Jump to content
BC Boards

Regestration question


Recommended Posts

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).

 

Where is that policy stated?

 

Pearse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this option no longer available to the ABCA?

 

Well, theoretically it's still available, but as a practical matter I think it's too late. It's a long story, but no action was taken in the beginning because the AKC said they were going to close their studbook in three years, which would have taken care of the problem. But after those three years they extended it another three years, and at the end of that time they extended it another five years. After those five years they decided, in effect, to leave it open forever. All along the way, the will to ban dual registration lagged a little bit behind the inclination to do nothing and hope for the best. With every passing year it became harder and harder to do, because dual registration became more and more prevalent. Nobody was sure how much of the membership favored it, how much opposed it, and how much didn't care. The whole question of what to do about AKC became a sorer and more depressing subject the more it was debated, and the willingness to come to grips with it diminished. The last time it was seriously debated, long and contentiously and inconclusively, was in 2003. I don't think anyone has the heart to revisit it, but I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

 

That part of my response was directed to de-registering the champion dog and not allowing that dog itself to be ROM'd back in.

 

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.

 

The same thing could be (and has been) said about de-registering conformation champions, and not allowing them to ROM back in. I've tried to explain the purpose as I see it. I don't see it as detracting from our message, but as constituting a very small and limited exception to the general rule, made for good reason. But if you perceive it as being done "because we don't like you," then I've failed to explain it adequately, and I'm not sure I can do better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That part of my response was directed to de-registering the champion dog and not allowing that dog itself to be ROM'd back in.

 

 

 

The same thing could be (and has been) said about de-registering conformation champions, and not allowing them to ROM back in. I've tried to explain the purpose as I see it. I don't see it as detracting from our message, but as constituting a very small and limited exception to the general rule, made for good reason. But if you perceive it as being done "because we don't like you," then I've failed to explain it adequately, and I'm not sure I can do better.

 

FWIW: To me, It didn't come off as "Because we don't don't like you." It was more like "Because we aren't sure we can trust you, because we're clearly not on the same page here."

It's hard to see a talented dog "shut out," as it were, but people must be made to feel/see that there are consequences for actions that, over time could threaten the breed's most important attributes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how a talented dog would be "shut out".

If Spot is unable to be registered because one of his parents was an ACK champion and de-registered, Spot could...

Still be trained as a sheepdog.

Still enter USBCHA trials.

If handled by a USBCHA member, collect points towards the Nationals

If good enough, trial at the Nationals

If really good enough, be bred and the resulting offspring could be ROM'ed.

 

The only thing Spot cannot do is be ABCA registered. Spot does not care about that, only Spot's owner does.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had an awesome dream dog that was "shut out" of ABCA, I would thank God that I had a useful dog that could easily move my rams through the woods to the ram pen at the end of tupping, keep pregnant sheep from trampling me into the mud in a one acre lot, and graze three month old lambs ten yards from my neighbor's unfenced deer corn, which he monitors with a camera pointed at OUR pasture because he hates our sheep and is convinced we run the deer off. :P

 

My registered grownup dogs do this but I've learned just how tough all these jobs are, and how much easier they'd be with a super duper awesome herding dog like those AKC deregistered ROM prospects we are talking about.

 

Seriously, the focus on the registry and papers at the expense of what the dogs actually do, seems like exactly the sort of kennel club mentality that the ABCA wants to stay away from, isn't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously, the focus on the registry and papers at the expense of what the dogs actually do, seems like exactly the sort of kennel club mentality that the ABCA wants to stay away from, isn't it?

 

This is IMO one of the best and most concise arguments against the position, this time put forth by rushdoggie, that always comes up in these threads: "but isn't it unfair to the dog/owner to not allow ROMing in (of deregistered Ch or their offspring)?"

 

Srsly, as long as it's working the dog certainly doesn't care, and if the owner cares that much but yet bought the ACK-registered pup in the first place that says something too.

 

Eileen, I always learn so much from your responses to these threads, and thank you for your excellent explanations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is IMO one of the best and most concise arguments against the position, this time put forth by rushdoggie, that always comes up in these threads: "but isn't it unfair to the dog/owner to not allow ROMing in (of deregistered Ch or their offspring)?"

 

Srsly, as long as it's working the dog certainly doesn't care, and if the owner cares that much but yet bought the ACK-registered pup in the first place that says something too.

 

Eileen, I always learn so much from your responses to these threads, and thank you for your excellent explanations.

 

Valid points, all. I do come from a non-working background, so the idea of being able to register initially pops up as a "big important thing" even though its really not, particularly. You are absolutely right that the ability to register is really not all that important.

 

In my defense :), I do still stand with the "spirit" of my argument that if the ABCAs goal is to encourage and reward superior working dogs, denying the offspring of a de-registered dog the ability to ROM if they have a superior working dog, detracts from that message. I get why you de-register dogs, and I get why you can't ROM a de-registered dog back in. That totally aligns with the message that I hear from Eileen et al.

 

BUT, dogs get bought and sold, dogs end up being re-homed, etc. Saying that an offspring, whose owners may not have had anything to do with a parent dog being shown in conformation are ineligible due to the idea that ABCA stands against conformation showing and wants to focus solely on working ability seems wrong to me. ROM *is* focusing on working ability.

 

Eileen says:

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.

 

That's assuming that a person who buys a dog or a pup starts out being interested in herding, that they understand the argument and that the person why buys the puppy ends up the final owner of that dog. Many people who I know who are interested or developing an interest only did so after the had a BC for a while. And again, dogs get re-homed. I own a re-homed AKC registered dog with ABCA/AKC registered parents in his pedigree. I have never met his breeder or either of his parent dogs. I have no idea if one has a Ch. If they did, and he was a superior herding dog, he would be ineligible.

 

That's all I am saying. But what do I know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I own a re-homed AKC registered dog with ABCA/AKC registered parents in his pedigree. I have never met his breeder or either of his parent dogs. I have no idea if one has a Ch. If they did, and he was a superior herding dog, he would be ineligible.

 

Ineligible for what? Producing ABCA registerable pups? I will suggest that if one wants to breed Border collies then one should start with a well bred foundation from a reputable breeder who has promised (verbally or in a contract even) to ensure that the parents of said foundation dog do not end up AKC Champs. As I noted before, I think most conformation dogs are campaigned early in life, before they're ever bred.

 

If one doesn't want to breed then why does it matter if the dog is deregistered?

 

Still not understanding...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ineligible for what? Producing ABCA registerable pups? I will suggest that if one wants to breed Border collies then one should start with a well bred foundation from a reputable breeder who has promised (verbally or in a contract even) to ensure that the parents of said foundation dog do not end up AKC Champs. As I noted before, I think most conformation dogs are campaigned early in life, before they're ever bred.

 

If one doesn't want to breed then why does it matter if the dog is deregistered?

 

Still not understanding...

 

Yes, ineligible to be ROM, so should he happened to be an outstanding herding dog his pups would be ABCA register-able. He is only one generation AKC registered, so in my hypothetical situation (because he is in fact, neutered and has not demonstrated that he is an outstanding sheepdog) he may have in fact come from a line of great sheepdogs (he came from a "herding" kennel, who also sold to agility homes occasionally so they AKC-ed their dogs as well). In my hypothetical situation, I didn't start out planning on breeding, I just happened to get this great dog. I'm arguing semantics here.

 

If he is not being bred, it doesn't matter.

 

But of the argument is that dogs who demonstrate outstanding talent for working stock are the dogs we want being bred, and that these are the dogs that ABCA wants registered, then excluding him based on what the owners of his parents did seems that is goes against that argument.

 

As was stated earlier, the likelihood of this happening is pretty darn small. You are absolutely correct that most people who campaign dogs to get a Ch. start before that dog is bred. I happen to know 2 different people who decided to enter their dogs in conformation later in life on whim, and one actually did very well and got a Ch. She has never been bred, and won't be, her owner thought conformation showing was fun and that her dog was pretty and enjoyed it as a fun thing.

 

It could happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe that if an unregisterable dog is that amazing and worthy of being included in the working gene pool, then you could breed the dog, sell unregistered puppies, and somewhere down the line, if that original dog is prepotent, then offspring can be ROMed back in, correct? ETA:Having gone back and read Eileen's comments, it looks like the only dog that can't be ROMed is a dog with a conformation champion itself, so even if you unknowingly buy a dog with a conformation champion you could breed it and the best offspring could be ROMed back in. So like MyTDogs, I'm not quite understanding what the real issue is.

 

The way I see it, if you have a dog to beat all working dogs who can't be registered on the technicality of having a conformation championship, there's actually NOTHING to stop the dog from being bred. If the dog is that good and is bred to a bitch that's that good, there will be people who would buy an unregistered pup. Because it *is* about the work. And if those unregistered pups turn out to be as great as their unregisterable sire, *they* can be ROMed. The pups' buyers would have to have enough faith in the deregistered dog to take a chance on its offspring being good enough to be ROMed back in. So I just don't see it as that big of a deal. As Becca says, it should be about the work and not the papers.

 

Frankly if I found a dog that I thought was amazing and knew one parent was a conformation champion (and that the current owner did not deliberately put that CH on the dog**), it wouldn't necessarily deter me from getting a pup. And I know for a fact that there are breeders out there who deliberately don't register pups they sell so that the new owners don't go all BYB on them: Since so many people place so much importance on papers, selling dogs without papers in effect restricts the breeding of those dogs, which isn't such a bad idea. (**The caveat here is that I have no wish to support AKC conformation showing, so if you as the owner dual-registered your dog and showed it to its championship, perhaps blissfully unaware that your registration with ABCA would be revoked, then I probably wouldn't buy a pup simply on principle.)

 

As you note, we're not likely talking about scads of dogs being ineligible for registration based on a conformation champion. And honestly, if you (the generic you) bought a dog and were unaware enough of the issues regarding AKC to have bought a conformation champion, then I would guess you don't really have the experience to be breeding litters anyway. And I'll reiterate: If you don't have that experience, but all sorts of big hats are coming up to you saying "You should breed that dog," then I suspect the pups would sell.

 

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

]Having gone back and read Eileen's comments, it looks like the only dog that can't be ROMed is a dog with a conformation champion itself, so even if you unknowingly buy a dog with a conformation champion you could breed it and the best offspring could be ROMed back in. So like MyTDogs, I'm not quite understanding what the real issue is.

 

I understood that a de-registered dogs pups were not eligible for ROM. Maybe I read it wrong.

 

 

And if those unregistered pups turn out to be as great as their unregisterable sire, *they* can be ROMed. The pups' buyers would have to have enough faith in the deregistered dog to take a chance on its offspring being good enough to be ROMed back in. So I just don't see it as that big of a deal.

 

Its probably not.

 

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the two relevant quotes from Eileen.

 

The first:

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.

 

Was followed by this:

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).

 

So I'm taking the latter to be the most current status. When I wrote my previous post, I somehow missed Eileen's second quote above.

 

But what it means, essentially, is that if the deregistered conformation champion is a great working dog and is prepotent enough to pass those great working qualites onto its offspring, who in turn pass those great working qualities on to *their* offspring, then that second generation can be ROMed back in.

 

So the pups of the conformation champion can't be ROMed, but if they're as great as their parent and can reproduce themselves, then those genetics can get back into the registry--it just takes the dog being able to pass his great working qualities down two generations. So, if you accidentally buy a conformation champion who sets the working world in fire, go ahead and breed it. Keep a pup or two for yourself and train them up. If the dog was that good (as I said before), others will buy pups too. But if you keep a couple and train them up and they prove to be as good as the parent, then you can breed them, keep a pup or two to train up and if those pups are good enough, you can ROM them back in. You just have to have faith that the genetics of the conformation champion are good enough to breed from, and that the offspring are also worthy of breeding. The genetics can come back into the registry, but someone is going to have to put in time and effort (and make some seriously good breeding choices) to make it happen. And I don't see anything wrong with that. (Because, as I noted in my previous post, if you're not experienced enough to know about the issues with AKC and unwittingly buy a conformation champion or even knowingly buy one and get into stockdog trialing later, *someone* is likely to point out to you the issues surrounding a conformation champion before you get too far. And then at the point, you know what you're up against with regard to breeding your conformation champion and the registerability of its offspring.)

 

J.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But of the argument is that dogs who demonstrate outstanding talent for working stock are the dogs we want being bred, and that these are the dogs that ABCA wants registered, then excluding him based on what the owners of his parents did seems that is goes against that argument.

 

As was stated earlier, the likelihood of this happening is pretty darn small.

 

Yes but while it COULD happen, and in certain cases COULD keep a fantastic dog out of the ABCA working genepool until grandpups are registered, is that this scenario that "could happen" is such a rare occurrence that any "con" to this situation has more to do with that individual dog, and that individual owner, than the breed itself. And the rule regarding ROM and CH. is not really about individual dogs, it is there to protect the genetics of the breed. Again I posit the dog will not feel any "unfairness", and if the owner so badly wants to breed ABCA registered pups, however they came to get the dog, well, they will have to wait until generation 3 (and like Julie is pointing out, if the dog is actually proven to be THAT good, it should be no problem), OR they should make a wiser purchasing choice next time for their breeding stock. Again, ISTM the rule is about keeping conformation breeding from becoming, on a population level, a major impetus for breeding pups. You are right that the ROM exists to allow fantastic working genetics into the registry. But still, the benefits of that very rare occurrence probably do not outweigh the benefits of having this clear, general deterrent to breeders to breed for those Ch. characteristics, OR to cross with lines that do.

 

You keep arguing "IF my dog turned out to be great" - but that takes SO much effort and time to show that to be the case. Unlike conformation breeding, it isn't like your dog is going to just have this gift right there at the surface for anyone to "see". IF you got your dog there, I imagine that you would 1) just be so proud of your dog that these registry questions wouldn't be as much of an issue, and 2) you might feel differently about what you next pup's breeding should be, kwim? Know I am rambling badly :), hope this made some sort of sense.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...