The working gene pool

[Guest C Denise Wall]

In the "AKC" thread, Bill Fosher wrote:

 

"If people like C. Denise Wall are satisfied that the gene pool would remain sufficiently diverse, I am satisfied."

 

For the record I would like to state that I am not satisfied. I don't know if anyone else is lying awake at night trying to go through every possible scenario in this ABCA/AKC situation and the potential long-term effects on the gene pool but I am. These are not easy things to sort through but I'm thinking on it. When I get to a point where I can present the pertinent information to someone with more insight into population genetics than me then I will do it. I welcome any input in my quest for information. It is most important that any decision made be the right one. The best chance for the right one will come from accurate information and thought for the future.

 

Here's some food for thought:

 

Herding traits have very complex inheritance and expression patterns. They also encompass many areas such as structural, temperamental, instinctual and mental characteristics, which combine to form the top quality herding dog. This complexity makes it difficult to predict the outcome and success of various crosses, even by those with a lifetime of experience. The probability of maintaining the high level of working ability in the Border Collie in different situations cannot really be compared to other types of working dogs since heritability patterns for the various types of work differ from breed to breed and types of work to types of work.

 

It is not easy to breed a top level working Border Collie. Selection must be kept heavily on working ability to ensure high quality workers. You will never be able to maintain the high quality in a population (even though the occasional individual may be produced) if non-working criteria are used in selection. These are just basic laws of genetics folks. Period.

 

Here's a common idea expressed. "Let everyone else do their thing. It won't change how I breed my dogs. Good working dogs will always be bred by those who need them so there will always be good working dogs and we don't need to worry."

 

The problem with this line of thinking (which seems perfectly logical, BTW), is that if you go to most real working breeders and ask them if they can replace the top dogs in their kennel (same number and quality) in the next generation with the breeding dogs strictly in their kennel, they will almost all, upon thinking about it, say "no". From such discussions I've had with people, I would estimate 20-50% of the next generation of dogs of that same quality produced in that kennel will be produced by an outside dog bred to one of that person's dogs. Take a USBCHA National Champion dog, for example. Let's say he's a good producer. If the owner crosses that dog to three bitches in his kennel and ten outside bitches, he may get his next top trial dog from his kennel bitches but he is also very likely to get it as a stud pup from one of the outside bitches. Therefore, the quality of the outside bitches is having a significant impact on his next generation of worker and breeding prospect.

 

So the outside dogs that one breeds to are important. Sometimes these outside bitches (or dogs) are as good quality as the bitches in the breeder's kennel (which may or may not be good producers). Sometimes the outside bitches will be lower quality and produce lower quality. Occasionally, they will be lower quality themselves, but for whatever reason, produce high quality working and breeding pups. These last two categories of bitches are what I call the peripheral working gene pool, that is, dogs who themselves lack top working ability but who may or may not produce well.

 

The reason lower quality dogs from this peripheral gene pool can still produce top workers is because at this time they still have strong working genes in their make-up to pass on if the cross is right, even though they, themselves, do not express this level of ability. As the working genetics of the peripheral working gene pool is diluted by breeding for other characteristics, the percentage of top quality workers produced from these dogs will drop. Even if only ten percent of the top dogs are replaced in the next generation by pups from parents from the peripheral gene pool, the loss of this ten percent will shrink the top working gene pool each generation.

 

To help visualize one way I'm thinking about this, think of a dart board. Imagine the top quality working dogs as the center section of a circle and colored red. Now imagine the next level out as orange, to represent dogs with working ability, but of less quality than the red section ones. The next level would be yellow, or say, dogs that might pass an "instinct test", but would not be particularly useful in real work. The outside section of the circle would be white, or those lacking any herding instinct or ability.

 

Now, imagine the future dilution of red, orange and yellow (representing the dilution of working ability) in different scenarios such as dogs from each section being crossed back and forth in large numbers. You can increase the area of each section to represent increased numbers in that category. For example, the area of white section has undoubtedly increased over the past ten years as pet Border Collies are being bred en mass for pets. Decide for yourselves what color, section, or area size of section you think the majority of dogs such as conformation dogs, "other" sport dogs, AKC herding dogs, USBCHA trial dogs, farm dogs, etc., are in.

 

Given my hypothesis that successful replacement of the next generation depends not only on the dogs in the red center section, but also to some extent on the dogs in the orange section (and much less likely in the yellow section), then dilution or shrinking of the orange colored section will shrink the red section over time. Or start turning it orange on the outside bit by bit.

 

I hope to search out statistics and information to help flesh these situations out for my thinking about this. I welcome anyone to help me with my ideas or to construct their own scenario.

 

 

Denise

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by C Denise Wall (edited 10-20-2002).]

[Guest PrairieFire]

Very nice, Denise, even an old farmer can figure that out...with questions...

 

Ok, let me ask for clarification...

 

In the "orange pool" would be dogs that perhaps "throw good 'uns" without necessarily BEING good un's (a situation many of us are familiar with)?

 

And, therefore, it is THIS loss, NOT the loss of the "top quality" red dogs that is the major concern?

 

Well, that's wrong, a bit, because the red dogs WILL shrink, but BECAUSE of the lack of proper "orange" dogs?

 

So the loss of orange dogs will trigger the loss of red dogs?

 

As in "like produces like"?

 

So the major concern is, by your statements, the loss of the "orange" dogs?

 

Did that question make any sense?

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Bill,

 

>Ok, let me ask for clarification...

 

In the "orange pool" would be dogs that perhaps "throw good 'uns" without necessarily BEING good un's (a situation many of us are familiar with)?<

 

Yes. That's right. It is from this pool that the right cross sometimes brings out dogs (new red pool dogs) better than the parent(s).

 

>And, therefore, it is THIS loss, NOT the loss of the "top quality" red dogs that is the major concern?<

 

I originally set this up to address why "Good working dogs will always be bred by those who need them so there will always be good working dogs and we don't need to worry." is most likely flawed reasoning.

 

The outright immediate loss of top quality (red) dogs would definitely be a concern. However, I don't think that's the way it will happen.

 

 

>Well, that's wrong, a bit, because the red dogs WILL shrink, but BECAUSE of the lack of proper "orange" dogs?

 

So the loss of orange dogs will trigger the loss of red dogs?

 

So the major concern is, by your statements, the loss of the "orange" dogs?<

 

That's my point. The loss of or "yellowing" of the orange dogs. Even given that nothing changes in the breeding and selection of top workers. If, because of the difficulty in breeding and identifying top (red) dogs, that population must rely in some part on orange dogs to replace its (red's) number, then the quality of the orange dogs will eventually change the percent and/or color of the red.

 

This is a theory I've been thinking on for several years based on what I know and observe from the general working population.

As I said, I welcome any input to help prove or disprove my theory. If it's true, then it's easy to imagine how breeds lose their working ability over time despite a dedicated group of working breeders.

 

Denise

[Shoofly]

Denise wrote:

This is a theory I've been thinking on for several years based on what I know and observe from the general working population.

As I said, I welcome any input to help prove or disprove my theory. If it's true, then it's easy to imagine how breeds lose their working ability over time despite a dedicated group of working breeders.

 

Me: So do you think the solution is to do something like one of the bans (which still to me don't seem like they'd make a difference), or to make our working tests more difficult, ie to make trials more challenging and increase the quality of both red and orange dogs?

 

-Robin

[Guest PrairieFire]

Ok, I find that very interesting, Denise, thanks for the clarification.

 

As far as "anecdotal" evidence (along with a farmer's comments on breeding livestock for 50 some years...), it has been my belief that NO ONE BREEDING PROGRAM for sheep or cattle (we won't talk about a false start in goats) can continue to breed "good 'uns" without the occasional outcross, no matter how strong the foundation flock is...

 

And the quality of the outcross seems to NEED to be, in my humble opinion (no laughing please, I'm sensitive)a MUCH better animal than the current "commercial" flock (used only for want of a better term on my part - commercial denoting the foundation flock and the crosses that have come from within the flock).

 

Given too many animals for the outcross to cover, I first cover the foundation animals, then second generation the commercial animals.

 

Reasoning then follows that if the outcross stock pool is diluted or inadequate - then the first "failure to thrive" situation becomes the quality of the first generation outcrossed stock...the "orange stock"...with eventually, the loss through age, of the core foundation (red) flock - leaving primarily Orange stock because it never made it into the red circle...

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-18-2002).]

[vpwolf]

Bill,

I'm with ya here. I think eventhough there is alot to be said on breeding "red" to "Red" there is alot to say about breeding "red" to perhaps "orange". I think alot of the orange dogs are being bred to the yellow dogs and that is where we are loosing alot of the gene pool. These are the "pet" border collies.

Close monitoring and "culling" is very important where the "red" / "orange" is crossed, as in any cross. (culling=neuter/spay) I had a orange dog here for a few years and bred him a few times to a red dog my result everytime was red pups that worked well and the farmers were thrilled. I still get requests for working pups from that mating. Out of one of those red pup litters I kept back a pup, sold the orange dog (neutered)and am hoping that as the dog grows it will prove it's self worthy of the breed (better than orange). I used her in demo's this year and she showed wonderful promise with good balance/fetch ect... and such for a pup her age (6mo).

"For the record I would like to state that I am not satisfied."

Well for the record I'd like to say that breeding for a purpose rather than herding ability should give folks an "all night nightmare"! We do BC rescue and NIGHTMARE is the correct word.

The agility dogs are bred for speed and agileness. This in my experience translates to hyper idot with an obsessive "tweak". They are our "long termers" here because they have the attention span of a gnat. Who could herd with that? I could go on and on but that would be futile as you all get the idea I'm sure.

What I hear the most from folks is about the nightmare border collie that can't sit still and they unfortunatly identify it with the working BC. In my experience my working BC are able to think clearly, accuratly, be calm (on and off stock)yet have good energy to apply when needed. But then again any working BC should have these abilities along with a very long list of others needed to produce quality offspring.

I think alot of the responsibility falls to the breeder as to what is done with the pups. Are they letting intact pups who don't "cut the muster" go intact to homes? Or are they being responsible and requriing spay neuter before registration papers are surrendered? or spaying and neutering before sale? Why don't they require spay / neuter of all pups unless the "right" person is allowed to take an intact pup who is responsible enough to spay/neuter if the pup doesn't prove itsself?

"It is not easy to breed a top level working Border Collie. Selection must be kept heavily on working ability to ensure high quality workers. You will never be able to maintain the high quality in a population (even though the occasional individual may be produced) if non-working criteria are also used in selection. These are just common laws of genetics folks. Period."

I think that's where the responsibility of the breeder comes in. If a pup is sold that is "not worthy" why is it leaving intact? This is helping create the poor gene pool. NB papers atleast should accompany this sale or a contract and no reg. papers transfer names until the pup is proven spay/neutered! Or if the pup is old enough simply alter the dog before it leaves (yes this is an adventure of the pocketbook). Remember, your name is in the "grandparentage" and if that dog is bred to an "unworthy" dog your name IS in the backdrop of those then produced possibly unworthy dogs.

I see it this way. If there is a pup I consider unworthy to breed and I allow the sale of that dog intact.......the next crappy generation is MY fault! Hence adding to the diluted nightmare currently happening.

Yes Bill, I think the orange dogs that "produce good uns" are important to the breed along with many other considerations.

God, I hope I made some sense!

Denise, I am very intereseted in seeing those numbers.

Kris

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Robin,

 

>So do you think the solution is to do something like one of the bans (which still to me don't seem like they'd make a difference), or to make our working tests more difficult, ie to make trials more challenging and increase the quality of both red and orange dogs?<

 

I don't know what the answer is and I'm not keen on sharing my personal opinions on it here. I'm trying to open up a discussion along some different lines and hoping to get input from as many sources and perspectives as possible.

 

Denise

[Guest PrairieFire]

"or to make our working tests more difficult, ie to make trials more challenging and increase the quality of both red and orange dogs?"

 

Robin, pardon me if it sounds like I'm lecturing to you - I'm really not, just using your question as a springboard for my thoughts...

 

When one speaks of genetically improving something - I don't think that can be done by making physical tests more challenging, unless one subscribes to LaPlanckian (edit: LaMarck, duh) theory.

 

What one needs to do is to isolate, some how and some way, a specimen within the gene pool that is "superior" to the others within that gene pool - and then hope that specimen breeds at least true (if not better than true), especially since "herding" isn't actually coded in the genetic material...

 

And the arguments about "trialing" as a method to this get pretty hot and heavy - even without the benefit of a wee drap...

 

I guess one could argue that by making trialing more challenging, one could help to locate the "better" specimen...and I'm guessing that's what you're driving at...

 

But that essentially becomes a discussion of "trialing" and not genetics, if I'm not mistaken...doesn't it?

 

Denise's points, and I now find myself subscibing to them as much as a layman can, would seem to indicate a sort of "genetic twilight" - not only for the dogs, but for all animals and plants, I think.

 

At least without a "mutation" here and there...

 

So, Denise throw something at me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the gene pool need to be as large as possible - primarily because of the need for that "mutation"?

 

But that same gene pool, in order to statistically have a chance to "create" that mutation, needs to be as focused on "herding excellence" as much as possible...?

 

Which, I guess after thinking about it, makes the question a matter for statistics - but with a formula for which we have no absolutes...

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Shoofly]

I understand Denise, no problems! I probably didn't phrase that how i should have anyway. Didn't mean to put you on the spot.

 

I was kind of trying to look at it from another angle, maybe enlarging the red and orange but i don't know diddly about genetics so i'll leave it alone.

 

-Robin

[Britta]

Would more dogs being tested (especially from the orange pool) be of help?

ie somehow encouraging those who work their dogs, but don't trial them, to do so!

If more dogs can be tested, the genepool should 'grow' (those farm dogs as mentioned unless proven may otherwise only be bred to orange & yellow)

Is there anyway getting more of those who work dogs (not really thinking hobby herders, but all those whose dogs who can do farm chores) to test their dogs?

Britta

[Huntley's Mom]

Hey Y'all,

The last time I thought seriously about genetics was in eighth grade when I won the local science fair with my paper/project on Gregor Mendel and my little patch of sweet peas that I cross-pollinated, and observed the dominant and recessive gene expressions of color characteristics. Whew! I was reaching to remember that! What a nerd I was/am...

What about Natural Selection? Isn't that the most desirable way for dogs to be bred? And what does Natural Selection mean today when talking about the domesticated dog, where "we" control the selection, so to speak?

Denise, your Dart Board really helped me visualize the predicament the Shepherds are in. And yes, I will also admit to a sleepless night or two myself, thinking how I could help in some small way to preserve and improve the working Border Collie.

The differences seem to be so great in what a particular shepherd thinks constitutes a good dog. It seems that would be enough to insure a diverse gene pool. Do we really know what gene expressions constitute good breeding? And is that all there is? Just good breeding? The possible combinations are infinite, and never occur the same way twice, unless we are talking cloning, and that has it's own set of concerns.

Denise, I will admit that my undergraduate degree is a BA double major in psychology/mathematics and a minor in statistics. My graduate work is in biostatistics. You may pick my brain if you like about the numbers game, but I feel sure that you have access to many statisticians much more qualified than me. After all, I am not currently practicing biostat. I do remember that good science goes a long way in searching for the answers.

The more I hang out with you guys and the more I learn, the more I worry about y'all's way of life. It just doesn't seem right to me that all that might go by the wayside due to ignorance, pigheadedness, ego, whatever the curse might be.

Are the dogs in the white/yellow/orange areas really missing the right stuff? Or are they sleepers? Possible good breeders? Does the mapping of the dog genome answer any of those questions? Is there a clue there to help preserve the working Border Collie?

Humbly and with best regards,

Patti Jo

 

 

------------------

quote:

---

Patti & Wayne McAhren

2264 Fairway Drive

Mobile, AL 36606

USA

(251) 479-1777 (H)

Master Printing Company

(251) 476-6979 (W)

---

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Huntley's Mom (edited 10-18-2002).]

[vpwolf]

Britta,

Hi, the problem here would be the same as in all the other posts. Who would administer the test? Who would make up the test? and most of all what farmers would actually take time to take the test let alone pay the fee? Who would fund this endevour? If a video who's gonna watch them all? And some of those "orange pool dogs" ...... who's gonna decide? Some of them are only good as breeders not herders so who would say then? This is part of the issue.

And of course the farm dogs work but to what degree and who would decide what the dog was lacking by a test? How would it be determined if it was a lack of breeding or a lack of handling skill? Tests aren't as simple as they sound (as is the AKC insticnt test). Of which I must say the only dog I've seen failed from an insticnt AKC test is one who was chasing lightning instead of the sheep! Even then they gave that dog a "fair chance" and continued the session for a good ten minutes.....just incase......???? (now if that don't make ya cringe!). Also I don't know of the dogs that are on farms how many farmers can take time to travel two hours (or more) then stand all day at a trial waiting thier turn??? Trialing is a sport, farming to many who use the dog is a family income.

Robin,

I don't think the answer is in the "difficulty of the course" but in the manner in which the dog excecutes the manuvure (chore/course). You can train a dog to do any course no matter the difficulty it's the "attitude" and herding abilities that is being looked at. Just because a dog doesn't finish a certain course doesnt mean that they are not worthy, it could be the handler and with a different handler the dog would work perfectly. Then again.......it could be the dog.

Back to the genetics, yes, I believe we need a large gene pool from which to pull good dogs, outcrosses are often needed to improve ones stock but if overused can "muddy" things.

Kris

 

------------------

Kris Wolf

Victory Pass Farms

Pine City, Mn

[Guest Charles Torre]

"You can train a dog to do any course no matter the difficulty..."

 

Not your main point, I know, but I gotta disagree with this statement. The dog will only be able to do the course if it can handle the sheep, and the sheep may not cooperate unless the dog has some of the right stuff.

 

Sorry for the digression.

 

charlie

 

[This message has been edited by Charles Torre (edited 10-18-2002).]

[vpwolf]

Charles,

Depends on the sheep. Kneeknockers will do alot for and "obedince trained" dog and they will complete the course. Not all trials have tough to handle sheep.

Kris

[Guest Charles Torre]

Kris:

 

I agree that easy sheep do not test a dog very much. But that just means that the trial was - in some ways - not very good. I would say that the difficulty level of a trial is controlled, in large part, by the nature of the sheep.

 

I probably shouldn't have commented in the first place because I think we both know the score already. My point was just that if the trial is difficult enough - because the sheep are tough - I don't believe that a well trained dog will successfully complete the course. I freely admit that my experience in these matters is pretty pitiful, but I have been at several trials where perfectly trained dogs couldn't even lift the sheep, let alone complete the course.

 

charlie

 

 

[This message has been edited by Charles Torre (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Kris wrote:

 

"You can train a dog to do any course no matter the difficulty..."

 

I don't want to get too far off topic either but last weekend at Tommy and Florence Wilson's the Open outrun was 600 yards. I can tell you for sure that not all dogs can be trained to run a course of that difficulty, no matter whether the sheep are challenging or not.

 

Many dogs each year that have never run that field, that far, or over that type of terrain will run that field perfectly out to the sheep because it is bred into them. You may be able to help some dogs run a course like that with good training but those dogs will still need to be pretty good dogs to start with.

 

Some dogs cross the course or have trouble finding the sheep but they will learn because what is already in them is awakened by the experience. Some dogs will never be able to get to the sheep no matter how many times they are shown how and or how much they're trained on because they're missing what it takes genetically to do it.

 

Denise

 

[This message has been edited by C Denise Wall (edited 10-18-2002).]

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Back to the topic (sorry for the off topic tirade on course difficulty)

 

Bill Gary wrote:

 

>Denise's points, and I now find myself subscibing to them as much as a layman can, would seem to indicate a sort of "genetic twilight" - not only for the dogs, but for all animals and plants, I think.<

 

I don't think things are that gloomy. A good site to learn about canine genetic diversity and population genetics is:

http://www.magmacom.com/~kaitlin/diverse.html

 

Particularly helpful within this site are the late John Armstrong's writings at:

 

http://www.magmacom.com/~kaitlin/diversity/genetics.html

 

Denise

[Bill Fosher]

Denise,

 

Thanks for your thoughts on this issue. I realize that population genetics are not your area of speciality, and I didn't mean to put you on the spot exactly. What I meant was that I would leave the questions about the gene pool to folks who know about it. And whenever I think of Border collie genetics, I think of you for some reason.

 

It should be obvious that we need the core and the periphery to keep good working dogs coming along. What I believe is that banning dual registration will do nothing to restrict the bullseye or the orange. The yellow we may lose some of, but I don't think it's likely to be very large, and its far enough out on the target that I'm not sure how important those genes really are.

 

 

 

------------------

Bill Fosher

Surry, NH

[Cholla1]

This program may or may not be of interest to you.

It may or not be very basic.

You never know where the next little snippet of useful data may come from:

 

CANINE GENOME FEATURED IN PBS DOCUMENTARY

 

Aurora, Ohio...The canine genome sequence will be the subject of a PBS documentary feature to air the week of November 22, 2002. As part of a series called The Secrets of the Sequence, the canine genome will be discussed by scientists and dog breeders during the documentary feature. Scientists, dog breeders and representatives from the AKC Canine Health Foundation were interviewed for the program at numerous locations, including the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, The Institute for Genome Research in Washington, D.C., and the Steel Valley Cluster in Canfield, Ohio.

 

The series of shows now playing on public television stations around the country is a weekly television feature exploring current discoveries in the life sciences. The programs bring viewers some of the astounding discoveries that are emerging each day from laboratories around the world. The program is hosted by Lucky Severson with the assistance of the talking e-book, The Hitchhiker?s Guide to the Genome.

 

For information on your local public television viewing schedule log onto www.wardtv.com .

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Can we try some numbers? Here's some numbers I can find and some estimates based on them. Please help me out. Perhaps this will help people form their ideas.

 

Trial dogs -

 

Open - there were about 600 Open dogs with qualifying points (top 20% of a sanctioned USBCHA Open class) this year for the USBCHA sheepdog finals. There are probably double or close to double that number of Open level dogs that either didn't get qualifying points or were not run in trials this particular year for whatever reason. Add in the Cattledog trial dogs not counted in sheep trials. So let's say 1,000 - 1500 Open level trial dogs.

 

Nursery - there were right at 200 USBCHA qualified Nursery dogs this year for sheep, very few of whom are also running in Open. Add in the Nursery dogs that ran this year but didn't eventually qualify, which I believe are few, and the cattledog Nursery dogs that aren't qualified for both, and call it 250.

 

Other levels - Novice, Pronovice, Open Ranch or their regional equivalent - 1000 or more??? What do you guys think? There are often more Open runs that novice ones. However, the Open dogs are more likely to be the same ones traveling around in a large area and the Novice level dogs will often be local, meaning there are more of them. But how many more?

 

Total ISDS type trial dogs - Guestimate - around 2,500.

 

Does anybody have any information or thoughts on numbers of AKC trialing Border Collies?

 

Farm ranch dogs (cattle, goats and sheep) - An ABCA survey from 1993 indicated numbers around two to three fold over trial dogs so 5,000 - 7,000.

 

Goosedogs, birdstrike dogs, and the like- ??? Anybody have estimates on that?

 

Other activities and sport Border Collies (obedience, flyball, agility, tracking, etc.) ??? Someone was telling me recently that total yearly entries in agility competitions had increased tenfold over the past few years. Are there published numbers for these things?

 

Pets, urban and rural - I have an estimate of one third each, or two thirds total, of pups produced each year end up as pets.

 

Have I left anything out?

 

***************

 

One way we could get more info is for people to participate in a poll on Kim's web page at:

http://www.geocities.com/black_dog_farm/BCLinks.html

 

Look to the left of the main page for the survey.

 

Denise

[vpwolf]

Yes Denise I agree on the 600 outrun thing but typically most local trials here are not to that extent. Infact I'm lucky to have any trials at all here in Northern Mn. Traveling is 99% of the reason I don't trial much if at all. Though I would love to I just have too much else happening here with the farm to leave for an undetermined amount of time. Who would feed the critters (horses, sheep, dogs mine and rescues)?

I just took the poll on Kims webpage, nice poll I encourage everyone to use it. It may give us some starting point to see where some of our dogs are at?

Maybe we could set up more of an intense poll on the ABCA website? Covering a bit more ground? Such as the goose dogs, ect... and have a spot to enter a number of how many for that catagory of dogs we either have or have sold for such purposes or own. We could include in it our registered rescues also as most are ABCA just what the dogs are doing? I don't know, it's a thought. Such as in Kim's poll (though it is a good one) For the rescue's that are registered I could've checked "agility" and "goosedog" but didn't check agility because I've only ever done it once with mine so I didn't count it as really doing it. Make sense? I know I can account for all offspring and count them and what they are doing.

And how many of these dogs are spayed or neutered? I think that is a concern too as those dogs aren't really diluting anything so do we really need to count them?

I don't know how we'd find out how many AKC trialing BC's there are that's a good question.

Kris

[Britta]

Kris

Back to this a bit late, but i wasn't talking about developing New tests, but about encouraging more to enter trials!

Over here in the UK (although as said before my experience is limited) it appears as though entering trials at weekends is as common practice for sheepdog handlers as it was to go to church on a Sunday where i came from. It's part of the culture.

Britta

[Guest PrairieFire]

Your guesstimates sound pretty close to what I've guesstimated through the years, Denise.

 

One thing I would question would be including, at a 100% level, the Nursery dogs...because of age and handlers not wanting to take them out of circulation for too long - that is, if you are gathering an estimate of the "possible gene pool". So maybe like a .2 multiplier?

 

Then perhaps a "breeding factor" for the various types of dogs?

 

Since Open level dogs probably don't get bred every year - maybe a .4 multiplier?

 

Other levels - from Novice up to Open - I think there are more dogs than you have estimated - in this part of the country, this year, there were MORE PN dogs than Open...so guesstimate maybe 2000? With a multiplier of .5?

 

With versatility dogs, some of them, bred yearly, and "breeders" that breed as often as they can, the versatile dogs would probably be a higher mulitiplication factor - maybe .65%?

 

Pet owners, generally, I would say would be as low as the Nursery dogs...maybe lower?

 

Guesses - and maybe pretty far off...

 

So your "red" level dogs would have a much lower "contribution" to the "total" gene pool than the "versatile" dogs...

 

'Course you've probably already gone through this scenario...

 

I didn't mean to sound too gloomy with the "genetic twilight" thing - but the tendency of ALL energy, as expressed in this case as Working Border Collies, is to "wind down" without input...active and "energetic" input rather than a passive energy input.

 

By the way, someone will probably take exception to those "multipliers" - as I said, they are guesses at where data needs to be gathered and how it needs to be treated...one needs targets to start and refines data as more info comes in...

 

Oh, and Kris - the WWSDA trial is on a 650 yard course, the Jordan trial is 375 with a blind outfetch, and mine is 375 with a blind outrun and fetch, and in Open, a partially blind drive panel - with MANY dogs that don't make the outrun cleanly...you've just gotta go to the right trials to find ones that will challenge and test the dogs...

 

 

------------------

Bill Gary

Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center

River Falls, WI

715.426.9877

www.kensmuir.com

 

 

[This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-19-2002).]

[bcollie]

Just to throw something else into the guesstimate game of how many working Border Collies there are. I have a mailing list of 30,000 Border Collie people, with the majority being in the U.S. Now obviously those aren't all working Border Collies, but I would guess that half of them are by their buying habits. I am in the process of putting a survey together for my web site and I will be asking what people do with their dogs and how many they have so I should get some numbers I can add to the discussion.

 

Geri Byrne

Border Collies In Action

[Guest C Denise Wall]

Bill Gary brings up some good points I'm just assuming when I think about this. Aside form the total number of dogs, it's also important to estimate the breedable number, and the number likely to be bred and how much.

 

Geri, those numbers are astonishing! If there are 15,000 people with working Border Collies, many will have more than one dog. This is really good information to help get an idea of numbers and percent of total dogs involved in the various areas.

 

It sounds like my estimates on working and trial dogs may be low.

 

Thanks for the help. Anybody else?

 

Denise