ABC Papers

[abcollie]

I was thinking (from the thread that wouldn't die :@) about ABC and splitting working dogs from non-working dogs.

 

Years ago when I imported dogs they came with either pink or blue (maybe green ... it's been awhile) registration papers. I can't remember the "details" but it I *think* ... the difference was if the dog (or the parents of the dog) had been eye tested the papers were pink. If they hadn't been the papers were blue.

 

My thoughts are why not do the same for working dogs. Set up a "system" that top working dogs get different colored papers than "just dogs". Maybe a 3 tiered system (top working dogs/dogs that work/ and dogs that just *are* ABC registered).

 

I don't know how difficult it would be to implement it but seems like it would give people more "info" when it came to buying puppies.

 

Thoughts?

[Mark Billadeau]

The idea, in principle, has merit; the difficulty is in how to implement the system with little cost or undue burden to the ABCA while maintaining equal access to the assessments for trial and farm dogs. I can easily envision how to set-up such a system for dogs that trial, but how to do so for non-trial dogs is where I see the difficulty.

 

Of course, this is similar to titles.

[abcollie]

The idea, in principle, has merit; the difficulty is in how to implement the system with little cost or undue burden to the ABCA while maintaining equal access to the assessments for trial and farm dogs. I can easily envision how to set-up such a system for dogs that trial, but how to do so for non-trial dogs is where I see the difficulty.

 

Of course, this is similar to titles.

 

Interesting ... I never thought of it in terms of titles (but now that you say that :@) but was more "along the lines" of what we do with CEA ... breeding info.

 

I know it would be difficult to implement (along the lines of ROM) with farm dogs.

[Brad]

One question that comes to mind is changes in state. My dog is just a dog, so he has white papers. What happens when he starts trialing and gets pretty good, then moves on to be a top working dog, requiring green, then blue papers? Sounds like a lot of backend admin work to keep track.

[abcollie]

One question that comes to mind is changes in state. My dog is just a dog, so he has white papers. What happens when he starts trialing and gets pretty good, then moves on to be a top working dog, requiring green, then blue papers? Sounds like a lot of backend admin work to keep track.

 

I would think it would be similar to a transfer ... which ABC does all the time. If you sent in the "proof" (which would be the "hard" part) they just update (change the color of the papers) and send them back to you.

[kelpiegirl]

What's a top dog, versus an okay dog? This is a serious question.

[workindogs]

Candy

 

I love the idea, but I'm not sure how farm and ranch dogs are included.....there are a number of possibilities for dogs that trial.

[abcollie]

What's a top dog, versus an okay dog? This is a serious question.

 

I think since ABC supports USBCHA ... that it would be injunction with the USBCHA points. It would depend on what number was chosen ... top 200 ... 250-300??? That would be something to "iron out".

[abcollie]

Candy

 

I love the idea, but I'm not sure how farm and ranch dogs are included.....there are a number of possibilities for dogs that trial.

 

The best I could think of is what they do with ROM (have people on the USBCHA board) judge a video? Have enough Open handlers see the dog?

 

I'm open to something sensible as I KNOW there are good dogs out there that don't trial.

 

A couple of things that would worry be ...

 

One the "political" aspect (who knows who on the judging committee :@)

The hassle it would be for ABC as I know they are kept busy enough.

 

Like I said it's "just a thought" on trying to curb the *million* dogs being registered that have never seen much less worked stock.

[stockdogranch]

Candy, I really like your idea, at least in theory. I agree that the gazillions of dogs registered that can claim ABCA is sometimes a bit of a joke, work-wise. But it seems to me that there would certainly be problems with implementation, as in, if a dog sits well, points-wise, one year out of its life, does that make it eligible to be proclaimed a "good dog," even if it never again shows well? And then those dogs that never trial, and that are hidden out there, working away, but noone much ever even knows of them...And, does the ABCA even want to go down that kind of road, or are they merely a registry, so that, as it is now, if an ABCA registered dog breeds to a registered bitch, the pups are then registerable? Don't have answers, just musings...

A

[Sue R]

I sat here and wrote too much, so I deleted to say I wish there could be some way, not like awarding titles but rather "certifying" that a dog had met standards of performance/accomplishment on the trial field and/or farm or ranch - but how could you do it reasonably and honestly? I don't know how.

[abcollie]

Candy, I really like your idea, at least in theory. I agree that the gazillions of dogs registered that can claim ABCA is sometimes a bit of a joke, work-wise. But it seems to me that there would certainly be problems with implementation, as in, if a dog sits well, points-wise, one year out of its life, does that make it eligible to be proclaimed a "good dog," even if it never again shows well? And then those dogs that never trial, and that are hidden out there, working away, but noone much ever even knows of them...And, does the ABCA even want to go down that kind of road, or are they merely a registry, so that, as it is now, if an ABCA registered dog breeds to a registered bitch, the pups are then registerable? Don't have answers, just musings...

A

 

I know ... a lot of dogs would not be on the "list" BUT they would still have papers. One would assume that if a person had a "pink slip" dog and bred to a "blue slip" one there would be a reason for it. So, it's not like we are taking them out of the "gene pool" ... just info on if/how they work.

[abcollie]

I sat here and wrote too much, so I deleted to say I wish there could be some way, not like awarding titles but rather "certifying" that a dog had met standards of performance/accomplishment on the trial field and/or farm or ranch - but how could you do it reasonably and honestly? I don't know how.

 

Agreed ... I would worry about "friends helping friends" (can you say politics :@).

 

That's why I suggested video tape (although on "home turf" a lot of dogs look good). So, I don't have an answer either ... just trying to find suggestions to separate the good working dogs from the ones that "just have papers".

[Journey]

Just thinking but what about starting with ACK dogs, anyone who registers, for whatever reason, with ACK is out. Then if there are some "top" working dogs tossed out due to dual registration "they" could ROM back in (unlike the conformation ones now)

[Sue R]

Agreed ... I would worry about "friends helping friends" (can you say politics :@).

 

That's why I suggested video tape (although on "home turf" a lot of dogs look good). So, I don't have an answer either ... just trying to find suggestions to separate the good working dogs from the ones that "just have papers".

Well, one of my thoughts (that I deleted) was worries about "friends helping friends" (or, people helping people who buy from them or sell to them, etc.).

 

One other thought had been how very easy it would be to video a dog and submit the video - and who would really know if that video showed the dog that it was supposed to show? If a handler tried running "ringers" in trials, I think he/she would be found out as people manage to become familiar with dogs that are trialed. But, on a video, I think deception would be very much easier.

 

Then again, like so much in the working Border Collie world, we might just have to rely on personal integrity - maybe it would get around in the community if some folks lacked that in this sort of endeavor, just like it can already. But it's rather a closed community and while information may get around easily to those in the know and in the loop, what about those who aren't so informed - which would seem to be the very people that this system would benefit in helping them find working-bred dogs.

 

If only a helpful and satisfactory "system" could be worked out and implemented...

[abcollie]

Just thinking but what about starting with ACK dogs, anyone who registers, for whatever reason, with ACK is out. Then if there are some "top" working dogs tossed out due to dual registration "they" could ROM back in (unlike the conformation ones now)

 

I'm TOTALLY with de-registering dogs that are "dual" registered. I said that the DAY ACK recognized Border Collies.

 

The ABC says they can't prove they are (as they can't see ACK's paperwork). I see ALL those websites that BRAG DUAL registered and I think ... pull the papers.

 

But I do understand that ABC can't react like I do ... they register dogs not "police" them BUT .... wish there was a way.

[Sue R]

Just thinking but what about starting with ACK dogs, anyone who registers, for whatever reason, with ACK is out. Then if there are some "top" working dogs tossed out due to dual registration "they" could ROM back in (unlike the conformation ones now)

When the discussion went around several years ago (that resulted in the AKC champions being de-registered), I was in favor of deregistering any dog that was dual-registered. But I understood there were a few objections, one of which was how to know what dogs were dual-registered. Those that complete championships were easily identified, I understand. But those that did not go that route were not necessarily easily identified.

 

I know there were some compelling reasons to not de-register dual-registered dogs but, in my heart, I would like to see it happen - I think. I'd like to see an end to sitting on the fence - both ABCA and AKC - as it's said, one can't serve two masters...

 

One thing I don't understand is that the ABCA should have a right to their registration papers - why should any other registry be able to use those papers for their gain? I suppose it is because the papers belong to the dog's owner and that person has a right to use those papers as they choose, but I sure wish it wasn't so. Only for organizations with reciprocal agreements, like ABCA, ISDS, CBCA, and so forth. Wishful thinking on my part, I know.

[Journey]

I'm TOTALLY with de-registering dogs that are "dual" registered. I said that the DAY ACK recognized Border Collies.

 

The ABC says they can't prove they are (as they can't see ACK's paperwork). I see ALL those websites that BRAG DUAL registered and I think ... pull the papers.

 

But I do understand that ABC can't react like I do ... they register dogs not "police" them BUT .... wish there was a way.

 

Um, the results from all venues are available, most are online. It would take "tremendous" work to sift through all the Obedience, Agility, Herding, Tracking and what not to pull out the Border Collies that were shown, however, in many cases, the sire and dam are listed on the entry, as well as the breeder! Like I said serious data work but not impossible to start pulling papers. Of course, then you have the huge liability of pulling papers w/o a "grandfather in" clause.

[abcollie]

I know there were some compelling reasons to not de-register dual-registered dogs but, in my heart, I would like to see it happen - I think. I'd like to see an end to sitting on the fence - both ABCA and AKC - as it's said, one can't serve two masters...

 

Well, ACK SAID they were going to close the books ... after 1 year ... then 2 years ... then 5 years, etc. They are STILL open and that's the "kicker". I think they know "their" Border Collies will go DOWNHILL fast if they don't keep the good bloodlines coming in. They don't want to screw "their" dogs up ... so they screw ours up instead.

 

It's frustrating.

[workindogs]

It seems that you could set the bar really high or not very high at all.....even not very high at all, the preponderance of non-working ABC reg dogs will be eliminated from "pink" papers which would be a huge step in the right direction. I believe the standard should be fairly "low" to "pink paper" a sufficiently large pool of working dogs.

 

I think various methods of entry could be established:

 

1) Trialing qualification - any Open points (of course, this would include arena???) or qualified for Nursery??

2) Submission of video for review by 3 Open handlers (video might need to be of 3 different works, 3 different locations, 3 different sets of stock....maybe one at a location of an Open handler....maybe the "qualified" Open handlers should be current or former USBCHA director? Or, designate of said director.

3) Observation of work by USBCHA director(s) or designate(s)....2? 3?

 

Unfortunately, I think such a "test" will unfortunately eliminate a significant pool of quality farm and ranch working dogs....their owners will not be sufficiently motivated to obtain higher papers....maybe that's ok, because breedings to and from these dogs would be explained or known. I think knowledgeable working handlers will know what these dogs are and continue to incorporate them into their breeding regardless of the color of their papers.

[Mark Billadeau]

Do people think if having working certs will make some breeders and puppy buyers lazy in terms of really looking into the working abilities and characteristics of the sire and dam?

 

Just trying to explore other potential ramifications of working certs.

[Sue R]

I'm not sure it would make anyone (breeders or buyers) lazy who wasn't already so. I think it could help well-meaning newcomers but only to the extent that the cert papers were truly valid, and the breeding decisions were also already good. The breeding decisions are where the art comes in, and I don't believe any paperwork could help that - although knowing what's behind a dog or bitch (progenitors) can be important, I think, in helping to make those decisions, along with knowing what qualities the individuals have demonstrated on the trial field and at real work.

 

In the long run, I think it all boils down to finding a good breeder that you can trust, who wants to know what you need so he/she can help with finding the most likely sort of pup/dog (or referring you on to someone similar who may have the right kind of pup/dog), and I'm not sure any kind of paperwork will substitute for that.

[juliepoudrier]

Mark,

I think good breeders (and good buyers) will still pay attention to the important things. Color of papers won't be a driving factor in their breeding decisions (as Elizabeth noted). People who are poor breeders or buyers probably will allow the color of papers to influence their breeding/buying decisions, but presumably those poor decisions might still be better than just breeding willy nilly, as seems to go on now.

 

If working certified dogs are sold to less-then-responsible breeders, then I think the whole purpose behind the stratification could be undermined.

 

J.

[Mark Billadeau]

I really didn't think good breeders/buyers would change their current habits; I was just looking for other people's thoughts on how the certs might impact other breeders/buyers.

[abcollie]

Do people think if having working certs will make some breeders and puppy buyers lazy in terms of really looking into the working abilities and characteristics of the sire and dam?

 

Just trying to explore other potential ramifications of working certs.

 

I think I'm looking at it differently than you are. To me if it was implemented and well known then it would differentiate between working dogs and just dogs --- that the "dual registered" people couldn't brag as much about having a ABCA dog. However, it wouldn't cut back on the "gene pool" that Denise talks about.

 

Does this make sense? What are you seeing that I'm missing?