Jump to content
BC Boards
Katelynn & Gang

Pedigrees - NZ/AU Show Lines in ABCA?

Recommended Posts

Or, de-register Kasper and all his offspring, since they shouldn't have been registered with ABCA in the first place? I don't see any reason why a registry can't retroactively correct an oversight. AKC seems to do that whenever they feel like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Columbia MO:

Any one of these dogs could possibly be carrying the CL gene, which is why it is a good idea to do the Optigen test before breeding any BC from any registry.

Why would I test my Border Collies for CL?

 

My dogs are Border Collies and Border Collies do not carry CL.

 

If a dog from AU Barbie Collie lines brought in CL into a few ABCA pedigrees, it is easy to fix. Have the dogs removed (I'm guessing its a mistake they are there anyway).

 

They removed dogs that were affected with CEA and that is a Border Collie problem.

 

CL is a Barbie Collie (totally different breed, being bred for different things) problem, so it'd just goes hand in hand that they'd just remove the dogs in question to keep the breed as a whole healthy, just as they remove Comformation Champions to keep the breed useful.

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melanie,

 

I don't believe this would be fair to the buyers of the dogs, who believed at the time that they were buying registered or registerable dogs. As I mentioned, this could now be affecting around 100 dogs.

 

As I also mentioned, my own Kasper grandson works sheep and cattle, and his brother works on a cattle farm--both are CL-free by parentage. At the same time, I personally know dozens of ABCA dogs that have been tried and have zero interest in stock but are still bred and sold in my area by BYBs or by sport breeders. I don't know why in the world it would be of benefit to the ABCA to deregister a deceased AKC champion known to have produced working dogs when ABCA does not apply any type of working standard within their own registry.

 

I just do not see how deregistration would be practical or beneficial, except possibly from the CL angle. I would definitely agree to some type of sanction, such as Kasper descendents for the next 15 yrs. having to test CL-free before puppies could be registered.

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any one of these dogs could possibly be carrying the CL gene, which is why it is a good idea to do the Optigen test before breeding any BC from any registry.
Why? You have previously stated that maybe 100 dogs are related to that one. Wouldn't it just make more sense (and be more responsible) to neuter or de-register all the possibly affected dogs, and totally eliminate the disease?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is not fair is that by Kasper being in ABCA pedigrees is that ABCA's bloodlines of healthy CL free dogs could be being damaged.

 

It would just be much more easy to de-register him and all offspring.

 

After all, they can always move to AKC.

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would I test my Border Collies for CL? My dogs are Border Collies and Border Collies do not carry CL.
Hey Katelynn,

 

I'm not sure if you're simply a political zealot or really have your head in the sand.

 

Whether you like it or not, Australian and New Zealand conformation lines dogs are 100% Border Collie from 100% ISDS dogs. My dog's great-great-grandparents are EXACTLY the same dogs on the pedigree of top working ABCA dogs (Blwych Taff, Wiston Cap, etc.).

 

The CL gene is HIGHLY unlikely to have been a mutation that just suddenly popped up in the past 20 years. This gene is virtually certain to have been in the BC gene pool since before the breed even had a name.

 

The gene was only discovered because the original gene pool from the conformation lines in Australia began with a limited number of ISDS dogs. Therefore, each pair of dogs that were bred were likely to have at least one of the same ancestors in the pedigree. All it would take is one "bad ancestor" from the ISDS to introduce CL.

 

The "conformation progenitor" dog that introduced CL to Aussie/NZ lines is almost certain to have working littermates that stayed behind in the UK and introduced the CL gene into working lines of the ABCA and ISDS.

 

The CL gene is rare in every line of BCs, but there is absolutely no reason to believe that it is not in ISDS and ABCA dogs right now. It is rumored that at least one CL litter has been produced in England (from ISDS lines) and another in Texas (from ABCA lines)--however, the working breeders are not as forthright as the AKC/Aussie/NZ breeders and will not let their names be released to the public (if the rumor is true).

 

In any case, until a cross section of at least 500 ABCA dogs get CL tested and every one is clear, I will have to assume that they have CL in their gene pool because they come from the same bloodlines that my dog does prior to 1980 or so.

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would just be much more easy to de-register him and all offspring.
I agree, however, do we know "factually" that he is ABCA registerd? Could be he is/was AIBC which enabled his get to be ABCA registered.

 

If sanctioning any dog with Kasper in it's lines - say they must "prove" with Optigen test that they are "clear" then I say leave them alone (unless they are Ch. after the deadline). If one does come up as a carrier though I agree de-register the lot.

 

After this much time and possibly many offspring I still don't think there are "that many" that have maintained triple or double registry. Hillcrest Kennel may be the exception just as Columbia's dog may be with regard to "work".

 

Karen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just as they remove Comformation Champions to keep the breed useful.

Katelynn

Please explain how removing conformation champions keeps the breed useful?

 

Is my conformation champion dog that will work cattle and sheep all day long in 60+ acre pasture, in any type of weather (thunderstorms, blizzards, 105 degree heat) somehow less useful than the dozens of fully ABCA registered dogs I have met on farms that have zero interest in stock?

 

Please explain how arbitrarily deregistering a working dog because it has good structure is helping keep ABCA lines "useful."

 

What would help is to not give breeding rights to ANY Border Collie in the ISDS, ABCA or AKC until it has passed some sort of test similar to the ABCA ROM. This would also include NOT de-register working dogs simply because they have been successful in conformation.

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Columbia MO:

Please explain how arbitrarily deregistering a working dog because it has good structure is helping keep ABCA lines "useful."

Not really wanting to get into the middle of this little fight, but the obvious answer would be that AKC's definition of good structure (the conformation championship) doesn't necessarily coincide with what we see daily at trials and on farms as good structure. You know as well as anyone that judging fads can quickly and easily change what is considered acceptable structure (I don't even need to list the various breeds that are now sad caricatures of their former useful selves), even when the standard still pays lip service to a more realistic structure. And I think that pretty much sums up the whole argument about why working breeders have so much antipathy toward AKC and its conformation standards. Remember, your exception to the rule doesn't prove anything, and even ROM requires that the dog work to a certain standard on stock other than its own and at locations other than the home farm. Any dog can look like a star at home.

 

As for the whole Kasper/Lancelot Lad line issue, I think it would be reasonable for ABCA to require any offspring capable of breeding be tested to determine if they are CL carriers and proven clear before being registered. That way you don't get rid of any possible good workers and/or non-CL carriers, but you limit the damage that could be caused by breeding carriers of the disease.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deregistering a working dog because it has good structure
"Good structure" in this case is a matter of opinion. It is saying that the dog measures up to one organizations ideal of perfect looks. I'm going to look at a dog this weekend that may have excellent structure, but he sure wouldn't win in the conformation ring.

 

And they are not deregistered because they have "good structure" they are de-registered because they are activly engaged in a sport that is a proven way to cut out excellent herding genetics in the gene pool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROM requires that the dog work to a certain standard on stock other than its own and at locations other than the home farm. Any dog can look like a star at home.
Julie,

 

Just to clarify... I don't have stock, so my two dogs get to practice at many different locations around Missouri, including three different farms with 60+ acre pastures of cattle and/or sheep.

 

I would not call Savvy a "star" compared to experienced Open level dogs, but he is a solid working dog that certainly equals 95% of the working ABCA farm dogs in this area for in putting in a good day's work.

 

I like the ROM program and plan to ROM my rescue dog when he is old enough and would have eventually tried to ROM Savvy if not for his championship.

 

As I have stated many times on the BC Boards, I believe that all dogs from all working/hunting/herding breeds should have to pass a working standard before they can get breeding-type registration. While the type of test is probably contentious, I would argue that any test (even obtaining a certain cutoff score in USBCHA Novice) would be better than the status quo where any BYB can breed dogs at will that have never even seen stock.

 

As for the whole Kasper/Lancelot Lad line issue, I think it would be reasonable for ABCA to require any offspring capable of breeding be tested to determine if they are CL carriers and proven clear before being registered. That way you don't get rid of any possible good workers and/or non-CL carriers, but you limit the damage that could be caused by breeding carriers of the disease.
I totally agree with this idea. I hope the owners of these dogs are already doing it. Many of the dogs that have been tested are sending their results here, but I don't have time to see if the dogs in question had done so or not.

 

Edited to read: In case anyone is interested, I just checked the site I referred to above. Out of 769 dogs on the site that have been Optigen tested, there are 18 carriers and no affected dogs. Of these, 13 carriers are in Australia, 4 in New Zealand, 1 in the UK and 0 in the USA.

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Maralynn:

they are not deregistered because they have "good structure" they are de-registered because they are activly engaged in a sport that is a proven way to cut out excellent herding genetics in the gene pool.
How does "engaging in conformation" cut out herding genetics? I finished Savvy's conformation championship at 16 months old after about five weekends of showing. His entire conformation career consisted of a total of about 20 minutes of standing or gaiting around a ring and maybe an hour of training. At the same time, he has spent hundreds of hours working stock. I'm not quite sure how the 80 min. he spent "engaging in conformation" somehow ruined his ability to herd sheep.

 

Every USBCHA instructor & judge I have talked to about the issue tells me they see far more differences in dogs from the same ABCA litter or two litters bred by a single farmer than between ABCA vs. AKC dogs as groups.

 

Savvy is from a line of dogs that had not even seen stock for about 3 generations, but he obviously didn't have his instinct ruined. I do think dogs bred only for looks will eventually lose their working ability, but I have seen nothing to make me believe they lose it in just a generation or two as is generally cited on the Boards as "fact".

 

I could point out any number of working dogs that are bred and produce a litter of "duds." But I would not use this as evidence that "breeding dogs based on the presence of working ability" leads to the detriment of the breed. :rolleyes: And conversely, I don't think that spending 80 minutes training for and gaiting in a conformation ring miraculously strips dogs of innate working ability, either.

 

If anybody out there can get hold of the current issue of Borderlines (BCSA magazine), you might read through the BOD biographies. You may be surprised to find that the president and BOD are all hard core working dog people that have conformation as about their 47th priority on the list.

 

Except for this list, I don't hear a bit of anti-AKC rhetoric at trials, etc. Everybody I know outside these boards gets along just fine and owns/breeds/trials working dogs without regard to registry. One of the top USBCHA competitors in Missouri (Nyle Sealine) is also one of the most popular herding judges in the AKC. One of the top AKC herding competitors (Robin Penland) represented the USBCHA at the 2005 ISDS Internationals, and was also chair of conformation at the AKC BCSA Nationals.

 

All of you should try to judge dogs on their abilities and not by making sweeping generalizations, such as "membership in AKC" meaning a dog can no longer work. Robin's AKC dog made it to the Internationals. How many ABCA dogs on the list got to compete? (Note: none of these comments are directed at Julie P. whom I greatly respect and who refrains from making generalizations, and whose dogs could kick either of my dogs' butts. )

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Except for this list, I don't hear a bit of anti-AKC rhetoric at trials, etc. Everybody I know outside these boards gets along just fine and owns/breeds/trials working dogs without regard to registry.Columbia, MO [/QB]
I think that's by and large because we're not face to face, it's easy to be "harsher" or flat out rude under the guise of "frankness" when you don't have the other person in front of you. I think there is a deep passion for the breed on this board that occasionally get sidetracked into pettiness because that's just what message boards invite. There is not the benefit of facial expressions, heart, and tone. The same disputes in person would most likely be different.

 

Just a thought.

Maria

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like the ROM program and plan to ROM my rescue dog when he is old enough and would have eventually tried to ROM Savvy if not for his championship.
Columbia, why do you want to try the ROM program? Why do you want an ABCA registered dog?

 

Karen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Columbia MO:

How does "engaging in conformation" cut out herding genetics? I finished Savvy's conformation championship at 16 months old after about five weekends of showing. His entire conformation career consisted of a total of about 20 minutes of standing or gaiting around a ring and maybe an hour of training. At the same time, he has spent hundreds of hours working stock. I'm not quite sure how the 80 min. he spent "engaging in conformation" somehow ruined his ability to herd sheep.

I am positive showing him in conformation is not taking away any working ability he has.

 

What I am positive of is that ?Your dog has good tail carriage, mine has great ear carriage, lets breed Champion puppies!? is what will. You are not guilty of it, your dogs are altered. But just think of how many people are because the conformation ring is open to this breed? Yes, I am sure temperament is in there when breeding show dogs but just as you said, your dog is from a line of at least four generations that have never in their lives seen livestock. Not testing what you are breeding (testing a Border Collie for breeding is done by working it on livestock) is a set up for disaster.

 

What makes a Border Collie a Border Collie? Its ability to work! If you aren?t testing it, no matter what its pedigree says, is it a ?Border Collie? worth breeding? Or is it a Border Collie at all? I may be from royal blood in the United Kingdom but that doesn?t make me royalty, no matter what my family tree says.

 

Originally posted by Columbia MO:

The CL gene is HIGHLY unlikely to have been a mutation that just suddenly popped up in the past 20 years. This gene is virtually certain to have been in the BC gene pool since before the breed even had a name.

 

The gene was only discovered because the original gene pool from the conformation lines in Australia began with a limited number of ISDS dogs. Therefore, each pair of dogs that were bred were likely to have at least one of the same ancestors in the pedigree. All it would take is one "bad ancestor" from the ISDS to introduce CL.

 

The "conformation progenitor" dog that introduced CL to Aussie/NZ lines is almost certain to have working littermates that stayed behind in the UK and introduced the CL gene into working lines of the ABCA and ISDS.

We all know that to get a ?certain? look, heavy inbreeding is involved, even more so to lock that look in and keep it. With inbreeding comes serious mutations that wouldn?t be there otherwise. It is very possible that CL is a mutation that came with inbreeding these dogs in AU and NZ for conformation. Unless these dogs from this severe (as you said, it was a limited amount of ISDS dogs that were used) inbreeding were introduced back into the ABCA or ISDS, it is possible that is only exists in these AU and NZ show lines that are testing as carries.

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does "engaging in conformation" cut out herding genetics?
I wasn't refering to you specificaly. Rather, the idea that just because a dog is found to have good structure by way of the conformation ring that the ABCA de-registers it. It's the conformation mindset, that the breed has to look a certain way, that they want to stay away from (look what it has done to many other working breeds). To that end, they have put in place that rule.

 

As for conformation cutting out herding genetics, I recently saw a purebred BC who probably weighed 25# and looked closer to a terrier in build, then what BCs commonly look like. But she could work! Breeding toward the ideal AKC look would disgreguard her ability to work, and say she was not breed worthy, simply because she doesn't meet appearance standards . Not because she's not sound in body or temperment.

 

That's what I was trying to get at

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like the ROM program and plan to ROM my rescue dog when he is old enough and would have eventually tried to ROM Savvy if not for his championship. >>>

 

Is your rescue dog intact? I'm just curious because my understanding of the ABCA ROM program is that it is to bring in dogs, who for whatever reason are not registered or eligible for registry, who would contribute superior working ability to working dog genetics. I am assuming a rescued dog would be neutered, but you know what they say about assumptions . I just don't see the point in trying to ROM a neutered dog, and I am surprised if the ROM committee would spend the time to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to address a few things being discussed in this thread.

 

First, the mutation that causes CL is like a zillion similar mutations in animals, humans included. These mutations are almost always recessive, meaning two genes are needed for the individual to have the disease. If an individual inherits only one copy of the mutated gene, they are a carrier but not affected. The long held theory is that we are all carrying at least two to four deleterious mutations. Most of the time, no affected individuals result because two copies of a particular mutated gene don't find each other in the same individual. Inbreeding, such as is common in show breeding, changes those odds drastically. Hence, a rare mutation like CL shows up as affected individuals in the showdog community and not, or more rarely, in the working community.

 

The mutation that produces CL in the individuals who are unfortunate enough to have two of these genes could have arisen as a spontaneous mutation in an individual exported to Australia, meaning the mutation began in that individual, or it could have been a rare mutation already present in the border collie population in the UK, but with affected individuals not found there because of the low inbreeding coefficients in that population. No matter which, my point is it doesn't really matter whether or not the UK sheepdog population "originally" provided the mutation. There are many mutations like that out there, probably even other different mutations that can cause CL. It is the practices of the showdog community that caused this particular mutation to produce affected dogs and become different from the many, many other similar rare mutations spread throughout the breed.

 

If we were to have tests for all the deleterious mutations like we now have a test for CL, at least a few carriers would be likely be found for many of them in the border collie population. At what point do we decide our dogs need to be tested for any particular mutation? For me, it would depend on the degree of inbreeding I was doing and the lines I was using. Simply avoiding inbreeding markedly improves your odds of not having some weirdo mutation produce affected individuals as has happened with the CL mutation.

 

In the future, as more of these mutations are found and tests developed, people will need to become more sophisticated in their understanding of the numbers of these mutations and the odds of their dogs having them. Right now, people over-react to ones they know about, not realizing they are only seeing the tip of the iceberg.

 

At this point, with the stats we've seen, I, personally, see no reason to test the general working border collie population for CL. Maybe if you somehow had breeding from the known carriers, but not in general. I'm sure there are a few with the mutation out there, just as there are a few or more with other worse mutations. Just because we know about this one doesn't make it more important than the ones we don't know about. The best general defense is reasonable breeding strategies.

 

 

Second, I was on the ABCA Board of Directors when we voted to de-register conformation champions and not allow ROM. For the record, when we first discussed it, I was very opposed to not allowing ROM eligibility for these de-registered dogs. Thinking, if the dog can work to the ROM standard, it shouldn't matter if it's a conformation champion. After studying this situation extensively and reflecting on the consequences more, I changed my mind. There were several lines of reasoning involved for my turn around but for this discussion only one is pertinent. This rule is not really about the individual and whether this particular dog can work. It's about the breeding path that has been chosen for this dog. (Not your dog MO since it is neutered but in general.) Obviously, if one is pursuing a conformation championship with a dog, the breeding path for this dog will almost certainly not be selecting exclusively to a work standard.

 

You can say all you want that BYBs and puppy mills don't test their dogs. I hate this too, believe me. But show breeding tends to select *against* working traits. BYB and PMs, while maybe not as actively selecting *for* working traits, are not selecting *against* them in a focused way.

 

And as for a working test for ABCA registration, it's not practical.

 

Like someone else asked, MO, why are you interested in registering with ABCA anyway?

 

Denise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Smokjbc:

Is your rescue dog intact? I just don't see the point in trying to ROM a neutered dog, and I am surprised if the ROM committee would spend the time to do so.

Yes, he is still intact. He is just 16 months old, and I believe the ideal age to neuter a performance dog is 18 months, whether he will be bred or not.

 

This dog was bought from a puppy mill auction house after a bunch of BCs were taken from a Missouri breeder that was breeding ABCA-registered dogs. My dog's parents were both ABCA-registered and had been bought by the puppy miller from working farms.

 

After getting the dog, I obtained his 6 generation pedigree and have spoken with the owners of all four grandparents to learn about his genetic heritage. My herding instructor bred/owned/handled his great-grandfather, who was #1 on cattle in the MSSDA rankings, and other dogs in his pedigree were successful Open dogs.

 

My dog looks and acts identically to my instructor's dog in every way and is an amazing stockdog on both sheep and cattle. Kathy Knox met him at a clinic at 8 mos. old and loved him. Here is a photo of him stylin':

img2.gif

 

Not that his "looks" mean anything, heaven forbid (!), but this will give you some idea of his nice eye. He is currently in training for Nursery trials next spring.

 

To pass the ROM, he has to pass OFA and CERF tests, in addition to the working test. At his age, I have no idea if I would ever breed him, but I would like to keep the option open by registering him through the ROM program.

 

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Denise!

 

Thank you for that lucid explanation.

 

I have questions. Some of these I may have asked before in one form or another. Either the answers did not satisfy me, or I am having senior moments - I just can't recall. In any case, the questions are certainly a little naive and expose my ignorance. That's ok. They are also maybe a little inflammatory, I don't know.

But I hope so.

 

Unless I am going to breed my dogs, why should I register (with ABCA or anyone else)? All I can think of is when my neutered dog wins the Nationals people will want to know his pedigree. Is that the idea? Or what? And if there is no compelling reason, why do we have to be ABCA members to run in the Nationals? (Hmmm... does our dog in fact have to be ABCA registered to run in the Nationals?) Is it because ABCA gives money to sponsor them?

 

People always seem to act as if registration has Intrinsic Goodness.

I don't get it.

Maybe it's just obvious to people with common sense, which excludes me, I'm afraid.

 

(Sorry for this thread digression. It's pretty much

inevitable here on the internet. So what the heck.)

 

charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Charlie.

 

As you probably know I'm not Denise, But I'll take a stab at your questions and I'm sure if my facts or logic are incorrect will be gently corrected:

 

"Unless I am going to breed my dogs, why should I register (with ABCA or anyone else)?"

---------------------------

The only reason I've ever come up with is that there are certain prize monies contributed directly by the ABCA (aside from the grant to the USBCHA) at the NF that would be unavailable to an unregistered dog. So if my Kim would ever happen to place in those monies (work with me here and use your imagination...), we'd not get the check because she's unregistered.

 

**********************************

".....why do we have to be ABCA members to run in the Nationals? Is it because they give money to sponsor them?"

---------------------------

I think that's the reason, but there may be more to it.

 

 

Glenn "terminal velocity theorist" Firchow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy, Glenn Who Is Not Denise.

 

So, in a nutshell, the keyword is "extortion"?

 

Yikes!

I'm going to get it now.

 

Still, providing entertainment to you, Glenn, is the least I can do after the high calibre entertainment you provided me at Woodbury's. (Clever, eh?)

 

charlie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×