Jump to content
BC Boards

BCSA to petition to keep books open


Gary M
 Share

Recommended Posts

I saw on the BCSA website that the membership has voted to keep the stud books permanently open and will petition the AKC to do just that. Their arguement of broadening the gene pool translates to me to dilution of the pool and making the AKC and BCSA revenue base wider.

 

Is there anything that can be done short of changing the name of the working line to something copyright protected to ensure separation of the 2 lines. The public perception will always be whatever the AKC presents as the "standard" just as a lie repeated often enough will be perceived as the truth.

 

The way I see it (hopefully incorrectly) is that as the breed is watered down, it will lose the postiive working qualities that make it what it is and eventually turn into a visually different version of today's Lab, and will thus join that once noble breed in the unenviable postion of being in the top 2 or 3 of shelter, humane society and rescue fodder. (Looking just through Petfinder, I think the BC is currently in the top 10).

 

I know that the working world will retain the integrity of the breed for their needs, but it is the crossover that I am concerned about. As the working world will have its share of curs, those culled will end up in homes that think they are getting the AKC/BCSA/cute TV/ variety, much as it now, only worse. It is seen every day on this board by way of the posts of "I Want A BC NOW, But I Really Don't Know What A True BC Is" crowd (Not a slam, I was one until I read this board for about a year) and then come the sob stories.

 

(fill in relative, item or species of choice)

My BC bit _____, what can I do?

My BC stares at ______ for hours, what can I do?

My BC chases _________, what can I do?

My BC herds the ______, and the ______ does not like it, what do I do?

My BC chews up the _______ when I am gone 10 to 12 hours a day, should I keep it crated?

and on, and on.......

 

The Border Collie is one of only a handful of dogs that can still be found that can do what it was created to do. Far too many once functional and noble breeds have been turned into canine gerbils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just gotta answer this real quick and then I've got to get back to work.

 

I don't see that political or legal action will do much more than further antagonize those who are on the other side. There ARE a bunch of people who are there because they feel the BCSA has more to offer, but who don't agree with the whole conformation idea. OR maybe they do lip service because it's expected, but wish the AKC would recognize the working talents of the Border Collie more, because that's why they have the breed. But attacking them driectly will just cause them to circle their wagons.

 

So, I think what needs to happen is we need to continue to educate people about "real" Border Collies. DO NOT support AKC activities in any way. There's lots of fun stuff to do that doesn't involve AKC, and if you see alternatives offered, support those with all your heart (Rally-O, USDAA and NADA come to mind). Support the USBCC (the people who operate this forum).

 

If we change our name and tie up our resources in a bunch of legal nonsense, we risk marginalizing ourselves. THEY are the minority Border Collie our job is to keep it that way by keeping the real Border Collie at the forefront.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rebecca,

That was kind of what I was getting at.

I know that financially you cannot beat the AKC and the parent club. But because the BCSA will accept ISDS, ABCA and other registries, would it be possible for ISDS and ABCA to disallow dual registries with the parent or host clubs at a cut off date?

The AKC has done little to nothing that I am aware of to maintain the functional integrity of any breed it recognizes, I doubt that they will start now.

BCSA needs to choose sides and set priorities. Being the parent club, could they write a functional standard that eliminates the appearence requirements and includes a bona fide working capability requirement?

I am asking because I don't know how the pedigreed world works. Our dogs only papers were on the floor as pups.

I know something needs to be done before it turns into "Will the last working BC please close the gate"? and the end always seems to be farther than it actually is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BCSA previously petitioned three times to keep the studbook open, asking preferably that it be kept open forever. Each time the AKC extended the open studbook for a limited period (3 years, 3 years, 5 years) instead. So the fact that they're petitioning again for it to stay open permanently doesn't mean that the AKC will agree to do that.

 

Doesn't mean the AKC won't do it either, of course. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary, the AKC refuses point blank to incorporate any program that sets the performance dog above the conformation champions, including anything that would require the dog to fulfil even the most minimal performance requirement before being awarded the "Champion" title.

 

The first conformation standard that was adopted was actually largely adapted from the UK standard, which was adapted from the Autralian standard. So in the very first show, there were already Australian/New Zealand dogs here to show the judges what Border Collies "should" look like and they did very well because the standard was similiar to theirs.

 

Now it's been ten years and the judges can't get that look out of their heads, even though now the BCSA changed the standard so it sort of favors the more American/ISDS type dog.

 

So really the breed club is pretty powerless - the Border Collie is a minor breed to the AKC, and a real thorn in their side. It's awkward having a breed where the vast majority of fanciers DON'T buy into the notion that the breed ring represents the epitome of genetic selection for that breed.

 

It's also embarrassing having such an unsuccessful open registration period, though I think the last period was much better than the last two extensions. I'd love for them to close it and be done with it, but I sort of doubt it. More likely they will grant the Border Collie permanent open studbook status, just to get the club out of their hair. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has there been any historical precedent for the AKC to remove a breed from its registry?

 

It seems that the fate of the BC is tied to its presence within the AKC, and as long as it is its future is not safe.

 

If the term "AKC registered" no longer could be applied to the BC, then much of the profit motive for non-work bred BC's would disappear and help the future of the breed.

 

I keep asking because I want to know how to help the breed survive based on original intent. Even though I do not currently have (and maybe never will :rolleyes: ) a working BC or its less able progeny, I do not want to see it lost.

I will soon apply for membership in the USBCC, USBCHA and ABCA.

 

I know that there is a ROM program, but is there an equivilent ILP program for spayed, not otherwise registered BC's? My girl has so many BC traits, but herding is not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Baby's Dad:

Even though I do not currently have (and maybe never will :rolleyes: ) a working BC or its less able progeny, I do not want to see it lost.

I will soon apply for membership in the USBCC, USBCHA and ABCA.

Hooray for you, Gary! I made the same decision a few months ago, and here is why. I had a membership in ABCA for two years so I could register my two working-bred pups. Other than those two years, I didn't "need" a membership. And, I didn't see a "benefit" for me to joining USBCHA (since I did not plan on trialling and, even if I did want to try it, membership is not required except to go to Finals) or to joining USBCC.

 

Then I realized that the working Border Collie and I benefit from all these organizations - keeping the pedigrees is essential for folks planning responsible breeding; trialling is a most important venue to prove dogs and help the breed; and I learn a lot from the USBCC boards. Plus, I agree with the mission statements of these organizations.

 

ABCA, USBCHA, and USBCC all contribute in their own way to the preservation, perpetuation, and improvement of the working Border Collie. By doing so, they also benefit those of us who either have, admire, or enjoy working or working-bred Border Collies (no matter what part they play in our lives, companions, sports dogs, working dogs).

 

I decided I needed to put my money where my mouth was (membership is inexpensive in all three - $10 for ABCA, $25 for USBCHA, and $12 for USBCC per year) and show my support for the working Border Collie by my actions as well as my words.

 

Let's hope others who respect this breed (and are not already doing so) decide to do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I do not (yet) have an ABCA registered BC I do hope someday to. However, I decided a few months ago, like Sue, to put my money where my mouth is. While I am new yet to the Border Collie culture and have so much to learn, I understand and support the goals, values, and precepts that these organizations stand for. So, I put in my membership dues for ABCA, USBCHA and USBCC. In my opinion it was some of the best money I spent that month.

 

Yep, I've been sucked right in. :rolleyes:

 

Is the closing of the studbook a good thing for the working Border Collies? Will that dwindle down the availability of production for conformation bred BC's? Does that mean that if they close the studbook that no new Sire's can be registered??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you to everyone who supports our working dog organizations.

 

Gary, I don't know of any precedent for the AKC removing a breed from it's registry. Unfortunately, I feel sure it has never happened.

 

Laura, I think most of us believe that closing the studbook would definitely be a good thing for the working border collies. We fought against AKC recognition because we wanted to avoid a split in the breed. Now the best we can hope for is a sharp, definitive split, which is what closing the studbook would accomplish. Our non-AKC dogs could then stay the same as they've always been, and the AKC dogs would become a different breed. Confusingly, that breed would have the same name as our breed, but we wouldn't suffer the dilution and deterioration that would result from being part of a unitary gene pool with "Border Collies" who are being bred to a different standard (for appearance and sports) without regard for working ability. And the confusion caused by both breeds being called Border Collies would at least be diminished if we could designate one of them "AKC Border Collies" and the other "traditional" or "non-AKC" border collies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Eileen,

 

I hate things that are labeled by what they are not, so I wouldn't be for calling our dogs "non-AKC." I think we should just call them stockdogs or sheepdogs or Border collies and if the need to create a distinction arises, we call them working or working-bred Border collies. Or, even, ABCA Border collies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I understand that the Jack Russell Terrier Club was able to retain the name "Jack Russell Terrier" and AKC (and whatever its club is) had to adopt the name "Parsons Russell Terrier". I have NO idea what this resulted from.

 

I think it was Margaret Wheeler (and maybe others) that mentioned this in a few posts.

 

Is there any way that ABCA, USBCC, and USBCHA can "copywrite" the name "Border Collie" and force the AKC and its affiliates to adopt another name for their "other breed".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the Parson Russell Terrier Association of America's take on the whole thing. PRTAA's History The last paragraph reads:

 

"In July of 1997, the Board of Directors of the American Kennel Club unanimously accepted the Jack Russell Terrier into its registry, effective November 1, 1997. On January 1, 1998 the breed became eligible for competition in all AKC events, including conformation participation in the Miscellaneous Class at all-breed shows. The breed was accepted into the AKC Terrier Group on April 1, 2000. On April 1, 2003, the name of the breed was changed from Jack Russell Terrier to Parson Russell Terrier to differentiate the true Parson-type terrier from little generic terriers casually referred to as "Jack Russell". The Jack Russell Terrier Association of America club name was changed to Parson Russell Terrier Association of America (PRTAA). The Breed Standard was revised effective September 29, 2004."

 

Little generic terriers? LOL. Will the working bred Border Collies be referred to as "Little generic Border Collies"?

 

Jodi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd love it if they called our dogs generic Border Collies ("maybe ugly generic Border Collies") and took another name to distinguish themselves.

 

I've even suggested a name to them, based on the Parson Terrier model. Telfer Collie - oddly, they never take my suggestion in the spirit in which it was intended. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

I was having an amusing, and probably not very reasonable, thought this morning. What if all of us with spayed/neutered ABCA Border Collies decided to flood AKC with the registration of such? Heck- I got four candidates right here- I'm sure among all of us working people we could conjure up a significant percentage of registration increase. The downside of course is that we would have to give $$$ to AKC, which I've made a point of never doing. That withstanding, I do think it would be quite a joke on BCSA if they went to petition AKC for extending the studbook and got met with a huge registration increase and AKC saying "hey, looks like you have enough now- time to close the books!".

 

A nice enough dream- especially after a few years when registration just unexplainably drops off due to lack of breedable dogs in the registry .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>

 

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 organization rule." Under that rule, no one who registered their JRT with the AKC could join or continue as a member of the JRTCA. That meant that they could no longer register dogs with the JRTCA, and could not compete in or judge JRTCA trials. By doing this, the JRTCA effectively prevented the leakage of their good dogs into the AKC. (It didn't hurt that the AKC closed their studbook after three years. But the conflicting organization rule was probably the main reason they closed it -- after three years it was obvious that no one who'd stayed with the JRTCA would be registering with the AKC, so there was no point keeping the book open.)

 

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 is now using 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. 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.

 

>

 

Unfortunately, delightful as it sounds, this might well backfire. The BCSA wants the studbook kept open forever, so they would still ask for that even if there were a huge increase in registrations. As for the AKC, when it voted the last extension in January 2001, the minutes show the following:

 

Following a motion by Ms. Scully, seconded by Mr. Goodman, it was VOTED (affirmative, Ms. Scully, Mr. Goodman, Mr. Merriam, Mrs. Strand, Dr. Hritzo, Mr. Kelly, Dr. Davies, Mr. Marden, Dr. Battaglia; opposed, Dr. Mays, Mr. Menaker; absent, Dr. Smith) to keep the stud book for Border Collies open through January 1, 2006. The Parent Club was to be advised that no further extension would be granted unless its efforts to increase registrations during this five-year period were successful.

 

So it could be that the more registrations they get, the MORE inclined they would be to keep the studbooks open. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked up the stats for this year from the AKC.org site.

 

Border collies ranked 60th with 1,983 registrations in 2004. Last year (2003) they were ranked 65th with 1,615 dogs registered.

 

This would be around 10X less than ABCA yearly registration. Does anybody know how many more dogs per year they would need to get them to open the stud books for longer? I couldn't find the old stats so I don't know what percentage increase it's been since 2001. Seems like it's been around 1,500 a year average for a while now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the Detroit KC all breed show today (see gallery post for why) and I think it was a total of 7 dogs in the breed class.

 

Only 2 of the 7 looked like the Westminister fluffybutts, the others "looked" like the trimmer herding variety and there was even 1 red and 1 tri. Of course one of those 2 took BOB.

 

In talking to one of the BC exhibitors, they had a running video loop of their dog actually working sheep. I think she was an undercover infiltrator however. :rolleyes:

 

There are probably some people that are trying to fight from within the AKC, but given what I would have considered a dismal showing in relation to the popularity of the BC, maybe they will change something out of sheer embarassment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wishful thinking. Those two exhibitors who showed the type of dogs that the conformation culture expects to see, have the whole machine and culture of the AKC behind them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you, Eileen. I did not know the whole story about the JRT/PRT situation - I had just heard some references to it.

 

Wishful thinking, I guess, on my part that the AKC would have to drop the use of the name, "Border Collie".

 

Oh well, I guess I will just always call mine "working Border Collies" for anyone who asks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Border collies ranked 60th with 1,983 registrations in 2004. Last year (2003) they were ranked 65th with 1,615 dogs registered.

 

This would be around 10X less than ABCA yearly registration. Does anybody know how many more dogs per year they would need to get them to open the stud books for longer? I couldn't find the old stats so I don't know what percentage increase it's been since 2001. Seems like it's been around 1,500 a year average for a while now.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Denise,

 

I don't think they are looking at "how many" as much as they are looking at "how many from OPEN registration". The numbers are decieving in some ways as they don't indicate ILP's flipping to full, Foreign registerd dogs or "new" using the "open" registration avenue.

 

 

The Aussies had their books re-opened due to something I am not sure about so the AKC is not completely against leaving or revisiting the books.

 

Karen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Journey:

I don't think they are looking at "how many" as much as they are looking at "how many from OPEN registration". The numbers are decieving in some ways as they don't indicate ILP's flipping to full, Foreign registerd dogs or "new" using the "open" registration avenue.Karen

I'm not sure I follow this, but one thing I thought was a given was that dogs with an ILP had to be neutered, and neutered dogs aren't eligible for registration, so I don't see how a dog can flip from ILP to full registration. About the rest I have no idea.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the Border Collie was Miscellaneous, you could ILP an intact dog. Those dogs now are required (I believe) to "upgrade" to full registration before participating in AKC events. I'm not sure where the cutoff is in terms of when they'll start checking your breeding status at the door.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...