Red Dirt Border Collie Ranch

[GentleLake]

This is a bit vague as to whether or not a dog that does not look like a sheepdog (i.e. poodle) but works like a sheepdog would be accepted.

 

This part, from the link you provided, isn't vague:

 

• The dog that is the subject of the ROM must be a Working Sheepdog (or Border Collie), over two years old and have a clear ophthalmic certificate for the eye diseases CEA and PRA (CPRA) and must additionally have a DNA blood test result from Optigen for CEA/CH showing a Normal or Carrier result (Inherited DNA results are not accepted). The Vet Submission form will also need to be submitted.

Interesting that they use foremost the term "Working Sheepdog" as a proper noun.

That's good enough for me! I think we should rename our breed Working Sheepdogs the world over.

Bring on the AWSA!

[Liz P]

And with the wide availability of camera phones and other ways to record video, bring on a working requirement to be able to register pups out of a cross!

[cwb3]

I'll repeat a story I told on a prior thread like this.

I have 2 dogs, one a border collie named Cowboy, the other (Birdie) a rescue mix. A blend of hound, terrier, pinsher, perhaps some border collie.

 

Had them in crates in my wagon one day while stopping a our local country store.

 

A girl about 10 y/o gets out of a truck with her dad and is looking at my two dogs thru the window.

As I walk up to the car, she points to Birdie and asks what kind of dog she is. . .I go on to explain the she was a rescue and what I thought her mix of breeds might be based on observations.

 

I then point to Cowboy and ask her if she knows what kind of dog he is.

 

She smiles and says: "Of course, he is a sheepdog!"

[Crawford Dogs]

Funnily enough I was raised with Border Collies although they weren't called such. We had BC's and BC mixes but they were all just called collies. In one foster home I stayed at they had working border collies (farm) but again we just called them collies. As an adult I call my Border Collies "collie dogs."

 

Bethany

[TEC]

When my little Border Collie was a just over a year old, and we were already getting stockwork training, I took her to a series of classes at a United Kennel Club affiliated dog club, as I recall, for additional obedience and socialization. I had been supplementing my dog's stock training with my own off-stock yard work (yard work probably not as good an idea now as I thought it was then). I mentioned it to the instructor, and she asked me to demonstrate for the class. Not having an inkling of the politics of border collies, I prefaced my little demo with something like, "...and here are a few things my working Border Collie can do". I ran her through her paces, and she did well. Afterward, one of the instructors took me aside, and with a serious look on her face (no "thankyou" or "good job"), stated that, "All the dogs here are 'working' dogs." I looked around the room and saw none. I just put the whole thing into my no-good-deed-goes-unpunished file. To this day I am not sure what she was trying to tell me, but fairly sure I had somehow troubled that particular lady. I don't think she knew what the term meant, and sounds like from the above posts that "working" has become almost meaningless. "Border Collie" says it all, so make the pretenders modify their names.

 

Living in eastern Oregon, which in 1952 had strong sheep raising roots, a relative brought home a black and white dog he called a Border Collie. Everybody in the house was impressed. Said he was going to join OSDS (Oregon Sheep Dog Society), founded in 1938, and is currently believed to be the oldest existing such organization in the US.

 

I believe that giving away the name "Border Collie" to some group who has no knowledge or concern for its heritage and importance to the economy of UK and the US, would be akin to Jeep letting Ford hi-jack its name without a fight (I've got two Fords, so no apologies to Ford owners ). Jeep would would never let that happen. "Border Collie" is a brand that has to be protected. -- TEC

[TEC]

The ISDS was formed in 1906 for the purpose of securing better management of sheep and improving the shepherd's dog. It was formed, in part, in response to concern for the direction the dog was going in existing show clubs. A Google N-gram case insensitive search, smoothing set at 10, reveals that the term "Border Collie" begins to show up significantly in Google's list of books about 1925 (first mention of the term is 1880). I would think a good case could be made that the name "Border Collie" was promoted by James Reid, Secretary of ISDS, starting about 1915, when he is known to have used the term, to make a clean break from the show dog version. Perhaps dog historians will know whether Mr. Reid simply popularized a term that had been in use previously. Mind you, social media and the internet in that era were not available to broadcast information word-wide in a matter of seconds. Travel was limited. There may have been pockets of countryside that utilized various terms for the same breed.

 

Puts a bad taste in my mouth to think about our dog's name being changed a second time because of ill-considered breeding practices of certain groups. I'll repeat, protect the brand. -- TEC

[Root Beer]

. . . I don't think she knew what the term meant, and sounds like from the above posts that "working" has become almost meaningless. "Border Collie" says it all, so make the pretenders modify their names.

 

How, exactly, do you (not "you" personally) propose to "make" a population that has absolutely no desire to do so change the breed name of their dogs?

 

I know that might sound sarcastic, but I'm serious. I hear this over and over - the idea that a name change would mean that those who are breeding Border Collies for purposes other than stockwork would somehow be compelled to change the name.

 

By whose authority, exactly, does anyone really propose to do that?

 

I really do believe that the only way there would ever be an official split would be for Border Collies to be regarded as "types" in the way Retrievers are. People speak of field bred Labs and show bred Labs, for example. Both Labs, but different types. Goldens, too. Speaking in terms of working Border Collies, performance Border Collies, and show Border Collies would make the point that there is a difference based on the intent in breeding. And then it can still be said, "yaslfakjasl Border Collies aren't really Border Collies", while avoiding the issue of trying to "make" people stop calling their dogs by their official breed name (or - in the case of a rescue - possibly, best guess breed name).

 

But insisting that others drop "Border Collie". Again - how exactly would people be compelled to do that?

 

Along the lines of what Gloria said, it will be a cold day in you-know-where before I stop acknowledging my dogs as Border Collies (the ones who are - obviously, my mutt is a mutt). That just is what it is. Using myself as a handy example, I just don't see how anyone can expect that people would be "made" to call their dogs by some other breed name.

[TEC]

1) Political persuasion. Who benefits the most from dual ABCA-AKC registrations? Who knows, maybe it's equal benefit. But the thought of disallowing future (why not retroactive?) dual regs may encourage AKC to put some kind of modifier into the names of their version of the BC.

 

2) Is DNA sophisticated enough to suss-out stockwork genes? If so, AKC may be registering dogs that are not entitled in any way to be called the Border Collie derived from Old Hemp and Spot 308. They may have changed so much as to be an entirely new/different breed. Has legal action ever been successful in such a scenario? Hope so.

 

My point is keep the pressure on and don't give-in. Dog show organizations will try to take valuable genes and respected names, and change the dogs to suit their own purposes. Don't make it easy for them. -- TEC

[GentleLake]

"Border Collie" says it all, so make the pretenders modify their names.

 

That was already attempted . . . without success.

 

When the ACK railroaded recognized border collies over the objection of the USBCC, AIBC, and I'm pretty sure NASDS, and the newly formed ABCA, and we'd finally realized we didn't have enough money to fight them in court, we asked them to change the name of the dog they were going to show. They refused declined.

 

There's no way to "make" them stop doing this. The brand has already been co-opted, like Kleenex, Google, and the like. The only way to make a name change happen would be if the working sheepdog folks were to do it. It would be an unfortunate loss of tradition, but it would be the only way.

[GentleLake]

1) Political persuasion. Who benefits the most from dual ABCA-AKC registrations? Who knows, maybe it's equal benefit. But the thought of disallowing future (why not retroactive?) dual regs may encourage AKC to put some kind of modifier into the names of their version of the BC.

 

I sincerely doubt that ABCA has the resources to ferret out dogs that are dual registered. So as long as the ACK stud book remains open, there's going to continue to be theft of the pedigrees of working lines.

 

I wonder if there's some way to copyright pedigree information? I'm sure there'd still be an issue of how to police and enforce it.

[Root Beer]

1) Political persuasion. Who benefits the most from dual ABCA-AKC registrations? Who knows, maybe it's equal benefit. But the thought of disallowing future (why not retroactive?) dual regs may encourage AKC to put some kind of modifier into the names of their version of the BC.

 

People who are dyed in the wool AKC people don't care if they can't dual register. As long as AKC recognizes ABCA dogs, AKC breeders will go to ABCA registered dogs to integrate, or reintegrate, working lines into their breeding programs. They just want AKC registration.

 

 

2) Is DNA sophisticated enough to suss-out the stockwork genes? If so, AKC may be registering dogs that are not entitled in any way to be called the Border Collie derived from Old Hemp and Spot 308. They may be an entirely new/different breed. Has legal action ever been successful in such a scenario? Hope so.

Do you realize how much infrastructure that kind of investigation would require? Who is going to pay for all of that? And there is no way to "make" AKC folks submit to such testing. Breeders and buyers who don't want to just won't.

And I seriously doubt there are legal grounds to restrict the use of the name "Border Collie" to dogs that are proven through DNA testing to derive from Old Hemp and Spot 308. Again, who is going to police such a thing? And even if a fully financed "Border Collie Purity Police Force" were to suddenly spring up out of nowhere, they would not have the jurisdiction to force Border Collie owners to "prove it" or stop saying "Border Collie" in reference to their dogs.

I know this might sound like I am defending non-working breeding. I'm not. I just still don't see how people who call their dogs "Border Collies" who are not, or are not known to be, purpose bred for stockwork can be "made" to call them something else.

I concur with Gentle Lake on the matter:

There's no way to "make" them stop doing this. The brand has already been co-opted, like Kleenex, Google, and the like. The only way to make a name change happen would be if the working sheepdog folks were to do it.

I don't think the working sheepdog folks should change the name, but if there is going to be a name change, that is where it would have to be.

[GentleLake]

The thing I like about "working sheepdog" is that it's probably older that the term "Border Collie." So it's at least as authentic a moniker.

 

The most historically accurate name would, of course, just be "collie," but the conformation folks stole that one a very long time ago, which is what got us started with this name change fiasco in the first place.

[TEC]

How did the name get diluted, if that is the case? Koolaid is still Koolaid, and people get letters from attorneys if they try to infringe on it. And I'll bet Kleenex won't let me sell tissues under that name. Some words have taken-on a generic meaning, but that doesn't necessarily mean the trademark has lapsed. I can say toss me the frisbee that is marked "Doggy-Disk", but hardly think I can manufacture and sell one branded Frisbee.

 

Can somebody rightfully set-up a new registry, accepting any paperwork, and thereby be justified in calling the registered dog "Pomeranian", for instance. That can't be lawful.

 

I don't like arguments based on current technology and resources. They are hollow. Right prevails.

 

Those who do the right thing will carry the day over those who merely do things right (follow rules as currently enforced, however messed-up they may be, based on technology/resources that may change tomorrow). -- TEC

[GentleLake]

Koolaid is still Koolaid, and people get letters from attorneys if they try to infringe on it. And I'll bet Kleenex won't let me sell tissues under that name. Some words have taken-on a generic meaning, but that doesn't necessarily mean the trademark has lapsed. I can say toss me the frisbee that is marked "Doggy-Disk", but hardly think I can manufacture and sell one branded like that.

 

Actually, you could manufacture and sell a flying disk called "Doggy-Disk" as long as no one else hols the trademark on that name and as long as it's slightly different from the original Frisbee. And if you trademark the name, no one else will be able to use it. There are dozens of other brands of disks on the market today, most, if not all, of them post-date the original Frisbee.

 

You may not be able to sell an item that has the same name as a currently trademarked product, but that's not the same thing as the trademarked name generically in common usage.

 

Has the name "border collie" been trademarked? If it has (and I sincerely doubt that it has. If so, by whom?), then no one other than the trademark holder could sell a Border Collie.

 

I wonder if a name that's already as well established in common usage as "border collie" is can be trademarked at all. It would be an interesting question to pose to a trademark attorney.

[TEC]

Actually, you could manufacture and sell a flying disk called "Doggy-Disk" as long as no one else hols the trademark on that name and as long as it's slightly different from the original Frisbee...

You are correct, IMO, and I cleared-up my original intent. I meant to say that a person can't manufacture and sell a disk branded "Frisbee". So much for clarity .

 

Unfortunately, I do not believe a breed can be copyrighted or trademarked. I've heard some inroads have been made into protecting engineered DNA via patents, but I could be wrong.

 

I would think general sales law would apply to misrepresenting a dog as one breed, when it in fact it is a separate breed, as shown by DNA technology. -- TEC

[urge to herd]

The differences between between brands such as Kleenex, Koolaid, etc and the term 'border collie', are:

1)Kimberlee Clark, General Mills, (I think KoolAid is theirs) 'invented' those names for the products they developed. There was no word for disposable tissue, Kimberlee Clark made up. Same w/CocaCola, VicksVapoRub, and on and on. The word 'collie' or term 'border collie' has been in common usage for a while

 

Corporations enforce their trademarks because it means big bucks to them. The US gov. provides the bureaucracy to support trademarking, patenting, etc, because it helps in product safety, and means big bucks to the gov. in tax terms.

 

You could try, through the Trademarks and Patents Office, to trademark the term 'border collie' and 'own' it, but it's not an easy process. I don't know if it would be possible at all, as it has been in common usage for a while. GentleLake, get out your checkbook - trademark/patent attorneys are not cheap.

 

It's also expensive. I looked into trademarking for a business project, and while patenting is more expensive, trademarking isn't cheap. And then there's the enforcement and litigation. More bucks.

 

To copyright something is inexpensive, but it would be a stretch to say that a pedigree is anything other than a list of dogs's names. I'll go look it up and report back. And again, enforcement/litigation, lawyers, etc. More bucks.

[urge to herd]

Ahhh, you guys already know most of what I posted! Dang.

[GentleLake]

This discussion's moot, anyway, an intellectual exercise at best, 'cause ain't none of this ever gonna happen.

 

There's not enough cohesiveness and cooperative effort among border collie folks, even working border collie folks. That was our downfall in the '80s. Heck, we couldn't even manage to have only one registry at the time. I think the Dog Wars debacle may have brought us together more than anything previously, but it was too little too late to be effective against the ACK machine.

[Pam Wolf]

Fact is we do need to stop the sport hybrids from entering the working registry. close it . I work with some sport bred dogs, I cannot in all honestly call these dogs Border Collies (unless I am talking bout the AKC ones and even then some of these dogs do not measure up to their working standards!). These people love their dogs, they enjoy doing dog sports with their dogs, they sell dogs as 'working' dogs--therein lies the rub, these dogs CANNOT work stock! These dogs come from 'working lines" Oh yeah, the breeders own stock, run them in AKC (and sometimes low level USBCHA style trials) so their dogs are 'working" right? Perhaps we need to a: change the name for clarity and b: start requiring at least a video of dogs working stock before registering the offspring as full working Border Collies.

Yes, there is not guarantee that the AKC will usurp the name down the road-but a trademark on the name might be protection here. And Yes, a video is not a guarantee (I do like the idea of a tiered registry) of working ability, but it is a heck of a lot better than the current method (breeder honesty). I foresee such a system pushing out many of the pet bred and colour bred dogs and in the long run keeping the sport bred dogs out or to a minimum, thus increasing the odds that purchasing a working dog would mean a dog that can work livestock.

[Smalahundur]

I mentioned it to the instructor, and she asked me to demonstrate for the class. Not having an inkling of the politics of border collies, I prefaced my little demo with something like, "...and here are a few things my working Border Collie can do". I ran her through her paces, and she did well. Afterward, one of the instructors took me aside, and with a serious look on her face (no "thankyou" or "good job"), stated that, "All the dogs here are 'working' dogs."

You should have asked her to demonstrate that. The proof is as always in the pudding...

[Sue R]

Here's another case of people (or a group of people or people in an organization) pre-empting the use of a word. I find that many people who have show animals, performance animals, and even pet animals, consider them to be "working" animals - because they do *something*. I suppose that's in contrast to those with dogs out on chains or in kennels in the backyard, whose owners do *nothing* with them.

 

An example, not about a dog but about a horse - I was at a meeting at a Quarter Horse farm. The matriarch of the family had a stallion that she showed in halter classes. She proudly told everyone that her horse was an "athlete" and that being shown in halter class constituted his "performance" sport. He was stall-kept (to preserve his coat, etc.), fed to the point of obesity (like many show animals of a variety of species are), and only hand-walked or mechanically-walked.

 

So, if that horse qualified as an "athlete" in a "sport", and that was his "work", it is easy to see how many dog people consider their dog that is shown or performs in sport events, as a "working" animal. It's a case of a word being misused and pre-empted. It is saying that if your dog does *anything*, then it's a "working" dog. I can say that there are many things that I do but they certainly don't all qualify as "work".

 

When I tell people that my dogs are "working Border Collies", I also add that we have cattle and use the dogs in our farm work helping us manage the livestock. And when I see someone that I'd rather not share what breed my dogs are, I just say they are "sheepdogs" and I keep moving on.

[GentleLake]

Yeah, another sticky wicket.

 

Bodhi has a job; he's a registered therapy dog. Therefore, he works.

 

Is he a working border collie? Not on your life. (He's a rescue I suspect came form a color breeder, perhaps even a puppy mill. Unlikely he came from working parents.)

 

And I do like to tell people about the difference . . . .

[juliepoudrier]

Karen, FWIW I don't think red or red tri, being recessive and carried by some very well-known working dogs, in and of themselves strictly denote candy color breeding. Yes, color breeders deliberately breed for red and red tri, but they also breed blue merles, red merles, sable merle, lilac, aussie red, blue, etc.

 

A fellow owner of red and red tri working dogs....

 

J.

[Root Beer]

 

So, if that horse qualified as an "athlete" in a "sport", and that was his "work", it is easy to see how many dog people consider their dog that is shown or performs in sport events, as a "working" animal. It's a case of a word being misused and pre-empted. It is saying that if your dog does *anything*, then it's a "working" dog. I can say that there are many things that I do but they certainly don't all qualify as "work".

 

I consider an animal who is an athlete in a sport to be a "working" animal in a sense. Maybe because I know firsthand the work that goes into even being halfway decent at it, even if that particular "work" is an on-the-side endeavor for the trainer/handler. When I take something seriously and strive to accomplish it in a structured and disciplined manner, I consider it work.

 

You talk of the word being pre-empted, but the word is used in a much broader sense in everyday life. I consider housework to be "work". And, believe me, both my dogs and I put a lot more work into training and sport preparation than I put into housework. My career-work is every shred as much "work" as the work that the dairy farmer across the street does. In general usage, the term "work" does not designate farm work alone. Therefore, I maintain that the word can be used in a much broader sense with dogs.

 

That said, yes, "stockwork" is a particular sort of work. I don't call my performance dogs "working Border Collies" because I recognize that term as meaning that the dog does stockwork, even though one of them is actually known to be a working-bred Border Collie. Still, I do speak of our work, of our working partnership, my dog's work ethic, and working my dogs (which for me would mean structured training or conditioning or rehearsal, etc.).

 

It makes as much sense to me to claim that the word cannot be used outside of a stockwork context about as much as it would make sense for me to claim that only teachers who work with teenagers work and that teaching is the only "real" work there is and that anybody else who uses that word in another sense is pre-empting it or using it in a way that is misleading.

 

And while I would not say that a Border Collie who does not work stock is a "working Border Collie", I have no qualms whatsoever with anyone saying, "my Border Collie works" in a sport, therapy, service, etc. context. It most certainly can be work of a different sort, just as farmers, teachers, doctors, professional musicians, truck drivers, writers, etc. engage in very different kinds of work that all fall, legitimately, under the term "work".

[Sue R]

I consider a dog that is actively engaged with their handler to have a job, a purpose, a whatever. I see nothing amiss with saying you are working with your dog or that it's hard work to accomplish what you are doing. But I personally won't say that every dog that does something is a working dog (as the one trainer did as describwd above). That's not how I use the word. You can use it however you choose. I don't intend to get into an endless war over words as has often happenwd here before.