ABC Papers

[Brad]

I guess my fantasy pulls in the opposite direction. Rather than create a divide, I believe we should strive to correct what's been done, and unite the two different lines, united of course on the working side of the fence.

Probably a compromise will be required, in that direct offspring of working dogs could be considered to be working dogs (by law of averages) and perhaps widen the gene pool, while at least maintaining the bullseye of the pool in tact.

Yes, I know that goes against the ideal of only proven dogs, but with the numbers of BCs out there vs the ones that have the opportunity to prove themselves, we might again be limiting ourselves into oblivion. Not a perfect solution, but again, I think we need to get more working dogs (F1) out there, and potentially use them to bring back in for breeding. How to tell which of the litter is good? well, we probably can't.

 

But, as I've stated before, Walmart is selling border collies, albeit sub standard. Unless the home based handlers consolidate and figure out how to supply Walmart with the BCs, this will only go downhill. (<--euphemism)

[Brad]

I think the 4,842 Border Collies up for adoption on Petfinder right now is the result of your suggested approach of eliminating the demand for dogs that are detrminental to the breed.

 

Further, I think it is the responsibility of a buyer to be honest and convey to a seller what it is they are looking for in a dog, what are the intentions they have of the dog, setting realistic expectations for the breeder and the dog, and educating themselves on the lines out there and what those lines support, be it stock work, sport or conformation.

 

Sorry, I don't understand the implication of the first part.

 

On the second part, I don't believe it's realistic to expect honesty. Let's face it, there's lots of less than honest people around. Again, I'm jaded

[glennkopp]

Probably a compromise will be required, in that direct offspring of working dogs could be considered to be working dogs (by law of averages) and perhaps widen the gene pool, while at least maintaining the bullseye of the pool in tact.

Yes, I know that goes against the ideal of only proven dogs, but with the numbers of BCs out there vs the ones that have the opportunity to prove themselves, we might again be limiting ourselves into oblivion. Not a perfect solution, but again, I think we need to get more working dogs (F1) out there, and potentially use them to bring back in for breeding. How to tell which of the litter is good? well, we probably can't.

 

The fact is, not all offspring of working dogs are able to be working dogs. There has to be selection for the ones that can work and preferably work well.

 

How to tell which of the litter is good? We can. It takes time and effort to determine the good ones. Those are the ones we want to carry on the breed.

 

Glenn

[dracina]

You really know that you are a narcissist when you start to quote yourself.

 

In short, I try to make the right decisions and get information from reputable sources. But, I often question why more isn’t done by the USBCHA to stop questionable breeding AND training practices, all under the auspice of their very good name. How to get the word out to the public that working border collies are of better quality than “other” Border Collies? I have to say that it needs to start from the inside first. In my opinion, there are members who may be taking advantage of the USBCHA name. When those members use questionable breeding or training practices, it makes the whole organization look bad.

 

JMO- a newbie trying to figure it all out. I hope that I haven't offended unintentionally!

 

Karrin

 

(ETA again- I realize that the ABCA and USBCHA are two separate entities that may or may not have any say in the other's business; I am addressing the "prospective newcomers" sub-topic)

 

I really think that one has to start at the point of contact- the USBCHA is the point of contact for most people who have a border collie and question the ACK. When I started looking, I didn't even think about breeding or buying a good dog- it was all about training the dog I have. Even on these Boards, I often hear very reputable and proven trainers speak about people who come to them, totally ignorant of WHAT IS A WORKING STOCKDOG. I think that is the first question to address if the public is to be educated.

 

IMO, before even looking for a working dog, they want their own dog to "herd". The ACK makes this possible. And if my own shelter border collie can "herd"- just think what an expensive Border Collie can do! Honestly, if I would not have been lucky enough to find these Boards, both my dogs both would be HCh (or what ever is the designation for Herding Champion) by now. Even my dog Jack the Gripper, who is lucky enough to have a beer named after him, but who I would not trust to do anything worthwhile with stock.

 

When I said that some (unscrupulous) trainers flaunt their USBCHA Open Handler credibility as a selling point- well, I am saying that I came looking for a way to train my border collie, and that- USBCHA member- is what attracted me as a newcomer.

 

I know that this discussion is about breeding and registration, but I think that if the point is to educate, the training field is just as good a place as any to start. Training is where one will encounter the most newcomers- not breeding. Isn't this fundamental to the topic we are discussing?

 

Karrin

[Brad]

How to tell which of the litter is good? We can. It takes time and effort to determine the good ones. Those are the ones we want to carry on the breed.

 

Well, my question was how do we tell good breeding stock without the pups growing and proving anything. Giving rise to breeding non proven dogs back to the original proven gene pool to increase dogs available to other markets. This maintains at least some genetics, supplies a demand and keeps potentially more working genes in the pool. This can be done entirely outside the bullseye area on the dart board (sorry, forgot which colors we were using)

Essentially now, we're at a place that has a popular saying " if you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you've always got" ...So, I'm trying to think outside the box, or round pen as it were, and come up with acceptable comprimises that satisfy the wanted results.

Now, to qualify any of my input, I'm speaking as an outsider, a novice to the bred, and primarily a sport person who believes in the working dog.

 

My thinking is based on using my pup as an example. She's the daughter of a nursery champion, grand daughter to a Canadian champion, and also has very strong lines on the dams side. Now, due to lack of time and or resources, I may not be able to get her trained to a point of proving anything on stock, even though on paper she's potentially the next champion. So my question is, is an experienced breeder able to make an educated guess that she has ability through her performance on any other activity. I have no idea if this is a yes or a no. But, if bred, a dog like that could supply the demand for working bred dogs to the sport market without losing the working genes. Now it's entirely possible that this is the slippery slope slid down in the past that got us here, but as I said, I'm new and don't have all the background.

 

But, in my consideration of the BC as simply a marketable product, our side isn't doing a good job and risks getting pushed out all together if something doesn't change from the way it's done now. And relying on some organization to fix it, whether thru colored paper, exclusions to registries, etc, to me, isn't the route to take.

 

Now, if someone really experienced wants to tell me to shut up now, I'm good with that

[amc]

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.

 

Eileen, I am curious as to why you believe this. Do we not have new blood on the ABCA Board? Can members influence the Directors toward such a motion? Do you say this because there are too many "influential" handlers/breeders who dual-register their dogs/pups? Please elaborate.

 

Amy

[Alchemist]

Eileen: I'm with Amy on this one. Why do you think it's too late? Do we really have to roll over and give up? But then I've always been one to tilt at windmills. And I'm not a lawyer, nor am I on the ABCA board, so my expectations are probably unrealistic. (But I'm willing to be educated!)

 

Also, in suggesting we sue the AKC - my thoughts were more that we should sue them to make good on their earlier promise: to close their studbooks. I know from reading the Dog Wars about how AIBC not signing on to the original suit essentially killed it. But the situation is different now - it's not a matter of several different registries existing (NASD having gone the way of AIBC), it's more that AKC's failure to close their studbooks represents a current threat to the breed.

[Tea]

Ok I am confused?

 

Do you mean a pup's parents can be registered with the AKC

and the ABCA

and a buyer does not know this because it is not revealed?

 

uh.....I gotta go sit down

 

whisky please.....

[juliepoudrier]

I guess if the parents are dual-registered but the pups are registered with just ABCA you'd have no way of knowing about the parents unless it was either listed somewhere or the breeder told you.

 

J.

[Eileen Stein]

Eileen, I am curious as to why you believe this. Do we not have new blood on the ABCA Board? Can members influence the Directors toward such a motion? Do you say this because there are too many "influential" handlers/breeders who dual-register their dogs/pups? Please elaborate.

 

Well, let me start out by saying I would love to be wrong about this. Love to. But my thinking is that this is a depressing subject that nobody wants to discuss or address. It's depressing that AKC recognized the border collie when none of us wanted it to. It was depressing when AKC kept extending the time for closing the their studbook, and crushingly depressing when they finally opted to keep accepting ABCA dogs forever. It was depressing when the possibility of suing to require the name change had to be abandoned. It's depressing to think that, had the ABCA banned dual registration immediately upon AKC recognition, we could have had an absolute, relatively painless separation between ABCA dogs and AKC dogs, and AKC probably WOULD have closed their studbook, but we missed that opportunity. (And we could easily have done it: ABCA rules at the time said that "the following are ineligible for ABCA registration: 1. Dogs having any ancestor that is registered with a registry that promotes conformation showing of Border Collies (American Kennel Club, British Kennel Club, Federacion Cynologique Internationale, Australian, or New Zealand Kennel Clubs, etc.)." There was overwhelming support at that time for excluding dogs that were registered with the AKC; indeed, most people thought that WAS the rule.) It's depressing to face the fact that we're boxed in, and we have no good options -- only bad options and worse options. So it's natural that people, including ABCA directors, would rather put the issue out of their minds and avoid thinking about it. There are always plenty of more immediate issues coming along that need to be dealt with.

 

With each passing year, the ABCA has more members who are involved with the AKC, either because selling and studding to the AKC market is so profitable (and Tom's doing it now, you know, and I hear Dick and Harry might be too), or because people come over from the AKC to register and produce a mixture of ABCA-registered sport and herding dogs, and don't see what the problem is. All of which was totally predictable, of course. Are there "too many 'influential' handlers/breeders who dual register their dogs/pups"? Who knows? There may be folks doing it who are ashamed to admit it, in addition to the relatively few that are open about it. The only sure thing is that the longer this situation goes on, the more there will be.

 

The 2002-03 debate about it was stressful and acrimonious. Very few people defended AKC registration, but a lot felt the registry would be hurt if dual registration were banned, and a lot felt it would be hurt if dual registration wasn't banned. Some said the membership wanted the ban, and some said the membership didn't want the ban, but really there was no way of knowing what the membership wanted because the Board was unwilling to poll the membership. When the subject was just dropped without even a vote of the Board of Directors, I think people who cared about the issue had a great sense of futility. And as a result I don't think the will is there to take it up again, and go through that again.

 

As I said, I'd love to be wrong about that. Yes, the composition of the Board has changed. Yes, I think that if the Directors heard from a lot of members clamoring for dual registration to be banned, they would address the issue and might well ban it. But short of that I don't think it's going to happen. And we have an awful lot of members, and most of them don't care enough to clamor. To be concerned about this, you have to (1) care a lot about the future of the breed, and (2) know enough about the big picture (genetics, AKC culture, history) to understand the threat. I just don't think there are enough people in that category to get the Board to take action when they'd much rather avoid taking action. And after enough time has passed, a decision not made becomes a decision made.

 

Also, in suggesting we sue the AKC - my thoughts were more that we should sue them to make good on their earlier promise: to close their studbooks. I know from reading the Dog Wars about how AIBC not signing on to the original suit essentially killed it. But the situation is different now - it's not a matter of several different registries existing (NASD having gone the way of AIBC), it's more that AKC's failure to close their studbooks represents a current threat to the breed.

 

Well, legally they are under no obligation to us to keep their promise. And I'm afraid the law doesn't care about threats to the breed. And it's too late now to sue under the original legal theory: prior to recognition, AKC had no claim to the name "Border Collie," but after registering "Border Collies" for 15 years without legal challenge from those with a superior right, they do have a claim.

 

Huh. Who would have thought I could write a post that was even more of a downer than my last post?

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I hate to agree with Eileen. I agree.

 

Donald McCaig

[abcollie]

n

 

The 2002-03 debate about it was stressful and acrimonious. Very few people defended AKC registration, but a lot felt the registry would be hurt if dual registration were banned, and a lot felt it would be hurt if dual registration wasn't banned. Some said the membership wanted the ban, and some said the membership didn't want the ban, but really there was no way of knowing what the membership wanted because the Board was unwilling to poll the membership. When the subject was just dropped without even a vote of the Board of Directors, I think people who cared about the issue had a great sense of futility. And as a result I don't think the will is there to take it up again, and go through that again.

 

Huh. Who would have thought I could write a post that was even more of a downer than my last post?

 

Well, I would say I will make sure that I keep my ISDS papers up to date on dogs I import EXCEPT I saw a AKC place that now brags about TRIPLE registered dogs.

 

How about a new WORKING registry that will dual register with ABCA (to keep a large gene pool) but ONLY with dogs that aren't AKC registered.

 

It doesn't sound promising .... sad :@(

[Mark Billadeau]

So now we've come back to education of the general public.

 

There is a growing distrust of breeding for show (AKC and UK) in terms of maintaining healthy breeds. (Thank you BBC)

 

We now have a growing opportunity to capitalize on the public's distrust to educate the general public on what our breed can be and how breeding for work/function maintains a healthy breed (unlike breeding for looks). This could be the time to reeducate the general public on how to view breeds and specifically our breed. Changing their picture of our breed from very smart black & white dog that excels at games to stockdog (more mentally and physically demanding than games); and if bred for stock work then the dog will be capable of excelling at games and more importantly the breed will have fewer health issues.

[Smokjbc]

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

 

 

That was me and it worked out well because we just did a straight across trade (the 2 year old and I were so unsuited that I really didn't get a good start on her. ). I'm over the moon about my Jet.

 

In hindsight I might have switched over the shipping rates though LOL. A 2 year old dog is a ton more to ship than a pup but since I like my side of the bargain so much, I won't complain.

 

It was important to me to have that option because of my isolated area. It's hard for me to replace or place a dog properly here because I'm "it" when it comes to USBCHA-working oriented people within a pretty significant distance. It comes down to knowing you are doing business with. I knew that I had that option if it didn't work out, and Diane knew that I wasn't going to roll-over an unspayed so-so dog (she's a lovely dog, just not a super talent) to someone who might breed her for other or no purpose.

[abcollie]

So now we've come back to education of the general public.

 

There is a growing distrust of breeding for show (AKC and UK) in terms of maintaining healthy breeds. (Thank you BBC)

 

We now have a growing opportunity to capitalize on the public's distrust to educate the general public on what our breed can be and how breeding for work/function maintains a healthy breed (unlike breeding for looks). This could be the time to reeducate the general public on how to view breeds and specifically our breed. Changing their picture of our breed from very smart black & white dog that excels at games to stockdog (more mentally and physically demanding than games); and if bred for stock work then the dog will be capable of excelling at games and more importantly the breed will have fewer health issues.

 

So, how do we go about doing it? Is ABCA willing to spend money on advertising?

 

Also, I still don't know why I can't put NO AKC on my pups ... even if a lot of breeders don't want to.

 

We can make the "pink" papers I suggested stamped with NO AKC ... just make it a different form the breeder fills out and a different color paper to print it on?

[Eileen Stein]

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?

 

That's an interesting idea. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting something like NB registration, in that the breeder and buyer would agree at the time of sale that if the dog was AKC-registered its offspring would not be registrable with the ABCA. The ABCA would register the dog with a notation to that effect, and any registration application for the offspring of that dog would have to include a certification by the dog's owner that the dog had not been registered with the AKC. IOW, it would be like a puppy contract that contains a provision against registration with the AKC, but the provision would be enforceable by the registry denying registration to the offspring rather than by going to court. Is that what you mean?

 

Hmm. It would require programming changes and extra paperwork, but not an insurmountable amount, I should think. Once the details were worked out, it would be pretty routine to administer. One problem I see is that if the dog was not registered with the AKC, but was bred to a dual-registered dog who did not have such a restriction on his papers, then the pups would be ABCA registrable. Then the next generation would be dual registered with no restriction on them, and the parent dog could even be AKC registered after the breeding, with no consequences.

 

Add in the fact that the procedure might be underused, the way the NB procedure is underused, and I guess I think this could be circumvented easily enough that it's probably not worth the added administrative burden.

 

But I do think that if there IS an answer to the problem, it's this kind of original thinking that will come up with it.

[Mark Billadeau]

So, how do we go about doing it?

Here is one way.....

 

Board of Directors is discussing filming of the 2010 National Finals.

 

Amanda Milliken motioned to approve half of the funding for two days, for a three camera job, seconded by Wilda Bahr.

 

 

Geri Byrne motioned to pay for one half the cost ($3400) of one day's webcasting as approved in Heather's proposal. At the same time this motion takes away the previous approval of funding one half of a two day webcast, seconded by Allen Hickenbottom.

[abcollie]

That's an interesting idea. If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting something like NB registration, in that the breeder and buyer would agree at the time of sale that if the dog was AKC-registered its offspring would not be registrable with the ABCA. The ABCA would register the dog with a notation to that effect, and any registration application for the offspring of that dog would have to include a certification by the dog's owner that the dog had not been registered with the AKC. IOW, it would be like a puppy contract that contains a provision against registration with the AKC, but the provision would be enforceable by the registry denying registration to the offspring rather than by going to court. Is that what you mean?

 

Hmm. It would require programming changes and extra paperwork, but not an insurmountable amount, I should think. Once the details were worked out, it would be pretty routine to administer. One problem I see is that if the dog was not registered with the AKC, but was bred to a dual-registered dog who did not have such a restriction on his papers, then the pups would be ABCA registrable. Then the next generation would be dual registered with no restriction on them, and the parent dog could even be AKC registered after the breeding, with no consequences.

 

Add in the fact that the procedure might be underused, the way the NB procedure is underused, and I guess I think this could be circumvented easily enough that it's probably not worth the added administrative burden.

 

But I do think that if there IS an answer to the problem, it's this kind of original thinking that will come up with it.

 

Yes, if you don't care if your dog is "dual registered" ... you register the "regular" way ... white papers

 

You DO care if your dog is bred for working ability ... pink papers. Which hopefully would become the "gold standard" of papers.

[abcollie]

Here is one way.....

 

Great! I saw that and was for it.

 

So are they planning on telling the difference between WORKING dogs and "the rest" or just show the dogs working? I know so many people that "THINK" their dogs ARE working (or do what the open dogs do because they chase cats) that it takes an explanation to go with the visual.

[Eileen Stein]

Also, I still don't know why I can't put NO AKC on my pups ... even if a lot of breeders don't want to.

 

We can make the "pink" papers I suggested stamped with NO AKC ... just make it a different form the breeder fills out and a different color paper to print it on?

 

Maybe I'm not understanding your thought. The ABCA can issue papers with NO AKC on them, but that doesn't mean AKC won't go ahead and register them anyway. Who is it you're thinking would enforce the "NO AKC," and how would the enforcement work?

 

You can always have a puppy contract with a no AKC clause. Here is an example of a contract that contains such a clause. Of course, if the clause is violated you would have to go to court to enforce it, which involves time, effort and money, but if you impress the puppy buyer sufficiently that you are serious about it at the time the contract is signed, the clause will probably not be violated.

 

One of the things working against us is that traditional working breeders, as a matter of culture, are an independent lot who don't believe in restricting others' rights, and really aren't comfortable imposing a lot of restrictions on others. The co-ownership, control every detail of the life of the puppy you sell unto the umpteenth generation thinking that is reflected in so many kennel club style contracts strikes us as really repugnant. I feel the same way. But on this issue I'll make an exception.

[abcollie]

Maybe I'm not understanding your thought. The ABCA can issue papers with NO AKC on them, but that doesn't mean AKC won't go ahead and register them anyway. Who is it you're thinking would enforce the "NO AKC," and how would the enforcement work?

 

You can always have a puppy contract with a no AKC clause. Here is an example of a contract that contains such a clause. Of course, if the clause is violated you would have to go to court to enforce it, which involves time, effort and money, but if you impress the puppy buyer sufficiently that you are serious about it at the time the contract is signed, the clause will probably not be violated.

 

One of the things working against us is that traditional working breeders, as a matter of culture, are an independent lot who don't believe in restricting others' rights, and really aren't comfortable imposing a lot of restrictions on others. The co-ownership, control every detail of the life of the puppy you sell unto the umpteenth generation thinking that is reflected in so many kennel club style contracts strikes us as really repugnant. I feel the same way. But on this issue I'll make an exception.

 

I agree as I hate to sell with a NB as I totally hate telling people WHAT to do with their own dog - BUT I see a difference of just saying I don't want the pups registered with AKC and having DIFFERENT papers that state it (that you both sign stating they will NOT be dual registered).

 

Your comment (I think it was yours) at one point said ... if people sign something on paper ... they are less likely to lie about it (when they try and register with AKC). Also it's a DIFFERENT paper (not saying some won't do it) but it makes it more an issue.

 

IF AKC does register it (when the papers STATE NO AKC) ... can ABCA NOT take them to court?

[Eileen Stein]

Great! I saw that and was for it.

 

So are they planning on telling the difference between WORKING dogs and "the rest" or just show the dogs working? I know so many people that "THINK" their dogs ARE working (or do what the open dogs do because they chase cats) that it takes an explanation to go with the visual.

 

As I understand it, along with the straight trial coverage (via internet streaming video) they hope to run a short educational video for viewers that will explain the basics: that the border collie is a breed designed for working livestock; that the reason it can do this amazing stuff is because it's specifically bred for it, and that the ability will be lost in those who are not specifically bred for it; that the trial is a way of testing the dogs' abilities so we are better able to breed for the qualities we need; and showing how the phases of work in the trial relate to what the sheep raiser needs in order to manage his/her flock. Also, Ray Crabtree will be announcing the trial coverage part, and he usually manages to work educational stuff into his commentary.

[abcollie]

As I understand it, along with the straight trial coverage they hope to run a short educational video for viewers that will explain the basics: that the border collie is a breed designed for working livestock; that the reason it can do this amazing stuff is because it's specifically bred for it, and that the ability will be lost in those who are not specifically bred for it; that the trial is a way of testing the dogs' abilities so we are better able to breed for the qualities we need; and showing how the phases of work in the trial relate to what the sheep raiser needs in order to manage his/her flock. Also, Ray Crabtree will be announcing, and he usually manages to work educational stuff into his commentary.

 

I think that is perfect and Ray is good at explaining (with a great voice :@) to people. If we could make DVD's inexpensively -maybe send some to dog clubs/vets/ (anyone that would help with the cause) along with the flyer that ABCA is making up.

[Tea]

send it to me

[Eileen Stein]

IF AKC does register it (when the papers STATE NO AKC) ... can ABCA NOT take them to court?

 

Unfortunately, no. Man, if only we could!! But the law is all about rights and duties. If you sign a contract with someone, you have a duty to live up to it, and they have a right to sue you if you don't. If the legislature passes a law, you have a duty to abide by it. The ABCA could, if they chose to make it a condition of the registration contract, impose a duty on those who register with it not to register the same dog with the AKC, on pain of having the dog de-registered and having the person's membership revoked. But AKC has no legally recognized duty to the ABCA not to use the ABCA's pedigree information to register dogs, and we have no legally recognized right to impose that duty on them. Sad, but true.