Border Collie Structure

[Laurae]

I am not disagreeing with the ABCA de-registering conformation champions, I know why they do it. I'm not saying that showing border collies in conformation is a good thing.

 

On the other board, Flamincomet, on 3/13/2010 at 9:41:08 PM, you posted:

"Unfortunately the ABCA makes it difficult, as they will de-register any dog with them that attains their conformation championship. Which I disagree with completely, though I know why they do it."

 

I'm simply saying, that just because someone might do that, doesn't automatically mean they are on the conformation side, and therefore should not be participating on the working border collie side of conversations like on the showdog.com thread, as that is what I'm assuming Jodi Darling was trying, and it still trying to accuse SS Cressa of. AND, that if you are going to apply this logic to breeding for conformation (and therefore showing in conformation) the same logic should apply to breeding for performance sports (and therefore competing in performance sports). To not do so is hypocritical, when the ABCA claims border collies should be bred for working ability only, and the reason conformation is bad, is because people are breeding for conformation rather than working ability.

 

Hypocritical? You bet, but not in the way you're trying to spin it.

[juliepoudrier]

Autumn,

Consider this scenario: There's a man who is well-known for his views against adultery (or insert any other sinful/bad behavior here). He preaches that view from the pulpit, on television, anywhere he can get his views out into public. He's famous for rallying people to his cause, spending scads of money to make sure public officials that support his view are elected, and so on. He's held forth by millions of people as a fine example of a husband and a reliable and charismatic leader. Then he's caught in an affair (or two or three). What would you think of him if his response to being caught was "Well, it's wrong, but it's fun, so it's okay to indulge now and again."

 

You'd likely think the man was the biggest hypocrite on the planet, and lots of people would think the exact same thing. The moral? You can't preach one thing and do another. It makes you look bad (and even if you don't care what other people think of you, hypocrisy is simply a bad thing because it makes people suspicious of you and your motives--on both sides of an issue).

 

The exception to this I guess would be if all you ever showed were strictly working bred dogs and if your strictly working bred dogs won you also refused to allow any conformation-bred border collies to be bred to him. That would be making a stand and making a point. But it's also a rather unlikely scenario. And I believe in fact that once the border collie was recognized by the AKC some working breeders even attempted to do something similar. If what we see in the ring is any indication, then I think it's fair to state that they didn't succeed in their statement-making ventures.

 

Shaneen,

It was SS Cressa (the OP) who was asking about the types in various locales because a show person on the other forum was making claims about different types of dogs for different regions and terrain, including the claim that all American dogs were long-legged to cover huge, flat expanses of land. I believe it was that same person that commented that the American working border collie is so far removed from the UK working border collie as to essentially be a different breed, and that the working border collies in the UK are all quite uniform and that the show type dog is actually the preferred type for working in the treacherous hills of the borders. SS Cressa wanted comments on the veracity of these statements. Autumn joined the discussion and pointed us to the other thread and sometime after that point came the discussion about the fun of conformation showing. It seems that both support conformation showing, but have different ideas about the whys and hows.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

I'm not saying that showing border collies in conformation is a good thing. I'm simply saying, that just because someone might do that, doesn't automatically mean they are on the conformation side,

 

Try this out: "I'm not saying that dog fighting is a good thing. I'm saying that just because someone might enjoy going to a dog fight doesn't automatically mean they are on the side of dog fighting."

 

To me, if you lend your presence and money to something, you are supporting it.

 

and therefore should not be participating on the working border collie side of conversations like on the showdog.com thread, as that is what I'm assuming Jodi Darling was trying, and it still trying to accuse SS Cressa of.

 

Not an issue for me. Anyone can espouse the working border collie side of conversations, as far as I'm concerned. They may look hypocritical, if they are known to do things contrary to what they're espousing (which is not the case with SS Cressa, according to what she has told us), but that's their lookout.

 

AND, that if you are going to apply this logic to breeding for conformation (and therefore showing in conformation) the same logic should apply to breeding for performance sports (and therefore competing in performance sports). To not do so is hypocritical, when the ABCA claims border collies should be bred for working ability only, and the reason conformation is bad, is because people are breeding for conformation rather than working ability.

 

I have responded to that already, and won't repeat myself. Apparently you don't want to recognize the crucial differences between the two. Here's another one: Conformation sets up a false standard for judging what our breed should be, for judging whether a border collie is a good border collie or not. Neither agility nor obedience does that. Both of them set up a standard for judging what a dog of any breed needs to do to be considered agile or obedient. You cannot participate in conformation without making a statement about the border collie breed, whereas participating in agility or obedience makes no such statement.

 

From what I have seen, the vast majority of agility and obedience participants do not breed for those sports. In fact, the vast majority participating in those sports do not breed at all. They want to train their dogs to do something that both enjoy, and to measure the success of their training against other dogs. The same is simply not true in conformation.

 

I do agree with you that breeding for agility and obedience is equally damaging to the breed, but agility and obedience competitions are not all about breeding, and conformation is.

[SS Cressa]

I think it's a bit odd that she's on a purely show chat board, complaining about what they are saying, and then running to her working dog board to ask for help in backing her up her position -- which, she isn't really even sure what her position is. I'm trying to understand it ... that's it.

 

I wasn't asking anyone to back me up. I was asking about the different in style of working border collies from around the world. My experience is limited in the amount of working/competing border collies and farms dogs I know. The dogs I have seen didn't follow with their therioes. I figure the BC board should definite know since they would have more exporser to the working types out there. I didn't know asking was the same as complaining.

 

I thought the pix Eileen shown was simialar to the pix they had shown of the american working border collie since they seem to think that one pix made the whole breed.

 

To be fair I don't think you will ever understand my position. I don't really care what registry your dog is a part of or with who they compete with or if you show your dog. It when you decide to breed, now you are held to a different level then if you are just a dog owner.

 

To me conformation is the same as entering your dogs for the cutest dog contest or any contest out there. You do it because it is fun. If you win, you win a prize which is awesome and confirmation that your dog is the cutest dog out there. But you shouldn't be trying to breed for the cutest dog. That would be wrong.

 

This is why topics about conformation should be kept to the politics thread.

[jdarling]

Whose ID is "This Old Barn" on that board?

[flyer]

That's interesting... I was thinking this over after I made that post, and I remembered my first reaction to a picture of my dog on the internet rescue page. She was described as a Border Collie mix. I thought, "OK. But mixed with what? I can't see anything besides Border Collie." This was the picture(s) (Formatting and text added by me)

Later when I went to get her and brought her home - she was much older than the pictures on the webpage - she looked like this:

I was still trying to figure out what she could be mixed with - and was at that time only acquainted with conformation-type Border Collies. I was stymied - until I stumbled onto the BC Boards. Then a light went on... The reason I couldn't see anything but Border Collie was because she probably isn't a mix!

 

 

Just had to say that pup is so take me home now!! OMgosh.

[Flamincomet]

......Alrighty. So showing a dog in conformation is comparable to dog fighting, but NOT comparable to obedience or agility?.................................................................................... Yeah I can see that, I always see dogs walking out of the conformation ring with their throats ripped out bleeding everywhere.

 

Ametuer's who start out in agility usually do it with whatever dog they currently had at the time. But if they get "bitten by the bug," the majority of them will either be educated, and get a responsibly bred working border collie, or fall for the current hype of the performance breeders. Based on the people I know in real life, who are heavily involved in agility, I would say the latter is much more predominate. How is that not as big of a threat as conformation showing? We'll either end up with "pretty" dogs who can't do anything else, or seriously crazy spaztic dogs, who are a danger to themselves and everyone around them when they go wrong.

[Eileen Stein]

......Alrighty. So showing a dog in conformation is comparable to dog fighting, but NOT comparable to obedience or agility?.................................................................................... Yeah I can see that, I always see dogs walking out of the conformation ring with their throats ripped out bleeding everywhere.

 

What you wrote was this:

 

I'm not saying that showing border collies in conformation is a good thing. I'm simply saying, that just because someone might do that, doesn't automatically mean they are on the conformation side,

 

What I replied was this:

 

Try this out: "I'm not saying that dog fighting is a good thing. I'm saying that just because someone might enjoy going to a dog fight doesn't automatically mean they are on the side of dog fighting."

 

To me, if you lend your presence and money to something, you are supporting it.

 

I was making an analogy. An analogy compares things that are parallel in some ways, but usually not in every way. I was not saying -- as I'm sure you know -- that dogs leave the conformation ring bleeding. The damage that conformation does is less immediate and obvious than that, and therefore easier to rationalize. My analogy was meant to illustrate how lame and hollow it sounds to say: "I'm not saying X is a good thing, and just because I do X doesn't mean I'm on the side of those who do X."

 

I've explained the conceptual and factual differences between agility and conformation as I see them to the best of my ability. If you want to continue to justify participation in conformation by saying that it's the same as participation in agility, I can't stop you, with logic or otherwise.

[geonni banner]

So I’ve been thinking over the question, “What’s wrong with showing my dog in conformation classes if it’s just for fun and I don’t intend to breed?”

 

Let’s consider. (This is not sarcasm.) I don’t have anything against you or your dogs. You said yourself that you were “on the fence” about showing in conformation. So I tried to come up with some reasons why you might want to decide not to.

 

It costs about $26.00 to $35.00 per class to enter your dog in an AKC event. (According to the AKC website) Let’s see… What does the AKC buy with that money?

 

Well, they could get a nice big stack of blue-slips for puppy mill puppies and BYB puppies.

 

Or maybe a little stack of 4-color brochures explaining why you should always get an AKC puppy, so you’ll know its parents were purebred.

 

They could probably get one of those nifty plastic banners to hang in front of the information booth where they hand out the brochures.

 

You would pay the salary for about a minute for one of those guys that arranges the co-opting of dog breeds that would like to be left the heck alone…

 

And then of course if you win you might get your picture in the AKC Gazette. That will go a long way to telling people where you stand on the breed, the AKC and the breeding of Border Collies. (ok, this is sarcastic - but it is unfortunately also true.)

 

Personally, I think you might consider writing a check for the amount of an entry fee and dropping it into the mail to your favorite Border Collie rescue group. (They can use the money to help re-home a Barbie collie that John or Jane Q. Public couldn't deal with.) Then take your dog for a walk in the woods. That would be fun too, and nobody gets hurt.

[fooshuman]

Conformation IMHO is just a beauty pageant for dogs and their misguided owners. I look at it like this, I own this flashy tool that is claimed to be "top of the line". It looks real nice and seems sturdy, but when I look closer it is just flash. It wasn't built for it's intended use, but marketed as such. This is what the AKC is doing, and the reason alot of "working" people despise them, and the rescue folks dread them. They offer nothing to the dogs besides a standard "look" and a increase in popularity.

 

This is just how I see it tho.

 

Foos

[rushdoggie]

We'll either end up with "pretty" dogs who can't do anything else, or seriously crazy spaztic dogs, who are a danger to themselves and everyone around them when they go wrong.

 

 

I agree 100% that the standard for deciding if a Border Collie is a good choice to be bred should be based on whether or not they are a good sheepdog, because a sheepdog is what a Border Collie is.

 

However, I know MANY Border Collies bred for performance and the vast majority are nice dogs. Some are more active than a Border Collie should be, and of course they have minimal ability to work as a sheepdog, but I hardly think they are "a danger to themselves and everyone around them."

[mum24dog]

From what I see everyday, our Border Collies in Agility, are mostly short legged, very lean and have long feathers, with short coat on the body.

 

Here in the UK we get just as much variety in Agility BCs as there is in working dogs and there is no type that does any better than others - they're just different.

 

Pam

[flyer]

Whose ID is "This Old Barn" on that board?

 

 

I am also very curious about who this is. The saluki article explaining breeding for function they linked to was excellent.

 

Here's the link if folks are interested. Very simple. Very clear.

 

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm

[border_collie_crazy]

this old barn is SS Cressa

[shysheperdess]

I unfortunetly know someone who has an outstanding working bred border collie, he is a hrad working dog, very talented and has placed multiple times in Open and qualified for the Nationals many years in a row. When first starting out his owner decided to show him in conformation (she used to show dogs years ago before bought her farm). She was pain-fully un-aware that she would loose his ABCA registration after getting his championship...which yep happened. So none of his pups can be registered ever with the ABCA and he is a lovely working dog, her fault yes and believe me she bashes herself for it non stop and has huge regrets. But who really misses out? Point is proven, slap on the hand for showing him in conformation but lost is an awesome working dog to potential awesome working-bred litters. What should she do with him now, breed him to show-bred bitches? Since he can no longer belong to the working registry?

 

She has tried to look into getting him registered again with the ABCA on merit but dogs who have lost there registry due to a CH cannot be accpeted back in on merit. BUT an AKC registered dog CAN be registered on merit for far less than this dog has accomplished......thoughts?

[eclare]

I've been reading this whole thread with purely academic interest, since my dogs are all rescues and neither show nor work. The conclusion that I've come to is that everything is the AKC's fault. That sounds sarcastic, but it's actually kind of true. If we think of conformation as basically a beauty pageant for dogs, then on their own they serve no real purpose, but also do no real harm. If every stock dog trial had a sort of side competition for best looking dog, people would probably just have a good time with it and not let it affect the actual development of the breed.* Unfortunately, the AKC presents its beauty pageants as a way to judge a dog's quality without having actually do any work. And doubly unfortunate is that so many people have bought into this and insist that their conformation bred dogs are the true standard for working quality. If the AKC would just admit that they are nothing but beauty pageants they probably wouldn't be quite as influential, and they wouldn't do nearly as much harm. Like Eileen says, the problem with showing a working bred dog in the conformation ring is that you are giving $$ to an organization that is taking advantage of people's ignorance and promoting a false ideal of what a border collie should be.

 

 

As far as the ABCA de-registering conformation champions, it is pretty unfortunate that some people can be caught unaware like shysherdess's friend. But at the same time, I understand the need to protect the working standards that the ABCA promotes and could easily see conformation people taking advantage of dual registration in a way that would dilute the impact of ABCA approval.

 

Maybe the solution is for the ABCA or other working dog registries to create their own beauty pageants. I'm sure it seems like a silly idea to serious stock dog folk, but from what I understand conformation obedience training is quite challenging in a way that is very different from other activities. Sure it has no real "purpose" but if people and dogs enjoyed it and it didn't put $$ in the coffers of the AKC and its ilk, it seems like, theoretically, there should be no harm to it.

 

 

*I'm thinking of that great scene from "Where the Red Fern Grows" when right before the big hunting competition there is also a beauty pageant, which of course Little Ann wins.

[Ooky]

She has tried to look into getting him registered again with the ABCA on merit but dogs who have lost there registry due to a CH cannot be accpeted back in on merit. BUT an AKC registered dog CAN be registered on merit for far less than this dog has accomplished......thoughts?

 

Can she not ROM his offspring? Which would be the true test of whether his genetics were sure to be lost forever. It seems to me she could still breed him to an ABCA/ISDS/CBCA bitch, if the bitch's owner was willing and his genes were that imperitive to pass down.

 

This seems like an extreme example of how this rule can play out in an individual situation. In the vast majority of cases, I suspect it prevents people from dual registering, rather than them finding out in a whoops moment later. Regardless of what happened in the case of this one dog, the rule protects ABCA lines from any tendency towards conformation-based selection pressure, which on a wide-view scale ISTM would be more important than any one dog's potential genetic contribution.

[Alchemist]

I unfortunetly know someone who has an outstanding working bred border collie, he is a hrad working dog, very talented and has placed multiple times in Open and qualified for the Nationals many years in a row. When first starting out his owner decided to show him in conformation (she used to show dogs years ago before bought her farm). She was pain-fully un-aware that she would loose his ABCA registration after getting his championship...which yep happened. So none of his pups can be registered ever with the ABCA and he is a lovely working dog, her fault yes and believe me she bashes herself for it non stop and has huge regrets. But who really misses out? Point is proven, slap on the hand for showing him in conformation but lost is an awesome working dog to potential awesome working-bred litters. What should she do with him now, breed him to show-bred bitches? Since he can no longer belong to the working registry?

 

She has tried to look into getting him registered again with the ABCA on merit but dogs who have lost there registry due to a CH cannot be accpeted back in on merit. BUT an AKC registered dog CAN be registered on merit for far less than this dog has accomplished......thoughts?

 

OK, I'm probably wading in where angels fear to tread. Especially considering that... I don't breed any dogs, I don't trial, I don't have any interest in showing in "conformation", yet I'm fully aware that ABCA will de-register any dogs who win conformation championships. If there's someone who trials and who is (presumably) interested in breeding their dog, yet who also shows with AKC in conformation and still manages to be blissfully unaware that this could end up in de-registering their dog... I have to ask: are they the sort of well-informed person who should play a role in breeding the next generation of Border collies? If they're not aware of this particular issue - can we safely assume that they'd be well-versed in the complementarity of different lines as far as working traits are concerned?

[jdarling]

Well --->HERE<----- is the thread where the deregistered dogs were listed. I don't know how current it is. But you could almost figure it out if you can figure out which person runs in open. I'm sure there's not many of those on that list.

[Journey]

When first starting out his owner decided to show him in conformation (she used to show dogs years ago before bought her farm). She was pain-fully un-aware that she would loose his ABCA registration after getting his championship...which yep happened. So none of his pups can be registered ever with the ABCA and he is a lovely working dog, her fault yes and believe me she bashes herself for it non stop and has huge regrets.

 

I have a hard time understanding she didn't realize this. The dog was 4 at the time the ruling went into play, she finished him "after" Jan 1, 2004 and she had finished other border collies prior to him. No one really looses, the sire and dam are both ACK Champions no way around getting the pups registered either as the ABCA states

and will not register the offspring of any dog or bitch named a "Conformation Champion" after that date.

 

I wonder if the list of de-registered dogs can be updated again?

[juliepoudrier]

I don't know everyone who runs in open obviously, but none of those names stood out to me as a competitor who regularly makes it to the national finals. And I don't have the energy to go check out the past finals qualifications years, though maybe someone would like to do that comparison....

 

I know one of the dogs on that list used to trial around here (one particular trial), never above P/N (and not sure he trialed much at that level, though he did a lot of winning in N/N).

 

As to the question of breeding the dog when the pups can't be registered: If the dog is all that, then folks would probably be happy to buy unregistered pups--registration isn't the be all and end all. And if the dog is all that, then there may well be close relatives from whom closely related pups could be gotten. If the close relatives aren't great working dogs, then I'd have to wonder if the dog in question was just a lucky happenstance, which would make me less inclined to breed from it in the first place. And really, I can't think of any one dog who is so wonderful that the border collie gene pool would be irreparably harmed if the dog doesn't pass its genes on.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

The list of de-registered dogs is current. If you scroll down, you'll see below the asterisks the names of the dogs who have been de-registered since the original post.

 

It's hard for me also to believe that anyone such as shyshepardess describes could have been unaware of the ABCA policy on de-registering conformation champions. It was the subject of MUCH public discussion during the period leading up to its adoption, it applied only prospectively and did not take effect until something like 6 months after it was adopted, it was publicized widely before it took effect in the ABCA newsletter, on the ABCA website, and other places. One of the purposes of the policy was to deter people from showing border collies in conformation; for that aim to be achieved it would need to be made widely known. If the owner was a member of the ABCA, it would have been difficult for her not to learn of the policy before it went into effect.

 

Here is a statement of the reasoning behind the policy, taken from the same thread where the list of dogs is found:

 

The kennel club model for breeding -- adopting an appearance standard for the breed, breeding to conform to it, and judging and rewarding the dogs who conform best -- is contrary to the development of a good working breed. Working breeds which have been taken into kennel clubs and subjected to this reward system for conformation breeding have all, over time, suffered loss of their inbred working ability. We simply do not want that to happen to our dogs.

 

Entering a border collie in conformation shows, competing for a conformation title, and advertising a border collie as a conformation champion all lend legitimacy to the idea that an appearance standard is an appropriate measure by which to judge a border collie. That is a destructive idea, and one that we cannot allow to take hold in our gene pool. The more firmly the idea takes hold that the conformation ring is a valid measure of quality, the more breeders will buy into this notion and will breed to conform to the appearance standard that is rewarded there, and the more our breed's working ability will deteriorate over time. If working ability is to be preserved in our breed, the border collie must be judged by a working standard and by no other. The working standard must be our only standard of excellence.

 

Dogs shown to their championship are excluded from ABCA registration not because it's impossible today for an individual dog to possess working ability as well as an appearance that is rewarded in the breed ring, but because of the impact that conformation showing, breeding and judging of border collies will have on the descendants of those dogs in the long run. When border collies are shown in conformation they are placed on a different path, one which will make not them but their descendants a different kind of dog. Once a dog is placed on that path, and shown to a conformation championship, we believe that in the interests of preserving herding excellence in the breed he should not remain in the working registry.

[shysheperdess]

The ABCA quot ethat Eileen gave states "Once the dog is placed on that path, and shown to it's conformation championship, it should not remain in a working registry".

 

A path? I understand the principles behind the ABCA's choice to de-register dogs with conformation championships and agree with it for the most part based on knowing first hand alot of owners choose to take. The path that the dog that I am talking about is the farthest from any sort of conformation path,showing , etc. Of the few hours he maybe spent in the ring getting his dumb championship he has spent thousands more working livestock. This dog belongs in a working registry.

 

I think that the ABCA should allow dogs that have been de-registered to be re-registered via some sort of ROM protocol. Something as simple as, if the dog can place in an so many open trials they can be re-registered. Because of the fact that this scenario is so few and far between, I don't see what harm would become of that. The dogs heart is in it's stockwork and it has proven that at home on the farm and on the trial field, not in the show ring.

 

Another thought, I would see a dogs worthiness as a stud who could place consistently in an open trial far surpass a dog that is used who has run pro-novice, regardless of whether it has it's AKC CH or not. Yet I see many a "working-dog" breeder use dogs that have never set foot on an open field, and say because this dog got it's CH should not be bred.

 

Sigh, I know I am going to get it for bringing this up and for the record I have NO interest in promoting, or showing my dog in conformation EVER and I KNOW the person I was refering to ealier with this dog will never show another bc in conformation again EVER! Just posting a viewpoint.

[juliepoudrier]

The ABCA quot ethat Eileen gave states "Once the dog is placed on that path, and shown to it's conformation championship, it should not remain in a working registry".

 

A path? I understand the principles behind the ABCA's choice to de-register dogs with conformation championships and agree with it for the most part based on knowing first hand alot of owners choose to take. The path that the dog that I am talking about is the farthest from any sort of conformation path,showing , etc. Of the few hours he maybe spent in the ring getting his dumb championship he has spent thousands more working livestock. This dog belongs in a working registry.

 

But his owner *chose* to place him on that *original* path of conformation showing, going so far as to get his conformation championship on him, before she ever decided to take another path. Had she done so in complete ignorance, that would have been excusable, but if the information presented in this thread and the other linked thread are to be believed, then it's unlikely the owner was unaware of the potential consequences to the registerability of her dog if she chose to go ahead and take that show ring path, even if she then chose a different path later.

 

I think that the ABCA should allow dogs that have been de-registered to be re-registered via some sort of ROM protocol. Something as simple as, if the dog can place in an so many open trials they can be re-registered. Because of the fact that this scenario is so few and far between, I don't see what harm would become of that. The dogs heart is in it's stockwork and it has proven that at home on the farm and on the trial field, not in the show ring.

 

But then what would be the point of deregistering in the first place? Many believe that deregistering is the absolute minimum sanction that the ABCA could have chosen and that in fact that ABCA should or could have chosen an even tougher stand than it did. And now you're arguing to lift even that minimal sanction? Again, if the owner had been clueless about the risks she took in getting the CH on her dog that would be one thing. But she probably wasn't. And so now an exception should be made?

 

Another thought, I would see a dogs worthiness as a stud who could place consistently in an open trial far surpass a dog that is used who has run pro-novice, regardless of whether it has it's AKC CH or not. Yet I see many a "working-dog" breeder use dogs that have never set foot on an open field, and say because this dog got it's CH should not be bred.

 

That's not the discussion here, though is it? No one is advocating breeding P/N dogs in favor of open dogs. The ABCA is simply saying: "If you put a conformation championship on your dog, it and its offspring will not be eligible for registration." It doesn't say, "If the dog does X, Y, or Z after that CH, we might reconsider." The *choice* is still up to the owner. No one secretly took the dog and put the CH on it. The owner did. In general, in our society, you don't get to break the rules and then be exempted from them retroactively because it later suits you to want to become part of that which you first rejected (I know there are exceptions, but I don't think anyone should operate under the assumption that an exception will always be made for *them*). The rejection in this case was the owner taking the dog and showing it to its conformation CH even though the guiding principles of the registry from which the dog was expelled state clearly that doing so (showing) goes against what the registry stands for.

 

And as I stated before, people do breed unregistered dogs and people do buy them. If the dog in question is that excellent as a working dog, there will be buyers for the pups, registered or not. So while this dog my be lost to the ABCA registration pool, it isn't really lost to the working pool. It's up to the owner to decide if the dog's merits solely as a working dog justify producing unregistered puppies. I contend that if the dog is that good, folks will want pups, registered or not. I don't know what happens on the AKC side, but I assume the dog retains its AKC registration and any offspring would be registerable in that stud book. So she could still sell registered puppies, just not ABCA-registered puppies.

 

To put it another way: It's a matter of principle.

 

Sigh, I know I am going to get it for bringing this up and for the record I have NO interest in promoting, or showing my dog in conformation EVER and I KNOW the person I was refering to ealier with this dog will never show another bc in conformation again EVER! Just posting a viewpoint.

 

You're not going to get it, really. If the owner is a good trainer and handler, there will be other good dogs she can breed from. I think this is one of those live and learn things. Maybe she thought that the ABCA wasn't serious. Maybe she thought that no one would know the dog got its conformation championship. Maybe she wasn't thinking at all. But to ask the ABCA to cast aside a rule, when it's such a small step in the first place, is, I think wrong. A matter of principle.

 

J.

[eclare]

Many believe that deregistering is the absolute minimum sanction that the ABCA could have chosen and that in fact that ABCA should or could have chosen an even tougher stand than it did.

 

I'm curious as to what other sanctions ABCA could have chosen. I don't know anything about registries but what else could they do besides boot people off the registry? It seems like this is the maximum sanction they could employ.