Pedigrees - NZ/AU Show Lines in ABCA?

[juliepoudrier]

Julie W.

If you followed the recent discussion in Sheepdog-L then you know that there is a list of dogs that have been shown to produce TNS. The folks who were claiming that TNS is a problem in working-bred dogs were using this list as "proof" of their argument. The problem is that if you look at the pedigrees of the known TNS-producing dogs, *all* are very heavily AU/NZ conformation bred. There is a smattering of ISDS dogs in the pedigrees, which indeed implies that at least the show breeders are using some working-bred dogs, but I can't say why they did/do this. And since the pedigrees in question contained way more dogs from AU/NZ lines, there's absolutely no proof that the resulting TNS litters somehow resulted from the presence of ISDS dogs in those lines. To the contrary, most of the known TNS-producing dogs seem to come from specific show-breeding kennels. As for crosses going the other way, it has been done as I've seen pedigrees that show, say, working-bred on top and show-bred on bottom, but most of the working dog folk I know wouldn't do such a cross because there's nothing to be gained from a stockwork standpoint from doing so. And before anyone pipes up that they know of AKC-registered dogs running well in open trials, I will repeat what has been said before: none of those dogs, to anyone's knowedge, are strictly show bred. Dogs that are AKC registered and doing well in open trials are likely working-bred dogs that have been dual-registered, and that's not the same as a show-bred dog running in and doing well in open trials.

 

The other favorite argument of the show breeders is that the show dogs in AU/NZ descended from ISDS dogs and therefore ISDS dogs carry these diseases. In part, they are correct. The genes that produce CL and TNS probably do/did exist at some low level in the working border collie population. The reason they haven't been expressed in the working population as they have in the show population is simply that the AU/NZ show dogs started from a small gene pool (those original imports) and then inbred dogs to fix the look so common in the show ring today. In the process of fixing that look, deleterious genes were also concentrated in the genome of that population of dogs (a risk any breeder takes when working with a tiny gene pool). As Katelynn pointed out, this is why we have laws against closely related matings in humans and is the reason that many a royal family had genetic problems. Inbreeding. It's why breeders of all sorts are warned against inbreeding without taking extra care, because although that practice does enable one to set certain traits, it also runs the risk of setting certain traits. That is, you can't always separate the good genes (the traits you want) from the bad (those that ultimately cause disease). And that means AU/NZ show breeders inadvertently fixed some bad genes in their dogs at the same time they were fixing genes they wanted. So, yes, I'll repeat, those same genes likely exist (probably to a small degree) in the working-dog population (assuming those diseases weren't the result of mutations sometime after the show dogs became a "closed" population). But because the working-dog world probably outcrosses as much as it inbreeds and because working-dog breeders are breeding for a complex set of traits (working ability), it's less likely that progeny from a mating will get the unfortunate combination of genes that lead to the diseases in question. Not impossible, just not likely.

 

As for Kim' comments regarding *my* comments from several months ago, the fact remains that there are people who are more willing to pay more for "dogs of color," and this mindset/willingness is largely in the show and sport markets. In the stockwork world, there has been a bias against odd-colored (red, merle, mostly white, etc.) dogs for ages. That bias is lessening somewhat as more people who like these colors also join the hobby herding ranks, but the fact remains that you will not find many working dog folk who will pay more for a red dog or a merle. And most don't even want to touch a mostly white dog (and lest you think I am somehow dissing these folks who have/want "dogs of color," I'll point out that I own two red and white dogs, one red tri, and one who is mostly white, though I did get several of these by default--I still love them, and at least a couple were/are good working dogs). So when my friend said she could get lots more from AKC folk, she was speaking the truth. She runs dogs in both venues, and her ability to sell pups for more money to conformation and sport folk is her *stated* reason for dual-registering her dogs. She told me so. She may be a sample of one, but since she's active in that "other" world, there's no reason to believe she's doesn't know what she's talking about. So you've been searching for six months and have found both ABCA and AKC breeders to have the same prices. I think that if you were actively looking at true working-dog breeders and comparing those to true conformation breeders (i.e., not any questionable breeders who happen to be selling ABCA- or AKC-registered pups simply because they have parents that are registered with one or the other registry), you would indeed find some price differences. Again there was a recent discussion on Sheepdog-L regarding puppy prices, and several posters made the very good point that the reason working-bred pups (and by this I don't mean ABCA pups, but that subset of ABCA pups bred for a high level of working ability) are priced so reasonably is because the person buying such a pup is paying for potential and not for a known quantity. When you find a breeder who's pricing pups differently based on color, then you certainly should run like he** in the other direction, ABCA or not. But the fact also remains that in the conformation world (serious show breeders, again not someone who simply has AKC dogs), puppy prices are generally higher than they are in the working world.

 

At any rate, I'm not sure how your comments even relate to my original post, which you've taken somewhat out of context, since the point I was replying to I believe was about ABCA/working dog folk not expressing their opinions to their working-dog brethren about dual registering and the like (and I may be misremembering since the discussion was quite some time ago and I have no desire to go back a re-read every post, but I'm fairly certain this is the subject my quoted comments pertained to). The points I was making were to show that we do indeed question our peers on that very topic, and those points were simply to illustrate one person's reasoning for dual registering. You can take exception to those comments if you like, but you really should recognize and understand the context in which they were made.

 

J.

[kelpiegirl]

Julie P

I wasn't responding to your post- I was responding to Rebecca's. People will breed what they like. I agree that it is doubtful that a working bc person would put show lines into their dogs, but I find it quite possible that show folks will put working blood into their lines, and how would that affect the current ideology wrt health issues? That is all. Just looking outside the box on this, and really don't want to be flamed.

Julie

 

Julie W.

If you followed the recent discussion in Sheepdog-L then you know that there is a list of dogs that have been shown to produce TNS. The folks who were claiming that TNS is a problem in working-bred dogs were using this list as "proof" of their argument. The problem is that if you look at the pedigrees of the known TNS-producing dogs, *all* are very heavily AU/NZ conformation bred. There is a smattering of ISDS dogs in the pedigrees, which indeed implies that at least the show breeders are using some working-bred dogs, but I can't say why they did/do this. And since the pedigrees in question contained way more dogs from AU/NZ lines, there's absolutely no proof that the resulting TNS litters somehow resulted from the presence of ISDS dogs in those lines. To the contrary, most of the known TNS-producing dogs seem to come from specific show-breeding kennels. As for crosses going the other way, it has been done as I've seen pedigrees that show, say, working-bred on top and show-bred on bottom, but most of the working dog folk I know wouldn't do such a cross because there's nothing to be gained from a stockwork standpoint from doing so. And before anyone pipes up that they know of AKC-registered dogs running well in open trials, I will repeat what has been said before: none of those dogs, to anyone's knowedge, are strictly show bred. Dogs that are AKC registered and doing well in open trials are likely working-bred dogs that have been dual-registered, and that's not the same as a show-bred dog running in and doing well in open trials.

 

The other favorite argument of the show breeders is that the show dogs in AU/NZ descended from ISDS dogs and therefore ISDS dogs carry these diseases. In part, they are correct. The genes that produce CL and TNS probably do/did exist at some low level in the working border collie population. The reason they haven't been expressed in the working population as they have in the show population is simply that the AU/NZ show dogs started from a small gene pool (those original imports) and then inbred dogs to fix the look so common in the show ring today. In the process of fixing that look, deleterious genes were also concentrated in the genome of that population of dogs (a risk any breeder takes when working with a tiny gene pool). As Katelynn pointed out, this is why we have laws against closely related matings in humans and is the reason that many a royal family had genetic problems. Inbreeding. It's why breeders of all sorts are warned against inbreeding without taking extra care, because although that practice does enable one to set certain traits, it also runs the risk of setting certain traits. That is, you can't always separate the good genes (the traits you want) from the bad (those that ultimately cause disease). And that means AU/NZ show breeders inadvertently fixed some bad genes in their dogs at the same time they were fixing genes they wanted. So, yes, I'll repeat, those same genes likely exist (probably to a small degree) in the working-dog population (assuming those diseases weren't the result of mutations sometime after the show dogs became a "closed" population). But because the working-dog world probably outcrosses as much as it inbreeds and because working-dog breeders are breeding for a complex set of traits (working ability), it's less likely that progeny from a mating will get the unfortunate combination of genes that lead to the diseases in question. Not impossible, just not likely.

 

As for Kim' comments regarding *my* comments from several months ago, the fact remains that there are people who are more willing to pay more for "dogs of color," and this mindset/willingness is largely in the show and sport markets. In the stockwork world, there has been a bias against odd-colored (red, merle, mostly white, etc.) dogs for ages. That bias is lessening somewhat as more people who like these colors also join the hobby herding ranks, but the fact remains that you will not find many working dog folk who will pay more for a red dog or a merle. And most don't even want to touch a mostly white dog (and lest you think I am somehow dissing these folks who have/want "dogs of color," I'll point out that I own two red and white dogs, one red tri, and one who is mostly white, though I did get several of these by default--I still love them, and at least a couple were/are good working dogs). So when my friend said she could get lots more from AKC folk, she was speaking the truth. She runs dogs in both venues, and her ability to sell pups for more money to conformation and sport folk is her *stated* reason for dual-registering her dogs. She told me so. She may be a sample of one, but since she's active in that "other" world, there's no reason to believe she's doesn't know what she's talking about. So you've been searching for six months and have found both ABCA and AKC breeders to have the same prices. I think that if you were actively looking at true working-dog breeders and comparing those to true conformation breeders (i.e., not any questionable breeders who happen to be selling ABCA- or AKC-registered pups simply because they have parents that are registered with one or the other registry), you would indeed find some price differences. Again there was a recent discussion on Sheepdog-L regarding puppy prices, and several posters made the very good point that the reason working-bred pups (and by this I don't mean ABCA pups, but that subset of ABCA pups bred for a high level of working ability) are priced so reasonably is because the person buying such a pup is paying for potential and not for a known quantity. When you find a breeder who's pricing pups differently based on color, then you certainly should run like he** in the other direction, ABCA or not. But the fact also remains that in the conformation world (serious show breeders, again not someone who simply has AKC dogs), puppy prices are generally higher than they are in the working world.

 

At any rate, I'm not sure how your comments even relate to my original post, which you've taken somewhat out of context, since the point I was replying to I believe was about ABCA/working dog folk not expressing their opinions to their working-dog brethren about dual registering and the like (and I may be misremembering since the discussion was quite some time ago and I have no desire to go back a re-read every post, but I'm fairly certain this is the subject my quoted comments pertained to). The points I was making were to show that we do indeed question our peers on that very topic, and those points were simply to illustrate one person's reasoning for dual registering. You can take exception to those comments if you like, but you really should recognize and understand the context in which they were made.

 

J.

[Journey]

People will breed what they like. I agree that it is doubtful that a working bc person would put show lines into their dogs, but I find it quite possible that show folks will put working blood into their lines, and how would that affect the current ideology wrt health issues?

 

I don't see how it will affect the working dogs at all. Those in the show arena do not generally have the dogs that can be ABCA registered, therefore, their working/show mix is ACK registered only. Your thinking outside the box is how the the Show folks are now trying to say that CL & TNS is "all" Border Collies lines - they have a smattering of ISDS and a majority of extensive inbreeding. Yet they want to claim, blame, the ISDS dogs as well.

 

Karen

[kelpiegirl]

Karen

Then it wouldn't be thinking outside the box now would it? Really, it will not affect strictly working bred dogs- we agree. I just don't see how there won't be any mixing of the lines- at some point- that is all. Those who stay strictly with abca only registered dogs will more than likely never see this, but what about the sport breeders, who mix the lines- and I can mention a few well known persons if you like. I guess it all comes down to knowing the pedigree. Since the odds are so against it, it is probably fanning a flame for something that will in all liklihood never happen. Going to bow out of the feeding frenzy.....

Julie

 

 

I don't see how it will affect the working dogs at all. Those in the show arena do not generally have the dogs that can be ABCA registered, therefore, their working/show mix is ACK registered only. Your thinking outside the box is how the the Show folks are now trying to say that CL & TNS is "all" Border Collies lines - they have a smattering of ISDS and a majority of extensive inbreeding. Yet they want to claim, blame, the ISDS dogs as well.

 

Karen

[voices4animals]

<< Anyway, generalizations made just because we find one or two people doing something unusual can be very unfair if it taints the "whole bunch". Just because I've come across ABCA registered pups from breeders who are indifferent to what those pups are used for, or what org. they're registered with, does not mean I think all ABCA breeders are that way. >>

 

Then what's your point?

 

The ABCA recommends testing breeding stock for CEA and CHD. You can find their recommendations here. I can refer you to scores of ABCA breeders who do these tests. (But since you're not currently looking for a breeder, again I'm not sure what your point is.) I don't know of any ABCA breeders who test for CL or TNS -- certainly none I would recommend do -- and I doubt any will, simply because its alleged existence in non OZ/NZ lines is just a rumor (to use Columbia's word). So if that is a must for you, you'll probably have to look elsewhere for your dog.

 

<< It's akin to someone refusing to get tested for Colon cancer, because only their relatives who live in Australia have died from it - and they're in America, so it can't happen to them. >>

 

That's a pretty weak analogy, as I'm sure you'll realize if you think about it for a minute or two. It's more akin to Scandinavians with no known African or Mediterranean heritage failing to get tested for the sickle cell gene. Do you think owners of basenjis have their heads in the sand if they don't have their dogs tested for CEA before breeding them? I mean, just because CEA has never been found in basenjis doesn't mean they can't get it. Just because the CEA gene has never been found in a basenji doesn't mean it might not be lurking, either the result of a misbreeding way back or a mutation. The more DNA tests you can have your dog undergo the better, right?

 

Hi Eileen,

Perhaps my analogy is weak - but I'm also trying to avoid getting into the AKC vs. ABCA argument, becuase I was initially commenting on Columbia,MO's discussion on CL. I know it's a very sensitive subject for a lot of people, and I respect all opinions on the matter, given I am no expert (to say the least).

 

I think until we know more - scientifically proven facts, etc - it's unwise not to at least consider any and all testing that's out there. Other than cost (which, I agree, is ridiculous), as someone who is currently looking into our next BC - I just wanted to say that I, personally, would have no issue with paying more for a pup that has had the OFA, CEA, and DNA testing that is available.

(Katelyn - I erred when lumping CHD/CEA/Epilepsy in with DNA testing -- just typing in a rush).

 

For us - my family and I - we want to participate in an ethical purchase as well. We, as buyers, have an obligation to do our part by ( a ) doing our homework on breeders and ( B ) supporting those breeders who take every precaution that is humanly possible to provide a healthy dog.

 

This is not to say that mother nature has guarantees --- we know it doesn't. Testing isn't a warranty against defect. But it's available, and it should be taken advantage of... but this is just our opinion... and debatable, I know.

 

Thanks for the link Eileen --- I've visited the site previously, and it was excellent.

 

 

~Kim

[voices4animals]

Anyone know if AKC takes JKC dogs? I'm guessing they do. Which only leads me to believe that the breeders that were asking you to breed, owning ABCA dogs or not, are really just AKC breeders using ABCA dogs for foundation (its become a fad I'd say). In this case, you'd have to worry about AKC breeders not DNA testing, not ABCA breeders but there is their share of both. I'm glad Murphy will not be registered with the AKC, good for you.

 

I'd love to know what ABCA breeders you found that also DNA test for CL and TNS, along with CEA? There are some high volume breeders that I'd guess might because it would appeal to the AKC buyer but besides that, most ABCA breeders have no idea what CL and TNS are because they are nonexistent in their breed (as in dogs from pedigrees that are strictly from dogs that are registered ISDS, ABCA, CBCA, NASDS, and AIBC) and it will be so until there is any solid proof supporting different, no matter how many claims there are to be made.

 

CHD is not tested for in a DNA test. Someday maybe but until then all breeders have to depend on OFA to grade their dogs hips. As for your GSD, I’m sorry. We also had GSDs and thanks to the conformation ring (aka AKC) the breed is now unsound in conformation and a heart break awaiting to happen for any loving owner.

 

{edit}

 

Epilepsy doesn’t have a DNA test yet either. Best thing you can do there is try and find a bloodline or breeding that hasn’t produced it (its rare).

 

So, just make sure you do your home work before getting a puppy and make sure the breeder you are working with knows what their breed is and what they are talking about.

 

Katelynn

 

Yes, JKC reg. can be transferred to AKC, but I have no interest in doing that... not for any political reasons, only because why bother if Murphy is not being shown, bred, etc. Plus, the Japanese breed dogs like rabbits -- and I mean no disrespect to the Japanese as a whole (again, trying not to taint the entire bunch because of a few)... but that is a WHOLE other argument.

I just take particular issue with the breeding situation presently taking place in Japan --

 

Anyway..

 

Our GSD (o/t - sorry) ... it's a LONG story.. but it did have a happy ending. We bought her when we lived in Germany.. and her CHD was completely unexpected -- devastated the breeder (his dogs are all Polizei dogs). We were fortunate to be living just down the street from the vet who wrote the book on the surgery for CHD (he lives in Birkenfeld, if anyone's familiar with him as well).. so our GSD was extremely fortunate. She lived 11 1/2 pain-free - NORMAL years... extremely active, etc.. until hemangiosarcoma got her. Broke our hearts.

 

But we learned a lot from that experience... broken hearts and all.

 

Sorry about lumping CHD/CEA/EPILEPSY in with the whole DNA testing comments, but typically I'm typing in a hurry.. and flew right through my post.

 

As for the breeders we have been in contact with throughout our search for our next BC, I'll keep their names in confidence. They were all lovely people who clearly loved their dogs - and they all have their own philosophies on breeding. I would never set out to tarnish their names or have their breeding held up to scrutiny without their knowledge. I would give anyone at this forum the same courtesy.

 

What's sad, though, is that we cannot even discuss those breeders who deserve scrutiny -- puppy mills to be specific, can we? We'll either get sued.. or kicked off a message board for uttering their names (not implying this board).

 

 

Thanks for your input, Katelyn..

~Kim

[Eileen Stein]

 

I think until we know more - scientifically proven facts, etc - it's unwise not to at least consider any and all testing that's out there. Other than cost (which, I agree, is ridiculous), as someone who is currently looking into our next BC - I just wanted to say that I, personally, would have no issue with paying more for a pup that has had the OFA, CEA, and DNA testing that is available. >>

 

If that's your point, then you've made it. Not much point discussing it further. I don't think it's a particularly sensitive subject -- working dog people in the US simply don't see any need to test for CL. There are an ever expanding number of DNA tests available, so if you want a pup tested for all of the deleterious genes that can be carried, you will probably have some difficulty finding a working breeder who will qualify. Not because they're afraid people wouldn't pay more for a puppy, but because they consider it futile and pointless. But you're entitled to form your own opinion about what constitutes an ethical breeder, and what breeders you would or would not be willing to buy from, and I wish you good luck in finding what you want.

 

I just take particular issue with the breeding situation presently taking place in Japan -- >>

 

I can't see why the breeding practices of the Japanese should have any effect at all on why you would or would not choose to register your JKC dog (which you already have) with the AKC. Thus, I don't see what your second sentence has to do with your first sentence. Moreover, when you say "the Japanese breed dogs like rabbits" you ARE expressing disrespect to the Japanese as a whole, because you are phrasing your charge as an indictment of "the Japanese" as a whole. But please, let's not go into this again. It's inflammatory, it's off-topic, and the actual facts are unknown to nearly everyone on these Boards.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

I think it does all come down to knowing the pedigree. I don't know of any working breeder who breeds to show or sport dogs, just because it wouldn't improve the working quality of their dogs to do so. But since the AKC refuses to close its studbook, there ARE no doubt AKC people (nearly always sport people, but conceivably some show people also) who bring their bitches to ABCA-registered working studs, and so in that sense there is mixing of the lines. It's probably safe to assume that the offspring nearly always go into the AKC ambit, rather than into the working dog world, but it only makes sense to look into the pedigree of any dogs you might be interested in buying. If they have Australian show lines behind them, that would be a good reason to pass, IMO.

[voices4animals]

If that's your point, then you've made it. Not much point discussing it further. I don't think it's a particularly sensitive subject -- working dog people in the US simply don't see any need to test for CL.

 

I can't see why the breeding practices of the Japanese should have any effect at all on why you would or would not choose to register your JKC dog (which you already have) with the AKC. Thus, I don't see what your second sentence has to do with your first sentence. Moreover, when you say "the Japanese breed dogs like rabbits" you ARE expressing disrespect to the Japanese as a whole, because you are phrasing your charge as an indictment of "the Japanese" as a whole. But please, let's not go into this again. It's inflammatory, it's off-topic, and the actual facts are unknown to nearly everyone on these Boards.

 

 

Wow, Eileen. I am certainly not trying to start such a heated debate. I'm a little surprised by the hostility... and I thought this board was for discussion. I didn't know there were limitations on what could be discussed and for how long. Now I know... so thanks for the heads up.

 

Briefly.. to clarify:

 

My point was that AKC vs ABCA is a sensitive topic, and thus I was trying to avoid it... not CL. I don't find CL

a sensitive topic at all.

 

[............]

 

~kim

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

You're welcome. But since you went on to discuss the subject of treatment of dogs in Japan anyway, despite my request that you not do so, unfortunately I had to edit your last post.

 

>

 

Fair enough. I misunderstood you, for which I apologize. I would certainly not want to discourage you from trying to avoid sensitive topics.

[voices4animals]

<< I thought this board was for discussion. I didn't know there were limitations on what could be discussed and for how long. Now I know... so thanks for the heads up. >>

 

You're welcome. But since you went on to discuss the subject of treatment of dogs in Japan anyway, despite my request that you not do so, unfortunately I had to edit your last post.

 

<< My point was that AKC vs ABCA is a sensitive topic, and thus I was trying to avoid it... not CL. >>

 

Fair enough. I misunderstood you, for which I apologize. I would certainly not want to discourage you from trying to avoid sensitive topics.

 

 

Thank you for clarifying, Eileen. I cannot speak about Murphy (my BC) without mentioning Japan... but perhaps there is another thread on this board for that discussion. It's a topic I'm very passionate about, and promise to behave - but I hope you'll atleast allow me to say that I have absolutely nothing but affection for the Japanese, and would go back in a heartbeat.

I wouldn't want anyone to think otherwise... but I'll clarify my points in the appropriate place on this board.

 

Thanks Eileen.

~kim

[Katelynn & Gang]

Murphy overheats easily.. and spends a lot of time laying in front of the fan --- and as much as I would like to chalk it up to having a rough coat, we're now in 4 ft of snow and extremely cold, and after a 2 mi walk .. in the cold... he still makes a B-Line to the fan.

 

There are a lot of other indicators that have led me to believe that tracheal collapse is a possilibility. The vet and I have discussed that he could also have a damaged trachea from trauma (I can't count the number of times he's forgotten he's on a leash, then RUNS AT FULL SPEED, only to nearly lose his head when the leash comes to a sudden END).

 

Anyway.. another issue I'm contemplating as well is Cushing's Syndrome, which Murphy ALSO has some of the symptoms of.

 

I'm trying not to be paranoid... but when typing in his symptoms, these are the things that pop up in my searches. It could be any HOST of conditions... it could be nothing... but chances are it's an issue with his trachea.

 

I'm sorry but going through the heart break of what you described in another thread would be more then enough to putme off of any breeding lines that has any possibility of producing CL. As you said, Murphy is in fact from AU breeding. Considering CL (not to mention TNS and anything new that might pop up) is only found in AU breeding lines (conformation) and wanting to avoiding any sort of health problems and/or heart ache, I'd be running full speed the other way when looking for another dog.

 

Health testing is great but I'd rather buy from a line of healthy dogs that are only tested for the number of things that MAY affect them (CEA and Hips in the “Border Collie”) rather then from otherwise known healthy dogs that are being tested daily for new things that DO affect them (CL, TNS, Hips, Elbows, Thyroid and Heart in the “Australian Border Collie”).

 

People set themselves up for enough heart break getting a dog in the first place, why set yourself up more by buying a dog from bloodlines that NEED more health testing then what is usual for the breed?

 

Should it not be more comfort that you bought a dog from bloodlines that did not need those health testing because those defects simply do not exist in them? Rather then knowing your dog came from a bloodline that HAD to be tested for the defects because they DO indeed exist within that bloodline?

 

Katelynn

[Eileen Stein]

Katelynn, the human equivalent of CL is Batten's Disease, not Cushing's. Not sure if I misunderstood you, but just in case I thought I would clarify. Otherwise, I certainly agree with the thrust of your post.

[Katelynn & Gang]

Katelynn, the human equivalent of CL is Batten's Disease, not Cushing's. Not sure if I misunderstood you, but just in case I thought I would clarify. Otherwise, I certainly agree with the thrust of your post.

 

Dang it, I always mix those up. I'll fix it in the post. Thanks!

[muddy bob]

Katelynne said that inbreeding causes genetic mutations. Please correct me if I am wrong but I'm fairly sure the reason you should not marry your brother is the concern of doubling up on recessive mutations not that it causes the mutations. Just wanted to clarify.

 

muddy

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

Correct! Prob one of the reasons we have a low rate of CEA also versus the show collie (not show BC, the one that split off in the nineteenth century).

[Appalachia]

Hello, I have read this post a couple times. I am new to this board. I could not find the dog on this website that goes back to Gotrah Kaspers Kid. Did they take the dog off the website? What ever became of this? If Kasper had obtained a Conformation Champ. wouldn't he and his offspring have been stricken from the ABCA studbook anyway?

 

Was Gotrah Lancelot Lad imported into the United States? Does he have any ABCA offspring? Has anyone found any other dogs in the ABCA that are from AUS or NZ lines?

 

What was said about Mississinewa Prince Val? Did he or relatives have "Fits" (epilepsy)?

 

I found this kinda shocking. The AKC people can do what they want, but I believe we should make a DEFINATE SPLIT and keep our working bloodlines in their purity. In 30 years the AKC dog's coats will drag the floor, and their instinct, eye, and traditional conformation will be sacrificed. NOT breeding for instinct and stock sense, Ect. is a fast enough way to loose desireable qualities (THE BORDER COLLIE QUALITIES)let alone alowing outside blood to dilute and contaminate our genepool! These ARE and ALWAYS WERE meant to be a utility dog, not an aesthetic masterpeice!

 

The ROM dogs in the UK and States make me nervous enough (Turnbull's Blue for instance)! Obviously, he was not a Border Collie! He was PART border collie! I CAN'T BELIEVE THE ISDS ACCEPTED THIS!! I feel diluting the pure genepool will destroy what took so very long (centuries?) to perfect. It may introduce genetics that are not what the traditional border collie was meant to be. I just wish the registries would close, and become purebred registries. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

 

I have good reason to believe the ISDS lines are about as pure as they get. I think the OLDER American lines that are exclusively ISDS in origin are too, as pure as possible, and their quality should not be comprimised, so long as they had been bred and selected for WORKING qualities.

 

I worry about the imported show lines from AUST and NZ. I don't want to offend anyone by saying that, but don't some of the AUS and NZ bloodlines have outside blood in them, from back in the day? Isn't that where they got all those odd colors like dilute, ect.. I see ABCA dogs that are Lilac and Grey and such and it makes me wonder if they have outside blood. I look upon them with a condescending eye. I may try to trace back in the pedigrees to see where these odd colors are coming from. I have one woman in mind, in particular, who is breeding Border Collies for COLOR and registering the ABCA! OH,BOY!!!

 

They say, "My dogs work as well as any other, and who cares about the purity as long as the dog works...?

Well, I think by contaminating our genepool with "junk" makes it harder to get the BEST dogs to breed from for future generations of good dogs. It destroys the prepotency and consistency in reproduction of the working collie.

 

I guess if the registries are not going to keep the purity and FIXED traits of the breed, it is up to us as breeders to keep our OWN purebred registries. It is basically the integrity of the breeder, as to the integrity behind their dogs bloodlines, and, after readin this post 30 times, I will be studying the pedigrees VERY carefully of any dogs I ever use......

 

I am not out to offend anyone, nor do I clain to be a genius or "smart guy"! Everyone has their own desires and opinions. But, if we are working toward different goals in our dogs, why not split the breed clean and try not to look back! There is no good for the WORKING Collie to add show lines to it, and there is only so much you can do for the Show Collie on the bench by constantly adding working lines to them. Their is no point of the show bench breeders moving ahead in their goal and vision, and then going back and breeding to the base to something that is not of their "TYPE". I'm sure you Show breeders can see my point in this. Their is no point in moving forward with a plan, just to go back. If you are breeding for Color or the Show Bench, more power to you, and the same goes for the Working breeders, but what is the point of registering Show Bench dogs with the ABCA, knowing that your goals are not those of the WORKING Collie breeders???? The people that are serious about WORKING lines are not registering with the AKC...

 

Please do not post nasty, argumentative messages, cause these are, after all, only my opinions. I will not respond to them. I don't play games... And by the way, It's nice meeting all of you!!! Thanks, Peter

[rushdoggie]

These ARE and ALWAYS WERE meant to be a utility dog, not an aesthetic masterpeice!

 

The ROM dogs in the UK and States make me nervous enough (Turnbull's Blue for instance)! Obviously, he was not a Border Collie! He was PART border collie! I CAN'T BELIEVE THE ISDS ACCEPTED THIS!! I feel diluting the pure genepool will destroy what took so very long (centuries?) to perfect. It may introduce genetics that are not what the traditional border collie was meant to be. I just wish the registries would close, and become purebred registries. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

 

I have good reason to believe the ISDS lines are about as pure as they get. I think the OLDER American lines that are exclusively ISDS in origin are too, as pure as possible, and their quality should not be comprimised, so long as they had been bred and selected for WORKING qualities.

 

 

They say, "My dogs work as well as any other, and who cares about the purity as long as the dog works...?

Well, I think by contaminating our genepool with "junk" makes it harder to get the BEST dogs to breed from for future generations of good dogs.

I am not out to offend anyone, nor do I clain to be a genius or "smart guy"!

 

 

Please do not post nasty, argumentative messages, cause these are, after all, only my opinions. I will not respond to them. I don't play games... And by the way, It's nice meeting all of you!!! Thanks, Peter

 

Well, I will do my best to not be nasty but I can't help being argumentative by pointing out that the Border Collie is a working breed, developed by crossing many many dogs of many breeds until the desired characteristics were achieved. Theres no magic or "purity" about it. In fact, the over-focus on purity of bloodline is what got 99% of purebred breeds in trouble in the first place.

 

As time marches on, and needs change, adding in an occasional outcross can only enhance your much beloved breed by focusing on characteristics that are needed for a good working dog, while eliminating the negatives that come with dogs who have the same ancestors several generations back.

 

You are not adding "junk" to your genepool, you are adding genetic diversity along with traits that you desire.

 

This is a really long article, but its great and it explains a lot. I would really recommend it to anyone.

 

What is a Canine Breed?

[Liz P]

If Kasper had obtained a Conformation Champ. wouldn't he and his offspring have been stricken from the ABCA studbook anyway?

 

Not if he earned his championship prior to the announcement that dogs earning their Ch would lose their ABCA papers.

 

The ROM dogs in the UK and States make me nervous enough (Turnbull's Blue for instance)! Obviously, he was not a Border Collie! He was PART border collie! I CAN'T BELIEVE THE ISDS ACCEPTED THIS!! I feel diluting the pure genepool will destroy what took so very long (centuries?) to perfect. It may introduce genetics that are not what the traditional border collie was meant to be. I just wish the registries would close, and become purebred registries. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!

 

??? The ISDS registers working sheep dogs. "Bearded Collies" are working sheep dogs and can be registered with the ISDS. I put the breed name in quotes because Beardies are really just a coat variation of the same breed as Border Collies. They are part of the population of dogs that has been perfected over the last 150+ years to move livestock on the British Isles.

 

I have good reason to believe the ISDS lines are about as pure as they get. I think the OLDER American lines that are exclusively ISDS in origin are too, as pure as possible, and their quality should not be comprimised, so long as they had been bred and selected for WORKING qualities.

 

Why are you so caught up with breed purity? A closed gene pool is not a good thing. Restricting a breed with a strict, closed stud book does nothing but force inbreeding, leading to less healthy dogs and fertility problems.

 

I suggest you look into dog types such as Alaskan huskies or Euro hounds. Both are breeds used for sled dog racing. They are strictly selected for their traits as sled dog, but various breeds are crossed in to maintain a healthy population of extreme athletes.

 

You should also look into information on station bred Kelpies. The nicest Kelpies I know are station bred.

 

I worry about the imported show lines from AUST and NZ. I don't want to offend anyone by saying that, but don't some of the AUS and NZ bloodlines have outside blood in them, from back in the day? Isn't that where they got all those odd colors like dilute, ect.. I see ABCA dogs that are Lilac and Grey and such and it makes me wonder if they have outside blood. I look upon them with a condescending eye. I may try to trace back in the pedigrees to see where these odd colors are coming from. I have one woman in mind, in particular, who is breeding Border Collies for COLOR and registering the ABCA! OH,BOY!!!

 

It's true that people breeding for color as opposed to working ability first and foremost will produce dogs of lesser quality. However, those colors have always existed within the working dog population of the British Isles. Just look at other breeds of dogs. The genes causing dilute, brown, sable, merle, etc are widespread and are/were found in most breeds. The breeds that have a single or very few colors have achieved that status via strict culling, leading to a genetic bottleneck.

 

I guess if the registries are not going to keep the purity and FIXED traits of the breed, it is up to us as breeders to keep our OWN purebred registries. It is basically the integrity of the breeder, as to the integrity behind their dogs bloodlines, and, after readin this post 30 times, I will be studying the pedigrees VERY carefully of any dogs I ever use......

 

I sincerely hope you take the time to do some research on genetics and breeding guidelines based on our current understanding of that topic before you produce any puppies.

 

But, if we are working toward different goals in our dogs, why not split the breed clean and try not to look back!

 

I agree, let's cut off the show dogs and force a breed split. At this point they are essentially a different breed.

 

Please do not post nasty, argumentative messages, cause these are, after all, only my opinions. I will not respond to them. I don't play games... And by the way, It's nice meeting all of you!!! Thanks, Peter

 

The problem is, a lot of what you said was not opinion. You seem to have picked up some incorrect information along the way. Hopefully we can help clear up the facts for you.

[DeltaBluez Tess]

>>>>The ROM dogs in the UK and States make me nervous enough (Turnbull's Blue for instance)! Obviously, he was not a Border Collie! He was PART border collie! I CAN'T BELIEVE THE ISDS ACCEPTED THIS!! I feel diluting the pure genepool will destroy what took so very long (centuries?) to perfect. It may introduce genetics that are not what the traditional border collie was meant to be. I just wish the registries would close, and become purebred registries. IF IT AIN'T BROKE, DON'T FIX IT!<<<<

 

My ROM dog (Tess) doesn't make me nervous at all...nor did it make any of the people who got her pups....in fact, at one of our USBCHA Finals, she qualified at 11 years old and had the highest number of pups and grandpups running....as a 2 yr old, she placed 6th in the USBCHA Nursery finals....her pups has qualifed in Sheepdog and cattledog Nursery and Open.....and what of her lines.....cattledog bred on her dam's side and her sire side...top trial dogs in Germany (all UK imported)......so what about her makes you nervous?

 

Pennt Tose had the first ROM dog....and she is the foundation of some of her great dogs......

 

Additionally, the Border Collie was a mixture of various breeds......all mixed together and selected over the years for a fine working dog.

 

It's when you start tinkering with the breed for color, coat, anything besides working ability, you start to lose what the Border Collie was bred for...

[Appalachia]

I am not trying to offend anyone, I AM a nice person. Nor am I trying to have battle of the BRAINS here.

I have stated my opinions.

 

Rushdoggie, genetic diversity is also a matter of opinion. It has it Pros AND CONS. The magic is that breeders have spent many years intensifying and solidifying good traits, while also weeding out the bad ones. All breeds started from something. I think our gene pool is large enough. The traits I desire are already there! I don't believe in masking or hiding problems by outcrossing, but weeding them out of the pool and going from there! We have something they didn't have called GENETIC TESTING. Outcrossing is useful, but it also a good way to introduce new, hidden, unwanted genetics (MY POINT).

 

Liz P, It was my understanding that BEARDED COLLIES were an altogether different physical and working type from the "Cumberland Sheepdog" type, and other "SILENT" "EYE" "CROUCHING" sheepdogs that were the predesessors of the Border Collie. Bearded Collies had an upright working posture, very little to no "EYE", and gave voice. This is not like the Border Collies I am interested in. It is my opinion that Bearded Border Collie are only a throwback to Bearded Collie crosses that were introduced to the Border Collie lines. I am not interested in "BEARDS" nor the bloodline in which they come from.

 

And, TO ME a closed gene pool IS a good thing. If you get problems ie. less healthy dogs or fertility problems, ya don't use the dog! That is why it is called SELECTIVE BREEDING. Outcrossing will do nothing more than cover up the hidden recessives that caused the problem in the first place, only to crop out decades later.

 

Also, yes, I understand Hybrid Vigor and why they cross the sled dogs. Remember that it was linebred families, consistant in genetics, that produced the exceptional hybrids? And, I am not talking about Kelpies, Liz, I am talking about BORDER COLLIES....

 

And, on those crazy colors, how many Int. Champs were dilutes and merles? You know what the old time Scotsman used to do with those off colors, they got rid of them! They learned which ones were the good ones from experience. And, I'm ALL FOR the "BOTTLENECK". BOTTLENECKS have produced some darn good animals over the last thousand plus years. The Holstein (Freisian) Dairy cows may have their genetic problems, but they are DAMN good milk cows (none can compete for volume), thanks to a "BOTTLENECK"!

 

"I sincerely hope you take the time to do some research on genetics and breeding guidelines based on our current understanding of that topic before you produce any puppies."

Breeding guidelines, Rubbish! This comment was the one that hurt, cause I am sure I have studied genetics as in depth and for as long as would meet anyones standard! I understand Recombination of Chromosomes, and the manipulation of Sex linked traits, do you? My dogs will be genetic tested before I produce pups, and If you don't like my opinions, you don't have to buy one of my pups. I am having pups for myself, not you.

That comment was one of the ones I was reffering to as nasty! ARE YOU BEING A GENIUS OR JUST BEING DEFENSIVE?

 

DELTABLUE TESS, I agree with you latter comments about the Border Collies coming from somewhat mixed ancestry, and also about the danger of breeding for color, coat, ect. I want you to know, I am not criticizing your ROM dog, as I'm sure she is a good one, just as I can see you are a respectful lady. SHE doesn't make me nervous, Its the ROM dogs that are destined to be admitted into the registry that are for instance 1/4 Rough Collie (LASSIE type). Or, even more so, the ones that are mixed bred muts that still handle well enough and have enough eye to work stock, but are CARRYING undesireable genetics, that are not of the traditional border collie that has been perfected over many years. I am sure your ROM dog is good, and I also am sure it is 100% Border Collie. I am not convinced, however, that "Turnbull's Blue" was 100% BORDER Collie. I hope I didn't offend you too much, I should have been more explicit in my view. I think you will understand me now, though.

[Appalachia]

I said I wasn't going to reply to nasty posts and I did It anyhow. OH BROTHER!

[Liz P]

Breeding guidelines, Rubbish! This comment was the one that hurt, cause I am sure I have studied genetics as in depth and for as long as would meet anyones standard! I understand Recombination of Chromosomes, and the manipulation of Sex linked traits, do you? My dogs will be genetic tested before I produce pups, and If you don't like my opinions, you don't have to buy one of my pups. I am having pups for myself, not you.

That comment was one of the ones I was reffering to as nasty! ARE YOU BEING A GENIUS OR JUST BEING DEFENSIVE?

 

I have an excellent grasp of genes having majored in biology with a focus on genetics during college, then earning an advanced degree after that.

 

Why would I need to be defensive? I am trying to help you and offer sound advice. You are more than welcome to ignore it.

 

Look back at your first message. You came here already angry and defensive. Take some time to step back, calm down and read through some posts. If you are willing to keep an open mind there is the opportunity to learn a great deal on these boards.

[Debbie Meier]

I am sure your ROM dog is good, and I also am sure it is 100% Border Collie. I am not convinced, however, that "Turnbull's Blue" was 100% BORDER Collie.

 

 

It is my understanding the Turnbull's Blue was a sheep dog, and accepted via ROM into ISDS, which registers working sheepdogs that are proven either through work or via pedigree records/registration. Another handler told it to me this way, they are all Sheepdogs, border collie is just a title for a specific strain or line and identifies a specific style of work.

 

What is wonderful about ISDS and ABCA is that a breeder has the choice, if they want to breed based on pedigree first then type so be it, or they can breed based on type then maybe pedigree. If their type is not pedigreed but the work is acceptable they can get it added to the stud books so that future breedings can be tracked, those that want to breed based on pedigree don't have to breed to those dogs. Pretty simple.

 

I look at a registry not as a way to keep dogs pure but more of a service for breeders and buyers, it is simply a data base of dogs that is limited based on certain criteria, in ABCA's case, as I understand it, that the parents are registered with ABCA; or, registered with a registry that they accept; or, that the dog can meet the standard of work and other requirements. Nothing about purebred border collies, that is your personal desire, so use the data base to get what you want as far as purebred or what your idea of purebred is. You may want to identify some foundation dogs that meet your standards as "pure" and demand that all of your breeding pairs have a minimum percentage of those dogs blood. That would help to ensure that your dogs are purer then others...

 

Personally, I'm going to breed based on working style and ability and not worry too much about whether or not the breed is pure based on a piece of paper.

[Sue R]

Welcome, Appalachia.

 

Just a couple of comments with regards to your opinions. First, do you really understand the ROM program? It is a rigorous testing of a dog that must demonstrate working ability to a high standard. Whether it happens in the UK with the ISDS or in the US/Canada with the ABCA, it is a worthwhile test.

 

Some dogs are of known, purebred lineage but the paperwork is missing, and so ROM is a way for their valuable genetics to be retained in the registered genepool. Some dogs are not of known lineage but demonstrate *by the work* that they have what it takes to be breeding-worthy. There are not very many ROM dogs/bitches on the books because the process is truly a test that the animal is capable of doing "the work" to a high standard.

 

You have received some very polite, very knowledgeable responses to your posts. The only one who has apparently taken offense and gotten defensive has been you, by the tone of the posts here. So, please, take Liz P's advice, "...step back, calm down, and read...keep an open mind..." and take "the opportunity to learn a great deal on these boards".

 

This is a welcoming community but don't barge on in with all guns blazing if you want to feel welcomed.