Amelia Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 A very successful breeder of top class Border Collies breeds for the outrun first and it is found in her dogs in spades. The outrun is what defines Border Collies, and sets them apart from all other breeds. The outrun is the reason I am against dual-sanctioning & USBCHA sanctioning of cow dog trials, and arena trials. The outrun is the answer to this question that was posed to me earlier in the thread; "why do you care?" (whether cow dog trials exist.) If you're not breeding for it, you're breeding it out and harming the breed in the process. No, those folks are not the only ones harming the breed, so please don't put forth that tired argument again and suggest that it's OK because others do it too. Anybody who knowingly breeds a dog/bitch that doesn't possess a reliable, natural, consistent gather over distance and varied terrain in all kinds of circumstances is taking away something vital from the breed. I have personally seen more than a few, and had in training cow dogs with little or no gathering ability. But every single Border Collie that I've selected, purchased and trained to trialing level has possessed a natural gather. Like my friend who breeds for it, it is the first thing I select for. Not ONE ever ran straight up the middle in either training or trialing once they were ready to start. I would have spayed or nuetered them, never taken them anywhere near a trial field and found them a good home if they had. Properly flanking to balance is the measure I use to decide when to start a youngster. Deb, I suggest that, unless trained otherwise, if your dogs are exhibiting that behavior into maturity, then you can find much better dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Back to our regularly-scheduled programming (at least momentarily) - I took just a few minutes to email Herbert and my two district directors about the issue of dual-sanctioning with non-ISDS-style organizations (AHBA and ASCA; dual-sanctioning with AKC is already not allowed). I have received replies from all with the gist being that this is something that was raised as a concern previously, did not seem to garner much interest, but will be looked into again by the BOD ("with an effort to compile information and seek opinions"). I would strongly suggest that anyone who is a member who has an opinion on this subject, should email the President and their District Director(s) (and even the Directors at Large, which I did not do), and let them know how you feel about this issue. Member feedback to an involved leadership might be able to lay this particular concern to rest if appropriate action is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Neary Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Sue is right, this is the time to get involved with a simple e-mail to directors. All the e-mail addresses for the board members are found on the USBCHA website. I suspect there will be a small minority of directors that are either apathetic to this issue or even against it. I also know there will be most of the directors that will be concerned and supporting them will help end the dual sanctioning. Do ya'll realize that there have been trials that are essentially AHBA trials, AHBA courses, AHBA judges, that have added on USBCHA sanctioning for some reason. These trials are awarding USBCHA open and nursery qualifications on courses with 40 to 50 yard outruns and assisted drives. This doesn't even rise to the quality of novice in most parts of the country, yet they are getting USBCHA points for this level of work. This potential loss of integrity for the qualification of our dogs for the national open and nursery finals is a serious concern. Nothing good will come from this dual sanctioning, and there is plenty of opportunity for bad. It won't take long to send your directors a short e-mail if you are concerned about this practice. mn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stockdogranch Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I agree with Mike and Sue that this business of dual sanctioning is wrong, and will not lead to anything good. I will send those emails to express my concern. As for outruns--I really do not know what the reasoning was behind the leniency in scoring outruns at the cattle finals, and, as stated before, I did not like it. I thought (lots) more points should have been taken off for crossovers, and redirects should have been pointed as well. However, I really do not recall seeing outruns that were "straight up the middle"; in fact, I did not see many (a small minority) that would even be considered too tight. I watched all day every day (except for the final Nursery day, but I had seen all those dogs in their qualifying runs), and what I saw were outruns much like those one would see at an Open and/or Nursery sheepdog trial--some better than others, some dogs needed a number of redirects, some lifts were a bit more rash than others, some dogs seemed to be heading for the next county--but overall, nothing that spelled the doom and gloom for the future of the border collie as some are suggesting here. Anybody who knowingly breeds a dog/bitch that doesn't possess a reliable, natural, consistent gather over distance and varied terrain in all kinds of circumstances is taking away something vital from the breed. I absolutely agree. I am not sure, however, that *all* crappy breeding practices can be attributed to those breeding dogs to work cattle. So it seems that there are a number of things on which most of us agree--dual sanctioning is not good; a natural outrun is important essential; and adherence to rules (whether the trials are on sheep, cattle, goats, or orangutans) is important for the integrity of any program. I guess the one point on which we disagree is that all of the evils in the working border collie world rest on the shoulders of the cattle program, A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Debbie Meier Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Properly flanking to balance is the measure I use to decide when to start a youngster. Deb, I suggest that, unless trained otherwise, if your dogs are exhibiting that behavior into maturity, then you can find much better dogs. You make me laugh... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 How trials are scored (the trial rules) essentially become the breed standard. While you may not personally make breeding decisions based upon performance at trials (the work and/or the placings) many others do. It has always been this way (i.e. Winston Cap) and it influences the gene pool you will need to breed out to at some point. I see two main reasons why someone may select a mate for their dog at trials: 1. competitors like to win and will breed to winners in the hope of getting a winner 2. most people do not have the opportunity to weed through several prospective mates based upon those dogs' work at home (or at least off the trial field) IMO timed/points trials reward dogs that can get it done quickly regardless of how it got done. You can make all the arguments you want about how calm work usually wins but if a dog comes along that can get it done faster that dog wins (and what wins gets bred => impacting the gene pool). Personally, I want dogs that work stock calmly with the least amount of stress on the stock; I don't see how working the stock as fast as possible fits this bill. ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************* As far as dual sanctioning; it appears that the other venues except for AHBA are covered as long as the current rules include any organization that condones the breed ring for any breed (to cover ASCA). Unless we're ready to exclude all arena trials I don't see how size can be used to prohibit AHBA dual sanctioning. ********************************************************************************************************************************************************************* Collecting a small packet of stock held out in the middle of a field IS a test of gathering since a dog should know how to adjust its outrun for the size of packet, distribution, and temperament of the stock in the field it was sent to gather. A dog that runs too wide for the number and distribution of the stock is wrong as is the dog that doesn't collect all the stock from the field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 How trials are scored (the trial rules) essentially become the breed standard. As far as dual sanctioning; it appears that the other venues except for AHBA are covered as long as the current rules include any organization that condones the breed ring for any breed (to cover ASCA). Unless we're ready to exclude all arena trials I don't see how size can be used to prohibit AHBA dual sanctioning. First, ASCA is not covered, as I explained in my post #54. As the HA rules now stand, they do not prohibit dual sanctioning with the AHBA or ASCA. Second and more important, if how trials are scored (the trial rules) essentially become the breed standard, as you say, do we want another organization's scoring to become our breed standard? That's what we're doing when we permit dual sanctioning, because we don't have rules for our trials, and they do have rules for their trials, and so their rules are the ones that will be followed. These dual sanctioned trials are judged by AHBA-certified judges according to AHBA rules on AHBA score sheets. Personally, I would rather USBCHA did not sanction any arena sheepdog trials, though I know that others disagree. But can we not agree that the fewer arena trials it sanctions, the better? Right now they are not the norm in USBCHA, they are the exception. Would it be better if they became the norm? For obvious reasons, permitting dual sanctioning will push us in that direction. And as was the case with dual registration, it will be a lot harder to ban dual sanctioning later than it is now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I thought ASCA did have a conformation standard? Oh, never mind, I went back and found Eileen's earlier post and see that it's conformation showing of border collies that's prohibited. (Shakes own head at lack of reading comprehension, since Eileen clearly stated *which* post she made those comments in....) I think it would be fairly easy to ban dual sanctioning while including language that would allow it for state and regional clubs that are affiliated (?) with the USBCHA. I think that would just require adding words to what's already there to include a ban against sanctioning by organizations that are not border collie-specific/centric, or something similar. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I think it would be fairly easy to ban dual sanctioning while including language that would allow it for state and regional clubs that are affiliated (?) with the USBCHA. I think that would just require adding words to what's already there to include a ban against sanctioning by organizations that are not border collie-specific/centric, or something similar. There are several different ways it could be worded to target the ones we want to exclude while keeping the ones we don't want to exclude. I don't think wording is a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Yeah, I was just responding to earlier comments that cautioned against accidentally banning groups we didn't want to ban.... J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 When I talk about trial rules I also include the judging guidelines. These are used to rank order the runs and therefore have a direct impact on the gene pool. ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Since OPEN is open to all breeds the rules covering dual sanctioning should be broader to include the showing of any breed (not just Border Collies). ************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Mark, I'm not sure this post of yours was intended as a response to mine or not. In case it was: When I talk about trial rules I also include the judging guidelines. These are used to rank order the runs and therefore have a direct impact on the gene pool. Yes, to the extent they are followed. They aren't binding, of course. And why would an AHBA or ASCA judge even know they existed? Or care? Since OPEN is open to all breeds the rules covering dual sanctioning should be broader to include the showing of any breed (not just Border Collies). I don't see why. Just because dogs of other breeds are allowed to run in our trials, and occasionally one does, doesn't mean we bear any responsibility for influencing those breeds' future well-being. And anyway, this doesn't address why we would WANT to give "me-too" sanction to AHBA (or other AHBA-like organization's) trials. Why would we? Why make a trivial rules change that doesn't address the real issue? I would leave Rule 2H as it is, and put in a new rule, appropriately worded, to deny sanction to trials that are sanctioned by other national organizations (with the exception of CBCA). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jomur Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Eileen CBCA does not sanction trials.They do put on one trial/year--the Canadian Championship.It can't be sanctioned by USBCHA since it isn't "Open" ie you need to be a CBCA registered dog to enter. Jim Murphy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Thanks, Jim! I didn't know that. But now that I stop to think about it, I should have known. That makes it even simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airbear Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 In Canada, our ISDS-style Open trials generally are sanctioned by at least one of the provincial stock dog associations, and USBCHA. BC Stock Dog Association Alberta Stock Dog Association Saskatchewan Stock Dog Association Ontario Border Collie Club Oh, and here's a shameless plug for the 2011 CBCA Championships, which are being held in Cranbrook, BC, in conjunction with the Western Canadians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liz P Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Is there a way to change the rules to allow dual sanctioning with local clubs like the NEBCA but not organizations like the AHBA and ASCA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Is there a way to change the rules to allow dual sanctioning with local clubs like the NEBCA but not organizations like the AHBA and ASCA? Absolutely, and that's the way I think we should go. We certainly want to continue dual sanctioning with our state, provincial and regional organizations like NEBCA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 I don't see why. Just because dogs of other breeds are allowed to run in our trials, and occasionally one does, doesn't mean we bear any responsibility for influencing those breeds' future well-being. Eileen, My point was that if we allow any breed into our trials (i.e. Australian Shepherd) our rules should state that no trial can be dual sanctioned with an organization that supports the conformation showing of any breed (i.e. ASCA). A nice clear rule that eliminates USBCHA/ASCA dual sanctioned trials. Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Eileen, My point was that if we allow any breed into our trials (i.e. Australian Shepherd) our rules should state that no trial can be dual sanctioned with an organization that supports the conformation showing of any breed (i.e. ASCA). A nice clear rule that eliminates USBCHA/ASCA dual sanctioned trials. Mark I understood that was what you were advocating. I just don't understand WHY you're advocating it. What's "unclear" about just saying in our rules, in appropriately precise terms, that we don't sanction other national/international organizations' trials? That takes care of ASCA just as well as what you're suggesting, and also takes care of AHBA. Your way leaves the AHBA situation unaddressed, and so far AHBA is the only organization whose trials have requested HA sanction. Is your issue that you don't see how a rule could be drafted that would exclude AHBA trials without excluding NEBCA, OBCC, VBCA, etc. trials, or is your issue that you don't want to exclude AHBA trials? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Sorry, I've skimmed some of the posts and missed your suggestion about not sanctioning trials in conjunction with any other national org. I can think of no issues with this approach right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pearse Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I understood that was what you were advocating. I just don't understand WHY you're advocating it. What's "unclear" about just saying in our rules, in appropriately precise terms, that we don't sanction other national/international organizations' trials? That doesn't solve the problem because there's no reciprocal prohibition. Let's say I host a trial. I apply for and get USBCHA sanctioning. So, it's a USBCHA sanctioned trial. Then I apply for, and get ASCA/AHBA sanctioning. USBCHA would not be sanctioning an AHBA trial. AHBA would be sanctioning a USBCHA trial. Since the USBCHA has no rules regarding what an Open course looks like, and no rules regarding who can judge a sanctioned trial (other than the Finals), I can set up my USBCHA trial the same way as AHBA sets up theirs and use one of their approved judges. I think your original idea was the best one. Make everyone applying for sanctioning do so on a standardized form. Put a box on the form where the applicant attests "This trial will not be sanctioned by any other National or International body", and put a second line "This trial will be sanctioned by __________" where people can enter NEBCA, or WWSDA, or what ever regional association is sanctioning the trial (spelled out not abbreviated) and let the "Trial Sanctioning Committee" of the USBCHA make the determination whether or not that is appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I guess I should have gone more into the nitty-gritty of wording and process instead of just trying to nail down the concept. There are many ways it could be worded and handled, so long as care is taken in the drafting. The approach you suggest is a good one, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 So, as Mike and others have mentioned, the best thing anyone can do right now is contact your directors and express an opinion about dual sanctioning. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Haven't read all of these. And of course I am pretty green to trialing. But I know what the trials have given me and my work, and I know what paticular needs my work requires. The trials at open level with outruns of 400 plus yds up hills in the heat do really test the dogs stamina. This is very important to my work. Work that is powerful and quiet wins these trials, that I have seen, that is important to my work where there are no fences and deep woods around the trails, roads and fields. A dog that can balance and read the sheep without me is very important. A dog that will stand up to a sheep that is not cooperative is very important. I think the range ewes are the best test for this that I have seen in my limited experience trialing. A dog that can read the sheep so well that he says to himself give this one room, or he says gotta get close or s*** may happen is very important. An example I'll throw out is this. A road in deep woods and a flock of 200 head that your dog must stop. He must run close to the flock as there is no room to run wide, and yet the sheep must stay calm. And the last one is a dog that really wants to work no matter what. If he is tired, hot, gets kicked....cornfused he still tries. I haven't seen any cattle trials, although we have cattle. And help with cattle in our work. Which is slow and careful work. Are the cattle trials a test of how fast? BTW- I would not enter a dual sanctioned trial Sorry about the edits. But The good outrun, gather is critical to my work. And very important to bring all the sheep. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 My 2 cents re: AHBA sanctioning in conjunction to USBCHA. IF the standards are high enough then why not allow it, IOW if the trial is goos enough for USBCHA, then why not allow AHBA. BUT if the courses are minimum for AHBA, then not. Which boils down to setting some minimum standards for USBCHA trails. But then I've been against sanctioning of arena trials for about 20 years now.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.