buyer, seller question

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

The AKC gene pool is currently very limited. And for all their bluster about showing not harming the overall abilities of the breed, they are aware that "pure" show dogs - the ones furthest removed from working ancestors - lack in the things that make Border Collies special and desireable to performance homes. So, "crossing" lines has become quite the thing. Take Aussie/NZ lines and cross in some of the more hairy, blocky working lines (Wilson's Spot, Scrimegeour's Ben, some of the Irish lines, some of Aled Owen's lines), and voila! - pretty dogs that can "do it all" - though none of it particularly well, of course.

 

The irony is that some of the "prettiest" working lines also have some of the ugliest genetics and conformation people that purchase breeding stock from these hybridized lines will have to do some heavy-duty culling down the road. Not just appearance, but the result of crossing two distinct gene pools will be the emergence of many recessive health issues. Then the AKC people blame the working people for "lack of health testing" and will claim in the future to be improving the breed.

[Liz P]

The irony is that some of the "prettiest" working lines also have some of the ugliest genetics and conformation people that purchase breeding stock from these hybridized lines will have to do some heavy-duty culling down the road. Not just appearance, but the result of crossing two distinct gene pools will be the emergence of many recessive health issues. Then the AKC people blame the working people for "lack of health testing" and will claim in the future to be improving the breed.

 

By ugly do you mean OCD, HD, epilepsy???

[Katelynn & Gang]

Sadly, Becca is correct. Many conformation people are looking for "correct" working dogs to out cross to, trying to regain the traits that make a Border Collie a Border Collie. I've had more then one "offer" (like I should have kissed their feet for them coming up and wanting to use MY dog, ha!) from conformation owners/breeders to use their males on my Dice if I'd just get her into the ring and put a Championship on her.

 

Some good working dogs will be lost in this "correction" process of the KCs. It is sad and but it is going to happen and many good working breeders are going to let it happen with the excuse that the homes are good, though we all know it is much more then just the homes being good.

 

So, the best thing we can do is stay very clear of these breeders that let their dogs go this way. After all, conformation Championships are something that owners want to share with the world and we will all know who the breeder is sooner or later of any conformation Champion.

 

Even if this dog does retain its ISDS registration after a conformation Championship, in the KCs, it is just a sign of "status" and that is it (believe it or not, they all really do want what our dogs have, giving reasoning for them wanting so badly to out cross to our dogs, buy our puppies, and register their dogs with the same registries as ours). ISDS or not, a conformation Champion will not rain on our ABCA working bloodlines here in America.

 

Katelynn

[SoloRiver]

some of the more hairy, blocky working lines (Wilson's Spot, Scrimegeour's Ben, some of the Irish lines, some of Aled Owen's lines)

 

Solo is an amalgam of all of those (except for Scrimgeour's Ben, although there's a Jim Brady dog in Ben's pedigree and Solo goes back to Brady's Jim three times), which I guess explains why he is so blocky and hairy and conformation people think he "turned out nice, for a working dog."

 

The irony is that some of the "prettiest" working lines also have some of the ugliest genetics and conformation people that purchase breeding stock from these hybridized lines will have to do some heavy-duty culling down the road.

 

Solo isn't exactly a model citizen, so I'd have to agree. But I don't think that strictly conformation people are very interested in these dogs. It's the versatility people, who still want to pay lip service to what Border Collies should be, who really honestly think that they are producing a better, more refined product by "judicious" introduction of working lines to their pretty dogs, hoping for selected gene transfer, I guess, of only what they want to infuse ("drive" and some facsimile of real working ability) and not what they don't want (cow hocks, ears that don't match, whatever).

 

Not just appearance, but the result of crossing two distinct gene pools will be the emergence of many recessive health issues.

 

Well, increasing diversity should decrease the probability of recessive disease in the resulting dogs. Right now there are a few problematic diseases that appear to be limited to the conformation dogs (like CL) so it would be to their benefit to have a less inbred population, but if there is introgression from the conformation dogs into the working gene pool then we could end up with those conformation diseases in our dogs. The best of the worst case scenario is that we merely lose dogs to the AKC people, with no gene flow coming back from the AKC dogs. Since most AKC people have little interest in really testing the working ability of their dogs, as long as working breeders maintain their integrity we'll be safe, but if working breeders succumb to market pressure (for AKC papers, for pretty colors, for dogs with relatives that did well in agility) then we're in trouble.

 

Unfortunately, from the versatility point of view there is nothing but good to be gotten by assimilating more working dogs into the AKC gene pool. Their population is so small and limited in diversity that they really do have a strong motivation to be trying to breed to our dogs.

[sweetbc87]

I know of a breeder who takes dogs registered with both and breeds them, she double registers them? She has AKC show stock, as well as ABCA working stock. I've never heard of anyone else do that...

 

 

Can't be good though.

 

breeder

[Katelynn & Gang]

Breeders can register their dogs both with the AKC and ABCA at the current moment. So long as the dogs do not earn their Championships, they are free to be registered, along with their puppies in the ABCA. Once a dog earns its Championship, it can no longer be registered with the ABCA and neither can any of its offspring.

 

As for someone that breeds both "conformation" dogs and "working" dogs. It is impossible to bred either type without proving the dogs first. Without proving the dogs in either type, the "breeder" is just breeding "dogs" and doing nothing more.

 

Katelynn

[wildairbc]

...."if working breeders maintain their integrity we'll be safe, but if working breeders succumb to market pressure (for AKC papers, for pretty colors, for dogs with relatives that did well in agility) then we're in trouble."

 

There you have it. Aren't THESE the "breeders" you should concern yourselves with?

 

I would also like to ask a question. Once this PROVEN working ISDS registered dog is in the States, will those "working breeders" use him? Even if he is also AKC registered? Even if he is an AKC champion? Do any of those "papers" make him a different dog? If you all are breeders, would you use him?

 

If not, why not? If you would, then heck, this seems like a great opportunity for ABCA border collies to have an infusion of good genes as well. Or does it matter that much WHO imports a dog? But then, your own registry would make it impossible for you to use this dog if he became a show champion, wouldn't it?

 

Surely you are aware that a lot of US ABCA breeders use their dogs on AKC bitches and sell dogs to AKC folks all of the time? BTW, you must believe that the ABCA is the ONLY "reputable" registry, because it is the ONLY registry that de-registers show champions.

 

I truly want to know your answers. Would you use this dog?

[AK dog doc]

If I understand correctly, if he gains an AKC championship, he will be de-registered from the ABCA, and none of his offspring would then be eligible for ABCA registry - short if Register on Merit. That would probably mean that people who are wanting ABCA progeny would NOT breed to him unless they were willing to chance the offspring going ROM. But do please correct me if I'm wrong. (Not being in a position to even consider breeding myself at the moment, I am commenting as an observer.)

[Journey]

I would also like to ask a question. Once this PROVEN working ISDS registered dog is in the States, will those "working breeders" use him? Even if he is also AKC registered? Even if he is an AKC champion? Do any of those "papers" make him a different dog? If you all are breeders, would you use him?

 

If not, why not? If you would, then heck, this seems like a great opportunity for ABCA border collies to have an infusion of good genes as well. Or does it matter that much WHO imports a dog? But then, your own registry would make it impossible for you to use this dog if he became a show champion, wouldn't it?

 

Surely you are aware that a lot of US ABCA breeders use their dogs on AKC bitches and sell dogs to AKC folks all of the time? BTW, you must believe that the ABCA is the ONLY "reputable" registry, because it is the ONLY registry that de-registers show champions.

 

I truly want to know your answers. Would you use this dog?

 

 

Oh well with free time I will attempt to answers these...

 

This dog would not be used in the states until he had proven himself here for the most part. If he was "such a big deal" across the water he most likely wouldn't be leaving to a non working show home (unless the $$ offered was to good!). Sure, if he proved himself here, has ISDS papers he could possibly be used. But, he's not ABCA registered. So, they can't pull what he doesn't have. It does matter "who" imports just as much as it matters that the dogs prove themselves. A show person most of the time only wants to be able to "advertise" what they have (working bred, ISDS registered, blah, blah, blah), not run them and let the rest decide if he's worth it or not. Whereas a working/trial person will definately be on the field with him when things gel and they can work as a team.

 

ABCA Border Collies don't need a "good infusion" like the ACK dogs do. The ABCA gene pool is no where near as limited as the KC gene pools (CL & TNS may be a good example). While ABCA would make it impossible to "use" him if he got a CH. from ACK that doesn't mean it's a loss to ABCA. There are many great, good, dogs out there. Unlike ACK the linebreeding - inbreeding isn't happening in working stockdogs like it does in KC.

 

How can working breeders allow their dogs to bred to ACK bitches? You have to have ABCA papers for entry to the ACK books? So, then they either both must be ACK registered or they are not "showing" these bitches and offspring in conformation - no foul there. Either way the result doesn't effect ABCA gene pool.

 

No, I wouldn't use him. Too many other great dogs out there to have to go to him imo.

 

Karen

[Rosanne]

I believe the original question was regarding a puppy being imported - so it would be impossible for the dog to prove himself before being brought over here.

 

Also, I doubt the importer/AKC person would bother registering him ABCA if her goal is to show to a championship, since most people are aware that that de-registers him automatically: thus, any ABCA breeder who wishes to breed to him would not have registerable pups.

 

Seems a moot point to me - no ABCA breeder would breed to this dog.

[Black Watch Debatable]

There you have it. Aren't THESE the "breeders" you should concern yourselves with?

What evidence do you have that we're not concerned?

 

Once this PROVEN working ISDS registered dog is in the States, will those "working breeders" use him? Even if he is also AKC registered? Even if he is an AKC champion? Do any of those "papers" make him a different dog? If you all are breeders, would you use him?

1) I can't imagine why. People who care about working stockdogs like to see breeding prospects at work, and unless this dog has an impressive USBCHA trialing career in North America, I don't believe he'd be sought after by real working breeders. How he managed sheep in Scotland, say, with a certain handler, may be irrelevant here.

2) That's a big red flag. See #4.

3) That's a big, giant, neon red flag. See #4.

4) Yes, the AKC papers do make him a "different" dog. They make him a dog that is entered in conformation contests, rather than a dog that is likely to qualify for Soldier Hollow or the Finals. Take AKC CH. Spot, for example. He was an imported son of 2x Int. Supreme Champion Spot, but he was never trialed (outside of arena trials), and while he might have been a good working dog under different circumstances, I don't know any working breeder who would have considered taking a bitch to him. Too many good working dogs to choose from --- why on earth breed to an unproven dog most notable for his huge coat?

5) Nope. Here in California alone, there are respected, proven working dogs -- dogs I've seen on stock -- to choose from, if I were planning a breeding. And the idea of calling a conformation breeder to talk about working traits honestly makes me cringe. "Oh, he's a wonderful herder! He got his PT last weekend."

 

this seems like a great opportunity for ABCA border collies to have an infusion of good genes as well.

ABCA working dogs have good genes already. Chances are an "infusion" would add nothing to the bloodlines already here.

 

does it matter that much WHO imports a dog?

Of course it does. A responsible working dog handler can make a far better assessment of a working dog than a sport breeder or conformation person ever could.

 

But then, your own registry would make it impossible for you to use this dog if he became a show champion, wouldn't it?

You say that as if it were a bad thing.

 

Surely you are aware that a lot of US ABCA breeders use their dogs on AKC bitches and sell dogs to AKC folks all of the time?

Every breed has its opportunists, its puppymillers and its BYBs, unfortunately.

 

BTW, you must believe that the ABCA is the ONLY "reputable" registry, because it is the ONLY registry that de-registers show champions.

The ABCA is reputable because it recognizes that a conformation standard is a threat to the existence of the working border collie. The only real standard is working ability. As the ABCA states on its website: "reeding for conformation standards rather than working ability is detrimental to the health and working ability of the Border Collie."

 

Based on everything I've read, it really seems to bother show people that their conformation-bred "border collies" can't work stock. Why should this be such an issue, when for the show crowd "herding" is just one of many activities and standardizing appearance [the head, the coat] is paramount? Just re-name the dogs "show border collies" and have done with it. I'm sure they're wonderful companions --- why does it matter so much to conformation breeders that their dogs can't work?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I doubt this dog will be so wonderful that it will turn our world upside down having him removed from our gene pool. If it's a pup, it will never be "proven" suffienctly in the hands of a conformation-focused kennel, to make him widely attractive. If it's an adult with a track record from overseas already, dollars to donuts the dog already has pups on the ground both here and there.

 

As KAren said, we just aren't so desperate to use any dog just because it came from over there, from a big name breeder and handler. That's the beauty of breeding to a working standard rather than a conformation standard - embracing variety has produced a wide gene pool with plenty of useful dogs. No need to throw principles aside to get the working pups I need.

[Katelynn & Gang]

There you have it. Aren't THESE the "breeders" you should concern yourselves with?

 

We are concerned with them, just as much as we are with conformation breeders. The health and well being of our breed is our number one concern and ALL dangers it is facing is of our concern, do not get us wrong.

 

Once this PROVEN working ISDS registered dog is in the States, will those "working breeders" use him? Even if he is also AKC registered? Even if he is an AKC champion? Do any of those "papers" make him a different dog? If you all are breeders, would you use him?

 

No “reputable” working breeder would use an AKC dog on their ABCA good working bitch.

 

If he becomes a AKC Champion, ISDS papers or not, thankfully, he wouldn’t be allowed to produce ABCA puppies. No one with a top notch ABCA working bitch are going to bred to some conformation Champion dog, proven or not. Good working breeders breed to improve their breed and in doing so their puppies need to be registered with the ABCA.

 

Sending ABCA puppies into the AKC isn’t helping the breed out, its sending it down a dead end street with no turn around. AKC’s bloodline is sallow and it is going no where, no where good anyway.

 

If not, why not? If you would, then heck, this seems like a great opportunity for ABCA border collies to have an infusion of good genes as well. Or does it matter that much WHO imports a dog? But then, your own registry would make it impossible for you to use this dog if he became a show champion, wouldn't it?

 

Because there are hundreds of good ABCA dogs here that are not Champions and are not promoting a sport that is making my breed something it was never intended to be.

 

As for who is importing the dog, yes, it does make a huge difference. There are more breeders whose dogs I’d never use because of their breeding practices (breeding to anything, selling to anyone) rather then dogs from breeders whose dogs I would use.

 

Unlike the AKC gene pool, our working gene pool is so large that we do not have to push aside our own standard of breeding to get good puppies.

 

And yes, thankfully my registry does indeed make it make impossible to breed a Champion to a good working dog if you want ABCA papers.

 

Surely you are aware that a lot of US ABCA breeders use their dogs on AKC bitches and sell dogs to AKC folks all of the time? BTW, you must believe that the ABCA is the ONLY "reputable" registry, because it is the ONLY registry that de-registers show champions.

 

Yes, we are aware of this. Money speaks to many. Its sad but it does happen. That doesn’t mean any of us commend it.

 

Would you use this dog?

 

No, I would never use “this” dog. There are very few dogs I’d ever use and a dog registered with the AKC is most certainly not one of them few.

 

Katelynn Sulaica

[juliepoudrier]

In response to WildAir BC, what Luisa said. I would have no need or desire to breed to an unproven dog imported from the UK even if it does have a stellar pedigree. And like Becca said, if it were a proven working dog and not a pup then likely I'd be able to find progeny, etc., from good working breedings if I just had to have those bloodlines, so I could certainly find dogs from that line without compromising my principles (heck, I would be willing to bet that those bloodlines are already available right here, and in good working dogs). But since the dog in question is a pup, it's likely we'll never know what abilities it has, and so I wouldn't give it even a glance.

 

And as others have said, we are certainly aware of all types of bad breeders, including those who will breed to AKC dogs just for the money. But those of us who truly care will stand by our principles and do the right thing.

 

J.

[wildairbc]

"Unlike the AKC gene pool, our working gene pool is so large that we do not have to push aside our own standard of breeding to get good puppies. "

 

 

Hi,

Thank you for your replies and explanations.

In light of the above statement however (which seems to be somewhat of a concensus), why does this thread even exist? I mean, you are NOT really worried about this one dog (yes , a proven adult)? You are NOT worried about there being enough good working dogs? So, I guess that I don't get it.

I mean, if the AKC is only registering around 2,100 BCs a year (compared to the ABCAs 20,000), just what is it that is the problem for you? I mean, you won't use an AKC dog-even a proven trial winner and nursery champion becasue of a registration- much less an Australasian dog- so how exactly are the AKC and AKC breeders affecting you? It is very confusing.

You also seem to have a false sense of the esteem given your registry by AKC breeders. Most have no interest whatsoever in ABCA registered dogs. (but, as you say, there are always those few...)

Certainly, I am saying provocative things here, but I really, really am interested in this whole dynamic. I am NOT trying to cause a firestorm. I appreciate all of the thoughful replies.

Having said that, I must say that all I seem to be getting is that some people think they have a right to tell others what to do, when what the others are doing is having no direct effect on them at all. It feels like a "control" issue. It feels like some kind of a contest with only one side keeping score-because the other didn't sign up for the "game". I suppose that is not very clear, but that is the best I can do at the moment.

[Black Watch Debatable]

What's not to get? Laura stated it clearly:

 

If I were the seller, I would *want* to know if there were intentions for this dog that I was not aware of. The seller can always decide what to do with that information, but I would hope if I were in that position someone would be willing to tell me.

 

Not confusing at all.

[Katelynn & Gang]

In light of the above statement however (which seems to be somewhat of a consensus), why does this thread even exist? I mean, you are NOT really worried about this one dog (yes , a proven adult)? You are NOT worried about there being enough good working dogs? So, I guess that I don't get it.

 

Someone was concern over a breeder possibly being mislead on what a puppy would be doing in its new home and the breeders name possibly being damaged because of it. Reason enough to ask what others would do in the same position with the same information at hand.

 

I mean, if the AKC is only registering around 2,100 BCs a year (compared to the ABCAs 20,000), just what is it that is the problem for you?

 

2,100 Border Collies being judged and bred based on appearance is one to many. Just 1 Border Collie being judged and bred based on appearance is one to many.

 

I mean, you won't use an AKC dog-even a proven trial winner and nursery champion becasue of a registration- much less an Australasian dog- so how exactly are the AKC and AKC breeders affecting you? It is very confusing.

 

Why would a breeder/owner want to waste a proven Trial winner and Nursery Champion in the AKC is my biggest question?

 

How are they affect the working Border Collie? By slapping dogs that were bred for a different purpose then the original breed on TV and into show rings and claiming it to be the same breed of dog.

 

You also seem to have a false sense of the esteem given your registry by AKC breeders. Most have no interest whatsoever in ABCA registered dogs. (but, as you say, there are always those few...)

 

I would not call it false.

 

Who is tossing whose dogs out of which registry? Who is upset that one registry will not accept dogs from another? Who fought so hard for the AKC Stud books to be open indifferently to the ABCA, CBCA and ISDS dogs? Hummmmmmmm.

 

Having said that, I must say that all I seem to be getting is that some people think they have a right to tell others what to do, when what the others are doing is having no direct effect on them at all. It feels like a "control" issue.

 

Well most of us do own real working Border Collies, I guess the control issue just comes along with it. Though, I’d say the AKC has the control issues if anyone does but that is JMO.

 

It feels like some kind of a contest with only one side keeping score-because the other didn't sign up for the "game".

 

When you buy the glove, the ball, the bat and the team shirt, you’ve signed up. Then you play the game by the rules that have already been laid out for years and year, trying to better yourself and the game each time.

 

You don’t make up your own as you go or you have to call it something else! We all know that! Play fair and by the rules, then no one gets upset!

 

OT Is it you importing this dog?

 

Katelynn

[Kelliwic Border Collies]

The OP stated:

 

a WORKING breeder that is selling off a very good dog

 

I'm sure this seems like a stupid question at this point, but are we talking about a trained, working dog in the original scenario? I somehow initially interpreted this as a puppy, and in re-reading it, it appears I'm wrong about that. With the three pages of replies, I got confused. I'm just trying to keep the replies in perspective (whether people are talking about a hypothetical situation or speaking specifically about this particular dog).

 

Thanks!

[ljrphoto]

wildairbc,

 

I'm not a breeder, although I do not like the AKC for most any breed, so I'm not claiming to be an unbiased party. But, I think that the original intent of this post was seeking advice on whether or not to tell a breeder someone thought might care whether or not one of their dogs was going to a show home and that their dog would be leaving the gene pool. The breeder was told and is fine with the dog going to a show home - some disappointment is bound to be expressed. The other explanations have just been clarification for people like me - ignorant of the entire registration process since I only do rescue dogs - and discussion on whether or not the dog leaving the pool is a big deal one way or the other.

 

It feels like a "control" issue. It feels like some kind of a contest with only one side keeping score-because the other didn't sign up for the "game". I suppose that is not very clear, but that is the best I can do at the moment.

 

I think that you are right about it being a control issue. Breeders who care about the breed as a working dog should be trying to control the damage irresponsible breeding does to the Border Collie. It's not just BC's. There are many recently recognized breeds that breeders have tried to keep the AKC from recognizing because it's clear what happens once one can throw "AKC" onto the newspaper ads for the latest litter of puppies. I personally think it goes beyond keeping the breed healthy and working. If every breeder did so responsibly the pounds would not so full of throw away dogs and the rescues would not be fighting for room for one more dog too nice to be seen put down for lack of space.

[wildairbc]

Hi,

No, I am not the one importing this dog. I do know the dog, however.

I understand your belief that whatever it is you consider a "working BC" is the only legitimate breeding animal in the breed. I simply do not agree.

I was only wondering why, if this dog is now so inconsequential to you, that you worried about where it was going.

I also think that it says a lot that you ASSUMED that the person importing this dog was somehow trying to "deceive" the breeder, which is entirely untrue. I can only imagine that the breeder was extrememly annoyed that you all felt the need to "warn" him, as if he didn't have a brain in his head. The fact is, that in the UK, ISDS and KC dogs are interchanged all of the time, no harm, no foul. As [the breeder] said, to paraphrase,"What I do with my dogs is no one's business except mine and vice versa." (again assuming, he means above cruelty and neglect)

You seem to feel confident that their are enough working BCs and enough "responsible" breeders maintaining them, that your genepool is in no danger. So, yes, it IS confusing. I know that there are bad breeders in every breed, in every country. I also am quite sure that 99% of the ABCA registered Border Collies that I have owned and known would not come close to meeting your "standard" of working ability, and there are FAR more of them than there are Australasian dogs. I also am quite sure, though I have no empirical evidence, that MOST Australasian dogs are never TRIED on stock, so who knows if they have the ability or not? They are simply owned by folks that would rather not do stockwork. Say, "then get another breed" all you want, but there are many qualities possessed by the BC that people fall in love with aside from "working ability".

Well, I am sorry if I insulted anyone, but I truly wanted to know. So, now I do. I am still unsure of your motives and maybe even your position, but I have the answer I asked for. Thanks very much.

[ljrphoto]

I also think that it says a lot that you ASSUMED that the person importing this dog was somehow trying to "deceive" the breeder, which is entirely untrue.

 

I think most responded to the case as it was presented, not knowing anything about either party since no one was ever mentioned by name (that I saw) until you did.

[Eileen Stein]

In light of the above statement however (which seems to be somewhat of a concensus), why does this thread even exist? I mean, you are NOT really worried about this one dog (yes , a proven adult)? You are NOT worried about there being enough good working dogs? So, I guess that I don't get it.

 

The OP apparently had reason to think that the buyer was concealing from the seller (who is in another country) the fact that s/he intended to show the dog. So the OP asked whether to let the seller know or not. What's hard to understand about that? It's a tricky ethical question, given that many of us would want to know if we as breeders were being misled about something like that. Wouldn't you as a breeder want to be told if a puppy buyer intended to do something with your pup that you thought was wrong? Of course, you disagree with us about whether registering a border collie with the AKC and showing it in conformation is wrong, but you knew that already. So I guess that I just don't get your professed puzzlement.

 

You also seem to have a false sense of the esteem given your registry by AKC breeders. Most have no interest whatsoever in ABCA registered dogs.

 

Ah, if only that were true. If that were true, the AKC would have closed its studbook to ABCA registered dogs in 1998, and we would all be happier.

 

Having said that, I must say that all I seem to be getting is that some people think they have a right to tell others what to do, when what the others are doing is having no direct effect on them at all.

 

Who told who what to do? I must have missed something.

 

I also think that it says a lot that you ASSUMED that the person importing this dog was somehow trying to "deceive" the breeder, which is entirely untrue. I can only imagine that the breeder was extrememly annoyed that you all felt the need to "warn" him, as if he didn't have a brain in his head.

 

We didn't assume that the person importing this dog was trying to deceive the breeder. We accepted that possibility as part of the hypothetical situation because the OP said s/he had reason to think so. You are the one who is "imagining" how the breeder (whose alleged name only you have felt the need to post, and which I have edited out since the OP was careful not to post identifying information about either breeder or buyer) must have felt. If it was of no importance to him, then why would you "imagine" that he would care one way or the other about being told?

 

The fact is, that in the UK, ISDS and KC dogs are interchanged all of the time, no harm, no foul.

 

That's simply not true. But what is true is that the border collie is sufficiently established in the public mind there as first and foremost a working sheepdog so that they have less reason to be concerned about the KC's impact on their working dogs than we do, and it is less likely that working breeders over there would be concerned about the issues we face here.

[Eileen Stein]

I've decided to close the thread at this point. The original purpose for which it was started has been satisfied, and I would like to see the OP's intention not to identify the breeder and buyer in question honored. I apologize to the last two posters whose posts I removed. It was not because of anything wrong with their posts -- they were good posts.