Jump to content
BC Boards

registration question


Pam Wolf
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know that dogs with AKC CH parentage was disallowed for ABCA registration as of 2004. If a pup (with at least one AKC CH parent) was whelped late in 2003 (late Dec) and not registered til 2004 would the pup still be eligible for ABCA registration?

 

If a pup was whelped in 2003 and the parent earned it's CH after Jan 2004 but before the pup was ABCA registered would it still be eligible for ABCA registration?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 111
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"The ABCA will de-register any ABCA registered dog or bitch should it be named a "Conformation Champion" after January 1, 2004, and will not register the offspring of any dog or bitch named a "Conformation Champion" after that date."

 

 

 

reading the rule I would expect any pups born prior to Jan. 1, 2004 out of a conf. ch or one that earned their CH early in 2004 would still maintain their eligibility for registration since the rule does not specifically apply to pups that would have been eligible as of the date of the rule change.

 

There gets to be the legal interpretation of the rule that needs to be considered, even though one might want to see those pups not eligible, is it worth having the owner of the pup sue the association?

 

Especially since at that time registrations were still being done by the buyers. Breeders were not required to registered the litters until Jan 1 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pups can't be registered if both parents are not. If a parent has been de-registered prior to the pup being registered how can that pup be registered with half the pedigree gone?

 

Had the owner registered the pup in a timely manor there would have been no issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a dog is ROM with 'unknown' parentage ( and the owner omitted the AKC info) then it would be quite easy to ROM any dog that could meet other criteria. Regardless if parentage would normally disallow the dog from registration.

 

What if it was learned the ROM dog had AKC papers with at least one CH parent? Where does ABCA stand on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ROM process does actually involve the owner providing as much pedigree/parentage information as possible. But of course sometimes one may not know. Still if an owner deliberately leaves off such information, then that's fraud, and if it's found out, I think the least ABCA could do is revoke the ROM and remove the owner from ABCA membership. So if someone is truly that desperate to ROM and AKC dog they'd be taking a big risk.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the point of banning an AKC dog from ROM? I thought the whole point was to produce dogs with proven working ability.

 

Surely an AKC dog ROM is better evidence of such ability than a dog that has ABCA registration owing to a paper technicality rather than any demonstration of what it can do?

 

I am buying a pup that will be ISDS registered but I don't intend to work it. I could mate that dog with another unworked ISDS registered dog and keep the registration chain irrespective of whether either dog is a good worker etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rule is particular for dogs that earn a CH and their offspring.

Are pups bred from dogs with a CH produced for work?

 

 

You are not addressing my question though. Does it matter what the thinking behind a dog's breeding was if it can reach the standard required for ROM?

 

I accept that it's unlikely that an AKC registered dog would produce the required level of work for ROM but if it did why would it be any different from random indifferently able farm bred dogs that accidentally produce a good worker?

 

It just seems like snobbery to me. We keep being told that a dog is as a dog does (or words to that effect). Clearly in the eyes of the ABCA that is not the case.

 

If it is vanishingly unlikely, why bother with a rule at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's a matter of context. It makes sense in the way that if you're buying a pup from someone who supports AKC, then you're going against the ABCA's principles and why should you get to register your dog with them? And obviously if you bred your own AKC dog then even if the pup can work you shouldn't get to register ABCA either. But what if you adopt a rescue dog and the previous owner supplies all of the information, and it happens to have had a parent who earned a CH. If that pup can work, then why shouldn't he get ROM?

Obviously that's a rare enough situation that it's not really important enough to include in the rules. But it's really the only one I can think of in which you are not going against the ABCA's beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose it's a matter of context. It makes sense in the way that if you're buying a pup from someone who supports AKC,

You're buying a pup not just from someone who supports the AKC but someone who participates in conformation showing to the point of seeking and obtaining a CH on their dog. They have "bought into" the idea and goal of breeding for looks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what if you adopt a rescue dog and the previous owner supplies all of the information, and it happens to have had a parent who earned a CH. If that pup can work, then why shouldn't he get ROM?

 

Just imagine, the breeder of the deregistered dog (someone who participates in the show ring) hears one of their pups has been awarded ROM by the ABCA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just imagine, the breeder of the deregistered dog (someone who participates in the show ring) hears one of their pups has been awarded ROM by the ABCA.

 

Of course. It's all about the politics. You're right, it would cause trouble. I still think that practically/ethically it would make sense to let the dog get ROM, but I can understand why the ABCA would not want to have to deal with such a touchy situation.

 

You're buying a pup not just from someone who supports the AKC but someone who participates in conformation showing to the point of seeking and obtaining a CH on their dog. They have "bought into" the idea and goal of breeding for looks.

 

Yes, exactly. I figured that was implied. It's just about the worst type of person you could support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it would be fraud if the buyer of the pup submitted what they believed to be valid paperwork, granted making the assumption that the owner of the pup was not the breeder or stud owner and had no idea about either the AKC CH rule, that would have been passed after the pup was born and before the parent earned the CH if indeed the CH was earned after the rule went into effect.

 

In truth there are too many unknowns about the actual situation, chain of ownership and timeline to make a determination as to if this was a valid registration or truly fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in my mind there are some questions that would need to be answered, first at what date was the pup born, second at what date was the pup registered, third at what date did the parent earn a CH and 4th at what date was the parent deregistered.

 

Another important question, who was the owner of the pup at the time that the application of registration was submitted?

 

Also, what was ABCA's administration policy when it came to pups born before the date of the rule change, were they eligible for registration based on birth date regardless of if a parent earned a CH in the future. Did ABCA deregister dogs out of CH parents that were registered prior to the date of the rule passing or only from that date forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not addressing my question though. Does it matter what the thinking behind a dog's breeding was if it can reach the standard required for ROM?

 

I accept that it's unlikely that an AKC registered dog would produce the required level of work for ROM but if it did why would it be any different from random indifferently able farm bred dogs that accidentally produce a good worker?

 

It just seems like snobbery to me. We keep being told that a dog is as a dog does (or words to that effect). Clearly in the eyes of the ABCA that is not the case.

 

If it is vanishingly unlikely, why bother with a rule at all?

I'll address this question. A dog is not excluded from ROM merely because it is registered with the AKC. A dog is excluded from ROM if it is shown to its conformation championship.

 

This (long!) quote taken from a statement back in 2004 explains the ABCA's thinking in voting to de-register dogs shown to a conformation championship and to refuse registration to the offspring of conformation champions:

 

[T]he border collie was developed by farmers and shepherds who sought to produce the best possible herding dog to help in managing their livestock. This working standard -- selection for herding quality above all else -- has produced a breed of unparalleled working ability. In our view, this working ability is what defines the breed. As a working stockdog registry, the ABCA is dedicated first and foremost to the preservation of this level of working ability in the border collie.

 

The kennel club model for breeding -- adopting an appearance standard for the breed, breeding to conform to it, and judging and rewarding the dogs who conform best -- is antithetical to the development of a good working breed. Working breeds which have been taken into kennel clubs and subjected to this reward system for conformation breeding have all, over time, suffered loss of their inbred working ability. This deterioration is of little importance to dog owners who use herding ability only "for fun," or as part of demonstrating their dogs’ “versatility,” but it is of great importance to those who need it for their livelihood, such as the stockmen who rely on the border collie as a worker.

 

Entering a border collie in conformation shows, competing for a conformation title, and advertising a border collie as a conformation champion all lend legitimacy to the idea that an appearance standard is an appropriate measure by which to judge a border collie. The more otherwise responsible border collie breeders and owners who do this, the more firmly the idea takes hold that the conformation ring is a valid measure of quality, and therefore that border collies should be bred to conform to the appearance standard that is rewarded there. And the more that breeders buy into this notion and breed accordingly, the more our breed's working ability will deteriorate over time. Averting this deterioration is a very high priority for us. . . .

 

True, whatever herding ability a dog may have does not disappear because he was shown to a conformation championship, but that is not the issue. Dogs shown to their championship are excluded from ABCA registration not because it’s impossible today for an individual dog to possess working ability as well as an appearance that is rewarded in the breed ring, but because of the impact that conformation showing, breeding and judging of border collies will have on the descendants of those dogs in the long run. When border collies are shown in conformation, they are placed on a different path, one which will make not them but their descendants a different kind of dog. Once a dog is placed on that path, and shown to a conformation championship, we believe that in the interests of preserving herding excellence in the border collie breed he should not remain in the working registry. We also believe that most border collie owners who really understand and appreciate working ability in the breed will concur. All dog owners are free to make their own choice in this matter, of course; that choice will reflect their individual priorities, and the relative importance they attribute to preserving the working dog and supporting the working registry on the one hand, and titling their dogs in conformation on the other.

 

In sum, work is the only standard by which a working border collie’s quality, including its structural quality, can effectively and appropriately be judged. If working ability is to be preserved in our breed, the border collie must be judged by a working standard, and by no other.

Soon after (and shortly after I became an ABCA director for the first time), the question arose as to whether a dog who was de-registered because it had become a conformation champion could be eligible for registration through ROM. In the summary I wrote of my first year on the BoD, I wrote this:

 

The Board voted against permitting re-entry of de-registered dogs through the ROM program. My reasons for voting that way arise from the purpose behind the ROM program, the purpose behind de-registration of conformation champions, and concern for proper allocation of registry resources.

 

As noted above, ROM is a very unusual program for a breed registry to have. Its purpose is to allow unregistered working dogs, dogs whose pedigrees are often unknown, to come into our registry and become registered border collies because of their excellence as stockdogs, so that genes that otherwise could never become available to us will not be lost. It's purpose is not to enable people to throw away their ABCA registration to seek glory in the show ring, and then get it back.

 

Each ROM application requires a tremendous amount of time and effort on the part of the registry. For example, take the ROM committee I served on this year. Just to fulfill the requirement of three directors seeing the dog work in a place other than his home required 10 hours travel time by one director, and 8+ hours travel time by another director, to see the dog work at the centrally-located farm of the third director. That's not counting the time spent setting it up, watching the dog, reporting to the board, all directors on the board reviewing the dog's videotape and other data, the office staff assembling the paperwork, the discussion and vote at the board meeting, etc. To expend this kind of time and effort for dogs who were already ABCA registered, but whose owners valued their ABCA registration so little that they threw it away for an AKC conformation title, would be a colossal misuse of our resources. This is doubly true because most (not all, but most) of the people involved in conformation showing have a very unrealistic idea of working ability, and would tend to apply for ROM on unqualified dogs to a much greater extent than real working dog folks would, meaning that a high proportion of our effort would be wasted.

 

Moreover, if we really believe, as we say, that conformation breeding and showing is detrimental to the working ability of the border collie, then we should be discouraging it. If we enable someone to advertise his dogs as both a conformation champion and ABCA-registered, we are not discouraging it -- we are encouraging it, because it gives that person a competitive advantage in selling pups over those who don't seek these titles for their dogs. Over time, real working breeders would feel compelled to seek the titles in order to sell puppies, and then more people would be breeding with an eye to qualifying for these titles, and inevitably working ability in our dogs would go steadily downhill. We will best preserve working ability in the breed, in my opinion, if the division between conformation-oriented dogs and real working dogs is kept sharp, rather than muddied.

 

In response to that, someone replied mentioning that she initially thought ROM should be available to those dogs. She said, "I savor the idea that the USBCHA does not limit participation in the Finals to a particular breed. In a similar spirit, I liked the idea of ROM being available to any dog who could meet the working requirements."

 

I responded:

I think that's a very natural first reaction to have. I feel the same way (about the HA Finals too). The purpose behind the ROM program is to foster working ability in the border collie, by including in the studbook the best working dogs even if . . . they weren't there to begin with. So why shouldn't any dog who can meet the working standard be accepted?

 

But the purpose behind excluding conformation champions from the registry is exactly the same--to foster working ability in the border collie. Because conformation showing and breeding is damaging to working ability, as genetic theory and the history of many other working breeds demonstrates, so we want to keep it from taking hold in our breed.

 

The case of a dog with good working ability who becomes a conformation champion -- and such dogs certainly could exist -- presents us with a conflict. How do we best foster working ability? Do we resolve the conflict in favor of the immediate claims of that particular dog, or the long-term interests of the breed as a whole? I think the ABCA was right to take the long view. This is especially so because the owner of the dog is freely making a choice with full knowledge of the consequences. If the owner values the conformation championship above inclusion in the working registry, it's likely that the breeding decisions s/he makes for his/her dog down the line will be in line with those priorities, and the dog's progeny will reflect that.

 

The policy question the ABCA had to decide here is very similar to its decision to exclude dogs affected with CEA from registration. As you know, ROM candidates must present proof of an ophthalmological examination showing them clear of CEA and PRA. In the case of any particular dog, that decision might look as if it's weighing a medical condition above working ability, and therefore violating the ABCA's philosophy that working ability is paramount. But it's not doing that. Instead, it's weighing working ability in the long run, for the breed as a whole, over working ability of a particular dog in the here and now. Folks might agree with this policy judgment or not, depending on how much of a problem they regard CEA as being (and the policy might even be changed in the future, as scientific research enables us to manage CEA better), but it's hard to claim it's not genuinely motivated by a concern to keep problems which could compromise our dogs' working ability in the long run from pervading our gene pool.

 

I understand why AKC-oriented people might portray the exclusion of conformation champions from ROM as inconsistent or hypocritical or "political." Politics has become a dirty word in our society, so a good way to taint anything is to call it political. I don't think we should worry too much about that. (It's unavoidable, after all. I'm sure if de-registered AKC champions were allowed to apply for ROM, anyone whose dog didn't make the grade would say the decision was political -- "Look at all the ABCA-registered dogs who've never seen a sheep, and my dog has her HSAs! They don't want her because she's an AKC champion. It's just politics!") In actual fact, it's no more political than the CEA policy is political. It's just an honest attempt to avert a threat to the long-term working ability of the border collie. That's what a good registry should do, IMO.

 

I apologise for quoting myself at such length, but it's easier than writing it all over again. I realize that not every word of what I quoted applies to your question, but I hope it all helps explain the thinking behind the decision you find objectionable -- denying an opportunity for ROM to a dog whose work might meet the ROM standard.

 

To the OP: Pam, I sure hoped that after more than 10 years we had put questions about the transition period behind us, but my off-the-cuff answer to your first question is "Yes" (provided the parent got its championship before 2004), and my off-the-cuff answer to your second question is "No."

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...