Anti merle prejudice

[Gloria Atwater]

Actually slate and lilac can happen without intent. It is no different then a black dog that is a red carrier when bred to another black dog/red carrier will surprise you with red pups. A black dog with one dilute gene will appear black, so just like red it can unknowingly be passed down through the bloodline and untill you breed to another dilute carrier you won't even know it was there. A working breeder in my area had some unexpected slate color pups I believe we're Robin Nuffer lines.

 

 

Then I stand corrected. Probably goes along with the weird blue/brown color I've seen. But my point remains: those colors don't occur on purpose unless a breeder selects for those color genetics.

 

~ Gloria

[Pam Wolf]

Well Said Liz!

[Mark Billadeau]

TEC why do you think trials are not sufficient in selecting breeding dogs?

You say you have enough experience to have seen a wide range in trials, so what is deficient in the tasks or difficulty at a wide range of trials to be insufficient in selecting dogs for breeding?

Based upon your vast experience, what should trial hosts (which includes me) be doing differently to make them appropriate to select dogs for breeding? What should the USBCHA be doing different at the finals to make the tasks sufficient for selecting the appropriate dogs for breeding?

[TEC]

TEC why do you think trials are not sufficient in selecting breeding dogs?

Mark, I am doing a little research, and putting a short outline together. Please bear with me for a day or two. Thank you for asking. Have a good weekend. -- TEC

[CMP]

You know, I doubt trials need to be changed so very much.

 

I think they are and will remain the best, however imperfect, method of establishing and maintaining a diverse quality breeding pool and thus preserving and allowing for the evolution of the breed.

 

I think more working dogs need to be in them. So, I think more farmers need to trial. So I think the problem, if there is one, is not in the method so much as in the sample. More dogs doing more types of work need to be represented. It's probably less a question of operations than one of marketing.

 

There are a few young cousins here who have a very keen interest in working with the dogs and who follow the trial scene closely and who would like to trial. I would very much like to see that come to pass.

[TEC]

You know, I doubt trials need to be changed so very much.

 

I think they are and will remain the best, however imperfect, method of establishing and maintaining a diverse quality breeding pool and thus preserving and allowing for the evolution of the breed.

 

I think more working dogs need to be in them. So, I think more farmers need to trial. So I think the problem, if there is one, is not in the method so much as in the sample. More dogs doing more types of work need to be represented. It's probably less a question of operations than one of marketing.

 

There are a few young cousins here who have a very keen interest in working with the dogs and who follow the trial scene closely and who would like to trial. I would very much like to see that come to pass.

 

The online Border Collie Musem states that from 1919-1976 a separate Hired Shepherd's Class was part of ISDS trial structure. Scroll down to about mid-page for a photo of penning sheep in the Hired Shepherd Class competition, 1948. Even now the ISDS Rules give a tip of the hat to shepherds, but subsumes them within "one class" under which all compete.

Prior to 1976 it was believed that the hired shepherd, a stalwart of British farm life, was at a disadvantage to the owner-farmer. He did not own his sheep, and had few opportunities for practice.

I believe loss of the Hired Shepherd's Class is regrettable, and represents one element of a type of gentrification of sheepdog trialing that started to blossom later in North America. I use "gentrification" to denote an American sheepdog trial shift away from day to day work of hired shepherds to primarily that of parts of society represented by landed farmers/ranchers who make extensive practical use of dogs, and by professionals who rely directly on SDTs, training, breeding, selling dogs to make their livings. Here is different analysis by Albion Urdank based on British society from the Bala, Wales trial, 1873, formation of ISDS, 1906, to end of WWII, 1946.

Society has evolved, and the shepherd is apparently not deemed to be at such a handicap. Although, how does a modestly paid shepherd or small sheep farmer who has a couple dogs find the time to practice and compete, and trial entry fee? In UK all competitors must pay dues to be a member of ISDS. There may very well be stunning dogs that will never be publicly seen. To me it is debatable whether the shepherd and one of his counterparts, the small farmer, do not continue to be at disadvantage. Shepherdess Julie Hill has been successful, so perhaps there are others. Can our British members help on that question?

CMP says, "More dogs doing more types of work need to be represented". I agree this is a goal to work toward.

Hope your cousins maintain their interest in competition, and follow their vision, CMP. -- Best wishes, TEC

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

Tom writes: "In UK all competitors must pay dues to be a member of ISDS. " Yes, if you want to join the ISDS you must pay dues. I don't think competitors must be members. Perhaps to qualify for their National trials?

 

In the US one need not join the HA to run in any trial nor the National Finals.

 

Donald McCaig

[Debbie Meier]

Donald, how do you qualify for the National Finals without being a member of the HA?

 

And not only that, you have to be a member of ABCA to compete also, see Francis running people down each year at USBCHA Cattledog Finals

 

 

True you don't need to be a member to run at local trials

[Mark Billadeau]

Section 8 of the USBCHA Rule Book

Q. All handlers must be a current paid member of USBCHA before the handler’s dog receives qualification points for the Finals

 

 

There is nothing in the sheep rules indicating you must be an ABCA member to compete in the sheep finals; however, you will not be eligible for the ABCA prize moneys if you are not an ABCA member.

[Mark Billadeau]

 

I think more working dogs need to be in them. So, I think more farmers need to trial. So I think the problem, if there is one, is not in the method so much as in the sample. More dogs doing more types of work need to be represented. It's probably less a question of operations than one of marketing.

The more exposure good working dogs get to potential breeders, the more likely these good dogs will influence the gene pool (as opposed to a few isoloated lines).

[CMP]

 

The more exposure good working dogs get to potential breeders, the more likely these good dogs will influence the gene pool (as opposed to a few isoloated lines).

Absolutely agreed.

[Debbie Meier]

Um Mark, there is nothing in the rules but I was told that it was mandatory and not compulsory due to the amount of ABCA funding supplied to the finals itself, maybe that will not longer be true in the future as the guard changes.

[GentleLake]

I was told that it was mandatory and not compulsory

 

Not trying to be a smart ass, but isn't this contradictory?

 

And are you saying that even though it's not in the rules, it's been a de facto practice to disallow people to run in the finals if they're not members?

[juliepoudrier]

I've never heard of ABCA membership being mandatory (=compulsory) in order to run in the USBCHA finals. I don't think I was an ABCA member the second time I ran at the finals. Maybe things have changed since then--I haven't been actively trialing for four years now.

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

me bad, wrong word.

 

No, entries were not refused, but those that were not members were tracked down at the finals (this was cattledog) and told that they needed to pay their membership.

 

Specifically recall it because we had participants that didn't own border collies that were quite set aback and I also had the understanding that ABCA membership was not required.

 

I asked why and was told that it was mandatory due to the amount of funds given from ABCA. Now, if the handler refused what would happen? Didn't ask, folks just paid it when asked to. Saw it occur 2 years in a row.

[Debbie Meier]

I suppose I shouldn't have said anything, but it is what happened.

[Maxi]

Dear Doggers,

 

Tom writes: "In UK all competitors must pay dues to be a member of ISDS. " Yes, if you want to join the ISDS you must pay dues. I don't think competitors must be members. Perhaps to qualify for their National trials?

 

I'm not a trialist but having looked through the ISDS rule book & from previous discussions with people who do trial, I think the situation in the UK is as follows:

 

For ISDS trials i.e. the 4 Nationals (England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales) plus the International , then yes, the person running the dog needs to be an ISDS member and "Dogs eligible to compete at National Trials must be registered in the Society's Stud Book in the name of the competitor".

 

For all other trials, the handler & dog do NOT need to be registered with the ISDS.

 

 

 

The online Border Collie Musem states that from 1919-1976 a separate Hired Shepherd's Class was part of ISDS trial structure. Scroll down to about mid-page for a photo of penning sheep in the Hired Shepherd Class competition, 1948. Even now the ISDS Rules give a tip of the hat to shepherds, but subsumes them within "one class" under which all compete.

 

Although the National trials run under one class, the International still have seperate shepherd and farmers trophies.

 

From the ISDS rule book (updated for 2014).

 

4.2 QUALIFYING TRIALS FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SUPREME (SINGLES)

(including the Farmer’s Championship, the Shepherd’s Championship and the Team Prize)

 

b. This Trial is primarily to select the 15 highest pointed dogs, in order of merit, representing England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales respectively, to enter the Supreme Championship. ...... In addition, the top dog owned and handled by a Farmer in those trials will be entitled to the Farmer's Championship and the top dog owned and handled by a Hired Shepherd will be entitled to the Shepherd's Championship.

d. Each competitor shall be awarded the cash prize which he/she is entitled to by virtue of his/her position in the list, but only a Farmer shall be entitled to the Farmer's Cup and only a Hired Shepherd shall be entitled to the Shepherd's Trophy.

 

In general the individuals who trial in the UK is very different from the US for a number of reasons, including

- the cost for most open/nursery trials is usually only a few pounds (less than $10) and many take entries 'on the field'.

- the UK is small! Most individuals who want to trial can do the return journey to one in a day (and also do the necessary chores before they leave/after they return).

-there is a long tradition of trialling in certain areas of the country & in fact there are several 'family dynasties' - some are in the 4th or even 5th generation - so youngsters in these families often learn to handle a sheepdog and develop stock-sense from a very young age.

-the distinction between 'shepherd' and 'farmer' has changed over the years. Most sheep farms are not financially viable on there own & many farmers need to diversify and/or take on alternative jobs in order to survive.. some will become contract shepherds for others while still maintaining their own farm... how do you categorise these?

-land in the UK is expensive and in short supply. There are comparatively few hobbyists. Most (but not all) non farmers/shepherds who compete at the highest level come from an agricultural background.

It is hard for people from a non-agricultural background to get 'into' the shepherding/sheepdog world, unless there is a very strong desire to do so.

 

TEC you say 'To me it is debatable whether the shepherd and one of his counterparts, the small farmer, do not continue to be at disadvantage" . However, I think many of successful sheepdog triallists into the UK actually are (and always have been) shepherds and small farmers (JMO)

So unfortunately, in this particular instance, I don't think your argument stands up to careful scrutinuy.

[TEC]

TEC you say 'To me it is debatable whether the shepherd and one of his counterparts, the small farmer, do not continue to be at disadvantage" . However, I think many of successful sheepdog triallists into the UK actually are (and always have been) shepherds and small farmers (JMO).

So unfortunately, in this particular instance, I don't think your argument stands up to careful scrutiny.

It's an argument (more of an inquiry) which I am pleased to lose . Thank you for your excellent review of UK farmers and shepherds. I would like to see them do even better. -- Regards, TEC

[GentleLake]

No, entries were not refused, but those that were not members were tracked down at the finals (this was cattledog) and told that they needed to pay their membership.

 

Specifically recall it because we had participants that didn't own border collies that were quite set aback and I also had the understanding that ABCA membership was not required.

 

Wow. If I'd entered with another breed of dog and this had happened to me, they'd have gotten an earful . . . and a refusal to pay.

[Donald McCaig]

Section 8 of the USBCHA Rule Book

Q. All handlers must be a current paid member of USBCHA before the handler’s dog receives qualification points for the Finals

 

 

There is nothing in the sheep rules indicating you must be an ABCA member to compete in the sheep finals; however, you will not be eligible for the ABCA prize moneys if you are not an ABCA member.

Thanks Mark. Duh. Donald

[amc]

I recall entrants in the 2003 National Cattledog finals running Aussies and Kelpies and having to join ABCA. There was a bit of grumbling, but hell, it was only $10 to join. ABCA contributes substantially to the Finals; I think it's a reasonable demand.

 

Amy

[DeltaBluez Tess]

>>>>Mark, I: trained my own farm bred border collie from a puppy, attend/run/assist at trials, practice, participate in clinics, have a top notch coach/mentor who judges often and runs at the Finals regularly, assist lambing and shearing at a major sheep operation, work/talk with Peruvian a1H herders, learned from shepherds, teach, write for publication, and help small farms manage their stock and with lambing. Kept my own stock, tromped wool and dipped sheep. Yes, and for a variety of reasons I enjoy watching quality video of world-wide: farm operations, herding dog trials, and transhumances, supplemented by reading good periodicals, books and manuals.

 

Pagel, I'm not sure what your friend/student has to do with the farm-trial dog dichotomy.

 

That's me. Take it, or leave it. Now do you want to start discussing the actual issues, or just dance around in an attempt to belittle my knowledge? -- TEC<<<<<

 

I dont see anyone belitting your knowledge as we have asked what actual trial experience you had...you have told us of your talking to folks and working at home with Joise in great detail but yet never answered what your trial experience/history is...last I recall and it is a few years old, you still were in Novice with Josie and have you moved up to Open or PN with her? Farm work is great for the dogs it gives them real life experience on the farm but the true test is getting off the familiar gorund to a another farm or a trial .....i believe that is how trials got started to have a level playing field for all dogs.

 

anyways a couple of items....you know my first name is Diane....not Pagel....

 

and to answer your question on the farm/student...well sometimes you get people who know it all by reading books.internet/videos etc and yet never ran in Open or a upper class but are free to expound how much they know.....one student had a dog that had no contril but blamed everything on bad sheep., rain, mud, etc.....and another student wanted a Professional Open class and a Non-Professional Open class (not for the top hats) so he could compete in that class and have a better chance of winning...he had some good ideas for that but does the USBCHA want two winners??...one Proefessional and one Non-Professional...and how do you determine in what class you run in....i can see it working for other venues but not for ours. I think they have this devision in some horse events (horse folks want to pipe in?)

 

You have done a lots of research and I would like to see your report that you are putting together.....

 

Diane

[Debbie Meier]

See Mark, it wasn't my imagination!!!

 

LOL

[TEC]

...You have done a lots of research and I would like to see your report that you are putting together.....

 

Diane

You and a couple others on this discussion board have already indicated they wish to go after the fact that my dog and I are very happy running USBCHA nov-nov, pro-nov, and informal unsanctioned arena and open field trials, all a reasonable distance of my home. I have given so-called moving-up a good deal of thought/consideration over the years, and decided that we are satisfied just as things are. I will not go into all the reasons for now.

 

All fields of endeavor have various career paths, no one position, accomplishment being sine qua non to advancement/hiring. Nothing different about sheepdogs. I have a wide background of farm and sheepdog-related work in countless locations, competition in several States, knowledge/experience both hands-on and from study/teaching/writing/demos that I have already set-forth. It is what it is. My background may not be unique or even remarkable to some, but it is qualified to make a proposal and have a civil conversation about ways to select Border Collies for breeding based on tests which showcase more types of dogs. Clearly, nothing can or will be decided here, but assumptions on which the proposal is based, and the suggestions themselves can be examined. If this discussion group as a whole or certain informed members have already decided in knee-jerk fashion that only handlers who have sent dogs from the post at open level, ipso facto, are entitled to speak in order to improve status quo, then there is no point in moving-on. We have nothing to talk about.

 

Nobody likes a whiner, who always has excuses, like the above student in #122. My proposals do not come from that place. They are not an attack on anybody or anything. No assertion anyone is currently making mistakes. They are ideas for improvements. Nobody need feel threatened or defensive. The earth will remain on axis.

 

I rather liked your student's idea for pro and amateur classes. Simple guidelines could be written to sort-out the two. I would think that such a change would influence a wider spectrum of handlers to compete, showing-off more types of BCs, benefitting the breed as a whole. I admire him for thinking through such a far-reaching proposal. Smart guy. Mine differs in method, but seeks the same result. If you automatically assume everybody has selfish motives to get a better chance of winning, you will overlook the benefit to the breed in a range of proposals to level the playing field for BC's having differing traits. Nobody wants a world full of people selected solely on ability to solve a rubik's cube within time limits. Now my personal preference would be solve the rubik cube, write a symphony, design a stunning building, and end world hunger -- but that's still too narrow. YMMV.

 

Billadeau asked on pg. six, so I took the time to prepare a short outline on ways to make the trial course more fair for a broader range of BC types, along with related safety/welfare measures. The conversation was just between the two of us for a long while, and recently post #122 popped-up expressing some interest. I have always liked vigorous debate of informed people. Among members who exercise moderation, debate sharpens understanding of the issues, and is fun. If a number are interested, I will post; otherwise circulate it privately. -- Thank you, TEC

[Mark Billadeau]

Debbie, I believed you. I posted what is in the sheep rules not the cattle rules.