So sad,,,,

[Eileen Stein]

Bill, great post (your second-to-last).

 

Muddy, I think you hit the nail on the head when you wrote, "Because they don't WANT to get it." It's an inconvenient truth.

 

Kara, those are good questions and you shouldn't hesitate to ask any questions.

 

>

 

I have to agree with Bill that working ability is too complex to lend itself to that kind of formulation. It's tempting, and people are always trying to come up with one, but they never seem to work because they can't allow for all the variable factors. Back at the time of AKC recognition, the leadership of the BCSA kept asking on the original BC-L email list what criteria they should set up for breeding in order to preserve working ability. They wanted what I guess is called an algorithm -- a formula that you could plug in and produce the result you wanted regardless of who was operating it, without the need for any human expertise to guide it. We couldn't provide one -- there's just too much to it. (In the end, they decided on a herding instinct test in which a dog who shows sustained interest in herding livestock for a minimum of five minutes would be certified. Although I can't tell you what would be a valid standard, I can tell you that this is not it.)

 

I guess you could say very roughly that a dog should be able to perform in a useful manner all the tasks required in an open trial before being considered for breeding. BUT there are exceptions, and the greater the expertise of the person making the breeding decision, the more I would respect it. A person who knows livestock and stock dogs through and through, including pedigrees and how the crossing of particular lines has worked out in the past, might well be able to tell that a dog who has not reached that performance level is nevertheless breed-worthy, or--equally likely--might be able to tell that a breeding involving a dog who met that standard would not be wise. I realize that this isn't a very satisfactory answer, but (as my computer mentor told me when I was first starting out and struggling) some things just are not simple.

 

>

 

IMO they ARE a threat now.

 

>

 

If AKC did nothing but register dogs based on pedigrees that are submitted to them, I would have nothing against them either.

 

>

 

The ABCA cooperates closely with the USBCHA, which is the trial sanctioning body in North America. The two organizations are very closely affiliated. The ABCA contributes a lot of money toward putting on the sheepdog and cattledog finals each year and to the prize money at the finals, and in addition they earmark $1.00 from each dog registration to the support of local trials and other events that showcase the working border collie. Anyone who puts on such events may apply to the ABCA for a share of those funds. The ABCA does this because trials are an important tool in selecting the best dogs for breeding, and in raising awareness among farmers and ranchers (and the general public) of what a good stockdog can do.

 

>

 

Well, because it's just impossible to do. Think about it. ROM applications come along now and then -- maybe once a year at most. But thousands of pups are registered each year. We simply don't have the resources to put all of their sires and dams through a procedure like the ROM (we obviously couldn't put the pups through it for years) -- our registration fees would have to go up astronomically, and I doubt we could even find enough qualified people to do the evaluations. People would be aggrieved by the results, there would have to be an appeal process. A large percentage of breeders would not see any point in taking the time, effort and money to submit their dogs for evaluation, and so those dogs -- who probably are more likely to be the best ones, if the owner judges he'll have no trouble selling the pups without registering them -- would be lost to the registry. (And the fewer the good dogs in the registry, the less the registry is fulfilling its basic purpose of recording the breed's pedigrees.) The procedure could be made simpler than the ROM procedure, but then there would be more mistakes, and IMO it would become easier and easier to "pass" based on pressure from breeders -- who are, after all, the members of the member-owned registry -- until eventually it would become meaningless. I could go on and on, but if you try to figure out how such a system could be made to operate, you'll soon come up against insurmountable logistical and philosophical problems.

 

I think the best the registry can do, and what it ought to continue doing, is to encourage breeding only for the work, to recognize no other standard of excellence for our dogs except stockwork, and to support trials whereby high-functioning working-bred dogs are given recognition and people can see the dogs working and make their own judgments about their breeding quality. Breeders and puppy buyers have to take it from there.

 

>

 

No. I guess I should say "Not that I know of," but I'm 99.44% sure the answer is no. The old NASDS did at one time require some kind of working test every other generation, but that requirement faded away because it just couldn't be made to work properly.

[PennyT]

The following is from a Hangin' Tree Cowdog site:

 

Hangin' Tree cowdogs are registered by the American Cowdog Association. Their registry is unique: The dogs must prove that they can and will hit heads and heels before they can receive their registration papers. They must also have slick or short hair. In order to register the dog with the American Cowdog Association, the dog's owner must send a video or photos showing the dogs clearly hitting the heads and heels of stock. Such proof ensures that the breed remains pure and will perform flawlessly as expected time and time again.

 

(I should add that remaining "pure" is serious issue for those breeders. The breed is a recent composite. I have heard that they are very good industrial strength cow dogs.)

[Jodi]

That's great ... right up to "They must also have slick or short hair." What's up with that?

[Olivia]

I tried to search for the website of the American Cowdog Association and nothing came up except for quotes from Hanging Tree Cowdogs site. No official site. Does anyone actually know about this registry?

 

I did; however, find a site for Working Cowdog Registry. There is nothing in the rules about a dog having to prove it can hit heads or heels before being registered. In fact, they register puppy litters so there is no way such a rule can exist. They also accept any type of coat, rough or smooth. To register your dog you have to send 3 pictures, one side shot, one head shot and one shot from behind; information about your dog and his ancestors such as breed or known mix, color, coat type, etc; and a check for 10.00.

 

Olivia

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I believe it's basically the registry for "Hangin Tree Dogs" which is a strain of crossbred dogs being shaped by essentially one breeder for range cattle work. Thus, he's decided what the parameters are and the registry requirements are what are driving the molding of this particular line. From what I understand, he's getting pretty much exactly what the registry says, dogs that will consistently hit head or heel and are slick coated. I've heard mixed reviews of what else the dogs can do, however.

 

I personally think you don't need a new breed but I don't know anything about what he's doing, needs, or hopes to do with this crossed line. I do have a horrible vision of a future when we are knocking on his door saying, please, sir, may we cross our dogs on yours that actually have some stock sense and work ethic? That's what we are trying to prevent by raising the issues in this discussion.

[Sue R]

I have had a number of opportunities to watch the Hangin' Tree Cowdogs in clinics and arena trials, both young dogs just starting out and more advanced dogs. They have been very strictly bred and developed from lines that included Border Collie, Kelpie (I think, but it may be another breed), Catahoula, and one Aussie.

 

The requirement for short, slick coats is that the dogs will be able to work in heat and not gather burrs, stickers, etc. Their tails are docked.

 

They are, as noted, an "industrial strength" cowdog, and I think that sums it up. They are very bold and brave, muscular and athletic, intelligent, tough, etc. They are very frequently trained with electronic collars (I don't mean to start an argument about that here, just stating a fact).

 

They were developed primarily for ranch/range use although they do very nicely on beef on smaller operations or stockyard situations. I don't think they'd work well for a soft handler like myself as they can be very tough and sometimes stubborn (they need to know the handler is alpha, that's for sure) but some of the bitches in particular can also be sensitive. They will come back from a kick that (I believe) would send most dogs running.

 

They are hard-hitting dogs that don't hesitate when a grip is appropriate. For someone like my hubby, who treats his stock very gently, their style would not be acceptable because they are quick to grip. All the individuals I've met have had very nice temperments, and anyone could go up to one and pat or handle them without any undue shyness or inappropriate behavior.

 

Gary and Choc Ericsson developed this breed with very rigorous breeding and culling, and keep the registry. Gary's standards are very high (he also breeds Border Collies and also won't have rough coats there, either, for the same reasons). The rough coats just weren't suited for his range/ranch situation (Idaho and Oklahoma).

 

Years ago, Gary breed and trained very useful Aussies that were top dogs in Aussie trials out West, and are found in many of the better working Aussie pedigrees today.

 

What I have seen is a very consistent, hard-working, bold breed of dogs that I could see having great value on a range/ranch/commercial beef operation. They work very well in conjunction with riders on horseback and so are very suited to the range/ranch situation or the stockyard that also utilizes pen riders.

 

Just about everything I've said in this post is simply my opinion...

 

Edited as I neglected to mention that Choc Ericsson is deceased.

[Jodi]

Sue,

 

I completely agree with your assessment. Living in Idaho, I have had the opportunity to see quite a few dogs directly out of or who go back to Gary's lines. Very confident workers, solid temperaments, and built like brick houses. Most of the ones I have seen are slick coated with quite a bit of white on them. However, there are a few that I've seen that have a bit more coat, who by definition, would not be eligible for registration under those terms. To me, that's a drag because I feel they would have potentially benefited the gene pool despite their coat (which, by the way, was more what we would consider "medium"), but then again, it seems that they are after a very specific type of dog. However, I'm sure my idea of "benefiting the gene pool" is much different than Gary's ... and I bow to him, for he has much more experience than I.

 

Jodi

[Olivia]

Thanks all for the information. I have never had the opportunity to see a Hanging Tree cowdog in person. Maybe I will get that opportunity soon. Sounds like they are wonderful dogs for the right handler and situation.

 

Olivia

[juliepoudrier]

Hmmm...the couple of Hangin' Tree dogs I saw at a trial were NOT impressive, and certainly didn't appear much different in general than the border collies there when it came to how they worked. But maybe it was a handler issue, and it was just two dogs....

 

One thing I have noticed is that these dogs are all over the place and at least some are being crossed to other breeds. I wonder how the Ericssons are working to prevent the good name of their dogs from being potentially ruined by these random crosses going on. That's a rhetorical question--I don't expect anyone actually has an answer.

 

J.