This is a repeat breeding that we are very excited about!

Four healthy pups were born today. 1 blue male, 1 SM male and 2 SM females.

I am just thrilled beyond words!!! Ella is my first agility dog and I could not be more proud of my little brown spotted girl.

Two moths ago she had an icky teeter experience. The bird bombs went off next to the field where we train. Ella was mid teeter. She turned around to look towards the noise while still moving forward. She landed on her bent front leg. I could tell it hurt. She then started avoiding the teeter….. and sometimes the dog walk thinking it was the teeter. We have been working very hard gaining her confidence
going back to square one with the teeter on the ground. I was fully prepared that this might take a bit of time as I have heard horror stories of other handlers taking years to get their dogs back on full height teeters.

So just a couple of months later you can see why I am so happy that Ella wrapped her little brain around this and figured it out!!! She is not even hesitating the approach to the teeter.

I like many conformation people NEVER knew the amount of time and energy it takes to train a dog for agility!!  Not to mention all the subtle nuances that go on between a dog and handler running agility. I would look at a whole flock of agility competitors walking a course with no dogs and it just looked funny…. What did I know!!! Getting a puppy well socialized and ready for a conformation show is easy peasy compared to this sport. I still show in conformation but this agility game is soooooo much fun!!!!

Here is Ella’s Standard run. Out over 50  20″ dogs Ella got 2nd place!!! It was a tough course in a couple of spots. Only 4 dogs Q’d.

Ella and Daneen did a great job with this course! Ella got a 4th place to boot.

Orders need to be in by Oct. 3rd for delivery on or near Oct. 15th.We order 1800 lbs. and get the bulk discount prices which we pass onto you. We divide the shipping between the entire order.

You can see what is offered at  Oma's Pride Website

Please order per case when possible as it makes it easier.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. 818-585-8057

We offer 2 pick up locations- Acton and Northridge- and will deliver to Happy Dog Agility if prior notice is given.

Ella had two lovely runs today!!!! The battery was low on the video camera so no video 🙁

She had a PERFECT teeter!!!! Ella got first place on her Ex. A Standard run and a third place on her Ex. B jumpers run!!!!! Way to go Ella and Daneen!!!!!!

…… and first 9 MACH points!!!!

From the CDOC site……..

FROM THE MANCUSO/FLOREZ WEBSITE

If you were thinking of taking it easy today, maybe this will energize you.  This is from the supporters' website

Last Attempt for SB 250!

SB 250 had an initial vote in the Assembly on Tuesday, but did not get enough votes to pass.

We have 24 hours to change 13 of the following member's votes to YES. If ever there has been an SB 250 email to respond to with calls and to forward to other animal lovers, this is the one.

We can do this, we have changed minds in the past. Many of these members cast their initial vote based on misinformation from the opposition to the bill, and can be changed if we can clarify for them how critical it is to pass SB 250. The members who vote YES on SB 250 understand how important it is that we finally take action at the state level to address the tragic pet overpopulation problem in our state. Thank you for your help.

Member     Phone    Initial vote
Wesley Chesbro    916-319-2001    No
Noreen Evans    916-319-2007    No
Mariko Yamada    916-319-2008    No
Alyson Huber    916-319-2010    No
Fiona Ma    916-319-2012    Didn't vote
Nancy Skinner    916-319-2014    No
Joan Buchanan    916-319-2015    No
Sandré Swanson    916-319-2016    No
Cathleen Galgiani    916-319-2017    Didn't vote
William Monning    916-319-2027    Didn't vote
Anna Marie Caballero    916-319-2028    No
John Pérez    916-319-2046    No
Mike Davis    916-319-2048    No
Isadore Hall    916-319-2052    Didn't vote
Bonnie Lowenthal    916-319-2054    Didn't vote
Warren Furutani    916-319-2055    No
Charles Calderon    916-319-2058    No
Norma Torres    916-319-2061    No
Lori Saldaña    916-319-2076    Didn't vote
Marty Block    916-319-2078    Didn't vote
Mary Salas    916-319-2079    No
V. Manuel Pérez    916-319-2080    No
This is the most critical point ever for this bill, but we can do this. We have moved the bill in the past with your help.

You have brought us this far with your determination to help animals in California, THANK YOU. Please forward this email.

Judie

Judie knows the battle is not over and her supporters are not going away.  And those supporters have deep pockets and are not above talking about political opposition.  So if you are pleased with these legislators, if you plan to support them in the future, if these are the kinds of leaders you want in California, call and let them know.

CDOC and Save Our Dogs people are up in Sacramento walking the halls.  If you are making your calls, their job will be much easier.  Thank you.

California Senate Bill 250, the Mandatory Sterilization legislation,
was defeated in the Assembly.  However, due to a procedural
move for “reconsideration” by the bill’s floor jockey, the bill
remains on the Assembly floor and may be revoted on in the next few days.

From the CDOC……

FOLLOW UP TO FIRST VOTE

Today Senator Dean Florez had his Floor Manager, Assembly Member Bob Blumenfield call the bill, SB250, in the Assembly for a vote.  (Mr. Blumenfield was Lloyd Levine's handpicked successor – Mr. Levine's father even managed Blumenfield's campaign, so it's appropriate that Blumenfield is the floor manager for this bill.)  The first vote was at 5:36 pm, the second at 5:49 pm.  In the Senate, there could only be two calls a day; we assume the same in true in the Assembly but will verify that point.
 
Senator Florez needs to get 41 Yes votes; the responsibility is his.  So from our perspective an abstention is as good as a No.  But a No means we have done a better job in educating the Assembly Members about the many flaws in SB250.
 
At the end of the voting, (Ayes – 27; Noes – 42; Not Voting – 10) Member Blumenfield asked for and was granted reconsideration.  That means Florez and Blumenfield can (and probably will) call the bill for voting tomorrow, presumably two times; and if they do not get 41 Yes votes, again on Thursday and again on Friday.  Each day they do not have success, Mr. Blumenfield will ask for and be granted reconsideration.  If they have no had success by the end of Friday, he will ask for reconsideration again and that will carry over to when the Assembly has its first floor session in January 2010.  So thoretically the first vote of 2010 COULD BE SB250. 
 
Now that the Assembly Members have made their positions clear, Senator Florez will be bring pressure to bear on them to change their vote.  He must pull 14 more votes from those Democrats who are abstaining or voting No.
 
They are
Block (A)
Buchanen (N)
Caballero (N)
Calderon (N)
Carter (N)
Chesbro (N)
Davis (N)
Evans (N)
Furutani (N)
Hall (A)
Huber (N)
Lowenthal (A)
Ma (A)
Monning (A)
J. Perez (N)
M. Perez (N)
Saldana (A)
Salas (N)
Skinner (N)
Swanson (N)
Torres (N)
Yamada (N)
Eng did not vote; he may have been out of the capitol.
 
Please take the time to send a short fax (it can be handwritten) to as many of these people as you can.  Please assure them that you appreciate their vote and that groups like CDOC and Save Our Dogs will be working on legislation to can help resolve some problems but will not kill more dogs and hurt dog owners.  Explain that you are part of responsible groups.
 
If Arambula, Galgiani or Mendoza are your Assembly Members, let them know how disappointed you are that they chose to vote this way; these are people who understood the problems with the bill and are just going along.
 
Until we start issuing bulletins through the new group (CDOCDogPAC – yes, a real PAC) we cannot talk politics.  But we know California dog people to be focused and loyal and it's important to remember the people who stepped forward here.
 
So please understand that we need to participate each and every day of the session.  But then we get a break.  Now it is 72 more hours.
 
A comment of the opposition statements of Members Calderon, J. Perez, Smyth and Swanson.   We need to let them know they are greatly appreciated.  We could not help but think that Blumenfield's continuing to pretend that the portion of animal control allocated to impounding and managing animals is $250,000,000 was a little silly.  And his refuting of Perez's remarks was just wrong.  Almost no one in the City of Los Angeles can get an unaltered license; it is only offered to a very few who can jump through silly hoops.  Mr. Perez is exactly correct.
 
Other things we heard during the day; our numbers are wrong (we continue to point out that we didn't make them up; they are what the cities and counties reported to the state), that animal control is not allowed on private property (absolutely untrue), that MSN saves money (again, the Santa Cruz budget).
 
But you have made a good start here.  CDOC is proud to be associated with all the special people who are responsible, who have made trips to Sacramento, phone calls, sent faxes, and helped with expenses.  We think Cole Massie, and all the other people, disabled or healthy, who rely on dogs to enrich their lives would be proud.

CALL TODAY!!!!! BE NICE!!!!! Thank the "NO" Votes and call the "YES" votes and tell them to vote "NO"!!!!!!

Assembly Member Roster

Adams, Anthony Rep 59th (916) 319-2059
Ammiano, Tom Dem 13th (916) 319-2013
Arambula, Juan Ind 31st (916) 319-2031
Bass, Karen Dem 47th (916) 319-2047
Beall, Jim Jr. Dem 24th (916) 319-2024
Block, Marty Dem 78th (916) 319-2078
Blumenfield, Bob Dem 40th (916) 319-2040
Brownley, Julia Dem 41st (916) 319-2041
Buchanan, Joan Dem 15th (916) 319-2015
Caballero, Anna M. Dem 28th (916) 319-2028
Calderon, Charles M. Dem 58th (916) 319-2058
Carter, Wilmer Amina Dem 62nd (916) 319-2062
Chesbro, Wesley Dem 1st (916) 319-2001
Coto, Joe Dem 23rd (916) 319-2023
Davis, Mike Dem 48th (916) 319-2048
De La Torre, Hector Dem 50th (916) 319-2050
de Leon, Kevin Dem 45th (916) 319-2045
Eng, Mike Dem 49th (916) 319-2049
Evans, Noreen Dem 7th (916) 319-2007
Feuer, Mike Dem 42nd (916) 319-2042
Fong, Paul Dem 22nd (916) 319-2022
Fuentes, Felipe Dem 39th (916) 319-2039
Furutani, Warren T. Dem 55th (916) 319-2055
Galgiani, Cathleen Dem 17th (916) 319-2017
Hall, Isadore III Dem 52nd (916) 319-2052
Hayashi, Mary Dem 18th (916) 319-2018
Hernandez, Edward P. Dem 57th (916) 319-2057
Hill, Jerry Dem 19th (916) 319-2019
Huber, Alyson Dem 10th (916) 319-2010
Huffman, Jared Dem 6th (916) 319-2006
Jones, Dave Dem 9th (916) 319-2009
Krekorian, Paul Dem 43rd (916) 319-2043
Lieu, Ted W. Dem 53rd (916) 319-2053
Lowenthal, Bonnie Dem 54th (916) 319-2054
Ma, Fiona Dem 12th (916) 319-2012 ]
Mendoza, Tony Dem 56th (916) 319-2056
Monning, William W. Dem 27th (916) 319-2027
Nava, Pedro Dem 35th (916) 319-2035
Pérez, John A. Dem 46th (916) 319-2046
Pérez, V. Manuel Dem 80th (916) 319-2080
Portantino, Anthony J. Dem 44th (916) 319-2044
Ruskin, Ira Dem 21st (916) 319-2021
Salas, Mary Dem 79th (916) 319-2079
Saldaña, Lori Dem 76th (916) 319-2076
Skinner, Nancy Dem 14th (916) 319-2014
Solorio, Jose Dem 69th (916) 319-2069
Swanson, Sandre R. Dem 16th (916) 319-2016
Torlakson, Tom Dem 11th (916) 319-2011
Torres, Norma J. Dem 61st (916) 319-2061
Torrico, Alberto Dem 20th (916) 319-2020
Yamada, Mariko Dem 8th (916) 319-2008

Permission to cross post!
 
I too read the “final SRC report” with interest.  How the SRC Committee could ignore the 1414 members who voted  in the Special Membership Meeting, which asked the question “Do you want to include sable merles in our standard” and say that the 597 who answered the “poll” ,is what counts, is unbelievable. It is time that our DDs stand up and represent their constituents. A motion has been made by a DD to appoint a 3 person committee to begin the legal process to include the sable merle in our standard.  Since the membership has indicated (by a majority vote) they want to see this done, I would suggest when this motion is put to a vote, each DD poll their members, and vote according to your constituents wishes.
 
This club belongs to the members, and yet we have individuals in office who do not follow our CCA Constitution, refuse to listen to the membership,  or display proper courtesy and protocol.  It is time they are replaced. It is apparent that we need new people in office who will work with the Board and listen to the members.  I urge everyone in this club to make your voice heard by voting in the upcoming elections.  You have a right to question those who are running for office…..Exercise that right!
 
Adria Weiner
Edenrock Collies

So this final report is no big surprise…..  Futh hand picked the members of the SRC and all but one were stacked against the sable merle and or the changing of the standard. So that was pretty much a DUH right off the bat!!!

It is also well known that Bob Futh has stated the standard will not be changed on his watch.While I am not surprised with the content of the final report I am a little suprised at how whiney some of the SRC members were!!!! They claimed it was a thankless job…. I know I personally have thanked them on several occasions…. and I thanked Mr. Tom Coen personally. Big babies!!!

Seems Mr. Futh is passing the Presidential duties down for a short time due to health conditions…. while I wish no ill on Mr. Futh I think this is a GRAND idea as he is KILLING the CCA!!!! So now maybe we can actually get some business done!!!!

Hopefully he stays away until after the we vote in a new President!!!

This final report makes mention of the Peke club….. The problems that the CCA is having are not ALL about the sable merle!!!!

It is about a handful of people running the CCA with zero regard for the constitution & bylaws and the 2000 + members that really ARE the CCA!!!!!

I just want to add that the SMAC is NOT going away!!!! They have a lovely ad campaign going on at COLLIES ON LINE!!!!

Update:

Dear Members,

Please be informed that the intention of the President was to inform you
that IF his health situation warrented it, he would be
turning over the office to the First Vice President for whatever time
deemed necessary. That time has not arrived, and hopefully his health
will not demand such a move. You will all be notified if and when the
need arises.

Thank You,

Leslie Canavan

SHEESH!!!!!! I knew it was too good to be true!!!!!

Update:

I just reread the post from Mr. Futh regarding his health and spending more time with cardiologist  than his laptop and it is very different from what Leslie Cananvan is saying. Bottom line just more smoke and mirrors!!!!! More of the same crap spilling down from the top….. lies and half truths.

STANDARD REVIEW COMMITTEE – FINAL REPORT

PERMISSION TO CROSS POST IN ITS ENTIRETY ONLY.

The specific wording from AKC regarding the establishment of the Standard Review Committee was: “I recommend that a committee be formed to investigate and assess the situation including surveying the membership and educating the membership in regard to the issue.” When the members of this committee were asked to serve everyone agreed despite the consideration that this might require a lot of time and work. It would be fair to say that none of us was eager to undertake the task, but looking back none of us realized just how much time, work, and stress this would involve.

First, some background information is in order.  After being informed of the situation in which a judge withheld a reserve award from a sable merle Collie the Judges Education chairman immediately called the judge to discuss the matter.  It was a lengthy conversation in which the judge, Pat Hastings, said she didn’t expect a standard change and that a directive from the Parent Club would certainly be sufficient.  The Judges Education Committee began work right away on expanding the existing directive. When it was completed the committee was informed by AKC that their efforts had resulted in “a clear, concise directive for judges.”  That directive is on the CCA website under Judges Education and it is included in the packet that is sent to all new applicants for Collies published in the AKC Gazette. The committee sent the directive to the judge in question and asked her to please let them know if this clarified the issue for her. To date, we have received no response.

 Shortly thereafter, a breeder judge, Shelley Roos, excused a sable merle from the open sable class because she felt the dog was in the wrong class.  Right after arriving home from the show Ms. Roos, realizing that she had been in error, called AKC.  Please notice that there is a difference in the way that each of these judges handled their respective decisions, both of which were not in compliance with AKC or the CCA Judges Education Directive regarding judging sable merle Collies.

Judges are human and make mistakes, others have preferences and agendas and that’s not going to change.

 Speaking with the AKC’s breed standard issues staff liaison was very enlightening.  First, when asking about establishing an open class for sable merles, we were informed, “In that this is not a color with a pattern that can be readily identified, it is not recommended to attempt to establish an additional class.”  In short, judges are concerned with evaluating phenotype or how the dog “appears” and not all sable merles are identifiable as such.  Secondly, when a standard is opened for the revision of one issue any number of special interests wanting other changes may come forth.  Despite what certain parties would like you to believe the AKC and members of  Standard Revision Committees for other parent clubs assure us that this is the case.

 The CCA is an AKC member club. The AKC handles registrations, show permissions, licensing of judges and also has a staff liaison for clubs in regards to breed standard issues.  Should this club find itself in a position similar to that of the Pekingese club it won’t be because of anything this committee did or didn’t do.  We were in touch with AKC each step of the way and followed their direction.  Regarding the AKC’s recommendation that “It would be prudent of the club to establish a means of educating the breeders” we had developed the following tentative plans:

1) Gather statistics and historical information regarding sable merles.  Among other things, this would include champions finished, ROM’s, CCA winners, etc. Just FYI, so far we have learned that over two hundred sable merles have finished their titles.

Our committee gathered the statistics and they are included in the 78 page book that we published on the sable merle.  We made every attempt to have this educat
ional material be as complete as possible and used the most flattering photos we could find.  Additionally, we produced a DVD celebrating the top winning and producing sable merles in CCA history. These materials, the first ever created by a committee such as ours, are available to the entire membership for purchase.

2) Survey the membership regarding this issue.  We will begin with those people

who serve as our Breed Mentors. Their having qualified as mentors indicates significant experience, commitment and contribution to the Collie (the Mentor Application with qualifications is on the CCA website.)

Eighty-five surveys were sent out to the Breed Mentors. The results revealed that of the fifty-three responses seven Mentors wanted the standard changed to include sable merle as a color and for the section on eye color to be the same as in blue merles, one wanted the addition of a DQ, four wanted clarifications without standard change. The overwhelming majority of forty-one desired that the standard remain as it is.  Most expressed the desire for expanded education for both judges and breeders, particularly with the Judges Ed. Directive, which was also the suggestion of the AKC.

In June our committee mailed out educational materials with a survey and poll to the entire membership. This was proposed in our initial letter to the District Directors last December and it received Board approval in January. The top survey portion will be sent to the CCA Survey Committee for analysis.

 The SRC ballot, which addressed both proposed standard changes that were in the petition received by the secretary, resulted in the following vote totals:

Total ballots counted 597

  333*   a.) I am in favor of keeping the Collie standard as it is written.
  264     b.) I would like to change the Collie standard.                           

                  Please specify either or both

                  68    1.)  Add sable merle to the color/pattern description

                    6    2.) Permit blue or china eyes in sable merles  

                       without  specific penalty

                190  votes in favor of both changes

*24 who voted for no change added comments/considerations if there was to be a change to the standard.  The Tellers Committee labeled these ballots "conflicted" but they were a NO vote first.

3.) Consult with a geneticist to clarify the mode of inheritance of the merle gene and to clarify any color/pattern misconceptions.

Reports addressing the merle gene were received from Tim Garrison, a geneticist and longtime Collie breeder and judge, and Kim Schive, a geneticist, breeder, judge and feature writer for the AKC Gazette. These reports were included with the educational materials for the membership.

4) Consult with a veterinarian concerning health ramifications regarding the sable merle.  It is high time that any misinformation or misconceptions concerning this issue be cleared up once and for all.

Reports from two Collie breeder- veterinarians, David E. Hansen, DVM and Cindi Bossart, VMD, the current and past chairs of the Collie Health Committee, clearly stated that there are NO health issues with the sable merle but each cautioned about doubling on the merle gene and stressed the importance of registering sable merles as such.  These reports were included with the educational materials for the membership.         

5) We propose a program to share the educational information that we have gathered be held on Tuesday afternoon, April 7, 2009 at the CCA in Springfield.  We have obtained permission to use the same room where the Breeders Education seminar will be held that morning.  This program will be open to the entire CCA membership.

 On April 7th approximately 100 interested CCA members gathered at the Storrowton Tavern for the CCA Stan dard Review Committee’s educational presentation on the sable merle.

Presenter Tom Coen, SRC chairman, first discussed the withholding and excusal of sable merles by two judges who were NOT in compliance with either the directive of the CCA Judges Ed Committee or the AKC. Next covered were reports addressing the merle gene from geneticists Tim Garrison and Kim Schive. Reports from two Collie breeder- veterinarians clearly stated that there are NO health issues with the sable merle but each cautioned about doubling on the merle gene and stressed the importance of registering sable merles as such. The survey of the Breed Mentors was the next topic and the results were discussed.  Statements from the five members of the committee were read and revealed that after studying the materials, one was in favor of standard changes and four felt that the standard should remain as it is. Finally, a DVD showcasing sable merle Collies as winners and ROM producers was viewed and enjoyed by all.

Our committee has now completed all the proposed tasks that were approved by the Board. This frustrating and thankless job has now lasted more than nine months and we are relieved to have completed our task and look forward to returning to life as usual. We will complete our final report with the comments, concerns and recommendations from individual committee members:

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tom Coen for taking on this controversial issue with excellent management of our Committee of six.  Although I dispute the vote of the Committee of six, it has been a pleasure working with the members.  Requesting final feedback from a selected small group should not be the final decision for an organization of our size.  Of course, the entire membership should have the opportunity to be heard, also.  It has never been a secret on my part that the Sable Merle should be accepted in the Open Sable Class with only a few revisions.  For example:

Change the standard to read under: COLOR – Parentheses indicates change.  "The four registered colors are "Sable and White", "Tri-color", "Blue Merle" and "White".  There is no preference among them.  The "Sable and White" is predominantly sable (a fawn sable color of varying shades from light gold to dark mahogany and may have a merling pattern) with white markings, etc.

And: UNDER EYES – REVISE – 6th Sentence to read:

"In merles, dark brown eyes are preferable, but either or both eyes may be merle or china in color without specific penalty, etc.

I would suggest that President Futh have a questionnaire, similar but abbreviated to the one circulated by The Standard Review Committee.  This can be simply accomplished either through the BULLETIN, NEWSLETTER or included in the DUES NOTICE without great cost.

Doris Werdermann

Dorelaine

After reading and assessing the varied replies from me
ntors and long-time breeders, I feel that in my opinion the standard should not be changed.  In view of the fact that many sable merles have been successfully shown and have finished, I think that the standard is broad enough to handle the situation, and has functioned.  There does seem to be a need for the Judges Directive already written.  The varied changes proposed, will only add to the confusion and direct the judge's attention away from the more important values that manifest themselves in creating the complete and correct collie.

Les Canavan

Royal Rock

 It has been an enlightening and unfortunately a frustrating experience to serve on this committee.  After reading the responses of the mentors of our breed and reviewing their opinions, it is clear to me that in the minds of the majority of them, our standard which has served us so well for so many years should not be changed.  These mentors are the breeders and exhibitors who have been involved in Collies for many years and whose experience satisfies the criterion for being able to make informed and concerned decisions.  Why is it that in the opinions of those who now so vocally call for change, the experience of these mentors is somehow perceived as a detriment?  I find it ludicrous that those individuals, many of whom have little background and time in the breed would think that they have the knowledge to make such important changes.

The fact that the group favoring change mailed a “poll” to the membership before the official poll from the SRC came out, served to confuse the issue for many members, especially those not involved in the on-line exchanges.  As a result of their voting on that first poll, many people did not realize that the survey sent out by the SRC was actually the official poll and failed to vote for a second time.  The interference from both sides of the issue, both those in favor of a change and those opposed, made our task much more difficult.

The standard is the description of the ideal collie.  Why would we want to change it or alter it in order to fit whatever is being shown, rather than to try to breed to that ideal?  I personally love sable merles and have owned and bred many champions in that color, but I have also not felt the need to show the ones who fall short of the mark.  Those that didn’t fit the criteria to be a show ring success often made important contributions as producers.  Is it written somewhere that any collie, regardless of whether it fits the standard, must be able to be shown and expected to win?  The sable merle fits into the description of the sable as described in the standard, and it is obvious from the impressive number of quality sable merles that have gone on to win in the show ring and make important contributions as producers, that the worthy ones can and do succeed. 

Our standard places tremendous emphasis on expression, and to tamper with the wording might actually change one of the most unique virtues of the collie.  One must always remember that all standards have subtleties and nuances built in which help to create the essence of each breed.  As an example, under the description of eyes – the standard says "the color is dark and the eye does not show a yellow ring or a sufficiently prominent haw to affect the dog's expression".   What has to be understood here (although it is not written) is the fact that a lighter eye will be penalized, and penalized according to how much it affects the expression.  Yet, this never had to be written in.  If someone wrote in that the eyes should preferably be "dark and matched in color, but light eyes would not be penalized" you can be sure that our standard of "perfection" would certainly be compromised.   The point is – it is always important to remember that the standard directs us to deal with the "ideal". The solution would seem to be to spend more time on education, both of judges and breeders, placing even more emphasis on the directive which we have already written dealing with judging the sable merle.  There is bound to be controversy as no two judges will necessarily evaluate the same dog in the same way, but I do not feel that changing the standard to accommodate every deviation is the correct solution.

Judie Evans

Clarion

This is the third time in the past 25 years that the sable merle issue has reached the Executive Committee level. The two previous attempts to add this color as a description of the ideal collie failed. This is historical information that many of our newer members and State Directors are likely to have little knowledge.

Nancy McDonald's message of March 2009 spoke of the threshold to change the standard needing be much higher than the threshold not to change it. Have the proponents for change presented a valid need that exceeds the threshold or do they merely seek justification?

Standards of the breeds have bedrock, cornerstone characteristics.  Change needs to be difficult or the very foundations of the breed's essence can be severely shaken. Revolution, as Alvin Grossman pointed out in his excellent article in the August CHRONICLE needs to be prevented as do those who would modify the standard by personal fiat or by subverting the normal legislative process.

The survey of our breed mentors provided information from a group of members with considerable experience and expertise. Their opinions carry extra weight.

By a wide margin those mentors who responded to the survey did not want to add the sable merle as an ideal color.  I share the concerns of many who responded that 1) few breeders make a breeding hoping that the best puppy in the litter is a sable merle and 2) that the acceptance of sable merles as the ideal collie will inevitably lead to more and more china eyes in these "sables." I would add that I doubt the general public would accept sable pets with china eyes…they might ask, "Is that a purebred collie?"

The Judges Directive as published clearly states what judges need to know about the current status of sable merles and eye color when exhibited. This belongs in every judge's hands…it easy to follow. This is not in any way a deficiency of our current standard; breed clubs often send clarification and judging concern notices to provisional and active judges in order to protect and clarify the meaning and essence of the document.

In conclusion, in spite of vigorous campaigning (via E-mail and by some State Directors) by those urging the inclusion of the sable merle as an ideal color, in my opinion the voting results in both the mentor and general membership vote do not reach the threshold needed for change.

I would hope that the sable merle issue can now finally be laid to rest– before I am!   Thank you.

William K. Brokken, M.D.

Foremost

I am honored to have been approved by a large majority of the CCA Board of Directors as a member of this committee and a qualified trustee of this task. Each of us is a breeder/exhibitor with extensive knowledge of sable merles as contributors to successful breeding programs.  That experience gave us the objectivity and discipline to evaluate fairly whether or not such a description in the standard was necessary.  In addition, a large response from a survey of experienced breed mentors insured that we were exposed to and considered all elements offered by both sides of the issue.

From the very beginning of our work, the SRC’s only focus was to determine if specifying language to describe the sable merle would improve the ability of breeders and judges to evaluate breeding stock.  As we created the educational materials under the obj
ectives of our mission, one thing quickly became apparent.  Our memories were refreshed of many great Collies, whose sable coats were merled by random genetic incident, not by design.  Review of their accomplishments evidenced that those individuals were not victims of negative discrimination due to deficiencies or inconsistencies in wording of the standard.  The great ones – CCA winners Ch. Candray Constellation and Ch. Wayside After The Gold Rush, top ROM producers Ch. Overland Endless Summer, Ch. Perry’s Sundather Tradition, Ch. Gambit’s Trick of Light, to mention just a few – all have been embraced by the fancy as contributing breeding stock and successful show ring competitors.

In deliberations, a variety of phrases were considered to include language to specify the sable merle in the standard.  As written, the coat “color” section is adequate to describe the sable merle – “The ‘Sable and White’ is predominantly sable (a fawn sable color of varying shades from light gold to dark mahogany).

Eliminating or minimizing penalty for eye color other than “dark” became the ultimate obstacle to any language revision.  The standard’s principle that the Collie’s unique expression defines the very essence of the breed permeates the entire document.  A “simple change of a few words under the eye color section” is not so simple – it creates confusion and inconsistency with the other sections of the standard that refer to expression. “An expression . . .  which is suggestive of any other breed is entirely foreign,” [the eyes] “never properly appear to be . . . prominent” (as is the case of one or both blue eyes reflecting from a sable face).  These many descriptions and references give breeders and judges a clear guideline as to how to weigh the affect of eye color on the relative value of a Collie’s quality.  Judges are expected to interpret to what extent the expression is affected when faced with an exhibit whose eye color does not meet the ideal, just as they must interpret the effect that poor stop placement or lack of balance has on the overall quality of an individual.  History tells us that with rare (but highly publicized) exception, this principle is and has been working.  Emphasis on education will insure it continues – judges and breeders who are inadequately educated or choose to ignore the standard are no reason to risk compromising the description of the ideal, perfect Collie.

Using Bill’s metaphor, the bedrock and cornerstone of the standard are these phrases:  “Expression is one of the most important points in considering the relative value of Collies” and “Eye faults are heavily penalized.”  These principles have remained unaltered throughout the history of the American Collies as major and minor revisions of other elements of the standard have been considered and approved by the CCA membership.

Nancy McDonald

Barksdale

Back in December I wrote the following to the CCA Board: “As a committee we feel strongly about an informed, educated membership.  This subject requires careful thought and is not to be taken lightly.  Rational, intelligent discussion rather than emotional polarization is our choice of how to proceed”.  That was our choice and holding fast to it was difficult with the personal assaults and abuse our committee received.  We thought we were volunteering for an educational project and instead found ourselves in the center of CCA political turmoil.  Please be clear that we were never a Standard Revision Committee nor did we ever want to be.  Being in the middle between the extremes on either side of this issue was difficult and uncomfortable.  Nothing we did was ever enough and it was invariably labeled as biased from one point of view or the other.

  We were stonewalled in getting the Judges Education Directive on judging the sable merle Collie in the AKC Newsletter and that was very disappointing.  As you may or may not know, this occurred when an influential Collie person, opposed to sable merles, spoke directly with Peter Gaeta at Judging Operations at AKC.  Mr. Gaeta, who was in charge of the AKC Judges Newsletter content, has since retired and I have recently spoken to his replacement and was assured that the directive can now be published.  Personally, I would like to see the club send a special letter to all judges of Collies concerning the judging of sable merles.

 Our past president accused us of skewing the committee’s poll in favor of the Sable Merle Advocacy by publishing an equal number of pro and con Mentor responses regarding standard change in the educational materials we mailed to the membership. We thought we were being fair and wanted the membership to be able to read both points of view before voting.

  The Sable Merle Advocacy gives the impression that the issue is whether you are pro or con sable merle Collies.   The real issue is whether you are willing to honor the standard as written or whether you think the standard needs to be changed in order to judge the sable merle Collie in the show ring.  There is no one on this committee who does not appreciate a quality sable merle with correct Collie expression and we resent the inference that we are against sable merles.

  We were blindsided by a petition written by people who were less than forthcoming. In an e-mail that was circulated, one of the petition’s authors, a breeder-judge, wrote ” will you please get those to sign it who you can trust to keep this quiet”. Next there was the ballot to the membership from the CCA secretary that she chose to keep secret as well, resulting in two ballots being mailed to the membership within a week. It was at this point that I lost any remaining enthusiasm for this project.

Our efforts to mail our educational materials and ballot were delayed by CCA politics and a lack of productive communication. We utilized the CCA Newsletter and bulk mailing to save money for the club and were accused of conspiring to have the mail be slow and not reach some members.

We were blamed for Glen Twiford’s article on the sable merle appearing in the Bulletin when we had no say at all about Bulletin content and never were in communication with the editor.

  Recently we were credited with the ads for vote “No” on Colliesonline.  We have no idea who placed or paid for the ad.

We appreciate and admire passion, but ask that it be directed where it

belongs.

After living with this issue day and night since last fall I have a few concerns and thoughts I’d like to share.

The lack of regard for the experience and thoughtful input of the Breed Mentors, who are long-term students and major contributors to the Collie, is a real concern to me.  My experience has been that understanding of the standard evolves and changes over time.  When I started in dogs the standard was an interesting document with numerous sections that were unclear; to me, my dog appeared to be perfect.  When I understood more, the standard became somewhat of an inconvenience and intrusion because my dog didn’t measure up in some areas.  After all, I wanted to win.  Next, the standard became the description of an unobtainable ideal that has challenged me to breed dogs all these years.  Today, I find myself with the greatest respect for this document and somehow I see myself as one of its guardians.  During the past forty years the standard has changed very little but my thinking has changed a lot.  The point of this is that any changes to the standard need to be considered very carefully and there is no substitute for experience.

The current c
ontroversy has been going on for decades and it certainly would be nice to find a simple way to lay it to rest.  Personally, I would not have a problem including a reference to the merling pattern in the sable description.  For me, the real controversy lies with changing the wording regarding eye color in sable merles.  Because something is “naturally occurring” does not make it desirable, much less ideal.  Increasing acceptability, such as permitting blue eyes in sable merles without penalty, would do nothing to raise the bar on quality, and, in my opinion, would have just the opposite effect.

My greatest concern is the long term ramifications regarding expression, one of the most important defining qualities of the Collie.  I think it is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee how the envelope may be pushed in the future.

Education of judges regarding sable merles is crucial and needs to be kept simple.  We don’t want color to be a distraction from the total dog. Judges need to be told to judge what they see and that it’s not their job to determine the genetic make up of an entry.  If a sable dog exhibits a merling pattern that they feel detracts from the general appearance then fault it accordingly, but remember that quality, not color, always comes first.  If the dog has blue in its eye and it detracts from the expression, then fault it accordingly, remembering that the Standard says “An expression that shows sullenness or which is suggestive of any other breed is entirely foreign” and “Expression is one of the most important points in considering the relative value of Collies.” Again, keep it simple.

My last concern has to do with the current climate in the CCA.  The tone and content of unfiltered emails on the various lists have hit an unprecedented low.  We are all volunteers and when you think about it we have a lot in common.  We are all faced with the waning popularity of the Collie as a family pet, lower entries at shows with a scarcity of majors, health problems including bloat and DM and anti-breeder legislation that is threatening to put an end to life as we know it.  We can either work together or continue down the road of polarization.  It’s our choice – which will it be?

I cannot thank the members of this committee enough for their months of hard work and for always taking the high road.  It has been a real privilege working with you.

Thomas W. Coen

Macdega