wildairbc

Katelyn, I know you are just a kid, so I neither take you seriously or hold it against you. I do hope that one day, you will choose your idols more carefully.

Hi Eileen, Thanks for your thoughts on Jane-she is quite the little pistol! It is my great good fortune to have had this tragic litter happen just as Alan was wrapping up research on TNS, so all of my dogs are now tested and going forward will be so much simpler. If only all traits selected for were single gene pairs. I have no frustration whatsoever, therefore. It was extremely sad as the four puppies had to be PTS as their conditions deteriorated, but their breeder (who was not I) gave them as much joy every day of their little lives as she possibly could. She is the one who had the real pain-my pain was that I was too far away to be much help or comfort. However, that litter was integral to the research, so their lives were not in vain. Sometimes breeding throws you a hard one. The measure is not in how you feel or even react. It is in how you go on. The three healthy puppies are doing very well and the two in show/sport homes are already winning and making great strides in their training! I am very proud of them and their breeder, so thanks for bringing them up. I never outright brag unless forced to. That felt like forcing!

Thank you, Bill, for answering the question. I do remember not too many years ago that there was a lot of denial about HD and epilepsy in Border Collies. How about deafness? Is that on the radar yet? I am aware of the ABCAs contributions to the research on CEA. You may also want to know that teh KC in the UK raised a huge fund for that research. Please be clear that AKC breeders are GLAD that BCs have gone down a step in registrations. No one wants their breed in the top ten. Indeed, their ARE puppy mills for nearly every breed with a market. That was not my point. My point is that the AKC has to cover those 150+ breeds-not just one. So it seems like it would be extremely easy to deal with the BYBs and PMs of just one breed, in comparison. ;o} I know you will correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it just in recent years that the ABCA suspended a couple of breeders and that for false registrations-not breeding or husbandry practices. I guess this does seem like a comparison, Eileen. I was asking questions about the ABCA, but folks always have to get nasty about the AKC, which very few of you seem to have any in depth knowledge of. No one is going to argue that the AKC does not have it's flaws, but even in the last few months, since elections, things are beginnning to change. In fact, it is a little weird the way the AKC has sort of mirrored the nation as a whole in the last several years. But the tide seems to be turning for the better for both now. We are working on it all of the time. If you read the Secretary's page of the AKC Gazette each month, you will notice that the AKC seems to suspend more breeders for registration fraud/poor husbandry/cruelty convictions in any given month than the ABCA has so far in it's history. Yes, of course, the AKC covers a lot more territory. It just seems that, porportionately, the ABCA is unconcerned with doing anything about the BC puppy millers out there. If that is not TRUE, then there's your head's up-that is how it SEEMS. BTW, that's great that the ABCA registers those few top trial dogs-but what about the other 19,500? What are they doing to hurt or help the breed? The fact that they are NOT AKC registered and therefore NOT pushing the AKC registrations into the top twenty, does not lessen the fact that they EXIST and as far as the general population of puppy buyers knows, the BC IS a top twenty breed after all. So, go ahead and puke. The ABCA breeders are putting them there. Of course when I write on here, I know you will all disagree. But perhaps you will think also. Who really is the enemy of your "beloved" breed?

I was not comparing the ABCA with the AKC regarding thier respective "protection" of the Border Collie. It was stated that the ABCA is there to "protect" the Border Collie, so I was asking how. I was just asking. I don't know. I don't see it. I would also suggest that perhaps you do some reading on the AKC, which has long since given up calling itself "just a registry". The AKC sponsors the Canine Health Foundation, has a legislation department to help fight anti-dog legislation which is rempant across the country, has a scholarship and intern program for Juniors, funds the "Take the Lead" program which provides financil support to member of the "fancy'" in times of personal crisis and yes, inspects kennels that use the registry for accurate record keeping as well as good husbandry. Among many other things. If you think that the ABCA does not have breeders using their registry that have inaccurate breeding records and substandard care, then you are living in a dreamworld. If the ABCA is promoting "protection" of the breed, I just want to know exactly what that means. I know it doesn't mean that every dog registered have proven working ability. I know that it doesn't mean breeder education to cut down on the huge numbers of border collies being cranked out with ABCA registration and sold to anyone with the cash. It is one thing to say that you "promote breeding Border Collies for working ability alone". It is another to show what you intend to do to make that happen. And yes, the AKC has to oversee breeders of over 150 breeds. Surely, with just one breed to look after, the ABCA could do more. If it is "just a registry", then why is it said that it is "protecting" the Border Collie. Philosophy is cold company to thousands of unwanted Border Coolies whose breeders don't give a lick what happens to them once the check is in hand. Who, exactly, is doing anything aobut that, if not the ABCA? Or don't you think that 20,000 BCs a year is excessive, afterall? That number would put Border Collies at about number 13 in registrations in the AKC. Instead, AKC registered Border Collies are at #56, a level down from last year. So really, whose dogs are having the greater influence in the grand design? So, who would you say has the greatest responsibilty to clean up thier own act? Or is it just too convenient to blame the AKC, a non-profit organization without individual memberships that represents all purebred dogs? Surely, just ONE BREED would make it ever so much easier to do what is right. To educate-not to hate the AKC-but to cherish the breed and do right by it, whatever your idea of right is. Does hating the AKC make the breed better? Is that all you can come up with?

Actually, the Boder Collie was placed in the AKC's Miscellaneous Class in 1955. They were bred for, and participated in, AKC obedience trials ever since, as well as tracking and agility later on, WELL BEFORE they gained universal recognition in 1995 and began competing in the breed ring. As I recall, the ABCA is the youngest of the other registries mentioned (appearing in the 1980s), and none are nearly as old as the AKC. If the ABCA is the "protector" of BCs in America, I look forward to seeing them do something about the thousands of BCs they register every year that are produced by backyard breeders and outright puppy mills. Does the ABCA COE encourage breeders to provide a spay/neuter contract for puppies going to pet homes? Or those that just aren't "top workers"? Since their focus is just the one breed, do they fund any rescues? Hold breeder education seminars? Do they have any official position (as the ISDS does) on health testing breeding dogs? Not requirements, per se, just recommendations? Do they have inspectors that oversee the quality of breeder's facilities? I mean, how many ABCA Border Collie breeders can there be?

Hi, No, I am not the one importing this dog. I do know the dog, however. I understand your belief that whatever it is you consider a "working BC" is the only legitimate breeding animal in the breed. I simply do not agree. I was only wondering why, if this dog is now so inconsequential to you, that you worried about where it was going. I also think that it says a lot that you ASSUMED that the person importing this dog was somehow trying to "deceive" the breeder, which is entirely untrue. I can only imagine that the breeder was extrememly annoyed that you all felt the need to "warn" him, as if he didn't have a brain in his head. The fact is, that in the UK, ISDS and KC dogs are interchanged all of the time, no harm, no foul. As [the breeder] said, to paraphrase,"What I do with my dogs is no one's business except mine and vice versa." (again assuming, he means above cruelty and neglect) You seem to feel confident that their are enough working BCs and enough "responsible" breeders maintaining them, that your genepool is in no danger. So, yes, it IS confusing. I know that there are bad breeders in every breed, in every country. I also am quite sure that 99% of the ABCA registered Border Collies that I have owned and known would not come close to meeting your "standard" of working ability, and there are FAR more of them than there are Australasian dogs. I also am quite sure, though I have no empirical evidence, that MOST Australasian dogs are never TRIED on stock, so who knows if they have the ability or not? They are simply owned by folks that would rather not do stockwork. Say, "then get another breed" all you want, but there are many qualities possessed by the BC that people fall in love with aside from "working ability". Well, I am sorry if I insulted anyone, but I truly wanted to know. So, now I do. I am still unsure of your motives and maybe even your position, but I have the answer I asked for. Thanks very much.

"Unlike the AKC gene pool, our working gene pool is so large that we do not have to push aside our own standard of breeding to get good puppies. " Hi, Thank you for your replies and explanations. In light of the above statement however (which seems to be somewhat of a concensus), why does this thread even exist? I mean, you are NOT really worried about this one dog (yes , a proven adult)? You are NOT worried about there being enough good working dogs? So, I guess that I don't get it. I mean, if the AKC is only registering around 2,100 BCs a year (compared to the ABCAs 20,000), just what is it that is the problem for you? I mean, you won't use an AKC dog-even a proven trial winner and nursery champion becasue of a registration- much less an Australasian dog- so how exactly are the AKC and AKC breeders affecting you? It is very confusing. You also seem to have a false sense of the esteem given your registry by AKC breeders. Most have no interest whatsoever in ABCA registered dogs. (but, as you say, there are always those few...) Certainly, I am saying provocative things here, but I really, really am interested in this whole dynamic. I am NOT trying to cause a firestorm. I appreciate all of the thoughful replies. Having said that, I must say that all I seem to be getting is that some people think they have a right to tell others what to do, when what the others are doing is having no direct effect on them at all. It feels like a "control" issue. It feels like some kind of a contest with only one side keeping score-because the other didn't sign up for the "game". I suppose that is not very clear, but that is the best I can do at the moment.

...."if working breeders maintain their integrity we'll be safe, but if working breeders succumb to market pressure (for AKC papers, for pretty colors, for dogs with relatives that did well in agility) then we're in trouble." There you have it. Aren't THESE the "breeders" you should concern yourselves with? I would also like to ask a question. Once this PROVEN working ISDS registered dog is in the States, will those "working breeders" use him? Even if he is also AKC registered? Even if he is an AKC champion? Do any of those "papers" make him a different dog? If you all are breeders, would you use him? If not, why not? If you would, then heck, this seems like a great opportunity for ABCA border collies to have an infusion of good genes as well. Or does it matter that much WHO imports a dog? But then, your own registry would make it impossible for you to use this dog if he became a show champion, wouldn't it? Surely you are aware that a lot of US ABCA breeders use their dogs on AKC bitches and sell dogs to AKC folks all of the time? BTW, you must believe that the ABCA is the ONLY "reputable" registry, because it is the ONLY registry that de-registers show champions. I truly want to know your answers. Would you use this dog?

Is that the one with the dog that has seizures? If so, I think what they did to that dog was beyond cruel.

Why do you care?

Well, I mostly agree, Melanie. However, if those pups weren't "bucketed", where are they? Even today, most farmers don't sell puppies with a neuter contract. Even back in the day, if they were out and about, people would have seen them. The only way to keep a low incidence is to remove the "colors" from the breeding pool. I only conjecture why this was done, as it obviously was, by whatever method. I don't know much about "sport" breeders or their selection criteria, so I can't speak to it. I do know that "chocolate"(red) is currently well represented in the breed ring and the dilute black(blue) is very common. The "other" colors become more so, as they occur naturally and are seen to be superior specimens. (look, I KNOW you have a different perspective on "superior", so let it go here) One show, albeit, a big one, is not enough to make assumptions on. Personally, I do NOT like the chocolate(called this to differentiate from the ee red). Doesn't mean I would avoid a breeding that might produce them or cull a puppy just for color. I don't believe they are inherently "less"-I just don't like the look of them, and I have to look at my dogs all of the time. Bonnie

"There is a sable BC who is so pale he almost looks ee red (like Lassie) in New England who does very well at trials. The sheep react to him like any other dog." Lassie is a sable, which is completely different from "ee red"(yellow). "ee red" can range from pale cream to Irish Setter red, depending on the rufous modifiers. Which helps illustrate my theory on why there are more B&W BCs out there... Recessive genes are very HARD to breed out. Most "colors" and "patterns" are recessive, and would naturally continue to show up in litters from black parents. I believe that these "colored" pups were culled at birth because of ignorance. Perhaps the "breeder" believed that another dog had gotten to the bitch. Perhaps they weren't "marketable" due to the "can't work" prejudice and who knows where that came from. Perhaps THAT came from the egos of those farmers who were not secure enough to work a "dog of a different color" at a trial because of ridicule. Merle is a dominant pattern gene. You can't get merles without at least one merle parent. Which leads me to believe that there were a few enlightened folks who did not have a color predjudice, since the color survived, abeit, barely. Preferring a color is not the same thing as breeding for that color. Or, more precisely, breeding for ONE THING. Whether you emphasize working ability or something else, the WHOLE dog must be bred for. I don't understand why so many of you think that "show" breeders are fixated on ears, or coat, or color. Because you are just wrong. It is the WHOLE dog, not just a trapping or two. Bonnie

I have disliked that Cruise person since I first laid eyes on him. I feel so vindicated lately... Obviously, couldn't agree with you more on him!! I do have a question, though. I have always believed that cannibalism in bitches is fairly rare and I have never (30+ years) personally seen it or heard of it. How rare is it?

PRESS RELEASE Research team at University of NSW identifies gene for nerve degenerative disease in dogs. Dr Alan Wilton and Scott Melville from the School of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences have identified the mutation that causes ceroid lipofuscinosis, more commonly known as CL, which is major problem in border collie dogs. Affected animals suffer slow neural degeneration from about 15 months which leads to behavioural and motor problems inevitably leading to death within a year. The discovery will eventually allow DNA testing for the disease. Cheap and effective methods of detecting asymptomatic carriers of the gene defect are currently being developed and will be available within 6 months. The test will allow the eliminate of a major genetic problem from the breed by DNA testing and selective breeding. With a simple DNA test it will even be possible for breeders to use a carrier in a mating and then identify which of the pups are free of the defect and can be used in further breeding, and which are carriers and would better kept as pets. The disease in dogs is a good model for the human form of the disease, which is known as Batten disease. It could be useful in understanding the cause of the disease and in the development of treatment. The research has been supported by grants from Australian Research Council SPIRT program with the Border Collie Club of NSW as partners, Canine Research Foundation, Batten Disease Support and Research Association, bequest from Alice McDonald (Cairns) as well as contributions from Border Collie Clubs both in funding and access to samples. Research in the lab continues into causes of other genetic disorders such as Trapped Neutrophil Syndrome (TNS), in which neutrophils get stuck in the bone marrow leaving pups immunodeficient and very susceptible to gastric infections and slow development. The release of the dog genome sequence in July makes the discovery of such defects much easier than it was. All dog breeds have their own unique genetic defects as a result of the breeding structure of extensive use of champion dogs followed by matings between relatives. This inbreeding reveals any underlying genetic defects which are occur naturally in us all. The Border Collie Clubs are to praised for recognising that they had a problem in the breed, and for bringing it out in the open where it could be dealt with, instead of pretending it did not exist, which is the case in most breeds of domestic animal breeds.

"Imagine if one of us started acting like we knew all about what it took to breed and make a conformation champion, even though we had no experience in it or knowledge about it at all." But you do this all of the time. You belittle it and assume that it is a piece of cake and only for the mentally challenged. Perhaps this would be more of a "discussion" if the subliminal message in every post wasn't always "you are wrong, you are wrong, YOU ARE WRONG!" Again, I see that it is quite right to post the website of a "show" breeder for all to abuse, but heaven forbid the site of a "working" breeder should come under scrutiny. I believe that you should state PLAINLY in the preface to this forum that "conformation" advocates are NOT WELCOME. I rarely post here and I came to learn. The most I have learned is the basic meaness of people when they are disagreed with. Especially when they outnumber the "disagreer". (I know that is not a word, so don't start) The assumptions I see here about the AKC from people who know NOTHING are ridiculous and ignorant. Yes, all the time you try to tell us what we should and shouldn't do with no base of knowledge. I think it would be wise not to assume that just because a person has AKC registered dogs, they have "no knowledge of working stock with a dog". Do you even KNOW who wrote the various BC standards? Ask Karin who wrote the UK standard. I KNOW how futile it is to talk to folks on this forum, so I will not respond. Yes, I am being reactive. Must be the heat or PMS. Certainly can't be because I KNOW anything. Bonnie PS- Karin does NOT know me, nor I her, so don't let any mud you sling my way land on her!