Julia Hunt Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 "Robin, the ABCA has publicized these proposals very widely, and has urged members to make known their views on the subject. A forum was established on these boards so members could express and discuss their views. If a majority of members are opposed to the proposals, they could easily become the majority voice on the ABCA Member's forum simply by posting their views. Nevertheless, any members who don't care to post to these boards for any reason are free to express their views to their directors in person, by letter, by phone, by email. If people don't care enough to make their opinions known by any of these methods, I don't see why the ABCA should expend further effort and resources trying to elicit input from them. I'm not on the board, so it's not my decision to make, but as a member I think the registry has done all that could reasonably be expected to solicit membership input, and should not waste money trying to poll more than 7,000 voting members by mail. But should they choose to do so, I think they would find that the majority voice on these boards truly reflects the majority view of the membership." Eileen, you say these proposals have been publicized widely, where? I saw a post on Sheepdog-L and the posts here, what other means have been used to ensure all the membership can participate in this discussion? I would not consider money spend to gather the opinions of ones members 'wasted', perhaps we are all 'wasting' our money by renewing every year. Julia Hunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 > Well, it has been publicized on the ABCA's website, in The American Border Collie magazine, in The Working Border Collie magazine, and in the USBCC newsletter, just to name the venues I'm aware of. And by word of mouth, of course. > I don't feel my dues are wasted because I think the registry has generally spent its revenues in a productive way to the benefit of the border collie. You may feel otherwise, I suppose. If the registry spends thousands of dollars to poll the membership in this situation, where not a single member I know is unaware of the issue and the means by which they can make their opinions known to the directors, I will think it is wasting those thousands of dollars, but that will certainly not cause me to withdraw my support. I think this action is within the purview of the directors, and that they are knowledgeable enough to see the need for it and responsible enough to take it, but if they are unwilling to do so without ascertaining whether a majority of the membership supports this course of action, then I hope they do poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokjbc Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Hello all, I have taken a break from voicing my opinion on this subject, so I could consider it some more. I don't know how many times it can be said.. there is no benefit to maintaining a breedable population of working dogs in AKC for anyone. It won't help the show people, it won't help the sport people (most of which should not be breeding anyways) and it won't help the AKC herding people, who should be novice handlers with ALTERED dogs (at least those doing so with BCs.) The only dogs I see that are decent and in AKC herding are run by people who want to attract AKC students. By now they have either established a student clientele or they haven't. If they are teaching students with other breeds and depend on that livlihood, then they should get an appropriate AKC herding breed to make their reputation on. I do know people who play both fields, and with very few exceptions, they don't own what I, in my limited experience, would consider breedable. But they get the titles and call it good anyways. To each their own, I guess, I have never met a AKC dog that turned a cow (or even tried), so maybe thats why I have a hard time with this. If these USBCHA people who want to play both fields are the majority (which I doubt, but I'm willing to use my imagination)- they still have nothing to lose with the dual registration ban. After all, its not the littermates or parents that are affected, so long as the stud book is open, just the individual dogs. If an ABCA breeder, as I have done myself, wants to sell a dog to a home that will register AKC, they simply need to demand the dog be altered or do it themselves before registration can go through. When the stud book closes, its not going to matter anyways, because the breeding quality dogs will not have had breeders motivated to drop ABCA registration- if they were ethical breeders in the first place. Those dogs can STILL produce progeny for AKC sports, they can be ILP'd and neutered. Where exactly is the ban in that? Sounds like a good way to encourage spay/neuter and responsible breeding- a positive step that very few registries have attempted to make. Instead of being the one that "might" succeed where many, many others have failed in AKC, I'd rather be part of an organization that chooses its own path using its past success to set an example for its breeders. Jaime R. Green Smokinjbc@msn.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Mark B. writes: "I don't buy into them or believe the flawed working hypothesis that "because it happened to the other herding breeds it WILL happen to the working border collie" This sounds like a soon-to-be junkie on his third or fourth buy. "Just because everyone else who does smack gets hooked doesn't mean I will." The ABCA bylaws have been unenforced for years. They clearly state that no dog registered with a conformation registry can be the parent of an ABCA-registered litter. It doesn't say unless they are also registered with the ABCA. To me, this is a debate about how to enforce the existing rules, not about whether to make a new rule. You still have done nothing to show how dual registration helps the breed, other than offer some vague threat that if we force people to choose, the good dogs will all go to the AKC, which I think is not true. At least for the foreseeable future, the ban on dual registration needn't affect anyone's market for puppies. I'm not saying that someone who buys a puppy shouldn't be able to register it with the AKC -- just that if they do, they should lose the priviledge of registering its offspring with the ABCA. They have chosen a conformation standard, and that is not the breed standard that the ABCA promotes. The really top breeders know what the ABCA does for the breed -- genetic research, support of local promotional and educational effors, support of the national finals -- none of which the AKC will ever even consider doing. The AKC takes in money, and returns nothing other than paper to its registrants. The ABCA provides money and information that breeders value. There's also the fact that ABCA registration is a great deal less expensive than AKC registration. I don't think you're going to see a mass exodus of the prime working dogs if we enact a future ban or NB status on dual registered dogs. If I'm a member of vocal minority, so be it. It won't be the first time and it won't be the last. I'm not doing anything more than stating my opinion, which the ABCA directors are as free to ignore as you are. You've also said that nothing I say or do is going to change your mind, so I am not going to waste any more time trying. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Margaret, my intolerance comment was not directed at anyone person, but this board's general attitude towards differning opinions. This subject is so important in terms of the potential impact of doing nothing to imposing extreme changes that there needs to be inclusion of a wide range of opinions. The discussion needs to be in an open minded atmosphere, because closed-mindedness breeds more closed-mindedness (which is where this board has drifted). Everyone of the proposals have more potential impacts on our breed than the desired impact and these unspoken potential impacts must be discussed not ingored. Because the end does not justify the means, IMO. Bill said: "Should you wish a different board with a different viewpoint, whatever that actually is at this time, it is simply a matter of supporting and running candidates that support your view." This is a valid approach, however, will there be elections prior to the vote on these proposals? ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEL Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Bill F writes: >>The really top breeders know what the ABCA does for the breed -- genetic research, support of local promotional and educational effors, support of the national finals -- none of which the AKC will ever even consider doing.<< Me: far be it for me to defend the AKC when it comes to their conformational breed standards...but it wouldn't be fair to ignore their efforts in health research, legislation..heck, even their CGC program. they do cast at least some of their considerable wealth on waters that benefit all american dogs...even mutts. (and even if we narrow our focus to just Border Collies...we have benefited in some small way if we have ever flown a dog, or carry homeowners insurance, or care about CHD, CEA and a host of others. the AKC has contributed toward the good of all dogs in these areas and many more) I'm not an AKC-expert; but for anyone interested in "know(ing) thy enemy" - check out WWW.AKC.ORG to find out more... (kinda stinks to find out that something can be so rotten in one area; and have redeeming qualities in others...) Janet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Bill F. I agree with you that the existing rules should be enforced, or changed if unenforceable or we're unwilling to enforce them. However, while in your mind this debate is about how to enforce existing rules, to most people it is about making new rules. In fact that is how the proposals were presented. "You still have done nothing to show how dual registration helps the breed, other than offer some vague threat that if we force people to choose, the good dogs will all go to the AKC, which I think is not true." You obviously missed the point of that comment and the ensuing question, so I'll ask it again. Is the gene pool large enough and diverse enough to maintain a healthy breed with loss of good working border collies? "I don't know the answer to this question, but it's amazing how interrelated most of the working border collies are." If we do enforce the current rules, how many good working border collies will now be excluded from adding to the ABCA gene pool? "This sounds like a soon-to-be junkie on his third or fourth buy. Just because everyone else who does smack gets hooked doesn't mean I will." That's a new one for me, I've never heard the AKC equated to smack cocaine. Again you miss my point. Winning is a very strong motivational force in breeding programs. It's true of breeding programs in most animals (except humans), the arena in which the breeder chooses to "show" their product then defines the goals of their breeding program. The choice of arena may be made after the breeding goals have been chosen or if the arena is chosen first then the breeding goals will follow. In the case of the other herding breeds there was no performance arena or one that wasn't well established. Therefore, upon AKC abduction of the breed an arena was provided to the breeders and the desire to win then altered their breeding goals. This is not the case with the working border collie, we have a well established arena that provides motivation to breed for performance. This is why I say the history of the other herding breeds cannot be used to predict what will happen to the working border collie. Yes, people who buy and show border collies in other arenas than herding will have different breeding goals than us. Does that mean we will see a loss of herding instinct across the entire breed, no. Those who compete in herding trials will continue to breed for performance they are not likely to breed to dogs that have poor herding ability because it doesn't help their breeding program obtain it's goal, excellence in herding. Some of those who breed for excellence in herding make money by selling puppies. Not all puppies go to herding homes, some go to pet homes and to homes where they are shown in other arenas. Because there are people in this world that want AKC puppies, some herding breeders have registered their herding dogs with the AKC. Here's my problem with banning dual registration: those dogs that are part of a breeding program for excellence in herding that have been registered with the AKC to help financially support that breeding program will be excluded from the ABCA gene pool. Breeding is a numbers game, not every puppy in a litter becomes worthy breeding stock. Therefore, the more puppies produced the higher the likelyhood of finding worthy breeding stock, of course there are ethical limits to this. That is why we should not cut ourselves off from the AKC market. Yea, yea, yea..... I know any ABCA border collie can be registerd AKC. Try thinking a little more long term and less in the here and now. The AKC will close it's stud book. ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 "This is a valid approach, however, will there be elections prior to the vote on these proposals?" Elections are going on right now - all memebers of the ABCA should have, or will very soon, recieve thier "Van Loon" ballots (I just love a law firm with a member named Van Loon - 'course that may be cuz I'm from Northern Minnesota). As far as your statement, Mark, that akc registered dogs will be lost to the gene pool - I think that is a wonderful thing...I live in an area where MOST of the "herding" is "other" than USBCHA, and there are very few dogs in that venue that I consider "worthy" to breed - although there are a couple I've seen work that aren't bad - they are the exception and not the rule. And I think that is the point - keeping the Working Border Collie population gene pool "working" - not worrying about standie-uppie ears and whether the dog crouches or not - yes, I have heard "other" venue judges actually penalize, at a herding trial, Border Collies for "crouching" - stating at the "Handler's meeting" that "I like an upright dog, I'll take two points off every time a dog slinks down"... Those beliefs are the dangerous ones - and those are the beliefs inherent in the systems supported by the akc. As far as the akc closing it's studbook, they have been "planning" that for some time - and the parent club, the bcsa, has fought, and is fighting, to keep that from happening on the basis, printed and circulated and used as a call to action, that there are not enough "good" working dogs registered in the akc. The akc and those interested in "claiming" the Border Collie, will do whatever they have to do to achieve thier goals - including keeping the studbook open as long as necessary. Cholla - thanks for the info, I had met a Foundation QH family a few years ago, and they were nearly as fanatic about "working" as I am, and wondered how that registry was handling things... I think you r statement about DNA testing is a good one - I also think that methodology will change MUCH of our society, not just the animal world - but I don't think working ability is in the "genes" (in terms of being mapped), any more than the ability to play piano or throw a football is, so I think we will still need a way to determine a good 'un... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Bill G. I wasn't talking about AKC dogs running in AKC trials, I was talking about ABCA dogs that run in USBCHA that were registered AKC to open a market for their offspring. Please read what I write, don't infer what you want from what I write. ------------------ Mark Billadeau [This message has been edited by Pipedream Farm (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 "Please read what I write, don't infer what you want from what I write." Well, Mark, I did read what you wrote, and I quote, "Here's my problem with banning dual registration: those dogs that are part of a breeding program for excellence in herding that have been registered with the AKC to help financially support that breeding program will be excluded from the ABCA gene pool." Perhaps you could show this old farmer just where in your statement I've quoted you state, "I was talking about ABCA dogs that run in USBCHA that were registered AKC to open a market for their offspring." Many of the bcsa/akc folks around here run in USBCHA trials (although I guess I don't a one that runs above PN, and most run in Novice - year after year after year), and every one of thier dogs are registered ABCA because that is where they had to go to GET thier good dogs. These folks also think they are breeding excellent dogs - even though they are still trialing novice. You're gonna have to explain to this ol' farm boy exactly what the difference is? Seems to me you're kinda saying that intentions are more important than actions...and even then, if one's intent is simply to sell more puppies then why should one need to register akc? In my case, I've just sold 15 pups from 3 litters in less than 3 months (my god, I am glad I only breed every 3 years or so) and not a one is from akc dogs or bitches and every one went with a "no akc" registration clause in the contract...and this in a very heavy akc area... ------------------ 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...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Mark, Size of gene pool/degree of inbreeding is a problem that the JRTCA has tackled a couple of times over the years. For now, we have settled on a .6 inbreeding coefficient based on a five generation pedigree. Now before all you livestock pedigree whizes give me a lecture on the inadequacy of that, let me say that I know the issue is a minefield of contradictory information. I think we were pretty courageous to try to put forth any policy on it to tell you the truth. Anyway, my understanding is that the appropriate inbreeding coefficient can be determined only by reference to the size of the gene pool. Since our decision making process is made accessible to the membership on a very limited basis, I'd have to guess that our breeders' committee made the best guestimate they could to come up with this number based on an estimated number of breeding animals in our registry. The size of the gene pool is of course important, but we could have the biggest most diverse group in the world and would still have problems if we didn't make wise breeding choices. And to me, this is where we come up against the admission of AKC registered dogs into our registry. While it is a difficult, complicated (but not impossible!) task to educate and influence breeders to make good choices, it is still a task that we can actually do. Dogs registered with the kennel club are defacto inferior because it is entirely possilbe and in fact quite likely that they are bred with a conformation standard in mind. To me, if the goal is to promote breeding that is based entirely on maximizing ability to work, then one of the simplest, first steps is to eliminate animals produced under these circumstances. This does not deny any of your points, Mark. I clearly understand that you do not support dual registration even though you don't necessarily support an ABCA ban on it. Actually this post is a typically roundabout effort to agree with you regarding the importance of real information with regard to the actual gene pool of working border collies. For example, I would like to have a sense (statistical not personal) of the sorts of animals that are out there, who is doing the breedings and what sort of animals are being used most frequently. Most importantly, with regards to this issue, I would like to have a sense of the degree to which KC dogs are being bred into the ABCA working pool. I'm not looking for hard data of course. Unless Robin and Toney know different, I am assuming that this would be more information gathering than actual statistical research. Such information would be very useful with regard to the setting of priorities for me anyway: if I believed that dual registered animals were having an undue influence on the working dogs of the ABCA, I would feel strongly that we should take steps to end that influence immediately. However, if AKC registered dogs are rarely bred back into the ABCA dog population, I would have less sense of urgency. Does this make sense to anyone? The JRTCA chairman says I have a byzantine mind, you know. Of course, he had to eat his words after the huge SNAFU I warned him of actually came to pass. HEH! ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholla1 Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 The issues are very different in border collies and in quarter horses but I have been a member of the AQHA for over 30 years and a member of the Foundation QHA since it started, as are most anyone in the FQHA I know, but not in the AQHA. A question of numbers: A few thousands and several hundreds of thousand members in each respective association and not that many breeders but all users and admireres of these horses. There are a few in the FQHA that don't want double registrations and are very against it but most think that they are extremist, that there is room in this world for all and that the FQHA does a good job of keeping these "old lines" and their usability for their old tasks. Practically all breeders of all these associations double and triple register so their horses are elegible to compete in all shows of any of those associations. Horses are individuals and even in one breed, no matter where their abilities lay, there are many venues for them, just like not all herding bred dogs herd good enough to be serviceable, as we are reminded of regularly. Today's stylized shows are good for some and the older type ranch use shows are around too and in fact gaining in popularity. I have never heard of anyone from the FQH not wanting to sell to someone that will double register and/or show in several registries. That would come across as poor judgement only, to take these opinions that far. If you want, you can see some parallels with this controversy here. They may not advance the cause of "absolutely separate or else". [This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Britta Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Just a point i wanted to make reg. the Gene Pool: It's been mentioned that an AKC dog which excells at herding can become ABCA registered through the test of merit (Is it ROM?). This means quality dogs need not be lost to the gene pool My question though: An AKC dog that gets ABCA registered on merit would be Dual Registered, unless someone can find a way of cancelling a dogs registry with the AKC. How can this be allowed if prooven dogs who go the opposite direction get stripped of their ABCA Registration? Britta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Bill G. "Well, Mark, I did read what you wrote, and I quote, 'Here's my problem with banning dual registration: those dogs that are part of a breeding program for excellence in herding that have been registered with the AKC to help financially support that breeding program will be excluded from the ABCA gene pool'." Here's a case where you have inferred a situation from a general statement based on your experiences in your part of the country. You have inferred I was talking about people who are running NN (or PN) and AKC trials and breeding when I was not nor did I state I was talking about such a case. When I say "breeding program for excellence in herding" I am referring to breeding programs that use USBCHA Open as their yardstick of excellence. I purposely stated it in general terms assuming (wrongly so) you would take it to mean "actual excellence" and not "personally perceived excellence" as in the case you presented. I can't possibly go through every situation that could occur so the ol farmer can keep up. So read what I write, I try to choose my words carefully to accurately state what I want. "....why should one need to register akc?" One doesn't need to register AKC to sell puppies, but there is a market that wants the AKC papers AND good herding lines. Why punish breeders who sell to this market? Selling to the AKC market does not mean the breeder is breeding for looks and not performance. Breeding programs that truly have the goal of excellence in herding (using the yardstick state above) choose their crosses by the dogs' abilities not their papers. This by itself will keep inferior workers from adding to the gene pool, whether they be registered ABCA, AKC, ISDS, etc. Time to take a break from this so I can finish my work and get on the road to the ABC Mag. SDT. ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 "...I am referring..." Refer or infer, Mark? When one doesn't define what one is referring TO - then one cannot be upset when another INFERS something different. No matter how much that person insists, "So read what I write, I try to choose my words carefully to accurately state what I want." If an idea isn't presented clearly, but INFERRED by the writer - then careful isn't the word I would use for that declamation. Nor would most readers of the english language, son. "Selling to the AKC market does not mean the breeder is breeding for looks and not performance." In my expereince, there isn't a breeder that needs to "cultivate" the akc market unless they are selling inferior pups. As far as "based on your experiences in your part of the country" - am I to take it you are well versed in all positions in all areas of the country, son? Seems I haven't seen you at a trial out this way, or in Colorado, or Ohio, or Missouri, or South Dakota, or Wyoming...or are you speaking with all the vast wisdom inherent in being a NEBCA novice of the year? ------------------ 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...
Eileen Stein Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Like Bill Fosher, I do feel a sense of futility in replying to someone who has branded those who think as I do "zealots" whose "proselytizing" will never influence him, but here I go being "intolerant" again. (I gather "intolerant" means disagreeing with those who support dual registration?) > There's no question that the ABCA rule on this subject is as Bill Fosher portrays it -- it bars registration of offspring of any AKC registered dog, not just any dog who is registered ONLY with the AKC. This is a situation where an organization's policy (written rule) is different from its practice (what is actually done). If a future ban or NB is adopted it will represent more a change in practice than a change in policy. > Very few, as things stand right now. > Well, it's an analogy. It highlights the fact that, in all areas of life, people who desire to act in a way which has produced near-uniformly bad results for others, are good at coming up with reasons why it will not produce bad results for them. > Well, in the case of herding breeds, I suspect that developing a good working dog who could be of maximum assistance in managing one's livestock preceded and exceeded winning as a motivation. If that motivation couldn't overcome Kennel Club recognition as a means of preserving working ability in any other herding breed, isn't that some cause for concern? > I have the greatest respect for Pam Wolf, but don't you think the offhand impressions of one person about the performance arenas available to other breeds are a very fragile support on which to base a theory on which you are willing to wager the future of our breed? In any case, Pam didn't say there was no performance arena for any of the other herding breeds. She referred to the Australian Shepherd, which had an extensive herding trial program in effect before AKC recognition, and whose working ability has nevertheless deteriorated, at least according to most ASCA people. And Pam didn't speak at all regarding the performance arenas available to other types of working breeds (e.g., hunting) whose abilities have diminished following kennel club recognition. Yes, it is. Upon AKC abduction of the breed new arenas have been provided to the breeders, and there is every reason to think the desire to win in those arenas will alter the breeding goals of those who register AKC. If the AKC market is so essential to the survival of our good breeders as you maintain, they will have to shape their product to succeed in that market. That means producing a "versatile" dog who can succeed in conformation as well as in AKC's more obedience-oriented herding and in agility. If the AKC market is NOT so essential to the survival of our good breeders as you maintain, then they will not be hurt as badly as you claim by a future ban or NB, and will therefore not be inclined to abandon ABCA for AKC. > The USBCHA trials are indeed a well established arena that provides motivation to breed for performance NOW. But the growth of dual registration threatens that arena. Now that AKC has changed its herding trial rules to permit money prizes as well as titles, those trials will become more attractive to dual-registering breeders/handlers. If they are going to cultivate the AKC market, they can do so better with an impressive array of AKC titles, and not lose by it financially if AKC trial prize money grows to match USBCHA prize money. There are only so many weekends, and only so many sponsors. Purina used to sponsor our finals (and remember Purina points?). They no longer do so -- now they host the BCSA/AKC National Specialty at Purina Farms, Gray Summit. Again I point to how the AKC has gone after the "well established" agility market, the power they have brought to bear on behalf of their less-challenging (by most agility devotees' assessment) agility trials, their growing share of the market and USDAA's and NADAC's diminishing share. We should reflect on this and learn from it. I don't know why you so complacently assume that we can dance with the devil and not get burnt. > We did fine with the breeding numbers game before there was an AKC market, and it's obvious from the registration numbers that the vast majority of non-herding dogs produced now by those breeding for herding excellence are not going to the AKC market. We do not need that market, and if we move in the direction of needing that market, we will inevitably have to begin shaping our product to compete in that market. > It may (and I certainly hope it will), but that's entirely their decision. If our dogs are excluded from AKC registration when the studbook closes, it is AKC that's doing the excluding, not the ABCA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Eileen, I think it takes awhile to get a sense of each other on a message board. At one time I thought you and Fosher were borderline fanatics. Now I realize you are hard assed idealists (and occasionally pain in the ass ideologues)... just like me. If somebody comes along who is new to the message board environment, they don't have the history to know that you are quite moderate in real life AND are kind and helpful to those in need. They probably do not know that you and Bill both come from professions where the written word is your stock in trade. So, feeling threatened by the unsurpassed articulateness and the ethical intensity conveyed by your posts (not to mention the occasional verbal brutality in Bill's) well it doesn't really surprise me that a guy like Mark would resort to a little defensive name-calling. When you add to that the pressure of a thread dog pile like this one, I am surprised that you are bothered by a pre-emptive epithet. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Gee, once again when someone (or several) try to present opposing views in a thread on these boards the discussion has degenerated into name calling and personal attacks. Quelle surprise..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildairbc Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Eileen wrote: "We did fine with the breeding numbers game before there was an AKC market, and it's obvious from the registration numbers that the vast majority of non-herding dogs produced now by those breeding for herding excellence are not going to the AKC market. We do not need that market, and if we move in the direction of needing that market, we will inevitably have to begin shaping our product to compete in that market." Just wanted to mention that the Border Collie was accepted into the AKC Miscellaneous Class in 1955. I do believe that the MANY people I know or have heard of that consider themselves "old-timers" in Obedience Border Collies got their dogs from "working breeders" all of those years. If not, where? Selling "excess" puppies to people associated with the AKC is not a new thing. There is a "breeder" of "working BCs" near me that has been at it for over 30 years. Their stock is behind nearly all of the "versatility" BCs around here. At the moment, they have an ad for "breeding pairs" of BCs in the local paper. The one time I went out there to see them for myself, I asked if they had any stock. The reply? "We had some Appaloosas when the kids were young." Just a thought... Bonnie ------------------ What you believe has no effect on the truth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 So Julie, it's ok for those with the "opposing views" to be insulting and superior, but others should be polite and well-mannered? I suggest that those folks coming new into this venue should have some responsibility for the methods of communication used by all and sundry. ------------------ 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...
juliepoudrier Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 I'm sorry Bill, but I really don't think any of the new people here have been insulting and superior, no more so than any of the oldtimers anyway. They just haven't yet learned that it's pointless to get into these sorts of discussions with some of those same oldtimers. I just don't think name calling is necessary no matter how heated an argument may get or how far apart the opposing views are--at best it certainly serves to diminish any argument, good or bad, that the person perpetuating that behavior may make. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Well, Julie, I guess I read things differently than you - and think that folks who come on and use the word fanatic and declare that the members of the committee have made a "flawed hypothesis" and then go on to state that some of us have difficulty reading their oh-so-clear posts ARE simply acting superior...and should expect to not be treated with kid gloves... And these same folks have aready stated that thier mind is made up and we "proselytizing zealots" simply aren't going to present any ideas that will change thier oh-so-superior stance... As a matter of fact, I think the exchanges were quite polite until the "opposing" idealists fired the shot across the bows of nearly every person that has taken a different view... ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Oh Bill for god's sake! Shame the devil!!!l None of us "regulars" are saints in this regard, but without a doubt you are among the worst of us. Let's give the injured dignity thing a break. It's wierd enough when Eileen does it, but you really shouldn't. If you use three carefully constructed sentences instead of a couple of words to insult a guy's way of thinking, you still insulted him. Man, I have seen each one of you board heavys slice people with such finesse that I'm sure the victims nodded thoughtfully as they read the post, and then woke up screaming with anger and pain at midnight. Mark probably wouldn't touch a KC dog with a 10 foot pole. Five will give you ten that he's just indulging in that bad son of democracy habit of defending the unpopular view. Or maybe Mark Mesa is his homeboy and Billedau is that rare commodity, a loyal freind. Either way or some other way, with you, Inci, Fosher, Eileen and Carl coming at him in a dark message board alley he lost his cool and called you some mean names. Then, he got jumped on and called you some more mean names. Having been on the recieving end myself a few times, I feel the guy's pain. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net [This message has been edited by Margaret M Wheeler (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deb Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Ladies & Gents, Name calling is a weak way to end an argument. I know we're all more then a little emotional on this issue - and I think that's a good thing. Let's just play nice, okay? I'll vouch for Mark's integrity and his very real concern for the breed. He's a good guy who took time to make me feel welcome on the trial field when I got started. And, he's a damn good handler. Does anyone have a new angle on this? We are continuing to re-plow old ground. Deb Iron Pheasant Farm [This message has been edited by Deb (edited 10-17-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 17, 2002 Report Share Posted October 17, 2002 Margaret - it wasn't me crying foul, I was simply pointing out that I, for one, don't like folks taking cheap shots and when I respond, claiming I'm the "offender", that's just another cheap shot...and that's been done, over and over, not only to me, but to several folks I still call friends. As far as plowing the same ground, Deb, the thread was started by someone who hadn't been around to read the old "ground" and brought up the same old pro-akc points - what would you have us say that hasn't been said over and over...? ------------------ 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...
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.