structural
standard. Six years ago we had one dog who in the history of the breed
who was an AKC Champion and had a Schutzhund 3 title, and he was dead.
Now we have 4 more, all living, and more yet still on the way. One of
the top Best in Show winning specials is training for a Schutzhund
title--and his owner used to be one of the WORST about saying how awful
schutzhund was!
So yes, I think many of your fears are, ultimately, unfounded. I don't
think that splitting will help the BREED. I understand and sympathise
with your concerns, but splitting is the last thing that should happen.
I don't care how many dogs are bred, there are simply too few of any
breed which have good health, structure, and temperament to split them
further. Having bred a litter this past year also helped open my eyes.
Even with as many Dobermans as there are, finding the right fit for Viva
was HARD, and there were really only 3 or 4 dogs out of ALL of them we
even looked at. It would have been impossible if we also had to choose
registries.
dianne marie schoenberg
>Sometimes I wonder, when kennels advertise dogs as "working Border
>Collies" when the dogs have no more than a started-level AKC title.
Melanie... I think you're still missing a major point here. From
my experience I'd say that the majority of dogs sold as "working
Border Collies" have had far less (if any) experience with stock
than the typical AKC H.S. dog has had. No, I don't think an H.S.
means a hell of a lot. But I've known people selling "working dogs"
whose parents spent their entire lives living in kennels--but if
the kennels happen to be on acreage, it automatically makes the
dogs into "working farm dogs". My experience has been that for every
"AKC litter" sold under the former pretenses, there's probably 10 or
20 non-AKC litters sold under the latter pretense. I'm NOT saying
that the former is a good thing. But just on sheer numbers the latter
is a much bigger problem... plus the buyers are (again IME) less
likely to be screened at all. And that's completely aside from the
tremendous hypocracy involved in condemning the former while turning
a blind eye to the latter.
>Well, if you did get the highest score out of 20 advanced dogs (IOW, won
>Open for the trial for that day) you'd probably win a ribbon, maybe a
>plaque, and get a small cash prize. Will you get initials to put after
>your dog's name? No.
Here's some initials for you: UBNJVB. Those are all yours!! Enjoy!!
(Patience typed those for you, in case you were wondering :-).)
Hell, the initials are only another piece of paper. You keep carping
on them like there's the be-all-and-end-all, but I've learned for
myself that there's dogs that score well whose working style I don't
like... my own eyes are all I REALLY trust.
>Personally, I'd be thrilled to win even if I didn't get the ribbon.
Ha! Try "winning" on a day where no ribbons are handed out and everyone
is skulking off pouting because the stock were so difficult. Does anyone
clap you on the back and say, "Damn, it's too bad the sheep were so tough
today--but your dog did some really fine work"? No, they do not. You are
left looking at the posted scores and saying, "God DAMN. My dog--her
first time out--just beat the pants off the top dogs around here." Not
that ANYone else will even acknowledge it. Honestly? Just talking
about it here, now, is the most sweetness I've gotten out of it--there
was none at the time. (Oh well. Thank you for letting me brag :-).)
>So far, Fly and I have placed at every trial we've been to, and I'm not
>really sure what to do with the ribbons. They gather dust and turn weird
>colors.
Mine are in a box in the garage. If you come up with a better solution,
let me know.
>: Melanie, I know that Solo and Fly are only your second & third
>: dogs, and IIRC you didn't get involved in any kind of breed
>: activities with Harley--am I correct?
>
>First of all, you know that's correct (unless you count rescue -- I
>fostered and placed a Pom puppy while I had Harley, who grew up to become
>the famous Tikko of alt.kibology). So if you're trying to say I'm a
>neophyte, you're right and you're welcome to say so in about that many words.
Hey. I didn't want to misremember anything, that's all.
>: If that's the case, you
>: are probably unaware that there is NO one such thing as
>: "AKC culture." Culture varies a LOT between breeds.
>
>Yes, but there is a common machinery by which breeding specimens are
>meant to be chosen (the breed ring)
Uh.............. no. The breed ring exists, but so do field trials
exist, and coursing trials, and so on and so on and so on. I don't
think the fact that there is a written conformation standard means
that that's how breeding specimens are "meant" to be chosen. (FWIW,
years ago the AKC tried asked each parent club of the herding breeds
to come up with a "herding standard" for each breed. Those were
a COMPLETE and total joke--but that's another story.)
>and by and large it seems to shape the vast majority of AKC breeds
>to a greater rather than lesser extent.
That's what you see. That's not the total story. That's what I'm
trying to say.
>: If I had a choice about things, I sure know which of those
>: two ways I'd want MY breed to go.
>
>I don't think it's a necessary dichotomy. I think that the working dog
>people are capable of cleaning house, at least as much as the average AKC
>breed community. To me it's more about the ways by which breeding
>animals are chosen and the standard that will be adopted.
Yes. It is--in theory at least--possible for the top ABCA people to
really turn things around, really make it into a working registry.
I do not, for ONE second, think that has a snowball's chance of
happening. But if it did, I would think it were a good thing.
>: The battle at this point is over the BYB/puppy mill dogs. ABCA
>: wants them. They want to keep the moral high ground of being "the
>: working dog registry" without doing anything to keep any herding
>: ability in the great mass of ABCA dogs.
>
>Actually, if the proposed dual registration bans go through, the exact
>opposite will happen.
"If the ABCA is to continue as it has, it must retain or if possible
increase its registrations...[W]orking breeders who wish to sell excess
pups to the AKC market will be influenced to breed dogs who meet show
ring fashions... The committee unanimously feels that the ABCA must
act to discourage dual registrations, and that the time to act is now."
The second sentence is key there, and describes the possible future that
the ABCA is trying to avoid. Their words--not yours.
>The stance I read seems to be, well, we're drawing the line here, we're
>going to keep the good working dogs, and all the rest of the dogs can go
>to AKC because we don't need them and they aren't good Border Collies
>anyway.
Um. I guess I haven't seen a lot of that. I guess you're arguing
Option D, which hasn't, as far as I can tell, been very popular.
Truth be told, I'd be all in favor of ABCA going to an entirely
merit-based system. But, as I said, I don't see that happening.
>But these people have had it -- they are sick of the battle, they are still
>sore from the recognition fight, and they will never forgive.
If they were truly sick and sore, they would not be fighting any
more. The Aussie people aren't, and are doing quite well.
I think that the BC people LIKE to fight.
>I don't personally think that AKC will do any better a job re: the rescue
>problem <*snip*> I don't see AKC doing anything in particular about the
>crappy breeders and BYBs
No. They don't--and won't--do a hell of a lot. But BCSA can, and
*is*.
>April wants to stay in BCSA and educate from within; that's what I want to
>do with ABCA.
Well, if you can really do that, then more power to you. I think you've
got a real uphill fight, but that doesn't mean I don't wish you well.
>I really get the impression of a community that breed popularity snuck
>up on and really wasn't prepared for it. There was a time when you could
>basically trust your neighbor, and farms sold dogs to each other and
>bred their own out of necessity, and sometimes I think that some working
>Border Collie folks don't realize that things have changed.
I think we're probably in basic agreement here.
>I read something completely different from the ABCA (I actually can't
>refer to the ABCA as a monolith because there's a lot of dissent on what,
>if anything, should be done here).
I've read the ABCA discussion boards, and know that there's not yet any
real consensus (other than that the AKC is the evil empire, that is).
>If the ban on dual registration goes through (and it is only one
>of I think six options)
Ahem. There's six options, and only two (E and F) would NOT have
the effect of separating the two registries within a few years.
E, of course, has a snowball's chance; F's chances are just marginally
better.
>The people who want it believe that the people who are active in breeding
>and evaluating true working dogs will stay, and feel that losing everyone
>else is basically "good riddance."
"If the ABCA is to continue as it has, it must retain or if possible increase
its registrations. But ABCA registrations are off -- by about the same number
as the AKC's Border Collie registrations, which have steadily increased since
AKC recognition."
That's from the document that started the current controversy. That doesn't
sound like a "good riddance" stance to me. And "losing everyone else" isn't
listed as either as an advantage or disadvantage of any of the proposals...
weird, huh?
>There's also discussion of using the ABCA's version of limited registration
>("non-breeder") to deal with the problems perceived by the membership and
>the board.
Uh... yeah, I saw that discussion. Problem is, I've not been able to
verify that ABCA actually *has* a non-breeding registration. Its existence
certainly isn't verified by the "ABCA Registration Requirements" page
(http://www.americanbordercollie.org/RegistReqs.htm) nor by their
registration form. So if a non-breeding registration exists, it seems
to be a pretty well-kept secret.
>As well as three breeds that had 160 (BT Coonhounds), 57 (Eng Fox), and 52
>(Am Fox) registrations in 2001. (I couldn't find LLewellins on the AKC
>registration stats list.) When your breed is that small, you can draw
>the line around it and make it what you want.
<*laughing*> I chose those examples because they are *primarily*
registered by working registries--Foxhounds by the MFHA, Greyhounds
by the NGA, Llewellins by the FDSB. (You'll find Llewellins registered
by the AKC as English Setters.) They have the same agreements with
the AKC that the BCSA is seeking. And those agreements seem to work
quite well in preserving working ability. BC people would be well
advised to look at those examples.
>By your reasoning, neither April nor I have anything to worry about.
Actually, from my POV, April does and you don't.
>I do agree that there will always be good working dogs, and I think she would
>say the same thing. The question is, will they become relatively rare?
I have seen a lot of Border Collies started on stock, and I'm sorry
to tell you that good ones *are* relatively rare now. The ABCA wants
to put the blame on the AKC, but the loss of ability in the pet-bred
ones is demonstrable too.
But that's aside from the point. The proportion of good working dogs
is and always will be determined by the demand for them and not by
breed club politics (which in the end is what the current debate is
about). If lots of people want good trial dogs, there'll be lots of
good trial dogs. If a few people want good trial dogs and a lot of
people want pets, you'll have a few good trial dogs and lots of pets.
It's not something that anyone is going to be able to legislate or
control. Education could turn the tide, but as long as the leaders
of the ABCA want to keep their heads in the sand it's not going
to happen :-(.
Dianne
Patty Lacey
> It's possible to like people that you disagree with, you know.
Sure, I know that. I was just going by the tone of the posts on this
thread, not yours particularly. Especially the ones before I first
posted.
> The BC isn't as popular in the AKC as you seem to think.
Well, if it's 61 out of 150 breeds it's well up in the top half. Are
all the ones with less dogs too small of a gene pool? The whippet
person doesn't seem to think so.
> They also need to be sound, as free of heritable diseases as
> possible to be considered as breeding stock.
Well, judging what everybodys been saying, the only place to look for
healthy stock is in AKC. Didn't somebody say she couldn't even find a
working breeder she would buy a puppy from?
For some reason I seem to only be seeing some of the posts so it's a
little hard to follow, but did you say that one of their handlers who
scored near the top of their last year's championship finals also
competed at your specialty? Seems like that person would be pretty
respected at least by the people they beat at the other championships.
Has that person (is there some reason you don't want to say who it
is? must be a pretty well-known person) done anything to try to
convince people that there's nothing bad about AKC registering?
Tara O.
news:amamff$56p$1...@netnews.upenn.edu...
>
> I don't know anyone who claims that KC-registered dogs have
introduced
> health problems previously unknown in the breed; that's a red
herring.
> (Although I have heard that one disease -- CL? -- is thought to
have
> originated with Australian conformation imports and wasn't
known before in
> the breed.) It's that as of this moment, Border Collies are
working dogs
> first and the fear is that, as with other popular working
breeds, breeding
> priorities will change. Over time, that will change the breed.
But everything changes with time. Over time, country/farmland
areas have diminished. Over time, its become more difficult for
farming/ranching to be a financially prosperous way of life so it
too has declined. With the decline of available land and the
farming/ranching lifestyle, wouldn't it make sense that working
breeds are now seeing a rise in their status as companion animal
and a drop in available work?
Boxers are still considered a working breed but I don't know of a
Boxer out there actually working in the sense it was intended.
They are mainly companion animals only who happen to excel at
therapy work when someone takes the initiative.
--
Tara
Carolina Boxer Rescue
http://cbr.homestead.com
Judi
Judi
-- "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." ~ Mohandas Gandhi