Borderlines

[MyTDogs]

I agree about this. As much as the working dogs are entitled to the name Border Collie, is it worth watching working ability go down the tubes to protect the use of a name? Seems like it's more important to save the usefulness than the moniker. Heigh-ho for the Anglo-American Stock Dog, or whatever name seems good to those of you who have working dogs.

 

Thank you Geonni. It is really frustrating to see/hear everyone complaining (and I AGREE with them!) but yet we seem helpless to stop it.

 

I'll suggest we consider the path taken by the Kelpie community. We need to add something to our name to indicate the working tradition of our dogs. Perhaps the Working Border Collie or the Useful Border Collie. Something other than just lamenting the loss of these wonderful dogs.

 

Why can't we prevent dual registration? I know JRTCA deregisters any dog that registers with AKC. Perhaps allow ILP/PAL registration for performance events (agility/obedience/herding) because these dogs must be spayed/neutered. That will prevent the dual registered AKC herding "Champion" selling expensive pups to ignorant buyers.

 

I am a member of Eileen's group #3. When I got my first dog (a Border Collie rescue) in 1999 I had read of the issues but didn't really understand. By 2001 I was getting deeply into dog culture but most everyone I knew was into obedience & agility. I ILP'd my rescue dog so that I could participate with my friends in agility.

 

I'd always wanted to try herding & was directed to someone who was nearby that I could train with (a KC all breed arena trainer) and I finally got up the courage to try it. Sadly, I didn't realize how badly we'd been led astray until I was probably a year into starting my 2nd dog. However, I'd resisted registering her with AKC because I knew it was the wrong thing to do. All my friends were trialing in AKC events & it was hard to "stay home". Eventually I gave in & ILP'd her (called PAL by then) so that we could actually trial. Once we ran in AKC trials and survived , I got up the courage & found more USBCHA trials appearing so we started running in Border Collie trials.

 

I went by myself to the first trial (no one else would enter) & despite the rain had a great time (we came in 2nd place too!). Most of my friends are still running in AKC trials and some even fully registering their BC's with AKC- though they have slowly ventured out to USBCHA trials too. I don't think my experience is especially unique in this regard. Unfortunately, I think the AKC is more familiar & accessible to many people. We need to do something to bring people out & encourage people to try at BC trials.

[Eileen Stein]

I know this question has been asked and answered before but I can't remember the answer... How did the Jack Russell Terrier people win their name lawsuit and has that been attempted by the working Border Collie people? And would any court say we waited too long after becoming recognized by the AKC to fight it? I kind of think most courts would take the AKC's side in a lawsuit like that...

 

Unfortunately, and contrary to popular belief, the Jack Russell name change didn't come about through pressure from the working JRT people. Here's a brief history of the Jack Russell Terrier vs. AKC experience, first posted here quite a while ago:

 

Like the border collie, the Jack Russell Terrier was recognized by the AKC against the wishes of most JRT breeders and owners. This occurred in 1997. The JRTCA, the Jack Russell registry, had the same concerns as we do about deterioration of their breed's working ability as a result of AKC registration, and moved aggressively to protect their dogs by invoking what's called their "conflicting organizations rule." Under that rule, no one could join or continue as a member of the JRTCA who registered their JRT with the AKC. That meant that they could no longer register dogs with the JRTCA, and could not compete in or judge JRTCA trials. Dual registration was not allowed.

 

A lawsuit was filed against the JRTCA by one of its affiliate clubs, which did not wish to enforce the conflicting organization rule, and by a couple of JRT breeders who dual registered and whose JRTCA membership was cancelled because they registered with the AKC. Several of the plaintiffs' claims were thrown out before trial as being clearly without legal merit. The case went to trial on the remaining claims, and the judge ruled in favor of the JRTCA. The Court held that there was no legal basis for requiring the JRTCA to change its policy, and that it was free to continue enforcing its conflicting organization rule with respect to its members and activities under its auspices.

 

The name change of the AKC breed from Jack Russell Terrier to Parson Russell Terrier had no connection with the lawsuit. The change was proposed by the AKC parent club (then called the JRTAA, and now called the PRTAA), so that the name would be consistent with the British Kennel Club, which had come to use the name Parson Russell Terrier. Some of the other overseas Kennel Clubs (e.g. Australia, Ireland) recognize two sizes of the dogs, terming the smaller one "Jack Russell Terrier" and the taller one "Parson Russell Terrier." The breed standard of the AKC JRT specifies the taller size, so there too the name change contributed to international consistency. The AKC went along with the parent club's request. The JRTCA was delighted to see it happen, but didn't make it happen. So unfortunately this does not give rise to any hope that we could get AKC to change the name of their border collies, since neither AKC nor the BCSA wants to do so.

 

The short answer to why we can't fight AKC for the name is that there is no "we" who has legally-recognized ownership rights to the name. It has been used too long and too widely by too many individuals and groups. There may have been a time when the US border collie registries could have asserted and proven ownership rights to the name, but after 15+ years of AKC registration any such possibility is in the past.

[Laurae]

I've said it before, but I think the best chance the American working border collie has for retaining its working ability as a breed is if the ABCA would deregister any border collie registered with the AKC. Period.

[jdarling]

Cindy, the idea of banning dual registration was discussed in a thread late last year. Eileen posted:

 

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.

 

It's been quite a few years since it was last addressed. It would be interesting to throw it out there and see what it catches.

[Gloria Atwater]

I agree about this. As much as the working dogs are entitled to the name Border Collie, is it worth watching working ability go down the tubes to protect the use of a name? Seems like it's more important to save the usefulness than the moniker. Heigh-ho for the Anglo-American Stock Dog, or whatever name seems good to those of you who have working dogs.

 

 

I'll go on record as disagreeing. I have border collies. I trial border collies. I love border collies and they are my choice of dog. I'm not going to call them by any other name, simply because The Dog Fancy has decided they are free to destroy the intrinsic qualities of this breed, in the name of their arbitrary aesthetics.

 

That said, I'd be fine with adding to the name: Working Border Collies or whatevertheheckitis. Some separation is needed, at least so far as delineating the difference for the edification of John Q Public.

 

I also fall into Eileen's 3rd group. Hubby and I "had dogs" we used on ranches, but none formally trained. Then when I got my first border collie, I looked for a trainer and found an all-breed gal, who started me well and with whom I am still good friends. But the caveat was, arena trials and arena training were all I had available. There just ain't any open field trainers in northern Nevada, and at the time, it made no economical or practical sense for me to attempt a 3 or 4 hour drive, one way over the mountains, to trainers in California that I could only see once a month or so.

 

(One of life's little ironies: Nevada has more open range and possibly more flocks of sheep than most states in the union, and yet there is not one USBCHA trail here, and nobody offering lessons for them.)

 

Thus, I got my start with AHBA, ASCA and AKC trialing, because that's what I could reach. Geography and finances conspired against me. I ILP'd my two dogs of the time so I could participate in local events, and it was only later that I became aware of rumblings against the AKC and started to listen. And it was still later that I found myself in circumstances where I could make use of once-a-month trips to a California trainer.

 

My current young dogs aren't and will never be registered with AKC. However convoluted the journey, I've reached an understanding of what the AKC is about.

 

I do wonder, though, how many truly good folks are in this third group, unwittingly and innocently party to the slow degradation of our breed. How many simply don't know, because their location and circumstances place them at physical and/or societal remove from the working border collie culture? If one doesn't know to look, or know where to look ... how does one find that education? Somehow, the preservers of the working border collie need to become more visible and make their voices known.

 

~ Gloria

[Sue R]

If it were taken to a vote by ABCA membership, whether or not to have a "conflicting organizations" rule that would not allow ABCA membership and registration for those who choose to also register Border Collies with AKC, I'd vote yes. I'd like to see a line drawn in the sand, so to speak.

 

However, as it is, I think there are too many ABCA breeders whose bread and butter is producing "working-bred" pups for pet, companion, and performance homes for that to be enacted by a vote.

 

I do wonder just what proportion of ABCA-registered pups go on to real working homes, trialling homes, non-stock homes (strictly pet/companion homes), and AKC registration for the purposes of showing, performance, and AKC hobby "herding" and competition.

[Sue R]

If one doesn't know to look, or know where to look ... how does one find that education? Somehow, the preservers of the working border collie need to become more visible and make their voices known.

 

~ Gloria

I can't remember how I located this forum. It has been a huge source of information and also of making contacts with people who care about the working ability of the Border Collie. My other major source of information is those contacts I have made here and at USBCHA trials and clinics with real stockworking people, but I have to say that the vast majority of people I know are rather discreet and close-lipped in their opinions concerning individuals.

 

My education has been in fits and starts, a little bit here and a little bit there, observation and listening. But a person has to really *want* to know or they could easily be sucked into the AKC/BCSA influence, and truly believe in what those organizations stand for.

 

JMO.

[Laurae]

Sue brings up an excellent point--that because many ABCA-registered producers sell to nonworking homes, not allowing AKC registration might be perceived to cut into profits (or simply homes) for "leftover" pups. But I don't see how it would hurt them, really--I mean, the market is still there, these pups going to AKC homes just lose ABCA registration, not AKC eligibility. The ruling would just mean that the AKC homes can't have their cake and eat it, too. It would protect the working border collie from cross-contamination, and the main questions I have about it are whether there are enough working dogs to maintain genetic diversity now and in the future after placing limits on ABCA-only registered dogs and whether this would curtail border collie health study, since genetic information would be "lost" if dogs in certain lines were deregistered.

[pucksfurcoat]

"Wars are won on more than one front. Alienating potential allies is usually a counter-productive strategy." Thank You Pearse.

 

Lisa's message is not new. She has, and I'm sure will, maintain her point of view and continue to try her best to make changes she believes in. She is not alone in that effort. Not every person who owns and trials an AKC registered Border Collie is the big bad evil AKC handler some of you so love to trash. I would suggest that you get to know Lisa before you pass judgement on her based on limited knowledge - she is a lovely person who likely has more in common with most of you than you know.

 

Sonja Donaldson

[Sue R]

I know several people involved with Border Collies and AKC that are wonderful, caring, lovely people - but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they choose (or have chosen) to do with regards to AKC. In fact, I know a number of people involved with AKC whom I respect deeply, who are fabulous dog owners and trainers, and who would make me proud if they said I was their friend. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the goals and aims of AKC.

 

I think the vast majority of people here do not dislike or disrespect many or most people involved at the grassroots level of AKC/BCSA. I think the major disagreement is with the aims and goals of the organizations, those that actively support and promote choices that most members here feel are contrary to the benefit of the breed, the movers and shakers of the "sport of purebred dogs" (and by that, I mean those that promote the "advancement" of breeds via the show ring), and with those who choose to side with AKC for financial gain rather than the benefit of the breed.

 

JMO, again.

[Pearse]

I think the vast majority of people here do not dislike or disrespect many or most people involved at the grassroots level of AKC/BCSA. I think the major disagreement is with the aims and goals of the organizations, those that actively support and promote choices that most members here feel are contrary to the benefit of the breed, the movers and shakers of the "sport of purebred dogs" (and by that, I mean those that promote the "advancement" of breeds via the show ring), and with those who choose to side with AKC for financial gain rather than the benefit of the breed.

 

JMO, again.

 

Exactly. Just as in other areas in life where people hold diametrically opposed views. It is possible to discuss, debate, and argue without personalizing the issue and getting self-righteous and moralistic about it. One never wins an argument by telling the other person " my way is more pure and morally superior, and you are wrong". It's always possible to present the facts, but it's always better to win someone over by example. There's no better way to convince someone of the value of breeding Border Collies for working ability than to invite them along and let them see good dogs working stock. People who have never seen it are astounded.

 

It's one thing to say in the abstract that it's not helpful to talk about maintaining the integrity of the breed while paying dues to the AKC, and registering dogs there, knowing that a lot of they money they collect is going to promote the idea that breeding for conformation is the right thing to do. It's quite another to tear down an individual, because you don't agree with what they are doing. In doing so, one loses the chance to convince that person and who knows how many others by presenting an image of a highly judgmental clique which is not the sense of the working stockdog community that I get when I'm out among stock people.

 

The only thing that will ever destroy the working Border Collie as a breed is when there aren't any more of them needed to work livestock.

 

For the people who are calling on the ABCA instituting a ban on dual registration, let me ask you a question. If the ABCA took that step, it's entirely likely that the number of dogs registered with the ABCA every year would drop significantly. We'd lose track of those dogs. We'd lose the pedigree information, and we'd lose the revenue. This year, the ABCA will give $20,000 to local clubs and trials through their promotional fund. They'll give $16,000 in prize money to the USBCHA Sheep and Cattle Finals in prize money and an additional $10,000 in financial support to the two Finals trials. They'll also donate $30,000 in research money to fund the first phase of a scientific study of exercise-induced collapse in Border Collies. The registry took in $140,000 in registration and trasfer fees and returned $76,000 to the working dog community. The rest went to running the registry. The only gain was $20,000 investment income, which was reinvested. A lot of that funding would disappear if the number of registrations dropped by half, which is not an unreasonable guess in my opinion once we started excluding AKC members and dual registered dogs.

 

Is banning dual registration of enough concern to enough people, or put another way, do enough people feel that it is a dual registration is a big enough threat to the working Border Collie that it should be prohibited, even if it meant that most of the money paid back to the trialing community disappeared?

 

Because, that's pretty much the question in a nutshell as I see it.

[MyTDogs]

Sue brings up an excellent point--that because many ABCA-registered producers sell to nonworking homes, not allowing AKC registration might be perceived to cut into profits (or simply homes) for "leftover" pups. But I don't see how it would hurt them, really--I mean, the market is still there, these pups going to AKC homes just lose ABCA registration, not AKC eligibility. The ruling would just mean that the AKC homes can't have their cake and eat it, too. It would protect the working border collie from cross-contamination, and the main questions I have about it are whether there are enough working dogs to maintain genetic diversity now and in the future after placing limits on ABCA-only registered dogs and whether this would curtail border collie health study, since genetic information would be "lost" if dogs in certain lines were deregistered.

 

 

Yes, I don't think it would hurt them either. They are not registering with AKC. If a puppy buyer goes to AKC then they won't be able to retain ABCA registration (or register pups)...much like the conformation CH DQ now. I think the PAL (registration of altered dogs for sports activities like agility or herding) should be permitted so that people that will not breed their dogs can continue to participate in whatever venue is best for them due to location, etc...

 

There could be a moratorium on new dual registrations with a period of time to allow those with dual registered dogs to remove the AKC registration (or alter their dogs).

 

Would ABCA know if dogs are dual registered? It would be helpful to know the numbers of dogs registered with both AKC & ABCA to know if the population would be harmed by eliminating AKC dogs from the gene pool. It seems like the AKC pool is still pretty small because otherwise the AKC would close the books, right??

 

Just thinking out loud....hopefully we can do something.

[Eileen Stein]

Lisa's message is not new. She has, and I'm sure will, maintain her point of view and continue to try her best to make changes she believes in. She is not alone in that effort. Not every person who owns and trials an AKC registered Border Collie is the big bad evil AKC handler some of you so love to trash. I would suggest that you get to know Lisa before you pass judgement on her based on limited knowledge - she is a lovely person who likely has more in common with most of you than you know.

 

I have no reason to doubt that she's a lovely person. I never said she wasn't. I'd probably find her very likable personally if I knew her. My only objection to her is this: she sees what the AKC/BCSA is doing to their Border Collies, and she continues in that camp, giving them aid and comfort. My knowledge of her in that respect is not limited; it's based on what she herself wrote.

 

What good does it do the breed if she says she wishes agility handlers would not breed for speed, or conformation handlers would not gait their dogs so fast in the breed ring? None at all; she is complicit in a system which rewards those things. What could do some good is if someone of her stature said, "This is wrong, and I won't be a part of it any more." If she did that, she would join my pantheon of heroes. If she doesn't do that, I don't see how the breed is any better off for her awareness of what is "correct" and what isn't. What good are "allies" who see the truth but won't act on it?

[MyTDogs]

For the people who are calling on the ABCA instituting a ban on dual registration, let me ask you a question. If the ABCA took that step, it's entirely likely that the number of dogs registered with the ABCA every year would drop significantly. We'd lose track of those dogs. We'd lose the pedigree information, and we'd lose the revenue. This year, the ABCA will give $20,000 to local clubs and trials through their promotional fund. They'll give $16,000 in prize money to the USBCHA Sheep and Cattle Finals in prize money and an additional $10,000 in financial support to the two Finals trials. They'll also donate $30,000 in research money to fund the first phase of a scientific study of exercise-induced collapse in Border Collies. The registry took in $140,000 in registration and trasfer fees and returned $76,000 to the working dog community. The rest went to running the registry. The only gain was $20,000 investment income, which was reinvested. A lot of that funding would disappear if the number of registrations dropped by half, which is not an unreasonable guess in my opinion once we started excluding AKC members and dual registered dogs.

 

Is banning dual registration of enough concern to enough people, or put another way, do enough people feel that it is a dual registration is a big enough threat to the working Border Collie that it should be prohibited, even if it meant that most of the money paid back to the trialing community disappeared?

 

Because, that's pretty much the question in a nutshell as I see it.

 

Pearse,

 

You are obviously much more knowledgeable than I am about this since I do not know the numbers. Do you really think that over half the ABCA registered dogs are AKC also? That would surprise me because the AKC couldn't close their books because of lack of dogs (or so I was led to believe).

 

Where does ABCA money come from? Litter registrations? Membership dues? It seems like ABCA breeders will still register the litter (so ABCA will retain that income). Of the dogs that are lost to AKC (and then subsequently bred) how many continue to dual register the pups? For what reason? I have never been asked to produce papers (or registration #) for my dog to trial at a USBCHA trial (AKC requires them). So I'd guess that the dual registration must provide a sales advantage. If ABCA were to eliminate the advantage then perhaps there would be less mingling of the dogs.

 

Would calling our dogs Working Border Collies prevent posers from co-opting it? Could AKC then change their name as well? Could it be trademarked?

 

Many questions...not enough answers.

[Eileen Stein]

It's one thing to say in the abstract that it's not helpful to talk about maintaining the integrity of the breed while paying dues to the AKC, and registering dogs there, knowing that a lot of they money they collect is going to promote the idea that breeding for conformation is the right thing to do. It's quite another to tear down an individual, because you don't agree with what they are doing. In doing so, one loses the chance to convince that person and who knows how many others by presenting an image of a highly judgmental clique which is not the sense of the working stockdog community that I get when I'm out among stock people.

 

I am no more "tearing down an individual" here than you are when you use words like "self-righteous," "moralistic," and "judgmental" about me and others. I think you're wrong in what you're saying -- I think this is an ethical issue and a very important one, and I think it's important to let people know that, IMO at least, it's not okay to act in a way that harms the breed as long as you publicly deplore the harm -- but I don't take offense. You're just stating your position; I'm not convinced by it. I'm not plucking Lisa Pruka out of nowhere as an individual to trash; she is the president of the BCSA and published an article I consider worthy of comment. You're not plucking me out of nowhere as an individual to trash; I'm a fellow member of the Boards, and I said some things you disapprove of and take issue with.

 

As far as "los[ing] the chance to convince that person" -- well, if she's not convinced by what she already sees, recognizes and publicly deplores, she's not going to be convinced by sweet talk from a stranger. Or at least, she's no more likely to be convinced by sweet talk from a stranger than by straight talk from a stranger.

 

The only thing that will ever destroy the working Border Collie as a breed is when there aren't any more of them needed to work livestock.

 

If only that were true. It sounds good, but I think you know better.

 

As for your statistics, I don't know how many border collies the AKC registered in the last three years, but they averaged about 2,000/year between 2000 and 2007. ABCA registrations averaged 19-20,000 per year during the same period. So given that an unknown but significant number of those dogs registered with the AKC were not even registered with the ABCA, your estimate that ABCA registrations would drop by half if we excluded dual registered dogs seems wildly, wildly out of line.

 

I think dual registration is a huge threat to the border collie. If it were up to me I would force a choice, regardless of the short-term financial cost. We are much worse off now than if we had forced a choice in the beginning. I don't mind losing track of the dogs whose owners choose AKC over ABCA, and I don't mind losing their pedigree information. Trialing can get along with the financial support of its participants, and with the support generated by the registration of working-bred dogs. And I would much rather take a short term hit than see the revenues bleed away year after year, as AKC hegemony grows and the border collie loses its identity. I would vote to ban dual registration without hesitation. But back in 2003 I argued as strongly as I could that this was our last chance to ban dual registration, and I meant it. It didn't happen then, and I don't think the will exists to make it happen now.

 

Which makes it all the more important, I think, to take every other opportunity we have to forcefully speak the truth about the breed, and what is helpful and harmful to it.

[Laurae]

I know several people involved with Border Collies and AKC that are wonderful, caring, lovely people - but that doesn't mean I have to agree with what they choose (or have chosen) to do with regards to AKC. In fact, I know a number of people involved with AKC whom I respect deeply, who are fabulous dog owners and trainers, and who would make me proud if they said I was their friend. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with the goals and aims of AKC.

 

I think the vast majority of people here do not dislike or disrespect many or most people involved at the grassroots level of AKC/BCSA. I think the major disagreement is with the aims and goals of the organizations, those that actively support and promote choices that most members here feel are contrary to the benefit of the breed, the movers and shakers of the "sport of purebred dogs" (and by that, I mean those that promote the "advancement" of breeds via the show ring), and with those who choose to side with AKC for financial gain rather than the benefit of the breed.

 

JMO, again.

 

Absolutely!

 

But sitting by and wringing our hands is not going to do anything to change the current course of events.

 

ETA: Sue, I know that's not what you're advocating here.

[jdarling]

December 2010 BCSA Minutes - "In spite of record low herding entries, we had about $7000 in profit...."

 

Also ... the new BCSA President ... Art Sorkin.

 

 

[border_collie_crazy]

I like this from the minutes posted above:

Received a complaint that herding titles are a required component of the BCSA versatility awards

[Pippin's person]

(ETA: snip) Given the incoming president's background and experience, I would wager that the outgoing president's comments are not likely to be heeded particularly seriously within the BCSA (though I guess there is supposed to be some comfort to be had in the fact that the incoming president has "done some herding with Pulis"......). I can see why Lisa felt compelled to make the comments she did.

 

Pitiful state of affairs and I agree that addressing the issue of dual registration may be one of the few possibilities for taking a stand against what is going on.

[Pearse]

I am no more "tearing down an individual" here than you are when you use words like "self-righteous," "moralistic," and "judgmental" about me and others.

 

I wasn't referring to you

 

I think you're wrong in what you're saying -- I think this is an ethical issue and a very important one, and I think it's important to let people know that, IMO at least, it's not okay to act in a way that harms the breed as long as you publicly deplore the harm -- but I don't take offense. You're just stating your position; I'm not convinced by it. I'm not plucking Lisa Pruka out of nowhere as an individual to trash; she is the president of the BCSA and published an article I consider worthy of comment. You're not plucking me out of nowhere as an individual to trash; I'm a fellow member of the Boards, and I said some things you disapprove of and take issue with.

 

I wasn't "trashing" you or anyone else Eileen. Exactly the opposite. I was expressing an opinion that it is possible to discuss issues like this WITHOUT making them personal and "trashing" anyone. I don't disagree that it's an ethical issue, and I don't have a problem saying so when discussing the issue with AKC people.

 

I didn't even have a problem with someone posting the article and disagreeing with the author's point of view, since it was a published article with a byline. I do have a problem with people extrapolating from that and inferring the author's motives. In absence of evidence to the contrary, I reckon you have to take her stated position at face value. More so, digging around to post her trial results or lack thereof as "evidence" that her stated positions are weak ones. If our trial results are going to be the yardstick by which our opinions are judged here, it's going to be an awfully quiet forum.

 

Basically, I'm going to stick up for someone who is a neighbor (relatively speaking), a member of the club I'm the current president of, and a decent person whether I agree with her position or not.

 

 

As far as "los[ing] the chance to convince that person" -- well, if she's not convinced by what she already sees, recognizes and publicly deplores, she's not going to be convinced by sweet talk from a stranger. Or at least, she's no more likely to be convinced by sweet talk from a stranger than by straight talk from a stranger.

 

If only that were true. It sounds good, but I think you know better.

 

Talk by itself rarely convinces anyone, especially anyone who already holds a strong opinion. The best talk can do, if the person is rational and reasonable, is to convince them to take a look at the other side. What they see and experience will either reinforce their preconceived idea, or open their eyes to another way. If their first impression is that they will be shunned or subjected to ridicule for the positions they held in the past, they aren't going to look any further.

 

As for your statistics, I don't know how many border collies the AKC registered in the last three years, but they averaged about 2,000/year between 2000 and 2007. ABCA registrations averaged 19-20,000 per year during the same period. So given that an unknown but significant number of those dogs registered with the AKC were not registered with the ABCA, your estimate that ABCA registrations would drop by half if we excluded dual registered dogs seems wildly, wildly out of line.

 

Perhaps, but what I was positing was a worst case scenario, and asking people if it came to that could they support it. I figured that's a prudent place to start. Maybe we only lose 10%. If that were the most likely scenario, I'm not sure why we haven't done it already. I'm not sure how one would determine which was most likely or more likely.

 

I think dual registration is a huge threat to the border collie.

 

If it were up to me I would force a choice, regardless of the short-term financial cost. We are much worse off now than if we had forced a choice in the beginning. I don't mind losing track of the dogs whose owners choose AKC over ABCA, and I don't mind losing their pedigree information. Trialing can get along with the financial support of its participants, and with the support generated by the registration of working-bred dogs. And I would much rather take a short term hit than see the revenues bleed away year after year, as AKC hegemony grows and the border collie loses its identity. I would vote to ban dual registration without hesitation. But back in 2003 I argued as strongly as I could that this was our last chance to ban dual registration, and I meant it. It didn't happen then, and I don't think the will exists to make it happen now.

 

Any member could "force" a choice. All they'd have to do is propose a ByLaws change and bring it to a vote at a general meeting. It's the convincing enough members whose bread and butter comes from selling dual registered dogs, training AKC dogs, hosting AKC trials, running in AKC trials, that it's in their best interest to support such a motion and to show up and vote on it that's the hard part as you well know from having tried it in the past.

 

Which makes it all the more important, I think, to take every other opportunity we have to forcefully speak the truth about the breed, and what is helpful and harmful to it.

 

 

Agree completely. Perhaps we haven't spelled it out clearly enough for people exactly why dual-registration is a threat. That might be something to work on in order to build a consensus that the status quo isn't going to work in the long run.

[geonni banner]

The only thing that will ever destroy the working Border Collie as a breed is when there aren't any more of them needed to work livestock.

 

I wish this were true, but I can't believe it. I don't have figures to quote, but it seems to me that the number of sheep in this country, (let alone others - we don't even figure in the top ten nations of sheep production, according to Wikipedia) is holding steady, if not increasing slightly. But the number of quality working Border Collies does not appear to be.

 

A quick look at the AKC's list of herding breeds will show dozens of once-useful breeds. It seems that very few of the so-called herding breeds registered by the AKC have even the faintest clue of how to work stock.

 

Does the Shetland Sheepdog earn it's living working sheep? The Old English Sheepdog? The Collie?

 

Even the AKC Border Collie... These breeds got recognized by the AKC for several reasons, but promoting working dogs was not one of them. The Golden Retriever was seen much less often in the hunting field than the Lab in the 1960's, but the percentage of Goldens used for hunting vs "just pets" was much, much higher than it is now. Somebody must have noticed that they were pretty. So they got snob-appeal. The AKC just loves snob-appeal. All that long golden fur looks mighty flashy under the lights at Westminster. So much for the handy little field dog... Oh, yeah there still are a few - but compared to the show/sport/pet dogs?

 

Not so many decades ago hardly anybody had Border Collies except people who actually used them for what they were bred for. Then somebody thought up Agility. Border Collies were found to be very good at it. Better than SHELTIES! Faster, smarter, handier. There were two kinds of dogs that did/do agility - Border Collies and everything else. More snob appeal. Nyah-nyah, my Border Collie can do a clean round while your GSD is getting warmed up.

 

Sorry, agility folk, I have nothing against you or your sport, but you know it's true. Then somebody thought up flyball. Oh, and disc dogs became Yuppie-chic too.

 

What does all this leaping in the air and over things, or charging around with a tennis ball gripped in their jaws have to do with stockwork? Well, nothing. But by their own admission, many breeders of top-quality stock dogs are using their studs on performance dog bitches.

 

If you listen closely you can hear the sound of stock-sense and herding ability trickling down the drain. How many Shetland Sheepdogs does it take to win the Nationals? Let's defer that question another twenty years with the Border Collie in the hands of the AKC.

[jdarling]

More so, digging around to post her trial results or lack thereof as "evidence" that her stated positions are weak ones.

 

Since it was me that did this, I will address it. First off, let me just say I don't know Lisa from the man in the moon. I'm sure she's a great person, by what everyone says about her. No one is claiming any differently. The position she held was a controversial one, and I'm sure she knew that.

 

I don't think pulling up trial results are weak. The BCSA is the parent club that the AKC relies on. Lisa was president of that club. For her to say (in her parting message), "we need to remember that the Border Collie should excel at open field work -- the B Course -- not the arena..." yet not have the "B" course titles to back that up ... is weak. What's even weaker is that the BCSA obviously doesn't require the president to be running in the highest levels of their own herding program as a qualification to be president. Even a herding judge has to have some sort of titling, I'm sure.

 

ETA: But good on her having the hootzpah for putting this out there. I commend her for it, and hope she does well in her future endeavors.

[Grizel]

If it were taken to a vote by ABCA membership, whether or not to have a "conflicting organizations" rule that would not allow ABCA membership and registration for those who choose to also register Border Collies with AKC, I'd vote yes. I'd like to see a line drawn in the sand, so to speak.

 

 

As someone who owns a dual-registered dog for performance purposes, I like this idea. When I got an older puppy, the breeder asked me to get my dog neutered before he was registered with the AKC. That also made sense to me. Anyone who seeks out an ABCA-registered dog should understand the reasons for it.

 

However, the AKC and ABCA dogs already seem to have a healthy split, at least in my area. Most conformation people want nothing to do with working-bred dogs from any registry, and it is rare to see a working bred dog in obedience anymore. I am not as familiar with agility, but I would guess that many of the dual-registered dogs there were purchased on the basis of their herding ability by knowledgeable owners. There may be some cross-breeding by the agility people, but I don't hear of that very often anymore. They seem to have settled into their own separate AKC-oriented sport lines.

 

I think some of the misgivings expressed by the BCSA people go back to the fact that working-bred border collies have never been truly competitive in the breed ring. Some people seem to have hoped once upon a time that emphasizing working conformation would help correct some of the problems that so many AKC breeds have. It was kind of a Quixotic thing that never stood a chance.

 

Registration numbers can be deceiving, but I think the AKC registers between 120-150 border collies a month. It's not one of the more numerous breeds.

 

I agree about this. As much as the working dogs are entitled to the name Border Collie, is it worth watching working ability go down the tubes to protect the use of a name? Seems like it's more important to save the usefulness than the moniker. Heigh-ho for the Anglo-American Stock Dog, or whatever name seems good to those of you who have working dogs.

 

If you did this, the AKC would develop an Anglo-American Stock Dog breed within the next 15 years! And it would be totally separate from the AKC Border Collie. It would also make the AKC conformation people very happy.

[geonni banner]

The short answer to why we can't fight AKC for the name is that there is no "we" who has legally-recognized ownership rights to the name. It has been used too long and too widely by too many individuals and groups. There may have been a time when the US border collie registries could have asserted and proven ownership rights to the name, but after 15+ years of AKC registration any such possibility is in the past.

 

This is probably a moot point, since some working Border Collie people have indicated that they reject the notion of a new name for working Border Collies, but...

If a new name was chosen, then that would be the time to assert ownership of the name to prevent the AKC (or anyone else) from using it.

 

I don't understand how this would make AKC conformation people happy, especially if there was a tiered registration system in place to insure that only dogs with demonstrated working ability could have their offspring registered.

 

The Welsh Corgi used to be one breed with two varieties - Cardigan and Pembroke - why not Border Collies and Border Collie Stock Dogs?

[Grizel]

I don't understand how this would make AKC conformation people happy, especially if there was a tiered registration system in place to insure that only dogs with demonstrated working ability could have their offspring registered.

 

I've heard conformation people comment that they would be perfectly happy if the working people renamed their breed, and they got to retain "border collie" for their dogs.

 

I don't know of any registry that has (or plans to have)that type of tiered registration system at this point in time. I've heard of registries in the past that had various types of working tests that needed to be pasted for registration to occur. Usually, they were dealing with small numbers of dogs. It is a very interesting concept, though. It makes me wonder if there's a different 21st Century technology we could use to attempt such a thing.