LYNDA J. COX, WESTERN HISTORICAL ROMANCE AUTHOR
  • Home
  • About
  • My Books
  • Blog
  • More
    • Favorite Recipes >
      • strawberry/jalapeno jam
      • Pineapple Shake
      • Lemon Blueberry Cake
      • Beef Barley Soup
      • creamy potato soup
      • Chinese Spaghetti
    • Upcoming Events
    • My Collies
  • Home
  • About
  • My Books
  • Blog
  • More
    • Favorite Recipes >
      • strawberry/jalapeno jam
      • Pineapple Shake
      • Lemon Blueberry Cake
      • Beef Barley Soup
      • creamy potato soup
      • Chinese Spaghetti
    • Upcoming Events
    • My Collies

Random Thoughts

Not always PC or SFW

Picture

Too soon?

Blogging is dead or dying. That's the current wisdom. Okay...so I guess I have to find some other way to keep this page ever green. 

Not Planning to Either Shut Up OR Sit Down

7/21/2019

 
I will probably need a ladder to get off this soapbox when I’m done (and perhaps life support for any dog show career I might have thought about having), but I’m going to write what’s on my mind about the question of whether or not to clarify our standard to include the sable merle.

One thing I am going to stress right now is all involved in this tempest love our breed and only want what’s best for our breed. I have no doubt of this. It’s just how we see “what’s best” that is the sticking point. Name calling (as has happened just recently on FB and the subsequent retaliation) gets us NOWHERE. Have we learned nothing from the current political climate in this country? The only thing name calling does is cause both sides to dig in and entrench deeper, denying any opportunity for communication and compromise. BTW, the dinosaur meme from one side is really cute—but it might behoove all of us to remember the dinosaurs are extinct because they failed to adapt and change with rapidly altering conditions. (Just some food for thought.)

Repeating the same argument, over and over, doesn’t make it any more valid nor does the argument that the giants in our breed wrote that directive make the argument valid.  Resorting to ad hominem attacks are merely the tools of those who cannot justify their position with logic or facts. Those of us who want the standard clarified have pointed out the AKC’s official position. (That’s a fact.) While the materials for judge’s education from ten years ago (the directive those who don’t want the standard to change have held up as the definitive answer through an appeal to authority fallacy) and the latest, revised, newest edition are beautifully done, thoughtfully written, and an excellent educational tool, I will repeat what Tim Thomas, VP of Dog Show Judges at the AKC wrote in response to Mrs. Gwen Means letter to the AKC: “Judges are equally as correct to apply the “directive” from the club concerning Sable Merles or to view it as not in accordance to the standard based on the fact it is specific in stating “The four recognized colors are…”, of which Sable Merles is not one.

“As long as this remains to be the case, judges may apply the color as the parent club has recommended, or may view as a deviation of standard and weigh proportionately based on the extent of the deviation in their view. The only means to guarantee the Sable Merle to be considered as accepted color/pattern for the breed would be to modify the language of the standard” (quoted in an email from Collie Club of America through Constant Contact, 19 July 2019).

Another argument is that we shouldn’t allow one judge to have this much power over our club and how dare we allow this? This judge is probably enjoying the show the hornet’s nest she kicked has provided (or that’s another part of the argument). Lovely straw man fallacy you’ve got going there. Not to mention, I’m receiving more and more information from exhibitors with sable merles that they are being ignored in the ring (at best) or having ribbons withheld. This one judge has had a ripple effect. A comment was made that no all-breed judge was going to dictate how to run a breeding program. I should hope not—however that comment is just a tad bit elitist.

Then, there’s the slippery slope fallacy the opponents of clarifying the standard are so fast to trot out. If we clarify the standard by adding these five words “may include a merle pattern” in the description of sable and white, the fallacy is we start down that slippery slope of opening the flood gates to ugly, large-eyed, blue-eyed sables. Well, no…not really. First of all, it is genetically impossible for a sable (whether pure for sable or tri-factored) to ever have blue eyes. That requires the merle gene. That’s a sable merle. Secondly, if a collie fitting that description “ugly, large-eyed, blue-eyed sable” were ever entered at a show, I can guarantee that person is a total new-comer to this game. Too often, I’ve seen a new-comer given the cold shoulder, talked about in words loud enough for them to hear, and they leave. Instead of shaming them, what if we used that as a teachable moment?  None of us are getting any younger, fewer and fewer people are joining our ranks of dog-show crazies, and yet, all too often, I’ve seen these new people driven out by an elitist, snobbish, ugly attitude. What ever happened to mentoring these newcomers? I’ll bet the majority of people who are breeding these “ugly, large-eyed, blue-eyed sables” aren’t in the least bit concerned with our standard. Their only standard is as long as the check doesn’t bounce, it’s all good.

Another favorite slippery slope fallacy in all of this is if we open our standard to revision (and I’ll repeat, we don’t want to revise it, we merely wish to clarify), we open Pandora’s box with a flood of changes: to allow red-merles, bi-blacks, maltese coloration, chinchilla, straight fronts (seriously…has anyone really looked at the fronts in our breed?), and my favorite—allow harlequin patterning. Y’all better get used to seeing harlequins, because yes, there are more today than there were even ten years ago. And how did this happen? We did it. According to Dr. Leigh Ann Clark, “During domestication and breed formation, genes responsible for these phenotypes underwent strong selective pressure, including the pigmentation gene PMEL (aka SILV)” (https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-biology/2018/08/03/the-genetics-of-merle-coat-patterns-in-dogs/). Strong selective pressure—for the Irish pattern of white markings. Strong selective pressure to increase the Irish pattern. Blaming the sable merle for the harlequin pattern? head desk head desk head desk.

Last, but not least, we absolutely have to address the shroud of secrecy that hangs over the Collie Club of America. Allowing the membership to listen in on the meetings of the Board of Directors is a start. A damn good start. However, there needs to be a hell of a lot more sunshine aimed at all this. As members, we should know how our Board and our District Directors vote. We should be allowed to read any communication between the members of the BOD and the DDs, so long as that communication doesn’t contain personal or confidential information. This shroud of secrecy extended even to an email sent out by President Means, addressed to the entire membership. Why was that email delay for so long?

Could it be that some members of the board think the membership is not sophisticated or intelligent enough to understand the issue? It certainly seems that way, especially in light of the manner some members of the Board and the District Directors are making personal attacks on some members of the CCA on Facebook.
​
We aren’t going to shut up and sit down. This is just as much our club as it is yours, and the power play isn’t very becoming for anyone.
 

Sandy Janssen
7/22/2019 12:04:06 pm

Very well said Lynda..I agree :)

Mary Catoir
7/22/2019 11:51:21 pm

Hope you make it this time. The judge in question is telling other judges to disregard the directive - not that the directive ever worked. The two large paragraphs at the end of your current blog posting.. seems to indicate... ..things still the same after 10 years. Sad the only thing that has changed is there are less breeders showing collies. If you do get further along this time remember Sable Merles should be allowed to have under eyes, no penalty for blue flecks or one or both eyes being blue or brown. Good Luck.

Karen O’Brien
7/26/2019 06:54:40 pm

I found the most recent communication from the CCA (received July 23rd) really shed a lot of light for me on the whole sable merle issue. At the end of this latest communication, it notes that color was not in the original collie standard. The standard originally stated that color was “immaterial.” The first mention of color came in 1950 which just happened to coincide with the request from the club to add open classes divided by color. Really! Now I happen to be of the opinion that there are few real coincidences in life. As Malcom Nance (intelligence expert who wrote the book “The Plot to Hack America”) says “Coincidence takes a lot of planning.”

So in this case it appears the actual motivation for describing colors in the standard had a lot to do with the club’s request to AKC to divide the open class by color. Now I think most would agree that dividing the rough open class by color makes a lot of sense. Think how large those classes would be at some of the specialty shows and even some of the larger all breed shows if all open rough bitches and open rough dogs were shown in a single open bitch class and a single open dog class (as we currently do for smooths).

Most importantly for the individual exhibitors, dividing the rough open class by color gives four open dogs a chance to advance to winners - not just one. And wasn’t that the primary motive. Rather than enhancing the “essence” of what makes up the collie, I think it’s more accurate to state that the 1950s change in the standard enhanced the exhibitor’s chance to advance to the winners class. That’s hardly an altruistic motive! And quite frankly I think it’s entirely disingenuous for anyone to claim otherwise.

Moreover I think it also explains why they didn’t mention the sable merle in defining coat colors. Quite simply they didn’t want a separate sable class for sable merles, pure for sables or tri factored sables because in their minds these were all sable collies and belonged in a single class. So they described what they saw with their own eyes (the phenotype) and listed those colors: sable and white , tri color, white and blue merle. Of course as we know now this is not scientifically correct. We can forgive collie fanciers post WWII not knowing much about the genetics of coat color, but 80 years later we sure as hell do know about the genetics of coat color in our collies and we also know that sable merles are as healthy as other collies. Maybe that needs to be reflected in our standard instead of something that is just scientifically incorrect.

It seems to me that fairness also necessitates some kind of change which will level the playing field for all exhibitors. All of us (including sable merle fanciers) pay stud fees, entry fees, handling fees, etc, but it’s as if the sable merle handlers enters the ring under some judges with their hands tied behind their backs. Knowing that the original impetus for including open classes by color was designed to enhance the experience of the exhibitors and thus the sport of dog showing, it seems like good sportsmanship dictates we do something about this situation. Otherwise the sable merle exhibitor plays Russian roulette every time s/he walks into the ring under an unknown judge.

Now I also have a suspicion that some of the sable merle bias may just disappear when the old school judges fade away. I was rereading some of the judges’ responses to the sable merle survey contained in the 2009 Standard Review Committee publication and noticed one judge’s comment that when she first got into collies some old breeders actually “culled” sable merle puppies. Obviously that reflected ignorance of the genetics of coat color thinking that somehow these puppies were “degenerate” but sadly it seems it still exists among some breeders and judges. I remember being so annoyed when an old Sheltie breeder would always preach to me that sable merles were degenerate. I was irritated then at her ignorance and I’m irritated now. I’d like to think we’re past that kind of thinking now.

Mary Catoir
7/27/2019 02:36:15 am

Nice response, Karen. Thanks for posting.

Lynda
7/27/2019 01:09:13 pm

Karen,

Thank you for such a thoughtful and insightful response. I, too, agree that seldom does anything happen in the dog world out of sheer altruism. I think we can all agree what is needed is not another class in open (because that would open our whole standard to the necessity of conforming it the AKC's template) but adding some simple wording in the description of sable and white, and possibly removing the word "blue" from "blue merle" in the section on eye color.

The communication of 23 July from the "concerned members" through Constant Contact is troublesome, for many reasons, not the least of which was the possible violation of privacy such an act initiated. Another bothersome aspect is that these people felt so strongly about what they were doing they couldn't sign their names to the missive? Lastly was the extreme bias in the piece.

I am surprised at how aggressive the "you'll destroy the essence of the collie" group has become in their attacks, as well. No one with less than forty years in the breed, that hasn't shown and finished a sable merle, and isn't name recognized does not have the right to an opinion in this matter.


Comments are closed.
Proudly powered by Weebly