The direction of the BCSA

[terrecar]

Thanks North, for clarifying.

 

I'll keep my limited government with a side of crossbreed registries. As silly as I think they are, I don't support legislating the dumbass out of potential buyers. That laissez faire thing.

 

Having said that, I do think it is important to educate the public re: the detrimental affect of the breed ring--and the registries that support it--on the Border Collie.

 

Sadly, it seems to me the working breeders have lost the most important battle.

 

ETA: Err.. sorry to be diverging from the original topic

[terrecar]

I was actually wondering if these changes might be because so much is being lost in the look (and everything else) of the conformation bred Border Collie. I guess conformation folks don't see it that way, but that would make sense to me from my perspective.

 

That's why I was curious as to what the exact changes are possibly being proposed.

 

 

You know, my knee-jerk reaction would be to say the conformation breeders don't see it that way. But then I could swear that the revision in 2004 had to do with "tweaking" the standard so it would be more in line with the working aspects of the breed. Of course, to you and me, the entire paradigm is flawed, but I don't see that changing. Still, I wonder if the conformation folks didn't take some of the "barbie collie" criticism to heart and try to do some sort of damage control. This is speculation of course, and also contingent on whether or not my memory is accurate and the change had to do with conforming to a 'working standard'.

 

It would be interesting to look into the 2004 changes more fully.

[juliepoudrier]

The standard is (was?) broadly written I think in an attempt to accommodate the body styles, various ear sets, etc., that are seen in working dogs. But the de facto standard is created by what is put up at shows, and we all know that what wins at shows is a very specific look. They may as well change the standard to match what judges seem to consider the ideal border collie; it's what folks are breeding to anyway. The old standard was just lip service....

 

J.

[terrecar]

The standard is (was?) broadly written I think in an attempt to accommodate the body styles, various ear sets, etc., that are seen in working dogs. But the de facto standard is created by what is put up at shows, and we all know that what wins at shows is a very specific look. They may as well change the standard to match what judges seem to consider the ideal border collie; it's what folks are breeding to anyway. The old standard was just lip service....

 

J.

 

One has only to look at what is being put up--again, the carbon copies--to see that this is a fair assessment.

[Eileen Stein]

Hi Ya'll...came to my attention that BCSA(Border collie society of America) aka "parent club" for the AKC, is currently in the work to change the "standard" for breed showing that has been standing since the breed got inducted I believe?? Please correct me if I'm wrong...

 

I don't know of any move currently to change the AKC standard for the Border Collie. There may be such a move afoot, but if so, I'm not aware of it and would be (mildly) interested in what information you have about it. The first Border Collie standard was adopted by the AKC itself before a parent club was even chosen. IIRC, the BCSA made some changes right after it was selected as parent club, and the standard was changed again a few years ago (was it really as long ago as 2004? -- time sure flies) at the instigation of the BCSA, mainly to try to change the height/length ratio of the dogs being put up so that they would not be so comically short-legged in relation to their length. Looking at the pictures of new champions, that has perhaps had a slight effect, but as Julie notes, the fashions of the show ring have a lot more influence on what's put up than the details of the standard do, and any change resulting from the new standard has been minimal and certainly had no effect on working ability.

 

Also correct me if I'm wrong, but I know of at least 2 working bred border collie people who were at least somewhat influencial in writing the original standard..TRYING to write it to reflect conformation that would be suitable to a working dog and if anybody has read the original standard..it's pretty vague compared to most breed standards, alot is open to interpretation than usual in my opinion.

 

I don't know of any working border collie people who were influential in writing the original standard. If there were such people, they were very misguided in my opinion, since the problem with conformation showing of border collies is not the details of any particular standard but the whole notion of judging dogs based on their appearance. If the conformation standard described Wiston Cap to a T, that would not mean that choosing according to such a standard was good for the working dog. The BCSA itself, which was largely led by performance/sport folks (which meant obedience back at the beginning because agility was in its infancy then), strongly advocated for a vague standard early on, failing to realize that a vague standard allowed full rein to the fancy's fancy in determining show ring results. The recent revision was a well-intentioned, ineffectual attempt to correct that.

 

ETA: I just realized that you may be speaking of people who were not serious working dog people at the time of the original BCSA standard, but have since then become working dog people. Yes, that's probably accurate. I know of a few people who would fit that description, and I always wondered why they continued to stick around in the BCSA and why they would concern themselves with the AKC standard. It's nice if some of them are not going to continue doing that.

 

Long time USBCHA open trainers/handlers have trickled down with there involvement in "TRYING" to make a difference with decisions within the club...all but maybe 1 or 2 remain..and I know another long standing USBCHA open handler who will be leaving the club finally after many years....

 

More and more "Breed people" or sport people have taken over the club....and there decisions are reflecting that...arguing over things like the "stockdog of destinction" award and the fact that the dog should not have to trial in USBCHA/ISDS trials in order to get the award, etc..

 

What you're writing here gives the impression (to me, at least) that long-time USBCHA open trainers/handlers were numerous and influential in the early days of the BCSA, and are only now giving way to breed people and/or sport people. This is not the case. Sport/performance people who paid lip service to maintaining working ability in the breed have been the overriding influence in the BCSA from the beginning. This was frustrating to the breed people all along, and many of them would have nothing to do with the club. It has become frustrating to those relatively few sport/performance people who, over time, have moved into USBCHA open competition and begun to see how hopeless it is to expect anything good for the Border Collie within the AKC. I do notice a few more "breed people" names in leadership positions in the club, and that may represent an incipient trend toward a takeover by the breed folks -- one that I thought would have happened long ago. But there has been no trend toward sport people taking over the club, simply because they were the dominant force all along. The sport people in leadership roles now may not pay as much lip service to maintaining working ability as they formerly did, but that too was a predictable evolution.

 

I personaly think this gradual shift in the BCSA to conformation "sporter" collies is not a bad thing...even more seperate from our working border collies..the breed will split even more exteremly over time..

 

I agree that the bigger the split, the better.

 

However, I do worry about trying to reach people new to the breed, and what the general public will see as a "border collie" due to the gradual exctinction of the true working border collie in the largest and most popular breed registry in the nation..

 

Yup, that's a good reason for worry. It was inevitable, foreseeable, and one of the main reasons so many of us fought so hard against AKC recognition.