Alphabet mix - ABCA, AIBC, NASD, AKC

[Brian Monkman]

Could someone explain to me the *real* differences between the American Border Collie Association (ABCA), the American International Border Collie (AIBC), and the North American Sheepdog Society (NASD)?

 

Additionally - and I sure hope no one interprets this as flame bait - why do people feel that registering a BC with the AKC isn't useful or complimentary to a registration with one of the above? Or am I misinterpreting things here?

 

And as an FYI - I used to own briards which are also working dogs (as most of you will know) and this didn't ever seem to be an issue within that community. So I am truly perplexed.

 

Brian

[SoloRiver]

Regarding the AKC, you might start reading here:

 

http://www.bordercollie.org/akc.html

http://www.americanbordercollie.org/AKC2.htm

 

The AKC imposes a standard (appearance-based) that is antithetical to the preservation of the working Border Collie. What it boils down to is how we define "breed type" for this breed. If you have read Coppinger you will be familiar with the concept of behavioral conformation. "Type" in this breed has nothing to do with appearance and everything to do with behavior. AKC breeders of "working" breeds have historically emphasized a conformation-based definition of "type" at the expense of breed-specific behavior. If this were not true, there would be no working/show splits in any breeds.

 

The AKC paradigm provides no infrastructure for the appropriate evaluation and selection of breeding animals according to a true working standard. The AKC's "herding" program does not appropriately evaluate working ability in this breed. For example, at the USBCHA national finals, the outrun may be as long as half a mile. Meanwhile, AKC friends tell me that the only time they have ever seen an outrun longer than 100 yards in an AKC trial was at the BCSA Specialty, and that outrun was maybe 300 yards, I believe. In AKC trials, in classes where there is an outrun at all (most classes are small pen/arena classes that don't really have an outrun to speak of) normally it is much shorter even than 100 yards. 100 yards is what Novice-Novice (i.e., very beginner) dogs do in USBCHA trials. And yet, a dog can get an AKC "herding championship" never having done an outrun of greater than 100 yards -- for that matter, never having worked in an open field, and never having worked stock other than ducks. I am not trying to say that it's only about outruns, just using this as an example of how the programs are different. The AKC "herding" program is not a realistic test of working ability.

 

The AKC paradigm selects breeding animals primarily on the basis of what is seen in the show ring, with everything else (working, performance) evaluated secondarily, if at all. Working ability cannot be evaluated in a show ring.

 

The Border Collie is a breed that is unremarkable in terms of appearance and extraordinary in terms of behavior. Some AKC breeders feel they will "improve" the breed by producing dogs that are a compromise between these criteria (although many, if not most, do not really consider working ability at all -- performance in agility and obedience do not count as "work"). Many of us here feel that such compromise will fundamentally change the dogs so that they are no longer recognizable as this breed (they will have lost essential Border Collie "type"). For those of us who enjoy these dogs primarily as companions, this would be a tragedy because most of us chose these dogs for their behavioral characteristics, and not their appearance (which along with being rustic is quite variable). For those livestock farmers who rely on these dogs to maintain their way of life, the tragedy would be of a depth that I, as a pet owner (I do work my dogs, but it is a hobby, not how I make my living) cannot truly comprehend, but empathize with.

 

I've met a few Briards and I think they are very nice dogs. But I do not consider them working dogs, and I think as you get to know Border Collies better, your definition of "working dog" may change as well. I hope you are not offended by this statement. Border Collies are very special dogs.

[Brian Monkman]

Melanie - thank a lot for the detailed response - very informative.

 

The AKC imposes a standard (appearance-based) that is antithetical to the preservation of the working Border Collie. What it boils down to is how we define "breed type" for this breed.

 

Is there an inherent disagreement in the BC community here on the AKC standard - recognising we are only talking about appearance insofar as the standard is concerned?

 

The AKC paradigm provides no infrastructure for the appropriate evaluation and selection of breeding animals according to a true working standard. The AKC's "herding" program does not appropriately evaluate working ability in this breed.

 

Granted - but isn't the purpose of this to support and promte the betterment of the breed? In the briard world my experience was that the breeders that were truly interested in this had a breeding program that looked to enhancing the characteristics they felt needed to be strengthened in the breed. Which is of course why many here feel the AKC approach isn't usful to the breed.

 

Is there a reason why the BC associations could not promote involvment with the AKC and work to change the AKC approach. Particpate in events - promote the breed from BOTH an appearance point of view and a working point of view. Or is this suggestion heretical?

 

 

The AKC paradigm selects breeding animals primarily on the basis of what is seen in the show ring, with everything else (working, performance) evaluated secondarily, if at all. Working ability cannot be evaluated in a show ring.

 

I agree 100% with that - that has been my observation as well.

 

The Border Collie is a breed that is unremarkable in terms of appearance and extraordinary in terms of behavior.

 

I don't agree with the unremarkable in apprarance - I personally think they are gorgeous dogs.

 

Some AKC breeders feel they will "improve" the breed by producing dogs that are a compromise between these criteria (although many, if not most, do not really consider working ability at all -- performance in agility and obedience do not count as "work").

 

But is it not possible to change the word "compromise" to "includes both"?

 

Many of us here feel that such compromise with fundamentally change the dogs so that they are no longer recognizable as this breed (they will have lost essential Border Collie "type"). I like these dogs the way they are, thanks.

 

I do as well. But IMHO I do think that the AKC has more "mindshare" with the average person then does the BC associations. Walk into a Barnes and Nobles or Borders bookstore and browse the pet section and you will find AKC publications. Go to your newsstand and there is an AKC publication there. So if the AKC is promting a breed like the BC isn't the average puirchser going to think AKC as far as registrations goes before others? I know I did until I took the time to educate myself.

 

Doesn't it make sense to promte change from within as opposed to other choices?

 

I admit to having a predosposition to the AKC simply because it is what I know. The way I learn is to gather info, think about it and then ask questions. I am in no way trying to suggest that any one side is right or wrong here - I truly do want to understand.

 

I've met a few Briards and I think they are very nice dogs. But I do not consider them working dogs, and I think as you get to know Border Collies better, your definition of "working dog" may change as well.

 

Perhaps - but having seen a number of briards working I know that the potential is there. It is as you have said though - most AKC members are show and conformance centric. Though this could change.

 

BTW, I will read the references you suggested - thanks alot for the pointer.

 

Brian

[Margaret M Wheeler]

Brian,

 

There are so many reasons to give your support solely to organizations that oppose involvement with that McDonald's of dogs, the AKC. These reasons aren't particularly obvious or intuitive and they aren't all directly linked to facts. To me, the best reasons for choosing not register a working dog with the kennel club are ethical ones. And, as I have reluctantly learned over and over again the ethically good thing is rarely the easy, convenient, familiar, fun thing.

 

You certainly don't need any advice with regard to the reason for joining the AKC; you've already nailed it. Convenience and familiarity. American mass-culture literally identifies dogs, particularly high status, well-bred dogs with the kennel club. The problem is that this pervasive notion prevents most people from ever experiencing dogs in a different way.

 

It seems to me that many Americans think about dogs in the same way that they think about many consumer items. A good pair of skis for example. Does it really matter to most of us if they were made in China or in the Swiss Alps? Do we care if they were crafted by hand or assemnbled by elaborate machines? Or to go back to the MacDonalds analogy. I'm traveling with my kids, where am I most likely to stop? Mickey d's of course! Not because I'm looking for a peak culinary experience but because I want them to eat something anything and I want a relatively clean bathroom.

 

Aesthetic values are interesting. They can be a burden, don't you think? My husband says that he can turn me loose in a clothing shop and can absolutely count on me finding and coveting the most expensive item there in a matter of minutes.

 

Border collies sitting around, standing around, trotting here and there are striking creatures. For me, this is especially true of the male border collies with blue black coats, symmetrical white points, big square heads and a lot of bone. Add a smooth coat with prick ears and I start to salivate.

 

But, I wouldn't give such a dog a glance if I could watch a squinky little light boned foxy faced bitch of indeterminate color work her sheep with power and heart. Stand the two up together and I would have eyes only for her.

 

The further irony is that squinky little hard-working bitches are by far harder to make than the handsome fella I described. They don't make squinky little bitches in the AKC, the process is far too capricious and takes waaay too many resources and requires far too much dedicated (some might call it obsessive) attention. Nobody makes them but people who have been lucky enough to learn to care about work first and foremost.

[cgt]

My understanding of some of this is based upon reading between the lines in various web sites, discussions boards, books, etc. So, beware. More knowledgeable people: please clean up my mess as appropriate.

 

The NASDS, AIBC and ABCA are principally breed registries. My understanding is that the NASDS (North American Sheepdog Society) was created/run by Arthur Allen, the AIBC (American International Border Collie) registry was created/run by Dewey Jontz (?). For whatever reason, these two registries have fallen out of favor and a new member-governed registry - the ABCA (American Border Collie Association) is being used the most. The ABCA was created in the early 1980s. As far as I know the NASDS and AIBC are still around, but little-used compared to the ABCA. I am not at all sure about this, but I get the feeling that the NASDS and AIBC each tried to play the role that is now played through the combined efforts of the ABCA and USBCHA (which is not a breed registry but a handler's association - confused yet?). As far as I can tell, all three of these registries are viewed as working dog registries, i.e., they are designed to support the breed as a working dog. The registry used by the AKC is the BCSA (Border Collie Society of America).

 

charlie

[juliepoudrier]

Brian,

I think Melanie and Margaret have said very nicely why the working border collie folk don't like the AKC. I will address your question about changing the AKC from within. I too grew up hearing only AKC, and my family always had AKC dogs, but I've always been one to look around and educate myself and when I decided I wanted a border collie I went through rescue. That rescue dog led me to herding and the world of border collies outside the AKC. I have seen some of my favorite AKC breeds ruined by breeding for conformation, and I have seen plenty of AKC herding dogs who frankly couldn't herd their way past the food bowl. I have no interest whatsoever in giving money or attention to an organization that routinely changes breeds from what they were meant to be to the look du jour with little regard for what the dog was meant to do (is there some compelling reason that a borzoi must be mostly white, for pete's sake?).

 

I am on a discussion list called Herders-L. Frnakly I joined before I realized that it was largely populated by folks who do AKC (and AHBA and ASCA) herding. I stay and lurk and try to correct misconceptions about what they call "border collie trials" when I can. But why I'm there and what I do there is not important. What is important is the fact that the people on that list are VERY dedicated to herding with their breed of dog, whatever it is. What crops up on that list over and over and over again is those same people--the herding enthusiasts who want to maintain some sort of herding ability in their breeds despite AKC's overwhelming pull toward conformation only--are constantly fighting to get AKC to *listen* to their knowledge about their breeds and the abilities of those breeds and about how to best test those herding abilities.

 

These same people pretty freely admit that AKC developed their herdinmg program as a way to make money (otherwise all those folks would be giving their entry fees to AHBA and ASCA and so on), NOT as a way to improve the breed.

 

Again and again AKC ignores these people--the AKC breeders and members who also want the AKC to recognize and respect the herding abilities inherent (I use the term loosely as most of these breeds have been bred solely for conformation for so long that they have only a vestige or working ability compared to their pre-kennel club working ancestors) in their chosen breed. I remember one discussion where AKC was teaching judges about the importance of structure and so invited the champions of certain breeds to the clinic so the judges could make the structure/function connection. The folks on herders-L were quite upset because in many cases the dog chosen to epitomize correct herding/working structure was a dog who had a conformation championship but had not done *any* herding/working, with the exception of maybe an instinct test!

 

So people who already have a stake in AKC and wish to continue to herd with their dogs within AKC parameters have been trying for years to get AKC to listen to them about what they want in a herding program (and I presume about how that should relate to conformation breeding and judging). The sense I get from reading the comments these folks make on Herders-L is that they really consider it a lost cause but they do intend to keep up the good fight.

 

If the people who have a stake in the AKC and who wish to also breed their dogs to the kennel club conformation standard can't get the AKC to cooperate, it's highly unlikely that outsiders can jump in and do so.

 

And as I've said before, most of us who are well familiar with the AKC and who love the border collie breed for its abilites and not because we want a black and white dog that looks suspiciously like and aussie with a tail are happy to stay as far away from AKC as we can.

 

J.

[Brian Monkman]

Julie - thanks for your reply - I can easily see this happening - that is the comments you attribute to some on herder-l.

 

I suppsoe I live in a utopian world. A well-timed dose of reality was probably needed here.

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

There is not an inherent disagreement about the content of the standard. The disagreement is in having an appearance standard at all. The AKC defines breeds by how they look, judges individual dogs within a breed by how they look, and promotes breeding to an appearance standard. However, a border collie is not defined by its looks, and should not be judged or bred for looks. Period, full stop, end of story. For further elucidation of the reasons why, I'll give you something else to look at -- http://www.bordercollie.org/kpgene.html

 

>

 

Yes. See above. There is no way to change the AKC's philosophy of defining and judging by a physical appearance standard. The border collie should not be defined or judged by a physical appearance standard. That is not what our breed is about. So there is an essential, unavoidable conflict there.

 

But is it not possible to change the word "compromise" to "includes both"?

 

Nope. See suggested reading matter above. You cannot breed for appearance without diluting working ability, in a breed where working ability has been brought to such a exquisitely high level. It is the point of our breed.

 

>

 

True. That's one of the main reasons why AKC recognition was such a tragedy for our dogs.

 

>

 

How do you change an 800-pound gorilla? Or the Borg? The AKC doesn't change, it assimilates.

 

>

 

Fair enough. Wonderful, in fact. There are folks on these boards who came from exactly the same perspective you did. I hope they will chime in here.

 

 

Perhaps - but having seen a number of briards working I know that the potential is there. >>

 

Just to help in forming a common frame of reference . . . what do you mean when you speak of briards working? To what extent are you using "working" to mean what we would say of people working -- i.e., doing a job for wages or their keep, which someone else would have to do if they weren't there to do it?

 

Thanks for your good questions.

[Eileen Stein]

Just a couple of things to supplement Charlie's good explanation of the alphabet soup:

 

The ABCA flourished while the NASDS and AIBC have decayed because (1) the ABCA is member-owned and run by a member-elected board, while the NASDS and AIBC have always been basically proprietary, and (2) the ABCA gives very efficient service.

 

Also, the BCSA (Border Collie Society of America) is actually the AKC parent club for the AKC border collie, not a registry. The AKC itself is of course the registry.

[cgt]

Thanks for fixing the AKC-BCSA mixup. You can tell how familiar I am with those groups.

 

charlie

[sea4th]

Hi Brian,

 

Briards, as with most AKC "recognized" breeds, are primarily now bred as pets & companions, and have been for generations. With an ever increasing interest in dog sports, AKC has accommodated these interests by opening up AKC sanctioned activities, in this case, herding for herding breeds, never mind that the breeds in the herding group have not earned their keep by herding for years. With a "back to their roots" mentality, owners of herding breeds found a fun venue, another activity with which to participate in with their dogs. But that's all it is---a fun venue, and when it gets serious is in a quest for titles---and isn't that what AKC is about anyway (as in "titles on both ends of the dog's name)? Yes, AKC appeals to a wider range of the dog owning public, but one thing it is not is a working registry. To accommodate breeds that have only the residuals of herding instinct left, standards are set low. The owner is tickled that the dog is "working" and can even earn titles.

AKC provides an outlet for hobby herders, and I think it's a good thing, but this is as close to working as most of them get, and don't realize the scope of a true working dog or working situation.

 

I would venture to say and any serious livestock operation isn't run with the help of dogs bred for AKC venues, or hobby herders. While it's nice to see that one's breed still has instinct, instinct is a whole different ball game from the ability to get the job done.

 

An as another poster said, hang around and learn. Your definition of "working", once you get a border collie, will undergo a radical change. I guarantee it.

 

Vicki

[Heather]

Hi, Brian:

 

I'm glad you're asking these questions, and I hope you read all the articles that people have cited. I can tell you from my own experience--I was heavily involved in AKC culture for years before I got interested in working border collies--that thinking about the dogs outside of the AKC parameters is truly a paradigm shift. Those involved in AKC dog sports tend to think that AKC *is* the dog world. It isn't, and that's perhaps the hardest thing of all to understand. Once you see that, everything else will fall easily into place.

[Bill Fosher]

Hi Brian,

 

Thanks for approaching this discussion with an open mind. I'm a breeder of livestock, not of dogs, so my thinking tends toward livestock breeding, and in many ways, Border collies share more in common with livestock than they do with other breeds of dog.

 

The show ring in livestock has proven devastating for some previously useful breeds of sheep -- the Suffolk being a prime example. I used to look at thess ponies and scratch my head -- couldn't begin to understand why people would want such tubular beasts with long legs -- especially when they came with such a toll of bad mothering, poor efficiency on forage, etc.

 

A few months back, I read an essay by a livestock judge who helped me understand why sheep have moved in the direction they have in the show ring, while commercial producers have tended to move in other directions.

 

The holy grail in sheep production is meat. How to obtain the most meat from a sheep is supposed to be our goal. The Suffolk breed is the predominant sire used to produce meaty lambs, so it tends to put meat traits before all else.

 

So here's a judge looking at 10 lambs in the ring -- all of them good ones -- and he has to decide which one is first place, which one is second, on down the line. One of the things a judge has to consider is slaughter efficiency. That rumen, which makes sheep look bulgey on the sides, is not edible. The more rumen a sheep has, the lower the percentage of that live animal's weight will end up as finished meat. So, the judge looks for a lamb with a small rumen.

 

Years of this go by, and the breeders get to the point where they are selecting actively for animals with poor rumen function so that their animals will look sleek in the show ring. The fact that they require expensive grain feeding in order to simply maintain themselves is no concern to the show ring breeder, because they don't have to count the costs of production in the same way that a commercial producer does.

 

Thus, selection for conformation becomes antithetical to selection for performance.

 

So it is also with dogs. But the performance traits that we value in sheepdogs is much more complex than the performance traits we value in livestock. So dog breeders don't ever need to get to the point where they are actively selecting against working ability in order to lose it. Simply not paying attention to it will do the job.

 

The AKC has been pretty clear that it would not consider any performance standards -- even in conjunction with the show ring -- as the basis for evaluating Border collies. As far as the AKC is concerned, the only thing that matters in the value of an individual dog to its breed is its performance in the show ring.

 

To those of use who use these dogs day in and day out to make our livings, what a dog looks like is utterly irrelevant. Everyone who has been around these dogs for more than a year or two has a story of a dopey-looking or flat-out ugly dog that was a top-shelf worker.

 

The ABCA has dedicated both funding an intellectual capacity to solving some of the real genetic problems of the breed such as Collie Eye Anomoly, and is interested in the breeding of sound, working dogs.

 

Unfortunately, it is not interested enough to take the next logical step and ban dual registration. Many dogs are both ABCA and AKC registered. Too many breeders see too large a market for AKC-registered pups to be willing to give it up.