ABC Papers

[Mark Billadeau]

So how would you propose a breeder deals with the situation where you sell a working person an intact pup that they train and then decide to sell on? What about the second, third, etc owner of your pup; what control will you have over them?

 

Are you going to be able to dictate to that handler who they can sell your pup to?

Are you going to be willing/able to pay the mark-up on what is now a started or trained dog?

 

You can sell an altered pup to a sport or pet home knowing your lines cannot escape your control; however, you're not contributing to the working gene pool.

 

You can sell your pup to a handler without knowing if that pup will suit that handler and then there is the risk your pup will be sold on. But it is a handler who will prove out your breeding choice and possibly add your lines to the working gene pool.

[Sue R]

But you let her breed the dog after just 3-4 months of training, I thought the idea was to only breed proven dogs. How was this dog a proven working dog?

 

I am confused.

Candy clearly noted that she felt the dog was very good (someone like Candy and someone like myself would be worlds apart in our ability to assess a dog after 3-4 months of training, which can be quite a lot of training on a daily basis), arranged a suitable mating *based on what the owner said* (that's a problem with honest people - they often expect other people to be honest), and found out that she had been deceived - and learned a valuable lesson that has changed her policy with regards to her stud dogs.

 

Have you ever trusted someone, found out that that was a mistake, and learned a lesson? I sure have, many times.

 

As regards most people, proven is working successfully at Open level or doing equivalent farm/ranch work. Experienced UK handler/breeder/trainers even breed unworked and started dogs, when they know that the potential for quality is in there, either indicated through pedigree or close relatives/siblings. I expect they also cull, or otherwise remove from the gene pool (neuter), those animals that do not prove themselves either on the field or in producing worthwhile offspring. But the average person does not have the experience to see what's in the dog before it is fully proven.

 

Edited to add that I was writing this as several others were posting!

[DeltaBluez Tess]

So how would you propose a breeder deals with the situation where you sell a working person an intact pup that they train and then deside to sell on?

 

Are you going to be able to dictate to that handler who they can sell your pup to?

Are you going to be willing/able to pay the mark-up on what is now a started or trained dog?

 

I can answer that. I got a pup and the breeder had first rights of refusal. I had Scott train the dog to a high PN level. She was with him for 6 plus months. I had her hips done ar 2 yrs old and one had bad HD. Since I was looking for a foundation bitch she was not going to work out. The breeder wanted her back at puppy price but since I had put over $3000 in training for her and her market value was about that, I offered her back to the breeder at $1500 (or abouts). She agreed and then the day before she was to be shipped back, she pulled out. I sold the dog to a another big hat with the stipulation she would go to a good home and he would let me know. He did tell me where she sold her and I would see her at trials and the new owner I knew him quite well. However, the breeder to this day loves to slander me even though she was offered her breeding back at half of the market value.

 

On the other side, I sold a pup to a person on this board. At about 2 yr, she figured the dog would not suit her. She gave me first rights to get her back. We worked it out so she got the dog she wanted and I got the dog back.

 

I have a dog now that if he doesn't make my program the breeder will buy him back at market value.

 

I have sold pups on "Non breeding" papers...which the ABCA can issue.

 

Diane

[juliepoudrier]

I think one solution is for working dog breeders to make *much greater* use of the NB desgination available at registration. An NB would have allowed Candy and others to avoid the issue of pups being bred from a sold dog and then those pups being bred and so on. Well, they could have been bred, but at least not registered with the ABCA.

 

I see two problems with this, both of which have been mentioned in other threads of this type in the past:

1. People who buy a pup don't want to give up their right to breed it.

 

Two ways around this: generally working bred pups are sold for a lot less money than just about anything but a BYB pup. So we can try to turn this to our advantage--by pointing out to potential buyers that they are getting a bargain price for a non-breeding dog, which by the way, can be designated a breeding dog if the breeder so chooses at a later date. Second, well, I had a second, and now it's slipped my mind....

 

2. People can simply ignore the NB. I'm not sure how AKC registration works, but is it possible they could just register the dogs with AKC and then breed AKC puppies, or would AKC honor the NB?

 

But as long as we could convince potential puppy buyers that the price reflects the NB status (that is, you save ~$800 if you agree not to breed this dog now), then I think this is one very easy way to prevent the one- and two (or more)-off breedings that are taking place.

 

If the pup goes into a working home and proves itself sufficiently that the original breeder is comfortable lifting the NB, then that dog at least won't be lost to the working gene pool. But again, there would be no control over what the buyers of those pups did, unless you could convince the owner of your pup to also use NB when registering those pups....

 

Anyway, the point is that if more of us were willing to use NB, we could make some little headway right now....

 

J.

[Debbie Meier]

Candy, we are all learning as we go, unfortunatly there is no manual and we can not see the future. It could have easily ended up a different way. It also could have been any number of other handlers that did not intend for that outcome in your place, and I think you are in good company.

 

The way I see it, the only way we can be certain that our dogs and the offspring of our dogs are proven prior to being bred is to prove them ourselves and I don't see too many people doing that, which means it could happen to anyone.

[Mark Billadeau]

First rights of refusal can be a very good tool; but in reality it is only as good as the people involved.

[Kerales Farm]

So what you're saying is that since Candy bred a litter sold one of the female pups and the new owner bred her, and then this other breeder sold females to a third breeder (the breeder in question) some how Candy is responsible.

 

By your logic, Bobby Henderson and Bobby Dalziel (among others) are responsible for my breeding practices.

 

No. I didn't say that at all. I'm just pointing out that, sometimes the desire to get those pups sold will put you at odds with your ideals for the breed. And for accuracy's sake, the bitch Candy sold is one of the brood bitches at a kennel you all are referring to. I'm not making a judgement, just pointing out the fact that just about anyone can buy a well bred dog and then use it to produce non working pups for the pet and perfomance markets. So what is your point--that you can sell dogs to anyone, but the only dogs that should be bred are the ones that meet certain standards. Sounds like the best of both worlds for people breeding and selling to the non-working markets!

[Mark Billadeau]

--that you can sell dogs to anyone, but the only dogs that should be bred are the ones that meet certain standards.

Actually, that is the point. There is no reason why border collies can't be used to work or play but only those that have been proven at work (livestock work) should be bred. There is no reason to breed dog that excels at games.

[Lenajo]

Have you ever trusted someone, found out that that was a mistake, and learned a lesson? I sure have, many times.

 

 

Sure, and I've seen first hand how people can blatantly ignore contracts and twist the facts to cover they just want money and not the dog. It's sickening, but it happens. Unless you have the cash to go to court you're screwed. At some point Candy is right - you have to let it go.

 

What we're talking about here is how to go *forward*. We've all made past mistakes...can't fix that. It seems as Julie has said that the NB is vasty underused. It's not a complicated matter, and most breeders certainly have the ability to sell the idea. If they can't, and it's not a known handler of integrity, then they might want to reconsider if the money is worth it.

 

We're not talking about taking the road to ack doom; just further protecting our genepool from people who are not vested in keeping the quality of the next generation up.

[juliepoudrier]

Yeah, even though I brought it up here, no one seems to want to discuss NB. Seems like the easiest place to start to me.

 

J.

[abcollie]

No. I didn't say that at all. I'm just pointing out that, sometimes the desire to get those pups sold will put you at odds with your ideals for the breed. And for accuracy's sake, the bitch Candy sold is one of the brood bitches at a kennel you all are referring to. I'm not making a judgement, just pointing out the fact that just about anyone can buy a well bred dog and then use it to produce non working pups for the pet and perfomance markets. So what is your point--that you can sell dogs to anyone, but the only dogs that should be bred are the ones that meet certain standards. Sounds like the best of both worlds for people breeding and selling to the non-working markets!

 

I also buy/sell started/imported dogs and sell them (which is the bitch you are talking about).

 

So, when you cross your agility dogs to your "working" dogs which ones are you trying to improve?

 

http://keralesbordercollies.com/index.html

[sandyleew]

Sue - Thank you for the explanation. I have no experience with breeding or with working dogs and am really just trying to understand. I am very interested in preserving the breed and am opposed to the AKC. Your explanation was very helpful.

[abcollie]

One other thought ... (I've been stuck in the house while my field was being "rid" of foxtails ... it seems ... with way to much time on my hands:@)

 

WHY are ONLY the working dog people worried about "our" bloodlines.

 

Why isn't ACK saying we've got to put a STOP to these USBCHA working dogs registering with us? They are going to DRAG down our breed.

 

Why aren't agility breeders worrying about working dogs ruining their sport? Why aren't they saying how DO we STOP these "working dogs" from getting into agility --- they will ruin it! We NEED agility bred dogs only.

 

Why indeed?

[Debbie Meier]

WHY are ONLY the working dog people worried about "our" bloodlines

 

I guess that leads me to ask these two questions:

 

How many really are?

 

How many breeders that are registering with the ABCA are really working dog breeders?

[Brad]

So as I think about this issue more and more, it's come to me that we're still trying to solve this from the wrong end of the problem. There is really no way any breeder is going to stop their dogs from getting bred without limiting the gene pool they're trying to conserve.

 

I maintain that the best approach to this is eliminating the market demand for the dogs that are detrimental to the breed.

 

Now, given human nature, I think this is a relatively easy educational pursuit. People everywhere want the most of any given thing, for the least amount of time and effort (and money).

 

Now, seeing that every working dog I've seen advertised is cheaper than any sport bred dog I've seen, we're at an advantage already. Now, if we can also convince new (and not so new) border collie purchasers that buying a true working bred dog gets them a better dog, regardless of what they want to do with it, it's in the bag.

 

Better dog, smarter dog, a dog that excels at agility because of the very traits it's been bred for, namely to think on it's feet and use the ol' border collie intuition, AND, all this for less money that a sport dog.

 

Now, to educate and make accessible these wonderful dogs requires effort on the working crowd. You need to tell everyone you meet that will listen. Websites are great, but as mentioned, the current generation is not entirely online.

However, open handlers do go to great lengths to trial their dogs, spending countless hours training, traveling, etc. Unfortunately the job isn't done yet. You have to get your message out to the general puppy buying public and sport crowds.

 

Be sneaky. On your website, use search tags with sport collie terms, things that will bring your site up even if the person is looking for a sport dog. Then capture them with the abilities and accomplishments of your dogs, sell them the ideal of the working dog.

Tell them that your working dogs are the best agility/flyball/disc dog out there. It's true, they just need to hear it and see it.

Have t-shirts made with "All Border Collies are NOT created equal". Wear it to town. People will ask.

 

These threads go on for pages, with all the same people agreeing on the subject. There aren't many people here that we need to convince.

 

If you really want to make a change, it has to start with each and every GOOD breeder making the extra effort to sell their product. And the product is an idea, not a puppy. That just comes later.

 

If enough of us get this out to as many people as we can, and agility people start winning and beating sport dogs, the masses will start to see what you're all saying.

 

how about someone sets up a private breeder registry? List all the good breeders known to the board, and resources where to find more.

 

As I said in the other thread, as soon as time permits, I'll put up a site myself, with a lot of the above material. But it all starts with us, and we need to get the message to people that wouldn't normally hear it.

 

Just my thoughts for the afternoon...

[Sue R]

I think one thing that works against this sort of proposal is that the serious working dog community is not self-promoting in terms of selling pups. A lot is done by word of mouth, not much is done on the internet, and it's a fairly insular community. There is a lot of trust involved and reliance on connections among like-minded people.

 

Some excellent breeders do have fine websites but, when you see an emphasis oriented towards selling puppies, color, sports accomplishments, and a generally slick, catchy website, it is a tip-off that someone may not be a really serious breeder of working dogs - or, if they have good bloodlines and produce pups, they are really orienting their sales to the sport/performance/pet/AKC market. Usually, their prices are higher, they may tout all sorts of testing, they brag on famous dogs in their breeding dogs' background, and so forth. But they are not aiming for the farm/ranch "market" and they may be very successful at promoting themselves to the market that they are aiming at (as subtly as they may be doing so).

 

As funny as the humorous tee-shirts like you suggest may be, they are really much more associated with the AKC/sport crowd - stockdog tee-shirt humor is pretty limited to a few fun designs that probably wouldn't sell anything to anyone.

 

The really good breeders/handlers/trainers who produce quality pups (and prove their breeding stock on the trial field and farm/ranch) usually have pretty subtle, subdued websites. Perhaps the very nature of good breeders and good breeding doesn't lend itself to a lot of self-promotion.

 

Some people say that as long as there are serious stockmen and stockwomen, and serious stockdog men and women, we will have serious stockdogs. But will the newcomers and less-informed be able to find them in a flood of "working-bred" but sports/performance/pet puppies available in droves on the internet and elsewhere?

 

I was lucky - even though I didn't do enough homework (I can blame some of that on lack of internet accessibility for me at that time), I did stumble into a situation that showed me what the dogs could be and what they could do, and so got some reasonably useful dogs as a result. And, since then, have learned a great deal more. But what about your average Joe or Jane, who just gotten the idea that a dog could be a help on the farm or ranch? I don't have the answers.

[glennkopp]

It seems to me that limiting the gene pool is exactly what we want to do. Limit the pool to proven working Border Collies. Breeders and users of working BCs are the ones that want and need this, so they are the ones that must make it happen. I think the answer is that, breeders only sell pups with Non-Breeder papers or no papers at all. I think the only people that need papers are breeders and USBCHA trialers. So the owners of the pups can come back in 1, 2 or 3 years and prove to the breeder that they have a working dog worthy of full ABCA papers. Hopefully the owner of the pup will appreciate the effort they went through for the papers and will continue the process.

 

It would be nice for the ABCA to have a review process to determine proven working dogs, but I don't think it is feasible for them to review hundreds of dogs per year, but I would think a breeder could and would want to review the pups they have produced. Trust would have be put in the breeders to use their judgement for the best interest of the breed.

 

If at least the breeders of the best working dogs did this, them and their dogs would be off the pedigrees of the non-working dogs in a few generations.

 

Glenn

[glennkopp]

... But what about your average Joe or Jane, who just gotten the idea that a dog could be a help on the farm or ranch? I don't have the answers.

 

I think there's a good chance they won't get a great dog, maybe not even a good dog. It will either be their last Border Collie, or they will do lot more homework before going out to find their next farm dog. I expect many owners great working dogs started out this way.

Glenn

[Eileen Stein]

I haven't chimed in up to now because I hate to squelch creativity and I'm always hoping that someone will come up with a new answer that will get us out of this. Before we move too far afield, though, this is my reaction to some of the points brought up.

 

SUING THE AKC. Immediately after recognition, an effort was made to sue AKC to require them to change the name of the breed they register, on the ground that since the method of breeding they advocate would produce a different kind of dog than the traditional border collie, it would be a misrepresentation to call them Border Collies, and that misrepresentation would hurt those who had developed and fostered the breed. In order to maintain this suit, it would have been necessary for all of the entities who had an established right to the name "Border Collie" to join in the suit, and while the USBCC, ABCA, and NASDS were willing to do so, the owner of the AIBC could not be persuaded to agree, so that effort had to be dropped.

 

I don't see any grounds for a present suit against the AKC. Legally, they can keep their studbook open as long as they want; we have no legal right to make them close it. When the ABCA gives pedigree data to someone whose dog it registers, that dog owner is entitled to share that pedigree information with anyone s/he wishes. To deprive ABCA members of pedigree information about their dogs would obviously not work -- one of the reasons a registry exists is to record accurate pedigree information, and if you hide the information from the dogs' owners that would defeat the purpose and be tremendously unpopular. If I thought dispensing pedigree information on a separate sheet from the registration certificate would keep AKC from accepting and using it, I would be all for that, but I think it's clear they would accept it in any form that ABCA used to provide it to owners of registered dogs.

 

ADOPTING A NEW NAME AND TRADEMARKING IT. That would be great, but there wouldn't be enough unanimity to accomplish it. There are too many good breeders, trainers and handlers who will refuse to call their dogs anything other than border collies, because they consider them border collies and they're proud of it. We would not want to go forward without their skills and their dogs.

 

TIERED REGISTRATION SYSTEM. This idea has a lot of appeal in theory, but I can't see how it could be implemented in practice without its minuses outweighing its pluses, and the result being a worse situation than our present plight. The devil is in the details, and posters have mentioned a lot of the problems. The costs of implementing it would be huge. Even if it were structured entirely mechanically, so that only (let's say) the dogs who get USBCHA points in Open sanctioned competition were included (and that's way too small a gene pool, yet there would be marketing pressure to do pink-to-pink breedings), there would still be significant bookkeeping costs involved. Even more problematic, I would hate to see us giving enhanced status only to trial dogs, especially at a time when so many people without significant livestock backgrounds are moving into trialing. What about the high quality working farm and ranch dogs who are tested in demanding real work situations but never trialed? I think any system that excluded them from the upper tier would not command much respect. But any effort to include them would exceed our resources, both human and financial. Handlers competent to judge their work would have to see them work and assess them. Are there enough such handlers, and how would we agree upon a list of them? The ROM system requires, conservatively, 20-25 director/hours per dog. How many dogs would we be talking about, and how spread out are they around the continent? Do the math. And any less-rigorous system would invite abuse (It's mighty hard to tell someone his dog's not good enough; I'm told that the NASDS's program toward the end would certify a dog based on "Well, Joe's got some good dogs, so this pup is probably a good dog."), and once abuse and inconsistency is perceived, the program falls into disrepute and no one wants to use it. How do you get people to use it, anyway? There would probably need to be an extra fee for the pink paper, as there is for HD clearance being recorded on the pedigree, and in any case there would be time and effort involved. (How many people pay extra to record HD clearances, BTW?) The better and more highly regarded the breeder, the less incentive s/he has to take part in the program, because his/her reputation is enough to sell his/her pups. So that means it would be the lesser-known, and probably lesser-quality breeders who would go to the effort and hassle of trying to get the pink papers. Wouldn't that rob the pink status of much of its impact and desirability? And how many puppy buyers would know or care to go for the offspring of pink breedings? Even apart from the expense involved (which would necessarily entail a steep increase in registration fees), I just don't think that making pink papers a factor to consider in breeding decisions would end up working to our benefit.

 

BAN DUAL REGISTRATION. Well, that's been my preferred solution all along, but I guess it wasn't done early on because AKC said they were going to close the stud book in three years so it didn't seem necessary, and with every passing year it became harder to do. It was last formally considered by the ABCA in 2003, but things fell apart and the only motion presented to the Board of Directors was to ban conformation champions, which was approved, but has had no effect on the larger problem. Identifying AKC-registered dogs would not be a stumbling block -- you'd just be required to sign a statement, when you registered a dog, that neither it nor its parents are registered with the AKC. Most people are reluctant to lie when they know their lie could be exposed, and if they did lie, they couldn't risk advertising their dogs' AKC titles or registration, which would take away much of the point of registering with AKC. I would support with all my resources any effort to ban dual registration, because without a hard dividing line between "their dogs" and "our dogs" I think the future is bleak. But I believe 2003 was our last chance to get a ban and it's too late now for that to have any probability of happening.

 

I hate posting a downer like this, but that's the way it looks to me. AKC recognition, the explosive growth of dog sports, and the explosive growth of the World Wide Web have created a perfect storm for our breed. Trying to reach and educate puppy buyers -- targeting the demand side -- seems to me to be our best hope now, imperfect as it is.

 

(BTW, along those lines, the ABCA is revising its flyer and will eliminate specific fee amounts, as Sue R suggested.)

[Brad]

It seems to me that limiting the gene pool is exactly what we want to do. Limit the pool to proven working Border Collies.

 

Gotta disagree on this, limiting the gene pool to the existing top dogs is a dangerous proposition. How many are we talking? 500? 1000? Not enough to sustain the growth of the species over the long term. Genetic diversity is required, or everyone ends up breeding back into the same pool, and things get ugly.

It's been too many years since genetics class, but we require bigger numbers than limiting breeding to top handlers/dogs.

The more successful subspecies of any group of animals will prevail over the less successful group. I'd like to see numbers of all border collies in north america vs. top working dogs. The ratio is going to be huge. They (the sport/pet/byb dogs) are breeding like rabbits, and the working dog will (potentially) breed itself into extinction.

 

withdrawing inward to protect the dogs is not the right response. That will result in the proverbial painted into the corner syndrome

[Brad]

(BTW, along those lines, the ABCA is revising its flyer and will eliminate specific fee amounts, as Sue R suggested.)

 

Does anyone know if the CBCA has a similar flyer?

[abcollie]

I haven't chimed in up to now because I hate to squelch creativity and I'm always hoping that someone will come up with a new answer that will get us out of this. Before we move too far afield, though, this is my reaction to some of the points brought up.

 

Well that was a downer :@)

 

Question ... could ABCA have a form that breeders (not ABCA but the breeders themselves can have) that states papers would be pulled if they were registered AKC.

 

Does that make sense and if possible how difficult would it be.

 

Edited ... what I mean that if ABCA can't get ALL open handlers to agree ... could they have a form that the ONES that WANT that could register that way?

[Sue R]

Gotta disagree on this, limiting the gene pool to the existing top dogs is a dangerous proposition. How many are we talking? 500? 1000? Not enough to sustain the growth of the species over the long term. Genetic diversity is required, or everyone ends up breeding back into the same pool, and things get ugly.

It's been too many years since genetics class, but we require bigger numbers than limiting breeding to top handlers/dogs.

The more successful subspecies of any group of animals will prevail over the less successful group. I'd like to see numbers of all border collies in north america vs. top working dogs. The ratio is going to be huge. They (the sport/pet/byb dogs) are breeding like rabbits, and the working dog will (potentially) breed itself into extinction.

 

withdrawing inward to protect the dogs is not the right response. That will result in the proverbial painted into the corner syndrome

"Proven working dogs" and "top dogs" are not one and the same thing. Denise's bullseye analogy explains that pretty handily, and points out the need to keep dogs that are not "top dogs" in the gene pool with intelligent breeding practices, not willy-nilly breedings.

[glennkopp]

Gotta disagree on this, limiting the gene pool to the existing top dogs is a dangerous proposition. How many are we talking? 500? 1000? Not enough to sustain the growth of the species over the long term. Genetic diversity is required, or everyone ends up breeding back into the same pool, and things get ugly.

It's been too many years since genetics class, but we require bigger numbers than limiting breeding to top handlers/dogs.

The more successful subspecies of any group of animals will prevail over the less successful group. I'd like to see numbers of all border collies in north america vs. top working dogs. The ratio is going to be huge. They (the sport/pet/byb dogs) are breeding like rabbits, and the working dog will (potentially) breed itself into extinction.

 

withdrawing inward to protect the dogs is not the right response. That will result in the proverbial painted into the corner syndrome

 

I knew it was dangerous to say "limit the gene pool", but I wanted to make a point. The number wouldn't be set by the ABCA or USBCHA, and it wouldn't be limited to trial handlers. The breeders of proven working border collies would control which of their pups get registered, whether proven on the trial field or on the farm/ranch. This wouldn't involve pulling papers on any dogs out their, so it would not prevent any currently registered but unproven dogs from breeding and registering unproven pups. It would be slow process but I think it would create a divide between the proven and unproven. both in ability and pedigree.

 

As far as keeping a diverse gene pool, that is the task of every responsible breeder. Whether they pull genetics from Europe, Australia, a cowbred line in Texas, or a rancher in northern Canada....

 

I don't no any numbers, so I'll make them up. If there are 100,000 Border Collies that don't work, and 5000 that do, then that's the way it is and the way it will be. The pool is limited to 5000.

 

Just some thoughts,

Glenn

[smithydog]

post has been removed by author