Jump to content
BC Boards

registration question


Pam Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Re: Denying Opportunity for ROM

What a lot of haughty drivel, post # 25.

The AKC CH titled dogs who are denied ROM opportunities simply because their current or past owners sought recognition that they met conformation standard are punished through no fault of the dogs themselves, and the livestock industry may be denied potential star workers. As already mentioned, ROM is an exceptionally high standard. All dogs that meet the requirements of ROM should be qualified for ABCA registration, and further, all CH titled dogs should be offered the opportunity for ROM prior to deregistration, except in the case of clear intentional fraud. The above workload argument sounds tissue thin when balanced against the harm done by not offering ROM. The dogs and their offspring who will not be trained to a high standard, for want of the possibility to gain ROM, we will never know. ROM and health certifications assure that good genes are likely forwarded to the pool.

I am not a member of a dog-based organization, and have no plans to earn revenue from canine industries. My unregistered (not deregistered) spayed border collie and I seriously train stockwork, and we occasionally use our skills for practical purposes.

Give it a try. Dogs and ABCA will benefit, as will folks who operate livestock farms and ranches. -- Kind regards, TEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think there are enough AKC titled conformation champions out there who can do the work required for a ROM to really say that ABCA rules are throwing babies out with the bathwater.

If there were scores of AKC conformation CH dogs out there who were fabulous as open dogs, that would be one thing. But USBCHA trials allow any dog to enter and I have yet to hear of any ACK conformation champ showing up and wowing the socks off fellow trialers. It may have happened! But not often enough to warrant any changes in ABCA registration requirements.

I, personally, am quite pleased to keep conformation champs out of our registry. Too many of those people breeding for "the standard" are deliberately breeding for lack of work, because that shows best in the ring. If one comes along who is a throwback to working ancestors, fine. But the fact remains that conformation breeders are not putting the work first, many are in fact deliberately omitting it, and we don't need to water down our working lines by adding those dogs to the ABCA registry. It's always a roll of the dice whether any litter of pups, however well-bred, will produce good working dogs. Allowing conformation-bred dogs into the registry and thus into ABCA breeding lines would water down those chances even further, because that conformation champ's bloodlines will include a lot of non-working breeding. I just don't believe there are going to be many working stars lurking in family trees like that.

I'll now apologize if I'm misreading or misconstruing the objection to post #25. I've just become steadily more anti-AKC as time goes on. B)
Respectfully submitted,

Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an extremely rude comment about a posting by one of the very people who has tirelessly advocated for the working dog, in many, many ways, including moderating these boards.

 


What a lot of haughty drivel, post # 25.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an extremely rude comment about a posting by one of the very people who has tirelessly advocated for the working dog, in many, many ways, including moderating these boards.

 

Though I don't disagree, everyone has a right to their opinion, and plenty of members of this board have been what could be considered rude in their turn. I think it was a fair statement. No reason to let emotion get in the way of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And here is a question - while an AKC conformation champion apparently can't be ROM'd, can that dog's offspring, if deserving and proven by the work, be ROM'd? Perhaps I missed the answer to this if it was addressed previously. If this is the case, if there were good genetics found in a dog that did gain an AKC championship, its offspring that achieved an ROM would be able to be part of the ABCA working dog gene pool.

 

I still think the likelihood is pretty small.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you think it polite to refer to someone else's post as "a lot of haughty drivel"? Fine. It might have been much more mannerly to simply say, "I don't agree with post #25" and explain why, rather than to be rudely dismissive.

 

Sometimes it's very easy to see why most of the real working dog people have left these boards, and I admire those like Gloria (of infinite patience) and Julie, and others, who tough it out because they feel they can educate and make a difference.

 


Though I don't disagree, everyone has a right to their opinion, and plenty of members of this board have been what could be considered rude in their turn. I think it was a fair statement. No reason to let emotion get in the way of debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember not too long ago seeing Mr. McCraig state that anyone who threw a ball for their dogs was using it as a way to be lazy (or at least, that was heavily implied). When someone protested that that was unnecessary/rude (he could have just said that he didn't agree with doing it) then that person was told that it wasn't rude, he was just blunt. I have no opinion on whether either Donald or TEC were being rude, and I don't think there's any point in judging it. You're right, it's hard to keep your patience and stay on these boards. I don't mean to belittle that. I am continually impressed with members like yours' ability to keep trying despite the many ignorant people. But that's exactly why it's easier when emotion stays out of things. Eileen isn't exempt from having blunt or rude opinions thrown at her just because she is so incredible and determined and what she does.

I apologize, Sue. I don't mean to antagonize. Quite the opposite. I'll let us get back to the topic at hand now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember not too long ago seeing Mr. McCraig state that anyone who threw a ball for their dogs was using it as a way to be lazy (or at least, that was heavily implied). When someone protested that that was unnecessary/rude (he could have just said that he didn't agree with doing it) then that person was told that it wasn't rude, he was just blunt. I have no opinion on whether either Donald or TEC were being rude, and I don't think there's any point in judging it.

 

She has a point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TEC, if a registry is to be maintained then certain rules need to be adhered to otherwise why have any registered animals at all. Owners, breeders and those wishing to improve (although it can easily be argued that this isn't the case more often than not) or maintain a certain level of 'standards' need to adhere to the rules.

 

In the case of the Working Border Collie, One would have to ask why an owner would want to ROM a dog from conformation titled parents. But it would NOT be for the improvement of the working border collie as it would most likely not be a long term improvement for the breed. Such an owner would have to have searched out lines for other than working in the first place, and therefore not adhering to the principles of the working Border Collie. While the ROM does mean the dog is of decent quality, one has to wonder if the majority of it's offspring would be as good or equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why bother to ask a pedigree question to an Internet forum? It seems like it would be more efficient to ask an ABCA director or staff member if there was a possible pedigree issue. This ruling occurred back in 2004. " Haughty drivel" or not, it's been a rule for 10 years and if there was a mistake allowing a registration to occur it seems like identifying the problem and alerting the registry or asking for clarification by the registry would be the most expedient way to handle the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps this isn't my place to speak, as I am not active in the herding world. But I'll do it anyway. (I have to learn to stick foot in mouth at some point).

 

As someone who has not had the opportunity to fully develop her anti-AKC attitude (though it's definitely there), I can understand and have experienced how the ABCA attitude comes across as very condescending. And I think that's what has caused the issue. From an outsiders perspective, the argument of an AKC dog to be ROM'd if they fulfilled the requirements comes down to this: No matter how talented the dog, ABCA has chosen to punish the owner for not having purchased an ABCA dog to begin with.

 

Now, that is somewhat understandable. ABCA rightfully shuns all activities and individuals involved with AKC because they do not support what the ABCA supports: working abilities as the one and only 'breed standard'.

 

But I'd love to know because I honestly don't know, is the split between the ABCA and the AKC dog-driven or owner/breeder-driven? It seems like it is owner/breeder-driven to me. I get that vibe because there are many dogs who are ABCA registered who don't come close to what the association promotes. I see tons of sports breeder who boast having ABCA registered dogs, even though their dogs are nothing like what the association supports. On the other hand, if there were an AKC dog who was good enough to be awarded ROM, it would not be allowed. That seems like a contradiction to me, coming from an association who supports a working standard. It would seem to me that the AKC dog with ROM would be a much better example of the border collie than the sports dog who is 15 generations removed from an actual working dog. And yet the dog with AKC registration is punished. That's where I get confused, because it would seem to me that the ABCA would support the talented dog regardless of the origins. So, why is that dog so despicable? I can understand the rule stating any dog that acquire a CH is deregistered (because that dog, or the owner rather, is supporting a registration which contradicts the ABCA beliefs), though I also can twist the argument around and ask why a dog who could be a fantastic working dog that happens to meet AKC standards suddenly is the worst possible example of the border collie.

 

I try to come up with a comparative circumstance, and I think of the NCHA. 99.9% of the horses competing are quarter horses. It is highly, highly unlikely that a dutch warmblood would ever have a natural propensity for cutting, but if one ever did, it would be eligible to compete with the 'big boys' and receive NCHA earnings. If the NCHA took the same attitude of the ABCA, all dutch warmbloods would be ineligible because it isn't a breed which is naturally inclined for cutting. And their people ride english *gasp*, that's not what we support here! And yet all are welcome, even though chances are extremely slim that certain breeds will show up.

 

I completely understand the animosity between the two associations, they simply support opposing views. But it seems to me that both associations (ABCA is particular) go out of their way to spite those of the other group. Is that the case?If so, why?

 

I promise I'm not trying to start a fight! These are honest questions! I'm sure there will be many who think I'm an AKC supporter, which I can certainly promise I'm not. I think it's standards and its participants can be and are simply disgusting. But I sometimes have to question whether the ABCA's supposed "let the dog's ability be the standard" attitude is truly the goal.

 

If it were a perfect world there wouldn't be these issues. I think the only way I haven't yet 'drunk the koolaid' is that I wish there were more of an opportunity for AKC dogs to be 'recovered' rather than disown them, so to speak. (*note: this is about the dogs, the owners and supporters of AKC are too far gone in my opinion*) The vast majority of AKC supporters have no interest in developing the herding abilities of their black and white golden retrievers. Oh well, I can always wish.

 

I apologize for my rant, and I'm sorry that it probably doesn't exact repeat the mantra of the ABCA and it's faithful supporters. It may be, however, a slight bit of insight of how the argument appears to those who are more ambivalent or less experienced in the world of border collies. In the end, everyone loves their dog, whether it's ABCA, AKC, rescue, or any other mix of dogs. I'm sorry if I offended people! I'm sure my perceptions aren't the intent of the ABCA and those who are so passionate about it's mission. Let the onslaught begin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a difference in the internet world between a blanket statement ("Anyone who does this is lazy") and a statement directed at an individual ("You are lazy").

 

PS - As anyone who knows me knows I can't keep my mouth shut or my fingers controlled, one last remark (I hope). Everyone seems to be referring to any dog that wins an AKC championship as "conformation-bred" and that's not necessarily the case. Some kennels that include and produce dual-registered animals may be largely based on non-AKC animals, some of which come from very nice working lines and are talented dogs/bitches. I know of one dog that is dual-registered and has been shown to the point of gaining two "legs" towards his championship but his owner won't seek the third leg as she does not want him de-registered. He is strictly working dog bred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingfisher, my purpose in writing post #25 was to answer questions like the ones you pose in your post. I know it is long, but perhaps you might try reading it one more time, in case you might find your answers there. Even if you just read the first three sentences, you would see that dogs who are registered with the AKC are not barred from ROM. And if ABCA's purpose were "to punish the owner for not having purchased an ABCA dog to begin with," there would be no such thing as ROM, whose sole purpose is to bring into ABCA dogs who were not ABCA dogs to begin with.

 

I will add this, though. As a result of the rule that conformation champions cannot retain or gain ABCA registration, there have been a whole lot fewer border collies shown in conformation than there would otherwise have been, and therefore a whole lot fewer border collies being bred for conformation than there would otherwise have been. Since one of the purposes of the rule was to deter people from using conformation titles as a standard of excellence for the border collie, that is a good outcome.

 

Sue, to answer your question about descendants of AKC champions being eligible for ROM, the second-generation and later offspring of a conformation champion are eligible to apply for ROM. That permits dogs from AKC conformation champions' lines to turn away from a conformation standard and back to a working standard if they still have the talent to do so.

 

Finally, to call someone's post "haughty drivel" is not acceptable on the Boards, and had the comment been directed at anyone other than me, I would have removed it. Please confine your disagreement with others' posts to the substance, and refrain from personal insults.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kingfisher 7151 I believe the ABCA's position is breed (or breeding) driven (and of course because breeds are fundamentally human endeavors, in that sense owner driven). I don't understand why you characterize agreement with ABCA principles as "drinking the koolaid". Is principled agreement cultish? It's simply not true that actual dogs are "despised" or that owners are "punished." You can enter and run in any trial with any dog you please. [ETA: what follows is inaccurate as to points but was in my post originally: except the National Finals, which depends on earned points over the course of the year. Points are tracked via the ABCA registry.] You can enter any trial with your conformation champion. Funny thing is that this is pretty uncommon.

(Not to be snarky about it at all, but I think it can be difficult to understand how complex using dogs to work stock to a high level actually is. At least I had no idea until I started to try. USBCHA herding trials are not like some other activities that require registration to participate. The point of an ABCA ROM registration for a CH would be to be able to breed that dog and automatically register the offspring. ETA: In this sense your analogy to cutting horses isn't really apt as you described it--I know nothing about how, or if, cutting horse breeding is regulated so do not know if a standard is used to determine issues related to breeding. The performance standard you described is basically the same as that for USBCHA trials--in theory, anyone with any dog can pay their entry fee and walk to the post)

It's the practice linked to breeding to a formal rather than a functional standard that is the problem addressed by the ABCA principles (as well as the history by which the border collie became recognized by the AKC in the first place). If it seems exclusionary, I believe it's intended to be. If it seems symbolic, it's probably intended to be that as well. The AKC (and virtually any human social groups) have similar exclusionary and symbolic positions. I was asked to leave an AKC venue because I had my mongrel with me. Oh well.

I know, like, and respect people and dogs involved in various AKC activities. I think you can clearly see a three way breed split between dogs bred to a formal standard, those bred to a "sports" standard and those bred to work livestock. I believe breeding unproven working dogs ("But he won a Novice trial!") is probably worse, practically speaking, for the working gene pool than conformation or sport breeding. I think there are a phenomenal number of Internet experts who haven't really proven *themselves* on the field.

The thing that's hard to understand is that this isn't about individual dogs or the people who love them. It's a principle, a belief system, a worldview.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's simply not true that actual dogs are "despised" or that owners are "punished." You can enter and run in any trial with any dog you please, except the National Finals, which depends on earned points over the course of the year. Points are tracked via the ABCA registry. You can enter any other trial with your conformation champion.

One minor correction: Actually, points are tracked by the USBCHA (United States Border Collie Handlers Association), not the ABCA, and a dog with a conformation championship can enter all sanctioned trials, earn points (if it is able to), and run in the National Finals (if it has accumulated enough points). Dogs are not excluded from any USBCHA trial, including the Finals, because they are conformation champions. A conformation champion could win the Finals (if it could win the Finals). They are excluded only from registration with the ABCA registry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

One minor correction: Actually, points are tracked by the USBCHA (United States Border Collie Handlers Association), not the ABCA, and a dog with a conformation championship can enter all sanctioned trials, earn points (if it is able to), and run in the National Finals (if it has accumulated enough points). Dogs are not excluded from any USBCHA trial, including the Finals, because they are conformation champions. They are excluded only from registration with the ABCA registry.

Thanks for the correction! Mistakes made during zealousness often the most embarrassing ;-). Even clearer for the overall point that the ABCA is a registry tied to breeding--which is the crux of the issue here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really good posts. In addition to Internet experts like Robin says are those who are experts in their own minds. It would be hard to know who these people are from the outside, but that's off topic.

 

I think the ROM and de-registration procedures make great sense from a population perspective. It can be hard to look beyond our individual beloved dogs, but the ABCA is aimed at breeding to maintain and improve working dogs as a whole population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who has now or in the past actually relied upon their working dogs as part of earning their livelihood applauds this effort to ensure there IS a registry - a studbook with real world value.

 

It is not enough to win trials or come from a long line of dogs who have some working ancestor. A dog's abilities were the genesis of this breed and that was no a vanity to a man and his sheep - that was serious business upon which farming fortunes rose or fell.

 

Anyone playing at it (like myself although I come from/live on a family farm that relies *heavily* upon working dogs) needs to *remember* why they fell in love with these dogs to begin with. It was because the men and women who created them had something akin to the ABCA registry, even if it was traded over pints at the pub. Trials were for fun and friendly wagering, and to advertise a good dog, in some cases - but a dog did not go to trial from an air conditioned mini van and then back to three times a week "herding lessons", he went to trial the day after he went to work and the day before he went to work again.

 

Working ability, the real proven kind, is the most precious aspect of this breed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask you.

 

As long as a pup happens work is it okay (for the breed as a whole) for people to breed for the show ring?

Of course not, not in itself, but I would say that about any breed.

 

Why does the ISDS not think it necessary to have a similar rule? Or none that I can find. Maybe not as insecure or paranoid?

 

The pup I am planning to buy will be dual registered. No big deal. The breeder wouldn't normally register with anything other than the ISDS but will register with a national KC if the buyer needs it for whatever s/he plans to do with the dog.

 

The breeder even sold a non conformation looking dog to a show breeder who wanted to improve their line. Again, nothing to be swept under the carpet?

 

I asked in another thread about the number of ABCA registrations pa but without response. Are the figures not available? I would be interested in the relative population sizes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why does the ISDS not think it necessary to have a similar rule? Or none that I can find. Maybe not as insecure or paranoid?

I did try to answer your last questions, but I wouldn't presume to answer this one, because although I have visited the UK fairly frequently, have a number of friends there, and have been a member of the ISDS and had contact with them on a number of issues, I do not have the same confidence you seem to have that a foreigner can fully understand or judge the situation in another country. Therefore, I don't feel competent to express an opinion as to why the ISDS does not think it necessary to have a similar rule, or as to whether they are correct or incorrect in their belief.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll venture a guess about some differences between the relationships of the ISDS and the KC, and the ABCA and AKC.

 

First off is that I believe there is a much greater understanding in the UK and Ireland about the differences between the kennel club (show, performance, pet) dogs and the working (farmer, shepherd) dogs. Shows like One Man and His Dog are a part of keeping this understanding alive, and it's long been part of the culture. In the US, for a majority of people, what they equate with a breed is what they see on TV - Westminster Kennel Club show, for instance. If they see a Border Collie in the show ring, that's what they equate with the breed, and assume that's the same dog that "herds sheep" if they even have a clue about the historical background of the breed.

 

Secondly, in parts of Europe where the FCI is the only registration organization, in order for a dog coming from the UK or Ireland (working or show or otherwise) to be registered, it must first have been registered with the KC in order to gain FCI registration - ISDS registration is not recognized in some countries. A breeder in the UK or Ireland must therefore dual-register their ISDS dogs/pups if selling to new owners in certain European countries in order for that new owner to be able to compete in trials with and/or breed that animal and produce registered pups themselves.

 

Thirdly, the ISDS is recognized in the UK and Ireland as *the* body for sheepdog trialing and working sheepdog registration. Unlike the US where AKC offers all sorts of watered-down "trials", "titles", and "championships" for many breeds in "herding", and where there are many hobbyists with their AKC-bred dogs happily "going herding" and seeking said titles, etc., this is not the situation in the UK or certainly not to the extent that occurs in the US. And so there aren't the numbers of people thinking that Fluffy out in the field mostly eating sheep poop or chasing sheep around a small pen is "herding" and showing "instinct" that you can see over here. I guess a lot of it is a difference between lack of knowledge in the general public over here and readily-available knowledge over in the UK and Ireland.

 

It is, on various levels, a very different situation.

 

By the way, have you read The Dog Wars? That might help you understand why the ABCA is protective - or, in your view, "insecure", "paranoid", or "sweeping things under the carpet".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to agree with what Sue said about the different cultures of the 2 countries, in the UK almost everyone knows what a collie does, a number of the ones I met out on my walks came from farms as puppies. I had an odd realization when I was out for a walk, that farm land in the UK is almost regarded as public property due to the right to ramble, there are public footpaths running through fields the length of the country and therefore non country folk are still more in touch with farming culture and that included the use of dogs. In the US I had very little connection to farming, my country walks would be in wildlife management areas or state parks, not working my way through crops and hoping that there would not be any animals in the next field so my dog would have to go on his leash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll venture a guess about some differences between the relationships of the ISDS and the KC, and the ABCA and AKC.

 

First off is that I believe there is a much greater understanding in the UK and Ireland about the differences between the kennel club (show, performance, pet) dogs and the working (farmer, shepherd) dogs. Shows like One Man and His Dog are a part of keeping this understanding alive, and it's long been part of the culture. In the US, for a majority of people, what they equate with a breed is what they see on TV - Westminster Kennel Club show, for instance. If they see a Border Collie in the show ring, that's what they equate with the breed, and assume that's the same dog that "herds sheep" if they even have a clue about the historical background of the breed.

 

Secondly, in parts of Europe where the FCI is the only registration organization, in order for a dog coming from the UK or Ireland (working or show or otherwise) to be registered, it must first have been registered with the KC in order to gain FCI registration - ISDS registration is not recognized in some countries. A breeder in the UK or Ireland must therefore dual-register their ISDS dogs/pups if selling to new owners in certain European countries in order for that new owner to be able to compete in trials with and/or breed that animal and produce registered pups themselves.

 

Thirdly, the ISDS is recognized in the UK and Ireland as *the* body for sheepdog trialing and working sheepdog registration. Unlike the US where AKC offers all sorts of watered-down "trials", "titles", and "championships" for many breeds in "herding", and where there are many hobbyists with their AKC-bred dogs happily "going herding" and seeking said titles, etc., this is not the situation in the UK or certainly not to the extent that occurs in the US. And so there aren't the numbers of people thinking that Fluffy out in the field mostly eating sheep poop or chasing sheep around a small pen is "herding" and showing "instinct" that you can see over here. I guess a lot of it is a difference between lack of knowledge in the general public over here and readily-available knowledge over in the UK and Ireland.

 

It is, on various levels, a very different situation.

 

By the way, have you read The Dog Wars? That might help you understand why the ABCA is protective - or, in your view, "insecure", "paranoid", or "sweeping things under the carpet".

 

 

I know that, but it bears demonstrating that what happens in the US isn't necessarily reflected in the rest of the world.

 

One thing I have learned from this thread is that the organisation regulating breeding and the organisation running "real" trials are not one and the same. I should have thought that it would make sense for the process of breeding for working ability and the provision of a platform to demonstrate that ability in competition to come under one umbrella but obviously not in the case of the US.

 

On the other hand, my guess would be that the majority of UK WSDs are not registered with any regulatory body and spend their lives in blissful ignorance working or as pets. Registration is rather a red herring. I am not getting my pup because it is ISDS registered; it couldn't matter less to me. I am getting it because of the breeding choices that have led to its coming about.

 

No, I haven't read "Dog Wars". For me KC recognition of the BC happened in 1976.

 

We aren't immune from ignorance here and the KC does hold its own herding tests for the seriously deluded. There is also an increasing number of "Fluffy" owners willing to part with their cash for lessons and so help support the working population. I don't hear anyone complaining as they pocket the proceeds.

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...