Jump to content
BC Boards
SS Cressa

Border Collie Structure

Recommended Posts

The path that the dog that I am talking about is the farthest from any sort of conformation path,showing , etc.

 

Conformation is conceptually antithetical to developing and maintaining a working breed. It is a separate world, with separate values, and for the good of our dogs the divide between that world and our world needs to be total. This dog may have left the conformation path after he was "finished," but he did start down that path, and I'm glad the ABCA has made it a path from which there's no returning to our 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.

 

This "scenario is so few and far between" only because of the ABCA policy. If the registry allowed good working dogs to ROM back in after getting their conformation championships, there would be no deterrent to showing in conformation. On the contrary, there would be an incentive. You could advertise your dog as both a Conformation Champion and a dog so talented that he had been awarded the accolade of Registration on Merit by the ABCA. Wow! Such a dog's offspring would appear much more desirable than the offspring of good dogs whose owners had not shown them in conformation and gotten them re-registered on merit. We would be awarding a competitive advantage in the marketplace for owners who win the approval of AKC conformation judges judging by an appearance standard. It wouldn't be long before this became commonplace, and breeders would feel a lot of pressure to breed for both working ability and appearance in order to compete with those who could flaunt both accolades. And when that becomes the norm, it results not in "Dogs who have it all!" as the kennel club folks proclaim, but in a dilution of working ability in our breed.

 

No. As Julie said, it's unlikely that the genes this dog carries will be lost to our gene pool; if the line that produced him is solid, those genes will continue in the registry through his relatives. And there's always the possibility that his descendants can one day return to the registry through ROM.

 

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.

 

He may be superior to many dogs still within the registry. That's unfortunate. But the point is not the merits of this one particular dog. The policy is aimed at defending our dogs against the long-term threat that AKC recognition and conformation showing represents.

 

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 won't get it from me. You're welcome to post your viewpoint. I just think it's a shortsighted one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Eclare,

Some of those discussions took place on this forum, and honestly I don't remember exact details. I think the ABCA took the stand it could take and also enforce. I believe that some folks may have advocated for no dual registration, but for one that would be nearly impossible to police. Anyway, maybe Eileen or someone else who remembers those discussions can shed some more light on it. I just remember there being folks who felt that the ABCA's line in the sand was a rather weak one. But I don't remember what alternatives they offered. Those discussions weren't real recent and I simply don't remember the details. I suspect they took place in the politics and culture section and you might be able to find them if you searched under something like "deregistering" or "dual registration." Sorry, I can't be more help than that. My memory isn't what it used to be!

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At that time (summer 2002-summer 2003) there was serious consideration of banning dual registration with the AKC altogether. (This was the policy pursued by the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America, the JRT registry, when the JRT was recognized by the AKC against their will.) The policy banning conformation champions was a compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At that time (summer 2002-summer 2003) there was serious consideration of banning dual registration with the AKC altogether. (This was the policy pursued by the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America, the JRT registry, when the JRT was recognized by the AKC against their will.) The policy banning conformation champions was a compromise.

 

 

Ah...gotcha. That makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...