abcollie

Well then I hope USBCHA can talk AKC to sponsor the finals! I don't know why they would be expected to reward the Handlers for giving AKC more reasons to brag (Their judge ... judged the National finals!) I don't care who handlers give lessons to but let's not elevate them to one of the top positions in the USBCHA. The rule was NO AKC judges - they changed the rule to suit what they wanted to happen. If you are on Facebook - go to District one. It's not an open group but you can ask to join ... and read the comments. There is a firestorm against this ... with good reason! I'm a life member of both and told the USBCHA ... if I wasn't I would NOT join! I'm beyond upset!!!

Sorry Denise - didn't mean to diminish the work that had been done up to now. It just seems it has stalled and hoping this will produce the funds to move it forward. Everything that has been done (with no pay except hopefully helping breeders to breed sound dogs) is very much appreciated.

I don't know if this will work ??? But here is the discussion we have been having on Facebook. Great start to trying to help the breeders keep the top working lines. https://www.facebook.com/abcollie/posts/10203503705352367?comment_id=10203508713277562&reply_comment_id=10203508725477867&offset=0&total_comments=161&notif_t=feed_comment

Thanks ... I'm going to give it a try (heck, sure not expensive so why not :@)

Cool! I have an allergy to Brass ... wonder if that would help? Which one did you buy?

This is an "excerpt" of an article I wrote around 25 years ago: I want to give an example of what I am trying to express. Lets say you have 100 (50 black and 50 white) horses and decide to evaluate which one of these is the fastest by having a race. Then someone arbitrarily says only the black ones are permitted to enter the race. So, when the race is over DO you have the FASTEST horse or do you have the FASTEST black horse? YOU DO NOT KNOW!!! Now if you had raced all the horses, black and white, and a black one happened to win…. you would have the fastest horse that happened to be black. It isn’t difficult to understand the more conditions you impose the more you restrict the possibility of getting the best. (What would happen if you carried our example even further and said only black horses with four white feet?) This is something that can not be said enough….you can not (I repeat NOT) breed for appearance (and that means putting ANY stipulation on what a dog looks like) and keep an honorable standard of work. To restate the obvious: it is not possible to breed for anything except working ability and keep integrity in your work. If for any reason you insert a criteria other than work in your breeding program, you will dilute the working ability. I had a red Border Collie at the time (didn't buy him because he was red ... just liked his sire and dam ... both black and white.) I haven't had another red one until now - NOT because I have anything against them but because I have bred and chosen only for working. The red one I have now I didn't know he was red until he got here (again chosen for work/pedigree ... saw a video of him but he was so dark he looked black.) I really don't care what color he is - ONLY if he can do the job at hand.

Thanks! Would have loved one of your rams ... I beginning to think I live in a "dry county" when it comes to "flashy" sheep :@)

Thanks for the info Mark. So, in "layman" terms? It's a mutation but they can't find where it's coming from (and won't be able to until genetic testing improves). So ... does that mean it's like the lottery (the losing kind :@( where it just turns up because something mutates? Both parents have it or they just don't know? Thanks for keeping up with this ... it's frustrating for people to put so much time/effort/energy into their dogs and have them go deaf just when they are trained.

Wow ... interesting and so much more complicated than what it seems :@(

Thanks guys ... I think :@)

Are there genetic diseases that only come from one parent ... or are the majority found to be recessive and need both sides of the pedigree to reproduce it? I read something about genetically dominant trait (which I would assume meant ... only one side of the pedigree?)

Well, that's depressing :@( I know there is a lot of research with humans but I doubt it includes "breeding" as much as it has with dogs? Good news on the Onset hearing! I guess one thing at a time ... just glad someone is working on it.

Thanks! Hopefully soon ...

Thanks for all the info guys ... every little bit helps. I do think "we" (as in Border Collie breeders) need to talk about this. It's "kind of" where CEA was years ago and we seem to have "worked" through that. I always liked the way ABCA did it (not banning dogs like they did in the UK). I think they lost a LOT of good working dogs by doing that. Do you think it's possible to get a genetic test done for epilepsy or early onset deafness like we did for CEA or they totally different?

Thank you! That was very helpful.

That's where I'm having trouble also. Because IF this dog Ben is sired by a National, International, etc. champion ... then "odds are" you are talking about eliminating a LOT of dogs. I mean when you start researching pedigrees (because you have/had) an issue ... the same dogs come up a lot (I would find siblings *of Ben* that aren't well known but were used a lot). I think MOST of us try and breed really great working dogs that are sound as we can make them (knowing perfect is impossible) and are just looking for as much info as we can get (and speaking for myself something I can understand since I'm math/scientist challenged :@)

So are there more of them "today" because we are hitting the "unlucky lottery" or - admitting to it more - or the lines are getting closer or ??? Or just because there are a lot more Border Collies today than there use to be. 25 years ago I very seldom heard of a Border Collie with "issues".

Then comes the problem of people not wanting to talk about it. How do you do research on "a line" if no one "admits" to it?

Oh no math! :@) I think I understand what you are saying ... I've researched background pedigrees of the sire and dam (trying to see if there was a "common denominator"). I also tried to compare the pedigrees of the other breedings ... trying to see where the problem came from. All I did was come up more confused than when I started. Thanks for the input.

That's where my "confusion" comes. Let's say that you had a dog that won the International and there are a LOT of pups out of him. So you have a son/grandson that has one pup with an issue (anything not just seizures) ... do you not ever breed him again. Just try and breed to a "line" that there are no known "relatives" (and how far back do you go?). Do you see where I'm going ... if everyone stopped breeding dogs that have thrown "something" ... we wouldn't have anything to breed to???

I have a male that threw one pup (out of 3 litters) and I wasn't planning on breeding him again. But then that makes me think ... should his sire (who has a LOT of pups/grandpups around) ... his brothers/sisters/sons/daughters, etc. never be bred? If we did that it would eliminate a LOT of working dogs. How DO you make a responsible decision on these issues???

Wouldn't that be EOR (early onset reading :@) I just wasn't sure if "that" research group was sponsored by ABCA --- or was an independent group? Either way I feel better knowing Mark is working on it.

Thanks :@)

Is there anyone else working on it? ABCA? Anyone we could get in touch with and encourage them to work on it?

They were "overwhelmed" is a VERY scary thought. Does anyone have any idea how wide spread this is?