ABCA Papers

[Journey]

Why does ABCA change the names of all the relatives on papers every time the dog changes hands? I know, the current "owner" is listed, but wouldn't it be simpler to just list the "breeder" on each dog in the pedigree? You buy a dog from "breeder", get the papers, send in to add OFA or what have you and papers come back with a slew of different "names" because the dogs in the pedigree have changed hands. Now it appears that you bought said dog from someone different. Would it save time and space to drop the "owners" and just list the breeders or is it the computer program they use?

[Liz P]

I've noticed this as well. I bought a dog from someone and got the papers with the breeder listed as the owner of the sire and dam. I lost the papers, asked for a new copy and now the current owners of the sire and dam are listed. This makes it look like I bought the dog from a different person. Then I bred that dog and got papers for the puppies. There are yet new owners listed on the pedigree for various dogs, and the sire, who changed hands after I bred to him, is listed under his new owner. Seems very confusing.

[NorthfieldNick]

Nick's paper's list both the breeder & the current (at least as of me sending in the transfer) owners of sire & dam, and grandparents. I know Nick's sire has had several owners besides his breeder. Nowhere on Nick's papers does it list the guy who I bought him from (not Nick's breeder), but the breeder is listed. Nick is castrated, and was never bred to, so no future papers here.

 

I assumed the single names under dogs further back than grandparents were the breeder's names, but maybe I was wrong.

 

It seems like listing the current owner of a dog would make it easier to trace that dog's trial records. I'm assuming the current owner would know who they bought the dog from, on down the line to the breeder. Whereas a breeder might not know who now owns a dog they bred 10 years ago.

 

I'm not sure about the confusion about where you bought a dog from... although on Nick's papers, it looks like I bought him from Bill Reed (the breeder), but I didn't. I'd also assume that Bill Reed owned Nick's dam at the time of breeding, but maybe not. Do people do breeding leases on bitches like they do on mares?

 

ETA: Neither of Nick's parents is currently owned by the breeder. Now I see where the "where you bought the dog from" confusion comes in,

[Pearse]

The papers are produced from a database.

 

The database gets updated when someone files a transfer of ownership request.

 

If you buy dog in 2005, and in 2005 John Smith owns the Sire - Moss, then John Smith will be listed as the owner and the breeder will be shown as the breeder (let's say John Smith is also the breeder)

 

But, if you request new papers in 2009 and John Smith sold Moss to Tim Jones in 2008, the database field "OWNER" now lists Tim Jones as the owner. The breeder should be the same.

 

I can't see anyway of doing it any other way that would create a nightmare in designing the database and in data management.

 

I also can't see why it matters. The pedigree is useful for listing ancestors and breeders. Owners aren't really of any interest since they often change over a dog's life. A receipt shows from whom you bought the dog.

 

Pearse

[Lenajo]

I also can't see why it matters. The pedigree is useful for listing ancestors and breeders. Owners aren't really of any interest since they often change over a dog's life. A receipt shows from whom you bought the dog

 

So why list the owners at all? I'll have to go find a set of ABCA papers but after 3rd generation all they list is owners I believe...somebody check for me.

[Debbie Meier]

The papers are produced from a database.

 

The database gets updated when someone files a transfer of ownership request.

 

If you buy dog in 2005, and in 2005 John Smith owns the Sire - Moss, then John Smith will be listed as the owner and the breeder will be shown as the breeder (let's say John Smith is also the breeder)

 

But, if you request new papers in 2009 and John Smith sold Moss to Tim Jones in 2008, the database field "OWNER" now lists Tim Jones as the owner. The breeder should be the same.

 

I can't see anyway of doing it any other way that would create a nightmare in designing the database and in data management.

 

I also can't see why it matters. The pedigree is useful for listing ancestors and breeders. Owners aren't really of any interest since they often change over a dog's life. A receipt shows from whom you bought the dog.

 

Pearse

 

 

I guess it all depends on how you are using your papers, if you have a nice female and want to know if the grand dam is still around and how she works or if you wanted to find out if there were any litters expected out of the dame of your dog you would want to know the current owner not the breeder, the breeder may not have a clue as to where the dog is. Gosh, if the current owner was not on the papers how many people would be calling ABCA to find out who the current owner is of this dog or another?

 

Deb

[Eileen Stein]

If you wanted to track down an ancestor dog, the name of the dog's current owner would be more useful to you than the name of someone who had once owned the dog, or the name of its breeder. The breeder's name (which is given for the certified dog, and its sire and dam, and their sires and dams) never changes, of course.

[Journey]

True, but if one doesn't get new papers for some reason you will have to call Patty and find out "who" the current owner is anyhow. So, why not simply drop the owners and list the breeders? The current "owner" is only as current as your copy of he papers! That way said dog was bought from "breeder" not from "owner" who sold her to "bybpm" person that will show up on the papers.

[Debbie Meier]

True, but if one doesn't get new papers for some reason you will have to call Patty and find out "who" the current owner is anyhow. So, why not simply drop the owners and list the breeders? The current "owner" is only as current as your copy of he papers! .

 

 

I would suspect that in most cases the owner that is reflected on the papers would still be the owner or be one owner removed and know where the dog is and the old owner would be able to steer you toward the current owner.

 

That way said dog was bought from "breeder" not from "owner" who sold her to "bybpm" person that will show up on the papers

 

What would be the advantage of doing it that way from and breeders/selection purpose? Besides it would be a misrepresentation as to where the dog came from.

 

If you want to know the original breeder call Patty.

[Journey]

If you want to know the original breeder call Patty.

 

Debbie, that's exactly what I am saying - put the "breeder" on the papers not the owner. Why call Patty?

 

Let's say Alasdair breeds a litter. Sells the dam a few years later. Now, you're looking for a pup out of said dam, you call the listed "owner" but they don't have a clue as they did not breed the litter. If the name of the breeder was there you'd know where to go right away.

 

Maybe it would be nice if the papers stayed the same as printed on the day they were originally "issued" when the dog was bred.

[JLP]

The way the papers are now is in my oppinion the best way to do it.

[Debbie Meier]

Debbie, that's exactly what I am saying - put the "breeder" on the papers not the owner. Why call Patty?

 

 

Well, the breeder is indicated all the way through grandparents, what purpose would there be to contact a breeder further back? Still comes down to if you are looking for a pup out of any given bitch or dog you need to go to the owner of that dog not the breeder of that dog.