Outbreeding in the AKC

[Lenajo]

Yep that's right. ABCA was so helpful in trying to helping me track her down as she was passed around. It appears she's loved and in a permament home at Goosedogs.

 

Dogs are more forgiving that people are.

[Eileen Stein]

#1 reason: I called and asked ABCA in the past and they said "no"

 

Who said no? When? Policy is set by the board, and I don't know of any such policy determination. Maybe whoever it was was just stating a personal opinion, or guessing.

 

#2 reason is the statement that the following was required for ROM:

 

"A pedigree of the dog should be supplied to the Secretary, giving all details available on the sire and dam, including registration numbers when available."

 

You are required to provide whatever ancestry details you know ("all details available"), so that a pedigree can be prepared for the dog's registration certificate. Anything you don't know -- and applicants have certainly been ROMed where very incomplete data as well as unverifiable data was provided -- will be left blank on the official pedigree, but it certainly won't bar you from ROM.

 

This is an abstract conversation. It hasn't come up that we need to cross in other breeds to the Border Collie to broaden the genepool either yet. AKC hasn't accepted the pointer backcross Dals either.

 

Not sure what you mean by this?? I understood you to be saying categorically that ABCA would not ROM a non-border collie.

 

If ABCA will take any breed, any mix, with the right characteristics to the genepool then we need to get in on the website ROM page.

 

I don't see why. The ROM page sets forth the requirements for Registration on Merit; none of them include being a purebred border collie. Even if full pedigree information were required -- which it isn't -- that doesn't state or imply that if dogs in the pedigree were not border collies the applicant would be rejected. Not only that, but you are the first person I've ever heard express the belief that ROM in the ABCA is limited to border collies.

[Lenajo]

Not only that, but you are the first person I've ever heard express the belief that ROM in the ABCA is limited to border collies.

 

I'm apparently one of the few that noticed that ISDS is already doing it.

 

Since ISDS/ABCA are sister organizations it wasn't a huge jump.

 

Hopefully you can get the ABCA site updated. The statement that quality comes first, not pedigree, can only further ABCA's promotion of the stockdog.

 

Who answered the phone at ABCA? I don't know other than it wasn't Patty.

 

While we are on it.... an active Open trialer insisted strongly to me the other day that finals were limited to ABCA registered dogs. I haven't been able to clarify that, but as far as I knew they have not done that and all dogs regardless or pedigree, or not, are welcome. She insisted that the non-registered dogs there were ROM dogs who didn't have a number yet. Do you know for sure?

[Eileen Stein]

I'm apparently one of the few that noticed that ISDS is already doing it.

 

Since ISDS/ABCA are sister organizations it wasn't a huge jump.

 

Well, we don't follow everything they do. Just to take a couple of examples at random, you cannot register a dog older than two in the ISDS except on merit, in the ABCA you can (though you have more hoops to jump through); the ISDS uses a Mating Card procedure, we don't; the ISDS won't register more than three litters in three years from a single bitch, we have no such limitation; the ISDS has no NB registration; we do.

 

Hopefully you can get the ABCA site updated. The statement that quality comes first, not pedigree, can only further ABCA's promotion of the stockdog.

 

Well, I'll look at it to see if I think it would be better to make a change (though it wouldn't be an update -- there's been no change in policy). But as I said above, I don't think it's misleading as it is, on this point.

 

While we are on it.... an active Open trialer insisted strongly to me the other day that finals were limited to ABCA registered dogs. I haven't been able to clarify that, but as far as I knew they have not done that and all dogs regardless or pedigree, or not, are welcome. She insisted that the non-registered dogs there were ROM dogs who didn't have a number yet. Do you know for sure?

 

I do know for sure. The finals are not limited to ABCA registered dogs.

[NRhodes]

Eileen, thanks for clearing that up. It was always my understanding that any dog that could do the work could be ROMed. I like to bring this up when suggesting to HTC people that outcrossing should be acceptable through one method or another; the BCs have ROM, and the Kelpies have grades of papers (a cross getting one designation, that dog crossed back to kelpie getting another, and that dog crossed back to kelpie being considered a regular ol' kelpie). Either way allows for genetic diversity.

[Lenajo]

ok, since ya'll straightened me out and we're still a hypothetical mood:

 

If Nicole gets one of her HTC running well at Open level, then it could be ROMed as a Border Collie.

 

So when you breed taht dog it to another ABCA Border Collie...those offspring are Border Collies. If you breed it to another HTC, then the pups are HTC.

 

Right?

 

Is still a Border Collie then....or a HTC/BC cross?

 

And then...if genetic diveristy within the stockdog is a goal, should ABCA be soliciting dogs of other breeds that are running well in Open trials for ROM? I can think of a few Kelpies off the bat that are doing well.

 

Hmmmmm

 

weekend awaits....

[Eileen Stein]

ok, since ya'll straightened me out and we're still a hypothetical mood:

 

If Nicole gets one of her HTC running well at Open level, then it could be ROMed as a Border Collie.

 

There is nothing in the rules to prevent it. It would have to satisfy the other requirements, and 11 of the 12 directors would have to vote in favor of ROM. It wouldn't be automatic just because the dog was running well at Open level, but I think you realize that and are assuming that.

 

So when you breed taht dog it to another ABCA Border Collie...those offspring are Border Collies. If you breed it to another HTC, then the pups are HTC.

 

Right?

 

If you breed that dog to another ABCA border collie, those offspring are border collies, and registerable as such. If you breed it to another HTC, it's not for us to say what the pups are, except that they're not registerable as a border collie (other than through ROM, of course).

 

Is still a Border Collie then....or a HTC/BC cross?

 

If you mean the offspring of the ROMed dog bred to a HTC, I guess I'd consider the pup to be a HTC/BC cross. Whatever you call it, it's not a registerable border collie.

 

And then...if genetic diveristy within the stockdog is a goal, should ABCA be soliciting dogs of other breeds that are running well in Open trials for ROM? I can think of a few Kelpies off the bat that are doing well.

 

Genetic diversity is a good thing, but I think we have enough of it in the border collie breed that increasing it isn't really a goal (although we wouldn't want to decrease it). I personally wouldn't be soliciting dogs of other breeds to apply for ROM, or advocating that the ABCA do that -- not that I have seen other breeds running well in Open trials, although I understand that it's seen occasionally.

[jdarling]

So when you breed taht dog it to another ABCA Border Collie...those offspring are Border Collies.

 

If its able to work to that level, does it matter what you call it? Are they any more mixed than the mix that is the Border Collie in the first place?

 

What I think is ironic is that the ACK will accept ABCA registered dogs into theire oh-so-pure purebred registry.

[Lenajo]

I suppose it is ironic, but no more than the ABCA only people who talk trash about ROM lines being "suspicious, don't know what you'll get, no telling what's in there" etc.

 

You won't ever please everyone.

[Lenajo]

Genetic diversity is a good thing, but I think we have enough of it in the border collie breed that increasing it isn't really a goal (although we wouldn't want to decrease it). I personally wouldn't be soliciting dogs of other breeds to apply for ROM, or advocating that the ABCA do that -- not that I have seen other breeds running well in Open trials, although I understand that it's seen occasionally.

 

Having seen the mess a lot of the other breeds are in (even those with true working purpose left) I would think encouraging as much diversity as possible would be good.

 

Do you think that its possible to over-diversify if working caliber is the first criteria?

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

Do you think that its possible to over-diversify if working caliber is the first criteria?

 

I would think so. Let's take a Sheltie who manages to get to Open. I seem to recall that Claudia Frank has (one? two?) that have earned HA points, but I don't know if they were in arena trials or field trials. For the sake of this discussion, let's say a Sheltie did get to Ranch or even Open in a big field. And let's say that the dog was really natural in its work, and 11 directors were favorably impressed, and the dog was ROM'd. I'd say that although this was an exceptional individual Sheltie, the odds of that dog passing on that somewhat lucky combination of genes to its offspring is pretty slim, and the likelihood of the Sheltie passing on "average" Sheltie working style is quite a bit greater, I would think. So, if we needed to add more diversity to the Border Collie genepool, I probably would not be in favor of encouraging outcrossing to exceptional individuals of a breed whose working style is not normally complimentary to a Border Collie's working style.

 

I would be in favor of dogs of breeds with a similar working style to Border Collies; by that I mean generally a gathering style, with individual contributors who may be stronger in other areas (but still one of the tasks a hill shepherd would need throughout the year).

 

I think the ROM program is not as much about recognition of the individual dog's ability as it is about registration of its future progeny, right? Otherwise, what is the value in going to the trouble of getting a dog ROM'd? An unregistered dog can run in HA trials and even the Finals. From the perspective of future progeny, I'd personally want to keep it to breeds of "predictably" similar working style (inasmuch as working style or ability can be "predicted").

[NRhodes]

And then...if genetic diveristy within the stockdog is a goal, should ABCA be soliciting dogs of other breeds that are running well in Open trials for ROM? I can think of a few Kelpies off the bat that are doing well.

 

The border collie is already quite diverse, I was more worried about diversity in the HTCs rather than the BCs. As far as what you'd call the offspring of a ROMed dog bred back to it's actual breed, I don't know that it matters. Hopefully it can be called a working dog and to heck with "breed."

 

I'm not convinced it's possible to over diversify, if you're breeding dogs with similar working traits then you'll hopefully get pups who share those traits whether the parents are related or not. Assuming certain traits are caused by same/similar genes in unrelated dogs. So as long as work is the goal and not so much the pedigree... but generally dogs who are related will work similarly and if that's the style of work you like that's what you'll breed to.

 

I am pretty sure it's possible to inbreed too much.

[Lenajo]

I probably would not be in favor of encouraging outcrossing to exceptional individuals of a breed whose working style is not normally complimentary to a Border Collie's working style.

 

If they get the job done correctly, the style is irrelevant imo. It's a preference, not a requirement.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

If they get the job done correctly, the style is irrelevant imo. It's a preference, not a requirement.

 

I agree with your point, however, I am interpreting the question in Jaderbug's post (#4) as about outcrossing to (hypothetically) preserve the Border Collie while increasing genetic diversity. If that is correct, wouldn't it make sense to preserve the working traits or style "typical" to the breed, which distinguish it from other breeds or types? In this scenario, it would be to preserve the type of dog that has already been developed for a particular purpose, and that purpose-breeding has already resulted in dogs who most often have a method of working which is unique from most other breeds. I talking about overall--I am certainly aware that there is a variety of working styles among Border Collies.

 

And to clarify, in case my use of the word "style" made it unclear, I am not talking about selectively choosing dogs who have low crouching "style" of working or any other superficial criteria such as people might describe "style," I'm talking more in terms of dogs who naturally gather, and who generally use eye to control stock.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

There isn't any Border Collie "style." There's the work and that's it. If a sheltie can do the work then rock on. What is done with those genetics is then up to the subsequent breeders. If the sheltie is a stud dog, then I'm going to guess that there's not going to be a huge call for his services among people who aspire to improve their lines of sheep and cattle dogs. No offense to sheltie people, of course. People aren't dumb - they don't breed papers only - they take into account whether they imagine such a dog would be an asset to their breeding and work goals. If, on the other hand, someone gave it a whirl and the result was good, then there'd be no difference between introducing such a dog into the gene pool and a "one-off" dog from a backyard breeder or puppymill.

[NRhodes]

If that is correct, wouldn't it make sense to preserve the working traits or style "typical" to the breed, which distinguish it from other breeds or types?

 

I'm talking more in terms of dogs who naturally gather, and who generally use eye to control stock.

 

Border collies aren't the only breed of dog that work in such a manner so I don't think it would be totally off the wall to think one could cross to another breed and still wind up with a dog that gathered and had a bit (or a lot) of eye. Take for instance some of the border collie/kelpie/bulldog crosses that I've seen, definitely still gathering dogs with a bit of eye. Not going to win any sheepdog trials (at least not with the people who had them training them) but good cowdogs, and they still looked like border collies, although most of them a little bigger than average.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

Border collies aren't the only breed of dog that work in such a manner

 

No they're not; that's why I opined:

I would be in favor of dogs of breeds with a similar working style to Border Collies

 

But I guess it depends on whether or not you believe there is anything distinctive about Border Collie working "style" or not!

 

There isn't any Border Collie "style."

 

[Lenajo]

I think if we aren't careful, the need for a "style" in these dogs will resemble the need for "type" in a certain other organization.

 

The work needs to stand alone. What are the stock doing? That should answer pretty much everything about the dog you need to know.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

I see your point(s), Wendy and Becca.

[Journey]

Genetic diversity is a good thing, but I think we have enough of it in the border collie breed that increasing it isn't really a goal (although we wouldn't want to decrease it).

 

Well, since we're hypothetical.....the above statement leaves out the fact that in some cases we may be decreasing it - the open trial winner that is bred for other reasons. Yes, I am aware of the ineligibility of said dog due to her "breeding" but isn't that "decreasing" the diversity in a form?

 

Karen

[PennyT]

Lenajo wrote: "I suppose it is ironic, but no more than the ABCA only people who talk trash about ROM lines being "suspicious, don't know what you'll get, no telling what's in there" etc."

 

Whew. I've been trialing in open since 1995 or so. I have heard only one person (couple actually) say anything like that. In overwhelming numbers, members respect the ROM program.

 

In addition, I find your tone odd in that you want to goad people about possible non-border collie registration. If we had a bottleneck, the situation would be different. We don't. I philosophically approve of ROM open to all but don't make an issue of it. Let the right dog come along first. Anyone with a dog good enough will already be trialing and know the ropes. Why go begging nonstarters to take up the board's time and create an active prejudice against the practice?

 

Besides, with many crosses it would be impossible to tell what the lineage was without documentation. Some kelpies and kelpie crosses look like smooth coated border collies. Many Australian Shepherds with tails are indistinguishable except by working method.

 

Records are not necessary for ROM. My ROM bitch, Emily, now of sainted memory, was also dam of a Nursery Reserve winner and dam of another pup who placed first in open on the beginning day of Finals (that would be 150 dogs). That was the only time Emily was ever bred. Her breeding was a cipher on her dam's side and not verifiable on her sire's although I saw the tie. I owned Emily's dam, but never knew what her breeding was and could never find out. Emily's lack of registration was not a technicality.

 

Lenajo also said "an active Open trialer insisted strongly to me the other day that finals were limited to ABCA registered dogs. I haven't been able to clarify that, but as far as I knew they have not done that and all dogs regardless or pedigree, or not, are welcome. She insisted that the non-registered dogs there were ROM dogs who didn't have a number yet. Do you know for sure?"

 

There is a couple (not the one referenced above about ROM) who trial in USBCHA open and also judge AKC who have been going around at AKC trials telling people that they have to have ABCA registration to trial in USBCHA trials. Whether they don't know any better or have some kind of agenda, I have no idea, but they are passing around complete misinformation.

 

I have run both in the open and nursery finals with dogs not registered anywhere.

[PennyT]

"Well, since we're hypothetical.....the above statement leaves out the fact that in some cases we may be decreasing it - the open trial winner that is bred for other reasons. Yes, I am aware of the ineligibility of said dog due to her "breeding" but isn't that "decreasing" the diversity?"

 

Please, explain this further. What open trial winner and what other reasons?

 

If you mean AKC ineligibility, then I have to say that there are so many good dogs around that diversity will not be compromised.

[Lenajo]

Whew. I've been trialing in open since 1995 or so. I have heard only one person (couple actually) say anything like that. In overwhelming numbers, members respect the ROM program.

 

We had this discussion before Penny, in person, and the complainer at the time was you.

 

In addition, I find your tone odd in that you want to goad people about possible non-border collie registration. If we had a bottleneck, the situation would be different. We don't. I philosophically approve of ROM open to all but don't make an issue of it. Let the right dog come along first. Anyone with a dog good enough will already be trialing and know the ropes. Why go begging nonstarters to take up the board's time and create an active prejudice against the practice?

 

I'm not sure how I am prejudicing anyone against ROM. I want it open, unlimited to any breed, type, or registration that can complete the work. I want working dogs to have ever possible avenue to maintain the level of ability we enjoy now.

 

There is a couple (not the one referenced above about ROM) who trial in USBCHA open and also judge AKC who have been going around at AKC trials telling people that they have to have ABCA registration to trial in USBCHA trials. Whether they don't know any better or have some kind of agenda, I have no idea, but they are passing around complete misinformation.

 

The Open trialer I referenced who was so convinced about the practice was you Penny. You'll have to answer to your own agenda. I've not discussed ROM with anyone who trials or judges AKC. I've never been to an AKC herding trial.

 

I have run both in the open and nursery finals with dogs not registered anywhere.

 

Which was mentioned when you told me that was no longer possible, or,as you stated "they must have been ROMed already but just didn't have the number".

 

It appears that not only my agenda, but my hearing and memory are suspect here. My hat is off to you Penny. Not many people can threefold insult me so nicely in one post.

[Journey]

If you mean AKC ineligibility, then I have to say that there are so many good dogs around that diversity will not be compromised.

 

Yes Penny, I was speaking of ACK ineligibility. However, this conversation has been "hypothetical" with a few detours here and there. I was simply replying to Eileen's comment about not wanting to "decrease" genetic diversity, which we would do were we in a bottleneck, by eliminating ACK dogs that can do the work and have proven it on the field.

 

Karen

[juliepoudrier]

Although that brings us back to the question of whether there are any ACK dogs that can do the work--not dual registered, working-bred dogs, but strictly conformation-bred dogs? I doubt there are many ACK-bred dogs who could get ROMed in the first place, so you're right, this all is truly hypothetical. But even if there were a few who could, I don't think, given the overall numbers of border collies, they could make a significant contribution to solving any bottlenecks, and might in fact bring along some genetic issues we'd rather not see.

 

J.