Who can be ROM'd

[kelpiegirl]

Let me be crystal clear here, I have never heard a negative comment either intended, or accidently, pointed toward my dog. I won't go into details any further, because clearly, this is a touchy subject, but telling me I am off base when you have not heard what I have heard, is, well, off base.

 

I would like everyone here, who supports the Kelpie, and respects the Kelpie, to RUN a Kelpie. Walk up to the post with a Kelpie.

 

It's very easy to say that they are nice dogs, and there is nothing wrong with running them, but very few of us do, maybe if that can change, by this discourse, that would be a good thing.

 

 

I have run in many, if not all, of the same trials in the Northeast that Julie's been to and I do think she's off base. It's not been my experience that those sort of comments are commonplace at all.

 

I recently saw the Aussie that Sue R is referring to run at a trial...a very nice worker and he was able to find the sheep on an outrun that many border collies were unable to do!

[kelpiegirl]

I believe that was Tobey? I heard great things about him, and truly wish I could have seen him run. I would LOVE to see more Kelpies run. Seriously. Instead of everyone jumping down my throat, why not run a Kelpie? A trained to open Kelpie? I doubt I will get there, but maybe some day.

 

As to good work and bad work, every dog has it's day, and somedays are worse than others, we all know that.

 

"Now those that came in with a chip on their shoulder or tried to excuse sheep abuse as "because those are Border Collie sheep or <insert breed here> work style," they were made short work of."

 

Well said.

 

I have a friend who ran a kelpie in the NE successfully thru Ranch (open course minus a shed) several years ago...though she didn't trial him much and no longer owns him. He got alot of positive attention. Sure, he was a bit of a novelty, but more importantly, he was a very well trained dog, good to sheep & handled nicely. Are there currently any kelpies in the NE running above NN or PN who consistently do well at trials?

 

I suspect good work attracts positive attention, and not so good, the opposite.

 

Lori Cunningham

Milton, PA

[kelpiegirl]

Apparently, this has been a tempest in a teapot. Thanks for whomever wrote the info that the ROM is indeed only for Border Collies; question asked and answered.

[Lana]

I think saying there are "some nice Kelpies out there", and treating people who run non Border Collies with respect, is not the same thing as saying i want to own and run a Kelpie. One is a statement of respect and good manners, and the other is about personal preference in the type of dogs we like to train and trial. If you get into the "why don't you run a Kelpie then?" You are going to get a straight answer of " because I like Border Collies much better".

 

No disrespect there, i know we all like certain lines of collies better than others too.

 

Lana

[kelpiegirl]

Straight to the heart. I get what you are saying Lana, I do. And, if you ask me the same thing, I may say I like Kelpies better- depending on the day Now, where is the Kelpie board....

 

I think saying there are "some nice Kelpies out there", and treating people who run non Border Collies with respect, is not the same thing as saying i want to own and run a Kelpie. One is a statement of respect and good manners, and the other is about personal preference in the type of dogs we like to train and trial. If you get into the "why don't you run a Kelpie then?" You are going to get a straight answer of " because I like Border Collies much better".

 

No disrespect there, i know we all like certain lines of collies better than others too.

 

Lana

[Eileen Stein]

As I wrote I don't think the beardie would mean the same as a Kelpie. Since AKC has other registries that consider coat variations as one breed where as AKC considers them different breeds, the Beardie would be considered a coat variation. EX: Belgian Terverun, Belgian Sheepdog and Malinois are 3 diff breeds in AKC, but one breed with coat variety elsewhere.

 

Now, If the American Border Collie Registry recognized a definitely 'different' breed, not just a coat variety it might work.

 

But the point is that AKC does not consider it a different coat variation of the same breed. AKC considers it evidence of impure breeding. If a dog that looked like a kelpie but was registered with the ABCA were presented for registry with the AKC (or found to have been registered with the AKC), they would just refuse to register (or would de-register) that particular dog. That way they get to register all the other ABCA-registered border collies that they want to register.

[Eileen Stein]

kelpiegirl wrote:

 

There is a pretty strong contingent of folks out there that believe only the Border Collie can/should excel in Border Collie trials (sic), and that it must be some sort of collossal fluke for say, a Kelpie to consistently do well. Comments abound. And, anytime a Kelpie errs on the field, you can rest assured, whispers about why the dog can't do the work will start. Oh, and if the dog really flubs up, then it is considered that maybe non Border Collies shouldn't run at all. It's basically bigotry. When in fact, it's all supposed to be about the work.

 

And then she wrote:

 

Let me be crystal clear here, I have never heard a negative comment either intended, or accidently, pointed toward my dog. I won't go into details any further, because clearly, this is a touchy subject, but telling me I am off base when you have not heard what I have heard, is, well, off base.

 

I am having a hard time reconciling these two comments. Apparently YOU have not heard what you have supposedly heard either.

 

Apparently, this has been a tempest in a teapot. Thanks for whomever wrote the info that the ROM is indeed only for Border Collies; question asked and answered.

 

You can read the ABCA's ROM policy here. There is nothing in the policy that says ROM is only for Border Collies. When I was on the ABCA Board, had I been called upon to evaluate a kelpie for ROM, I would have voted to approve or not based solely on the demonstrated ability of the dog. At the same time, I think it would be quite odd for someone who considers her dog to be a kelpie to want to register it as a border collie.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Eileen and I have been two of three directors who ROM'd a non-trialing Border Collie of unknown ancestry. I can't speak for Eileen but suspect we think alike on this issue: if it can do the Border Collie's work to a very high standard, it is a Border Collie.

 

I once horrified the AKC Board of Directors by asserting: "If your Rottweiler can win an open sheepdog trial, it's a Border Collie." Horrified isn't quite the right word - "disgusted?" "repelled"?

 

That said: some in the Border Collie community including, I'd guess, some ABCA directors have accepted the dog fancy's definition of what as breed "is": a dog or bitch that looks like the breed standard and at least probably comes from pedigreed parents. One BeardieX owner told me she'd been insulted for "damaging the breed".

 

In a nutshell: I and some others value the work so highly we would ROM Butch Larsen's Kelpie.

 

Others , more concerned with the purity of the Border Collie gene pool, would not.

 

The issue has been moot until lately when a few Kelpies have started doing well in trials.

 

It isn't trivial: are we a meritocracy or an aristocracy?

 

The jury's still out.

 

Donald McCaig

[kelpiegirl]

Eileen

I cannot go into further detail than this, without the dog owner's permission, but at a trial last year, a Kelpie did not do well, and things fell to heck fast. I *heard* comments about the dog with my own two ears, that were quite negative about the dog, and then, added on, that the breed is not meant for that type of work, etc. Do not assume you know what I heard. I am just trying to remain tactful. It isn't about my dog. I have heard lots of things about Lucy, and I can share them all

 

 

kelpiegirl wrote:

And then she wrote:

I am having a hard time reconciling these two comments. Apparently YOU have not heard what you have supposedly heard either.

You can read the ABCA's ROM policy here. There is nothing in the policy that says ROM is only for Border Collies. When I was on the ABCA Board, had I been called upon to evaluate a kelpie for ROM, I would have voted to approve or not based solely on the demonstrated ability of the dog. At the same time, I think it would be quite odd for someone who considers her dog to be a kelpie to want to register it as a border collie.

[kelpiegirl]

Don, well said.

 

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Eileen and I have been two of three directors who ROM'd a non-trialing Border Collie of unknown ancestry. I can't speak for Eileen but suspect we think alike on this issue: if it can do the Border Collie's work to a very high standard, it is a Border Collie.

 

I once horrified the AKC Board of Directors by asserting: "If your Rottweiler can win an open sheepdog trial, it's a Border Collie." Horrified isn't quite the right word - "disgusted?" "repelled"?

 

That said: some in the Border Collie community including, I'd guess, some ABCA directors have accepted the dog fancy's definition of what as breed "is": a dog or bitch that looks like the breed standard and at least probably comes from pedigreed parents. One BeardieX owner told me she'd been insulted for "damaging the breed".

 

In a nutshell: I and some others value the work so highly we would ROM Butch Larsen's Kelpie.

 

Others , more concerned with the purity of the Border Collie gene pool, would not.

 

The issue has been moot until lately when a few Kelpies have started doing well in trials.

 

It isn't trivial: are we a meritocracy or an aristocracy?

 

The jury's still out.

 

Donald McCaig

[juliepoudrier]

I suppose I disagree with Donald on some points and agree on others. To me it still comes down to motivation. Why would someone actually want to ROM a kelpie or a rottweiler or any other dog that's clearly another breed or already registered with another registry? The purpose of getting a dog into a registry is so that it can be *bred* to other dogs in the studbook and produce puppies that are registerable in that registry. So the reason to ROM a kelpie or rottweiler would ultimately be to produce *border collies* wouldn't it? And that brings me back to my argument about genetic need. If we have a too-small gene pool or genetic issues that can be resolved only by bringing in completely unrelated genetics, then to me it makes sense to find dogs that work to a high standard but that are not closely related (or at least don't have the same genetic issues) as a working border collie.

 

But I don't get the motivation for, say, the owner of a rottweiler to get his dog ROMed with the ABCA. If it's for bragging rights, as Julie W. mentioned earlier, then it seems to me that one could gain those same rights simply by showing up on the trial field and kicking butt. In fact, I think that would be even better than getting a ROM (if bragging rights is the goal), since dogs can be ROMed without trialing in open.

 

But really, if Julie W. were to ROM her kelpie and someone walked up to her on the street and said, "Is that a kelpie? Nice dog." would Julie then respond, "Thank you, but it's a border collie?"

 

Personally, if I had a kelpie or some other breed who could consistently do well at trials, the last thing I'd want to do is turn it into a border collie on paper. Instead I'd take that dog and try to make more of him in order to preserve/increase those genetics in the breed. After all, if I had a kelpie or rottweiler (or some other breed) presumably the reason I have the dog is because I *like* that breed, right? Not because I really wish I had a border collie. So once again, for me it all comes down to motivation.

 

Donald asks if we're a meritocracy or aristocracy and I don't think that's really an appropriate question. Of course most of us would say that if a dog can do the work, then it should be allowed in the registry. But there's the practical side of things too. Again, the point of admitting a dog to a registry is supposed to be breeding rights. If that rottweiler is in the registry are all the folks claiming meritocracy going to be lining up to breed their border collies to it?

 

So for me the question is about the actual purpose of a registry, and the corollary to that is if you plan to ROM your dog, no matter what breed, then your ultimate goal should be breeding--breeding that dog to other dogs in the registry to make sure that those working genetics are continued. In other words, you would be creating crossbreds, which is not a bad thing, necessarily, but I just fail to see the point when to me it would make more sense (aside from the genetic bottleneck issues mentioned earlier) to try to retain those great working genes within the breed in which they were found.

 

And a question about Turnbull's Blue for those who know the history: was he registered with some other registry and then ROMed into the ISDS, or was he an unregistered dog?

 

J.

[Sue R]

Thank you, Julie P, well said. A lot of good points have been made in this discussion, and a lot of things to think about have been put forward.

[Eileen Stein]

Again, the point of admitting a dog to a registry is supposed to be breeding rights. If that rottweiler is in the registry are all the folks claiming meritocracy going to be lining up to breed their border collies to it?

 

Depends on how good he is.

 

I agree with you that I don't understand the motivation of someone trying to ROM a kelpie or a rottweiler into ABCA. But MY motivation as a director voting on a ROM application is to bring good working genetics that are not currently in our gene pool into our gene pool. Yes, so they can be bred with other border collies. As a practical matter, we all know that a rottweiler would not be able to do the work of a border collie to a high standard, so that may be why it's hard to get your mind around the idea of ROMing one. But kelpies go back to border collies, and have been bred ever since for the ability to work livestock as much as border collies have. It's not inconceivable to me that a kelpie could demonstrate the ability required for ROM, and if it did, it's not clear to me why we would not want its genetics in our gene pool. Quite apart from whether we needed more genetic diversity in the breed or not.

[juliepoudrier]

Eileen,

I think the difference is that the kelpie is descended from border collie genetics and has been bred consistently for work since that time. It's why there are kelpies out there doing well in trials. I personally wouldn't have a problem with kelpie genetics being intermingled with border collie genetics, though I would probably feel differently if I were a die-hard kelpie fan (in which case I would want to keep those genetics for the kelpies!). And there's still the question of why the kelpie owner would want to be able to breed his/her dog to border collies and call the offspring border collies.But when you start to go further afield, I think some of the motivations and justifications can be even more questionable. Would including a great working rottweiler be advisable if at the same time we'd also be admitting some deleterious rottweiler genetics? Maybe that wouldn't be an issue, but maybe it would. As you note, practically it's likely never to be an issue, but philosophically I think it should be considered.

 

I raise a rare breed of sheep that does have genetic bottlenecks as a result. I wouldn't be opposed to bringing in outside genetics if those genetics could help make my breed healthier or better suited to its overall purpose. But if I were going to bring in such genetics, I think I'd be looking at breeds that were similar, with similar characteristics, and probably developed under similar circumstances (that is, in a perfect world, I'd look to some of the similar fat-tailed breeds in the Middle East and central Asia where my breed originated before I'd start including, say, American show Suffolks in the gene pool). That would be my best chance of adding good genetics to the breed without changing the overall character of the breed. I know this isn't a perfect comparison, but it's what I think of when I think of bringing in outside genetics and ROM programs. To me there should be a real purpose behind doing so, and not just "because we can." From that POV, I don't see it as being an aristocratic belief, but rather a means of bringing good change without bringing wholesale change for change's sake. That is, I don't quite see why we necessarily would want to bring in good working genetics from other breeds unless there was a real need for it. (I'll never make it on a ROM committee that way, lol!)

 

I think this is a great discussion!

 

J.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

 

Eileen wrote:

" kelpies go back to border collies . . ."

 

Probably not. Probably they were, like the McNab, a regional collie which was exported before it could be absorbed into/extinguished by what came to be called "Border Collie"

 

This is an interesting, central discussion. Just what "is" a "Border Collie". In the rural UK it is a "collie", among UK obedience competitors it's the "working collie", among Australian Kelpie folk it's "Creeping Jesus"..

 

Is it a name, a stud book or like "Doctor" or "State Trooper" the name of one who possesses a legally certified skill set?

 

If so, is Doctor Smith's son automatically "Doctor Smith"?

 

Are we Lamarckians or Darwinians?

 

We appeal to the skill set theory by arguing that only stockdogs should be bred to. Many years ago, Arthur Allen's North American registry wouldn't register a dog until it proved itself in trials or under expert examination. The Wire-haired Pointing Griffons adhere to such a rule today and I believe that German Shepherd breed wardens in Germany can refuse to register some studbook dogs.

 

Excepting conformation champions and their get, we will register any pup whose parents are ABCA registered.

 

What of the ABCA registered pup - from my Luke say - who is bred to a bitch - from my June - whose pups are bred in turn to Julie's or Eileen's pups, each time for their agility skills. Suppose we have dogs bred from stockdogs but 8 generations from dogs that worked sheep or cattle. Are they still Border Collies?

 

Another case where the jury is still out. If a very high percentage of these 8 generation agility pups can work stock as well as pups bred exclusively for stockwork, yes they are.

 

But over time, wouldn't breeding exclusively for agility emphasize certain genetics over others - just as conformation breeding does? How long before the pups can't work stock? Dunno.

 

And would the ABCA start deregistering such dogs or is agility "work" as the registry understands it. Dunno.

 

Will ABCA/AKC agility owners unto the eighth generation gradually abandon ABCA registration (extra cost/no benefit) or will they persist for marketing advantages. Dunno.

 

Ideas/observations welcomed.

 

Donald McCaig

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen wrote:

" kelpies go back to border collies . . ."

 

Probably not. Probably they were, like the McNab, a regional collie which was exported before it could be absorbed into/extinguished by what came to be called "Border Collie"

 

To be precise, I should have said that "kelpies go back to the population of British working collies just as border collies do." I'm fine with Donald's formulation, but the basic point is the same.

 

As for Donald's other observations:

 

The ABCA registers any descendants of ABCA-registered dogs, except for conformation champions. Philosophically, it would be nice to register only those who work to a useful standard and their immediate offspring. Practically, no one has been able to devise a method of shedding off the others that is feasible in terms of money and effort, and not prone to corruption and error. Consequently, to try to do so at the present time would cause more harm than good.

 

Conceptually, the descendants of border collies which are bred without regard to working ability are not border collies. On paper, they are border collies, but are of no interest to those breeders whose work shapes the breed. Conceptually, the offspring of working border collies who are bred to produce working dogs are border collies, even if they turn out not to be of working quality themselves (just as the offspring of two members of a conformation breed--Pekingese, say--who are bred to the Pekingese appearance standard but turn out not to conform to it are still Pekingese). But these sub-par border collies, too, are not of interest to those breeders whose work shapes the breed.

 

The laws of genetics tell us that over time border collies bred only for agility and without regard for working ability will lose the ability to work to a useful standard. On paper they will still be border collies, even though conceptually they are not. This incongruity reflects the dis-integration of the breed caused by AKC recognition and the rise of bigtime dog sports. At some point, presumably, the differences will be marked enough that there will be a formal breed split, either through the sport owners dropping the ABCA and/or the border collie name, or through the ABCA changing its registration rules and/or the name of the dogs it registers.

 

I trust we are Darwinians and not Lamarckians, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the discussion. Learning to do weave poles and teeters is not what will change the descendants of agility dogs.

[flyer]

SNIP>

 

Suppose we have dogs bred from stockdogs but 8 generations from dogs that worked sheep or cattle. Are they still Border Collies?

 

<SNIP

 

One rescuer of BC's told me my Colt was what is referred to as a "borderline" as he is two generations from stock-work on his father's side.

 

Ouch.

[Pam Wolf]

Might have missed some posts, But Kelpies DO allow breeding to other breeds, usually Border Collie. In Australia it is called a Station bred Kelpie Here in the US it is called Ranch Bred. In fact, the Kelpie I have has some station bred dogs behind him. I think it is 4 generations and they are called 'pure' Kelpie.

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Sheepdoggers,

All the competing dogs at the Melbourne Ag Expo (1986) sheepdog trial (100,000 spectators) were Kelpie Border Collie crosses.

 

I am told by those I trust that many of the best working Aussies now have some Border Collie in them.

 

The advantages of crossing (highbred vigor, retaining desirable characteristics from each breed) are obvious enough and its worth remembering that the Border Collie is, in fact, an amalgam of any number of breeds - some, like the Gordon Setter weren't even stockdogs.

 

But I wish we could still see, and perhaps breed to The Dalesman and the Welsh Gray. Has the Wicklow Collie gone extinct?

 

Donald McCaig

[Jeanne Joy]

But I wish we could still see, and perhaps breed to The Dalesman and the Welsh Gray. Has the Wicklow Collie gone extinct?

 

Most of the indigous bloodlines are long gone or have been absorbed by other strains. Here is a picture of Flash - a Wicklow Collie owned by Deirdre Donegan acquired around 1969:

 

 

As a side note: While both Kelpies and Border Collies can be traced to Britain and descend from working collies on the English-Scottish border - the Australian Kelpie is older of the two. Kelpies trace their ancestry to King's Kelpie. Gleeson's Kelpie, a female whelped in 1872 and Brutus and Jenny two "fox collies" imported from Scotland. Interestingly, the McNab family also developed their McNabs from dogs described as fox collies.

 

According to history the Border Collie was birthed with Old Hemp whelped in 1893. Records seem to indicate the first Border Collie was imported into Australia in the early 1900s.