Jump to content
BC Boards

Eileen Stein

  • Content Count

  • Joined

Posts posted by Eileen Stein

  1. Well said, GentleLake.


    There is a pool of people who are qualified to judge the USBCHA Finals -- let's call them Group A. There is a pool of people on the AKC approved judges' list -- let's call them Group B. There is, at most, a very tiny overlap between the two groups. If there were not sufficient people in Group A to judge the HA Finals, then we might have to consider whether we should nominate a hypothetical qualified person who is a member of both groups. But fortunately we do have sufficient people in Group A to nominate as judges for the Finals, so that issue does not arise. That being the case, there is no need to even consider taking someone from Group B to judge the finals. Why would we want to do that? No one who really recognizes the danger that AKC presents for the working border collie would want to do it.


    Of course the line between the working border collie and the AKC is no longer 100% sharp. That was bound to happen once AKC recognized the border collie -- indeed, that's the reason AKC recognition was so bad, and why so many people fought against it. There are now people who think, "Why shouldn't I take money for doing what I love, even if it's in AKC and AKC is paying me? Who could find fault with that?" There are people who think, "Why shouldn't I register my dogs with AKC and support them with my entry fees, if it means more ways to have fun with my dog. Who could find fault with that?" There is bound to be a slide in that direction, an erosion, but that slide will accelerate faster and faster the more people signal acceptance of it. If the rule against AKC judges for the Finals had been changed, that would have been another loss of ground to those who are fine with the AKC-ification of the border collie. To me, the very fact that there has been blurring of the line is all the more reason to hold that line, and fight against anything that would blur it further.


    There was a time when the HA board would never have dreamed of changing the rule against AKC judges at the Finals, but the mistake has been rectified and all's well that ends well.

  2. A good judge is a good judge regardless of where they make their money. However if ABCA/USBCHA wants to make a clean cut then drawing a line with regard to judges is a good start. Although there has already been an AKC judge for the cattledog finals some years ago.

    Why not make a broader line and work towards not allowing dual registered dogs?


    I don't think we should ever bar AKC-registered dogs from the national finals. The finals is meant to identify and honor the best sheepdog or cattle dog, and to do that it has to be open to all comers who qualify. That's why we allow dogs of any registration or no registration at all (even non-border collies) to compete. If we barred AKC-registered dogs from the finals, we would not be doing that. Moreover, we would be leaving it open for AKC-registering people to say, "My dog could have won if he'd been allowed to compete."


    The considerations are different as regards national finals judges. We are not trying to identify the best judge. (Indeed, I question whether it would ever be possible to determine the Best Judge -- even the Best Judge on the Day.) We need very good, experienced, competent judges, qualified to judge at the highest level (including double lift and international shed), of whom there are many outside of the AKC and very few (if any) within. So selection of judges is a legitimate area in which to make it clear that we don't think AKC is good for the border collie -- that our goals and values are different and we want to guard against blurring the lines between us and them. That's why the HA has a rule against holding HA-sanctioned trials in conjunction with AKC events. And that's why I think the HA rule that was just voted down should be reinstated. If a person chooses to become an AKC judge (an honored position within that organization, in which they are publicly representing the organization), they should not be eligible to also be a judge in our premiere event (an honored position in the HA, in which they are publicly representing the HA). Because of the rule, they know when they make the choice to go on the AKC roster of official approved judges that they are removing themselves from consideration to judge the HA finals.

  3. I believe in the UK / ISDS registry limits how many litters a bitch can have that are registered. If I remember correctly it was 5 in her lifetime. The feeling was it would allow that bitch to grow up and be proven. Have not spoken to anyone from the UK in several years so it have changed.


    The ISDS will not register more than six litters over the lifetime of a bitch, because that is the maximum permitted by law to licensed breeders under the UK's Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act of 1999.

  4. I have been wondering about this as I have been reading through this thread.

    I know these pages are not produced by ISDS but the source material is and one of the names at the top of the list is a breeder that is heavily frowned upon and the other is mentioned above. In the past this would have been very hypothetical but in my hunt for a well bred dog to bring back to Mallorca some of the names on these lists have come up in my search and I have been pondering the ethics of volume breeding.




    Thanks for these links, alligande. Although ABCA of course has no responsibility with regard to ISDS breeders, there's a lot of interesting info in these lists, especially on the first (breeders) list. I think folks over here tend to greatly overestimate the number of high volume breeders in the UK. For example, Kevin Evans, said above to "turn out tons of pups a year," actually averaged 20.4 pups over the last 10 years, and only in three of those years did he produce 30 or more. Only five ISDS breeders averaged 30 or more pups per year.

  5. Google uses several factors, such as browser location, geo information, and device type (mobile vs. desktop), to produce your results list. If you've done some searches for, say, ABCA and high volume, Google remembers that and weights it so that your results list for the search term will return pages that have your search term AND high volume AND ABCA. For someone else, they will not see those terms in their result list.

    Thanks, Kristi, that's very interesting.

  6. It came up first page for me under "NAME + border collies". In fact, I'm sitting at home sicker than a dog so I decided to google everyone on the list. The high volume list came up first page on

    every single one of them in that format.


    I like the list, I like information. But I must say it comes across negatively when it comes up on a simple Google search with a fairly derogatory connotation.


    I decided to write down my findings after my research. Of the 42 on the list, 19 were a No (with 9 being a HELL NO), 2 that were iffy, 14 Yes, and 7 with no information. I'd tend to guess that those 7 would be a yes, as they clearly are not advertising their dogs. (I should note, I used theoretical ABCA standards, my own Yes list would be much shorter.)


    I did find the list informative when comparing to a person's web site. Advertising as a small farm with only occasional breedings and then produces 40 or 50 pups? Hmmmmm




    I googled just the name, since Deb wrote, "when a person googles Wayne's name, the high volume list shows up . . ."

    I don't understand what constituted your "research," or what "No" and "Yes" supposedly mean. I assume it was not research into how many puppies each breeder produced, as I've never seen that shown on a breeder's website or FB page. Was it other things that looked nice or not nice on the breeder's website or FB page? If so, (1) the list was clearly labeled as referring SOLELY to the number of puppies bred, and (2) websites and FB pages are unfortunately not a reliable indicator of a good breeder. If you doubt that, take a look at #3 breeder Bill Barnes's online sites; would they lead you to suspect that he would be buying unregistered litters and representing to puppy buyers and the ABCA that they were offspring of his registered dogs?




  7. so then don't publish a list if a list isn't wanted to be deemed as a endorsement. There has to be other ways to educate without targeting people.


    Already when a person googles Wayne's name the high volume list shows up with this coming up as what the list is with his name, it's clearly not coming up in web searches as just a lack of endorsement for the practice but instead a libel on the breeders on that list.


    "promote the working Border Collie. Good working Border Collie Breeders are not high volume Breeders.... [breeder name that was searched and city/state]"


    Libel? Deb, it isn't libel to publish a list showing that Wayne Bamber was the breeder of 39 puppies that were born in 2014. That's just the objective truth.


    And when I googled "Wayne Bamber" i found no reference to the high volume breeder list in the first three pages of results. I didn't look further than that, but most people wouldn't either after the references had tailed off to entries like "Niagara Golfers Lose Heartbreaker," "Lower Permian Colonial Rugosa Corals," and "Fence thief caught after hiding under fire escape steps."

  8. One thing we wanted to avoid in publishing the list was for readers to interpret it as a list of recommended breeders. People often do look to a registry for a list of approved breeders, so it wouldn't be surprising if an unsophisticated puppy buyer were to think, "Oh, these are their most experienced breeders, I should get my pup from one of them." It's for that reason that we felt we had to print it in conjunction with a statement of our disapproval of high volume breeding. I myself think that the statement could have been worded a little better and I have no doubt the board will be reviewing it in light of members' comments to the ABCA. But I don't have much hope that any changes in wording will make it acceptable to high volume breeders and their friends, who may still be inclined to use disparaging terms for it.

  9. The third person on the list has been banned, correct? I'm a little surprised his name isn't * with a comment below stating that or having a link to the list of banned breeders on the page with the list. Might make it a bit more obvious for people to really look into someone, especially someone off the list.


    The third person on the list has been banned, that's correct. He was banned for intentional and negligent falsification of pedigrees, including buying unregistered litters and representing to buyers and the ABCA that they were the offspring of his registered dogs. IMO your suggestion is a good one that we did not think of, and I will pass it on.

  10. But doesn't the ethics statement beg the question of why ABCA takes money from registrations of dogs/breeders who don't meet that ethics of breeding standard? Is it a policing issue? Or simply an issue of needing the registration money for the registry to be able to continue to function? To me, it's something like saying, "I don't want you to do this, but if you do, we'll take your money to register your dogs anyway."


    It's seems a very fuzzy, grey way of operating to me.




    The fundamental purpose of having a registry is to have as comprehensive a pedigree record as possible, not to serve as a list of approved breeders. The more dogs that are registered, the better that fundamental purpose is served. We think there are other valuable services a registry can perform -- in the realm of education, health, etc., but they are supplemental. We make recommendations to try to influence behavior. Some may think our recommendations are wrong, and not be influenced by them. But suppose we were wrong in a particular instance. If we excluded dogs from the registry, the consequences of our being wrong would be much worse than if we had merely made an incorrect recommendation. We have seen the results of unwise exclusions in other registries, on the basis of health for example, and we want to avoid them in ours. Very seldom and after much thought do we adopt a policy that excludes a class of dogs from registration. In the case of AKC conformation champions, I think it was clearly necessary. In the case of dogs excluded after investigation of particular breeders, I think it has been clearly necessary. But to exclude dogs from registration because a breeder has violated the Ethics and Best Practices standards in some respect is not feasible or desirable, IMO. We have no way of investigating all violations or alleged violations effectively, and many of these standards are subjective rather than objective.


    To use the high volume list as an example, there would be problems in trying to set a cut-off point beyond which we would not register dogs. As many have pointed out, there might be instances where producing 30 puppies in a particular year is not excessive. OTOH, if we set a high cut-off point, it would give the impression the ABCA is officially okay with anyone breeding up to that point. Better to state the general principle that high volume breeding is undesirable, and provide objective information from which readers can draw their own conclusions. Some readers of the list may not have a problem buying from a breeder who produces 100 pups a year. Others may have no problem buying from a breeder who produces 30 pups a year, but would have a problem buying from someone who produced 100, or 75, or 50. Some might want to question the breeder of 30 before buying. Some may not want to buy from a breeder who produces 30. This is objective, factual information that we have, and so we provide it.


    In the many years I have been on the ABCA board I have never once heard a director suggest that loss of revenue should play a part in determining whether we take an action or not. In the case of the high volume list, the action was taken with the expectation that we would lose money by it. Of course we need money to function as a registry, but we don't determine policy to maximize our income; if we did, we would be encouraging high volume breeding. If we have less money, we will function in a reduced way.


    It seems to me that the accusation of "taking money" from breeders who violate our ideals makes no sense here. In an individual or a profit-making corporation, it might be a sign of hypocrisy, but in a non-profit like ours it doesn't denote greed or ulterior motives. None of the money that comes in benefits anyone connected with the ABCA personally -- it is used for registry functions only.


    I would much rather see something on the website about not supporting those who breed for color, agility, obedience, or just pets, as they are doing more harm to the breed in general.


    From the ABCA's statement of Ethics and Best Practices, linked in the paragraph that introduces the high volume list:


    The Border Collie stands alone in its exceptional ability to work livestock. That is the purpose for which the breed was developed, and the ABCA defines the breed by this working ability. The main goal of any Border Collie breeder should be to produce sound, useful, working dogs. While Border Collies also excel in many non-herding activities, they should be bred primarily for the ability to work livestock. The ultimate responsibility for maintaining the integrity of this as yet unspoiled breed lies with the breeders. Breeders are urged to take this responsibility seriously. Puppy buyers are encouraged to buy only from those breeders who do take this responsibility seriously. Only dogs that are physically sound, of good temperament and superior working ability should be considered for use in a breeding program. . . . [Emphasis added.]


    The ABCA is strongly against the commercial breeding of Border Collies for the pet market. . . .


    Breeders should ensure that litter numbers are consistent with both sound breeding principles and the best interest of the individual female. Sufficient time to evaluate the health and stockworking ability of the preceding litter is recommended before rebreeding a male or female. . . . [Emphasis added.]

  12. Add 2-5.00 to the registration fee. Pay the person who is looking at the videos so much per for their time. Might be 1-3 dollars per video. The people chosen would have to be accepted by the board. They could be asked to list 3 references in the border collie world and/or ABCA members.

    You would of course have to depend on the owner to be honest about the dog in the video, just like you have to depend on them to be honest about the registration info already.


    You didn't answer a number of my questions, but I'll repeat only the first one: How many working or quasi working border collies do you think there are in North America? And if you state a figure, please give the data on which your estimate is based.


    The less thought you give to the nitty-gritty of how a program like this could be implemented, the more easy-peasy you can make it sound. You make it sound very easy-peasy.



    As far as people dropping out, I suspect you will see some of that already from the blacklist. The registry would loose quite a few registries from pet and sport breeders dropping out. I'm not sure of the numbers there, but I suspect it's very high.


    I'm not concerned about people who drop out because they don't want anyone to know they produce as many puppies as they do, or because they are pet and sports breeders. I'm concerned about losing good breeders of good working dogs, for the sake of an impractical, expensive regulatory system that by its nature cannot be implemented fairly. The NASDS tried a system of certifying working dogs back in the day, and it became a joke before it fell apart altogether.

  13. Working registration-proof of ability. I like the idea of showing open field work including outrun, gather, fetch, and pen.


    How many working or quasi working border collies do you think there are in North America?


    How would evaluators be selected? Would there be objective qualifications they would have to meet to serve as evaluators, and if so, what would they be? Would they be compensated or would they be expected to do it for free? Would they have to evaluate the dogs in person, or is a video okay? How do we ensure that the dog in the video is the dog on the registration application? If it has to be done in person, who bears the travel expenses? Would the breeder need to be unknown to the evaluator, or could they be acquaintances, friends or relatives? If the breeder thinks that his/her dog was unfairly or incompetently evaluated, would he/she have a right to appeal? Who would decide the appeal, and on what basis? If the dog fails, can he try again later? How many times? Suppose there are not enough people willing to be evaluators? Suppose people with the best dogs don't want to go through the hassle, because their dogs are in enough demand that they can sell pups without registration, and they just drop out? How much of an increase in registration fees would you (and others) be willing to accept to support this system?


    These are just a few of the thoughts that immediately come to mind on reading your post.

  14. Sue, I didn't take your comments as criticism of the ABCA -- just as contributing to the discussion.


    Deb, you are right and I was wrong about when the list first appeared on the ABCA website. I posted yesterday (Jan 21) that it had gone up "the day before yesterday," which I erroneously stated was Jan 21 (the "day before yesterday" at that point was actually Jan 19, which is what I meant to say.) Jan 19 was the day the ABCA directors were notified that it was up, but It actually went up on Monday, Jan 18. So what I wrote was incorrect two different ways.


    Since I'm not on FB, I don't totally understand who posted what where, but I gather the "breeder hate groups" you mention picked it up from FB postings about it, not from the ABCA website itself. That makes more sense, but I'm still a bit surprised that anyone would have picked it up on the ABCA site so fast. Once it was posted on FB, I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long to reach the world at large.

  15. As was mentioned earlier in this thread, ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, but it seems a bit unfair to me (and I am NOT saying a agree with breeding lots of pups, just pointing out what I consider to be a disconnect in this way of going about pointing out who is NOT preserving the working border collie) to point a finger at these breeders and not at others. I would personally would be much more comfortable with the list if ABCA simply stated that they are opposed to high-volume breeding and left the comments about preserving working ability out of it, because as far as I can tell looking at what's being bred and sold just in my part of the world, a majority of those dogs, no matter how many litters the breeder has produced in a year, are NOT being bred or sold for stock work.




    Julie is right that the ABCA can't know what all breeders are breeding for, and therefore that is not something we can concretely address. It may be that some of the cattle dog breeders on that list are breeding carefully bred dogs going to working homes, and it may not be -- claims on FB or on breeders' websites may or may not be true. It is undeniably true that many low volume breeders are breeding without regard to working ability, and they are not on the list. The list serves only one function -- it tells people who produces the most pups. Those people are making the largest proportional impact on the gene pool, and in ABCA's opinion it's unlikely that people who breed at these levels are really breeding for working excellence.


    Think for a minute about all the good working breeders you know who are NOT on this list. Superior breeders, trainers, trialers and handlers who make their living with the dogs, whose puppies are always in demand by knowledgeable people, yet still do not breed in these quantities. To me that says something about whether high volume breeding is desirable and compatible with producing high quality working dogs.

  16. Just a couple of points.



    One objection was that this list is a "shaming" list that "paints a target" on certain breeders, without providing any other data at all. Apparently there are some on the list who immediately began received "hate" emails and threats as a result of their being named on the list.\


    The list was first posted Jan 21, the day before yesterday. It is very, very hard for me to believe that anti-breeding or AR people are perusing the ABCA website (which, sadly, is seldom updated with anything newsworthy) on a daily basis. I would have to seriously question whether people on the list actually have already received hate mail as a result of the list being posted. Has any of this hate email been shown?


    As regards "without providing any other data at all," well, that's right. It says it's a list of the number of pups ABCA's most active breeders produced in 2014 and registered. And that's what it is -- no more, no less. Are there other factors that one should take into account in determining whether someone is a good breeder? Definitely yes. But ABCA is really not in a position to know that information about all the breeders across this great land of ours, and even if it were, much of that data would be subjective and conclusory. This is information ABCA does know, it is objective, and so it was provided.


    How to get information about the quality of breeders into the hands of buyers before they buy is a question that has been discussed and agonized over within the ABCA (and on these Boards) for many, many years. There are people who say there are ways, but in all the discussion that has taken place over that time no one has ever presented a really good one, or one that is on balance better than what is already being done. This list is pretty minimal, but at least it lets people know that in the opinion of the ABCA (which may matter to some and not to others) high volume breeding is not a good thing, and lets people know who, according to ABCA records, are the high volume breeders. Is it better than doing nothing? Some folks will say yes and some will say no. But there comes a time when it's too hard to watch a bad situation playing out while continuing to do nothing.

  17. Does producing 30 pups or more get you kicked out of the registry? Did I miss something?


    No. This is mainly educational, for both buyers and breeders. It is to tell people that the ABCA does not approve of high volume breeding, and to let people know who our high volume breeders are, so that they are informed about that when making the decision where to buy.

  18. I was asked to post the following:


    Cinnamon Red and White female border collie probably covered in Mud. Short coat, prick ears, full white collar. Slipped her collar and disappeared on East West Road (Volcanic Legacy Scenic Byway) near Hill Road (Sheepy Ridge). She's not interested in stock, please don't shoot her. She's more interested in keeping the truck seat warm while I'm busy. She is sweet and gentle. She's spayed meaning she cannot have puppies. She loves puppies and other dogs. She disappeared on Tuesday Dec 8th at night and was possibly seen by ranchers near the Old Camp on Hill Road. If you see her, don't wait, contact us anytime day or night. She is dearly missed by all of us.
    12/14/15 Update: She was seen in Merrill, Oregon by my girlfriend who shooed her away by mistake.
    12/14/15 Update: Seen in Hatfield crossing the canal towards Malin by clerks at the scales.
    12/26/15 Update: She's been seen around town, skinny and fearful of humans.
    Possibly sighted by Power company workers, unable to catch her.
    1/13/16 false alarm at animal shelter in Klamath Falls, Oregon. Remains were not Dora.
    She could be anywhere by now.
    Contact us, drop her off or report her to the Tulelake Police Department, Klamath Falls Animal Shelter or Basin Border Collies in Klamath Falls Oregon.
    There is a reward for her return.
    We have other collies, Dora was the queen of their universe. Dora's disappearance has affected everyone. I'm sorry if I seem a bit manic, I've been searching for her since Dec. 8th and I won't stop until I've found her or her remains. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
    Carrie, Dora's Mom

  19. I don't know why I never read that article until now, but thank you for referring to it again. When was it written? And does anyone know if the DLS study was completed and any results from it?

    It was written a good while ago -- 12-15 years, probably.


    I know that the border collie DLS study that ABCA supported was not completed because the original design of the study called for working dogs to be used, and as the testing went forward, not enough working dogs with doubtful hips could be found to take part. The Principal Investigator told us that without a wide range of hips in the study subjects--from excellent to dysplastic--the study would not yield statistically significant results. He said we could proceed if we widened the study parameters to include non-working dogs, but by that time the DLS method had been studied in enough other breeds that it was evident it was a good predictor of DJD, so we did not proceed further. We do regard the DLS method as validated and reliable, but it requires specialized equipment and unfortunately is not available from most vets.


    Mark Billadeau was closely involved with that project, and I trust he will correct me if anything I've said is off the mark.

  20. I was thrilled to hear that this list was going to become a reality! But when I heard that the "trigger point" is 30 pups (which does seem a lot to me) I immediately wondered (somewhat like Mum24dog) how that might negatively impact the "right" breeders who happened to have three large litters of 10? While it wouldn't be usual or expected for three litters to all have 10 pups each, it doesn't seem that the odds are extraordinary, either. I re-read the thread and did not see this question answered: Is it known how the number of 30 pups was decided upon? I am not in favor of volume production, but neither am I offended at the idea of a good, responsible, working breeder producing three litters in one year. Could ABCA somehow consider number of pups *together* with number of litter registrations to come up with the "high volume" designation?



    Megan, ABCA does not have "litter registrations" the way AKC does. Each pup is registered as an individual, and there is no requirement that all pups from a litter be registered at the same time or on the same application. Because of this, there is no practical way to sort by number of litters.


    If there were, I personally would have much preferred using number of litters rather than number of puppies for the high-volume list, and I believe that would have been the preference of most of the directors, for the reason you mention. The number 30 was arrived at after long and intense debate, and might well have been lower if we didn't have the same concern about large litters.

  21. . . . .


    I understand that the dog can stop his work long enough to breed a bitch and then keep going and the same isn't true of the bitch, but I still think that if the intent is to put a spotlight on high volume breeders then both halves of that equation should be considered. . . .

    The problem I have with this argument is that the bitch could also have a lot to contribute to the breed. Yes, doing so takes her away from her work, for sure, but it doesn't seem a fair to say it's okay for one and not the other, at least not in my mind. And leads to my comments below.


    If you think dogs/bitches should only be bred from if they have been fully trained and proven to be good workers, the knowledge that a bitch has been bred a LOT can be a tip-off that little time can have been put into training her to a high standard or using her for work. The knowledge that a sire has been bred a LOT does not provide the same tip-off, because a stud's involvement in the production of a litter requires much less time than a dam's. That is the only difference.


    And if this is really about preserving the working border collie and the dog(s) having the time to prove their worth as working dogs then wouldn't it follow (i.e., next steps) that there be a working standard?


    I'm not trying to be argumentative here, and I don't believe in breeding lots of litters, but I would guess that the overwhelming majority of registrations are not of working (working, not working bred) dogs, period. But as long as those breedings take place below the benchmark numbers they're okay? I think where I'm getting stuck is the argument that this is necessary to point people away from high-volume breeders because they couldn't possibly be producing so many pups and also maintain a work standard with the dogs being bred. And I absolutely agree with that. But it doesn't even come close to addressing the issue of all the litters being registered whose breeders have zero interest in stock work. I understand that any of those who are also high-volume breeders will appear on the list, but I suppose I'm not understanding how volume is a more important criterion than actually why a litter is being produced (though I can see how it's easy to quantify one and not the other, and maybe that's the answer).[Emphasis added.]




    Yes, that's the answer.

  22. What about people looking to purchase a dog or pup that have a particular popular sire a generation or 2 back?


    Wouldn't that information be potentially valuable to them as well, as perhaps not as readily discoverable?


    Do you mean they would be happy with the pedigrees of sire and dam, unless they knew that one of the sires a generation or two back had been a popular sire, in which case they wouldn't be interested in the pup? That seems pretty farfetched to me. Most people would be attracted to the idea that one of the sires a generation or two behind their pup had been a famous and popular sire. Those few sophisticated enough to be worried about genetic diversity would be likely to already know that a sire had been bred a lot.

  23. I don't think the people who are advocating that it would be a good idea to know what sires have been and are producing many pups are looking to assign blame.


    Then I must have misread Julie's post raising this issue, which said:


    It occurred to me that focusing on litters registered places the spotlight on the owner of the bitch, but there's a male in there somewhere too, and wouldn't it also make sense to look at who's studding dogs out repeatedly? In other words, a single male dog could sire way more than 30 puppies a year, but the owner isn't held accountable for all those breedings/puppies, and yet they do contribute to the numbers registered. It's high volume from another perspective. [Emphasis added.]


    And some of the posts in response, for example:


    Terrific point, Julie! Some folks stud out a dog to anyone with the fee and a bitch.


    I did take that to be the main point of her proposal.


    As Julie said when she posed the question, "aside from the ethical question (what constitutes too much?) it would be nice to be able to track what dogs are being used over and over just from a "popular sire" genetics standpoint."


    It would be a useful tool to help breeders keep the inbreeding coefficient low while still maintaining good working lines.


    Yes, Julie did include that as an aside. If what she meant was that it would help breeders decide whether to breed to a particular potential sire or not, I think that would more easily and more appropriately be handled by discussion between the breeder and the potential sire's owner, as other matters bearing on the desirability of the breeding would be. I doubt there are many owners of popular sires who would try to conceal the extent to which their dog had been used. Most would be proud of it.

  24. The owner of the dam is the breeder. That is the person who registers the pups. It's usually the person who initiates the breeding and who derives income from sale of the pups. Two things follow from that IMO: the system was set up to be breeder-centered, and the blame or credit for the breeding falls basically on the breeder.


    I personally don't think there would be much value in a listing of sires who produced the most pups. I don't think it's self-evident that the owner of the sire was "at fault" for agreeing to the breedings. That sire may have a lot to contribute to the breed, and acting as a stud does not interfere with his livestock work the way frequent litters can prevent a bitch from developing and demonstrating her working ability. Also, the ABCA Board was very concerned that this list of highest quantity breeders not be misinterpreted by the public as a list of our most experienced breeders -- i.e., a list of the breeders one should look to when seeking to buy a border collie puppy. To ensure that it would not be interpreted as an official "ABCA list of breeders" -- something we are often asked for -- we had to append some pretty harsh language to it. I don't really think it would be appropriate to append such language to a list of popular sires.


    Another thing to keep in mind is that the overwhelming majority of our membership is not computer-centered. When we sent a survey to the members several years ago asking what services they would like to see from the ABCA, fewer than a handful of the hundreds of responses requested online access to pedigrees, or online access to anything. It is not something they would utilize. Most of them want registration application forms sent to them by mail, rather than downloading them from the website. The computer-savvy folks here on the Boards are not typical.


    The ABCA is not perfect. There's room for improvement, and there are many things that we would like to be able to offer our members that we do not now offer. But to me this would not be a high priority item.

  • Create New...