Outbreeding in the AKC

[toney]

I spend about every weekend I can up at Penny's house, working dogs. I have for approximately the last seven or eight years. I was not privy to the conversation Wendy that you had with Penny concerning whether or not you had to be ABCA registered for the Finals, but I can assure on a multitude of different occasions, including just about every single one of the Patrick Shannahan clinics she hosts every year, the issue on whether or not you had to have a registered dog to compete in ABCA trials and the Finals has come up- ad nauseum. And every single time she has taken the time to repeat to that newcomer that unregistered dogs can and do compete in USBCHA trials and the Finals. Maybe there was just a misunderstanding in the phrasing of the answer or something, because she had the same conversation (AGAIN!!!) with someone in my presence not more than two months ago. As far as not knowing what you get in ROM, I'm happy to have the great grand offspring of an Rom'd dog of my own. For the last seven or eight years I've had the priviledge of watching the son and daughter, the grandsons and now the great grand pups of Emily grow up and learn their jobs. It's fascinating to see the little things that you can immediately see one of their ancestors or uncles having done at the same age...it makes training, certainly not easier, but perhaps more enlightened. I'm sure you've seen things in Aggie and her offspring that make you immediately think of Aggie or another related dog. I think it's one of the best parts of raising your own trial dogs, I think.

 

Terry Toney

[Journey]

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.

 

Ah, but there is a difference in ACK bred and working bred that have gone onto get their CH. And, still hypothetical - not including the OZ/NZ (they do have some genetic nasties, I agree) what about the ones that are maintaining their ISDS number in the UK? Ick, just the thought opens up a quagmire of scenarios that I'd rather not see the Border Collie get into.

[Lenajo]

I don't think its about *solving* bottlenecks in this breed _at this point_. I think it's about preventing them.

 

The new tangent here is that potentially any ROM dog could bring in serious genetic problems as well as the good working genes they exhibited to get the ROM. How many tests are then appropriate to keep the current genepool safe? on how many generations after the ROM dog?

[Katelynn & Gang]

A dog is only has good as its puppies when it comes to registration and breeding.

 

If a Open dog were ineligible for ABCA registration because of earning a Championship and its owner/handler knew that the dog could reproduce itself equally or better, then they'd keep doing what they are doing with the dog and later breed it. Its puppies would then have to do the same, prove their Sire/Dam could reproduce equally or better puppies then itself and those puppies would be eligible for ROMing if they were up to par.

 

We aren't losing anything, just getting our point across that showing these unique dogs should no be shown in the breed ring. Dogs that lose their registration can get back into our gene pool through their puppies if they wish BUT they must prove themselves first.

 

Katelynn

[Eileen Stein]

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

 

Since this seems to be addressed to me, I'm sorry to say that I really don't have a clue what you're asking here, so I really can't answer it. Are you talking about open trial winners who are bred to produce pups for agility, pets and the like? Or are you talking about pups bred for agility, pets or the like who then become open trial winners? Are you talking about open trial winners de-registered by the ABCA because they become AKC champions? Whatever your topic, I can't see how this infinitesmal number of hypothetical dogs could have any measurable impact on genetic diversity in the border collie breed.

 

I'm also at a loss to understand what Wendy is getting at. I don't see how Penny's post was in any way insulting to you, just because (according to your subsequent post) it may have conflicted with something she had said to you privately. I do have to say I've known Penny for close to 15 years and have never known her to denigrate ROM dogs (her Emily being the first ROM dog in the ABCA), and I have heard her discuss on more than one occasion the fact that unregistered dogs are eligible to run in the finals. I do understand what Penny meant when she posted, "Why go begging nonstarters to take up the board's time and create an active prejudice against the practice?" I took her to mean that if you go out and beat the hedgerows to get people to apply to ROM their dogs of other breeds, you are inevitably going to increase the workload of the ABCA Board, and almost inevitably stimulate the application of dogs who are not qualified, which could well result in a prejudice against -- and maybe even a reconsideration of -- the ROM practice. We have never recruited for ROM, and wisely so, IMO. I can't imagine why we should start doing it now.

 

Wendy and Penny, if you have a disagreement about something that originated off the Boards, please settle it off the Boards.

[toney]

To address whether or not an ROM dog would be a genetic disaster waiting to happen, potentially any dog, pedigreed or not, can bring genetic diseases into the gene pool. ROM dogs present no greater or lesser risk than one that can trace its lineage back to Wiston Cap or some other historically significant stud dog or dam. This is true particularly if the defect is carried recessively. The thing that keeps our dogs genetically healthy is a diverse genepool, which I think we currrently have, and the fact that working border collie breeders are nothing if not individualistic thinkers. Some might rush to breed to the new USBCHA champion, but for the most part, I think most people who work their dogs a lot on stock are more thoughtful about breeding choices and inbreeding isn't as common in working border collies as it is in other dog sports or other livestock endeavors. Horse breeders, some show stock breeders, and even poultry raisers are another story- inbreeding in Quarter Horses on Impressive lines brought the expression of HYPP, which is actually a dominant trait (I think) and now HERDA, an autosomal recessive trait, which comes from Poco Bueno (born in 1944 and died in 1969) A HERDA DNA test wasn't developed until about 2006 or 2007, if I remember right. However, its the breeding practices that allowed the defect to express itself. Alone, without the concentration that comes from deliberate inbreeding or linebreeding to concentrate the Poco or Impressive genes, the defect would never have expressed itself nor probably ever caused a single problem. So ROM with unknown pedigree, or pedigreed to the nth degree, the inbreeding coefficent is the important issue. And I would expect that inbreeding coefficients of most working border collie is low. The inbreeding coefficient on my pup is less that five percent.

[juliepoudrier]

I can't see how this infinitesmal number of hypothetical dogs could have any measurable impact on genetic diversity in the border collie breed.

Karen,

This is the point I was trying to make. The hypothetical number of strictly AKC-bred dogs who could likely be ROMed would be so small as to make the whole argument pointless. But since we were having the discussion I also thought to mention that if the AKC-champion type dogs (presumably strictly NZ/UK show lines) were to produce a dog capable of being ROMed, then the genetic issues present in that small population of dogs might need to be taken into consideration--if the reason for needing to ROM a conformation-bred dog was in fact to free up a genetic bottleneck in the working bred population (that is, would it be worth adding the genetics of one dog if that one dog also carried one particularly deleterious gene?).

 

In my mind a working-bred dog that's gone on to get its championship, if it can still work to ROM level, should be considered for ROM if the working bred dogs were in a genetic bottleneck as obviously the dog in question contains the genetics of the working-bred dogs and just had an owner with different priorities (conformation showing). But such a dog still isn't the same thing as a strictly conformation-bred dog (different genetics), and as Eileen said, probably just a few dogs wouldn't have the needed impact to turn a genetic bottleneck around anyway.

 

As for the folks maintaining KC and ISDS numbers on their dogs in the UK, I don't know enough aboout the practice to comment. Again if they're largely working-bred dogs who have been dual-registered, I would't have a problem with them. If they are largely conformation-bred dogs who have somehow been dual registered, then I think a ROM program would weed them out pretty easily (as evidenced by the fact that the KC had to make their herding tests even easier than the easy tests they had in order for dogs to be able to complete championships in both conformation and herding). I don't think such dogs would have much to add to a working gene pool.

 

J.

[Lenajo]

Regarding the ROM we (Penny and I) were discussing the attitude of people toward the ROM dogs at a trial. The whole situation came up because of a particular set of comments. According to Penny that was not the first time ROM was denigrated and though obviously disgusted, she shrugged it off. I've heard similar comments since then.

 

My point originally being that there are ABCA members who have as negative an attitude about anything but blueblood as AKC members do. Work oriented registry or not, "Border Collie" has began to stand alone even without AKC. The is no clearer example of that than ISDS's policy to no longer taking any non-Border Collie ROM stock.

 

That attitude worries me. The quickness in which good breeds are ruined irreparably, the pattern in which "purebred" is become a desciption of English Royalty in dog terms worries me.

 

To go back completely on topic, we were discussing how to prevent what is happening/has happened to other purebreds from happening to the Border Collie. If the ROM is for that purpose, then should we should be soliciting it? If Karen and others are right about the genetic risk, perhaps we need to do it carefully?

 

I've been following a discussion on another board about the use of an American Gorden Setter to broaden Swedish GS lines. Because the dog is being represented a genetic variety that is desirable, he was held to a much higher standard than usual with regards to progeny and health. That imo, should be part of upcoming ROM efforts.

 

ROM is about breeding stock. Since you don't need it to run, what other purpose would be in it? Is is ABCA "register of merit" breeding stock.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since this seems to be addressed to me, I'm sorry to say that I really don't have a clue what you're asking here, so I really can't answer it. Are you talking about open trial winners who are bred to produce pups for agility, pets and the like? Or are you talking about pups bred for agility, pets or the like who then become open trial winners? Are you talking about open trial winners de-registered by the ABCA because they become AKC champions? Whatever your topic, I can't see how this infinitesmal number of hypothetical dogs could have any measurable impact on genetic diversity in the border collie breed.

 

I'm also at a loss to understand what Wendy is getting at. I do have to say I've known Penny for close to 15 years and have never known her to denigrate ROM dogs (her Emily being the first ROM dog in the ABCA), and I have heard her discuss on more than one occasion the fact that unregistered dogs are eligible to run in the finals. I do understand what Penny meant when she posted, "Why go begging nonstarters to take up the board's time and create an active prejudice against the practice?" I took her to mean that if you go out and beat the hedgerows to get people to apply to ROM their dogs of other breeds, you are inevitably going to increase the workload of the ABCA Board, and almost inevitably stimulate the application of dogs who are not qualified, which could well result in a prejudice against -- and maybe even a reconsideration of -- the ROM practice. We have never recruited for ROM, and wisely so, IMO. I can't imagine why we should start doing it now.

 

Wendy and Penny, if you have a disagreement about something that originated off the Boards, please settle it off the Boards.

[workindogs]

While any dog (ABCA, other registety, not register, other breed) can run in USBCHA trials, the handler must be a USBCHA member to earn points. You need points to qualify for the USBCHA National Finals. If you qualify and take your non-ABCA registered dog to the Finals and place "in the money" (or win!), then your placement is fair and square....however, I believe that the non-ABCA dog is not eligible to win any ABCA funded prize monies (or awards?).

 

Other than that, all are welcome....there have been ACK dogs and kelpies at a number of Finals....so far, few (or none) in the placings, not to say it won't happen this year.

[Eileen Stein]

My point originally being that there are ABCA members who have as negative an attitude about anything but blueblood as AKC members do. Work oriented registry or not, "Border Collie" has began to stand alone even without AKC. The is no clearer example of that than ISDS's policy to no longer taking any non-Border Collie ROM stock.

 

First, I've never heard any working border collie person in the US express a negative attitude about "anything but blueblood" (and I've heard a lot of discussion of good unregistered dogs). I don't doubt that you heard someone say it, but it's so rare as not to be a matter of concern, IMO. As for the ISDS, if you know details of how the "must be a Border Collie" thing came about, I would be interested. In the absence of such, I just assumed it was Norman Lorton (who is certainly not a working dog person) being tidy, and nobody caring enough to object. If you asked whether Turnbull's Blue would be eligible today, my guess is that they'd say yes.

 

To go back completely on topic, we were discussing how to prevent what is happening/has happened to other purebreds from happening to the Border Collie. If the ROM is for that purpose, then should we should be soliciting it? If Karen and others are right about the genetic risk, perhaps we need to do it carefully?

 

Well, the OP asked if people thought the AKC would permit outcrossing to remedy the health and viability problems in some breeds. When someone asked if the ABCA would permit outcrossing if we had similar health/viability problems, everybody (including you) opined that it would. End of story, I would have thought. The ROM is not for that purpose. It could serve that purpose, but that's not what it's for.

[PennyT]

“The Open trialer I referenced who was so convinced about the practice was you Penny. You'll have to answer to your own agenda…. 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’.”

I never said anything of the sort. It’s possible you’re confusing two different situations. Emily ran in the open finals two years before I started the ROM application for her. Her get, Jordan and Taylor, ran in their first nursery finals based solely on proof of their age, which was a notarized statement from the vet who delivered them by C-section. By the time finals rolled around, their dam had fulfilled all the requirements for ABCA registration on merit except the eye test. The USBCHA board didn’t care whether the dam of my nursery dogs was ABCA registered or in the process.

I also told you that there was a couple, at least one of whom should know better, who are open handlers and judge AKC herding trials who are telling participants that to run in regular border collie trials dogs must be ABCA registered, no dual registered or AKC registered dogs allowed. I mentioned that to you because I was so taken aback that I was going to have to check to see if our rules had changed. I did check. They haven’t.

I’ve been to three AKC trials to watch. You should make a point of it and go to more than one. The kindest thing I can say is that most of the advanced dogs on their B course for sheep work like novice-novice dogs under reasonably good control and in training for pro-novice. The arena course work at all levels is so rudimentary that it has to be seen to be believed. To be fair, not all of the dogs are dreadful.

In future, please, don’t put words in my mouth. As Terry pointed out, I make an effort to tell people new to border collies that our rules do not mirror AKC rules. In addition, I admire and am grateful for the ROM program.