3 minutes a day in a centrifuge was part of the failed biosensor "super dog" program.

Dog culture is lazy and unoriginal, and profoundly stagnant. The desire for easy answers, simplistic how-tos and formulas for success is rampant. Just do this one simple thing! 

Breeders eschew complexity, uncertainty, and experimentation. They fear change and embrace unproven tradition on face value.  We do it this way because we’ve always done it this way.

Reason gives way to mimicry, and that is the true mark of conformation: not in the dogs keeping to a written standard but in breeders kowtowing to the unwritten rites and rituals to fit in.

One cherished ritual that can be found proudly advertised on numerous breeder websites (usually after the “Our Boys” and “Our Girls” links) as a sign of their reputable status and deep commitment to superior dogs is the adoption of the “Bio-Sensor” program as the one true path™ to dog raising.

In only 15-25 seconds a day for only 14 days in a dog’s life you will realize “life long lasting effects:” “improve performance,” “respond maximally,” “attain sexual maturity sooner,” “resist cancer and infectious disease,” “withstand terminal starvation,” achieve “psychological superiority,” “stronger heart beats,” “stronger adrenal glands,” and “improved cardio vascular performance!”

That’s less than 6 total minutes of work to make a super dog!  AMAZING!

The brains over at the sci-ence blog have come up with a handy chart to recognize quackery, the relevant parts of which I’ve reproduced here.  Their instructions:

“If you come upon a treatment or product that seems too good to be true, consult this handy guide to finding pseudoscience, scams, and quack medicine. Remember, it only takes one match to be considered suspect! Be safe, and be skeptical!”

This widely tauted “Bio Sensor” a.k.a “Super Dog” a.k.a “Early Neurological Stimulation” program has many warning signs of quack science.

Let’s start with who is peddling this pseudoscience:  Dr. Carmen a.k.a Carmelo Battaglia, Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club.

Dr. Carmen L. Battaglia, of Roswell, Georgia, owns and breeds German Shepherd Dogs and is Delegate and Past President of the German Shepherd Dog Club of America. Carmen has chaired the Committee for the Future and Business/Planning Committee and as a former AKC Director, served as Board liaison for the Health, Parent Club, HEC and By-Laws Delegates committees. He has published articles on breeding and legislation as well as several award-winning books. He also serves as an AKC expert witness in dog legislation cases and has written county dog legislation which resulted in the model that is used in several states. Carmen possesses a Doctorate from Florida State University and has been Assistant Dean at Emory University and Regional Administrator at the US Department of Education. He is also the President of Atlanta Student Aid (financial aid consulting Firm) as well as the past president/owner of three post secondary schools which were located in two states.

You’ll remember Dr. Battaglia from his resurrection of Lloyd Brackett and his infamous “Brackett’s Formula.”  Dr. Battaglia gives lectures on cruise ships to up-and-coming brown-nosers in the AKC hierarchy who want to buy the secret knowledge and pay the right gate keepers to fast track show success.  He’s the closest thing the AKC community has to a celebrity doctor.

But don’t get too comfortable with the idea that he’s a medical doctor, he isn’t.  He’s a Ph.D. doctor, which he readily advertises at the end of his publications:

Carmen L Battaglia holds a Ph.D. and Masters Degree from Florida State University. As an AKC judge, researcher and writer, he has been a leader in promotion of breeding better dogs and has written many articles and several books.

Dr. Battaglia is also a popular TV and radio talk show speaker. His seminars on breeding dogs, selecting sires and choosing puppies have been well received by the breed clubs all over the country. Those interested in learning more about his seminars should contact him directly.

Visit his website at http://www.breedingbetterdogs.com

What he doesn’t advertise anywhere that I’ve found despite an extensive search is what subjects his degrees are in.  So I contacted the Curriculum Publications Coordinator at Florida State University and found out the unpublished truth:  B.A. Psychology 1958, M.S. Social Welfare 1960, PhD Joint Doctoral Program in Criminology Corrections and Sociology 1968.

So by way of education, Dr. Battaglia is more equipped to run a prison than a breeding program.  His dissertation was titled “Deviant behavior of parolees and the decision-making process of parole supervisors.”

The next indicator that “Bio-Sensor” is quack science is because it’s being SOLD as a how-to guide to success without having been vetted in any way by scientists in peer reviewed publications resulting from studies done according to the scientific method.

Dr. Battaglia sells his program along with breeding and puppy selection advice as part of his self-help for dog breeding commercial venture.  You can buy books, videos, DVDs, and subscribe to his newsletter and attend his lectures.

In accordance with yet another quackery red flag, Dr. Battaglia is pitching program that offers medical benefits but he (nor anyone else) has no peer-reviewed journal articles on his protocol. And it’s not for lack of trying.  If you visit his website you will find a link to request his so far unpublished journal article.  When you do so, you will be e-mailed a copy of an extended version of his Bio-Sensor article spruced up to look like an actual experiment with “Methods and Materials” and everything.

It appears from the file that Dr. Battaglia has attempted to get this article published since at least 2007, but he will warn you that the article is still under intense review and thus you can not share it.

This wouldn’t be the first time that the “Bio Sensor” program has been used to sell a self-help program, however, as Dr. Battaglia collaborated with Stanley Coren–king of marketing shoddy dog science to pet owners in book form–who included the information in his book Why Does My Dog Act That Way?

Battaglia and Coren’s considerable influence on the dog fancy combined with Battaglia offering the super simplified how-to instructions for achiving super dog success for free on his website as a teaser for his suite of videos, books, and lectures the “Early Neurological Stimulation” program has saturated the hobby pet breeder culture.  Breeder testimonials and reprints of the method are everywhere.

Diligently following Dr. Battaglia’s advice, there are breeders out there inbreeding their lines and producing singleton puppies who none-the-less credit Brackett’s Formula and the amazing Bio-Sensor program for giving them a super puppy abounding with exceptional qualities.

Apparently I’m part of a silent minority who have even questioned this program’s merits and the academic bona fides of the man who peddles it from coast to coast, as I’ve found no online criticism of the methods and not even one other soul who questioned what Dr. Battaglia’s field of study was until I sent out feelers over a year ago.

But it’s clear to me that Bio-Sensor is being marketed just like quack science is marketed, by people who have a vested financial interest in selling easy answers and quick fixes to gullible pet breeders who spend fortunes trying to rectify their ignorance with short cuts and feel-good nonsense.

In a quadrumvirate of quackery, Battaglia also uses his “Breeding Better Dogs” website to sell Japanese (think Eastern medicine) magic magnetic shoe inserts and magic magnetic dog beds that are “combined with magnetic technology, another ancient principle” and “enhance the body’s energy flow to allow healing and proper metabolism.”  This is a man perfectly willing to market quack science as a miracle product for profit.

So far I’ve shown that Bio-Sensor looks like a duck, and in a future post I’ll show you how it quacks like a duck as well.

Meet Wyndlair Avalanche, a “double dilute” homozygous merle Collie who was purposefully bred to create a sire who would always produce blue merle puppies.

Nothing to see here, folks. No really, the dog can't see shit.

Among Wyndlair Avalanche’s many show ring accomplishments, you’ll notice that none of them are his!  And why would the product of two show champions (Southland’s Beyond the Glory x Twin City Wyndlair Anthem) and the sire of more than a dozen champions himself not have a “Ch.” before his name?  His breeder has the #1 Collie in the USA right now (his son GCH CH Wyndlair Cherokee Vindication), it’s certainly not from lack of effort or resources.

Well, he can’t see to get around the ring because he’s blind due to the merle gene.

I would point out that Wyndlair Avalanche is producing some exquisite puppies.  I have had conversations with one of his co-breeders and, yes, he is blind but he gets around fine and romps with the other dogs and is enjoying life.

In a horrible bit of irony, one of the breeders who has used Avalanche quotes Helen Keller on her webpage, saying “All that we love deeply, becomes a part of us!”  I have to wonder what sort of sick people love a color on their dog so deeply that they are perfectly willing to create and use a diseased and dysfunctional sire just so they can boast:

An all blue merle litter is due mid-March!

Would a half blue merle litter be unacceptable? So unacceptable that they would support the breeding of a Sable Merle with a Blue Merle to produce a litter with 25% double dilute homozygous merles?  It was not a mistake or done out of ignorance.  This dog was created by people who know exactly what the risks are.

This exquisite homozygous blue merle is everything we hoped for from such beautiful parents. He is one of the most exquisite Collies ever bred at Wyndlair. Aiden possesses beautiful length, cleanness & lightness of head with a pretty profile, huge outline, strong rear & breathtaking presence.

From his birth, we knew Aiden was destined to be truly special. As his puppies have completed their championships in amazing style, our belief in him has been affirmed! Congratulations to his many kids on their smashing success in this country and beyond!

Notice how they conveniently leave out that he’s blind.

This lack of ethics in pursuit of aesthetics is what discredits the entire show community and makes all dog breeders susceptible to legal and moral attacks from the Animal Rights movement. It’s one thing to shave poodles into silly topiary, it’s fundamentally worse to intentionally inflict disease upon our dogs for the sake of producing a few more blue merle puppies each litter.

Aesthetic frivolity reveling in cruelty and genetic deformity is an historical mark of the end of empires, the last gasp of corrupt cultures. It is a sign that the pendulum has swung too far. The Spanish Habspburg monarchy immortalized their facial deformities and the collection of genetic oddities they surrounded themselves at court in oil paintings. Before their fall they presided over the first truly global empire, but paranoia and demands for purity of blood ended up in a collection of genetic disorders that not only corrupted the mind but the fertility of the line.

Collies are an iconic show dog, with equal or superior claims to being show royalty versus any other breed who would seek that title. But the tides have turned against the most obvious of the show ring freaks and it’s unlikely that breeding behavior like this will be looked on favorably by the layperson.  They’ve already been twisted way beyond anyone’s fond memories of Lassie or that old farm collie into angular and wedge faced beady eyed freaks.  Now, even today, even with the knowledge of what harm they are doing, we have the breeder of the Nation’s #1 Collie creating and reveling in their blind blue-merle maker.

This is a moral test and the AKC has failed.  Instead of shunning this dog, this breeder, and this behavior; they have bestowed their Breeder of Merit Award on the kennel who used him to produce their “all blue merle litter!”

update: Since one of the breeder’s in question removed their litter advertisement in response to this article, here is a snapshot:

Tron: Best In Show, appearing now in an arena near you

Wherein I propose that the Tron films can be read as a metaphor for dog culture and a criticism of the kennel club system.

If there was one day of the year that parents would not have to take the kids to the movies to entertain them, you’d think it’d be Christmas day where weeks of planning and big budgets would keep the rugrats busy playing with their haul of new toys.  But apparently parents suck at picking gifts or the toys the kids want never live up to the hype and a movie is the perfect way to shut them up from all the complaining.

So if you didn’t want to watch Patton, Valkyrie, or Inglourious Basterds on cable (what’s with the Nazi theme on Christmas?), you might have seen Tron: Legacy this holiday.

Although you might miss it if you don’t have dogs on the brain, I can’t help but see the plot as a critique on the same issue that is plaguing the culture of canine kennel clubs: the pursuit of perfection via genetic purity.

In the original film, Kevin Flynn is a laid off programmer trying to prove that his intellectual property is the code behind ENCOM corporation’s business success and revolutionary new virtual world.  The evil CEO of the company has not only kicked Flynn out but has installed an oppressive new “Master Control Program” which has so far prevented Flynn from accessing his original files and proving his authorship.

So instead of filing a lawsuit, Flynn attempts to hack the ENCOM computers with successive generations of a program he has written and which he tries to improve to a level that will finally overcome the MCP.  He names this program Clu, and it’s an expression of Flynn’s talent and ego in digital form, and “hacking” is represented by various gaming simulations that are reminiscent of Pong and  Battle Tanks.

When Clu fails, Flynn retools the program and sends him into the ring again.

Besides fending off attempts to reveal the charade, the MCP also seeks to improve itself and the virtual world by determining which programs are optimal and which are deficient.  Deficient  programs are discarded in a form of blood sport where they are pitted against each other in gladiatorial combat.

All programs in the world have their vital information stored in a data disc which they wear on their backs.  This is both a weapon and a shield from attacks.  When a program loses their data disc, they don’t die but they are prevented from meaningful interaction with the world.

When Clu proves ineffective in vanquishing the MCP, Flynn himself is accidentally digitized and sucked into the virtual world, taking over for Clu in the fight against the MCP.  Flynn succeeds and the movie ends with him in control of ENCOM.

ENCOM’s MCP is the kennel club. It is large, oppressive, and seeks to gain control of all the individual types of programs that it can.  It thinks that the more programs it appropriates, the smarter and more powerful it is.  It also believes that it is smarter due to this monopoly than the individual programs are: it inexplicably knows more about actuarial science than the actuarial program does.  Rebels are cast out and good ideas are appropriated and promptly botched in execution.

The Master Control Program’s goal is the collection of breed standards.  It dictates the Platonic ideal of what a program should be.  The competitive methods used to test programs against the ideal don’t really make sense at all, but since the MCP is already large and growing it bull dozes over any who would rebel against it.

The gladiatorial games are the breed ring.  This is where the actuarial program fights the tax software in a game of digital Jai Alai or Frisbee Tag to prove which one is worthy of further existence.  Never mind that one could easily test the actuarial program against real data or test the tax software against the real work it’s supposed to do… Dodge Ball is deemed a perfectly good test to measure which programs get to propogate their code and which are stripped of their data discs.

The data discs are the pedigrees: the record of past success, current ability, and the ticket into the game.  No pedigree, no entry.  In many cases, the disc is more valuable than the program itself.  Some programs use their disc to knock the ground out from under other programs, not defeating the programs themselves but slanting the environment in their favor.

The programs are the dogs.  They are the genetic code rewritten over generations from previous iterations by the “user” sent out to compete for the user’s benefit.  Real functional programs don’t have to bother with the games, they actually get work done, but the programs that once worked but no longer do get to play games in the ring and pretend that it’s a good measure of their worth.  We never actually see the programs that win in the games go back and do real work.  In fact, we don’t see much work being done at all and the going religion is that the “users” who ask the programs to work, are actually a myth.

The victory of the Jeff Bridge’s character in the game and out signals that it’s really all about the “users” anyway, the programs are just a side show.

Although dogs certainly weren’t featured in the original Tron, I think the analogy is pretty solid.

Tron Dog: User's Best Friend

In the sequel, this extended metaphor becomes even more blatant and critical of dog culture.  Not only do we have the addition of a literal rescue dog to the story, we also have dialog which links the dog to one of the main characters in a relevant manner.

After wrestling control of the virtual world from the MCP, Kevin Flynn resurrects his Clu program and promises it that together they shall build a “perfect” virtual utopia.  This is our hero’s tragic fault: the quest for perfection.  In his desire to perfect Clu (his breeding program) and perfect the virtual world (the kennel club), Flynn fails to appreciate that perfection is unattainable and subjective but computer programs are deterministic and objective.  Minor flaws in human understanding can become critical flaws in the code (genetic or otherwise).  In the original film Flynn beats the MCP by having it try to solve an unsolvable problem.  This confuses and slows the machine and gives Flynn the crucial advantage.

What’s novel about the sequel is that it also deals with new genetic variations.  Whereas all the original programs are the products of human “users” and later programs arise from this first generation of programs, and at some point new code manifests itself in the virtual world ab nihilo in the form of “isomorphic algorithms.”

Isomorphism has a specific meaning in science: literally “same form” in Greek, the term is applied to objects that have the same fundamental properties.  The two sides of an equation are isomorphic, as you can apply rule to both sides to change their appearance but the relationship is maintained.  Isomorphisms also connect symbols with their real world counterparts, and as such they represent the meaning we find between reality and abstraction.

Analogizing the content of the movie to represent the real world kennel club is a proposed isomorphism.  The more similarities we find between the symbols in the movie and the reality of dog culture, the more meaning the analogy has.

This concept is detailed in Gödel, Escher, Bach where Douglas Hofstadter discusses how isomorphisms bring meaning to systems composed of otherwise meaningless elements.

In Legacy, the isomorphic algorithms (ISOs) are viewed by Kevin Flynn as keys to expanding knowledge and finding truth, but Clu determines that they are imperfect and without merit.  He’s jealous of the attention and value that Flynn places on these organic programs.

The ISOs are the dogs that exist outside of the kennel club system: purpose built dogs, dogs of unknown pedigree, land races, hybrids, mutts, and new mutations.  As isomorphs, they have meaning not in seeking perfection but in existential value, rational value.

One hot Isomorphic Algorithm, Quorra. That dog can hunt.

Clu sees Flynn’s appreciation of the ISOs as a flaw, an imperfection, and so humans are imperfect.  Thus, humans and ISOs must be removed from the equation.  Clu believes that perfection is real and attainable and he institutes policies to achieve it.  Like humans who have tried to construct utopias, this results in a massive Draconian bureaucracy.  Clu overthrows Flynn, who becomes trapped within the virtual world and left marginalized hiding “off the grid” while Clu institutionalizes “perfection” and plots to bring his vision out into the real human world as well.

He carries out a genocide of the ISOs and only one ISO survives in the form of the delicious Quorra who is protected and shepherded by Flynn in his secret home off the grid.  Despite Clu’s repeated attempts to kill her, Quorra is superior to his perfect programs.  Clu tries to capture and use Flynn’s biological son, Sam, to bridge the gap into the imperfect human world where he can not only attain absolute power over the virtual realm to destroy both Kevin Flynn and Quorra, he can also cleanse the human world of imperfect humans.  The key to bridge the worlds is Kevin Flynn’s data disc (the perfect Platonic form).  If Clu can capture that disc, he can literally know the mind of god and escape the virtual realm.

The resolution of the plot speaks harshly against the kennel club culture:

• The pursuit of perfection above all is the villain’s tragic flaw.
• The villain installs a Draconian bureaucracy to enforce this “perfection.”
• This heartless world is thus governed by a rigid and unthinking document instead of rational but imperfect human beings.
• The arbitrary games eventually destroy almost all those who enter the ring.
• The imperfect humans prove superior at every turn to the examples of programmed perfection.  The programs only succeed because they have a situational advantage.
• Choosing to resolve problems in the artificial world instead of the real world is the flaw which launches the drama in the first film.
• Neglecting his own biological son in favor of his virtual clone Clu is the sin which launches the drama in the second film.
• The humans defeat the programs at their own game by choosing not to play the game at all.
• The downfall of both the MCP and Clu comes about when they outgrow their original purpose and seize too much power.
• Both villains suffer from logical absolutisms: MCP seeking absolute power through acquiring all programs of merit and Clu seeking absolute perfection through purging of the imperfect.
• The hero of the first film finds but a temporary victory from conquering the MCP from within; it’s only after the distorted philosophy is conquered and the virtual world itself is abandoned that the threat is abated.  A corrupt philosophy even freed from the initial despotism inevitably lead to a new and destructive despotism.
• The happy ending of both films involves breaking free and living outside of the oppressive system.  To live in the real world governed by nature’s laws not in the carefully constructed but artificial utopia.
• Flynn’s biological son, not his ideal clone-like program proves not only superior but the fitting legacy to his life and values.
• Interaction with the “perfect algorithms” damages Quorra’s body, making her lame.  They repair her by fixing her corrupted digital DNA.  The system can’t do this, only the user who is not bound by the system’s rules can.
• The biological son and Quorra find their happy ending not in the ideal utopia where they can play gods, but in the dirty and imperfect real world.
• Sam Flynn’s initial attack on the blind corporatism of ENCOM was represented by an image of his “rescue dog,” a virus that negated ENCOM’s monopoly on operating system software.
• Later, Quorra refers to herself as a “rescue” like Sam’s dog; saved from the genocide carried out against the imperfect ISOs by Kevin Flynn.
• The older, organic technics in the film prove superior to the newer models built for perfection and aesthetic appeal, especially when piloted by the biological son Sam and the “new blood” ISO Quorra.  The LightCar in particular proves to be more adaptable and contain more reserve code that can be applied to varied terrain and challenges versus the new LightBikes which are only of value on-grid.
• It’s only Sam and Quorra who are valuable enough to save in the end.  Kevin, for his sins, must pay the ultimate price and the MCP and Clu are destroyed.

Rewatch Tron: Legacy with dogs on the brain and you’ll appreciate how it’s a pretty strong indictment of not only the folly of seeking Platonic ideals but of the rejection of the organic, the imperfect, and the complex.  No meaning, only suffering, is found in the pursuit of the ideal.  Meaning comes only from connecting symbols with reality.  It’s also not enough to change a regime from within if you maintain the bogus philosophy which constructed it in the first place.  Even with the best intentions, corrupt thought leads to tragedy.

But the offense the Aussie breeder took speaks to the reality of the Narcissism of Minor Differences:

“the phenomenon that it is precisely communities with adjoining territories, and related to each other in other ways as well, who are engaged in constant feuds and ridiculing each other.”

It is more important to this breeder that her dog not be confused with a Border Collie than it would be if it was confused with a more distantly related dog like a German Shepherd or a Flat-coat.  A gross misidentification wouldn’t really speak to the merits of her dog, unless it kept happening; but a common misidentification is clearly more grating because it threatens the communal identity of her breed; and similar looking breeds are more likely to get confused for eachother.  In the show world, the realm of Platonic ideals, things that are different need to look different.  And even if the differences are small, the appearance should accentuate what is not the same and perhaps obfuscate the similarities.

Is that a Border Collie, Aussie, or English Shepherd?

It doesn’t matter that the list of attributes that describe both the Australian Shepherd and the Border Collie is much longer than the list of qualities which separates them.  I suspect that it wouldn’t take a lot of searching to find an Australian Shepherd with a tail, a Border Collie, and an English Shepherd that would be indistinguishable from looks and conformation alone.  Perhaps you could even find such dogs that would share a great deal of temperament and behavior as well.  There are Border Collies who work more upright than crouched and there are Aussies that show stronger eye.  Form does follow function and it’s entirely conceivable that a moderately sized cattle farm could chose any of our three look-alike breeds (or others) to satisfy their demands.

But this was a formal conformation event where some breeders are so eager to accentuate the differences that they work to create a line of dogs within their breed that is distinguishable from others in the same breed by looks alone.  Have a look at these Border Collies and you can easily see what this particular breeder has chosen as their signature:

Can you hear me now?

I don’t know if those ridiculous ears are accentuating a difference–they are genetically/physically different than many other BC ears–or if they are obfuscating a similarity–those ears would look normal but for the breeder artificially styling them with tape and braces to establish a look that is not passed along in the genes; but, those ears are clearly being used as a trademark aesthetic of this breeder.  My gut reaction to these “Sheltie Ears” is disgust that is likely generated by the NoMD. I don’t mind those ears on Shelties or Collies, but they look disproportionatly out of place on a Border Collie.  They’re otherwise handsome dogs save for the radar dish ears.  To me, these particular Border Collies fall down the “uncanny valley,” being in many respects more similar to the Border Collies I cherish than the Australian and English Shepherds depicted above, but my feeling toward them is unsettling.

But unlike the sheeple and showple I describe in the previous post, I don’t feel that there should be institutional barriers between these dogs and mine.  I do not need a registry to prevent me from breeding to these dogs nor do I need a conformation breed standard that would tell me that those ears are correct and ideal for the breed (let alone pretend that they are not the work of glue and tape instead of inherent and inheritable conformation).

But the sheeple would tell me that those dogs are Barbie Collies so I can’t breed to them in their sand box, and the showple would tell me that some of the dogs in the previous image are not purebred Border Collies and thus I can’t breed to them in their sand box.  Neither of them seem to appreciate that when you make your sand box so small by kicking other people and their dogs out of it, the only thing it’s good for is to collect cat feces.

9 members, members can post, people can request an invitation to join, only members can read

Description: The fallout from the Pedigree Dogs Exposed has been unprecedented. This private group, open to only a select few who are in a position to effect real change in the dog world, is designed as a forum where information can be exchanged in complete confidence.

Group email: PDEconfidential@googlegroups.com

I found this group back in January when I noticed some traffic from a google alert for “Pedigree Dogs Exposed” coming from a message posted to the googlegroup. The first two visitors were from Arlington, Virgina and Bournemouth, England.

The small elite group of conformation breeders are Platonists; they believe that the substantive reality of Border Collies is only a reflection of a higher truth, and their activity is the key to divining that perfect essence. The small elite group of trial breeders also believes that there is a higher truth to the Border Collie, that their activity is the key to approaching that truth, and that their philosophy stands above and to the exclusion of all others. But they are not Platonists, as their search is accomplished on a field, not in the mind. The ideal Border Collie is discerned by function, not by a proposed ideal form.

This new Plato seemed familiar to common-sensical Victorians. What do we mean when we use the word “table” if not a real object which resembles more or less well the ideal “table”? Aren’t our real-world tables imperfect examples (“Platonic shadows”) of the ideal?

And living, breathing dog — are they not slightly imperfect versions of the ideal foxhoud or greyhound, setter or collie?
- Donal McCaig, The Dog Wars p185

The AKC Border Collie Breed Standard is tantamount to a bible. It describes the ideal, the platonic, and the perfect. It is the good book that should be followed and mere mortals can’t hope to change what is written. Border Collie conformation faithful are left to interpret the whims of the demi-god judges as they lay out judgment without any sort of feedback or critique; understanding why events happen the way they do is like trying to divine the will of god.

Dog fanciers and their creature, the AKC, really do believe that what is most valuable about any dog can be judged in the show ring, that the show ring is the sole legitimate purpose and reward of all dog breeding. They even believe, against all evidence, that the show ring “improves” breeds.
-Donald McCaig, The Dog Wars p153

The priesthood are those people who are attached to the registry because the dogma of the registry is their dogma, regardless of the practicalities of what other things the registry does. The Third Estate doesn’t have a single platonic breed standard nor a single unified activity. And for what is has in enthusiasm, it lacks in lock-step uniformity and an easy to recite mantra. It is that lack of uniformity that makes the Third Estate easy to dismiss by the koolaid drinking elite within the AKC and ABCA.

The priesthood of the ABCA are the top trialers and their jock-sniffers who are interested and active in the governance and politics and the priesthood of the AKC are conformation showers and their groupies who are likewise active in the governance and politics. Conformation and Trialing are the moral centers, the raison d’etre and the loss-leaders of the two registries.

The priesthood is only capable of surviving because of the large and largely ignorant masses–who use the services of the registries without knowing or caring about what happens in the inner sanctum–pay the bills. The AKC loses big money putting on dog shows and the ABCA admits that without the the majority of their dogs being registered to the hoi polloi pet buyers they’d be financially unable to carry on their mission.

Despite the rhetoric being about the “future of the breed” … the war is really over people, not dogs. The trialers will always be able to breed dogs to suit their herding needs and the show people will always be able to breed pretty dogs. The “breed” is not at stake with either of those groups because they have and always will have the power to breed what they want.

To the First Estate, the Border Collie breed is what it does: a dog that herds sheep with eye. To the Second Estate, the Border Collie breed is what it looks like. The former are Existentialists of function, the later Platonists of form. The First Estate probably wouldn’t care what the other three estates did with their dogs as long as they didn’t call them Border Collies when those dogs aren’t bred specifically for the purpose of herding sheep with eye.

But the First Estate lost the battle over exclusive rights to the name “Border Collie” (who knew there’d come a time when you’d have to trademark the name of a dog breed to ensure artistic control?), and they don’t seem satisfied renaming their dogs to the original and older classification of “working sheepdog.” If the trialists couldn’t own “Border Collie” outright, then they’d have to compete in the open and free market for market-share of the breed. That’s tough since, as Donald McCaig says in this The Dog Wars:

Americans have accepted the dog show credo: “a dog is what it looks like.”
- p53

Americans are thus Platonists instead of Existentialists when it comes to their dogs. This poses a problem to the First and Third Estates who ostensibly desire function over form, and when they do desire form, it is to serve function; e.g., shepherds in the hot dusty Southwest have emphasized a smooth coated dog more appropriate for that environment and flyball breeders have emphasized their dogs’ speed making for thinner and lighter animals with a sleek appearance.

Although trialers and conformationists will always be able to breed dogs to meet their needs, they won’t be guaranteed to sell the cast offs to the pet market without competition. Thus, it’s the large and un-indoctrinated pet market that is the real spoils of the Border Collie War. They are the crude grease that allows the smaller and more sophisticated parts to function.

Registries are at their core simply record keepers of dog sex. That’s it. But that isn’t where the first two Estates stop. To them, simply handing out pedigrees is like the world’s great religions simply handing out genealogies. Religions don’t stop there, they launch campaigns to expand membership, to out-breed the competition, to nitpick who gets to play in their sandbox and who doesn’t. And they establish elaborate bureaucracies and get mired in internal power struggles.

In addition to genealogies, they hand out Bibles and Korans and Torahs, and they exploit elements in those documents to get the masses to turn over their trust, their time, and things of value. Their purview is more than simple facts and objective standards;they deal in morality and ethics and metaphysics. But that’s not how they measure success. They measure success by the number of converts. We have mo
re warm bodies than you.

So despite talking a good game in the churches and mosques and synagogues hoping that their wisdom will shine through and draw in the crowds, history tells us that the most successful religious campaigns happen at the tips of spears, and not the allegorical Spear Longinus. Very real and very contemporary spears of forced conversion and coercion.

It was with one such spear that many members of the Third Estate of Border Collies were marched from the ABCA camp into the AKC camp, never to return again.

• The First Estate of the Border Collie is as a working stock dog.
• The Second Estate of the Border Collie is as a conformation show dog.
• The Third Estate of the Border Collie is as a dog sport athlete.
• The Fourth Estate of the Border Collie is as a house pet.

Purists in the first estate will be pleased with their ranking, but this list is not judgmental, nor preferential. It does not extend from most important to least important, but rather from monolithic to democratic, from specific and narrow to diverse and broad. Fundamentally, the list documents the history of formal organization. You might argue that conformation showing is the most monolithic and the most specific, and you’d be right, but it is far behind trialing in history and in moral ownership of the breed.

I firmly believe that the Third Estate of the Border Collie is a significant player in the future of the Border Collie, unadorned with romantic history and unbound by a rigid and arbitrary “breed standard.” The Third Estate is a meritocracy like the first estate but is not blinded to the full potential of the Border Collie. The Third Estate is more numerous than the first two estates combined, an readily accepts more converts from the Fourth Estate than either of the first two.

Many ranchers and trialers got into Border Collies because they were in stock first. Many conformation breeders got into Border Collies after they were in another breed first. I’d venture to say that the flow of traffic from rancher -> border collie enabled rancher and conformation breeder -> border collie conformation breeder is larger and more significant than the traffic from border collie owner into either showing or ranching.

The dog sport communities and the pet communities on the other hand have great inter-mobility. There are many other breeds in dog sports, although when the ability of the Border Collie shines through, many serious competitors in other breeds upgrade to a BC. Those that don’t upgrade are forced and inspired to improve their own breeds to be competitive. There are also many Border Collie pets that inspire their novice owners to get into a meaningful activity when normal house pet duties are insufficient fare for the BC.

Dog sports are fun and inviting, and dog sport people have more avenues for training than either of the first two estates. It’s easy and convenient to pick a dog sport and find several training centers in your area, competitive clubs who will help you get trained and involved, and a free market of avenues to compete, from the non-serious fun variety to super competitive avenues that lead to sponsorships and world travel. Neither herding nor conformation can say the same.

The Border Collie was developed as a working stock dog, and it is still used widely for this purpose today. That being said, no one today developed the border collie. That was done at the same time all the other breeds came about as part of the Victorian fancy for eugenics and a growing sophistication of farmers in creating hybrid crops. Remember, the pivotal moment in genetics research came from a bean grower:

The science began to evolve in 1865 when Gregor Mendel, an Austrian botanist and monk, identified what he called “hereditary factors” — now known as genes. Three years later, Friedrich Miescher, a Swiss biologist, unknowingly discovered DNA — deoxyribonucleic acid. In 1876, Charles Darwin conducted experiments in breeding and published Cross and Self Fertilization in the Vegetable Kingdom. A year after that, William Beal, a renowned horticulturist at Michigan Agricultural College (later Michigan State University), established the first seed testing laboratory in the United States and was the first person to cross-pollinate corn to increase yields. His research demonstrated to farmers the advantages of hybrid vigor.
- Plant Breeding and Genetics: Harvesting the Power of DNA

The breed name and the romantic breed history evoke images of well dressed pasty men with lilting accents or thick brogues on lush green pastures with idyllic cloud-puff sheep milling about as the perfect dog keeps it all in order. If such images were ever true, they are not true now. Today’s shepherd is adopting the trappings of an idealized past culture just as much as today’s cowboys of the American West are adopting the trappings of another idealized past culture. This isn’t artifice, it’s natural cultural inheritance. But in both cases, these are not the good old days, those are past. These are the good old days of the dog sport athlete.

The American herding community owes much of its culture to both of the past cultures I just mentioned, the gentleman rancher from the UK and the American cowboy. Despite their many attempts to, the American herding community can’t honestly play the “we made the breed card.” They might have a good case for the Australian Shepherd and the McNab, but the romantic Border Collie will always be a product of the UK. You might take the ISDS’s decision to recognize the ABCA as the inheritors of the old guard giving respect to the new guard who has finally lived up to their standards. You might also see it as a herding community in England that is becoming increasingly smaller and less significant reaching out to their colony in America who is doing much better, bloated with legions of border collie house pet registrations.

I’m sure there are many who would say that conformation showing is crippling the breed in England, but I have yet to be convinced that any shepherd need ever seek an outside source for their dogs. If there is a dearth of quality herding BCs in the UK, it’s because the herders aren’t maintaining their own house. Holding on to a past culture is strong and weak for the very same reason: the past doesn’t change. While it is successful and logical to take what works from the past and sustain it, it also means that elements from that saved history become less relevant every day as modernity and entropy make the past more foreign and obscure.

Herding might be really fun for the dog, but I have no fondness for sheep. Herding is also the least inviting of the estates. Not only are the small elite group old and cranky, they are elitist and differentiate themselves culturally in numerous ways.

In sheepdog culture speech is laconic, and praise for man or dog understated. It
can be funny to wacth the newly obsessed adapt to that culture that nurtures their dogs. As his (her) dogs improve, many a previously garrulous suburbanite stats to mutter like John Wayne.
…
Sheepdog trialing does not attract many young people, but handlers in their seventies are unexceptional.
- Donald McCaig, The Dog Wars p17 & 23

Herding is also inaccessible because sheep are sparse and rural and trainers are hard to find and expensive. I can train in flyball for $10 per two hour class. I can train in Agility for $8 per 90 minute drop-in or two dogs for $10, with in depth introductory classes easily less than $20 per hour. Frisbee is the cost of the disc and a nominal fee for Spring Training. Herding costs me $25 for one dog and $30-40 for two dogs per hour, and those appear to be the market rates. Herding has the most expensive overhead and flyball has the least.

You can’t herd on your own unless you have a significant investment in land, sheep, equipment, and investment money to start and run a small business. You literally have to be a sheep rancher or serious hobbyist living in the country to play that game. Many trialers who have sheep and a bit of land don’t have enough of it to be competitive at the upper levels, so they increase the overhead and truck their sheep to other people’s ranches to practice 600-800 yard outruns and nasty terrain and such. Herding is clearly a career and lifestyle choice not many are willing to adopt.

Conformation is boring for human and dog. It’s also an exclusive club because it’s inherently subjective. Even if you have a beautiful dog with great conformation, you won’t be welcomed with open arms. It’s a lot about who you know and who you bought from and their status. There is an art to showing since you’re sending signals to judges about how well prepared you are and thus how likely it is that you should win. In any event where the judging is subjective, you will find favoritism that is unexplainable by probability and chance. When one hot dog sweeps several shows in a row, taking Best In Show against a few thousand dogs each show, it is simply unfathomable that it’s not fixed. Breed standards are vague, so in any given ring you could make a clear case that all the dogs have no faults, so to have hot dogs win again and again is a signal that the game you think is being played is not the game that is really being played.

Judges supposedly don’t know the name and breeder of the dogs in the ring, but this is a small community and kennels try hard to develop their own look. You’ll hear it in the language: “that’s a Wizaland head” or “those are Borderfame ears” and such. It’s also not difficult to recognize a dog, a handler, or a breeder if they are campaigning the dog. It’s also simple to cheat as the judge reading the list of dogs before the show or during the show as they fill out rankings for the breeds they are currently judging to see what arm band number corresponds to which dog.

You have to buy into this sport and it’s advisable to buy from the winning lines with a breeder who is actively showing. They have an incentive to help you along (and they might co-own your dog and are making you show) to help their breeding program along. You might find that you put in a lot of time and effort and the credit goes to the breeder. They did make the dog pretty after all.

It’s also expensive. Grooming overhead can be massive. It’s why the two most popular professions in the showing community are hair stylists and lawyers. One has expertise in the only real investment the owner makes: grooming. The other has expertise in the schmoozing and social climbing with back door deals that make the show world go round.

Showing doesn’t lend it self to small incremental investments in time, money, and effort. It really requires a balls out effort and a high buy-in cost to make a go at it and get any kind of results that will please your ego and sustain interest in the hobby. Most breeders do this because they see benefits down the road. They meet potential buyers, they earn a championship for their stock, and this improves their reputation and their ability to sell puppies to the masses.

Conformation is something people do because they are already breeding, it is not a means to graduate to breeding for something you already do. As far as the upper levels of show culture goes, the Border Collie is hopeless. The Herding Group is the bastard cousin of the show world and in the entire history of the group’s existence at the Westminster dog show (1983 on), the only herding group best in show came from a German Shepherd (which is genetically and functionally the least like the other herding breeds, it is a mastiff in sheepherder’s clothing) and he was owned and showed by a Firestone heiress. Before getting its own designation in 1983, the dogs which would eventually make up the Herding Group only won Best in Show three other times: A Rough Collie in 1929 and an Old English Sheep Dog in 1914 and 1975.

I also have a fundamental atheism to any written breed standard. There is no logic or value behind one, especially for the Border Collie. I have to refrain from laughing when people try to explain “and why do we need straight hocks, well to herd well, of course!” The breed standard is to the conformation community what the bible is to most Christians. Most haven’t read it, and despite being referenced often, the words don’t determine what wins, fads do. If you read the BC standard and then look at the top winning BCs, you’ll see that there is an implied standard that speaks to fashion fads, not the words on the page.

Pet owners, the Fourth Estate, might have the least clout and moral ownership of the breed, but every economy has businesses and consumers, and consumer demand drives many business decisions. The Fourth Estate is the consumer base for the breeders who belong in the first three estates. Anyone breeding to herd, show, or compete is going to create more puppies than they need. Those puppies need to be sold.

The Herding community is the least sophisticated at this process. If they are active trialers and doing well, they will likely have a few fellow trialers who want to try out a puppy from their dog and see what they can do with it. This is just part of the culture that trades dogs like professional teams trade athletes. Not all dogs are on the revolving pet circuit, many are pets and “forever” dogs, but a good number of dogs move around the country for various reasons, in full accordance with market forces. The herding community is unlikely to sell their dogs cheap, but they are also unlikely to do genetic testing, eye testing, hip testing, and other value-added measures, so the dogs aren’t sold at a premium. Some dogs come with papers, some not. Most are purebred, some are crosses with other herding breeds like the McNab.

Conformation stock is rarely traded or sold. Unlike herding dogs that might not work out with their current owner’s style but can flourish under another handler, a show dog is not likely to be helped by being traded. Showing also requires little training (stand still, walk straight, put your feet here, keep your tail down and your ears up) and the prime age of operation is less than two years. Many dogs get their championships as puppies under a year old. Since the dog can “compete” at such a young age, there is much more interest in spreading the seed of top stud dogs around than there is in trading dogs.

Since dogs can win so young, they can also be bred young and often. This is the key factor in population dynamics. If you look at any healthy breeding population that is growing, there are several factors that determine how fast the population grows: number of offspring per litter, how often one generation breeds (comes into heat), the average age of first mating. It turns out that the exponential effects of population dynamics means that the age of first mating is many times more determinative of the size of the population than any other factor. Even if you have only a few puppies per litter and only come into heat once a year, breeding young means that you will fit in more generations in any given amount of time.

The show community breeds sooner and more often than any other estate. It’s part of the game. If you want to make your dog look distinctive to your kennel and you have some physical ideal that you’re working toward, you’re not going to get there simply by finding a good stud and a good bitch. You’re going to need to inbreed and line breed and go through several intermediate generations until your flavor “breeds true.”

If your dog gets their championship young but you don’t think it has a shot at being nationally campaigned, then you’re out of the sport until you get a new puppy. Almost all of the “for fun” conformation show people show until they get a championship and then stop if they are not breeders. The same is true of many herding breeders as well, because the cost/benefit for taking a herding dog on a national campaign is poor.

The Dog Sport world is diverse in interest and diverse in breeding. Many people rescue dogs instead of breed them and there is a beautifully efficient effect where Border Collies that are put into shelters simply because they needed an activity find owners who take them out and train them and fulfill that need. Dog sports engender good breeding karma even when you’re not breeding.

The dog sport world also has every reason to breed for health and temperament. Sure, you need a healthy dog to work sheep, but when you have a fluid market and a lot of dogs are only as good as their work, killing sick dogs and getting new ones is just as attractive an option as expensive veterinary treatments or pre-breeding testing. The show folks DNA test because they have to. The cultural acceptance of inbreeding and the excess to which they do it and the speed with which they breed new generations means that disease genes that exist all over the Border Collie genome get seriously magnified by the show community. They increase genetic entropy.

Because the dog sport people often treat their dogs like children and keep them for their whole life, they have a vested interest in getting a healthier product as well as putting a greater emphasis on temperament and early socialization. These dogs have to live in the city with other dogs and cars and garbage and all the dangers and temptations that doing so entails. They live in homes and sleep in beds. These are needs that are not necessarily met by all herding breeders.

Whereas show people are easily tempted to but ribbons above other concerns, and whereas trialers are easily tempted to put shiny belt buckles above other concerns, most dog sport athlete owners would rather have a perfect pet and an imperfect athlete versus the opposite. I don’t believe the show or herding folks can say the same.

The dog sport world also offers a wonderful metric by which to judge quality and demonstrate ability. Herding folks will say that no metric is superior to stock work, but these people already have their own metric and have little experience in others. Despite them saying it often, the notion that a dog bred specifically and only to herd is maximally competitive in any “lesser” persuit like frisbee or flyball or agility is a lie. Herding dogs don’t need to be as fast as Flyball dogs can be, nor do they need to have the eye-mouth coordination. They don’t need to jump as high as Frisbee dogs can, they don’t need to track and catch a flying object, and they don’t need to be comfortable jumping off of their handler’s body. Nor do they need to excel at turn on a dime close handling like Agility dogs do. Nor do they need to be as calm and militaristic as Obedience dogs.

Dog sports have their own requirements and people should, will, and need to breed with those concerns in mind. The very raison d’etre for dog breeds is to have predictable behaviors and similar abilities. Strains within those lines take that notion one step further, when you want to bring out a certain characteristic but in doing so you don’t cross the line into forming a new breed.

Herding Nazis will say that you should call your dog something else if it wasn’t bred to herd. But if they weren’t being hypocrites, American border collies shouldn’t be called BORDER collies at all. That’s a reference to a time and a place very very far away, and since the style of American pasture, sheep, and herding is distinct from the land, sheep, and style used a century ago in the UK, today’s American Border Collie is certainly a distinct creature from the BCs of old, and so too is US trialing culture different from UK trialing culture: more women, more jeans and less tweed, more varieties and styles of border collies (less racism against red dogs, greater preference for shorter coats more appropriate for arid Western pasture, etc).

This is a moot point though, because the herding folks tried to capture the “Border Collie” brand to prevent the AKC from calling their show dogs “Border Collies.” They failed. It’s in the public domain and the definition is essentially determined by the masses.

They can call the show dogs “barbie” collies all they want, but they don’t have the numbers, the clout, or the connections to the hoi polloi that the Third Estate has.

The Border Collie is the dog people see walking in their neighborhood, the one catching the disc at the park, or the one streaking across the jumps at a summer fair. Those numerous and ubiquitous venues belong to the Third Estate.

Not only is this a warning call for the Third Estate to take their breeding obligations seriously, it is also a wake up call to the Fourth Estate that you can and will find great and talented pets from breeders in the Third Estate. They, much more so than the First or Second Estates are breeding for qualities that you are likely to value. And they are likely to do it without feeding you a load of dogma with your puppy.

Every border collie came from a breeder, whether intentional or accidental, and it is that small group of people who are going to determine where the breed is going. If you’ve purchased a purebred registered BC in the last 13 years, you’ve probably come up against the war between the two largest BC registries, the American Border Collie Association (ABCA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC).

In a sweeping generalization, the ABCA is the “working dog” registry and the AKC is the “show dog” registry, or at least that’s how they derive their cachet. Actual working dogs and dogs shown in conformation make up only a fraction of each registry. Despite both organizations’ claims to be about the betterment of the breed and breed health, their raison d’etre is to be book keepers that maintain a database of dog pedigrees for money.

The ABCA registers about 20,000 border collies–and only border collies–per year. The hundred year old International Sheep Dog Society registry in the UK registers around 6,000 border collies per year, and the two registries recognize each other’s papers with good faith and both bill themselves as the working border collie registry. The ABCA requires the breeder to register the entire litter at once, so even dogs that are not going to be bred are registered.

In comparison, the AKC registers just over 2,100 border collies per year, although this figure doesn’t count the numerous unregistered Border Collies that compete in Obedience, Rally, Agility, Herding, Tracking, etc. that are given Indefinite Listing Privilege numbers that allow participation in AKC events without being fully registered with the AKC. The AKC does not require that breeders register their entire litter, leaving this option up to puppy buyers, so not every puppy in every litter ends up on the books.

Even so, this is a far cry from the most popular breeds in the AKC like the Labrador Retrievers, Yorkshire Terriers, German Shepherd Dogs, Golden Retrievers, and Beagles. The Border Collie ranks 56th out of the AKCs 155 breeds and makes up only 0.25% (one in four-hundred) of the 870,000 dogs the AKC registers each year.

The AKC and the English KC register about the same number of Border Collies per year even though the KC registers only 270,000 dogs annually. The Border Collie is in the UK’s top 30:

2006 KC Registration Statistics

Labrador Retriever	45,700
Cocker Spaniel	20,459
English Springer Spanial	15,133
German Shepherd Dog (Alsatian)	12,857
Staffordshire Bull Terrier	12,729
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel	11,411
Golden Retriever	9,373
West Highland White Terrier	9,300
Boxer	9,066
Border Terrier	8,916
Rottweiler	6,575
Shih Tzu	4,436
Miniature Schnauzer	4,396
Lhasa Apso	4,154
Yorkshire Terrier	4,042
Bulldog	3,522
Dobermann	3,388
Bull Terrier	3,361
Weimaraner	2,744
Pug	2,681
Whippet	2,672
Dogue de Bordeaux (Imp)	2,361
Bichon Frise	2,329
Border Collie	2,219

After 13 years of AKC recognition, the Border Collie has evened out at 9:1 ratio of Working Registry dogs to Show Registry dogs, compared with the UK where the Border Collie has been shown for over a decade longer than in the US and has a ratio of 2.7 ISDS dogs to each KC dog. As best as I can tell, conformation showing started in the early 1980s in England, in 1995 in the United States, and in the late 1950s in Australia and New Zealand. The significant head start that the “Oz” dogs had in conformation showing has resulted in a handful of Australian kennels dominating the UK and US show lines.

The ABCA started in the early 1980s, although it wasn’t the predominant US registry until the collapse of the American International Border Collie registry and the North American Sheep Dog Society registry, leaving the lone ABCA to cater specifically to the breed. The ABCA website quotes 100,000 BCs registered by 1997, and roughly 20,000 dogs per year since then. Unlike the AIBC and the NASDS which were privately held businesses run by individuals which promptly fell apart following the founder’s deaths, the ABCA is a more democratic organization that will likely survive future transitions of power despite its current leadership comprising many members who have been with the organization from the start.

The rise of the ABCA and the details of their fight against AKC recognition is documented in a book by author and Border Collie enthusiast, Donald McCaig. It’s called “The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club.” I’ve written about the book several times, and I’ll be reposting many of those discussions in the coming days.

Despite the advertising hype, dogma, and theoretical vitriol thrown at the AKC by the ABCA establishment, there are a list of things that neither registry does that is really troubling:

Neither registry requires any sort of health testing to register dogs from current stock. DNA, X-Ray, Eye Exams play no part in becoming a breeder or owner if you buy or breed dogs that already have registration numbers with the ABCA or AKC or a registry they accept transfers from. The ABCA requires PRA and CEA testing only for imported dogs and eye exams for the handful of dogs running in the National Finals. Despite CEA being a rather minor condition and the availability of DNA tests to determine carrier status, no puppies from a CEA or PRA dog can be registered even if they are clear or carriers.

The only required tests are for imported stock, ROM stock, dogs in the National Finals, and dogs that are registered more than two years after birth. This is a scant few dogs. CEA is a minor disease and PRA is very rare. There are more common and more lethal diseases that play no part in the current testing and registration scheme.

This scheme is essentially telling you to wipe your feet at the door, but pay no mind to the festering carpets inside.

Neither registry requires reporting or publication of any test results. Even if you do test, the registry and the world never has to know about good or bad results. You can bet that a false sense of security arises out of under-reporting of bad results and an over emphasis of good results.

Neither registry prevents in-breeding or line breeding to any degree. The ABCA website says the following:

Can in-bred pups be registered? Yes. No policy governs in-breeding or line-breeding.

Are there known health problems with in-breeding dogs? Yes. Ask your veterinarian’s advice, or read a comprehensive dog genetics book.

Read a comprehensive dog genetics book? HAH! What a plan! The people who chair the Health and Genetics committee of the ABCA need to read one of those books and so do the AKC breeders. I’ve caught both of them in serious misunderstandings of basic genetics and even outright buffoonery.

Having no proviso against inbreeding is very dangerous, especially since in-breeding and linebreeding are favorite tools of the self proclaimed elite breeders. Chasing after popular studs, trying to recreate a famous winning dog by inbreeding his descendants, or dangerous linebreeding to create a signature kennel look happen all the time with little to no remorse when it all goes bad.

Neither registry keeps any sort of health information database. The closest you’ll find is the option of including eye exam results or hip results on the pedigree, but there is no requirement, and the number of breeders volunteering key information is vanishingly small. You’d be hard pressed to find a pedigree with enough volunteered health information on it to be useful in making a breeding decision.

http://www.bordercolliehealth.com is an independent publicly searchable health database for DNA testing of Border Collies. It should be said that the AKC breeder who is instrumental in establishing and maintaining this database recently supervised a close breeding on a past winning dog which produced a litter that was ravaged by the untreatable and incurable Trapped Neutrophil Syndrome (TNS). Most of the puppies died, and only one was clear. And guess what, no remorse from the breeders and the one clear puppy is currently being shown towards his breed championship.

Neither registry has any criteria for membership other than payment. There are no requirements for breeder education, there is not so much as an ethics pledge required. Although, the ABCA does suggest you be “of good moral character.”

Neither registry requires registered dogs to meet any performance standard or physical standard or any standard at all, written or implied. The ABCA won’t turn away your stud dog/bitch if it is aggressive and kills sheep, has no eye, can’t outrun because of horrible joints, and can’t even learn the sit command. The AKC won’t turn your stud dog/bitch away if it is ugly and has a fault in every element of the breed standard or if it can’t limp through an agility course or even if it’s congenitally blind and deaf and can’t hope to train in Obedience. So an ABCA pedigree says nothing about your dog’s ability to herd and an AKC pedigree says nothing about your dog’s Conformation or Agility or Obedience, per se.

For the excessive degree to which these organizations take themselves seriously as champions of the future of Border Collies, when you brush away the makeup, you’re left with a simple biblical list of dog begat dog begat dog begat dog, with about as much verifiability and relevance as such lists in the old testament have to do with modern dating, mating, and health practices.

Neither registry offers much protection against puppy millers other than the higher cost of registration than less reputable registries. The ABCA has only banned known puppy millers after they have been found to falsify pedigree information. There have only been 4 disciplinary actions. Here is the stated
reason Swafford (I think some of the other actions are related to Swafford, i.e. his children/associates) was removed:

It was determined through an ABCA investigation that Richard Swafford’s breeding practices and kennel conditions were not conducive to accurate registration.

Because the evidence showed systematic misrepresentation by Mr. Swafford of the identity and parentage of the dogs he sold, any dog which passes through his kennel must be regarded as suspect.

That being said, some of the removed parties now use associates to register dogs with registries and still sell them advertising ABCA registration (among others). Apparently one of them has also started their own registry that accepts transfers from just about anyone.

The AKC does investigate breeders who register 7 or more litters per year and randomly investigates breeders who register 4-6 litters. They don’t publish their disciplinary actions that I can find. The AKC has also worked with the Hunte Corporation, the nation’s largest puppy broker. They have begun using DNA testing, but again, this is not for disease, this is simply to prove that the breeder has been scamming the AKC by grouping puppies into fake litters to save on registration fees.
So for all the elitism involved with having either a “herding” bred BC or a “show” bred BC, these terms really only apply to the people who don’t herd, don’t show, don’t train, don’t compete and really don’t do anything with their dogs that’s noteworthy. Only these people find such advertisements as “champion sired” or “from working stock” to be valuable. Herding people will ALWAYS be able to produce more than enough dogs for their herding and trialing needs, and so will the show, obedience, agility, frisbee, and flyball people. So why do registries fight so viciously to fool the hoi polloi? Because the uninformed masses are their bread and butter.

People who breed for specific needs (the breeding members of the AKC and ABCA) and who are involved in dog sport of any kind produce entire litters every time they are trying to make just one special dog for their activity. All the other puppies must be sold. And for people who breed and sell all the puppies, they need receptive buyers who are unlikely to be sophisticated and know the intricate workings of dog breeding and selecting. The registry that wins the PR war provides the most fertile dumping ground for all the extra puppies that are produced. The more fertile the dumping ground, the more their membership can breed to succeed, and the more money the registry makes through all the extra dogs that get registered.

The AKC sponsors several performance activities and awards titles for those events. Having an AKC pedigree isn’t necessary for most of them. Conformation is the only event that doesn’t allow ILP dogs of all kind, and events like Lure Coursing only award points to Sight Hound breeds, but the menu of available dog sport activities is long and varied. Obedience, Agility, Herding, Rally, Tracking, Earth Dog, and Canine Good Citizen are among the many programs the AKC sponsors.

The ABCA’s sister organization, the USBCHA (US Border Collie Handlers’ Association) sponsors herding trials and doesn’t require your dog to be a border collie or have papers of any kind. Even though the ABCA will not register any dogs with AKC in their pedigree and kick out any dogs shown in AKC conformation, the prettiest show BC can still compete in the USBCHA’s trial system. The ABCA does partially sponsor the purse at the National Finals and has a program where members can get money to hold local events like sheep trials or eye clinics.

Even if you include the work of the USBCHA, the ABCA’s reach is mostly relevant to active breeders in the ABCA and the top level handlers who attend the trials that the ABCA is involved in. Despite “owning” most of the Border Collie gene pool, they really can’t compete with the size and scope of programs and polish that the AKC can provide its members. While the AKC might not own a lot of the Border Collie, it does own a LOT more dogs in general, and this is essentially a gravity well that will continue to suck in orbiting breeds that it slowly draws in.

No registry and no single dog activity seeks to create the best pet BC, and that’s what all dogs are 95% of the time. Herding sheep well or looking pretty doesn’t guarantee or even suggest desirable qualities of a pet. Despite their elitism, the ABCA and AKC zealots aren’t looking out for people who want well rounded dogs who are as much family as they are a work tool or a beautiful specimen.

Neither side fights the border war for me or the BC ideal I’d like to maintain for myself. I’m an instant outsider because I don’t believe in the holiness of a conformation standard, nor do I feel that the Border Collie need be only bred as a tool to move stock and all the other concerns and uses should simply subsist off of the leftovers and castoffs of the herding community.

Here is the list for 2007:

2007 Most Popular Dogs in the U.S.

1. Labrador Retriever
2. Yorkshire Terrier
3. German Shepherd Dog
4. Golden Retriever
5. Beagle
6. Boxer
7. Dachshund
8. Poodle
9. Shih Tzu
10. Bulldog

The newsworthy bit this last year is that the Bulldog snorted its way into the Top 10. The problem is, the Bulldog isn’t a Top 10 dog. The error in this list is that there’s no asterisk after “Most Popular Dogs in the U.S.” and there should be. Why? Because this list simply shows AKC registrations, not actual dogs in the US.

And although the AKC is the one and only registry of note for most breeds, that’s not true with Border Collies, and perhaps several other breeds, popular and rare.

The American Border Collie Association is the registry of record with Border Collies and they register more than 30,000 dogs a year. And of course, there are many working Border Collies that have no papers at all. The AKC only registers about 2500 Border Collies per year.

If we assume that all the dogs on the list exist wholly within the AKC, then where would the Border Collie rank? At least 8th.

Although the AKC hasn’t released the actual breed count numbers since 2006 (that I have found), I think it’s a safe bet that the numbers are probably pretty consistent.

Breed (AKC)	2006 Count
Retrievers (Labrador)	123,760
Yorkshire Terriers	48,346
German Shepherd Dogs	43,575
Retrievers (Golden)	42,962
Beagles	39,484
Dachshunds	36,033
Boxers	35,388
Poodles	29,939
Shih Tzu	27,282
Miniature Schnauzers	22,920
Chihuahuas	22,562
Bulldogs	21,037
Pugs	20,008
Pomeranians	18,218
Boston Terriers	14,955
Spaniels (Cocker)	14,790
Rottweilers	14,709
Maltese	13,312
Pointers (German Shorthaired)	12,822
Shetland Sheepdogs	12,822
…	…
Border Collies	2,181

With at least 35,000 new BCs being registered every year, they easily beat out all but the Labs, Yorkies, German Shepherds, and Goldens while giving the other popular dogs a run for their money for the last spot in the Top 5.

Our phylogenetic, clustering, and principal components analyses all suggest a genetic split within the breed between working and show Border Collies that is probably as large as the genetic distances between some breeds.

Is this true? Is this significant? Is this a problem?

(1) Is there a “genetic split” in Border Collies?

No. But there is most certainly clustering. The use of the word split is misleading (if not inappropriate) and certainly not supported by the data. Split implies a disconnect, a divide, a severance. Irreconcilable differences. Speciation, or perhaps in this case breed genesis. If you want to call the clustering a split, you must concede that there is nothing preventing that split from being filled.

Whereas speciation has a specific genetic mechanism (two different species can not mate with each other to produce fertile offspring), there is no such genetic condition to define breed. A breed is what WE make of it.

All Border Collies (working, trialing, show and sport) come from the same stock just one hundred years ago. Unlike English Shepherds or Australian Shepherds or McNab dogs, the clustering and refinement of the Border Collie factions has not included outcross breeding with other breeds. Barbie Collies and Coyote Collies have no genes that weren’t there in the original stock 100 years ago. They are both every bit as Border Collie as the foundational stock was and the odds that significant mutations have occured within remote clusters in 100 years is minute at best.

The driving force behind differences between the breed today and 100 years ago is not injection of DNA from other breeds.

The notion of a genetic split is thus laughable, since there’s nothing genetic preventing anyone from bridging those gaps. Unlike a real tree that is permanently severed when a branch splits off, no physical barrier prevents the un-clustering of the breed or the preservation of genetic diversity. The branches will only split when true speciation happens, and that’s unlikely. You can still breed a Chihuahua with a Mastiff if you want to, let alone a Barbie Collie and a Coyote Collie.

Working and Show Border Collies certainly aren’t a different species and they are hardly a different breed. I myself have bridged this “gap” by breeding a dam with Australian show lines and American sport lines with a stud who has strong US and UK working lines.

(2) If it’s not a split, what is it?

What we have here is evidence of clustering due to linebreeding, inbreeding, selection bias, a small sample size, and geographic isolation. The scientists have purposely sought out a very specific line of dogs (they attend Sheepdog trials in the US) to the exclusion of others. And they are comparing this group to a mere 5 Oz show dogs. If your sampling practices aren’t random and don’t include enough individuals, your data isn’t likely representative of the the breed as a whole.

Trying to measure this “split” is assinine given the reality of the data. Selecting the most linebred samples from the most distant continents is more likely to reveal the greatest genetic distance between lines in a diverse breed, not reveal an unfilled gap worthy of the label “genetic split.”

(3) Why does this clustering exist?

There are 3 main geographic areas for Border Collies and 4 main activities: {UK, USA, OZ} and {Working, Trialing, Show, and Sport}. I’ve made the case before that we shouldn’t confuse trailing with working, they are not the same. If we have 4 activities from 3 locations, we have 12 possible pairings and among those twelve, the two which anyone can tell you are the most distinct are US working lines and OZ show lines.

The researchers are cherry picking those two groups and are somehow surprised that there’s a difference. The US has the weakest and smallest pool of show lines and Australia has the weakest offering of working lines. Specifically the import/export of those two groups are low. Thus, the geographical separation means that those two groups aren’t likely to meet and breed. Popular dogs in each area after the initial exodus of dogs from the UK to OZ are less likely to drive the breed in the remote location.

As breeding fads pare down the genetic diversity in both of those groups, it’s not surprising to see that they appear to be split. But they did not grow apart, the branches between them have simply been trimmed by obsessive inbreeding. Those two groups are not any farther apart now than 100 years ago, the diversity of dogs between them has simply been pruned.

A century ago, you wouldn’t say we have a breed spit, you’d say we have a genetically diverse breed. Now, the trimming of the Border Collie family tree has left us with a less diverse breed in both the number of alleles and in the enforcement of homozygosity. The diversity of genes is less on both a breed wide basis and in individual dogs.

The best way to combat the problems of inbreeding and isolation is to not inbreed and overcome isolation.

(4) What does the chart tell you about Border Collies?

When I look at this tree, I notice a limited diversity of lines branching off to the right, a horribly clustered group of clonelike dogs fighting for the same spot on the center top, and a hand full of show dogs down the trunk that are no further from the major cluster than many dogs along the branch to the right.

The heavy clustering at the top is much more detrimental to the health and diversity of the gene pool than any distance between clusters. Great distance between clusters is a wonderful thing. It allows for outcrossing to dogs that are still under the Border Collie umbrella, keeping healthy hybrid qualities alive within a breed that is still a single breed. Free from constraints of political organizations that say you can’t outcross with other breeds and your gene pool can only shrink and not grow.

There will come a day when we miss what genetic diversity remains in our dogs and wish for the day when they all weren’t so homozygous and inbred. One mans of slowing our approach to that day is to allow greater and greater outcrossing and by maintaining the diversity you already have.

(5) Is clustering/splitting a problem?

Australian Sheperds are a younger and still more diverse breed than Border Collies. You can see it in their tree and you’ll see it evidinced in other genetic studies of the dog where the only errors in identifying a dog’s breed by its DNA came from the Aussies. They’re harder to pin down because they are not as homogenous as older and more inbred bre
eds.

Despite having smaller numbers sampled, we can clearly appreciate that the Aussie tree is has more diversity and branches in the Noise Phobia study than the other breeds in the chart:

We can see several clusters located at the extreemes of this tree and the distance between the cluster at the bottom left and the top right is pretty large. Do we see the researchers aghast at a rift in the Aussies? No.

All these dogs are Aussies, and we’d look at this tree and say that they are a diverse breed. But what if we simply trim some branches. What would we say about this new tree?

This scenario could happen if we didn’t sample dogs from the missing branches or perhaps if we exported only dogs from this smaller tree to another continent and thus limited the gene pool. Would we now say that the cluster at the bottom right is an less of an Aussie than the branches at the top left? Is there now a breed split simply because we have a smaller cherry picked sample? Should we revoke our naming of some of these dogs as Aussies? Should we prevent the cluster at the bottom right from breeding with the top branches?

Clustering becomes a problem when you lose diversity and increase homozygosity. Inbreeding creates clustering.

Splitting only becomes a problem when humans decide that they want to accentuate the differences and throw away diversity by trimming distant branches and preventing or discouraging those diverse animals from being bred. Exacerbating these slits creates bureaucratic rifts, not genetic rifts in breeds.

(4) Why should we emphasize splits if they’re not that important?
Sadly, the sheeple want to exacerbate and create splits in the breed and to use rules and institutions to enforce a physical divide that nature can not. They want to use the ABCA registry as a pruning device to keep the show dogs out and kick out any sport dogs that are dual registered with the AKC. They want to use the Registry as their tool to prevent others who do not abide by their philosophy, it is not enough for them to live their philosophy, they must force it on others as well.

They do this in the name of the breed, but it’s essentially fascism. There’s nothing preventing sheeple from breeding and buying the dogs they want within the an open registry. They are hacks and fools if they are unable to research their breeding and buying choices any more deeply than looking at the three letters infront of a dog’s registration number. In their own bigotry, they want their rivals out of the gene pool and they want what should be an information keeping service to be a defacto segregation service.

One such sheeple is Dr. Melanie Lee Chang. She’s essentially a dog sport person who sides with the sheeple camp. Her oldest Border Collie is a red (gasp!) rescue dog whom she has trained to a CGC (gasp! title chaser!) and a Novice Agility Tunnelers title (gasp! dog sport!), but her newest Border Collie is a trained imported trialing dog from the UK.

This is an excellent example of why trialing and the trialer jock sniffers are a sport and not work, as I doubt Melanie owns a farm or sheep or owns Border Collies for a higher purpose than playing at herding. It is clearly a hobby and she’s clearly bought into the elitist notion that putting up the big bucks for a European model is the way to go.

I’ve run into Dr. Chang on the BC Boards and besides being hostile to logic and debate, she also displayed many of the misandrist qualities so common to other women on those boards. She was particularly off put by my stature as a large built man.

Now it shouldn’t surprise you to find out that the hyping of the “genetic split” notions in the Noise Phobia study was done by none other than Dr. Chang!

Dr. Melanie Lee Chang: Dr. Chang is a postdoctoral scholar in Dr. Hamilton’s laboratory at UCSF. She holds PhDs in physical anthropology and ecology/evolutionary biology from the University of Pennsylvania, with primary research interests in systematics and phylogenetically-informed reconstructions of character evolution and population history. At this time, Dr. Chang’s primary canine project is investigating the genetic background of noise phobia in Border Collies. She has three Border Collies of her own, Solo, Fly, and Jett, with whom she has trained and competed in agility, flyball, and sheepdog trialing.

You don’t suppose that Dr. Chang’s own Border Collie politics have influenced her interpretation of the data and the selection bias present in the method for her experiment, do you?

And while we’re on the topic of Dr. Chang, I have to wonder what’s up with the name of her blog, CAVEDOG Canis Soloensis. While I know that intellectuals just love using Latin to make themselves sound erudite and thus smarter than you, it helps if you get the Latin right. Canis does mean dog, but Soloensis does not mean cave. Not even close.

Dr. Chang obviously got the name from Homo Erectus Soloensis, commonly known as Javaman, trying to equate Cavemen — most often referring to european Neanderthals or Cro-Magnon man — with Javaman. But Javaman wasn’t really a cave man, and Soloensis isn’t descriptive of a cave or of cavemen. You might mistake the Latin for “solitary,” but just as Neanderthalensis means “from the Neander Valley,” Soloensis means “from Solo.” And Solo is a city on the island of Java in Indonesia.

So for someone who has a PhD in physical anthropology and evolutionary biology and is all up tight about not calling barbie collies border collies, you’d think she’d get the name right. I had to dig deeper.

It turns out that the good doctor rescued a reboud dog named Franklin and renamed him Solo.

“I named the dog a name I didn’t even particularly like. It was just the first one that came to me and it didn’t matter”

Like many incongruous retcons, the name came first and the logic came later. In true showple fashion, which is strange for a sheeple, Franklin became Ashfall Solo River.

Solo is named for Ashfall Fossil Beds, Nebraska, a remarkable lagerstätten preserving loads of three-toed horsies, and Indonesia’s Solo River, where fossils of Homo erectus were first found.

Well, let’s giver her credit for a clever retcon that links her passion for anthropology and Border Collies, but question why someone who knows so much about evolutionary bottlenecks would want to create one in her own b
reed of choice and force her politics on others.