IBCA

[Northof49]

So someone could get copies of the Incorporation papers and see who incorporated and who is running the registry now.

[bcnewe2]

quotes taken out of different posts from this thread written by BC'sR4ME:

 

I am also a member of the IBCA. I have one of my dogs registered through them. Her pups will also be registered through them.. I have a cocker registered with the AKC. I also have two Borders registered through the ABCA.

 

Then from a different post:

 

To the best of my knowledge, I haven't bred a single pup, so how would I falsify anything?. Not that I would do so, but that's a blanket statement, and statements like that are what made me respond in the first place.

 

Then more snips from the same poster: (in reference to starting a new registry)

 

That's a great idea! Thanks! Perhaps that is something that should be done. Perhaps it's something I myself will do, although I'm not really interested in reconciling anything with anyone.

 

I figure if someone wants to peg my dogs guilty by association, then that's fine, I'll keep the line with what they're registered with. Blaming the animal for a human's fault is never the right thing to do, and pretty much this is what it all sounds like to me when good animals are barred from a registry

 

What type reputation are you looking for when you do decide to breed your dogs?

How did you come to believe in all your opinions and gain all your knowledge when you have never bred a dog? The internet can be so misleading. Is that where you got your information from?

Can you please expound on your BC knowledge so we understand where you are coming from?

 

The members here are from all sorts of different backgrounds. Some are experienced in working dogs, some from rescue, some from misguided purchases before they were educated in what most of them choose to believe in now, and some that love their BC's no matter where they came from but still would like to help their chosen breed for the future. We are in what most think of as a unique extended internet BC family.

 

What's the point in stirring what really isn't going to go anywhere, at least here? Why are you trying to defend things that you seem to be uninformed about?

 

We all have to learn our lessons. Some harder than others.

 

Just wondering what you plan to do with all your dogs?

 

Kristen

[Bill Fosher]

BC'sR4Me--

 

What you don't seem to grasp is that a registry is only as good as the honesty of the membership. The people who started the IBCA, and who promote it most heavily on their websites, were expelled for knowingly submitting false documents to the ABCA, or for refusing to help the ABCA investigate credible allegations of fraud. These aren't blanket statements or hearsay. They are facts available in the minutes of ABCA directors' minutes and reports of the investigation committees. In one case the dogs were living under conditions that led the investigators to believe there was no way that the breeder could possibly know who the parents of a particular puppy were, and in another DNA analysis proved that the registration was falsified.

 

What this means is that every pup born to these breeders, and any offspring those pups have produced, may or may not have accurate pedigrees. When the pedigrees are used for genetic research, the results will be wrong.

 

When they were expelled from the ABCA, these breeders apparently still felt the need to be able to sell "registered" Border collies, and so they set up a new registry, the IBCA, and started it with their own stock and accepted dogs from several other registries.

 

Now, here comes the judgment. I make the judgment that a registry founded with dogs from breeders who have been shown to knowingly falsify the pedigrees of their litters, or to manage their dogs in such a way to make accurate pedigrees impossible will probably not provide me with an accurate pedigree. Its members clearly don't value accuracy in the records -- their past behavior has demonstrated that.

 

The ABCA, on the other hand, is run by a board of directors who have a long history with the breed and who value the accuracy of the records the registry keeps. Its past history demonstrates this. I make the judgment that the ABCA is likely to provide me with an accurate pedigree.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

See, that's the funny thing. What you get from a registry is paperwork. Why would you pay for paperwork that may or may not be accurate? It's like buying a Rolex from the funny looking guy on the street corner, for the same price as you would pay from a jeweller's.

[Eileen Stein]

Have you done background research on the IBCA for yourself? Or are your assertions an assumption based on hear-say? I sincerely want to know. Because I have done my research.

 

Great! Then presumably you can tell us who the officers, directors and employees of the IBCA are?

 

Reputable registries do not try to hide who is behind them. If you look on the ABCA website, for example, you will see a complete list of the officers and directors. If you look on the IBCA website, on the other hand, you will not see the name of a single human being. It's a corporation, therefore it is required by law to have officers and directors. Who are they? And why don't they want their names to be known? You may be happy registering with an organization owned and run by people who do their best to conceal their identity, but I don't think most people would be.

 

The IBCA has actually been around for a few years.

 

Actually, no, it hasn't. It filed for incorporation on July 10, 2006, within days of Mary Ann Harrison's refusal to permit ABCA representatives to visit her kennel and collect DNA samples, and its website appeared in the same month.

 

So your research let you down a little bit there. But I do look forward to hearing what your research disclosed about who the officers and directors of the IBCA are.

[2 Devils]

My only reply will be that you do not have to live in the state that you are incorporated in... Many companies located in whatever state will file in Delaware. That does not mean the company is actually located in Delaware

[Journey]

The IBCA has actually been around for a few years. It's becoming more popular now however, because the breeders who have been "expelled" are selling pups with that registry. As well as the AKC registry. So, as more pups get out there from those breeders, the organizations web hits and size will grow.

 

I'm curious as to what you mean by "as well as the AKC registry"? Anything on MAH site says "AKC pending" not AKC registered. AKC will not accept papers from IBCA, they are not on the approved list of outside registries.

 

Karen

[Chesney's Girl]

Meh. Sh*t stirrers complaining about long-standing members not recognizing the brilliance of their contrarian arguments, after several of those long-standing members have rationally pointed out the valid reasons for the established views, is just soooooooo boring.

 

I feel like this is a bad dream I had the other night. One of my friends is looking into getting a Border Collie pup and has been asking me lots of really great questions as she was very new and not very educated with working Border Collies, she only knew of Barbie Collies. I told her and sent her on her way to do some research on her own and to check back in with what she found... Well she came up with a puppy that she really liked and it was a Wildrose pup. I almost fell out of my chair... So I sent her the info on why that was not the best choice she could have made. She was actually going to meet the pup two days after I talked her out of it. The lady was setting up a meeting place, not at her house.

 

Anyways the dream I had was that my friend after all the good info and tips I gave her still ended up finding a wildrose pup. I mean all the teaching and enlightening we (and more so those who have been long standing reliable people here) do seems to fall on deaf with those that inquire about and then valiantly defend those expelled from long standing reputable registries. Its like the blind and deaf leading the blind and deaf.

 

I give those of you pats on the back who continually share your knowledge on the 'beaten dead horse' topics. To the new members that randomly pop up into the middle of a discussion it would do you some good to open your minds to the possibility you are wool blind.

 

Wow that was a bunch of rambling.

[Ace]

Hah! yes :x that was me...I was originally going to get one from Dr. Karen Lacy, but I liked the idea of an older dog. I found her, and I wasnt sure about her kennel at all, but she sure did lie to my parents.... I feel played and extremely stupid for falling for that...but it happens.

 

Needless to say, I decided against getting a wildrose dog, and I am back, getting a pup from Karen Lacy (I am young, its my job to make mistakes )

 

I don't know exactly how I feel about the IBCA, but I do believe they should make more of an effort to screen their members....It would have saved me a lot of trouble I know that.

 

Diane:)

[BC'sR4Me]

I'm curious as to what you mean by "as well as the AKC registry"? Anything on MAH site says "AKC pending" not AKC registered. AKC will not accept papers from IBCA, they are not on the approved list of outside registries.

 

Karen

 

 

Who said anything about my dog being one from MAH???? Assumption? Wrong. My dog's parents are AKC registered, I am currently waiting on the papers to come back. This is what I mean by "as well as the AKC registry". And what I also meant, is that people will then turn to AKC registered dogs for thier breeding stock.

 

 

I already said I'm going to continue to disagree, but I will agree to disagree and leave the subject alone. Ya'll do what you wish, believe as you wish, I'll do and believe as I wish.

 

You still haven't convinced me. I'm not going to grovel and plead with you all and pretend I agree with you, because I don't.

 

As far as the DNA remark....well did you offer the referenced breeder the opportunity to have her own vet provide you with DNA evidence?

 

 

Did she deny the ABCA access to her vet's DNA / treatment records?

 

 

I know that I personally will balk at any strange vet handling my dogs. That includes one from any organization. I've been using the same two vets and one orthopedic surgeon for 17 years, and no one else touches my dog unless it's an EMERGENCY. I likewise would balk at a strange pediatric treating my children.

 

:::shrug:::: Like I said, believe what you wish and I will do likewise. Just remember, those you alienate today are the future or present owners with decisions to make about what registries to support.

 

Have a wonderful day.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

 

I am pretty sure the DNA was collected right on the property, in sight of the owner (not "she" by the way).

 

You act like there was some huge conspiracy. There wasn't unless you count the one on the part of these breeders to decieve the registry and their customers alike.

 

I'm a bit of a geek over pedigrees and I'm often approached by people who want to know this or that about their dog's background based on the papers. Three times I've had nice people, really responsible and people who want to do what's right by their dogs, people who work their dogs on farms and in trials at high levels - approach me for advice on a dog with a health problem, and their dogs turned out to have Mary Ann Harrison in the lines.

 

Their question is how to avoid the problems in the future, and I have to say I'm not sure, because the dogs listed as their dog's ancestors may or may not be truly in the dog's genetics. It may be some random shelter dog pulled and added to the breeding stable. It may be a merle littermate bred to a dilute or another merle, to ensure color in a litter. It may be a breeding that occurred because multiple intact animals were housed together.

 

This is the problem that occurs when you can't have faith in the records anymore.

[juliepoudrier]

Did she deny the ABCA access to her vet's DNA / treatment records?

 

I think only someone involved in the investigation can answer this question, perhaps Eileen. My understanding (which could be wrong) is that she refused to cooperate with any sort of investigation into her practices. Swa**ord's dogs were DNA tested on site.

 

Just remember, those you alienate today are the future or present owners with decisions to make about what registries to support.

 

Well sure they are. But then again, there are those who will refuse to see no matter what evidence is placed before them. I get the impression that you believe that the "good" people (that is folks who don't breed or who register AKC or whatever) can make a registry better than what it currently is or what it's founders made it, but the fact is that their taint in on that registry, and for the people who know the story behind that, the taint will not go away. Telling us that we shouldn't tell the story is self-serving at best, since you are apparently an IBCA supporter. You and the rest of the world are free to support whomever you wish, but to come here anonymously and start jumping on the folks who were actually *involved* in the investigations just smacks of troublemaking. You accuse us of alienating folks and being close-minded, and yet you have not yet presented a logical argument as to why anyone should register dogs with the IBCA, especially when other reputable registries already exist. (As an aside, I can't help but wonder why if you bought an AKC-registered dog and you're not a breeder, you would want to register it elsewhere anyway? What's the point?)

 

J.

[Shetlander]

Telling us that we shouldn't tell the story is self-serving at best, since you are apparently an IBCA supporter. You and the rest of the world are free to support whomever you wish, but to come here anonymously and start jumping on the folks who were actually *involved* in the investigations just smacks of troublemaking. You accuse us of alienating folks and being close-minded, and yet you have not yet presented a logical argument as to why anyone should register dogs with the IBCA, especially when other reputable registries already exist.

 

This is exactly right. I wouldn't keep wasting my time and energy on this. As far as I can notice there isn't the slightest wish to honestly dialogue or be willing to learn anything. The person is merely being combative and no doubt enjoying slapping down all the reasoned explanations while insisting on better and better "evidence" as if you are somehow presenting a case in court. Life is too short. Let's have a wonderful day as the person suggests and not give him/her attention for such obvious troublemaking.

[BC'sR4Me]

This is exactly right. I wouldn't keep wasting my time and energy on this. As far as I can notice there isn't the slightest wish to honestly dialogue or be willing to learn anything. The person is merely being combative and no doubt enjoying slapping down all the reasoned explanations while insisting on better and better "evidence" as if you are somehow presenting a case in court. Life is too short. Let's have a wonderful day as the person suggests and not give him/her attention for such obvious troublemaking.

 

 

If you call raising concern about open disrespect that I percieved as "troublemaking", then more power to ya. For the record, I don't enjoy slapping anyone down, and I also don't enjoy the hostility I've recieved here simply because I don't agree with debasing people.

 

I asked legit questions. Rationality does not include debasing others, which clearly seems to be what you all are doing to me when I simply asked for a little common courtesy by remembering that perhaps those of us who support others may ALSO support the ABCA.

 

I never said you shouldn't tell a "story". I did say, that by debasing others it does your own cause NO good, other than to alienate potential people that may be interested IN your side of the story. As it is now, due to the hostility of many of the replies, (although two of you were actually polite ) now has totally tuned me out to your "stories" on this issue. Ergo, your message is now falling on deaf ears. If you read more into it than that, that is your own reasoning flaws, not mine.

 

I agree, that if the records are flawed, then there is a problem. However, until there IS a problem, I believe in giving benefit of the doubt until a problem arises. If you don't, then NO organization can go anywhere and they would never have members.

 

As far as registering my dogs elswehere, well a lot of people have dual registered dogs. Why not ask them why they have dual registries on thier dogs?

 

In regards to the DNA question, that was directed towards Ms. Stein's comment about MAH's refusal to allow ABCA to DNA her dogs....I wasn't referring to Swafford. I actually had no clue as to who he was until a few weeks ago.

 

That being said, I already said I will agree to disagree. Twice. I will say it yet again for a third time.Yet I keep seeing people coming in with another potshot at me because I disagreed with you and refust to "take your word for it". It's starting to resemble a pack of hyenas fighting over a bone.

 

Calling new people troublemakers simply because they asked questions or stating a point of view isn't exactly conduscive to the free exchange of ideas, now is it? Since when did the first ammendment become null and void? Or does it apply only to those who agree?

 

Someone said that "perhaps others should think they're maybe blinded", I forget who. Perhaps that goes BOTH ways.

 

Yes do have a wonderful day, as THIS person suggests.

[Laurae]

How many different ways do we have to explain that

 

The point of a registry is its record-keeping of its pedigrees. That is the entire reason the registry exists! When the honesty of those record-keepers is considered dubious, due to the previous actions of those record-keepers, then, lo and behold, many people will not want to throw their support behind that registry.

 

If you do, fabulous. Go for it. Who the hell cares? Just stop getting your knickers in a twist because the many of the rest of us do not! Good lord!

[Shetlander]

Calling new people troublemakers simply because they asked questions or stating a point of view isn't exactly conduscive to the free exchange of ideas, now is it? Since when did the first ammendment become null and void? Or does it apply only to those who agree?

 

LALALALALALALALALA!

 

[BC'sR4Me]

How many different ways do we have to explain that

 

The point of a registry is its record-keeping of its pedigrees. That is the entire reason the registry exists! When the honesty of those record-keepers is considered dubious, due to the previous actions of those record-keepers, then, lo and behold, many people will not want to throw their support behind that registry.

 

If you do, fabulous. Go for it. Who the hell cares? Just stop getting your knickers in a twist because the many of the rest of us do not! Good lord!

 

 

Actually my knicker's aren't in a twist over you not agreeing with my point of view. My knickers are in a twist because some people have been down and out rude towards me. I bet if someone was rude to you, your panties would be in a wad too!

[Laurae]

Really reaching, now

[GOOSEDOGS]

You all have been very patient with BC'sR4ME. I'm banging my head agaisnt the wall just reading! She/He does not want to hear the truth, but kudos to you all for trying. Every time proof was stated she cried, you are being mean to me!! Trying to put people off or to "agree to disagree". Again, thanks for trying, but no loss really. Joan

[MaryP]

I would be interested to know why someone would want to register their dogs with IBCA or purchase dogs registered with IBCA. Granted, I am speaking as someone who doesn't own any registered dogs, but I do understand the importance of a registry. What is it about IBCA that you (BC'sR4Me) find appealing about them? Out of my own curiosity, I did a little research to see if I could find out anything about the corporation. They are, in fact, registered in New Jersey, but they don't have any information about the directors, officers, or employees, which would be a red flag for me. There are also no records of any annual reports having been filed. Honestly, I'm not sure how they managed to not name a director and at least 2 officers, since that is a requirement. But, there is no information in their status report other than who their incorporator is, which is not an officer or director. I am also incorporated and anyone who is so inclined can find out who the director and officers are, and what is the status of the corporation, by doing a simple online search. That information is, for some reason, not available for the IBCA corporation. Why in the world would someone want to give money to a corporation that apparently has no accountability? Regardless of whether or not MAH or RS are directly involved, I don't get why you would want to support or trust such a secretive, for-profit, business. Like I said, I don't have any registered dogs, so this is more of a curiosity for me. But, I'd love to hear your (BC'sR4Me) rationale, since you said that you are a member, have dogs registered with them, and plan to register pups with them in the future. What do you believe you are gaining from your affiliation with IBCA?

[BC'sR4Me]

But, I'd love to hear your (BC'sR4Me) rationale, since you said that you are a member, have dogs registered with them, and plan to register pups with them in the future. What do you believe you are gaining from your affiliation with IBCA?

 

To MaryP:

 

Actually what I'm getting is another registry to put behind my dog's AKC registry. Since I do plan to deal with conformation, since that is what I feel my one boy's best attribute is, and the ABCA will void the registration on my dog if he happens to become a champion, or his pups go down that road, eh, I figure why not. Why shouldn't I?

 

And as for "for profit" business, it's no more for profit than the AKC or the ABCA. In fact the fees are pretty similar.

 

Why would I purchase a dog with an IBCA registration? Because a registration does not make the dog. I buy what I feel is a good sound dog. Good temperment, good bones, good health ect. To hell with the registries on determining what is a good dog. I've known mutts better than some of the supposed "pure-breeds".

 

A registry doesn't gaurantee soundness, no matter how hard people try to believe so.

 

Case in point, look at cockers. 3/4 of the cockers out there are genetic duds. Including the show and working lines. Same with labs. Dobies are riddled with Von Wildbrans disease. Most owners have thier dogs DNA on file. Does that stop these traits from being bred and passed on? Nope.

 

Yet the registry doesn't interfere nor stop breeders from breeding these defects. And the AKC's got a greater reputation than the ABCA, IBCA or most others.

[painted_ponies]

And the AKC's got a greater reputation than the ABCA, IBCA or most others.

They certainly do. AKC has probably been responsible for more crippled malformed canines than any other organized body I can name. Of course, the IBCA is young yet.

 

So why do you want to have a double-registered dog? Does it make the pups more saleable? Do the uninitiated believe the IBCA is a working registry?

 

Out of curiosity, how many BC are required to make a major these days?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make sense. In one breath you say you are going to the trouble to dual register your dog (and with one registry that may be worth no more than the paper it's written on). Then in the next you run down all registries. Seems you are just in general wasting your time and money on those pieces of paper?

 

You don't need anything more than AKC registration to do conformation. The only reason I can see to double up registries is to be able to add more acronyms to puppy adverts. "Rare red/blue/green/lilac puppies from champion bloodlines, parents on site, AKC/IBCA registered!"

[juliepoudrier]

As far as registering my dogs elswehere, well a lot of people have dual registered dogs. Why not ask them why they have dual registries on thier dogs?

BC'sR4ME,

Most people who dual register their dogs do so because they get *something* from doing so. For example, if I have an ABCA-registered border collie and I want to compete in AKC events, then I have to register to dog with AKC to do so. The reverse isn't true, of course, but most dual registrations and ILPs were/are done for this very reason.

 

I could also ask why someone with an AKC registered dog would dual register with ABCA. Unlike AKC, ABCA doesn't require a dog to be registered with them in order to participate in certain events. So really the only reason to dual register in that case would be if I also wanted to sell puppies to people for whom ABCA registration is important.

 

And that brings us back to the question of why dual register with IBCA? Does the registry sponsor events that require IBCA registration in order to compete? If not, then the only reason I can think of to dual register with them is to expand the pool of potential puppy buyers to include those who somehow think IBCA is some sort of "stamp of approval" for puppies.

 

And so that brings me back to my original question, which others have posed as well: Why do you support IBCA and why do you plan to dual register or register pups with that organization?

 

Any number of us have explained why we would not do so, and somehow you've turned that into our making personal attacks on you or others who support IBCA, but all I'm curious about is why you support that registry at all?

 

ETA: I see you have now answered my question by answering Mary P's questions, at least in part. I still don't quite get the need for IBCA registration when you already have the registration you'll need for conformation showing (i.e., AKC). I just don't really get the purpose of a second registration behind your dog. If your interest is conformation showing, then AKC is where it's at, and all other registrations would seem to be completely extraneous to me. And it makes even less sense when you state that registries are essentially meaningless when it comes to guaranteeing anything about a dog. So why even bother with a second registry? You can do all you say you want to do within the purview of the AKC. I mean most folks who think about registries at all tend to register with the registry whose philosophy most closely matches their own. Forgive my ignorance, but what is it about the IBCA's stated (?) goals/philosophies that make you think it would make a good second registry for your dogs. (I still don't get the need for dual registering, but am curious as to why you'd choose one particular registry over any other to do so.)

 

J.

[BC'sR4Me]

They certainly do. AKC breeders can cripple a breed quicker than any other organization I know of. Of course, the IBCA is young yet.

 

So why do you want to have a double-registered dog? Does it make the pups more saleable? Do the uninitiated believe the IBCA is a working registry?

 

 

Both actually. And although the AKC does have its flaws, it has also helped to keep a few breeds from going extinct.