Eileen Stein Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 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. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 If there was to be a "working test" of some sort, based on trialing and/or demonstrated (videoed or witnessed), it would be useful to insist that all pups were micro-chipped and that a chip was read as part of the trial run/test/video. I'd be in favor of all registered pups having to be micro-chipped in any case, especially if the micro-chip registry would be amenable to including the registry as part of each animal's contact information. What would that accomplish? Outside of the standard of being able to identify a pup/dog should it be lost and recovered by an individual, shelter, or rescue, it could provide data that would be helpful to the breed. For instance, I have been told by multiple rescues that pups from a particular breeder had an alarming rate of turning up in shelters and rescues. A system of registration that included mandatory micro-chipping would certainly help reunite lost animals with their owners - which is already a plus for micro-chipping - and would also provide data that might help pinpoint breeders who seem to be contributing to a major problem, pups/dogs that are not well-placed or successfully placed in good situations. Or, would help breeders identify buyers that are not suitable for the dogs. As for the list under discussion, would the dogs be better served by publishing a list of all those in a year who registered a litter, organized in two formats - once by number of pups (as this list is organized) and once alphabetical by breeder (which could help someone doing their research possibly identify breeders who are using multiple names/family names to make it appear that they are producing fewer pups)? This list could carry a disclaimer similar to the one at the top of the current list with the added comment that the list is in no way a recommendation but simply a source of information. Just some more thoughts. You can tell I have had too much time on my hands as I have been home sick and am now being snowed in... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 The microchip is a good idea, but aren't the readers pretty expensive? I know not everybody has one laying around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Many shelters and vet offices have them. I don't know how pricey they are. A person could maybe have the dog scanned at the vet office and video that as part of the video record. It was just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Most vets, shelters and ACOs have them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 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. Exactly! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald McCaig Posted January 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Dear Doggers, As Eileen noted, the NASDA (the primary registry at the time) tried mandatory working tests when the Border Collie population was in the hundreds, agility and free style and all the other sports hadn't been invented and most owners probably knew each other. Didn't work. We have a paid secretary and the clerk(s?) she pays. All other work is performed by volunteers - like Eileen - who have dedicated countless hours/days/weeks/months to the welfare of the working Border Collie. I've no doubt improvements could be made in the ABCA and welcome suggestions from those willing to spend their own hours/days/weeks - not mine, not Eileen's, not the Secretary's - to establish their idea's importance to Border Collie welfare before convincing, first the elected directors and then the membership these suggestions are worthy of implementation. I have seen such a process establish eye tests at the Finals, a top notch health and genetics committee, a rainy day fund, registration reciprosity with the ISDS, (I believe the ABCA was the first non UK association to achieve this), deregister AKC champions, bar the most egregious puppy millers and - although I'm no longer active in the association - I'd bet money that's how "high volume" breeders got on the website. So if you have a really good idea, have a good name, and are willing to do years of heavy lifting your "notion" may become an ABCA "policy". That's all it takes. Donald McCaig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 At that time, before agility and the other sports it wasn't so easy to get video. Nowadays you can pop out your phone, shoot a video, and send it within minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 "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. " have no idea how many working border collies are in North America. I do not have access to the registry information. I do know that I see more ads for sport and color bred border collies than those that advertise working dogs. Most I see aren't registered AKC, but ABCA. I think if there was a working requirement on registration for breeding purposes a large number of pet/sport breeders would no longer be able to register their dogs. There would be a much bigger loss of revenue than caused by the blacklist. Maybe another option similar to what has been done before would be to pull registration on those dogs that earn obedience/flyball/agility championship. It's been done for show champion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald McCaig Posted January 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Dear Doggers, Mr. Ms. wsp wrote (presumably in support of a working requirement) "At that time, before agility and the other sports it wasn't so easy to get video. Nowadays you can pop out your phone, shoot a video, and send it within minutes." Perhaps the commonest remark about videos submitted here is "Of course you can't tell anything from a video . . ." He also suggests "pull registration on those dogs that earn obedience/flyball/agility championship." That suggestion was brought before the membership and voted down. Donald McCaig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maralynn Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Well, agility, flyball and obedience are all performance sports that working bred dogs can excel at. If one believes (like I do) that working bred dogs can do it all, then why punish someone who selects a working bred dog to do sports with and does well at it? "Choose our dogs and we'll reward you by deregistering it when you're successful at what you chose to do" And my recuse dog could pass a basic herding requirement test. She's not breeding material and, besides the logistics of a working test, I don't think that putting a stamp of approval on dogs like her who are mediocre at best when it comes to working ability would really help the breed. To me, it would seem to water down the ideal standard a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfisher7151 Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Maybe another option similar to what has been done before would be to pull registration on those dogs that earn obedience/flyball/agility championship. It's been done for show champion. I've stayed out of this discussion because I'm not really in a position to have anything to say about the matter. But that would be a HORRIBLE idea. You'd lose a large, large portion of supporters of an already struggling demographic. Sporter collies are already so easy to get, from health tested parents, and oftentimes from a breeder who will support your sport of choice. It's hard enough to get a working pup from a breeder who will sell to a sport home. You'd practically kill any interest in working dogs from agility folk if they're going to be punished for their achievements. My area is very, very heavily dominated by AKC trials and trainers. Most trainers worth their salt is trialing AKC, any NADAC or USDAA trials are few and far between. My trainer, who is very highly sought after (it took connections in our horse world to get her approval), trials AKC. Given this, I am, unfortunately, going to be trialing AKC. I *hate* them. But I don't really have another option. My dog is ABCA papered, so I'll be getting him AKC papers, which will go in the deepest, darkest corner of his folder. My mom's pup is another story. I likely will start and trial him in the future, but he's grade. The only AKC registration I can get him is a PAL (unless I get an ABCA ROM, not gonna happen), and a PAL requires that the dog be neutered. We just won't do that, we leave our dogs intact. I've already shot myself in the agility foot by not having an ABCA registered dog. If the ABCA pulled registration on dogs with sport championships, I'd really have no other choice than to go to a sporter collie breeder. I'm not going to end up on the deregistered list, and I won't be in any position to trial USDAA or NADAC anytime soon. You really couldn't pay me to have anything but a working bred dog, and I'll be having to make some big sacrifices if the ABCA started punishing sport dogs. Now, carry on with your regular broadcasting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airbear Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 ... Maybe another option similar to what has been done before would be to pull registration on those dogs that earn obedience/flyball/agility championship. It's been done for show champion. My open sheep dog (USBCHA Open) has earned an agility trial championship in one venue (AAC) and is closing in on another in USDAA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cass C Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 I also wanted to chime in that punishing people who want to do sports with a working bred dog. It wouldn't help ABCA with their cause. If anything it would deter people from getting working pups and we would have no choice than to go to a sporter collie. No one wants to be disbarred from an organization just because they decide to do sports with their dog, which the working dog people have stated a working dog can do just as well if not better than a sporter collie. Plus as said what if some day that person decides to work their dog get it to ABCA standards and start trailing with them, but they still have a sport title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 If a dog has proven its value as a working and/or trial dog, just because it is successful at a "recreational" pursuit, as Kristi's dog has done, should not devalue its ABCA registration. It is a rarity but there are several handlers in North America who are truly successful in both venues (and, from what I can see, are very responsible breeders, breeding for "the right thing" if and when they breed). By "truly successful" I don't mean a dog only run at the lower levels of USBCHA-style trials or AHBA or AKC events. The reason show champions are de-registered is that the show ring is completely antithecal to what the work is all about - the show ring is all about appearance as being the "standard" when the standard should be the work. And because someone who pursues a show championship on a dog is almost without doubt putting their priorities on what matters with these dogs in the wrong place. So this is not only aimed at removing dogs/bitches who gain a show championship but also at pushing back against the kind of owner/handler who places an emphasis on the show ring - virtually none of whom you will find being serious farm/ranch/trial handlers. While the offspring of a show champion that has been de-registered can't be ABCA-registered, they can be registered if they qualify through ROM so if they have "the right stuff" they are not excluded - they just need to prove it. There are, of course, exceptions to virtually every rule but in general, there are very good reasons for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 thank you volunteers and 1 paid staff of ABCA I appreciate your work. The reason I have the dogs is because I found you guys. Here is my suggestion List All litters and breeders registering pups, and numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'Elle Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 If a dog has proven its value as a working and/or trial dog, just because it is successful at a "recreational" pursuit, as Kristi's dog has done, should not devalue its ABCA registration. The reason show champions are de-registered is that the show ring is completely antithecal to what the work is all about - the show ring is all about appearance as being the "standard" when the standard should be the work. And because someone who pursues a show championship on a dog is almost without doubt putting their priorities on what matters with these dogs in the wrong place. So this is not only aimed at removing dogs/bitches who gain a show championship but also at pushing back against the kind of owner/handler who places an emphasis on the show ring - virtually none of whom you will find being serious farm/ranch/trial handlers. While the offspring of a show champion that has been de-registered can't be ABCA-registered, they can be registered if they qualify through ROM so if they have "the right stuff" they are not excluded - they just need to prove it. There are, of course, exceptions to virtually every rule but in general, there are very good reasons for this. Like Kingfisher, I have been reading this with great interest but have stayed out of it. However, I am going to chime in on this, as I agree what a dumb and awful idea it would be to punish those who choose to do sports with their ABCA working-bred border collies. We cannot all have sheep. We cannot all take our dogs readily to sheep. If I buy a BC puppy I will go to a working breeder recommended by the folks on this board because I support the working border collie. Then, I will do Freestyle with that dog and possibly agility. Sheep are a two hour drive away from me, and I cannot afford lessons. My dogs thrive on the sports I do with them. Registering with the AKC, on the other hand, means sleeping with the enemy of the working border collie, and that is a very different thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tea Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Ok I'm cornfused, how are they punishing the sport dog folks? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Tea, I think that part of the discussion was about not allowing them to register because they dogs are not working stock, but I've kind of gotten lost in this discussion because I haven't been on the forum for a few days. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Here is my suggestion List All litters and breeders registering pups, and numbers. This is a great idea, instead of singling out and making an example of some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 The one question I haven't seen addressed is: why does someone feel OK about producing 100 pups in a year? Julie, do you think you could provide some insight since you live with one of the high volume breeders? I am honestly interested to know what these people are thinking. I can not imagine such a situation, so maybe if someone like me can understand better, others may have some more suggestions for ABCA. I know our hearts are in the right place, we all ultimately want what's best for the breed, so how can we make that happen? Emily, I really don't want to be a spokesperson for Karen, but I will try to answer your question since I do live here and see what goes on. She generally has maybe one or two breeding bitches here. (Right now she has a bitch from Kevin Evans, one from Bobby Ford, a pup that was with Amy Yoho and is now living with Karen [neutered], and Imp. Mick.) She has two close friends who she lends dogs to, one for a goose dog business and another who has a farm, but the dogs live in the house. Both of those people will breed the bitches that they have at times. Since the bitches are still registered in Karen's name, all registrations also end up in her name and she does help place the puppies that result from those breedings. She also sometimes gives dogs to friends but retains breeding rights. For example, Mary Williams who does a lot of agility (Nationals level) but is completely new to stockdogs has a young dog from Karen (K. Evans' Caleb x Freck, imported in whelp) she's trying to train for stockwork. Karen gave her a started dog (also from Kevin, though I don't know if he produced her or bought her and trained her) to learn from. The only caveat was that she get a couple of litters from Patch. So Patch lives in a house, is working stock here with me helping Mary, does demos with us, and has even worked on the set of Turn. But Patch is still in Karen's name, so any litters from her will also be registered under Karen's name. Karen is something of a different case, I think, because she has a lot of repeat buyers of her puppies. She will take any pup back, temporarily to work on an issue or permanently to find a new home. Her long-time friends and multi-dog buyers regularly come out to help socialize litters. The pups are raised in beautiful conditions on a raw diet, receive all the vet care/health checks they need, are dewormed regularly before they go to their new homes. I will also note that Karen does not sell every puppy she produces. She will give pups to people (people she knows and trusts) if she feels the circumstances warrant it, no strings attached. She also spends a great deal of time helping *anyone* with a border collie (not necessarily her breeding) who contacts her seeking help with behavioral or training issues. And she does all the genetic testing on her dogs and has hips read (through Cornell, I think?). If there are issues in a litter or she doesn't like a dog's temperament or temperaments produced, she will not breed those dogs again. As for the dogs she's using, they come at least started, if not fully trained, mostly from the UK, though she has a young American bred bitch now as well (not producing pups). I think her plan is to send that youngster off to be trained. But every single one of her breeding dogs has been trained to work, whether they continue with that work when they get to the states or not. The downside to the clientele is that many of them are dog sports enthusiasts, so the number of pups who go on to work stock themselves isn't huge. That said, I do know of a bunch since I've been living here that are in working homes, even if it's just hobbyists. Note that I am not defending numbers here, but as far as I can tell, Karen does right by the dogs, the puppies, and the puppy buyers. Of course this is just one example and certainly not universal by any means. I think that a good number of her puppy buyers don't even bother to transfer the papers to their names, which is interesting, but I guess if they don't plan to breed they don't really care. So this is my observation in the short time that I have lived here at the farm. She is definitely a high-volume breeder, but my observation is that she stands by her dogs and the pups produced are well cared for, well socialized, and well placed. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wsp Posted January 23, 2016 Report Share Posted January 23, 2016 Breeding for agility, obedience, or flyball is not breeding for working ability any more than breeding for a pretty dog is. What if a dog is doing well in Open, but earns a Champion title? Another option so the owners can still compete with their agility/sport dogs would be to give the dog non-breeding status once it earns the agility, obedience, or flyball title, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.