Barbie dog definition
Posted 29 January 2006 - 09:12 AM
Eileen thanks for the Post ,
but ithink something could be figured out that would insure some standards are met .
Posted 29 January 2006 - 09:58 AM
Eileen never said that the ABCA has regulations regarding how breeding should be done. In fact, she said the ABCA as a registry simply keeps accurate pedigrees on dogs. What you're missing in the equation here is that rules and their enforcement cost money. Does that mean raising registration fees to astronomical heights (while at the same time severely cutting the number of registrations to only proven working dogs with proven medical hsitories)? Just who would that benefit? Corporate breeders with big bucks at hand? The average farmer/stockman who wants a good working dog to help on the farm? I can assure you it's not likely the latter.
Like it or not, we do live in a capitalist society. We are free to do what we want with our personal possessions, which includes our dogs. I don't think we've been terribly successful at legislating morality or ethics in the past, and I sincerely doubt that will change in the future.
I don't know who said it and I'm too lazy to go back through the thread and look, but it comes down to the buyer doing his or her homework. You don't go buy a house, a car, spend money on college, or perhaps even try a new restaurant (in general) without doing a little research. Why should a potential puppy buyer do any less when thinking of spending $$ for a living being? In other words, why should ABCA "legislate" ethics? And how would it enforce that legistlation given the budget it has (which isn't huge by any means)? It's all well and good to say ABCA should do this or that, but concrete workable ideas might be more useful.
I for one have learned about the dogs and the work and who the good breeders are. I won't have any confusion over barbie vs. sport vs. pet vs. working when I go to get my next dog. I didn't need any governing body to do that for me. I did it for myself and learned a lot of useful things in the process.
I know nothing with any certainty, but the sight of stars makes me dream.
~Vincent van Gogh
New Kent, VA
Willow (6/1997-5/2014, run free), Boy (3/1995-10/2010, RIP), Jill (8/1996-5/2012, RIP), Farleigh, Twist, Kat, Lark, Phoebe, Pipit, and Birdie!
Willow's Rest, Tunis and mule sheep
Visit me on Facebook at Poudrier and Crowder, Set Out Specialists (P&C, SOS)
Posted 29 January 2006 - 10:17 AM
Today in day, one of the work breed by excellence as police dogs, of defense, of deteci?n, SAR, etc. is the Belgan Shepherd Malinois, simply because to the eye of anyone, it is a dog so ugly and so mad that nobody is interested in taking it as a pet. It is not a dog that someone would buy to have of adornment in the garden or to presume of it with his friends and is precisely it what has supported to the Malinois as the excellent dog of work that todaty is, the fact that it has been raised almost exclusively for his intentions as work dog. On the other hand, the Border Collie is a sweet animal that yes, can be a good pet in hands of someone who does not work with it but who offer it sufficient stimulus, and still the BC more far looking from the standards of the AKC can be considered to be a nice dog to have in house.
I have a Border Collie not because I like neither her pretty colors nor her nice coat, I have it because it is an intense dog, which loves to work and with one of the more sharp minds of the canine world. And not, I do not herd with her, my aim is different and for the same reason, I'm not planning in breed her. Mine might be considered inside the "sport dogs" group though what we do should not be a sport, but I choose a BC between a pool of breeds by his skills like sheepdog and to me is of interest that the breed continues being that.
Posted 29 January 2006 - 01:42 PM
People on these boards don't object to a "non-traditional" (stockworking) home as long as the Border Collie lives a satisfying life in a caring environment. Their objection has always been based on the breeding of Border Collies for anything but "the work" which is stock work.
It is breeding for the traits that make it the world's best stock dog, that has made it the unique breed that the working Border Collie is. Breeding for anything else (color, coat, eye shape, ear set, "soft" facial expression, man-made determinations of structure, etc.) just produces dogs that are "something else" but not true Border Collies.
You seem to understand these concepts very well.
Celt, Megan, and Dan
"When the chips are down, watch where you step."
"The happiest people don't necessarily have the best of everything. They just make the best of everything." - author unknown
Posted 29 January 2006 - 02:02 PM
Posted 29 January 2006 - 02:10 PM
I would think that at least as much thought and effort that went into the creation of The Association?s bylaws as well as the ABCA Disciplinary Rules would also be justified in the creation of regulations pertaining to the breeding of ABCA registered dogs, after all isn't the integrity of working Border Collies the primary goal of the ABCA? >>
Did you read my last post? Believe me, Iron Horse, at least as much thought and effort has gone into considering whether and how we should regulate the breeding of ABC-registered dogs as went into those other documents. It is a perennial subject of discussion. Nobody has come up with a workable scheme for "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" that seems better, on cost/benefit analysis, taking into account both intended and unintended consequences, than the system we currently use. But if you would like to propose something, by all means feel free to do so.
<< Eileen thanks for the Post ,
but ithink something could be figured out that would insure some standards are met . >>
Easy to say. Try doing it.
Posted 29 January 2006 - 02:25 PM
See? I knew we'd get some fresh ideas from our newer international members! We just need to breed the ugliest and craziest dogs we've got! Just kidding of course, that would be just as bad as breeding the prettiest dogs.
Today in day, one of the work breed by excellence as police dogs, of defense, of deteci?n, SAR, etc. is the Belgan Shepherd Malinois, simply because to the eye of anyone, it is a dog so ugly and so mad that nobody is interested in taking it as a pet.
You certainly are right, I have a friend with a Malinois. He's an awfully nice dog but I sure wouldn't want one if I didn't NEED one (and I don't!). Bouvier des flanders are another neat dog that is an acquired taste - it's rather unfortunate for the breed that the conformation breeders have acquired that taste! Thanks to the AKC again.
Cord, Ted, Gus, Sam - plus Maggie, Zhi, Lynn, Jetta, Lu, Min, and Tully
Posted 29 January 2006 - 02:40 PM
Regrettably, the ABCA does permit dual registration with the AKC. If it were up to me, we would not do so. However, we don't accept into our registry "Border Collies" that have previously been registered only with the AKC or other conformation based kennel clubs, because we don't regard those dogs, bred to a different standard, as being the same breed as ours.
It's not a matter of our not liking a Barbie's looks. We do not like breeding for looks no matter what the favored look might be. A dog bred to look a certain way is not what a border collie is. The philosophy of the ABCA is that border collies should be bred for working ability -- that the breed is defined by its abilities, not by how it looks. Within the ABCA, there will be people who uphold its philosophy to the highest extent, and people who are seriously deficient in upholding its philosophy, and everything in between. That is true in any organization. The breeders who most live up to the philosophy will be honored and respected, and the breeders who don't will be despised and deplored. But what there should not be within the ABCA, IMO, is people who support a different and incompatible philosophy, which is what border collie breeders do when they register with the AKC. If enough people do that, collectively they will change the nature of the breed, which the garden-variety bad breeders we've always had with us could never do.
Posted 29 January 2006 - 05:52 PM
A realistic proposal could only be formulated by having access to information that is the sole property of the ABCA. Therefore the most that I can do is to suggest,ask questions and to discuss what is flawed IMO.
Nobody has come up with a workable scheme for "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" that seems better, on cost/benefit analysis, taking into account both intended and unintended consequences, than the system we currently use. But if you would like to propose something, by all means feel free to do so.
How in the world does allowing this promote the working Border Collie?
Regrettably, the ABCA does permit dual registration with the AKC.
It doesn't take a genius to see how the "barbie" lines benefit.
I would really like to know by what critia this decision was reached.
By allowing this in my mind the ABCA is in a fasion supporting a different and incompatible philosophy then what it states as its primary goal.
Posted 29 January 2006 - 06:18 PM
Here is my oh-so-novice opinion, so take it for what it's worth -- which doesn't amount to much.
A lot of the problem with "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" is that there would have to be someone to test all the dogs for something like that. This means having evaluators being available for people to bring their dogs to. There are many farmers and ranchers who, if it was the only means of registering their dogs, wouldn't bother. That would be a lot of money lost for the ABCA. The other option would be to have evaluators go out to their homes to evaluate their dogs for registration, and that would be very costly, if the ABCA could find enough people interested in being evaluators. And then you get into the whole problem of "what qualifies someone to be an evaluator?" and "to what level does the dog need to work to be accepted for registration?" among other things.
As far as the ABCA allowing dual registration, the biggest argument for it that I've heard is that the ABCA would stand to lose a lot of money because of the percentage of people who would lean toward ACK registration and drop the ABCA registration.
One issue that is a sore point with me that I don't have an answer for is why the ABCA doesn't put a limit on the number of litters per year any one person can register, or how many litters out of one bitch can be registered in their lifetime. There are tons of "breeders" out there who are putting nearly 100 puppies (or more) on the ground PER YEAR, dual registering the litters, and they are allowed to register all of them. Now I know this is not just an ABCA issue. Being the puppies are being dual registered, it is also an ACK issue despite the fact that ACK has a breeding limit in place. But the people who "only" breed their bitches once a year, keep impeccable records, hip and eye test, and even go so far as to test their breeding stock in a round pen on dog broke sheep, no one even so much as bats an eye at them. From what I have been told, the ABCA does not have the money, manpower, or interest in being the breeding police. I can understand that. I just wish I had an answer for it. Like possibly hiring even just a few people to do spot investigations on certain kennels and banning certain breeders from registering pups with ABCA, which they have done. I just wish it could be on a larger scale. Even so, it doesn't stop the breeding, as those breeders just turn to other less-reputable registries. But at least the ABCA would be making a stronger stand against that type of rampant breeding.
Posted 30 January 2006 - 03:06 AM
Posted 30 January 2006 - 03:47 AM
But isn't it possible to obtain a good working dog out of a "barbie" line?
Yes, and you might catch a rainbow trout out of a mud puddle. But if you want to catch rainbow trout, you're a lot better off going to an environment where they thrive.
You asked about who works their dogs on stock, and I am one who does. Suburban and urban dog owners are often surprised to discover that there are actually farms and ranches out there (your lamb and beef comes from somewhere, after all) and that many of these operations use Border collies to manage their stock.
I'd estimate that there are about 1500 open trial dogs in the US (500 USBCHA members times two to four dogs each), but there are probably 20 to 50 times that working on farms and ranches. Some are really good, some are mediocre, and some are no damn good at all. The same could be said of the open trial dogs as well.
The Border collie culture is not one of regulation; it's one of reputation. If I want a good working dog, I know where to go looking for it, and it's not at a pet store or Westminster. Whether the dog is registered or not is of some consequence, but not the be-all and end-all. I don't believe that any registry -- no matter how well-intentioned the board might be -- can really act as the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for any breed of any animal. Registries are repositories of information, not police departments.
The ABCA has in the past and will continue to go after people who falsify documents. After all, a registry is nothing if the information it holds is tainted or questionable. But that's the limit of its police function, and that is how it should be.
If you want to know about the working ability of the parents, you go see the parents working. If you want to know what their hip and eye status is, ask the breeder. You are in a much better position to determine whether the information you're getting is credible than Patty Rogers would be.
The confusion that you point out between breeding and registry points out the need to understand what a breed of animals is. All that is necessary for animals to be purebred is that a group of breeders decide what constitutes a member of the breed (a standard) and that the breeding population be closed to other members of the species that don't meet that standard. Registries track pedigrees, which is an entirely different function from breed definition.
So the community of Border collie breeders agreed hundreds of years ago that our dogs should be bred for the ability to control and shift livestock. Our predacessors established the International Sheep Dog Society to track pedigrees of these dogs and their offpsring. They also set up a mechanism to allow the offspring of unregistered dogs to be entered into the studbook if their working ability was proved. With the exception of these dogs, registered on merit rather than on pedigree, no working test was established. The ABCA was established along similar lines.
The ISDS has made some forrays into health regulation, mostly with poor to disasterous results. One example is its attempt to deal with Collie Eye Anomoly. Bitches that bore a single pup with CEA were stripped of registration, and dogs that sired more than one litter with CEA pups were also deregistered. This has the effect of driving the disease underground -- no one tested for fear of having good working dogs deregistered. Thankfully, the ABCA hasn't gone down that sort of road yet. It has offered breeders the opportunity to record certain health certificates on the pedigrees -- passing OFA hip scores can be designated with an "@" before the dog's name on the pedigree. Very few are recorded on the pedigrees of my dogs, but I have no dysplastic dogs.
Anyway, the function of a community of purebreeders is to hold dogs up to the standard before they are bred, and to honestly and continually evaluate their offspring against that standard. The fact that dogs that don't meet that standard are registered is a red herring issue. I'm sure that if you talked to any top conformation breeder they would agree with me on that point. The AKC doesn't enforce any of its breed standards and it doesn't license or evaluate breeders by any standard other than the color of their money and the veracity of their claims about the parentage of their pups. The value of registration is that you know the pedigree of the dog, and you can register its pups. It is not, nor should it be, in a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.
Visit the Edgefield Farm Sheep Production Forum
Posted 30 January 2006 - 03:51 AM
<< A realistic proposal could only be formulated by having access to information that is the sole property of the ABCA. >>
If you can't formulate a realistic proposal on the information you have, then what makes you think a realistic proposal is possible? Not all tough problems have solutions. The ABCA registers approximately 20,000 border collies per year. Its fee schedules are on the website. It has a couple of permanent office employees to handle the paperwork, correspondence, routine queries, etc., and nearly all other work of the registry is done by 12 volunteer directors whose burn-out rate has been high. What else do you need to know?
<< Therefore the most that I can do is to suggest,ask questions and to discuss what is flawed IMO. >>
Well, thanks, I guess.
<< How in the world does allowing this [dual registration with the AKC] promote the working Border Collie? >>
I started out to recapitulate the 10+ year discussions on this issue, giving justice to the arguments advanced by the opponents of banning dual registration, and then decided the heck with it. I'm not going to write in defense of a policy I strongly disagree with. There are people of good will on the Boards who were against banning dual registration -- they can give their reasons if they want to, but probably they have even less enthusiasm for renewing this debate than I do. The ABCA is a member-owned, democratic organization. If you're a voting member of the ABCA and you want to see dual registration banned, let your directors know your views and vote for candidates who share them. You'll have my vote.
<< There are many farmers and ranchers who, if it was the only means of registering their dogs, wouldn't bother. That would be a lot of money lost for the ABCA. >>
<< As far as the ABCA allowing dual registration, the biggest argument for it that I've heard is that the ABCA would stand to lose a lot of money because of the percentage of people who would lean toward ACK registration and drop the ABCA registration. >>
I can truthfully say that I don't know anyone who is concerned about losing money. But there are quite a few people concerned about losing good dogs. Otherwise, I think you gave a good summary.
<< One issue that is a sore point with me that I don't have an answer for is why the ABCA doesn't put a limit on the number of litters per year any one person can register, or how many litters out of one bitch can be registered in their lifetime. >>
The board actually did recently consider limiting the number of litters per year that any one person can register to seven, and limiting the number of litters registrable out of one bitch in a 2-year period. The latter proposal failed on a tie vote, and the former proposal was tabled. I think the main problems people had with this, aside from the longstanding reflex aversion to regulation by the registry, is that any number set will apply to all breeders and could come to be looked on as a norm. Breeding good working dogs is an art, and breeders with the knowledge and skill to breed good working dogs are few, and are the pillars of the breed. We don't want to limit our good breeders to a number that would be appropriate for bad breeders, and we don't want to "approve" of breeding by bad breeders at a level that's appropriate for good breeders. Besides, there was a feeling that any numerical limit on the number of litter registrations per year by a single breeder could be easily circumvented by the very people it was aimed at, since they could spread title to their breeding dogs around among family members, etc.
So many of the problems we face are more complex than they might at first appear, and solutions aren't obvious. OTOH, some of us who have been racking our brains over them for years may think we've considered every possible option and ramification, and we may be wrong. So new ideas are always welcome.
To the best of my knowledge, the NASDS is not resurrecting.
Posted 30 January 2006 - 04:48 AM
"I can truthfully say that I don't know anyone who is concerned about losing money. But there are quite a few people concerned about losing good dogs. Otherwise, I think you gave a good summary."
Yes, in the case of the farmers and ranchers, yes, I agree that the loss of good dogs is a huge concern. I have had this discussion with many people, and a valid argument that is easily understood due to the enormity of the task, is how money would, eventually, become an issue if individual testing of dogs was required for registration. Even from my own standpoint, if registration cost me $200 per dog instead of whatever it costs me now, would I be able to afford to register my dogs? I work a decent-paying full time job. Imagine the farmer or rancher. They, more than likely, have much better things to spend their money on, and as long as their dogs get the job done, why would they spend the extra cash for the piece of paper?
As far as losing good dogs due to dual registration, I don't think that would be as large of an issue as the farmer/rancher lines. Yes, there are a lot of people who buy dogs from out of really good working stock, who will then dual register them to participate in ACK stuff, and if dual registration were banned, a percentage of them would stick with ACK and we would lose potentially valuable dogs that way. However, I think there are far more puppymills and BYBs who dual register their litters to be able to use it as a selling point. I don't think the gene pool would miss many of those, and I don't think the ABCA would miss the income from registration of the litters.
At this point in time, I support banning dual registration. I would, however, be interested in hearing from people who do not, and why.
"... some of us who have been racking our brains over them for years may think we've considered every possible option and ramification, and we may be wrong. So new ideas are always welcome."
I wish I had one.
Posted 30 January 2006 - 05:34 AM
As our world (working Border Collies) changes and I become more aware of our world, my past view on dual registration softens. However, with the AKC books open, what affect would the ban really have? I see added burden for enforcement, but I don't see much benefit towards the ultimate goal of minimizing/eliminating breeding outside of breeding for improving working ability.
Gyp, Peg, Bette, Nell, BJ, Tally, & Eve
Posted 30 January 2006 - 07:43 AM
Perhaps a standardized legally binding breeder affidavit could be discussed (if it hasn't already)
If for no other reason such a document would discourage potentially unethical breeders from misrepresenting working abilities if they knew that by doing so could lead to legal ramifications such as for example fines and/or revocation of membership?
Such a document would strengthen the ABCAs position to take disciplinary action in the event of a issue involving ethical pratices contradicing the ABCA standards by a breeder flying the ABCA flag.
As to the content of such an affidavit, well many issues come to mind therefore the suggestion of discussion of such a document by those more qualified then myself to ponder.
(just a thought with the cost verses benefits issue in mind)
Posted 30 January 2006 - 07:49 AM
Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:06 AM
The thread has strayed conciderably from the intial topic,but it has brought up some very interesting issues.
personally i do not know where the term "barbie collie" originated but it sure seems to have morphed into a slang term that is frequently used to describe one dog or another IMO.
I use the term to scold jasmine when she displeases me and she absolutely hates it when i call her Barbie
Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:08 AM
Posted 30 January 2006 - 08:15 AM
Colin Campbell (CCnNC) is the source.
Originally posted by IronHorse:
personally i do not know where the term "barbie collie" originated......
Originally posted by CCnNC:
I wish I had thought it out that elaborately, but I must admit that it was just a flash -- or perhaps divine inspiration -- in my, at that time, not so old brain.
Gyp, Peg, Bette, Nell, BJ, Tally, & Eve
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users