Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
bobh

Regestration question

Recommended Posts

IF I regester My ABCA regestered BC with AKC so I can do agility( Nothing else) will that prevent me from doing USBCH Trials .Or breede my Dog with a ABCA regetsered Bitchs ?

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USBCHA-sanctioned trials are open to all dogs, no matter what the breed or registration (or no registration at all).

 

Nothing would prevent you from breeding your dog to an ABCA-registered bitch except the knowledge and common sense to not breed him at all unless he has truly proven himself worth breeding in terms of stockwork.

 

An ABCA-registered dog that gets a conformation championship will be de-registered with ABCA, and his/her offspring could only be registered with ABCA as ROM (Registration on Merit), which is a stringent process whereby that dog/bitch proves it is a good stockdog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

USBCHA-sanctioned trials are open to all dogs, no matter what the breed or registration (or no registration at all).

 

Nothing would prevent you from breeding your dog to an ABCA-registered bitch except the knowledge and common sense to not breed him at all unless he has truly proven himself worth breeding in terms of stockwork.

 

An ABCA-registered dog that gets a conformation championship will be de-registered with ABCA, and his/her offspring could only be registered with ABCA as ROM (Registration on Merit), which is a stringent process whereby that dog/bitch proves it is a good stockdog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USBCHA-sanctioned trials are open to all dogs, no matter what the breed or registration (or no registration at all).

USBCHA,

I luv yah!!! :D :D :D

Maja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An ABCA-registered dog that gets a conformation championship will be de-registered with ABCA, and his/her offspring could only be registered with ABCA as ROM (Registration on Merit)

 

I don't think offspring of dogs de-registered for getting a conformation championship can re-gain ABCA registration via the ROM process. This may even include descendants further down the line, but I am not sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna go out on a limb here (probably the result of reading too many not-so-great freshman essays :blink: ), and suggest to Bob that if he registers his intact male dog with ACK so that he can do agility, that he please not breed his dog. To understand enough about breeding border collies (for working ability alone, yadda, yadda (read the sticky)), takes YEARS of training these dogs to a very high level of the work. Running in a few trials is not enough; nor is doing agility. These activities are simply not the proper "education" for breeding border collies.

 

You can neuter your dog, ILP him (or whatever they call it these days), and have a blast with whatever activities you choose.

 

And, personally, as someone who has (and occasionally breeds) ABCA registered bitches, I would NEVER, EVER breed my girls to anything registered with the ACK for ANY REASON WHATSOEVER.

A

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

offspring from deregistered dogs can and have been registered with ABCA thru the ROM process

 

The offspring of conformation champions are eligible for ROM if they are not themselves conformation champions. To date, no offspring of a de-registered dog has been registered via ROM.

 

I apologize for the incorrect information in my previous post when I said I didn't think they were allowed.

 

So offspring of de-registered dogs have been registered via the ROM process since Eileen's post above (which is now a year and a half ago)? How common is it for a dog to gain registration through ROM? I thought it was relatively uncommon, but maybe not as uncommon as I thought. (I heard a dog at the Finals was being evaluated. :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megan,

I think it's still pretty uncommon. I can think of only a handful of dogs who have been registered through ROM and none were the offspring of deregistered dogs. Eileen probably knows the answer to your question of WWBC doesn't supply it.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how to link to the topic, from 2009, search for list of dogs deregistered, that is the topic. Post #31 is Eileen's. The dog in question is indeed the offspring of a deregistered dog and the other parent was granted a breed championship before deregistration began. There is at least one person who believes in their dogs and is/was persistent enough to pursue an ROM on their dog. Absolutely, no doubt, ROM is hard to do and requires major effort from the dog and the handler. The dog in question runs regularly in Open trials, qualified for and ran in Nursery Finals and in more than one Final. I don't believe they read these boards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One daughter of a de-registered conformation champion did become registered through ROM. There have been no others. I believe the policy now is that first-generation offspring of de-registered champions cannot be ROM'd, but subsequent generations can be (provided, of course, that they are not champions themselves).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One daughter of a de-registered conformation champion did become registered through ROM. I believe the current policy is that first-generation offspring of de-registered champions cannot be ROM'd, but subsequent generations can be.

 

Why is that? If the offspring to not have an AKC conformation championship, and they meet the criteria for ROM, why would it matter about their parents?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is that? If the offspring to not have an AKC conformation championship, and they meet the criteria for ROM, why would it matter about their parents?

 

As far as I'm concerned, which is merely as a member, it's because we asked people not to register with the monolith; nonetheless, they did it. They made their beds; they can lie in them.

 

If it were up to to me, all dual registered dogs would be deregistered, then all able to come back in via ROM. The AKC, however, will not remove registration absent some violation, so the next best option is to throw out the next generation too. That way versatility buyers may become more careful and the breed split more pronounced, which is a good thing.

 

Penny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I'm concerned, which is merely as a member, it's because we asked people not to register with the monolith; nonetheless, they did it. They made their beds; they can lie in them.

 

If it were up to to me, all dual registered dogs would be deregistered, then all able to come back in via ROM. The AKC, however, will not remove registration absent some violation, so the next best option is to throw out the next generation too. That way versatility buyers may become more careful and the breed split more pronounced, which is a good thing.

 

Penny

 

It just seems that unless you toss out all the ACK registered dogs, you are punishing the person who bought a puppy.

 

Lets say, hypothetically, that a dual registered dog gets bred, turns out to be conformation material, gets a Ch. and gets de-registered. As a puppy buyer I get a dog, and try herding and discover my dog has a lot of talent (despite his fluffy parent). I become a great handler we do well in Open trials, but now I can't ROM because the parent dog got a Ch.

 

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? Because it's the tiny stand that ABCA has taken against the AKC. It was the stand ABCA could take that was easiest to enforce. As an uninformed puppy buyer, you would be out in the cold WRT to ROMming your dog. But you know what (and I've said this before)? If your dog was all that, then people would be willing to buy pups, even unregistered. And if I understand correctly, if your dog is a good producer, then those excellent pups from your dog *could* be ROMed. Like Penny and others, I would rather have seen dual registration be disallowed, but if this is the best ABCA can do, then I have to say that I wouldn't really lose any sleep over the person who buys a pup from a conformation champion and then later finds it can't be registered with ABCA. Frankly, a person buying from someone who is that much in bed with the AKC has already made a philosophical choice (in favor of AKC and all it stands for). If they they cannot register with ABCA, I don't see that as a huge problem. And I don't buy the "didn't know any better" argument. As I said, if the unregisterable pup they bought is that great, then there will be buyers for pups and those pups, if proven, could be brought back into the registry.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets say, hypothetically, that a dual registered dog gets bred, turns out to be conformation material, gets a Ch. and gets de-registered. As a puppy buyer I get a dog, and try herding and discover my dog has a lot of talent (despite his fluffy parent). I become a great handler we do well in Open trials, but now I can't ROM because the parent dog got a Ch.

 

Why?

 

 

 

I think most conformation dogs are campaigned early (before breeding age) so the scenario is unlikely because the dog would already have it's CH before breeding. Also, I'd guess the HA would like to discourage folks from buying puppies from dual registered dogs. So, the way to avoid this scenario is to avoid pups from dual registered dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but can there be a sticky done with the list of de-registered dogs and updated as they come along? Be a whole lot easier than having to find the thread each time :) Also, what about the ROM dogs, is there a list other than what's put out by ABCA, a cumulative list?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I favor this policy, and here's a few reasons why I do. I should note to begin with that Registration on Merit is a very unusual phenomenon, one that very few registries have. Most registries, including AKC, will not register a dog at all unless its parents are registered with that registry, or with another registry whose pedigrees that registry formally honors. The purpose of ROM is to allow unregistered working dogs, dogs whose pedigrees are often unknown, to come into our registry and become registered border collies because of their excellence as stockdogs, so that genes that otherwise could never become available to us will not be lost. It's purpose is not to enable people to throw away their ABCA registration to seek glory in the show ring, and then get it back, either for that same dog or for its pups.

 

Moreover, if we really believe, as we say, that conformation breeding and showing is detrimental to the working ability of the border collie, then we should be discouraging it. That was one of the reasons for de-registering conformation champions to begin with. If we enable someone to advertise his dogs as both a conformation champion and ABCA-registered, we are not discouraging it -- we are encouraging it, because it gives that person a competitive advantage in selling pups over those who don't seek these titles for their dogs. Over time, real working breeders would feel compelled to seek the titles in order to sell puppies, and then more people will be breeding with an eye to qualifying for these titles, and inevitably working ability in our dogs will go steadily downhill. We will best preserve working ability in the breed, in my opinion, if the division between conformation-oriented dogs and real working dogs is kept sharp, rather than muddied. I think this is important enough to carry it one generation further, so that people who take this course will know that not only their de-registered dog itself, but the first generation of pups it produces, will not be able to recover their registration through ROM. It may deter someone who is considering showing a dog in conformation to know that his/her dog will thereby be removed from the working dog gene pool, and potential buyers of its pups will have to be told that those pups too will not be admitted to the ABCA gene pool. It's a way of impressing on people that conformation showing is a big step down a different path, and that you cannot bounce in and out of the ABCA from one generation to the next.

 

In this regard, it's also important not to lose sight of the burden of the ROM process. Each ROM application requires a tremendous amount of time and effort on the part of the registry. When I served on a ROM committee, for example, just to fulfill the requirement of three directors seeing the dog work in a place other than his home required 10 hours travel time by one director, and 8+ hours travel time by another director, to see the dog work at the centrally-located farm of the third director. That's not counting the time spent setting it up, watching the dog, reporting to the board, all directors on the board reviewing the dog's video and other data, the office staff assembling the paperwork, the discussion and vote at the board meeting, etc. To expend this kind of time and effort because a dog already ABCA registered had its registration thrown away by owners who valued it less than an AKC conformation title is pretty frustrating and wasteful of ABCA resources. I think it's reasonable to say that we're not going to do that in the very next generation.

 

At the time the de-registration policy was adopted, there were many people who wanted to portray themselves as "My dogs have it all!" breeders. They would put AKC conformation championships on their dogs, they'd get various other titles to show how versatile their dogs were, and they'd have the ABCA "title" (i.e., registration) to prove that their dogs were "real working dogs." Without any action by the registry, that looked like it might well be the future direction of the breed. IMO, letting this happen would be a disastrous course for the breed in the long run. I too wanted the ABCA to ban dual registration, but through what I consider hesitation, timidity and bungling (however understandable), that didn't happen. We have to live with that, and the price of it is high and going to get higher over time. But at the very least we need to establish that conformation breeding and working breeding are incompatible, and the choice to pursue conformation carries consequences. At the same time, I do think it's right to allow dogs from a de-registered dog’s line to turn away from a conformation standard and back to a working standard at some point if they still have the talent to do so, and I think this policy sets the line in just about the right place. It impresses on people the seriousness with which we view the dangers of conformation showing, judging and breeding, while at the same time not exiling that dog's progeny forever if they retain or regain sufficient working ability.

 

Finally, I should say that there may never be an occasion for this policy to be applied in practice. The de-registration policy does seem to have turned the tide as far as people's ambition to put conformation titles on working dogs. Seventeen ABCA dogs got AKC championships in the first year after the de-registration policy took effect, four in the second year, and only eight in the five years since then. There have been no applications for ROM for descendants of de-registered dogs other than the one referred to above who was ROM'd. ROM is itself quite rare -- I don't recall more than two dogs ever being ROM'd in a single year, and many years there are none. Given all that, and given the fact that those who look to buy pups from AKC champions are pretty likely to be oriented to the AKC world, I would be somewhat surprised if we ever again see a ROM application for a first-generation descendant of a de-registered dog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious but can there be a sticky done with the list of de-registered dogs and updated as they come along? Be a whole lot easier than having to find the thread each time

 

Why not just bookmark that thread? It does get updated whenever there's a new de-registration.

 

Also, what about the ROM dogs, is there a list other than what's put out by ABCA, a cumulative list?

 

I don't know of any list, and I wouldn't really be in favor of creating one. There may be owners of ROM dogs who want to use it as an accolade, and people who see it as an accolade, and that's fine, but as far as the registry is concerned it's not an accolade. A ROM dog is an ABCA-registered dog like any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for another detailed, well-thought-out response, Eileen.

 

I too wanted the ABCA to ban dual registration, but through what I consider hesitation, timidity and bungling (however understandable), that didn't happen. We have to live with that, and the price of it is high and going to get higher over time.

 

Why is this option no longer available to the ABCA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't buy the "didn't know any better" argument.

 

I will disagree for this reason: the "dog fancy" is so ingrained in many people, and so many people believe that a dog who does ACK herding, agility, obedience, etc demonstrates a working dog, and who have never heard of the dog war or even considered the whole idea of form vs. function that plenty of well-meaning people believe this.

 

I myself was one of those people. My dogs are all ACK registered and I have competed in performance events with all of them for many years. I have obedience and agility titles 3 seperate Border Collies - 1 ILPed back before 1994 and 2 that came to me dual registered - (and a handful of other breeds) in the last 20 years.

 

I actively dislike conformation for ALL breeds on the pretense of the chalk and hairspray and over focus on looks over health and temperment...and yet until just a couple of years ago I never considered the ramifications of the organization as a whole or the issues that arise from the breeding of dogs who don't herd.

 

I will add I am a pretty intelligent and educated person, and a dog-saavy one, involved with rescue and pet training classes for the last 20 years. It took a person explaining to me the genetics (which I knew, but hadn't applied to this situation) for me to say "oooooooooooooh" and get the issue.

 

So if my dog (who is neutered, and will never be bred, so I am talking hypothetically here), who is ACK registered and whose parents were ACK and ABCA registered then one of them got de-registered because the owner went that route, who I aquired a few years ago before I understood the issues, turned out to be a great dog and warrented a ROM because he was THAT fantastic (which he's not, btw, nor are his parents Ch.'s...I'm still being hypothetical here), the answer would be no, even if he met teh criteria.

 

 

I should note to begin with that Registration on Merit is a very unusual phenomenon, one that very few registries have. Most registries, including AKC, will not register a dog at all unless its parents are registered with that registry, or with another registry whose pedigrees that registry formally honors. The purpose of ROM is to allow unregistered working dogs, dogs whose pedigrees are often unknown, to come into our registry and become registered border collies because of their excellence as stockdogs, so that genes that otherwise could never become available to us will not be lost. It's purpose is not to enable people to throw away their ABCA registration to seek glory in the show ring, and then get it back, either for that same dog or for its pups.

 

I get that, and from that POV I see your point. However:

 

If we enable someone to advertise his dogs as both a conformation champion and ABCA-registered, we are not discouraging it -- we are encouraging it, because it gives that person a competitive advantage in selling pups over those who don't seek these titles for their dogs.

 

I'm not sure how allowing a ROM on a pup from a de-registered dog would do that. The owner of the Ch. could not advertise as ABCA registered, and the owner of the pup would not be a Ch. (or would lose his awarded ROM).

 

It's a way of impressing on people that conformation showing is a big step down a different path, and that you cannot bounce in and out of the ABCA from one generation to the next.

 

I guess I see that as detracting from your message: the best working dogs, who prove that they can do the work that the breed was meant for are the ones to be bred. If you deliver the message "except for you, because we don't like you" you are stepping away from that message.

 

In this regard, it's also important not to lose sight of the burden of the ROM process.

 

Indeed, it sounds like a huge burden.

 

It impresses on people the seriousness with which we view the dangers of conformation showing, judging and breeding, while at the same time not exiling that dog's progeny forever if they retain or regain sufficient working ability.

 

Strictly my POV, but to me it seems overly punative and kind of cutting off your nose to spite your face...especially if you have not banned dual registration dogs. It seems like there might be people who are willing to work their dogs and then verify that the dogs have talent (and, I have no doubt that there are some dogs that look "Barbie" enough to do ok in the show ring despite coming from proven working lines) and forgo that ACK world, and you snub them because of something the owners of the parents have done, yet others can own a dual registered dog who doesn't work, and because they have not yet earned a Ch. or chose to go there, they still get full ABCA registration.

 

ROM is itself quite rare -- I don't recall more than two dogs ever being ROM'd in a single year, and many years there are none. Given all that, and given the fact that those who look to buy pups from AKC champions are pretty likely to be oriented to the AKC world, I would be somewhat surprised if we ever again see a ROM application for a first-generation descendant of a de-registered dog.

 

Agreed, and this was all a hypothetical argument anyways.

 

I happen to own some dogs who ended up with me for various reasons, and whose breeders/owners of parents I did not know at all or neccessarily agree with. If one of those dogs turned into a dream working dog, I would be hurt if I were penalized because of stupid decisions other people have made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know how to link to the topic, from 2009, search for list of dogs deregistered, that is the topic. Post #31 is Eileen's. The dog in question is indeed the offspring of a deregistered dog and the other parent was granted a breed championship before deregistration began. There is at least one person who believes in their dogs and is/was persistent enough to pursue an ROM on their dog. Absolutely, no doubt, ROM is hard to do and requires major effort from the dog and the handler. The dog in question runs regularly in Open trials, qualified for and ran in Nursery Finals and in more than one Final. I don't believe they read these boards.

 

Thanks for the info, I had quoted from the same thread but I guess I wasn't looking at the page that had the posts about that particular dog, or just didn't read the right posts.

 

I'd better go back to lurking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...