ABC Papers

[abcollie]

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. 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.

 

So, if I go to the registry and have "paperwork" that says these pups SHALL not be registered with AKC. The registry has NO rights ... I'm the only one with "rights" and I have to sue?

 

OK, How about the way the register dogs in the UK with only Sire/Dam info. Would that "slow" down the ability of AKC to register OUR dogs or do they have enough info in their "books" to look it up?

[Eileen Stein]

So, if I go to the registry and have "paperwork" that says these pups SHALL not be registered with AKC. The registry has NO rights ... I'm the only one with "rights" and I have to sue?

 

Yes.

 

OK, How about the way the register dogs in the UK with only Sire/Dam info. Would that "slow" down the ability of AKC to register OUR dogs or do they have enough info in their "books" to look it up?

 

Good question. When AKC first began registering border collies, they had the ISDS studbooks (presumably) but they had little or no pedigree information about breedings in North America. They didn't have that info because our registries wouldn't give it to them. So they had to piece together a studbook from the info that people registering border collies with them gave them -- basically from their ABCA, AIBC or NASDS registration certificates. How comprehensive their studbook information is by now is anyone's guess. But as I said earlier, I think for the ABCA to stop providing pedigrees for dogs people register with us would just be unacceptable to the vast majority of the membership. They want those pedigrees -- it's a big selling point, and a big reason why people register.

[abcollie]

Yes.

Good question. When AKC first began registering border collies, they had the ISDS studbooks (presumably) but they had little or no pedigree information about breedings in North America. They didn't have that info because our registries wouldn't give it to them. So they had to piece together a studbook from the info that people registering border collies with them gave them -- basically from their ABCA, AIBC or NASDS registration certificates. How comprehensive their studbook information is by now is anyone's guess. But as I said earlier, I think for the ABCA to stop providing pedigrees for dogs people register with us would just be unacceptable to the vast majority of the membership. They want those pedigrees -- it's a big selling point, and a big reason why people register.

 

Would it be legal (don't know why it wouldn't be ... but there is a reason I train dogs instead of being a lawyer :@) to say ONLY the "pink" anti-AKC paper dogs get full pedigrees :@)

 

I still think papers of different colors might help (don't think it's "cure") but if enough GOOD people register their dogs stating "pink" NO AKC and there WAS a difference between "white" papers (dogs that are JUST registered) and "pink" papers (people that want working dogs only) it would help. I'm sure you're right in saying a lot of people don't care ... but for the ones that do ... there has to be a way to state it. I also think that the people that WANT to register with AKC wouldn't go out of their way to go "pink" because they think it might limit their money.

 

So, we could say I only register with pink papers and have it MEAN something. Going back to what I was saying about "the Good Housekeeping Seal of approval".

 

It does seem hopeless at times :@( HOW many breeds does AKC need to screw up to figure it out?

[jdarling]

Does anyone know what the Border Collie Society of America's position is on dual registration?

[Pippin's person]

So this may be really off the wall--but, since it seems like going at this from the ACK angle and managing registration is a non-starter--what if the ABCA went at this from the perspective of bringing more folks into the craft through something like a Master/Apprentice program. I'm taking a page from some of the successful programs that have been used to help revitalize endangered languages (not as far off as it might seem since this is in some ways about an "endangered" way of partnering with dogs). In those programs, young heritage speakers are paired with a fluent (usually elderly) speaker and the speaker teaches the young person the language in the course of doing regular, daily things with the hope that the young person then passes the language along. Mixed success in the US--pretty successful in New Zealand, Australia and parts of Canada.

 

This is kind of thinking out loud, but what if the ABCA could find ways to incentivize bringing in novice handlers and "training them up" along with their dogs. Do a lot more to encourage Novice/Novice classes at trials (subsidies maybe; insurance for sheep?). I know that lots of folks find Novice/Novice classes a bad idea--but it's a relatively easy way to bring new people into the craft. Have pedagogy seminars or develop best practice guides for handlers offering lessons. Include practical work as part of that. Find ways to recenter the focus of training to the craft rather than the trials (I'm sure many people do this already--but that would be a way to shift the focus away from the "title" mentality that many (new and old) have--have the ABCA take an active interest in how the craft is taught (do they already?)).

 

Maybe this has already been proposed many times and not worked. No doubt, for every 10 people you train, only a small percentage will make it or get it (kind of like a litter of pups... ) Maybe it's a terrible idea, but it seems like if we could find a way to "capitalize" on the knowledge out there as a means of bringing in new folks, that could be one useful prong in the effort, since the more folks who get the training, the fewer end up supporting poor breeding and registry practices.

[G. Festerling]

No matter what registry (and in my mind registries are not about breeding but foremost a way to track ancestry for research - yes, that research is used by breeders as well) it is up to the individual what to do with a registry. How they choose to use it well or exploit it. I don't think for a second that any registry is immune to exploitation.

Talk about a downer. Since I don't put a lot of stock in people at times. But on the other hand, there is also a lot of people whos heart is in the right place and the future of the Border Collie as a working dog means a lot to them. They may not be big players but they are out there.

AKC provides limited registration. As in that dog that is on limited registration will not have its offspring registered by AKC. Only the breeder can remove this from the papers. Many big German Shepherd breeders use this to ensure that their dogs are trained and have health clearances.

There is no way to enforce this 100% on all dogs. With all the little other clubs springing up that are more than happy to register anything no matter what, if folks don't like these restrictions they go to the South Texas Pet Registry (made that one up and if it exists I am sorry!). Point of that story, if someone wants to "just" get papered dogs...they are out there. It is not a AKC issue ONLY!

I second that education is a biggy! I for one had no clue that there was a NB clause. And I think Eileen hit a lot of the issue right on the spot about the fact that individuals rights and love of independence may not make things easy. But I have found, as I was researching GSD's a (not from AKC but the SV in Germany) lot more about things like health clearances. About putting working titles on working breeds. About how to use venues available by the SV or other clubs to try to guide the future of a breeding program just a bit. Education, education, education. And then it is up for every one to make the right and most ethical decisions. In my opinion, if a person that breeds a litter, no matter how busy, great a handler, well known in working circles, does not have the time/interest to do sit and visit and try to feel out the prospective buyers and try to educate them or read the clauses already provided by ABCA, then what is the use anyway? Are they not the ones that truly hold the key?

 

On the paper issue, I have wondered about the dilemma of "evaluating" a dog for its abilities. Is one look by a renowned trainer enough? I think the answer is no. It maybe a little insight but not a true test.

Here is a link to something that is a bit different but still may interest some. Hannovarian Stallion Licensing

So maybe if a system will adopt more "highly desired" papers, with dogs that actually puts emphasis on every dog truly haven been proven, a 2 week training with an ABCA accredited (yes, i know that sounds so bad) trainer would be a good thing. It would cost money obviously but would put the proof of breed worthiness squarely on the shoulders of people that want to do it right.

 

I so stink at putting all those thousand of thoughts in writing. Not that I think everyone wants to hear them all anyway!

[abcollie]

No matter what registry (and in my mind registries are not about breeding but foremost a way to track ancestry for research - yes, that research is used by breeders as well) it is up to the individual what to do with a registry. How they choose to use it well or exploit it. I don't think for a second that any registry is immune to exploitation.

 

I actually think that's one of the main problems we are having.

 

I DON'T think a lot of people that have registered their dogs AKC ... care about the registry. They want to do all the "fun" things AKC provides. So, I don't think AKC "wins" because they are that great a registry but because they give titles, have little "play" trials (that are SO much easier to do that USBCHA), agility, etc. ... THAT'S why they end up with ABCA dogs.

 

I've had people tell me ... well, I wanted to agility or whatever. I say register ILP (or whatever that's called) but don't give them the Border Collie breed.

[abcollie]

This is kind of thinking out loud, but what if the ABCA could find ways to incentivize bringing in novice handlers and "training them up" along with their dogs. Do a lot more to encourage Novice/Novice classes at trials (subsidies maybe; insurance for sheep?). I know that lots of folks find Novice/Novice classes a bad idea--but it's a relatively easy way to bring new people into the craft. Have pedagogy seminars or develop best practice guides for handlers offering lessons. Include practical work as part of that. Find ways to recenter the focus of training to the craft rather than the trials (I'm sure many people do this already--but that would be a way to shift the focus away from the "title" mentality that many (new and old) have--have the ABCA take an active interest in how the craft is taught (do they already?)).

 

Maybe, that could go along with Mark's "getting the word" out.

 

The problem is SO many people that go with AKC ... want all the title BS. It takes so much LESS training to do an AKC trial that people take the "easy" way. The ones that "fall in love" with the craft (GREAT way of putting it :@) usually do whatever it takes (and usually that's a LOT in our society ... to find sheep, a trainer, a place to work, etc.)

[abcollie]

Does anyone know what the Border Collie Society of America's position is on dual registration?

 

I think they are ALL for it ... but I'm not sure. I vaguely remember one "faction" wanting to close the books but it was voted down.

 

Donald might keep up with that?

[Eileen Stein]

Does anyone know what the Border Collie Society of America's position is on dual registration?

 

They like it. They're for it. They want us all to be one big, integrated, versatile breed. They consistently advocated for keeping the AKC books open to ABCA dogs.

 

Of course, they'd probably feel differently if most border collie breeders had gone over to the AKC, as most AKC people expected we would. Then they'd have been happy to see the ABCA fold, and they'd be the only pond, with all border collies registered with AKC only. But we didn't, and given that, they'd rather try to speak for a big, amalgamated breed, with the cachet of real working dogs in it, than just the AKC-registered part. So they'd like to see as many ABCA-registered border collies as possible registered with AKC too. If enough are, then there's always the hope that ABCA will still wither away, even if it's over a much longer period of time.

[Pippin's person]

Maybe, that could go along with Mark's "getting the word" out.

 

The problem is SO many people that go with AKC ... want all the title BS. It takes so much LESS training to do an AKC trial that people take the "easy" way. The ones that "fall in love" with the craft (GREAT way of putting it :@) usually do whatever it takes (and usually that's a LOT in our society ... to find sheep, a trainer, a place to work, etc.)

 

True--though in my experience, it seems like many folks simply don't know about the difference and once they find out, many lose interest in the AKC versions (not all for sure-and it seems that sports breeders who want to advertise their pups as tied in some way to "working" are especially unlikely).

 

What if the ABCA could create some kind of trainer certification-type approach and have one stipulation be no active participation in ACK "herding" events.

 

It just seems like taking an interest in training practices could be an important tool (as dracina also pointed to in her post) since at some level bringing new handlers into the "red" zone is as important as breeding in that zone.

[G. Festerling]

I think the active participation part could be a sticky point.

Although I know what active means, would a trainer still be allowed to teach students that have other breeds (like shelties for example) and follow AKC?

[Pippin's person]

I think the active participation part could be a sticky point.

Although I know what active means, would a trainer still be allowed to teach students that have other breeds (like shelties for example) and follow AKC?

 

I meant that the trainers themselves don't compete in those events--perhaps with the stipulation that they don't compete with border collies--but that could be worked out "in committee"

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

One of the biggest difference between sheepdog culture and the dog fancy is the attitude toward rules and certifications. There are no Rules for trials, only "Guidelines for Judges". Since our dogs work under many (and unpredictable circumstances) there's no attempt made to standardize trials. There are no certified sheepdog judges and many trial hosts (myself included) would refuse to host if they were given a list of "approved" judges. Although I have done and will do both, I would not apply for "trainer" or "judge" certification.

 

While my political views are closer to socialism than libertarianism, clearly, in a small, knowledgeable community reputation works to protect the trials, the training, the dogs and the newbies alike.

 

Donald McCaig

[amc]

As far as facilitating some kind of mentorship, ABCA sets aside money from registrations that can be applied for for "breed promotion". IIRC, some years ago Lyle Lad (then Boyer) got some of this promo money and started a 4H group (correct me if I'm wrong, Lyle) working with young folk learning about working their Border Collies on sheep, sheep husbandry, etc. I thought and still do think that it was a stellar example of a way to promote the breed and foster the culture of sheepdogging.

 

Amy

[Pippin's person]

As far as facilitating some kind of mentorship, ABCA sets aside money from registrations that can be applied for for "breed promotion". IIRC, some years ago Lyle Lad (then Boyer) got some of this promo money and started a 4H group (correct me if I'm wrong, Lyle) working with young folk learning about working their Border Collies on sheep, sheep husbandry, etc. I thought and still do think that it was a stellar example of a way to promote the breed and foster the culture of sheepdogging.

 

Amy

 

This is the kind of thing I had in mind.

 

As regards "certification," I agree that there are big cultural differences and those are important to maintain. Still, given how frequently people land with "versatility"-type trainers when they are looking for training, it might be in the interests of preserving the culture to consider ways of pointing new folks to trainers who are part of that culture.

[Sue R]

Dear Doggers,

 

One of the biggest difference between sheepdog culture and the dog fancy is the attitude toward rules and certifications. There are no Rules for trials, only "Guidelines for Judges". Since our dogs work under many (and unpredictable circumstances) there's no attempt made to standardize trials. There are no certified sheepdog judges and many trial hosts (myself included) would refuse to host if they were given a list of "approved" judges. Although I have done and will do both, I would not apply for "trainer" or "judge" certification.

 

While my political views are closer to socialism than libertarianism, clearly, in a small, knowledgeable community reputation works to protect the trials, the training, the dogs and the newbies alike.

 

Donald McCaig

I am very much with Donald on this. I'd like to think that the fewer the regulations, within reason, the better the system. Right now, the sheepdog/cattledog community relies largely on integrity and personal choice, and I like it that way. I don't believe you can "legislate" morality.

 

I would not think it would benefit either ABCA or USBCHA were the organizations to not allow people who choose certain AKC activities - judging, training, competing - because I think it is up to each trial host/hostess to choose their judges; up to each student to choose their trainer; and, since trials are "open to all", every entrant to enter and compete in the appropriate class (barring very few circumstances that have nothing to do with affiliation).

 

People can therefore express their choices with their selection of trainers or clinicians, and their selection of trials.

 

For some trainers and clinicians, activity with AKC is part of making a living (and I'm not saying that in a negative way) rather than promoting a venue, even though their choice does help enable AKC (or whatever venue) to continue in providing and promoting their form of "herding". The same may be said of those who train students or participate themselves (whether it's a work requirement or not) in AKC or other venues in performance sports.

 

I have come to realize that this isn't as simple as it seems, while still wishing to make choices on my part that I am comfortable with. In the long run, I think that is all that any individual can do.

[Eileen Stein]

There are no certified sheepdog judges

 

This is true, but it should perhaps be mentioned that (1) the USBCHA Board of Directors can by a 2/3 vote determine that a particular individual is incompetent to judge and bar him/her from judging any sanctioned trial (don't know if this has ever happened -- it is certainly very, very, very rare), and (2) no one on an AKC approved judging list may be used to judge the Cattledog Finals or the Sheepdog Finals.

[Sue R]

This is true, but it should perhaps be mentioned that (1) the USBCHA Board of Directors can by a 2/3 vote determine that a particular individual is incompetent to judge and bar him/her from judging any sanctioned trial (don't know if this has ever happened -- it is certainly very, very, very rare), and (2) no one on an AKC approved judging list may be used to judge the Cattledog Finals or the Sheepdog Finals.

Is #2 fairly new? Just a few years ago, an AKC-approved judge did judge the Cattledog Finals, if I remember correctly.

[G. Festerling]

I also agree with Mr. McCaig's post. For me, it is one of the things that sets it apart from so many venues.

And I can only whole heartedly echo Sue R's post. The one about the individual morality that is.

[stockdogranch]

Is #2 fairly new? Just a few years ago, an AKC-approved judge did judge the Cattledog Finals, if I remember correctly.

I believe it was in response to that situation that the rule was made,

A

[dracina]

[...] clearly, in a small, knowledgeable community reputation works to protect the trials, the training, the dogs and the newbies alike.

 

Donald McCaig

 

So, how is that working out for the working border collie community? While I agree that reputation and word-of-mouth are doubtless the best methods, they are most effective for those already inside the community.

 

Mr. McCaig, with all due respect, I think that on this you are wrong. It is very easy to be idealistic if you are someone like you, who is well-known, and knows who's who. For someone new and interested, it is not so simple.

 

You know who is good, because you are part of the small, word of mouth crowd. The general public is not, so we have very few signals to point us in the proper direction if we are willful enough to search. I think that usually, stockdog training is the first point of contact for the general public.

 

You get to enjoy your cultural differences with a nice glass of wine and great dogs; me, I get a USBCHA Open handler (who has won many trials, and competes yearly at Nationals) training me to use a Frisbee to teach my dog flanks.

 

At least I knew enough to check to make sure the trainer was a USBCHA Open handler and had won many trials!

 

Karrin

[Eileen Stein]

Is #2 fairly new? Just a few years ago, an AKC-approved judge did judge the Cattledog Finals, if I remember correctly.

I believe it was in response to that situation that the rule was made,

 

That's my understanding also.

 

You get to enjoy your cultural differences with a nice glass of wine and great dogs; me, I get a USBCHA Open handler (who has won many trials, and competes yearly at Nationals) training me to use a Frisbee to teach my dog flanks.

 

Karrin, I understand why you feel the way you do, but the situation you found yourself in is so extremely unusual that I really don't think iit warrants any working border collie organization getting into the business of certifying trainers. It's about as much to be expected as being struck by lightning.

[Pippin's person]

I think the issue of "certification" is a little bit of a red-herring. I threw it out there, yes; however, the actual point is about ways of encouraging the kind of thing that Amy mentioned Lyle Ladd having done.

 

So, forget about "certification"-bad idea--what other ways could we think of that might encourage new handlers to choose/find a trainer and understand the importance of training to a standard other than that advocated by AKC herding events and breeding practices tied only to selection for working livestock?

 

Even though Karrin's particular situation might be unusual--it's not at all rare to find trainers who hang out a shingle once they reach the Pro-Novice level or who advocate all kinds of relatively ineffective training practices--anyone read the Whole Dog Journal a month or so ago? The examples of "herding" trainers they profiled included ONLY people who train a dog to work using positive reinforcement and specifically noted that if you were interested in doing this with your dog, you should be aware that many folks used harsh training methods and you might instead look for a trainer who does not. I don't know what kind of circulation the Whole Dog Journal has, but I know a lot more people who read it than who read stockdog journals.

[abcollie]

They like it. They're for it. They want us all to be one big, integrated, versatile breed. They consistently advocated for keeping the AKC books open to ABCA dogs.

 

Of course, they'd probably feel differently if most border collie breeders had gone over to the AKC, as most AKC people expected we would. Then they'd have been happy to see the ABCA fold, and they'd be the only pond, with all border collies registered with AKC only. But we didn't, and given that, they'd rather try to speak for a big, amalgamated breed, with the cachet of real working dogs in it, than just the AKC-registered part. So they'd like to see as many ABCA-registered border collies as possible registered with AKC too. If enough are, then there's always the hope that ABCA will still wither away, even if it's over a much longer period of time.

 

Well, as much as I hate to say it their web page has a LOT of info (and NOT the kind of info we want the public to think is "the way to go").

 

Maybe we should update and combine the ABCA and USBCHA web sites to have a larger message (as Mark said to get info to the public).