Smokjbc Posted September 2, 2002 Report Share Posted September 2, 2002 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, I don't understand the threat to the breed, Inci. So long as the influential sires and dams have come from working lines and are successful trial dogs, what difference does it make to the real breed if every other border collie in the world is dual registerd with the AKC? < I think the real danger comes from the blurring of the line. Look at a certain poster that will remain nameless- claims her dogs are working line, comparable to real working dogs. You may not be fooled, I may not be fooled- but there are alot of people who would be. Then these "working line" dogs are out there, advertised usually. A rancher buys one, thinking its what he needs, and the dog either gets by, and then the rancher breeds it to another gets by dog and quality suffers- or the dog is a total failure, and the breed is represented badly. That may not be the role of the registry to prevent that scenario- but I do think that its a positive thing for the registry to take an official stand against promoting dogs in the AKC ranks. What other purpose do breeders have to keep ABCA registration, after AKC, except to claim "working" rights? How can interest in one result in bettering the other? Also, on the subject of who should be at a USBCHA trial- it should remain open. That is a given- that is more than a tradition, it emphasises the role that just plain good dogs had in this breed. I'd take a three legged cur if I thought it could work a cow the way I want it too, and part of that would include trialing it in the setting I feel appropriate. Actually I came very close to making an offer on a Kelpie pup-and I would be proud to take a pup like that to USBCHA and trial it. The only people I ever see worried about whether their dog goes down in history are those who haven't done it, or not gone the distance yet. If you do get to the point where your dog is winning trials- I don't think whether or not its recorded history matters much- people will know who you are, who the dog is. I think its a positive thing, you can't just pick a dog by the letters after its name. You have to get out there and see it, and you don't just have a generic title, you can get a list of specific trials they won and that is invaluable. Every trial has its own characteristics that tell alot about the dog that wins it. And if one keeps track of the border collie publications, and subscribes to at least one (working of course), you can keep quite a history of who's won what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted September 2, 2002 Report Share Posted September 2, 2002 Alright! Alright! I give!!! Moooommmy! These mean ol border collie handlers are yelling at me! Humph! You guys are probably right. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong. Well, maybe I am a little bit wrong... Where's that dog of mine? Fergie, come by! Come by god dangit! Shawna, I think he's dyslexic. Send them ducks over here.... ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tassie Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 I?ve just been lurking here, since as an Australian and as a non-herding person (not from conviction, but from lack of opportunity), it?s not my issue. However, I was interested to see the first mention I?ve seen of a Kelpie. This wonderful Australian dog is seen in the yard dog trials here as much if not more than working Border Collies, and I think is also seen in the field. They tend to be a more forceful dog than the Border Collies here. Certainly there are probably as many Kelpies working stock on farms and stations (ranches) as Border Collies. (The Australian Shepherd on the other hand is definitely not an Australian dog ? it only appeared here a decade or so ago, and as far as I know is only on the show scene.) As far as I can understand it here, there seems to be a total separation between the ISDS-type trials and the dogs working in those, and the ANKC (AKC equivalent) show/obedience/agility scene. This is not to say that some ANKC registered dogs don?t participate in working dog trials, but the two organizations seem to be completely separate. I don?t know what sort of register (if any) the working dogs maintain. I have read that among Kelpie folks, there are arguments between those who want to keep the ?pure? Kelpie pure, and those who believe that to get the very best farm workers, you need to cross back out to Border Collies every now and again. Just to complicate matters further, a lot of farmers at least here in Tasmania, in their day to day work use a dog they call a Smithfield - which seems to be an amalgam of Border Collie, Bearded Collie, with maybe a dash of Kelpie and perhaps a bit of German Coolie (sp?). My 2 cents worth (and with the exchange rate the way it is, probably only worth 1c if that.) ------------------ Barb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hi Barb, It just goes to show you that everything is upside down on the other side of the world. Up here, it's the Border collies that are the real workers, and the odd Kelpie is the exception to the rule. Down there, it's the other way 'round, from what I'm told. In fact, many of the conformation champion lines in the US Border Collie show ring have come from Oz, and I believe that a lot of the show ring folks were heavily influenced by the breeders of show Border collies in Australia and New Zealand. The fact that Australia, which is the largest sheep producing nation in the world, produces Border collies that show in the breed ring but are not considered serious working dogs tells you a great deal about how important it is to keep the breed a pure working breed here in the US. Once you start breeding it for looks, there's no turning back. And if too many AKC breeders succeed in dumbing the breed down, our working dogs will suffer, and eventually disappear. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Britta - I guess I got sidetracked with the question of running in Open and missed your other questions...so here's my thoughts... I think the dual registration ban is considered for a couple of reasons - one is what you pointed out, it will offend the least amount of people, and two, it is a fairly easy step to implement. It should probably happen immediately because of those things. But I don't think it will do much besides help the seperation between the registries - not the dogs...does that make any sense? This, by the way, isn't a bad thing, but I think we need to do more, fast, if we expect to have an impact... Kinda like the "correction ladder" - if we don't go high enough, far enough, then we simply wreck the dog... As far as losing members, I think if too much emphasis is put on "only working" - then that is likely to happen. If we DON'T put more emphasis on "only working" then we need to redefine our mission as a registry. Which, by the way, I think would destroy the reason the registry came into existence. And that's where I see the "tier" system fitting in. We recognize the "working" dogs, and we allow the "working bred" dogs. Making no claim for things that don't exist, but at the same time, not limiting the registry to 5000 or so "working dogs" in America. Actually, I've come to like Alice Hengst's 3 tier proposal - Supreme dogs (perhaps qualified national level cattle and sheepdogs, as well as those registered under a process similar to ROM), B level - sons and daughters of above that aren't proven yet, C level - sons and daughters of b level or others that may have genetic issues... It makes sense to me as well, and I fully agree the implementation would be lengthy, lively, and probably wrong the first time and would need to be modified - but I see it as the best long term proposal. ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 09-03-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britta Posted September 3, 2002 Author Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hi Bill I'm kind of sorry i started this thread here as it's doubling up on a lot of stuff discussed in the ABCA members section but it all seems a bit of a brain storming session, so when things came to mind i wanted to ask the question. As i'm not familiar with the practicalities of running any Registry/club/society, my thoughts were very theoretical but seems like not easlily implemented (i think that working ability somehow has to be preserved above all else) - As the registry also needs an income, seems there is a slight conflict of interests in that on the one hand the registry can't afford to loose members, on the other hand only a small percentage of those dogs will be workers... Britta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borderkatahdin Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 How about this? working border collie (A)- offspring can be registered as ( or © working border collie (- offspring can be registered as © working border collie ©- offspring can not be registered unless they complete requirements for (A) offspring of AxB status results in C status, BxC status results in C status. AxC status results in C status . working border collie(A) 1. must have ABCA registered parents of A B or C status, or of ISDS registry. 2. Must place in top 20% or above in Pro-Novice, Ranch, or Open cattle or sheep trial 3. Must test clear for CEA. 4. Must have signature from vet of good hips(with xray) certified hips. 5. Must not be AKC registered working border collie( 1. Must have ABCA or ISDS registered parents of A status. May have B status parents if requirements of B status are fullfilled . can be moved up to (A) status if it completes requirements of A status. Offspring of C status are not eligible for B status. working border collie© 1. Must have ABCA parents of B status, can be moved to A status if it completes requirements of A status. 2. May be moved up to ( status if there is sufficient proof of working ability. (this could be a test for farm dogs done at a trial site for a fee by a designated person, perhaps an open handler, or possibly at local club get togethers by board members. This should be a test to simulate the work of a farm dog, reasonable, but not just instinct. Maybe a 50-100 yard outrun , fetch, maneuvering some obstacles, and a pen. part of the fee would have to go to the ABCA to cover extra costs that this would create in the way of paperwork, and part would have to go to whoever is doing the testing. There could also be farm visits to see working ability. An option to create more funds to cover costs of all the paperwork involved in this might be to charge a fee for a pedigree, but have the registration papers with no pedigree on them. Another option might be to only offer the registration with the pedigree on it to A status dogs. The test would be to try satisfy the people who don't trial, but have good working dogs, and to try to keep from only having trial dogs in the registry. A breeder with A dogs can have the option of the offspring being C status instead of B . This way the dog can still be sold as a registered breedable dog, for sport buyer or whatever, but won't be able to produce registered ABCA offspring unless it meets A requirements. ISDS border collies are automatically considered A status. ------------------ Wendy Carlson Goldenoaks Farm carlson@qcconnect.com Aledo, IL. [This message has been edited by borderkatahdin (edited 09-03-2002).] [This message has been edited by borderkatahdin (edited 09-03-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hi Wendy. I have two issues with this (although I generally like it). 1.) Define "good hips" as they relate to working ability. 2.) Why automatically confer A status on any ISDS dog? It only costs a couple of hundred bucks to ship one over here, and it seems like that would be a quick and easy way for someone get a kennel full of A dogs without ever actually having to prove any of them. Another concern is whether we would start to see lots of pro-novice trials with five dogs entered (as is the case with many USBCHA nursery trials) so that someone would gain A status on their dogs. Nursery qualification is ephemeral; A status would be perpetual. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Wendy, to play devil's advocate here; So, I can bring my dual reg's, ISDS/KC reg'd dog into the ABCA by not telling the ABCA it is KC reg'd also, or say I decide that since the pup's parents are dual, I don't want the KC papers, and have only the ISDS papers in my name. Anyway, I can reg this essentially show bred dog in the ABCA with the "A" status? Problem is, there is a debate in GB about the dual dogs, fortunately, J.Q. Farmer in GB usually knows that the ISDS dogs are the ones to buy for work. Here in the US, most people still equate AKC with quality (despite Dateline etc type news reports). And would not such a tiered system eliminate many/most farm and ranch dogs from the registry? Many farmers consider trialing an elitist sport already. I can see making ABCA too confusing and/or difficult causing yet another split within the working genepool. It is easy enough to start another registry, then where would the working BC be? Do I see a future of trial lines vs farm lines. Some of these arguments already caused splits first between the NASD and the AIBC, then Those and the ABCA, where will it end? We must look at what is good for the dogs OVERALL. I see a trend towards a witch hunt or evolution into elitist ideals, are we out here working for the good of the breed? Plan B would enable those currently with AKC to remain--well, you know, sometimes life sucks-but would prevent future dual registrations from automatically comming back into the 'working' genepool. And as Bill F has pointed out, that is the issue. Also as has been pointed out there are lalready too many dogs within the ABCA ranks which do not work. Encouraging the NB reg would help diminish these dogs. Pam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borderkatahdin Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Ok, just pick it apart, that's why I did it, even if it isn't right, maybe it will help bring up other ideas. Maybe not the hips, could stick with the @ on the papers. Pam, don't they already have something that says that a dog with a registry that supports conformation doesn't qualify for registration? Ok, so the ISDS dogs have to prove themselves, Bill, It could have to be a USBCHA sanctioned trial, so there would be Nursery, and Open as well. Then there would be an official judge. Even if it caused a few extra trials, how many people who aren't in it for the working dog are going to go to such an effort. Maybe something like this would cut down on mill breeders with ABCA collies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Bill, Not trying to be a pain, but why do you have a problem with checking hips? OFA certs aren't a guarantee that a dog will not produce offspring with bad hips, but consistently using only dogs rated Fair or above in breeding programs has resulted in improvements in overall hip status in a number of breeds. It's certainly not an arbitrary conceit like ear set or depth of stop. I have a hard time believing that the Border Collie gene pool is so shallow that we can't afford to not breed dogs with bad hips. -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 I don't have a problem with checking hips, but I do have a problem with allowing the OFA to have effective veto power over a dog's breeding status, unless and until we understand just how (and perhaps whether) the defects measured in OFA radiographs lead to unsound dogs. My concern is that any program that seeks to eliminate "bad" hips -- whatever they may be -- puts more emphasis on "good" hips -- again, whatever they might be -- than on working ability, and that dogs with "excellent" hip scores will become desirable in a way that is out of proportion with their true genetic value to the breed. The homeowners get some fertilizer at K-Mart that says a bag to the acre and figures more must be better, and applies four bags to the acre. The result is non-point source pollution. If "fair" is acceptable, "excellent" must be better, right? As for the top 20 percent of a pro-novice trial, I had to look back at some notes. I have accomplished that feat with a run that had no pen points, and only a very few sparse drive points. I think the standard would need to be higher. The course should have a cross drive (on cattle, too, darn it)and should be judged. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikw Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Melanie,you've asked: >>>but why do you have a problem with checking hips?<< I can't speak for Bill but when the emphasis shifts from "working abilities" to "health screenings",what you'll end up with breeders like bartas or wildairbc or fill in the rest of the names. I doubt any responsible breeder purposefully wishes to create animals who can't walk or see or seize. If you'll consider the facts of "creating an actual working dog",it takes about 2 1/2 to 3 years out of our lives. No one wishes to put that time in and find out the dog is crippled by pain or cannot see stock or any suffer from any other kind of genetic faults. In the working lines,there are some key dogs who are questionable. Most of us are quite aware of their possible outcomes when bred,that doesn't mean we should avoid them or possibly take them out of the gene pool. I,for one,would never strike out that kind of working ability in lieu of "may or may not produce CHD in his offspring's". OTOH,since I do not deal with general public,as in marketing and selling pups,I may be more open minded and have no problem hanging on to the dogs until they are cleared or what-not. Our first and foremost requirements from this breed,their working abilities. How well they take to training from an early ages? Where do their talents lies from an early ages? Will they have what it takes to make a solid Nursery dog? Or would they just crumble away under pressure? This takes them to about a year old,by that time they could be X-rayed and screened for hips and those who may be inflicted by CHD could easily be spayed/neutered and placed to a home where the demands of work load and training aren't as intensive. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 My concern is that any program that seeks to eliminate "bad" hips -- whatever they may be -- puts more emphasis on "good" hips -- again, whatever they might be -- than on working ability, and that dogs with "excellent" hip scores will become desirable in a way that is out of proportion with their true genetic value to the breed. I just don't buy that slippery slope argument. A good breeder of working dogs is not going to breed a crappily working dog just because it has good hips. The bad breeders -- well, they're going to be around one way or another. Heck, if they at LEAST hip screen their dogs it will certainly be an improvement over what they've been doing. I don't necessarily think that ABCA could or should impose a "good hips" requirement on breeding dogs. However, I don't see a problem with noting hip scores on pedigrees, besides the fact that the data would be extremely valuable for understanding how hip dysplasia is transmitted through families. An excellent working dog with iffy hips could still be bred, as long as it was part of a program wherein the breeder and the buyers were aware that the pups could have problems and then seek to weed out the problem dogs in future generations, while retaining the good working qualities the dog passes down. You know, like any selective breeding program. At the very least, it would give you one more avenue in order to differentiate a good breeder from a bad breeder. If I saw papers on a pup I was thinking of buying, and there was a dog with questionable hips on there (and it wasn't a dog I was immediately familiar with), I would be able to ask about that dog and why he appears on the pedigree and this could lead to a deeper discussion about the breeding program producing the pup I was looking at. I'd want to hear a pretty good explanation of why a dog that might pass on health problems was being used, and this would help me distinguish a thoughtful breeder from a not-so-good breeder. -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Superfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 I can't speak for Bill but when the emphasis shifts from "working abilities" to "health screenings",what you'll end up with breeders like bartas or wildairbc or fill in the rest of the names. And again, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope argument, one I'm not sure I buy. I'm not saying that the emphasis should be on health screening, but it seems self-evident to me that health should be evaluated along with working ability. If dogs of questionable status are used in breeding programs, it should be for a very good reason. I care about what's good for this breed, but I also care about what's good for individual dogs, as well as the people who buy them and may be in for heartbreak when they end up with a working dog who cries out in pain every time he tries to get up off the floor. I doubt any responsible breeder purposefully wishes to create animals who can't walk or see or seize. So do I. If you'll consider the facts of "creating an actual working dog",it takes about 2 1/2 to 3 years out of our lives. No one wishes to put that time in and find out the dog is crippled by pain or cannot see stock or any suffer from any other kind of genetic faults. But without screening for health -- and this includes not only passing the standard tests but also studying pedigrees to see what forebears and relatives have produced -- how can you reduce or eliminate health problems that may not manifest until after the dog is of breeding age? In the working lines,there are some key dogs who are questionable. Most of us are quite aware of their possible outcomes when bred,that doesn't mean we should avoid them or possibly take them out of the gene pool. No, but you might take care not to cross their lines with other lines that are also known to carry the same health problems, and you may also take care to evaluate future generations in order to minimize the expression of health problems while maximizing the good qualities of those dogs (easier said than done, I know, but it's the principle behind all selective breeding). Right? The way I look at it, if health screening data were reported publically, to everyone, it would become even more obvious who cares about the future of the working dog, and who is just churning out puppies for a ready market of suburban families who thought the dogs in Babe were really cute. Our first and foremost requirements from this breed,their working abilities. How well they take to training from an early ages? Where do their talents lies from an early ages? Will they have what it takes to make a solid Nursery dog? Or would they just crumble away under pressure? This takes them to about a year old,by that time they could be X-rayed and screened for hips and those who may be inflicted by CHD could easily be spayed/neutered and placed to a home where the demands of work load and training aren't as intensive. A year is a bit early to evaluate hips, isn't it? I know OFA doesn't give official scores until the dog is at least two, and I think PennHip is the same way. But besides that, does anyone really want those dogs? What working home wants to buy a dog with diagnosed CHD when there are dogs out there who have clear hips? Sports homes don't want them either, and how many suitable homes for a high-drive working dog does that leave you? The only people I know who willingly take that gamble are people who adopt rescue dogs -- otherwise I don't know that people are eager to buy a dog who not only was a "washout" in terms of a top-level herding home, but who also has a structural defect that does affect his working ability, that may affect even normal locomotion, that can be extremely painful to the dog and thus heartbreaking to the owner (for every dog out there with bad hips that can still get around the sheep, I'll show you one that can barely make it across the room), and that costs thousands of dollars per hip to fix. I'm not trying to be a badger, seriously. I don't think it's an either/or proposition, personally. To me, more data is always a good thing, and the breeding of dogs who are physically sound (note I did not say anything about conforming to some stupid appearance standard) seems like a no-brainer. No one wants to pour years of love and training into a dog that may not even be able to walk properly a few years down the road, so doesn't it make sense to do a few simple diagnostics that might help you avoid this? -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Fly (neither of whose hip statuses, by the way, are known) [This message has been edited by SoloRiver (edited 09-03-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 My concern is that any program that seeks to eliminate "bad" hips -- whatever they may be -- puts more emphasis on "good" hips -- again, whatever they might be -- than on working ability, and that dogs with "excellent" hip scores will become desirable in a way that is out of proportion with their true genetic value to the breed. I just don't buy that slippery slope argument. A good breeder of working dogs is not going to breed a crappily working dog just because it has good hips. The bad breeders -- well, they're going to be around one way or another. Heck, if they at LEAST hip screen their dogs it will certainly be an improvement over what they've been doing. I don't necessarily think that ABCA could or should impose a "good hips" requirement on breeding dogs. However, I don't see a problem with noting hip scores on pedigrees, besides the fact that the data would be extremely valuable for understanding how hip dysplasia is transmitted through families. An excellent working dog with iffy hips could still be bred, as long as it was part of a program wherein the breeder and the buyers were aware that the pups could have problems and then seek to weed out the problem dogs in future generations, while retaining the good working qualities the dog passes down. You know, like any selective breeding program. At the very least, it would give you one more avenue in order to differentiate a good breeder from a bad breeder. If I saw papers on a pup I was thinking of buying, and there was a dog with questionable hips on there (and it wasn't a dog I was immediately familiar with), I would be able to ask about that dog and why he appears on the pedigree and this could lead to a deeper discussion about the breeding program producing the pup I was looking at. I'd want to hear a pretty good explanation of why a dog that might pass on health problems was being used, and this would help me distinguish a thoughtful breeder from a not-so-good breeder. -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and Superfly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokjbc Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hello all, This is just such a difficult topic to wrap one's mind around, so I apologize in advance if I seem muddled and change my view about every other post. 1.) On hip screening and health test info. I also am wary of too much emphasis put on published health tests. I don't want to see an atmosphere where because a dog has a lack of any published info, its assumed that there is something wrong. I have already heard antidotes, usually about this or that famous dog, whose owner "refuses" to check its hips, or share the results- the implication being that there must be a problem. That may or may not be true, but I think there are too many who get these health tests and then use it to justify breeding sub-standard dogs. I've seen it time and time again- there is even a perception out there that health testing means better quality. I have heard people say "I'm buying from a show breeder because I have X years of health testing behind the dog.". Now.. keep with me a minute . Sure, health testing is great- I hip x-ray my dogs, although I do not submit for official OFA ratings. I CERF my dogs, but I don't send in the paperwork, just haven't done it. Perhaps I should so that is on record- but I don't think it affects the actual quality of dogs that I have bred. A non-working person may not want more than a fluffy health tested pup, not much more demanding than that- but to working people, the standard is much higher than that and IMHO I think the over-emphasis on health testing, as a substitute for intimate knowledge of pedigree and the qualities that a dog is likely to pass on, can be a problem. I used to have an entirely different view on this, but I have met too many breeders who I consider to be excellent, who you won't find published health testing scores on, to suggest we start a witch hunt- however indirectly. 2.) The two tiered system.. I'm beginning to discard that idea as I see it being suggested that only USBCHA top trial dogs be awarded "A" ratings. I have alot of respect for these dogs, and I am not undermining in any way the effort it takes to get there. But, there are many excellent dogs that do not trial well, or are too busy working for a living to demote them to "B". Even if its not meant to be inferior quality, a "B" rating does imply that it is. If we did come up with a system that was considered fair, you would still lose out on people who just don't want to be bothered with it. It may be easy to say "let them go", but I think there would be more good dogs going with them than we can afford to lose. I really think, frankly, that the ease of registering with ABCA has been half of its selling point all along. How many people switched over from NASD and esp. AIBC for precisely that reason? It may not be purist to suggest it, but the registry does need money to do the good work it does, and quality of the dogs notwithstanding- those dogs are going to be registered somewhere. Better with ABCA, with money going towards bettering the breed, than to the AKCs coffers. 3.) Rveryone on here has had good ideas, and I think it has been an extraordinarily healthy and thought provoking discussion. To borrow from Margaret & Bill- we do need to look at other avenues of insuring that ABCA means something to the working border collie. I recognize that ABCA already does quite a bit, what else can we do? Leaning back towards future ban.... ------------------ Jaime R. Green http://www.hometown.aol.com/smokjbc/SmokinJbc.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ikw Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Melanie, Records are public enough. At the ABCA,dogs with hip scoring displays @ in front of their names. A second @ denotes eyes CERF'ed. You could also go to OFA online and punch in the breed,name and the gender of any dog,you'll have the result for F,G or E. Pups cleared of CEA are giving a copy of CERF showing their eyes are cleared for CEA only. That doesn't mean their owners ought to avoid further exam when the dog reaches certain age. Every dog running at the Finals,including the Nursery dogs must either get an eye check at the site prior to their run or the handler must provide CERF exam dated no more than one year of the run. What more the newcomers needs to see? IMHO,newcomers really don't want to see anything,they are far too involved in their personal dogs. Most newcomers (I'm not talking about you Melanie,this is a broad observation) are far too busy trying to make some sense of their surroundings and far too busy listening to inner gossips. Believe me I've heard some outrageous claims made about dogs who's health screenings would make any sport medicine doctors drool with envy,but the cat was out of the bag and someone heard something about it somewhere. By the time it made it's round,that poor dog couldn't walk,see or breathe. Not a single person noticed the run and the dog walked away with the first place on a very difficult field with some godawful sheep where the half of the runs were retired or DQ'ed. Right,that don't count. BTW,if and when we have a dog which may be plaqued with any type of a genetic malady,we do not sell them,we simply place them in homes. Rest assure,as a breeder,most of us in the herding world do not go around to find innocent folks to screw over. Our dogs are far too important to us,same goes for our reputation. It is a very small world out there and we cannot afford it to have it smeared by gossip mongers. Also,you could have a dog X-rayed as of 1 year and send the result to OFA as a preliminary. Must be repeated after 2 years of age. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 "I'm beginning to discard that idea as I see it being suggested that only USBCHA top trial dogs be awarded "A" ratings." I just got back here, and hope this isn't the case, in fact, in my posts I mentioned cattle and sheep trials as well as ranch dogs - simply that ranch dogs might need to use video tape or some other method simply because they aren't in "public view" the way trials are... The only folks I saw so far suggesting "only trial dogs" were the ones OBJECTING to the proposal... And Jaime, the very distinct advantage to the system is simply that no one NEEDS to be bothered with it...the dog can be registered, and it's pups can be tested or not, depending on what a person wants - yet still it's a registered dog, with pedigree tracked, money going to the registry, etc... A "B" rating would simply mean that an individual dog comes from "working lines" but has not been tested or trialed to a national level...while to some that might imply a lesser standard - currently, one could argue that since ANY dog can be registered then they are ALL a lesser standard... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Bailey Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Hi Bill, if we had a rating system. what would be the A rated dog? one entered in an open trial? place at an open trial? finish the course? what trials would be the ones chosen? Our trials vary greatly in course design, size and sheep and most are sanctioned USBCHA. sometimes I think the handlers should be rated, to hell with the dogs! I know what rating I would get thanks Dawn Bailey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julia Hunt Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 < Firstly, at this point ABCA wouldn''t care if the dog is dual registered or not, so long as it has a full ISDS pedigree. Secondly, where do you get the idea that dual registered dogs from the UK are 'show bred dogs?' Many well-known working dog breeders register KC for export purposes as ISDS isn't recognized in many European countries. Stop by sometime and I'll be happy to show you the pedigree of my dual registered 'show bred dog'. Sheesh! Julia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted September 3, 2002 Report Share Posted September 3, 2002 Bill G, why not designate the working dog the "A" status? Or better yet, designate those ' non-certified' dogs with the "A" ? Any heirachy system will cause hurt feelings or a sense of inferiority no matter what--that's human nature. Again, playing devils advocate. Pam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 Dawn - what would make up the "A" dog needs to be decided... As I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be kind of natural to automatically say that any dog qualified for the National Finals (cattle or sheep) would rate an "a"...especially if the HA drops arena (sheep) trials from the points system. But I'm not sure of that, even. And events held by "other" associations, would need to be considered - and judged - does the WCDA Champ, for example, get "a" status? I think a committee would need to be established, with deadlines set up for completion, of a system...similar to what was done for the ROM, this road has already been traveled...and as I mentioned, this step would be part of a decision that would ALSO ban dual registration (akc and ABCA) immediately (the future ban)... I don't think "breeding decisions" are the territory of OUR registry - again, that smacks of akc empire - the registry can, as a favor to it's members, keep track of certain things like eyes, hips, thyroids, hearts, elbows, spines, cl, and whatever hot ticket disease is in the news, but has NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER deciding that a dog can or cannot be bred... This is, after all, a working registry, not a "clean bill of health" registry...especially in cases where a "clean bill of health" is only conjecture and not provable. And Pam, if it bothers somebody that they personally are too lazy to go through a test and therefore thier dog is related to "b" status - perhaps they should get off thier ass and PROVE thier dog...that is the whole point of "work", isn't it? ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 09-04-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest borderkatahdin Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 Maybe instead of B status it could be L status, or F status for farm dog. If a person has a B status dog they could still breed the dog , and have C pups. They just wouldn't be able to continue breeding generations of non working dogs and expect them to be registered. If you make it too hard to get A status on a dog , you might severely limit the gene pool. Going with pro-novice level is still better than no test at all, which is what we have now. Might even say that the course has to be a full drive, not a one-legged like some I have seen. Has to be at least, say 200 yard outrun, and get a pen, or something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted September 4, 2002 Report Share Posted September 4, 2002 As I read this thread and the one in the ABCA forum, I strongly identify with Inci's frustrations and agree with her arguments. That's probably because I am wearing my breeders hat most of the time these days. Experienced, dedicated breeders of working dogs have pretty much been through the fires of hell by their third litter. The older and more responsible person undergoes the ritual breeder suffering with their first litter. Dedicated breeders know that there are certain things we have to do if we want to be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. On the other hand, if there's something we don't want to do or don't think is right then no rule in the world could persuade us to do it. We take things so to heart when it comes to our pups that we can't imagine not being the first in line with our checkbook out for things that are good for them and the people who own them. At the same time, we aren't suckers for punishment either. I can't speak for Inci on this, but I will say that it pisses me off when other breeders don't go out of their way to cover all the bases, charge lots more money than I do and I still end up helping their owners with their dogs because the other breeder can't or won't. Then to add insult to injury we have to endure arguments that attack us for being too eager to test, throw away money, blah blah blah... Anyway, sometimes we decide that maybe our respective clubs (the one that instilled all these high minded ideals in us in the first place)should make a rule or two that "encourage" other breeders to do more of what needs to be done. Here's an example from the JRTCA. Earthdogs are showing up with three common eye defects. Juvenile cataracts, Lens Luxation and a retina one, is it detached retina, I can't remember the name right now. This is probably so because terrier work is so rigorous that dogs were probably pretty much done working by the time that late onset defects showed up and because earthdogs work blind anyway. They work in absolute darkness 99.9% of the time. So the terriermen just didn't breed it out like so many of the other defects that earthdogs don't carry. Therefore it's still hanging around to haunt us when we sell our pets who live to upwards of 17 years of age many times. In the JRTCA, we require a general vet exam at one year of age. After the dog is vetted clean, a pedigree and pictures are submitted to the registry. Given that the dog meets a loose breed standard, pedigree in in order and no defects are apparent to the vet, the dog is registered. I like this very much but it does nothing to address eyes right? My suggestion was to give credit to breeders who went the extra mile. People who bred dogs that were regularly cerf'd and Baer tested before breeding should get some extra accolades or some sort of price reduction or just something to acknowledge their efforts. If you like this idea, well don't get excited: it was a no go. The club felt that it would be unfair to those who didn't test! For christ's sake, a girl just can't get a break! ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net [This message has been edited by Margaret M Wheeler (edited 09-04-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.