ABC Papers

[Eileen Stein]

I think, though, that the education would need to happen before you're faced with a puppy buyer looking to buy a particular pup from you. Most people have a lot invested in whatever venues they trial in, and if they go to a working breeder and get what amounts to a political talk, chances are they'll just go find another working breeder who doesn't care how they register the dog. It takes a lot to change people's mind sets, especially when they're set in their ways.

 

It's true that if the buyer is someone who's committed to AKC sporting events, you're unlikely to change their mind in that situation and they'll just go somewhere else. But many, many puppy buyers are not committed; they just vaguely think they'd like to get into agility (or flyball, or rally) with their new pup. Those people ARE amenable to education, I think.

 

The other thing I wonder is, is it really any better to keep the dog out of AKC but have it go into flyball lines and get bred for flyball, or rally, or whatever? Flyball and flyball breeders are some of the most obnoxious things on the planet IMO, they just breed for pure flipping nut case dogs. So the dog stays out of AKC, but you're still looking at the same damage to the breed. At the very least, you never get any idea how the dog is on stock, and at the worst, your good working lines go on to add to the flyball nutballs.

 

Well, since I don't believe in breeding dogs without proven working ability, in that case I'd want a breeding restriction as well as a "no AKC registration" clause. If the pup isn't bred, and isn't registered with the AKC, it can play flyball or rally as far as I'm concerned. Again, I was just taking issue with the person who said it's inconsistent to encourage sports-oriented people to buy from working breeders, and then sell the pup with a "no AKC" clause.

[Blackdawgs]

It's true that if the buyer is someone who's committed to AKC sporting events, you're unlikely to change their mind in that situation and they'll just go somewhere else. But many, many puppy buyers are not committed; they just vaguely think they'd like to get into agility (or flyball, or rally) with their new pup. Those people ARE amenable to education, I think.

 

Coming from the sports world, I can say that people typically start like me. They make due with the first dog that they happen to have (in my case it was a pitbull type) and then they attempt to trade up to a dog that is more suitable or competative. These are the folks that are likely to approach you (generic) because, as has been said on this thread, "working" folks are not easy to find. By the time that someone moves into their second+ competition dog, they already have a pretty good idea what they want to do. So, my suspiscion is that in most cases, this type of education would NOT be received enthusiastically. Buyers that just vaguely want to get into sports are going to approach the high volume breeders just by virtue of the fact that they are more visable than you (generic)

 

As someone pointed out, in many locations the AKC is the only game in town, so that's where people go. In my location, during the competition season, there are non AKC agility trials almost every weekend within a 2-2.5 hours drive from my home and people still drive 6-8 hours to AKC trials. Here, the number of entries in NADAC and CPE have really declined over the years, in part due to the economy and in part because if there are two trials on the same weekend, most people will chose AKC. (The AKC did me a favor years ago by not ILPing my dog). And now that the AKC allows mixes in agility/ Rally/obedience, I think that entries in non-AKC venues will decline even further.

 

I think that in the end, sellers can sell to whom ever they chose and buyers will buy from whomever they chose. Sellers get to set the rules. There is no reason why you (generic) can't refuse to sell to someone, or refuse to dual register your dogs, or mandate a spay/neuter contract. For that matter, the pup can even be sterilized before it leaves your possession. Then, if one of your buyers wants to do AKC (assumming that you'll allow it with a sterilized dog), they can just get an ILP and you don't have to worry about your dog's genes getting into the sportsworld. Buyers with aspirations towards the World's will just go to another breeder because they need the AKC papers. But, as a prospective buyer, I have no problem with signing a spay/neuter contract.

[Alchemist]

I had a vague idea that I wanted to "do sports" with my current pup, but had never been engaged in dog sports before. I knew I wanted a "working bred/working lines" dog (didn't understand the distinction between the two at the time). I viewed ACK registration as a big negative, having owned Border collies since well before ACK tried to take them over.

 

I had no problem whatsoever with buying a well-bred pup on a s/n contract that was closely patterned after a contract that Eileen wrote that is posted on the USBCC website http://www.bordercollie.org/contract.html . It specified (1) that I couldn't register him with ACK; (2) that I had to spay/neuter him; (3) that I WAS allowed to ILP him with ACK for purposes of participating in obedience, dog sports, anything but conformation. (I have opted not to ILP my dog).

 

Don't you think a lot of education could begin with more contracts like this? For those breeders who do maintain websites, they should post the contracts prominently, along with a brief explanatory statement of what they support in breeding Border collies. For every individual who does buy a pup, there might be a dozen or more who are disappointed that pups aren't available at that very moment, but who see the part of the contract or explanatory statement that says "we don't allow registration with AKC as we believe it's detrimental to all that makes this breed special" and ask themselves, "what's this all about?"

 

The only thing I'd do differently is to try to negotiate a later spay/neuter date than 8 months; my vet felt it would be better for my dog to wait until he'd fully matured. But the breeder was very accomodating.

 

And I can see how arguments could be made in favor of a nonbreeding contract (that could be lifted at the discretion of the seller, if the buyer took up working sheep with their dog AND the dog demonstrated sufficient talent AND was proven to be healthy). It broadens the gene pool, though breeders will always run the risk of ending up in Candy's situation, so it's a bit of a two-edged sword.

[abcollie]

And I can see how arguments could be made in favor of a nonbreeding contract (that could be lifted at the discretion of the seller, if the buyer took up working sheep with their dog AND the dog demonstrated sufficient talent AND was proven to be healthy). It broadens the gene pool, though breeders will always run the risk of ending up in Candy's situation, so it's a bit of a two-edged sword.

 

Question ... I have never registered a dog with ACK ... so the question is: if a dog is co-owned ... does it take 2 signatures before ACK can register it?

 

So, if ABCA had some sort of registration where I could sell puppies and "co-own" them ... the owners could do anything they wanted (agility, etc) BUT when it came to breeding or reg with ACK ... they needed my signature???

 

Or would ACK just register them anyway? Would that be legal?

[G. Festerling]

Interesting question. At first glance my opinion would be that AKC will do whatever unless the co ownership would be with a dog registered with them. They would have no reason to honor a co ownership or NB contract with a dog that is not in their registry?

[Diana A]

Interesting question. At first glance my opinion would be that AKC will do whatever unless the co ownership would be with a dog registered with them. They would have no reason to honor a co ownership or NB contract with a dog that is not in their registry?

 

From the AKC website (look at the 6th bullet):

 

Eligibility for Open Registration

 

•In order to be registered under Open Registration, a dog must be born in the United States, or one of it’s possessions or territories. Otherwise, it will have to be submitted with a Foreign Dog Registration Application.

•The owner must be a resident of the United States, or one of it’s possessions or territories.

•The dog must be of a breed eligible for registration in the AKC Stud Book.

•The dog must first be registered with a domestic registry acceptable to the AKC (see below).

•The dog must be registered with the same name that appears on the certificate from the domestic registry.

•The dog must be registered in the same owner(s) name that appears on the certificate from the domestic registry. A co-owner can be added by a transfer after the dog is AKC registered by simply filling out the back of the certificate and sending to AKC with a transfer fee.

•The information on the application must agree with the information on the domestic registry certificate and/or pedigree.

 

The dog does have to registered in both owner's names if co-owned on the ABCA registration, and a copy of the papers need to be submitted so they'll know if there's a co-owner. And I didn't include it here, but they had a link to the actual form on the website and a signature of both owners is required. So it does appear that AKC registration could be prevented if the dog is co-owned and one of the co-owners refuses to sign the registration. I couldn't find any mention about honoring nonbreeding registrations from other registries.

 

Diana

[jdarling]

So if the dog were to eat a small child whole, would the co-owner be responsible in addition to the actual owner? In other words, what are the down sides to co-ownership?

[abcollie]

From the AKC website (look at the 6th bullet):

 

The dog does have to registered in both owner's names if co-owned on the ABCA registration, and a copy of the papers need to be submitted so they'll know if there's a co-owner. And I didn't include it here, but they had a link to the actual form on the website and a signature of both owners is required. So it does appear that AKC registration could be prevented if the dog is co-owned and one of the co-owners refuses to sign the registration. I couldn't find any mention about honoring nonbreeding registrations from other registries.

 

Diana

 

Well, if that's the case could ABCA come up with a different form (I won't even say a different color form :@) that's called something like the "none - AKC" form where the pups are co-owned by breeder and owner?

 

I guess that wouldn't help the offspring of that dog (not sure how you could make it "carry on' to offspring?) Nor I guess if they sold the pup (as a trained dog) to someone else.

[juliepoudrier]

Candy,

I think at least if you're a co-owner you'd have some say in the selling on of a trained dog, wouldn't you? I don't know how one would arrange to transfer co-ownership as well though. For example, if Breeder A and owner B own a dog, and owner B chooses to sell the dog on, what are Breeder A's rights/obligations at that point? Can Breeder A require new owner C to also be a co-owner with Breeder A?

 

J.

[abcollie]

Candy,

I think at least if you're a co-owner you'd have some say in the selling on of a trained dog, wouldn't you? I don't know how one would arrange to transfer co-ownership as well though. For example, if Breeder A and owner B own a dog, and owner B chooses to sell the dog on, what are Breeder A's rights/obligations at that point? Can Breeder A require new owner C to also be a co-owner with Breeder A?

 

J.

 

That's what I was trying to say ... only you explained it much better. How far "down the line" could you have control "legally" or even "to be fair" to the other person ("people") involved?

[abcollie]

So if the dog were to eat a small child whole, would the co-owner be responsible in addition to the actual owner? In other words, what are the down sides to co-ownership?

 

Good point. I do know an ACK agility person that co-owns her pups when she sells them ... and requires a *million* dollars worth of health checks/puppies back/ etc and doesn't pay a penny towards any of it (the "buyer" pays for all that).

 

I never thought of the "legal" end of that ... Wonder if she has :@)

 

Maybe "our form" says co-own ONLY in regards to Registering and Breeding?

[Liz P]

Candy,

I think at least if you're a co-owner you'd have some say in the selling on of a trained dog, wouldn't you? I don't know how one would arrange to transfer co-ownership as well though. For example, if Breeder A and owner B own a dog, and owner B chooses to sell the dog on, what are Breeder A's rights/obligations at that point? Can Breeder A require new owner C to also be a co-owner with Breeder A?

 

J.

 

I don't know if this is actually true or purely rumor, but I had heard there are cases where dogs have been sold without the co owners consent and the ABCA transfered the papers to the new owners. In those cases the dogs were listed as ownerA/ownerB on the papers. In other words, either owner is able to make decisions about the dog. The owner who said that she had this happen to her told me that you have to put "ownerA AND ownerB" to emphasize that both must make decisions. Maybe the ABCA could clarify if this is true or not.

[Sue R]

I know that on checks, car registrations, and other documents, the use of the word "or" means that either person listed can sign off. The use of the word "and" means that both must sign off. I have no idea if ABCA papers allow for a distinction (although I assume they would/could as long as the information submitted lists the names and either "or" or "and" between). And, I have no idea if ABCA enforces the use of "or" or "and" (and one or both signatures) when dogs are sold or transferred. It would be interesting to find out.

[jdarling]

What if ALL papers were co-owned by (owner's name) AND THE AMERICAN BORDER COLLIE ASSOCIATION?

[DeltaBluez Tess]

So if the dog were to eat a small child whole, would the co-owner be responsible in addition to the actual owner? In other words, what are the down sides to co-ownership?

 

 

I think it would depend if the child was bad or good.

[Sue R]

What if ALL papers were co-owned by (owner's name) AND THE AMERICAN BORDER COLLIE ASSOCIATION?

As in copywrited and can't be used without written permission of both owners? Interesting idea.