Jump to content
BC Boards

registration question


Pam Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

People over here who pocket the proceeds do not complain either, at leaat not in public. The people who view the dumbing down of the dogs and the loss of real working ability as a threat do.

 

By the way, this is a US-based board with international contributors making up a small but very welcome part. Perhaps it's understandable that the general situation and politics discussed here are primarily based on the American experience. It is also advavtageous to learn about and understand circumstances in other countries and cultures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

Perhaps it's understandable that the general situation and politics discussed here are primarily based on the American experience.

In addition, the questions that have been asked in this thread, including from you, mum24, are not general questions about collies across the globe but very specific questions tied to the ABCA and the AKC. Perhaps that also explains the focus on those organizations.

 

P.s. Having two organizations keeps the enemies guessing (and they are many; you'd be shocked). Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean our secrets are safe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

The history of working Border Collies in our country is a bit different than in yours. For example the USBCHA (trial organization) was not founded until 1979; at that time there were several registries for the breed. When the ISDS was founded, breed registries were just getting started so it was much easier for the only registry to also become the trial sanctioning body.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I use my dogs to make a living. I pay my bills with their work. They are working in deep forest, on open land, unfenced and in netting under freeways in downtown seattle, moving goats and sheep. And Cattle at home and at the mobile unit. Errors in breeding show up really fast. (I know this from experience.) And on the job, a wreck is a disaster. I would go in a heartbeat to my USBCHA, ABCA open pro handlers and ask advice about getting a pup or breeding one of mine. And have done so. I explain what I am doing, what my work consists of.

 

A pup born to AKC parents that could be Rom'ed

In my opinion would be a fluke.

Show me the line

The parents

A whole litter

 

 

then come out and do my work

 

When that dog is a year old with little training.

 

working from what is in him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

...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...

 

 

Please provide numbers and sources of data. Are figures rough correlation relationships, or is direct cause and effect claimed regarding supposed reduction in CH titled border collies? How is the conclusion arrived at? -- Kind regards, TEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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........ 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.

"Please provide numbers and sources of data" to support your premise that there were those who chose not to train to the level of ROM because they were excluded from this process and the loss of a potential ("would of, should of, could of") star working dog because an AKC CH was deregistered.

 

An even easier question; how many AKC CH do you know that have earned points towards the finals?

 

If the dog cannot compete at this level (or satisfy Tea's work requirements) is the gene pool really missing anything by its exclusion from the ROM process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please provide numbers and sources of data. Are figures rough correlation relationships, or is direct cause and effect claimed regarding supposed reduction in CH titled border collies? How is the conclusion arrived at? -- Kind regards, TEC

The policy went into effect Jan 1, 2004. In 2004, 17 ABCA dogs were de-registered for getting their AKC CH. Four in 2005, three in 2006, four in 2007, and no more than one per year since then.

 

But it's not just a matter of numbers. I lived through that time, I saw the changes in culture that the policy brought about. There was a lot of advocacy within BCSA for conformation showing (for breed prestige, for "versatility" and for "showing those AKC judges what a REAL border collie looks like") and a lot of advocacy for dual registration (AKC and ABCA). There was always a faction in BCSA that cared only about conformation (and their dogs would have rarely been registered with ABCA to begin with), but at that time most wanted to keep their ABCA registrations, entice other ABCA folks to register AKC also so they could keep the breed together and "have it all -- brains AND beauty!" They exalted the idea of the combined working dog and conformation champion, and they saw the ABCA as providing working-dog legitimacy along with the CH from the AKC side. That was the vision.

 

The de-registration policy forced a choice (although not the all-or-nothing choice that I personally would have preferred). You could not "have it all." A few ABCA members threatened to sue ABCA for breach of contract or violation of the Sherman Act. The ABCA held firm, and after it became apparent that we were checking championships awarded and following through on de-registrations, even if the dogs' AKC names were different from their ABCA names, there was a shift in that vision. Some people went with conformation, but most of those who would have been the line-blurrers did not. I can tell you, from month after month of checking titles awarded, that it's the same limited number of conformation breeders and their puppy buyers who are getting championships. From what I can see, breed championships just don't have the same cachet across the spectrum of AKC border collie owners as they do in other breeds now, simply because you forfeit the right to be in the working registry if you get one. I could list names of prominent border collie people who without a doubt would have shown in conformation to get that breed CH (and did, prior to the de-registration policy) who have just turned away from conformation showing, and yes, it's in large part because of the de-registration policy. That was the first real push-back to the prestige of the AKC championship.

 

But I recognize that my experience is different from yours, and that from where you sit, the scenarios you sketch -- e.g., people who would be training their AKC Champions to a high level of stockwork but for the knowledge that ROM could never be achieved -- seem plausible. Likewise, I recognize that the work involved in administering and judging ROM applications seems negligible to someone who doesn't have to do it or arrange for others to do it. We are all shaped by our experience, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The work involved in administering and evaluating ROM applications does not seem negligible after reading the ROM requirements. And I know for a fact, on the owner's part of preparing the ROM documentation, it is lengthy and comprehensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Although I've had limited contact with the ISDS over the years, I knew Barbara Carpenter well who was the first president of the KC Border Collie Club and I know some historical reasons the ISDS/KC relationship was and is different from the ABCA/AKC mostly non-relationship.

 

A Philip Hendry. ISDS secretary when the KC began stalking the dog, felt that with certain provisos, working ability could be maintained despite "recognition" and there were, as always, some who hoped to get better prices for their pups. Consequently, the ISDS didn't fight the KC with the proviso that only dogs that passed a working test (roughly equivilant to a decent score at an open trial) could be a "Champion". They tried this for some years (during which period Mrs Carpenter held one or two trials for KC registered dogs) but it simply did not work. A very, very few conformation dogs (many of whom were imported from Austrailia whose kennel club in the absence of an Australian equivilant of the ISDS or the ABCA had "recognized" the breed a decade earlier) attempted the test (as I dimly recall three in the first three years. None passed. One did pass -to great cries of vindication - in the next year or so but the working requirement for CH was quietly dropped.

 

British collie handlers/breeders/farmers weren't terribly worried about danger to the dog - and I suspect most today couldn't care less. And Philip Hendry thought the ISDS could have it both ways.

 

That's what happened in the early days.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should keep in mind what the ROM process is really for; it is to provide a means to record breeding information of this dog's offspring. That is it.

 

 

AKC CH dogs do not need ABCA registration to compete in local trials (all breeds and mutts are allowed).

They do not need ABCA registration to run in the finals (all breeds and mutts are allowed).

They do not need ABCA registration to win the finals (all breeds and mutts are allowed).

They do no need ABCA registration to breed with ABCA dogs.

They do not need ABCA registration to record the breeding information of this dog's offspring (the AKC will do this).

 

 

So why would owners of deregistered dogs want ABCA registration via ROM; what does it offer that AKC registration does not offer?

 

 

The only thing I can think of is the perception of working ability credentials (like the perception of quality with AKC registration); but who really needs the perception of working ability when one can prove working ability on the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The work involved in administering and evaluating ROM applications does not seem negligible after reading the ROM requirements. And I know for a fact, on the owner's part of preparing the ROM documentation, it is lengthy and comprehensive.

 

 

 

...But I recognize that my experience is different from yours, and that from where you sit, the scenarios you sketch -- e.g., people who would be training their AKC Champions to a high level of stockwork but for the knowledge that ROM could never be achieved -- seem plausible. Likewise, I recognize that the work involved in administering and judging ROM applications seems negligible to someone who doesn't have to do it or arrange for others to do it. We are all shaped by our experience, I guess.

 

 

The American legal system has methods of winnowing-out unmeritorious claims long before having to set aside days to weeks of courtroom trial calendar, along with the time/effort of judges, jurors, witnesses/experts, lawyers and their clients. Seems that some small part of that template could be modified to work in the ROM process. Greater reliance on well made videos (perhaps professionally, at handler expense), bringing the dog to board members rather than the reverse -- things of that nature, in order to reduce workload and to facilitate procedure.

 

I continue to believe that out of considerably more than 1000 dogs (including bitches/sires and off-spring) who would be qualified to test for ROM, but for the current rules and CH of the dog or its parent (1000 = approx. 20 deregistered in 2004, times 10 years, times 5 to account for just one litter each), that from that number a significant portion would test and meet ROM. There is certainly one way to never know.

 

Apparently there are USBCHA open level dogs [ETA: working bred dogs] whose owners forego the final leg of CH title, to comply with ABCA. At least one example of that was mentioned by a forum member recently on this thread (see post # 39).

 

Upon a rule change, the bar may be set a little too high. If a cross section of ABCA registered dogs was arbitrarily chosen from its ranks, only a certain few could pass the current ROM test. I am simply suggesting that it should be a fair test, with a view to not repeating the UK's dropping of performance testing altogether (See Mr. McCaig's post above).

 

I believe a change of ABCA rules, along with ROM test for registration of CH titled dogs, or a limited time to meet ROM before deregistration, would fit well with the inclusive mindset of rural America, and changing societal attitudes. -- Kind regards, TEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently there are USBCHA open level dogs whose owners forego the final leg of CH title, to comply with ABCA. At least one example of that was mentioned by a forum member recently on this or another thread.

 

Seriously? I doubt there are many. I have yet to meet (or even hear about) even one open handler who shows their dogs in conformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Billadeau -- Does above question refer to ABCA rules regarding registration/deregistration of Border Collies which are unrelated to parentage and ancestry in ABCA breeding records, yet based on CH titling? Could you be more specific? -- TEC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say people seek out ABCA registration for something more than just a breeding record and it affords something that is more than a perception. Tell me what you think an ABCA registration endows to a pup.

 

If I may offer an opinion, as one ignorant of stock dogs and stockwork... One answer to Mark's question is earning potential. There are plenty of people out there - like me - who know enough to avoid an AKC puppy. If I were in the market for a puppy. I would avoid an AKC registered dog. Not because I need a stock dog, but because the AKC is bad for the Border Collie.

 

If I went to a website and saw that a dog named "Moss", a winner of a recent USBCHA triial, and registered ABCA had a litter of pups on the ground, I might be interested in one of those pups. I might assume that the litter was thoroguly "working bred" - as in, bred that way and proved at perfoming that way.

 

The breeder would not have to mention his dog's AKC background and breeding in conformation. He could save that info for advertising puppies in the trades like the AKC Gazette and Dog World.

 

But the fact would remain that "Moss" was not entirely a working collie or even entirely a working-bred collie. He would be a chimera. A dog that could work, but was bred not just with working ability as a goal, but one that was also bred to excell in the conformation ring. Which means he would be much less likely to be able to reliably produce pups that consistently reached or exceeded his level of ability as a stock dog.

 

Not to mention that some of my puppy-price dollars would end up in the hated hands of the AKC, and all of them would be contributing to the dillution of skills in a breed of dog I have come to love. In that, no matter what you feel about the ability of a single dog, you're either "on the bus or off the bus," and I'd rather walk than be on that bus. Even for a ride around the block.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's absolutely correct, Gionni. I think many on these boards would be surprised at people who dual register. Fewer and fewer that trial (USBCHA) can reasonably compete in conformation and I think de-registration helped with that, along with the OZ "Barbie" look becoming more widely accepted among the show crowd. And people may be becoming more clever about hiding the info as Gionni posted. More of the dual registered owners compete in AKC herding trials, a few in other dog sports via AKC. One does have to wonder if these dual registered dogs are being bred for work or for sports-or if the caliber of "work" is "USBCHA Open" level or lower.

 

There are no good answers unfortunately, but any time ONE dog is registered (or earns a ROM) under false pretenses it just means there could be loopholes and encourages others to follow suite, all to the ignorance of the ABCA. People who blow the whistle are heartily disliked so that discourages sharing info and many keep the info 'outside' the USBCHA world.

 

TEC, It would be nice to have a proven working registry, but those logistics have been discussed MANY times and for longer than the AKC has had it's variety of dogs called Border Collies. This country is too big and the difficulties appear insurmountable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But AKC pups sell for more money than most ABCA pups providing more earning potential.

The added value (beyond the recorded pedigree) associated with papers from one non performance registry vs another is merely perception.

 

 

So where is this proof that there are all these owners of AKC Ch dogs that want ABCA registration with the real added value from them.

 

The real added value comes from the work of the ABCA organization, not from the papers.

 

Mark Billadeau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously? I doubt there are many. I have yet to meet (or even hear about) even one open handler who shows their dogs in conformation.

There is one of whom I am aware. I have seen her run her Open dogs and I have sat near her as she discussed, with her AKC/hobby "herding" coterie of friends, that she showed one of the Open dogs to the point of gaining two legs on his show championship but would not show him any more because she did not want him deregistered. This happens to be someone very involved with BCSA and their "herding" programs, and with showing another breed in AKC events.

 

She is a good handler (as far as I am aware) and a good person, and why she would support AKC and BCSA is beyond me but apparently she feels she can do just fine with one foot in each world and sees no contradiction in doing so. I do think she is certainly the exception and not the rule when it comes to being involved with both AKC and USBCHA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is this proof that there are all these owners of AKC Ch dogs that want ABCA registration with the real added value from them.

 

The real added value comes from the work of the ABCA organization, not from the papers.

 

Mark Billadeau

It's been my understanding that the agility crowd frequently choose from the "working bred" pool because the dogs allegedly have more "drive". Would these people not be looking at ABCA dogs? And does not a "hot agility prospect" pull a higher price? I don't know. I'm just repeating what I've read and been told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly the BCSA made it somewhat 'prestigious' to almost finish a CH if you had a working dog-it is a bragging point.

 

I think it would be nice to make a wall in the sand instead of a 'line'. At one time some working breeders would AKC reg dogs to sell to working homes in Europe, that should no longer be an issue. AKC has the back door open for working dogs to enter it's genepool. I agree it would be nice to force one or the other. At least for intact dogs. Spayed/neutered ( registered on PAL or such) competing in dog sports gives an outlet for some people (and reality is in the USA AKC is the big venue). The issue is over having better assurance that a breeder's goals are towards working livestock (and I know the problems there). But as long as people can have their cake and eat it too, they will continue to breed dogs for other than work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam Wolf, on 26 Aug 2014 - 23:12, said:

Sadly the BCSA made it somewhat 'prestigious' to almost finish a CH if you had a working dog-it is a bragging point.

As I recall, at one time a proposal was floated within the BCSA to have a special BCSA title or award (to add to the gazillion they already have) for dogs who got a certain number of points toward their breed CH (10 points? 2 majors?) but whose owners didn't want to risk ABCA de-registration by going the whole way. But the BCSA board felt it wasn't worth it because by that time so few people showed in conformation who would care about retaining their ABCA registration, so the idea was scrapped. This would have been about two to four years after the de-registration policy was adopted.

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...