ROM Availability

[PennyT]

As most people who read this Board know, I never get tired of telling people

that I bred and own Emily who was the first dog the ABCA registered on

merit.

 

I support the decision to deregister AKC conformation champions. But for a

while I thought that ROM should be available to those dogs. I savor the idea

that the USBCHA does not limit participation in the Finals to a particular

breed. In a similar spirit, I liked the idea of ROM being available to any

dog who could meet the working requirements.

 

I have changed my mind.

 

I think the points about the effects down the road and the use

of resources are well taken.

 

In regard to the former, I am stunned that I didn't see it earlier. When I

got Em registered, I was very realistic about her abilities. She wasn't a

world beater but just a good, solid working dog worthy of being registered.

She could get around a tough, western open course although not win it and

most of the time not even place; do 800 yard outruns (but probably miss the

fetch panels if she needed to take my flanks to make them); turn an unruly

single or take 600 ewes gently down the road on the way home from the

mountains; work twice that many up chutes for shearing and keep the line

moving with almost no direction.

 

I am very pleased she got registered, and I do regard that along with the

capabilities of her pups as proof she is worthwhile. It makes perfect sense

that someone with a conformation champion would see ROM the same way

only through the lens of conformation showing. ROM would become a kind of

Kennel Club full champion instead of just show champion. Not only that, if

the owner of such a dog had someone else do the training (as would be

likely) or even did the training themselves, that person would be unlikely

to see ROM in its true light as simply the entry method for good border

collies not in the registry but instead to glorify ROM into proof of a great

dog...a Nan or a Nick.

 

One of the last lovely pieces of work that Em did was when she was 12 or 13. A

semi-trained dog chased some ewes into a pond here. One ewe swam to the little island in the center and showed no signs of ever

returning. I took Em down to the pond and showed her the sheep. She looked

at me then back at the sheep. "Do you really mean it?" was in her eyes. I

gave her a flank. She did an outswim up the pond; got on the island; and

gave the ewe holy hell until it swam back.

 

Pardon me while I get misty eyed. She doesn't work anymore but she's

healthy.

 

Penny

[Eileen Stein]

Thanks for posting that, Penny. I got tears in my eyes when I read it, too. A good dog will amaze you, again and again, and it's moments like that one that you remember all your life.

 

I just want to say a little more about this:

 

>

 

I think that's a very natural first reaction to have. I feel the same way (about the HA Finals too). The purpose behind the ROM program is to foster working ability in the border collie, by including in the studbook the best working dogs even if, like Emily, they weren't there to begin with. So why shouldn't any dog who can meet the working standard be accepted?

 

But the purpose behind excluding conformation champions from the registry is exactly the same--to foster working ability in the border collie. Because conformation showing and breeding is damaging to working ability, as genetic theory and the history of many other working breeds demonstrates, so we want to keep it from taking hold in our breed.

 

The case of a dog with good working ability who becomes a conformation champion -- and such dogs certainly could exist -- presents us with a conflict. How do we best foster working ability? Do we resolve the conflict in favor of the immediate claims of that particular dog, or the long-term interests of the breed as a whole? I think the ABCA was right to take the long view. This is especially so because the owner of the dog is freely making a choice with full knowledge of the consequences. If the owner values the conformation championship above inclusion in the working registry, it's likely that the breeding decisions s/he makes for his/her dog down the line will be in line with those priorities, and the dog's progeny will reflect that.

 

The policy question the ABCA had to decide here is very similar to its decision to exclude dogs affected with CEA from registration. (As you know, ROM candidates must present proof of an ophthalmological examination showing them clear of CEA and PRA.) In the case of any particular dog, that decision might look as if it's weighing a medical condition above working ability, and therefore violating the ABCA's philosophy that working ability is paramount. But it's not doing that. Instead, it's weighing working ability in the long run, for the breed as a whole, over working ability of a particular dog in the here and now. Folks might agree with this policy judgment or not, depending on how much of a problem they regard CEA as being (and the policy might even be changed in the future, as scientific research enables us to manage CEA better), but it's hard to claim it's not genuinely motivated by a concern to keep problems which could compromise our dogs' working ability in the long run from pervading our gene pool.

 

I understand why AKC-oriented people might portray the exclusion of conformation champions from ROM as inconsistent or hypocritical or "political." Politics has become a dirty word in our society, so a good way to taint anything is to call it political. I don't think we should worry too much about that. (It's unavoidable, after all. I'm sure if de-registered AKC champions were allowed to apply for ROM, anyone whose dog didn't make the grade would say the decision was political -- "Look at all the ABCA-registered dogs who've never seen a sheep, and my dog has her HSAs! They don't want her because she's an AKC champion. It's just politics!") In actual fact, it's no more political than the CEA policy is political. It's just an honest attempt to avert a threat to the long-term working ability of the border collie. That's what a good registry should do, IMO.

[toney]

Well said, both Penny and Eileen!!

[Sue R]

I, too, felt that same way that Penny did. I have, thanks to folks like Eileen who have explained the motivation in the ABCA decision, come to understand why that decision was made and the wisdom in it.

 

It's not just a decision for today - it's a decision for the future of the working Border Collie. Now, what other sensible and good decisions can be made and implemented for the sake of the working dog?

[DeltaBluez Tess]

Well, I guess it is my turn to step up to the plate and talk about my Border Collie, Tess that got a ROM.

 

She was the third Border Collie to get the ROM. As you know, Penny's Em was the first. I have seen Em work and she is such a natural...Penny just has to stand there and look pretty!!

 

Tess was a product of BYB. Her mother ran in local ISDS trials and her sire did not. Her sire was German bred trial dog, with Price's Davy as his grandfather. On the other German side, Tess' grandma was a top trial dog, all old German lines (imported at one time from the UK)

 

On Tess's other side, she is Canadian breed, good solid ranch dogs as well trial dogs. Her Great Aunt is the famous dog name Sue from the Alberta area.

 

As a result she has solid working lines in her. A lot of cattle dogs and UK trial/working dogs.

 

The ABCA did not recognize her German registry. Although it was all working dogs, it did not fit within the ABCA guidelines.

 

I had displayed my lack of herding with this talented Tess, at 10 months at a lesson with one of the top trainers. He was very kind to me and took Tess and me under his wing and turned me on to ISDS trialing. We had done AKC herding prior to this lesson.

 

He believed in Tess that he agreed to help us and thus a long journey began. Tess went into training with this person and in 2001 he ran her in the USBCHA Sheepdog Finals and she placed 6th in the Nursery Class. Also in that yr, she got ProNovice Dog of the yr in Alberta, placed highly in all the PN trials as well as Nursery. She placed 6th or so in the Bluegrass and held her own against dogs with impeccable pedigrees. One of the top handler wanted to buy her when she was a yearling, even though she had no papers. Another person passed the message onto to me, ?name your price? (Can?t sell my soulmate!!)

 

Tess may not have the best pedigree but she had heart. A big heart. Big enough for enclose me as a inept handler with lots of room for forgiveness.

 

At the 2001 Nationals, many of the Directors saw her run. Some had seen her all yr on the trial field. I had her hips and eyes done and shot a video of her run at Nationals and told her trialing history. It was a long process, almost three yrs in the making. I wanted to show that she was indeed a dog worthy of the ROM

 

I sent in the video, etc and she was voted in.

 

How was she at home? I have a pasture that is 20 acres and the grass is waist or chest high. I would stand at the gate with coffee cup in hand (and drink my coffee) and send her. At 2 yrs old and still learning, she quickly would find the sheep hidden in the grass and bring them to me. I never uttered a single command. Once, she brought me the sheep and had also picked up a deer and had brought that deer with the sheep. That deer tried her best to escape but Tess kept her with the flock. The deer did escape by sailing past me next to the gate and Tess was poised to take a flying leap over a 4 ft gate to bring it back but I quickly called her off. She knows if I walk a direction and send her that sheep will be out there, 100 yd to 600 plus yds and she will find them. I just let her do what she does naturally and I drink my coffee (which is what I do naturally)

 

Now, did the ABCA directors make a right choice? Under the top handler (not me!!) This yr she placed 3rd in one Open run at Seclusival. Placed 34th overall at Open in Bluegrass. She ran this yr I was her handler in the 2004 USBCHA Nationals, and she moved the sheep with ease. When I got off the field the same top handler (not the one ran her for me, but saw her as a yrling) still loved her and told me, ?That?s a dog we want to see? (meaning as a ROM dog and he also knew of the history with Tess). Recently Tess and I just ran in an Open trial and we got third.

 

Now, she has passed on her genes to her pups. Her pups (just turned 2) have won or placed in the top 20% of Ranch or PN trials. One pup, at 18 months qualified for the cattle dog Nationals. I kept a pup and she has her mother?s heart.

 

Yes, I truly believe the ABCA Directors did a right choice. You see, Tess has shown that they did the right choice and their choice also is reflected in the next generation. With Penny?s Em, the pups have proven themselves time again and again as top dogs and an asset to the breed.

 

Yes, it was a long and hard road but worth every step. Together with a top friend and handler and Tess?s heart and me as her cheerleader, we have completed that journey and all we have now to prove now is??can Diane make the panels on this run???

 

I love My Tess, my heart and soul. Tess, who showed me that the love of a dog can make magic happen. I want to thank the people who believed in her.

 

So in closing, I believe the ROM should be a hard task and not taken lightly. Would I do it again?if, I had another Tess, I surely would. This should be only for dogs who can bring something to the ABCA program.

 

Diane Pagel

Shiro, Tess, Koko, Teddy, Becca, Mick, Kane, Fifi, Harpo

[SoloRiver]

I agree with all the points posted above. Let's face it, the loss to the breed in terms of good dogs or good genes is minimal -- there aren't that many AKC Border Collies to begin with, fewer champions, the number of champions who'd have any hope of passing the ROM is probably infinitesimal. My feeling is that yes, this is a political stance, one with principles that are sound, and that will have no practical impact one way or another.