Well, I think I am getting a puppy.....

[Kelly Selzle]

D'elle, would you be willing to consider another breeder if members here could get you some good contact information?

 

D'elle,

 

There is a reputable breeder in Nogales which is not far from Tucson. I don't know if he has any pups at the moment, but he is closer to you and I know he is a firm believer in USBCHA. If you're interested, I can give you his contact information.

 

Kelly

[Mark Billadeau]

While I can see your point I must also say that to define a true border collie as ONLY one that works the the open usbcha level is ignorant.

 

I for one never said the working standard was open; in fact I was very careful to NOT say the standard was perfromance on the trial field. What I did say was

 

working stock to a certain high level of ability

Breed standards strictly do not exclude dogs from the breed; they are the breeding goals used to describe the breed. This is also the case with kennel clubs where the goals are to produce dogs of defined looks; pups that don't meet these looks are still considered part of the breed (they are not deregistered or called mutts) they are just excluded from breeding programs because they did not meet the standard.

 

BTW I too take issue with the statement that working breeders do not take inherited health issues seriously.

[PSmitty]

My question is, though, if you want to raise and train border collies for AKC type herding, why do you have to BREED them too? Can you just train and compete in those style of trials without breeding dogs? Is the world going to end if you take a few serious of years of learning how to work dogs without putting litters on the ground? I guess I just don't understand why you have to produce puppies at all. Maybe if you took a few years to really learn the fine art of working stockdogs, you'd have a better perspective on what should and should not be bred - and maybe you wouldn't either, but would it be a terrible thing if you took the time to find out without breeding more dogs?

 

RDM

 

This. And I wonder it about lots of breeders.

[NCStarkey]

Hello everyone,

 

Mandy wrote, "While I can see your point I must also say that to define a true border collie as ONLY one that works the open usbcha level is ignorant."

 

To get an accurate assessment of a dog's talent and ability, most of us feel that the dog needs to be "fully trained" (trained to the level of the USBCHA open class, in addition to being capable of handling any chore on the farm). One reason for this is that a good working dog needs to be capable of withstanding the rigors of training to the highest level. There are far too many promising youngsters that look great early on in training, but they cannot handle the stress of upper level training. There is far more involved with assessing the talent and ability of a working dog than simply being pleased with how it starts down that long road to becoming a fully trained sheepdog.

 

Regards,

nancy

[juliepoudrier]

>>You won't see my name in the top 150 either, and I think we have some decent dogs. We have the son of a National Champion (neutered) and a daughter of a Top 10 USBCHA National Finals cattledog<<

 

Your female is also the granddaughter of the USBCHA Sheepdog THIRD place dog...many years ago. And your female's dam was a top Nursery dog in the UK before she was imported. And your male's dam was the third dog to get her ROM.

Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but if we are telling Mandy that she shouldn't breed her dogs based just on their pedigrees, then it doesn't make sense to me to start touting our dogs' pedigrees. I know Jaime isn't breeding, and her dogs do have lovely bloodlines, but I don't quite see how naming the winning dogs in her dogs' pedigrees adds to a discussion where we've just gotten done telling another breeder that knowing her dogs' bloodlines up and down--and the fact that those dogs are related to dogs who have trialed well--isn't a good enough reason for breeding.

 

J.

[Smokjbc]

Not trying to be a wet blanket here, but if we are telling Mandy that she shouldn't breed her dogs based just on their pedigrees, then it doesn't make sense to me to start touting our dogs' pedigrees. I know Jaime isn't breeding, and her dogs do have lovely bloodlines, but I don't quite see how naming the winning dogs in her dogs' pedigrees adds to a discussion where we've just gotten done telling another breeder that knowing her dogs' bloodlines up and down--and the fact that those dogs are related to dogs who have trialed well--isn't a good enough reason for breeding.

 

J.

 

Touting my dog's bloodlines wasn't my intention - since the breeder in this thread has stated her dog's bloodlines as a justification to breed, I just wanted to show that that isn't or shouldn't be enough to justify breeding dogs that are not proved out. I'm not advertising breeding or pups and it means little to the discussion except as an example.

[Denise Wall]

In Jamie's defense, it was mostly Diane touting her dogs' bloodlines.

[juliepoudrier]

That's why I quoted Diane's post and not Jaime's. My comments were directed at the person I quoted. I understood completely Jaime's intent with her post. I just didn't see the need for all the extra information Diane posted.

 

J.

[Smokjbc]

*waves* Howdy from the other end of the same state. Yup, active USBCHA handlers are scarce as hens teeth in these parts. You're one. I'm ... well, hoping to be another, at some point. Though I'll be in Pro-Novice next year, for starters. Like you, I'll be driving over to California to trial, since there are exactly NO border collie trials in the entire state of Nevada. Dunno about Utah, but it's 9 hours away, so ... We do what we gotta do.

I'm pleased to see that distinction. As a newer person on these boards, I'd be wondering just today, "But what about all those dogs who never set foot on a trial field?" Your description matches what I'd been pondering. A trained, useful, essentially finished dog. I'll go with that.

 

Interesting discussion, but I'm too sleepy to brain further tonight.

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

 

 

We need to get together sometime Gloria although we are almost a state away if we lived in a normal-sized state . Utah has a a good trial or two - I love the Kelley Creek trial and it's worth the drive.

[Maja]

I would see a stance of this board something like this:

 

"While we recognize that there may be individual breeders whose breeding practices are compatible with the working border collie philosophy, the philosophy of the AKC makes it impossible for the board's members to support any activities or members of the Club, and we will not encourage anybody to operate or buy dogs within the ACK."

 

A stance like this

 

(1) would admit that there may be individual people in the ACK who are trying to do right

(2) Make it unnecessary to prove that the breeding of any AKC individual breeder is not correct

 

and last but no least:

(3) would not be a source of counter accusation.

 

What I mean by the last point is that there has been a lot of effort to disparage the breeding practices of one AKC breeders here, while a cursory google search showed to me that there exist ABCA registered breeders who do not do as well as the breeder mentioned. Is anybody ready to claim that all ABCA breeders breed only top notch dogs with all the available DNA testing plus OFA clearance?

 

You as a board are not supporting the AKC. Period. It does not matter if an individual breeder is good or not. Julie gave D'Elle very good advice about choosing a breeder that can be useful regardless of the affiliation (though it was directed at AKC). D'Elle changed her mind and decided - if I understood correctly - that regardless of what the actual breeder is like she will not support breeding within the ACK and will buy from (1) a good breeder (2) one not registered with the AKC. And that's great. There is no reason here I think to try to prove anything else. It will only put the person attached on the defensive and expose the ABCA people's vulnerabilities as it already has come through.

 

I support the philosophy of the board and I hope you will understand my post the way it is intended.

Maja

[1sheepdoggal]

I love the working border collie.

 

Working sheep alongside these dogs, seeing what they can do, being a small part of that three way relationship, connects me with life and helps life make sense to me in a way nothing else ever has.

 

I love the working border collie. That is my only agenda.

 

If you don't love the working border collie for what it is, please don't ruin this breed for those of us who need and love these dogs for what they are meant to be.

 

Please support the working border collie.

 

Thank u Denise, my sentiments exactly.

[Journey]

I would see a stance of this board something like this:

 

"While we recognize that there may be individual breeders whose breeding practices are compatible with the working border collie philosophy, the philosophy of the AKC makes it impossible for the board's members to support any activities or members of the Club, and we will not encourage anybody to operate or buy dogs within the ACK."

 

I have an issue with this position if I am reading it correctly. There are many members of this board who do activities with the dogs within ACK, it's not that that is a problem it's breeding them for any reason other than high working standards.

 

A stance like this

 

(1) would admit that there may be individual people in the ACK who are trying to do right

(2) Make it unnecessary to prove that the breeding of any AKC individual breeder is not correct

 

and last but no least:

(3) would not be a source of counter accusation.

 

What I mean by the last point is that there has been a lot of effort to disparage the breeding practices of one AKC breeders here, while a cursory google search showed to me that there exist ABCA registered breeders who do not do as well as the breeder mentioned. Is anybody ready to claim that all ABCA breeders breed only top notch dogs with all the available DNA testing plus OFA clearance?

 

Yes, and there are just as many threads on the boards discussing the issue as there are ACK breeders. As Eileen pointed out earlier, it's about education. I think you will find just as much discussion on PM's, BYB'S and the likes that do register with ABCA as with ACK.

 

It does not matter if an individual breeder is good or not. Julie gave D'Elle very good advice about choosing a breeder that can be useful regardless of the affiliation (though it was directed at AKC). D'Elle changed her mind and decided - if I understood correctly - that regardless of what the actual breeder is like she will not support breeding within the ACK and will buy from (1) a good breeder (2) one not registered with the AKC. And that's great. There is no reason here I think to try to prove anything else. It will only put the person attached on the defensive and expose the ABCA people's vulnerabilities as it already has come through.

 

But it does. There are many lurkers here that simply "read" the boards. I think it would be a huge disservice to them if the short fallings people see of breeders was not discussed. In this case the person of discussion came here of her own free will, the discussion was polite though it reiterated just about all that has been said here on both sides. But again for the new comers and lurkers a lack of discussion would not have helped them and a lack of participation on the breeder's part would not have given them her POV. Would a lurker have read the archives to learn more about the issues?

 

I support the philosophy of the board and I hope you will understand my post the way it is intended.

Maja

 

I hope I didn't read or interpret it incorrectly too!

[Maja]

I have an issue with this position if I am reading it correctly. There are many members of this board who do activities with the dogs within ACK, it's not that that is a problem it's breeding them for any reason other than high working standards.

I am writing from across the Pond, so I may have misunderstood . I thought that mostly you don't want to have anything to do with the AKC at all. Should I understand that if an AKC dog makes it to the Open finals or it reaches whatever the generally agreed to standard of stock work is, and if that person decides to breed that dog within the AKC with another dog that equally meets your standard of a breeding working dog that you would support this person's breeding practices?

 

But it does. There are many lurkers here that simply "read" the boards. I think it would be a huge disservice to them if the short fallings people see of breeders was not discussed. In this case the person of discussion came here of her own free will, the discussion was polite though it reiterated just about all that has been said here on both sides. But again for the new comers and lurkers a lack of discussion would not have helped them and a lack of participation on the breeder's part would not have given them her POV. Would a lurker have read the archives to learn more about the issues?

I agree with you, what I was trying to say is that to me reading the topic gave me an impression that some (definitely not all) people were trying to prove that so-and-so is an AKC breeder hence so-and so is a bad breeder. I know that many (maybe all) don't mean it that way, but it is the impression conveyed here and there.

 

Maja

P.S I have been to Tennessee -what a beautiful state! I'd love to live there.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

My point was that Jamie's dog have good bloodlines BUT she is not using that as a reason to bred. In fact, she is using working ability as one of her criteria as breeding (If she ever did). I have had some of the top bloodlines in my kennels and they DID NOT make the cut on the trial field, so they did not get bred but got pet homes insead. You need a equation that consist of working ability, good lines, trial performance, knowledge if the nick will better the lines, health and years of experience as a minimum in my book.

 

What would help is the "Bull Eye" explanation. That makes it much clearer for a lot of folks.

[juliepoudrier]

Maja,

I think there are as many individual opinions on AKC as there are people on this forum. I personally would prefer that people have nothing to do with AKC, period. No money to AKC coffers for anything. But I understand that there are at least some locations where if one wants to do, say, agility, AKC may be the only game in town. If there is absolutely no other alternative, I'm not going to fault someone for participating in AKC stuff (outside of herding anyway). But I absolutely disagree with any notion that the AKC herding program can be used strictly as a test of breedworthiness.

 

If someone wants to run their dogs only in arena-type trials, there are other venues here in the US that are available to them, namely AHBA and ASCA. But I wouldn't suggest that either of those venues, which are also titling venues, are suitable proving grounds for determining breedworthiness of a working border collie.

 

As to Mandy's comments about USBCHA open being the only standard, I wouldn't say that, but open is certainly a standard that is easy to use for comparison and tough enough to weed out the wannabes and "could have, if onlys." Anyone who has trained and successfully trialed a dog at that level can probably look at a dog who's not trialing and make a reasonable determination about that dog's abilities. But there's a reason even the ROM program requires the dog to be capable of showing its ability on property not its own and stock not its own. Many dogs can learn the home routine and the home stock and look excellent *at home.* The open trial at least shows that the dog is capable of handling unknown (to the dog) stock on unfamiliar terrain--that's the type of versatility we're looking for. A dog running at the open level can take training pressure as well. That's not excluding strictly farm dogs, but the farm dogs being used ought to be dogs who can do a lot of hard work all day long and not just bring the sheep up twice a day from someone's five-acre pasture (routine). People tend to be kennel blind--the one big value of an open trial is that the faults are there for all to see, no kennel blindness allowed.

 

J.

[Maja]

It all sounds sensible to me

 

If someone wants to run their dogs only in arena-type trials

What does it mean 'arena -type'?

 

Maja

[juliepoudrier]

It all sounds sensible to me

What does it mean 'arena -type'?

 

Maja

It means trials held in the types of arenas where you might hold a horse show. Someone else may be better able to give dimensions, but say something like 100 feet x 200 feet or similar. Basically very small areas. I think AHBA and ASCA are at least more flexible on the types of stock used. AKC trials generally reqiure stock that are broke to any breed of dog they might see at a trial and that are essentially course trained themselves (because the courses never vary).

 

The earlier comment about the beagle was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but for the most part if you can read stock and your beagle is obedient in the presence of stock, you could probably get the dog around an AKC A course fairly easily.

 

J.

[Journey]

I am writing from across the Pond, so I may have misunderstood . I thought that mostly you don't want to have anything to do with the AKC at all. Should I understand that if an AKC dog makes it to the Open finals or it reaches whatever the generally agreed to standard of stock work is, and if that person decides to breed that dog within the AKC with another dog that equally meets your standard of a breeding working dog that you would support this person's breeding practices?

 

Hmm, difficult to answer. Are you saying that both dogs are up to standard wrt working? Working at a high (open level) but they are strictly ACK dogs? I don't think it would be allowed in ABCA for one in which case I would say "no" I wouldn't support their breeding practices.

 

I agree with you, what I was trying to say is that to me reading the topic gave me an impression that some (definitely not all) people were trying to prove that so-and-so is an AKC breeder hence so-and so is a bad breeder. I know that many (maybe all) don't mean it that way, but it is the impression conveyed here and there.

 

Maja

P.S I have been to Tennessee -what a beautiful state! I'd love to live there.

 

Yes. I can see that but I think that is the philosophy of the boards too though. ACK equals bad breeder, wrt working stockdogs, yes. There are plenty of breeders that do run in the upper levels of USBCHA and sell to ACK homes, some I would run as far away as possible, some I would have to really look hard at before buying a pup from them. In the end, there are reputable, responsible breeders out there that do not support ACK at all. Those are the ones I would talk with first and chances are further looking would not be necessary.

 

TN is lovely! Now that fall has hit the dogs are working quite a bit and loving it

[Eileen Stein]

I would see a stance of this board something like this:

 

"While we recognize that there may be individual breeders whose breeding practices are compatible with the working border collie philosophy, the philosophy of the AKC makes it impossible for the board's members to support any activities or members of the Club, and we will not encourage anybody to operate or buy dogs within the ACK."

I have an issue with this position if I am reading it correctly. There are many members of this board who do activities with the dogs within ACK, it's not that that is a problem it's breeding them for any reason other than high working standards.

 

This illustrates Julie's point that there are many different opinions about AKC on the Boards, even among those who adhere to the Boards' basic philosophy of supporting the working standard. My opinion is closer to the one Maja stated than the one Journey stated.

[Maja]

Hmm, difficult to answer. Are you saying that both dogs are up to standard wrt working? Working at a high (open level) but they are strictly ACK dogs? I don't think it would be allowed in ABCA for one in which case I would say "no" I wouldn't support their breeding practices.

 

I am talking about two hypothetical dogs that are registered in the AKC (they might be of ABCA lines, may be of ISDS lines, it does not matter). And they would prove their ability to work in a way that it usually fully satisfactory for breeding for non-AKC registers dogs. Would the board support such a breeder? If not, then this would be a modified version to match the view, I think:

 

"While we recognize that there may be individual breeders whose breeding practices are compatible with the working border collie philosophy, the philosophy of the AKC makes it impossible for the board's members to support breeding of border collies within the AKC due to ideological incompatibility with the said Club."

 

(Something to that effect anyhow )

 

While saying "We do not support any individual AKC breeders, because they are bad breeders" would be, in my opinion, prejudice. So these two I wanted like to sort apart, so that a reader does not get a wrong idea.

 

Julie,

Thank you for the explanation, I looked them up in youtube, and I must say I am surprised. The only thing that is done that way in Poland is instinct test where the arena is indeed very small, but many people don't want the instinct test at all (me included). The rest is on large areas.

 

Maja

[kjthomason]

I wish you would consider non AKC registered working border collie puppies instead.

I agree with Denise...

[Maja]

Eileen,

With your posts, I think, I see what the differences are now, and where they come from. And I think that the most important thing to make sure the two things I wrote about in the previous post are kept apart.

Maja

[Gloria Atwater]

We need to get together sometime Gloria although we are almost a state away if we lived in a normal-sized state . Utah has a a good trial or two - I love the Kelley Creek trial and it's worth the drive.

 

I would love to! If nothing else, we could say, "Hi, we're the Nevada Contingent." Seriously, though, I do hope our paths will cross. I sneak over to California from time to time, and I'm hoping to make it down to ... dang, I think it's Porterville? Where someone has a fun N/N - P/N trial in the spring. So if not in Utah, maybe we'd meet up sometime in CA.

 

Though I'd love to take in Utah. I've only ever been there once, riding with a truck-driver friend to Salt Lake, so I'd be delighted for an excuse to go back, sometime. Where and when is Kelly Creek, and do they include P/N?

Cheers ~

 

Gloria

[Gary M]

"While we recognize that there may be individual breeders whose breeding practices are compatible with the working border collie philosophy, the philosophy of the AKC makes it impossible for the board's members to support breeding of border collies within the AKC due to ideological incompatibility with the said Club."

 

Maja

 

As Mr. McCaig quoted in a different thread, "A Man cannot serve two Masters". The masters here being the working bred Border Collie or the AKC.

It has always been my opinion and position that the AKC has proven itself to serve more to the detriment of all breeds it has touched than it has ever served to their betterment and because of that and in that regard I personally consider them evil. And I do not support or compromise with evil.

 

One can make excuses that it is the only game in town for some activities, or that because you have border collies you don't care how they have ruined every other sporting or working breed they have come into contact with (because you don't own those), but truly if you are in for a penny you are in for a pound. To claim otherwise, again in my opinion, is rank hypocrisy.

 

There is leeway that can be granted to the "great unwashed", but that is when it becomes imperative to educate those people on the harm the AKC has caused the breeds it claims to champion. Among those are the fact that the AKC, its quest for revenue and its de facto support of puppy mills and back yard breeders to fill its coffers promotes a never ending supply of euthanasia fodder, as well as the genetic corruption and destruction of once useful and noble breeds with the working Border Collie being one of its more recent victims.

 

AKC, Another Killed Canine

[Gloria Atwater]

It means trials held in the types of arenas where you might hold a horse show. Someone else may be better able to give dimensions, but say something like 100 feet x 200 feet or similar. Basically very small areas. I think AHBA and ASCA are at least more flexible on the types of stock used. AKC trials generally reqiure stock that are broke to any breed of dog they might see at a trial and that are essentially course trained themselves (because the courses never vary).

 

Sidebar to the discussion, if folks will forgive. I was just looking at AKC course descriptions last night. Their "A Course," the most common, is at maximum 200 x 400 feet. That's not yards. One rarely sees an AKC trial in an arena that large, however, so courses are generally smaller, and yes, they never vary. Wee outrun, around a post, towards the fence, then through a Y chute, a Z chute and a "holding pen", all on the fence. Finish with a wee cross-drive through two panels and repen. The dogs that AKC judges seem to put up for awards on those courses are usually those who just patter along quietly behind those course-trained sheep, everything in nice, straight lines.

 

ACK has a "B Course" that is basically a novice-sized P/N course, but you almost never see it.

 

ASCA has 2 basic courses, but the stock differ and the judges at least prefer dogs who actively work, show some pizazz and get into the job. Still an arena course, but not as mind-numbing as ACK.

 

AHBA ... I will humbly defend AHBA courses, because those are honestly limited only by the course designers' imaginations. AHBA has certain elements they want to see on a course, and drive legs of certain distances, but you can configure your ranch course as big or small, outdoors or arena, or spread between outside and arena work as you like. I actually enjoy those courses because they do include ranch work such as gate sorting, loading in trailers, putting through foot baths, driving them across bridges and down unfenced lanes, etc.

 

No, AHBA is not to be compared with a 400-500 yard outrun and an International shed, but it is the most "realistic" of the non-USBCHA venues out there, and the least artificially restrictive. If a dog is shut down to that ACK pitter-pat pace, odds are he simply won't get an AHBA course done. Unless, that is, the designers are too conservative to really create a challenge.

 

The earlier comment about the beagle was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but for the most part if you can read stock and your beagle is obedient in the presence of stock, you could probably get the dog around an AKC A course fairly easily.

 

J.

 

There's a gal I know who is training her little white Poodle to work sheep, a la AKC. Really. It's hilarious!

Cheers ~

 

Gloria