Border Collie Nationals

[Maralynn]

The AKC as an organization has given no concessions to the working Border Collie community. Nothing at all. They've taken and milked the breed for all that it's worth to them. They won't even close the books on the breed now. It's been all take and no give.

 

Perhaps folks wanting to be involved with the AKC sports should convince that organization to start giving some concessions to the folks preserving the working Border Collie. At least maybe close the books on the breed.

 

Why should the working side continue to make all the concessions as far as the AKC is concerned?

 

If AKC disappeared tomorrow, sport collies and USDAA would be the big thing. In fact, in my area, it pretty much already is.

 

If they dissapeared tomorrow then the working breeders wouldn't have a large, powerful, money hungry organization trying to take over the breed for their own whims while contributing nothing in the preservation of the breed.

 

ABCA N/B papers would mean offspring of dog couldn't be registered so working breeders could sell to sport people that were competing in those other venues without another organization taking the dogs and breeding them without proving them according to the breed standard.

[Diana A]

The majority of agility people that I know aren't interesting in breeding and have spayed/neutered dogs. Many of them run rescue dogs. I do know quite a few (although still a minority) who breed their dogs for agility, but these are all at the more competitive level and they're wanting to breed because the dog is out there winning at big competitions and they know they can sell the puppies pretty easily for a good price. So maybe you get the right crowd if you only sell to sport homes of people who aren't very good . There are a lot of AKC breeders who sell pups on nonbreeding papers to sport homes, so those homes are out there.

 

My main concern isn't necessarily trying to knock down AKC or control what registry dogs are in or do an 'us' vs 'them' battle, but mainly that I want the working border collie preserved. I'd like to think that they'll still be around for our grand kids and their grand kids to experience and for future farmers to use as they were meant to be used. Over 100 years of breeding has produced a unique and wonderful dog, and I do not want that to ever be lost. I just watched a video of International Champion Becca's double lift run - it's painful to think of something that beautiful becoming extinct and that most of the world won't even know what they've lost. So if I had a crystal ball and could look into the future and see that selling to AKC sport homes was what it would take, then I'd say that's what we should do. Or it could be the exact opposite, unfortunately no one really knows. It will, as someone said, turn your brain into a noodle trying to get your head around this one. My last two dogs have been working bred and if that first working breeder hadn't been willing to sell me a dog, I probably wouldn't have sheep now or be spending most of my spare time working on the sheep instead of doing other dog activities. Twelve or fifteen years ago I would have happily bought from a sport breeder and maybe even considered breeding if the dog was good - now today after years of exposure to the working border collie world I've changed my views on a lot of things.

 

One example I see - working field labs, have managed to survive in AKC, co-existing alonside the conformation version. Labs are one of the more popular conformation breeds and also very popular as pets, so have had their share of inappropriate breeding to combat, yet people who are into hunting or doing field trials for sport know where to find a good and there are plenty of them out there.

 

Then on the other hand I look at german shepherds, once the world's best athletic police dog, bred now to be a crippled monstrosity and now a very ugly and largely useless dog in my opinion.

 

Which way will the border collie go? I think a big part of that depends not just on what 'others' (AKC, sport breeders, etc) do with them, but what the working breeders do to keep things going. I think maybe the labs have managed it because there a lot of people who like to hunt and do field trials - the dogs will survive as long as that market is out there. A lot of other breeds possibly got away from their working roots even before the conformation ring got a hold of them so had no stabilizing force that a true working version of the breed would have provided. The lab situation gives me hope for working border collies, while at the same time the german shepherd situation scares the crap out of me.

[mum24dog]

The difference is the scale.

 

If the numbers of workings dogs (ie dogs working on farms and ranches) >> sport-bred dogs, then the sport bred dogs are going to have minimal impact on the breed. That's the way it has been.

 

If the numbers of sport and/or conformation bred dogs >> working bred dogs, then the sport/conformation dogs are going to have a significant impact on the breed. This is where we are heading.

 

We are nearing the latter case. It's called a tipping point It's why we are concerned. Just because something hasn't happened in the past 50 years, doesn't mean it isn't going to happen in the next 50 years.

 

Pearse

 

Why? Instead of pursuing a fruitless crusade why not accept that the working BC is not the same breed as the sport BC or conformation BC and instead of trying to "preserve the breed" concentrate on your own version of it? It's how all dog breeds originated - even the BC. Pick your battles.

 

I was rather amused by earlier reference to the "traditional" BC. The metamorphosis into something like what we recognise as a working BC type is verging on recent history to me. Where does "tradition" start?

 

I'm encouraged by Diana's comments that shooting people in the US are capable of recognising the sort of dog they want, just as they are here. I doubt that they are overly concerned about the potential impact of the latest Crufts BOB on their working line dogs.

 

Why should those who work their dogs care about what a bunch of other people are doing with theirs? Noone is making them use non working bred dogs. They can keep themselves and their dogs to themselves just like conformation people do.

 

What does it matter what Joe Public thinks a BC should be? If you want to preserve the working ability of the BC stop peeking over the fence and just do it.

 

One example I see - working field labs, have managed to survive in AKC, co-existing alonside the conformation version. Labs are one of the more popular conformation breeds and also very popular as pets, so have had their share of inappropriate breeding to combat, yet people who are into hunting or doing field trials for sport know where to find a good and there are plenty of them out there.

 

Then on the other hand I look at german shepherds, once the world's best athletic police dog, bred now to be a crippled monstrosity and now a very ugly and largely useless dog in my opinion.

 

Which way will the border collie go? I think a big part of that depends not just on what 'others' (AKC, sport breeders, etc) do with them, but what the working breeders do to keep things going. I think maybe the labs have managed it because there a lot of people who like to hunt and do field trials - the dogs will survive as long as that market is out there. A lot of other breeds possibly got away from their working roots even before the conformation ring got a hold of them so had no stabilizing force that a true working version of the breed would have provided. The lab situation gives me hope for working border collies, while at the same time the german shepherd situation scares the crap out of me.

 

Diana - you talk a lot of sense.

 

I'm not stupid as some will think, I just don't buy into the idea that the working BC is doomed because some people have diverted their traits for other purposes. You can't create a versatile breed and then complain if people take advantage of that versatility for their own ends.

 

The future of the working BC is in the hands of those who work them, noone else's.

 

A few vehement people post on here and I'm not entirely sure who are professionals and who are part time hobbyists. I'm guessing that out there in the real world there are many more people just getting on with the job of working with their dogs who don't have the time or inclination to join in.

 

Would I prefer it if there were no sport or conformation breeding? Definitely.

Would I be totally anti AKC if I lived in the US? Almost certainly.

Do I believe that I have a right to dictate what other people should want in a dog? No.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

I believe that there is one major difference between the situation in the UK and in the US - with a long tradition of working sheepdogs, I don't believe there is either the blurring of the breeding or the lack of knowledge of the difference in working-bred versus otherwise-bred in the UK. In other words, there is much more recognition of what a working sheepdog is in the UK, versus a Border Collie that has been bred to be a show dog, an obedience or performance dog, or a pet. The same is not the case among the vast majority of people in the US, who have no idea of the difference (and the AKC has no interest in educating them about the difference - their dogs are "versatile" and the show-ring winners are "the best of the best").

 

Up to a point, but we aren't immune from ignorance.

Mostly it seems that such ignorance works in the opposite direction - people pick up a pup from the local farm and find that it is totally unsuited to life as a family pet.

The average person wanting a BC wouldn't necessarily seek out a KC bred one as farm gate pups are so easy to find (and cheaper). But then our KC isn't as in your face and pushy as yours (or that's the impression I get).

Plenty of people still believe they need a dog from the latest successful sport line to win, but also plenty go to working lines.

But you're right - at least among dog people. Most people are well aware of the difference and make a conscious choice one way or the other. You'll get agility people discussing working breeders just as you they would sport breeders.

I don't think I've ever lived anywhere where the predominant type of BC you see on the street is the show type.

[Mark Billadeau]

The average person wanting a BC wouldn't necessarily seek out a KC bred one as farm gate pups are so easy to find (and cheaper). But then our KC isn't as in your face and pushy as yours (or that's the impression I get).

FYI, this may be correct in the UK but this is not reality in north america; I believe the general public has more access to non-working bred border collies here than access to working bred ones. This is especially true with on-line purchasing.

 

There are places here where it may be 5hrs of driving at 65mph+ to get to the nearest working breeder.

I'm not sure there has ever been 2 sheepdog trials on the same day that are within 300miles of each other.

[mum24dog]

I pretty much discount anything overseas people tell me about what is or is not going to happen to our dogs and what we should or should not do about it.

 

Noone has a crystal ball, least of all me, but just maybe you should consider a different way of looking at things.

 

And perhaps you'll find that the experience of others outside your coterie might have some validity. Or you may not - but you won't know if you "pretty much discount anything" they have to say. Look outwards occasionally. I have read differing views from people on here many times. I have considered and digested, not discounted and I have found myself gradually turning away from the party line.

Somewhere along the line the common board attitude of "you don't know what you're talking about if you aren't one of us" is failing to persuade.

 

Your battle with the consequences of AKC recognition and the explosion in dog sports is relatively recent. We've had longer to gauge the effect - here. I would listen to someone from Oz on the much longer history of showing there.

 

And now I must go - got an agility show to organise.

[mum24dog]

FYI, this may be correct in the UK but this is not reality in north america; I believe the general public has more access to non-working bred border collies here than access to working bred ones. This is especially true with on-line purchasing.

 

There are places here where it may be 5hrs of driving at 65mph+ to get to the nearest working breeder.

I'm not sure there has ever been 2 sheepdog trials on the same day that are within 300miles of each other.

 

 

I feel for you - I really do. At least your fuel is a lot cheaper than hours.

But wouldn't someone who was serious about the breed be prepared to drive that far for the right dog? I have friends who have driven that far even here, several for rescue dogs or working dogs, and just one for a KC bred pup.

 

I'm not surprised about the distances between trials but surely trialling is just the tip of the iceberg as far as working dogs are concerned? How many shepherds are there out there working their dogs on a daily basis who never bother to trial?

I guess nobody knows.

[Mark Billadeau]

You were talking about the average person choosing the cheaper and easier to get farm gate dogs vs the KC dogs in the UK as an indication that the general public sees border collies as farm dogs.

 

What I was trying to indicate is that here the more readily available border collies were not bred on farms for work. This is partially due to the distances between farms and the general public and even farther to farms that use dogs to manage their livestock.

[Tea]

I am a farmer.

 

And our agriculture program pays our bills. We raise and broker sheep and goats and cattle.

 

The sheep are foraged loose. There is no way to do this without dogs.

I have seen very clearly what happened when I started looking for two working bred dogs. And I had no idea of the AKC thing. But I had seen dogs work when I was a kid so had some idea of that.

 

I went to people who raised livestock and trialed, luckily. The folks that trial have, in my opinion saved the dogs for the folks that farm.

 

When I bred my dogs to replace my retiring dogs. I kept three pups and sold four, to farmers, under the contract on this site.

 

One of my farmers, as I posted somewhere had an interesting conversation right after she got a pup from me from a lady who did AKC and told her her dog was a champion. This caused alot of confusion.

 

How many shepherds? Not many...but with the growth of local and slow food movement there are more coming on. And it is the folks that trial that had saved these dogs. And there is confusion over the rest of this, AKC and agility stuff.

 

I can tell you if a farmer buys a dog that won't work or is a freak he isn't likely to buy another. And that would be a shame!

 

I don't know about Britian I am not there, I am here.

 

 

 

But I will repeat

 

 

 

The folks that trial USBCHA type trials, have saved these dogs for farming which is growing on the local and slow farming movement. And AKC and agility confuse the issue.

 

 

Two or three different breeds? Ok...but why then did the Akc get the name Border collie?

 

That is the name that the farmer looks for. I did.

[Lewis Moon]

 

The folks that trial USBCHA type trials, have saved these dogs for farming which is growing on the local and slow farming movement. And AKC and agility confuse the issue.

 

 

Two or three different breeds? Ok...but why then did the Akc get the name Border collie?

 

That is the name that the farmer looks for. I did.

 

The AKC is the Walmart of dogs, and like Walmart, profit and public appeal dictate that the "product" be produced more cheaply (puppy mills), be easier to use (dumber) and come in a prettier package (see OP).

I worry that splitting the breed into Border Collies and Working Border Collies would just lead to the AKC making a run on WBCs.

 

The working BC will (and should) always have a small footprint in the dog world. Dedicated, conciencious breeders will forever be the WBCs first line of defence. Fugeddabout the barbie collies. They're already different dogs. Do what you have to do, just make sure the working lines stay true. All that takes is for folks to pay attention.

[Pearse]

Why? Instead of pursuing a fruitless crusade why not accept that the working BC is not the same breed as the sport BC or conformation BC and instead of trying to "preserve the breed" concentrate on your own version of it? It's how all dog breeds originated - even the BC. Pick your battles.

 

 

I agree, and we do largely concentrate on "our breed". Part of that is pointing out the differences between "our breed" (working Border Collies), Sport Collies, and Show Collies, but more than that is easier said than done. I have been trying to wrap my head around this for some time, as have many others, to mechanisms that would do just that and that are practical and enforceable.

 

The easiest solution would be for AKC to close their stud books but they aren't going to do that. If they did, that would take the Show Collies out of the working breeding pool and the working bred dogs out of the AKC breeding pool.

 

It has been discussed at length here banning dual membership in AKC and ABCA. That would not fly in the United States. It would not withstand a court challenge. We could ban dual registration and there may finally be critical mass support to move in that direction. The problem is enforcement. AKC dogs can be registered under a completely different name than the same dog registered with ISDS, CBCA, or ABCA. If one were to discover a dual registered dog after it has been bred, do you then de-register all of its progeny and force the owners of those dogs to apply for re-registration on merit?

 

It has also been discussed at length instituting a two-tiered registry. All dogs would be registered with a "non-breeding" registration number and only proven working dogs would be subsequently issued a new registration number which would allow for registration of their offspring. The difficulty here comes in defining a "working dog". We could do it on the basis of trial results for some, but we'd lose all of the good farm and ranch dogs whose owners don't trial. In that case they would need to be registered through a register-on-merit (ROM) process and we don't have the personnel to adjudicate that many applications so the ABCA would need to hire adjudicators which would make the registration process significantly more expensive. Those farm dogs would never get registered, and we would lose much of the genetic potential we actually want to retain.

 

So, while a "working registry" would be ideal, no one has come up with a practical way to make it work. All we can do practically for now, is continue to educate people. People will seek out the dogs they need. Those who need working dogs will seek them out. All we (ABCA) can do is make it easier for people who need good working dogs to know where to look for them. People who want Sport Collies have no trouble finding them. They go to the kennels who are winning Agility and Flyball competitions. Likewise with the Show Collie people. They'll buy from the "Ch" breeders.

 

However, if you need a dog to move your dairy herd, or help with fall roundup, or manage your flocks, it's a tougher job. The ABCA is trying to help on the one hand by supporting the activities of the USBCHA, and local trials through the Promotional Fund, but I don't think we've been as effective in supporting farmers and ranchers and reaching out to them. I suspect that many of them who use dogs, know where to get them, but there are many more who probably could use dogs and don't for lack of resources in finding them, finding training (human and dog) and that may be an area we need to focus more attention on.

 

Pearse

[Eileen Stein]

So, if that's the case, why wouldn't working breeders sell their dogs to people who want to do sports with them (on a spay/neuter contract, of course)? If the goal is have more working bred dogs, then they're going to have to go somewhere, and the demand for sport dogs is high.

 

I've probably responded to points like this so often that a further response is not likely to explain or persuade. But here's another way of trying to say it.

 

First, I have no problem with working breeders selling dogs to people who want to do sports with them on a spay/neuter contract. I would do so myself. As I said earlier in the thread, I think those can be very good homes, and I don't see why they shouldn't be able to have a border collie if they understand and appreciate the breed. I feel the same way about good pet homes, which in the past was where most working-bred dogs who didn't go to working homes went.

 

But I wouldn't sell to a sport home who would register with the AKC, and I don't believe others should either. Why? Because my goal isn't to have more working bred dogs. My goal is the preservation of the working border collie. Having more working bred dogs is a means to that end, but not an end in itself. It's a consideration, but not the only consideration. There are circumstances under which its value in achieving the end I want to achieve is outweighed by other considerations.

 

Let me try an analogy (risky as that often is) to illustrate one of those considerations. Suppose there was a working dog trainer who was very accomplished and successful, but who treated and trained his dogs very cruelly. (Yes, Virginia, I'm afraid so.) I would not bring my dog to that person for training, and I would discourage others from bringing their dogs to him. Jane Doe might say to me, "But wait a minute. Aren't you always saying that border collies should be trained so they can fulfill their purpose? Aren't you always saying that it's impossible to know how good your dog is unless he's trained to the highest levels? Isn't it good for more people to get involved in herding, and learn, and understand what makes a good working dog? This is the best way I can do that. You're being inconsistent. He's the only trainer I can conveniently go to -- I'd get to work/train much less often if I went to the faraway trainer you're recommending. And in my case it doesn't matter if he's cruel to his dogs and other dogs he trains, because I'll be right there to protect my dog from anything like that."

 

Should Jane go to this trainer? Should I think it's okay if she does?

 

My answer is no. By going to him, you are supporting him, both with your money and with your implicit endorsement. You are doing your part to empower someone who should be disempowered. Any success you have will reflect favorably on him. You're enhancing his prestige by being seen to seek association with him. Even if you say, "Well, I don't like the way he treats his dogs," your actions say "Well, I don't think the way he treats his dogs matters all that much. It doesn't keep me from wanting him as a trainer." By accepting it yourself, you testify that it's acceptable. You can say that it doesn't matter because if you didn't go to him for training, other people would, and they'd fill the time slot you're taking now, so he'd still have disciples and make money. So probably your not going to him wouldn't make any difference, really. Why pursue a fruitless crusade?

 

But you could do the right thing yourself. Doesn't that count for anything? And by doing the right thing, you might influence others to question whether to support him. You certainly won't achieve that result by becoming one of his clients.

 

The AKC is a bad organization for dogs, in many different ways. I won't detail them all, because enough have already been mentioned in this thread, and people don't usually disagree. (The typical response is some variant of "yes, but": "Yes, I know it is, I don't like a lot of what they do and I'm not shy about saying so! But that doesn't really affect me, and if I want to do . . .") It's particularly bad for border collies, both in its philosophy and in the contempt it showed for the dogs and their owners during the Dog Wars. It's not suitable for working breeds, and has done conspicuous harm to most working breeds it has taken in. Its power to influence and engulf our dogs increases the more of our dogs it registers. Because of that, I don't want any dogs I produce to be a part of it, to go towards its support. And I honor those working breeders who keep the dogs they produce from being a part of it, and I regret that not all working breeders do that.

 

* * * * *

 

A personal appeal -- please, even if you're thinking it, don't post that you can't compare AKC to a cruel trainer because most AKC trainers use positive methods.

[JaderBug]

I apologize for jumping into this conversation late and I admit I haven't read most of this thread, just bits and pieces. Seems like the same round about that always shows up here every once in a while.

 

My question is this... shouldn't the fingers be pointing at BCSA as opposed to AKC? Isn't the BCSA the real ring-leader to the gap between working dogs and barbie collies? I understand the AKC has its part in a lot of different breeds but isn't the BCSA really the responsible party here?

[Eileen Stein]

I apologize for jumping into this conversation late and I admit I haven't read most of this thread, just bits and pieces. Seems like the same round about that always shows up here every once in a while.

 

My question is this... shouldn't the fingers be pointing at BCSA as opposed to AKC? Isn't the BCSA the real ring-leader to the gap between working dogs and barbie collies? I understand the AKC has its part in a lot of different breeds but isn't the BCSA really the responsible party here?

 

Why do you think so? I'm sure the BCSA would say they're doing everything they can to keep working, sport and conformation dogs all united (unfortunately, that's largely true), and to preserve working ability throughout the breed (less true, but it has been a concern of theirs, and it's not a concern of the AKC), but that they have to work within the confines of the AKC structure, policies and culture (well, yeah, they do, if they choose to be the AKC breed club, and that's the choice they've made). Yes, the BCSA is largely to blame for the AKC keeping its studbook open to ABCA dogs, and that was a devastating blow to the working breed that I would never underestimate. The finger should certainly be pointed at them for that, if that's what you mean, but they're the AKC breed club for the Border Collie -- naturally they want to bring as many border collies into the AKC as possible. They think that's where we should all be. The AKC wants that too, at least as much as the BCSA does. But other than that, I can't think of of anything the BCSA has done to push the AKC in the wrong direction, and there certainly are things the AKC has done to push the BCSA in the wrong direction.

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

You can't create a versatile breed and then complain if people take advantage of that versatility for their own ends.

 

But Pam, a working breed was created, not a "versatile" breed. By selecting for the work, the breed developed as a result of choosing function and ability over form. The Border Collie was later discovered to be versatile. As in, when modern dog sports were developed...a century or two after working Border Collies were already in common use as a neccessity (or nearly so) for shepherds.

[geonni banner]

After studying this thread (and others) I've come to the conclusion that working breeders absolutely should sell to sport and pet homes, on a spay/neuter contract or fixed already. Please note I did not say AKC homes.

 

One of the reasons is genetic diversity within the working population. I feel, (and am happy to be contradicted by those working breeders who will have a better view of the situation), that the demand for actual working Border Collies - as in dogs that work stock for people who make their living raising stock - does not allow for the gene pool to remain large and diverse. Hobby herders and people who seriously field trial can help with this, but if working bred pups supply the market for good pet and sport homes, then more litters can be bred, more promising crosses for working ability can be made (as opposed to fewer, because they cannot all be placed in actual working homes.) and the working gene pool remains large and vigorous. We have all seen, (well, all except those who refuse to see), that one of the biggest problem within the AKC breeding strains is a genetic bottleneck.

 

If appearance and working style is any indication, we now have a diverse gene pool in the breed. This could change. Before the AKC recognition of the breed and the explosion of the sport of agility arrived on the scene, the Border Collie was, in general, a working bred dog. But that is no longer true. The AKC by its very nature, will take the Border Collies they register into a disastrous state of uniformity and loss of ability. It is already happening.

 

How many agility, flyball and other sport enthusiasts would choose AKC conformation dogs first as their competition prospects? I would venture very few, and fewer as the AKC stock gets more inbred and show-ring zombified. So here is a reservoir of largely good dog homes waiting for working bred dogs. If we don't want the sports crowd in the breeding end of working Border Collies, it would seem that we must sell pups to them. And since we already have what they need - a lithe, quick, biddable and intelligent dog, we should make that work to the benefit of the working dog. (And keep the dedicated sports breeder from morphing the stable, sound working dog into a manic mess with no stock sense.)

 

If working bred pups are sold only to non-AKC sport homes, does it not follow that non-AKC sporting venues will feature the best and most competitive dogs? AKC sport breeders can't breed working bred dogs if we don't sell them to them. And the competition-minded will probably go where the best competition lies. If we cut off the supply of top-quality agility prospects to the AKC, the AKC will cease to be the dominant venue for agility.

[The Good Shepherd]

If working bred pups are sold only to non-AKC sport homes, does it not follow that non-AKC sporting venues will feature the best and most competitive dogs? AKC sport breeders can't breed working bred dogs if we don't sell them to them. And the competition-minded will probably go where the best competition lies. If we cut off the supply of top-quality agility prospects to the AKC, the AKC will cease to be the dominant venue for agility

 

 

I agree with you, but who is to police what working breeders do? Take Redtop kennel for instance. Who is going to tell the 2010 National Finals Winner he can no longer sell Obedience Dogs to the AKC crowd?

[geonni banner]

If working bred pups are sold only to non-AKC sport homes, does it not follow that non-AKC sporting venues will feature the best and most competitive dogs? AKC sport breeders can't breed working bred dogs if we don't sell them to them. And the competition-minded will probably go where the best competition lies. If we cut off the supply of top-quality agility prospects to the AKC, the AKC will cease to be the dominant venue for agility

 

 

I agree with you, but who is to police what working breeders do? Take Redtop kennel for instance. Who is going to tell the 2010 National Finals Winner he can no longer sell Obedience Dogs to the AKC crowd?

 

Well, if we all talk the talk, and those who breed dogs and understand this already walk the walk, perhaps word will get around sufficiently for breeders who sell to AKC homes to see the sense of it, and change their policies.

(Another good reason to continue our "AKC bashing.")

[Diana A]

 

Let me try an analogy (risky as that often is) to illustrate one of those considerations. Suppose there was a working dog trainer who was very accomplished and successful, but who treated and trained his dogs very cruelly. (Yes, Virginia, I'm afraid so.) I would not bring my dog to that person for training, and I would discourage others from bringing their dogs to him. Jane Doe might say to me, "But wait a minute. Aren't you always saying that border collies should be trained so they can fulfill their purpose? Aren't you always saying that it's impossible to know how good your dog is unless he's trained to the highest levels? Isn't it good for more people to get involved in herding, and learn, and understand what makes a good working dog? This is the best way I can do that. You're being inconsistent. He's the only trainer I can conveniently go to -- I'd get to work/train much less often if I went to the faraway trainer you're recommending. And in my case it doesn't matter if he's cruel to his dogs and other dogs he trains, because I'll be right there to protect my dog from anything like that."

 

Should Jane go to this trainer? Should I think it's okay if she does?

 

My answer is no. By going to him, you are supporting him, both with your money and with your implicit endorsement. You are doing your part to empower someone who should be disempowered. Any success you have will reflect favorably on him. You're enhancing his prestige by being seen to seek association with him. Even if you say, "Well, I don't like the way he treats his dogs," your actions say "Well, I don't think the way he treats his dogs matters all that much. It doesn't keep me from wanting him as a trainer." By accepting it yourself, you testify that it's acceptable. You can say that it doesn't matter because if you didn't go to him for training, other people would, and they'd fill the time slot you're taking now, so he'd still have disciples and make money. So probably your not going to him wouldn't make any difference, really. Why pursue a fruitless crusade?

 

But you could do the right thing yourself. Doesn't that count for anything? And by doing the right thing, you might influence others to question whether to support him. You certainly won't achieve that result by becoming one of his clients.

 

The AKC is a bad organization for dogs, in many different ways. I won't detail them all, because enough have already been mentioned in this thread, and people don't usually disagree. (The typical response is some variant of "yes, but": "Yes, I know it is, I don't like a lot of what they do and I'm not shy about saying so! But that doesn't really affect me, and if I want to do . . .") It's particularly bad for border collies, both in its philosophy and in the contempt it showed for the dogs and their owners during the Dog Wars. It's not suitable for working breeds, and has done conspicuous harm to most working breeds it has taken in. Its power to influence and engulf our dogs increases the more of our dogs it registers. Because of that, I don't want any dogs I produce to be a part of it, to go towards its support. And I honor those working breeders who keep the dogs they produce from being a part of it, and I regret that not all working breeders do that.

 

 

Your analogy makes alot of sense. Although I think it's a bit more of a complex situation than that. In your example, you'd be sending the puppy and owner into a situation that would be directly detrimental to them. But the sport dog and their owner who do AKC usually actually benefit from it - they get to do something fun, even though their fun may be funding some other bad things. So in your example, it would be more like if you were selling a border collie to someone and this abusive trainer was seemingly their only option, but let's say the trainer actually is very good with border collies and your puppy would get some decent training sufficient for the handler to happily play around at the novice level (even though not training of a standard you would want for your own dogs, the owner and dog will be happy with it). But let's say this trainer doesn't understand an aussie working mentality or certain lines of border collies and abuses his aussie clients and clients with border collies from certain lines. So by sending your puppy buyer to this guy, even though you benefit the puppy buyer directly, you're indirectly funding the bad trainer's continued abusiveness towards other clients. To complicate it further, let's say he donates some small amount of his training income to border collie rescue (a good thing) but also donates to legislative animal rights extremist groups (a bad thing). So now you have to balance - this guy may be 'okay' for your puppy buyer and maybe if you convince your puppy buyer not to go there the puppy won't get any stock training at all, so there may appear to be some upsides to sending them there, but at what cost to other ethical considerations and other things you hold important? Do you help your puppy buyers at the expense of your own ethics, or stick to your ethics at the possible expense of your puppy buyer? Things are rarely a completely black and white situation.

 

 

Okay, devil's advocate time: Go take a look around AKC's website. Apparently they do a lot of GOOD things (at least according to the website, I'm not making any claims as to how true any of it may be). They fund scholarships to vet schools, and fund canine health research, and fight anti-dog and breed-specific legislation. They offer a companion animal recovery service. I thought at one point they were offering canine health insurance as well although I don't see that on there now. And they provide obedience trials, canine good citizen tests, agility, lure coursing, hunting tests and trials, etc, all activities that encourage owners to train their dogs and do things with them. AKC clubs put on events that fund the clubs and allow them to be in a financial situation to continue offering classes that benefit the dog owning community in their area (even if some of those people never register or trial AKC).

 

 

Now I'm not saying any of that justifies supporting puppy mills or empowering a conformation system that ruins dog breeds. But what it does is muddy the waters enough that when someone with roots in AKC hears a working dog person say 'AKC is all bad and evil' they think of all these good things and their first reaction is to dismiss the working dog person as an extremist who doesn't have their facts straight. It also leads to some who can split hairs and say maybe AKC is okay as long as you don't participate in the breed ring, because only their breed ring activity is bad for dogs. Or AKC is okay as long as you aren't a breeder, because then you aren't doing anything to influence the direction a breed will develop. Or maybe even it's okay to breed in AKC as long as you know you're doing it for the right reasons, because it's all those OTHER people ruining the breed by breeding for the wrong thing and of course you have to counteract that by breeding some good dogs. Most people will not want to just throw out the whole organization, but will rationalize their role in it.

 

 

It becomes even more complicated if you're dealing with a first time border collie owner who has had (or still has) other breeds of dogs.There are people who try to work from the inside to do what's best for their breed (breeding only for performance for example, and even putting down the conformation ring), and if your buyer has had experience with that type of AKC breeder they're more likely to discount anything you may say that sounds like you're saying all AKC breeders are out to ruin breeds. I own another breed besides border collies (belgian sheepdogs) and my last one came from an AKC breeder, but one who imports (or breeds to import lines) for working ability, not the breed ring. So the dog I got is so different in personality, drive, and athleticism than what most people are used to seeing in that breed that I get comments from people all the time about how he must be crossed with something else or just exclaiming over how exceptional he is. Which I think is sad in a way because I think he's what the breed should be, and he should not be seen as exception, and I shouldn't have had to hunt for five years and go all the way across the country to find one like him. For anyone having another breed of dog, it's very hard to withdraw completely from AKC because most breeds don't have a fallback organization or a breed club that isn't an AKC breed club. Border collies with ABCA and aussie people with ASCA are in a unique position to have a choice in organizations, owners of most other breeds aren't so fortunate. So if you're talking to someone who already has roots in AKC, and you're coming in as the outsider to the organization making certain claims, you're going to need good strong facts to make an impression and to really convince people.

 

 

Maybe this would be something good for ABCA to do as an educational effort - update their current page that has border collie history and the AKC wars with a link to some pages detailing out a lot of these things. I know the site has some information already, but I'm thinking specific facts and examples. Also the current information puts such a focus on the anti-breed ring perspective that it leaves a loop hole for non-conformation owners to think it doesn't apply to them. It would need to go beyond just saying 'AKC is bad because it supports puppy mills' or 'AKC is bad because it facilitates breeding for appearance'. I'm thinking of some of the details like Terrierman has put on his website, SPECIFIC things AKC has done to support puppy mills, and things like how they fought the registration of cross bred dalmatians, and the pictures of how the breed ring has changed the shape of the head of certain breeds - the sorts of things that make people have that 'aha' moment about what's really going on, and makes it harder to dismiss, and more importantly shows them that the ABCA people with these 'extreme' views have good sound reasons for their opinions and it isn't just an emotional reaction to 'they stole our breed'. I actually had someone tell me that once, that ABCA is just mad at AKC because they stole the border collie and dumped ABCA as the parent club, so now they make up stuff to put down AKC just to get back at them. Maybe some video links to working dog clips would help too - show them what ABCA wants to protect. Cite statistics for how many people still use border collies as a real working farm hand and how their role as a stockdog isn't something that 'we don't need these days' (I have heard that one before too, "why bother, no one needs a working dog anymore").

[geonni banner]

 

Okay, devil's advocate time: Go take a look around AKC's website. Apparently they do a lot of GOOD things (at least according to the website, I'm not making any claims as to how true any of it may be). They fund scholarships to vet schools, and fund canine health research, and fight anti-dog and breed-specific legislation. They offer a companion animal recovery service. I thought at one point they were offering canine health insurance as well although I don't see that on there now. And they provide obedience trials, canine good citizen tests, agility, lure coursing, hunting tests and trials, etc, all activities that encourage owners to train their dogs and do things with them. AKC clubs put on events that fund the clubs and allow them to be in a financial situation to continue offering classes that benefit the dog owning community in their area (even if some of those people never register or trial AKC).

 

 

 

 

I’m good with the Devil’s Advocate thing. Like the Godfather says,”Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”

 

But as a card-carrying cynic, I have my own ideas about why people do things that appear at face value to be “good.”

 

So.

 

Scholarhips to vet schools. Let’s find some young, penniless vet student or wannabe vet student. Let’s offer him/her a nice fat meal ticket, get him/her through vet school and give him/her every reason to be grateful to us. Then when he/she’s an accredited vet, and we need a veterinarian to make a statement to the press about how humanitarian we are, putting people through vet school, and oh, by the way, AKC dogs are your best bet when choosing a healthy family pet… Is he/she going to say no? Not likely. So lots of people who don’t know any better will be thinking, “Gosh those folks at the AKC sure are swell! They not only know a lot about quality dogs, they are kind and generous to people too! An AKC pup is the one for me!”

 

Funding Canine health research. Ok, does anybody really think that the people who fund research never put pressure on the researchers as to how their findings are presented? Like shoving inconvenient conclusions under a rug and wording the rest of their statement to seem in agreement with the line the funder is pushing?

 

A canine recovery service? Veterinary pet insurance? Oh, come on! They would never even have to advertise… Everybody knows the AKC is the place to go for all things canine! Ka-ching! Ka-ching!

 

Obedience trials, canine good citizen tests, agility, lure coursing, hunting tests and trials, etc. Yes, human/canine interaction can be had at these events. And they also generate – wait for it… MONEY! Not to mention more good press and photo ops for the AKC. “Look! See the fair-haired child with the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel doing agility? See the manly man with his fine Obedience Trial winning German Shepherd Dog? Nothing wrong here! AKC dogs have it all! Brains, beauty and health - come an' get 'em!”

 

Cynical? Yes. Paranoid? Maybe. But just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you...

[Eileen Stein]

Your analogy makes a lot of sense. Although I think it's a bit more of a complex situation than that. In your example, you'd be sending the puppy and owner into a situation that would be directly detrimental to them.

 

I didn't mean it to read that way. I meant it to say that because Jane would be there with the dog for these lessons she could keep her dog from harm, while getting the benefits of the training. The trainer would humor her and not use those punishments on her dog. It is the trainer's own dogs, and the dogs of others who aren't present or not confident enough to protect them, or whom he convinces that this is a necessary part of training, who are being hurt. Just as in the AKC situation, you can ensure that your own individual experience within AKC is not harmful to your dog -- is actually great fun for you and your dog -- but you cannot change the fact that AKC does a lot of harm to dogs in general.

 

Okay, devil's advocate time: Go take a look around AKC's website. Apparently they do a lot of GOOD things (at least according to the website, I'm not making any claims as to how true any of it may be). They fund scholarships to vet schools, and fund canine health research, and fight anti-dog and breed-specific legislation. They offer a companion animal recovery service. I thought at one point they were offering canine health insurance as well although I don't see that on there now. And they provide obedience trials, canine good citizen tests, agility, lure coursing, hunting tests and trials, etc, all activities that encourage owners to train their dogs and do things with them. AKC clubs put on events that fund the clubs and allow them to be in a financial situation to continue offering classes that benefit the dog owning community in their area (even if some of those people never register or trial AKC).

 

Yes, they do put their best foot forward on their website. So do most puppy millers. Probably if we looked at the Hunte Corporation website it would make them look pretty good too. I could supply some facts -- accurate facts -- about some of those puppy millers that would put them in a positive light, but they don't come close to outweighing the bad side.

 

Now I'm not saying any of that justifies supporting puppy mills or empowering a conformation system that ruins dog breeds. But what it does is muddy the waters enough that when someone with roots in AKC hears a working dog person say 'AKC is all bad and evil' they think of all these good things and their first reaction is to dismiss the working dog person as an extremist who doesn't have their facts straight. It also leads to some who can split hairs and say maybe AKC is okay as long as you don't participate in the breed ring, because only their breed ring activity is bad for dogs. Or AKC is okay as long as you aren't a breeder, because then you aren't doing anything to influence the direction a breed will develop. Or maybe even it's okay to breed in AKC as long as you know you're doing it for the right reasons, because it's all those OTHER people ruining the breed by breeding for the wrong thing and of course you have to counteract that by breeding some good dogs. Most people will not want to just throw out the whole organization, but will rationalize their role in it.

 

No kidding!

 

Maybe this would be something good for ABCA to do as an educational effort - update their current page that has border collie history and the AKC wars with a link to some pages detailing out a lot of these things. I know the site has some information already, but I'm thinking specific facts and examples. Also the current information puts such a focus on the anti-breed ring perspective that it leaves a loop hole for non-conformation owners to think it doesn't apply to them. It would need to go beyond just saying 'AKC is bad because it supports puppy mills' or 'AKC is bad because it facilitates breeding for appearance'. I'm thinking of some of the details like Terrierman has put on his website, SPECIFIC things AKC has done to support puppy mills, and things like how they fought the registration of cross bred dalmatians, and the pictures of how the breed ring has changed the shape of the head of certain breeds - the sorts of things that make people have that 'aha' moment about what's really going on, and makes it harder to dismiss, and more importantly shows them that the ABCA people with these 'extreme' views have good sound reasons for their opinions and it isn't just an emotional reaction to 'they stole our breed'. . . . Maybe some video links to working dog clips would help too - show them what ABCA wants to protect. Cite statistics for how many people still use border collies as a real working farm hand and how their role as a stockdog isn't something that 'we don't need these days' (I have heard that one before too, "why bother, no one needs a working dog anymore").

 

Those are certainly good suggestions. It would be great to update and improve those pages. I think the one you're referring to as focusing on conformation -- which is actually on the USBCC site -- is that way because it was originally written so long ago, when sport breeders could be counted on the fingers of one hand, barely a cloud on the horizon. You wouldn't like to take that on, would you? You've obviously given it thought, and you express the issues well. And the more different ways these things are said, and in the more different styles, from hardline to soft, the better IMO. I think a lot of the things you mention here, including facts and examples, have been said a few times in threads on these Boards in the last 10+ years -- in both hardline and soft form -- and I had hopes that they would reach more people because there are more hits here and more people engaged by the discussion, but of course to have them laid out on the web pages would be good too. Better, probably, because less evanescent, and repeating the same positions again and again tends to lead to impatient shorthand. Certainly I recognize the need to improve communication and outreach on these issues in many ways, and others do too, but what gets accomplished always seems to fall short of what we can see would be good to do.

 

I actually had someone tell me that once, that ABCA is just mad at AKC because they stole the border collie and dumped ABCA as the parent club, so now they make up stuff to put down AKC just to get back at them.

 

You've only heard that once? Actually, I think it's USBCC that mostly gets said about. When it comes to ABCA, it's more often that they're mad because AKC is competition, and now AKC will get some of the registration money that otherwise would go to ABCA. Do you think that can be countered with facts? There's a letter from the AKC inviting the USBCC to apply to be the parent club, and USBCC wouldn't do it because they opposed recognition. It's mentioned on the USBCC history page that you refer to and I think it's in Donald's book, but if a copy of the letter were on that history page, do you think it would stop people saying that? I guess I don't. But I've probably been around too long, and burnout comes to us all eventually.

 

Anyway, good suggestions. Maybe we can get them implemented.

[KnottyClarence]

I think this thread and Politics and Culture are about to intersect in a good way today. Politics and Culture has some good outreach suggestions on it right now, and outreach is really the answer to all of our concerns.

 

We have to be ever determined to provide good information and opportunities for seeing good dog work in every appropriate venue available. (So if you see an opportunity to educate people about or demonstrate good dog work take it).

 

I came to my current situation, on thirty acres with 90 sheep and five border collies, through a narrow portal of a bored rescue border collie and an AKC obedience class. There are others who will want to come through too, and work with this breed in its originally intended manner, if they can just find out about it.

 

One venue not emphasized enough is the local food movement. Just the presence of a well trained dog helps people make the links between grass, open space, livestock and where their food comes from. We have to make sure people can see these things.

 

 

My previous life in s suburb, pre rescue border collie, has given me several opportunities per year for demonstrating this activity to former suburban neighbors, all to a positive, very impressed result. Little and big things--let's do as many as we can.

[Heather]

If anyone wants to help by writing an updated piece for the politics section of this web site, it would be greatly appreciated. I've just posted a general call for articles for this site in the General forum:

 

http://www.bordercollie.org/boards/index.php?showtopic=32037

 

Think about it! It's very hard to keep content on a web site fresh, accurate, and engaging, and any help to that end would be a service to the breed. Don't save all of your best thoughts for posts. Let's talk about writing some articles and getting some good content up in the Politics section of this site!

[jdarling]

I had an idea to go on to the BCSA website to see what type of "educational" information they have out there to maybe come up with an idea for something for the website when I noticed their minutes had been updated since their "Nationals." This was interesting:

 

HERDING CHAMPIONSHIP EVENT & OTHER EVENTS

 

- Claudia Frank talked to Carol Delsman (AKC Rep) at the recent ASSA National at Purina Farms. She had many suggestions for a Herding Championship event that could be done in the formats now approved by the AKC.

- She also suggested that we have a special type of event at the National that would be similar to the Invitationals for Obedience & Agility. One was to take the top ten scorers in specific courses and add them together to be the competitors in a finals round for a championship title of some sort.

- I do believe that the BCSA needs to do more things to encourage HIGHER levels of competency in BCs and not just ones that can pass and get titles. In past years if it WAS a Border Collie it was a good working stockdog. However, now days if you need a good working stockdog you need to research the bloodlines carefully for their working abilities as a huge percentage of BCs are now NOT bred for working and/or are bred from less than quality workers. This fact is turning our breed into just another breed of dog rather than the premier stockdog as it was intended!!

- IF THE BOARD would like to pursue something of the above please give me the amount of time that would be devoted to it and the amount of funds that would be available to use.

(emphasis added)

 

Yet ... a little further down ... it talks about the Stockdog Distinction award.

 

SOD & SOD-X

The BCSA Board has discontinued the $100 gift certificate to Border Collies in Action for the SOD or SOD-X awards. The Herding Committee’s position is that this award is the most important award the BCSA provides and as such should have high recognition compared to other awards. Other breeds can do agility, obedience, etc but only BCs are the paramount stockdog.

 

What a mess.

 

I am still interested to see where the registration numbers are at. The annual AKC registration numbers used to be published up until about 4 years ago, and despite my best efforts, I was not able to obtain the numbers for the recent years because the AKC is afraid that someone might do something sinister with the information, I guess. I would love to find out how many Border Collies are being registered with the AKC and how many are being registered with the ABCA annually and to be able to see if the numbers have gone up or down for each organization for the last few years. It would give a bit of insight as to what is going on with the breed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Journey]

Actually Jodi the number being registered through *open registration* would be more enlightening as that would be *new bloodlines* vs lineage already in for the most part.