What if two major threats were no longer threats

[Debbie Meier]

A number of months back Tea posted a fictional story over at the Working Stock Dog Forum that has stayed with me, I just went over to look for it but failed, maybe she will repost it here sometime or if anyone else knows how to find it they can link it here.

 

Anyway, that story in hand with other recent threads have me thinking, what do you all think the next great threat would to the Working Border Collie here in the US if;

 

A: AKC closed the stud books restricting their registration to only AKC registered border collies; and

 

B: Federal/State law is passed making mills illegal and the law stipulated that only breeders that could prove that they were breeding health certified dogs while preserving the breed to what ever standard they were originally developed for?

(for those that saw it, that stupid smilie was not suppose to be there, sorry, is an emoticon, fixed it when I disabled them I think...)

 

doG forbid legislation ever get's passed making it illegal to have more then one registry of any given breed...yikes that would almost have to be a condition of point B in an effort to define "Standard" and would make point A an automatic.

 

Sorry I guess I'm asking people to try to look into their crystal balls...I guess the new health care proposal that the government is trying to pull together is bringing this about too..."ok great if this get's passed, then it effects that"....as they are talking about penalties for those people that do not buy insurance and such..

 

Another thing that is bringing this up is a recent revelation here in Iowa where as someone that was being put in charge of new agricultural laws had never been on a farm, atleast that's how I understand it.

 

I hope we can all stay casual and civil, though I understand that this may tap into some peoples fears, but I don't think there is a right or wrong here, just thoughts, ideas and concepts. I don't know that either point A or point B has not been done with either other breeds or proposed in some states or countries, so I guess I don't think of it as too awefully far fetched, except if we want to say it won't happen because this is the US.

 

I guess we could also talk about how it could effect each of us personally.

 

Deb

[Aussiedawgs]

I 'm not sure I'm understanding the question correctly, but I think the next major threat to the "working" Border Collie - in fact, any breed with a strong working heritage that people are trying to preserve is the fact that most of the dog owning population is looking for and wanting a pet - whether for sports, breedring, or companionship. I think...and this is coming from the perspective of Australian Shepherds - that many of the qualities that make our breeds excellent working dogs work against them as suburban or urban companions and I can't really blame AKC for this - it's really a major shift in the dog owning demographics (very few dogs are workingn farm or ranch dogs and many farmers and ranchers don't use dogs to work any more). I think it means that certain characteristics are changing or will have to change in order to meet the "demand" for quality pets. One of the things I have noticed in Aussie rescue, is that many of the dogs I really like, who end up coming into rescue - do so because they are problematic pets. They have too much drive, they have too much (or unchecked) guardian tendancies, they are too reactive to noise and movement or traffic or strangers. They are perfect aussies for what they were once bred for, but they do not do well in many of today's living situations unless the person is saavy. I think what I see as the greatest threat is the market forcing changes on our breeds, changes of characteristics that were once part of the breed's identity. That's just my opinion...but it seems that way....and it saddens me.

 

Hope & Aussies

[Sue R]

I think you make a good point, Hope. I have seen a number of posts even here on the boards (not from people I would support) that advocate that the pet/performance niche is the future of the Border Collie (and, in general, of every breed). Therefore, they justify breeding away from working abilities and qualities and towards pet/performance "qualities" as if it were inevitable (and since that's a market for the pups they and others may produce).

 

Perception of what dogs are and should be by the general public poses a threat because it's often not based on reality or may be based on style or whim, and wants, not needs. The changing demographics just mean this trend is likely to become stronger with time.

 

Meanwhile, any irresponsible breeding is always a threat.

[Aussiedawgs]

I think you make a good point, Hope. I have seen a number of posts even here on the boards (not from people I would support) that advocate that the pet/performance niche is the future of the Border Collie (and, in general, of every breed). Therefore, they justify breeding away from working abilities and qualities and towards pet/performance "qualities" as if it were inevitable (and since that's a market for the pups they and others may produce).

 

Perception of what dogs are and should be by the general public poses a threat because it's often not based on reality or may be based on style or whim, and wants, not needs. The changing demographics just mean this trend is likely to become stronger with time.

 

Meanwhile, any irresponsible breeding is always a threat.

 

 

I totally agree with what you say about "perception" - too many people don't have a realistic idea of what a "dog" is much less a dog with a working or very active heritage. I do think this trend will become stronger. The other issue is - how do you preserve working ability when most people don't live on a working farm or ranch?

 

One of the arguments we get into in regards to aussie is preservation of traditional characteristics (such as the guardian characteristics) vs. reducing them to make them more adaptable to today's society. In otherwords - everyone wants a Golden Retriever so let's give them Goldens in a Blue Merle suit. Change the breed and not the buyer. I don't agree with that but it's happening and an ever increasing pace.

[Debbie Meier]

When I was just out moving the horses off the round bale I put more thought into what would happen if there was a standard set to define who had the right to breed, if the trend toward pet needs continues I could see where as the health and pet qualities would be foremost, there would still be a test for working ability due to it being part of the standard but it would over time be made less stringent as the need for numbers that could meet the standard increased.

 

Deb

[Aussiedawgs]

When I was just out moving the horses off the round bale I put more thought into what would happen if there was a standard set to define who had the right to breed, if the trend toward pet needs continues I could see where as the health and pet qualities would be foremost, there would still be a test for working ability due to it being part of the standard but it would over time be made less stringent as the need for numbers that could meet the standard increased.

 

Deb

 

 

Doesn't Germany have something similar to that in regards to German Shepherds? I know there are working tests involved and unlike registries such as AKC - there are differing "grades" of papers and your dog has to meet certain requirements before it can be bred or the litter does not get papers. I don't think this would ever work in America though - we are far to individualistic and everyone believes they have the right to breed what they want when they want.

[Debbie Meier]

Doesn't Germany have something similar to that in regards to German Shepherds? I know there are working tests involved and unlike registries such as AKC - there are differing "grades" of papers and your dog has to meet certain requirements before it can be bred or the litter does not get papers. I don't think this would ever work in America though - we are far to individualistic and everyone believes they have the right to breed what they want when they want.

 

I don't know. But based on the theory I presented I think it would come with the territory if laws were put into place limiting breeding to only those that could prove that their dogs met the standard (work, health, temperment... whatever). One of those if A then B type deals. Once there are laws there would be no personal opinion or do it because you want to, just black or white, there would have to be guidelines so that it would be obvious who would have the right to breed and who does not.

 

Isn't that what CA was proposing at one point, dogs that were recognized by certain registries and were proven to be used in competition? (thinking that the "Competition" would serve as a standard, if it is good enough to show then it must be good enough to breed). I could see someone that does not understand the practical use of a working dog thinking that a show dog would hold the same or better traits then the actual working dog.

 

Deb

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

I know Pa accidently gave 30 grand to a puppy miller who was supposed to go green. Puppy mill watchers are flipping out.

 

If the right hand cant watch the left then I'm not sure how the proposed threats would be accomplished

[Debbie Meier]

I know Pa accidently gave 30 grand to a puppy miller who was supposed to go green. Puppy mill watchers are flipping out.

 

If the right hand cant watch the left then I'm not sure how the proposed threats would be accomplished

 

I'm talking about what if, if what many people want came to pass, AKC to close the stud books and puppy mills to be illegal with other breeders were regulated based on a standard.

 

What would be the remaining threats to the working border collie, or even any other working breed.

[Aussiedawgs]

I don't know. But based on the theory I presented I think it would come with the territory if laws were put into place limiting breeding to only those that could prove that their dogs met the standard (work, health, temperment... whatever). One of those if A then B type deals. Once there are laws there would be no personal opinion or do it because you want to, just black or white, there would have to be guidelines so that it would be obvious who would have the right to breed and who does not.

 

Isn't that what CA was proposing at one point, dogs that were recognized by certain registries and were proven to be used in competition? (thinking that the "Competition" would serve as a standard, if it is good enough to show then it must be good enough to breed). I could see someone that does not understand the practical use of a working dog thinking that a show dog would hold the same or better traits then the actual working dog.

 

Deb

 

 

I think it could be difficult ...

 

On the plus side, you could define standards in a variety of ways. For instance breeds that are primarily companion dogs regardless of their prior heritage, should at a minimum pass a temperment test such as given by the ATTS and the parents should be able to earn a CGC or a Novice Obedience title. Breeds that are working dogs should pass some form (beyond "instinct tests") of test for what they are supposed to be able to do.

 

I didn't care for what CA proposed though - for example - proven to be used in competition. Many good working dogs never see competition - they work on the farm or ranch doing what they are supposed to do. I tend to think farmers and ranchers who would tend to compete would be in the minority wouldn't they?

[Debbie Meier]

In regards to the question about Germany, this was posted at another discussion board by a member that breed Australian Cattle Dogs:

i breed cattle dogs in germany under the VDH (kennel club) and the ACDCD e.V. (breed club)

 

breeding regulations are set by the breed club.

they can be changed or things can be added by request.

EVERY member of the ACDCD can put in a request for changes. at the annual clubmeeting or in a exeptional meeting the members present decide if the changes take place or not (2/3 mjority needed for most requests).

 

a general 'frame' is set by the VDH (kennel club). this 'frame' is the same for every breed accepted by the VDH (and therefore the FCI).

every breed club can specify the requirements set in the 'frame', and tighten but NEVER loosen existing regulations of the VDH.

 

right now we have the following requirements:

 

-HD rating

-CERF yearly

-BAER

-temperament testing

-breeding permission show

 

-in a mating at least one of the dogs has to be Prcd2-Pra Pattern A tested as only A x A and A x B matings are allowed.

 

-when it comes to hips:

AxA

AxB

AxC

BxB are the only combinations allowed.

(A=excellent, B1=good, B2=fair, C=mild dysplisia).

 

-only bilateral hearing dogs get the breeding permission

-dogs can only be bred when they are CERF clear

-dogs with missing teeth can only be bred to fulldented partners

-not more than 4 missin teeth in a pairing are allowed and only, if two of those missing ones are the p1. if there is any other missing, it can't be more than 2.

 

most breeder do their dogs elbows as well, right now this is voluntary though.

 

before we can apply for a protected kennel name, a representative of the kennel club inspects your place and checks your qualifications (HERE they ask to little of the future breeders, in my opinion. personally i think it's way to superficial what they ask)

 

we are only allowed 2 litters a year, can only have 3 intact bitches and as soon as we have more than 2 bitches (meaning a 3rd one) we have to apply for a 'commercial breeder' certificate. this means: we have to sit exams at the state vet, hand in a certificate of good conduct, have the state vet at home who will check if we follow all animal wellfare laws. (these laws state e.g. how big the windows have to be according to the sqm of the room, how high the fence must be, how big the outrun area has to be and and and..)

 

as stated by katldog dog wardens (by the club or the VDH) inspect every litter born twice before the puppies move into their new homes. faults like overshots or undershots, kinked tails or missing testicles are being registered and printed on this pup's papers. they get a breeding ban right away.

 

sorry for the book but breeding in this country is EXTREMELY difficult and time and money consuming.

 

 

http://www.aucado.us/forums/showthread.php...9358#post119358

[G. Festerling]

In GSD's they require hip, elbow passing scores.

Then they assign a ZW which is a secret formula that considers the dogs hip ratings as well as its relatives (so yes, it changes). If a combined ZW is over 200 the SV (Schaeferhund Verein) will not allow the breeding (as in no papers).

Dogs are required to have at least a BH (title comparative to the CGC), and a SchH (protection title) or a herding title in order to breed.

As well as a conformation rating.

If the dog has a KKL (koerung) which has a 1 or 2, then the pups will be pink papered. If no KKL (which is a breed evaluation including show and work) then the pups will only get white papers. Pink of course is prefered.

 

Now, despite all of this, the GSD breed is essentially split between working lines and show lines. With the difference being even larger in that breed than currently in the Border Collies. No matter what system, things can always be tweaked. I do believe some oversight is needed and can certainly be good. But too much is not something I am looking forward to especially if done by folks that have no clue.

 

In the old East Germany, they had much more stringent restrictions on breeding. Breedwardens that had a say in which animals could be bred. Brood bitches and studs had to present with offspring. If offspring had recurring issues more than a certain time, either the combo was no longer allowed or the dogs could not be bred at all anymore. And so on. I am not 100% familiar with all the details (before my time and my interest in the breed). This resulted in a GSD that to me is still much more the original dog than most that we know now. However, since the wall came down (only a mere 20 years ago) this has dramatically changed, the gene pool is almost gone. And I have talked to several breeders from the old days that have stated that even back then, the breed ran into huge problems with the gene pool being way to restricted. Problems with the dogs drives, temperaments and health.

 

So what I am I saying...essentially, that I have no clue what the answer is. Maybe a bit of each?

[PennyT]

"I know Pa accidently gave 30 grand to a puppy miller who was supposed to go green. Puppy mill watchers are flipping out.

 

If the right hand cant watch the left then I'm not sure how the proposed threats would be accomplished"

 

Could you explain what this means? I gather that your father gave $30,000 to a puppy miller. What does "go green" mean? Why give a breeder that much anyway, miller or ethical?

 

Penny

[Tea]

Its under working Stockdogs

 

its called

 

'Perhaps the Future.'

 

It is part of a longer story actually.

 

It was interesting writing it.

 

(I hope that was the one?)

 

If that is the one, I could post it here I think? Even if it is a story?

[Ooky]

"I know Pa accidently gave 30 grand to a puppy miller who was supposed to go green. Puppy mill watchers are flipping out.

 

If the right hand cant watch the left then I'm not sure how the proposed threats would be accomplished"

 

Could you explain what this means? I gather that your father gave $30,000 to a puppy miller. What does "go green" mean? Why give a breeder that much anyway, miller or ethical?

 

Penny

 

I think she must have meant the state of Pennsylvania gave monies (maybe tax credits or similar??) to a puppymill operation that "went green", and therefore was able to take advantage of the state program for that. As in, maybe solar panels, tankless waterheaters, permeable hardscape, whatever. Is that the gist Sheryl?

 

As with anything in gov't, anybody regulating the environmental program stuff is not going to be regulating the animal welfare law - the right hand almost never knows what the left is doing.

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

I think she must have meant the state of Pennsylvania gave monies (maybe tax credits or similar??) to a puppymill operation that "went green", and therefore was able to take advantage of the state program for that. As in, maybe solar panels, tankless waterheaters, permeable hardscape, whatever. Is that the gist Sheryl?

 

As with anything in gov't, anybody regulating the environmental program stuff is not going to be regulating the animal welfare law - the right hand almost never knows what the left is doing.

 

 

Yes it's the state of Pa sorry for the confusion here is the article I read

 

09-15-09 -- Why is PA Financing Puppy Mills?

Casorio blasts state renewable energy loan for Lancaster commercial kennel

Press Release from James E. Casorio, Jr., (D) Westmoreland

 

HARRISBURG, Sept. 14 – State Rep. James E. Casorio Jr. said he was shocked to learn this weekend that the state has awarded a low-cost loan of more than $30,000 to help a commercial puppy mill in Lancaster County expand.

 

"This industry has been the scourge of Pennsylvania for decades," said Casorio, who was the prime sponsor of Pennsylvania's new law regulating commercial kennels. "Last year, we passed a sweeping new law to protect the animals trapped in these commercial kennels, and now we're giving these facilities state money to expand even more? And at a time when critical services and programs for children, seniors and other people are being cut or eliminated altogether?

 

"Whatever kind of guidelines are in place that allow commercial dog kennels to apply for and obtain state financing need to be re-examined," he said.

 

Casorio said the low-interest loan for $30,819, was awarded to Hershey Farms, which operates TLC Kennels Inc. in Lancaster County. The kennel is a CK6 kennel, which means it breeds and/or sells more than 500 dogs a year.

 

"These factory-type breeding operations are inhumane by definition," Casorio said. "They are the kind of operation that leads to incredible suffering for the dogs that are sentenced to spend their entire lives breeding in them, and for the hundreds of puppies each year they produce that end up unwanted or in abusive situations. Pennsylvanians looking for pets should be avoiding these puppy mills, and the state certainly should not be financing them."

 

Casorio said the loan was awarded under the state's Renewable Energy Program to allow the kennel, which breeds designer puppies, to install a geothermal system and expand its facility even further. The financing was approved by the Commonwealth Financing Authority, which administers a number of economic development funds in Pennsylvania.

 

"This kind of financing is supposed to be used to help grow new industries and create new jobs and new economic opportunities for Pennsylvania's business owners and residents," Casorio said. "But you can be sure that this particular loan will not be creating new jobs and will not be providing anything positive to the state or its people."

 

Casorio said it is ironic that the loan for the puppy mill was announced on the same weekend that a federal judge upheld key parts of Pennsylvania's new dog law, which was introduced by Casorio and signed into law last year. The law (Act 119 of 2008) places new inspection, housing and care standards in place in commercial kennels that breed and/or sell more than 60 dogs a year. Parts of the law had been challenged by the Professional Dog Breeders Advisory Council, which represents the state's puppy mill industry, and others.

 

The federal judge ruled on Friday that Pennsylvania does have the authority to conduct unannounced inspections at commercial kennels and that the Department of Agriculture can enforce license revocations while those revocations are still under appeal, both key enforcement provisions in the new law.

 

"Unfortunately, the good news for kennel dogs that Friday's federal court decision brought was tempered by the news that the state government that is supposed to be protecting kennel dogs is in fact willing to finance the breeders that are the problem," Casorio said.

 

 

I guess my point is we are constantly complaining we dont want government rule so the last thing we need is the goverment deciding breeding info

[elegy]

Sheryl do you have a link for that article? (I've had run-ins with the owner of that "kennel" and I'd like to pass the story along to some people)

[Dal & Mad's Mom]

Sheryl do you have a link for that article? (I've had run-ins with the owner of that "kennel" and I'd like to pass the story along to some people)

 

 

Here is where I got that from but, it doenst seem to have a link to the original unless I didnt look far enough on the linked site which could be the case

 

http://www.nppmwatch.com/

[geonni banner]

Re: the questions in the OP

 

A: AKC closed the stud books restricting their registration to only AKC registered border collies; and

 

B: Federal/State law is passed making mills illegal and the law stipulated that only breeders that could prove that they were breeding health certified dogs while preserving the breed to what ever standard they were originally developed for?

 

If "A," I think in that case the AKC would offer "Mixed breed registration" (that is, not AKC purebred) to BCs registered with other registries. Their motivation would be to rake in the $$$ for registration papers. (See post titled “A lot of nerve update on friend's attempt to ILP.”) It’s pretty clear that from the beginning they only wanted the BC for the money they could generate with registrations. And since BCs are the stars of the agility and flyball “circuits,” they aren’t likely to let that get away.

What do you want to bet that the AKC is even now cooking up a way to register designer mutts? DMs are very “sexy” right now – I can just see the president of the AKC wringing his hands over the notion that he can’t charge money for a blue slip to people who think it’s a great idea to breed Goldens and poodles together.

 

If “B”: Somebody please correct me if I’m wrong; but I don’t think that any registry for BC’s now in existence enforces all of those restrictions on breeders now. Which means that the (gulp) government would have to get somebody to draft the particulars of such a law. And who does the government think is the highest authority on all things canine? Why, the AKC of course. EEEEK!

 

So I think in the case of “A” and “B,” the next threat would be facing the government being co-opted by the AKC into legislating the working BC out of existence.