Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 Mr. Billedau, I think you've made a mistake. Reasonable proof lies in the list of recognized AKC breeds. The vast majority of these breeds once did work. Look through the list of Kennel Club breeds and decide how many of them work now. Then consider the number of real working dogs maintainded by clubs and registries that struggle heroically to remain outside the auspices of the AKC. If you do this, I think you'll be forced to admit that there is a strong relationship between breeds that cannot work and breeds that are recognized. Of course, many times the work for these breeds has disappeared and no one has created a suitable work substitute for breeds' historical tasks. But AKC centered activities like conformation, dog sports,psuedo-herding tests, and psuedo-earthwork actively contribute toward selecting against the genetic traits that must be present in a real working dog. Furthermore these activities serve to increase the incidence of breeding of nonworking dogs. Eventually the numbers are insurmountable and working instinct disappears from the breed. I believe this is especially true for breeds like the border collie and the jack russell that exhibit complicated high level behavior when they work. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 Margaret, I don't dispute that these other breeds have lost much of their instinct for work due to breeding for other goals than working ability. What I dispute is the hypothesis that since these other breeds lost their working ability upon AKC recognition, this same will happen to the border collie. That hypothesis is flawed in that we have a well established test of working ability and excelling at this test drives many of our breeding programs. Since the other breeds lacked this well established test their breeding programs lack a drive for excellence in working ability and the AKC gave those breeding programs a different test of excellence (conformation). My dispute is not with what happened but in using that different situtation to predict what will happen to the working border collie. Let's not make extreme changes based upon a flawed hypothesis. ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 Mark, I am inclined to agree with you, especially in light of the difficulties faced by the JRTCA in recent years. You might know that I have argued for your point long and hard on this board. I have written to Mr. Smart. Simply put, I have urged the ABCA to take every positive step possible before they put punitive measures into effect. The response? Now no one replies to me here and Mr. Smart has never given me the courtesy of a reply. Two days ago, after the court decided in the JRTCA's favor I wrote to a member of the dual registration committee offering my help. So far no reply. So, I am taking a new tack. If the ABCA leadership is set on taking negative action against dual registration, they have my support. I hope that at some point the ice will thaw and I will be able to help the registry pursue its goals with as little negativity as possible. You are right, herding trials go a long way toward defending working instinct, however I think we need a registry too. Right now we are asking the registry to include dogs that are bred in a substandard manner. We would never insist that herding trial hosts put on stockdog trials according to AKC herding test rules. I know the analogy isn't a perfect fit, but I think it sort of makes my point. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net [This message has been edited by Margaret M Wheeler (edited 10-15-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PairDogx1.5 Posted October 15, 2002 Report Share Posted October 15, 2002 I'm not sure that the plight of other breeds in and of itself is the only reason, or even the main reason, that folks worry about the Border Collie as it relates to AKC. There's more to it than that. I know that most people here probably realize this, but I also know for a fact that's it's a mistaken impression that some people take from these discussions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Mark, I am not claiming, nor have I ever claimed, that everyone who registers dogs with the AKC is breeding to its standards. Nor that everyone who registers dogs with the ABCA is breeding to its standards. What I am saying is that they should be. If you're going out and advertising AKC dogs, you should at least be attempting to breed to its standards, otherwise those standards are meaningless. The same holds true of ABCA registration. That's why there's a conflict. Most people seem to take your view, that registration is essentially a record-keeping service and otherwise meaningless. That's why there's even a discussion about dual registration. Because if people took breed standards seriously, it would be obvious that you can't have a single dog bred for both standards. There are two standards, ipso facto, there are two breeds. The standard defines the breed, and if you don't believe in the standard, you shouldn't have anything to do with the organization that promulgated it. Plain and simple. I have yet to hear anyone make an affirmative case for dual registration. The only argument I've heard is that we should all cave in to the AKC since they're the 800 pound gorilla of the purebred dog world. No one can tell me how dual registration helps the breed. That's because it doesn't. It helps people who want to play doggy sports in markets where the AKC has them locked up. It helps breeders who want to play both sides of the fence, or look the other way when folks who buy their pups decide to register them with the AKC. I don't feel any obligation to prove that the AKC will harm the breed. It has never done anything good for any working dog it has touched. The world is littered with bird dogs that won't hunt, hounds that won't scent, guardian dogs that won't guard, and, yes, herding dogs that won't herd, all because the AKC and its European equivalents define breeds in the show ring, and not in the real world. As far as I'm concerned, it's up to people who would allow dual registration to come up with some proof that it will be beneficial to the breed. Personally, I don't see any way that we can lay down with swine and come up smelling like anything other than pig shit. Ball's in your court, Mr. Billadeau. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH [This message has been edited by Bill Fosher (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Bill, banning dual registration provides no motivation for people to choose abca over the akc, except for the us vs. them or akc=bad mentality. Many of the best lines are in the hands of people I'll call pros, those people who make a living with the working border collie which typically includes selling puppies. These people are unlikely to place themselves in a situation that will eliminate any market for their puppies or restrict how they can sell their puppies which directly impacts their income. If a ban on dual registration succeeds, these people will likely switch to or start another registry that is less restrictive, if that registry is the akc, then those lines will be excluded from those wanting to breed and register with the abca. If you dispute this scenario, survey "pros" at the National Finals as to their attitude towards banning dual registration. If you say "good riddens", ask yourself is the remaining gene pool large enough and diverse enough to maintain a healthy breed? I don't know the answer to this question, but it's amazing how interrelated most of the working border collies are. As far as having to prove one thing or another, it's generally accepted that to institute a change, the change has to be proven to be better than the exsiting conditions, not the other way around. I'm not for the AKC, but I'm not for banning dual registration. Back at ya ------------------ Mark Billadeau [This message has been edited by Pipedream Farm (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Mark Billadeau wrote: > This argument seems specious to me. First, do you really know that none of these other breeds had "a well-established test of working ability," or is that just a guess on your part? Even if many of them did not have a method comparable to the USBCHA trials, if they were indeed useful working dogs, they had SOME means by which breeders could ascertain an effective approach to breeding for the development and maintenance of their working ability. Unless you think superior working ability arises by coincidence, there existed both "a drive for excellence in working ability" and a means by which breeders could achieve this excellence -- otherwise the dogs would not have been a useful working breed. Their breeders' method, whatever it was, sufficed to produce useful dogs until the breed was accepted into the Kennel Club, but thereafter was insufficient to maintain usefulness in the breed. Which is exactly what we fear -- with good reason -- here. The Lassie Collie, for example, was developed from exactly the same working dogs as our current border collie. The same means of developing and maintaining a breeding program that would produce useful working dogs existed for those who were registered with the Kennel Club and those who were not, but the branch of the breed which went the Kennel Club route lost their working ability, while the "collies" that stayed outside retained their ability and eventually came to be recognized as a separate breed. The "different test of excellence (conformation)" that the Kennel Club offered to the Collies registered with them, which brought this change about, is the same test the AKC espouses today as the sole basis for breeding decisions. Second, just because we have an established system of USBCHA trials doesn't mean that system will survive the gravitational pull of the AKC. The AKC is huge, in size, power and status. It has its own herding program -- one that most of us think is an inadequate measure of working ability and, because it must accommodate all breeds, could never be otherwise. Last February AKC changed its rules to permit cash prizes at the herding trials it sanctions, so now it will be possible for participants to get both money and AKC titles. It has been pointed out on these boards that AKC was a late comer to the sport of agility, but has gone a long way toward marginalizing the formerly-thriving agility programs of USDAA and NADAC. Now, we are told, AKC is where the action is. Complacency is natural, but things don't stay the same in life. I'm not going to draw a blueprint for something I don't want to be built, but if you look far enough into the future it's easy to see that the ABCA is not the only one of our institutions that's threatened by the AKC-ification of the border collie. As for your belief that our "pros" would switch to the AKC, taking with them the lines you seem to think they exclusively control, if the future ban or the NB were instituted, I don't think you have any better basis for this conclusion than I have for believing that most of them care enough about the breed not to do that. Neither one of us has surveyed "pros" at the National Finals, and what people say when surveyed is far from a reliable indication of what they will do. The great majority of pros are not now registering dogs with the AKC. If they had to make a choice now (not that either the future ban or the NB imposes such a choice -- under either one they could still sell puppies that could be registered with the AKC), I believe they would choose us. Farther down the road, after all the many, gradual, foreseeable changes that can only accelerate drift towards the AKC if we do nothing, that will not be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 see Pam Wolf at: http://www.bordercollie.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000026-4.html I'm taking her at her word. ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuck's BCBuddy Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Sorry, may be naive, but I can't see how one can be for dual registration, and not, at least in part, be for the AKC. What's the saying, "you can't have your cake, and eat it too". Bill F. made a statement that made a lot of sense to me. This was in regard to the standards, and not being able to meet both ABCA and AKC standards in breeding (Incidentally Bill, thanks for answering my question on this before I even asked). I'd certainly be interested in seeing the views of the pro-dual registration folks, on how they see it possible to breed and meet both standards. Again, I may be naive, but I don't believe a dog should be registered both, if it can't meet the standards. It'd be like me trying to pass off my four wheel drive truck, as a sports car. Something just doesn't fly... Carl Hochberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Carl, go back and re-read my post. I'm against banning dual registration not for promoting dual registration. There is a difference. It's like saying I'm not for having hand guns, but I'm not going to stop others from having them if they want. It's called being tolerant of others views and ideals, which this board lacks. ------------------ Mark Billadeau [This message has been edited by Pipedream Farm (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Is there any chance the ABCA will poll the membership to get an idea what the majority of members want? I keep getting the sense from talking to people at trials and such that we keep hearing from a very vocal minority on this issue. Most of the trial people i've talked to seem to think doing anything is crazy. But i'll admit it could be that my sample is skewed. All it would take is a mailing to the membership, with a voting postcard to return, to do it. It could even be done by email or over the web, using that database Alice talked about. I think it would be important to include an argument for taking action as well as one against any action in order to be fair. -Robin French Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toney Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Polling the membership is somewhat problematic. I'm not saying the idea doesn't have some merit, but it is more difficult than it seems at first glance. In the first place, surveys or polls must be written correctly to be legitmately valuable for research or statistical analysis. They require someone who has experience in developing polls and survey questions that are statisticallly valid. Graduate school has taught me more than I ever want to know about building polls and surveys correctly. Second, the annual directors' elections are conducted by an outside auditing firm, and the member must sign the outside of the sealed envelope for the ballot to count. It's not as simple as sending out postcards and having a secretary or volunteer count them as they come into the office. I really didn't feel a poll was necessary. I simply emailed or telephoned my directors and let them know my opinions on the options presented. It cost me a few bucks, but it was worth it to me. Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Being someone who works in survey research, I'd have to disagree. If you ask a simple yes/no question, there's not much argument to the fact that the one that gets the most votes is the majority opinion for the sample. And if everyone in your population is given the opportunity to vote, then your sample represents all those interesed enough in an issue to vote and express an opinion. It's when you start trying to predict what someone is going to say based on predisposing factors that you start worrying about statistical significance. And it's when you only give part of a population the opportunity to vote than you are no longer able to say the sample is representative. So for example, if we set up a poll on this board, we're not giving those who've lost interest in this discussion or those without computer access a fair voice. If we mail to all ABCA members and give them a chance to say yes or no, and our method of asking the question is fair, our answer should be representative of those who give a darn about this. I'm a firm believer in the representative process and have been encouraging everyone i talk to to talk with the ABCA directors and express their opinions, regardless of what they are. But i think if we're talking about a contained population (ABCA members) I'd rather know the majority opinion and not rely on someone to speak for me. Especially when in my opinion, this board, which is the only public forum for discussion, is so skewed in its voice. Look at the post that started this thread. Whether you agree or not, the poster should have been allowed to voice his opinion without being attacked. As it is now, anyone who questions the proposals is labeled pro-AKC and whupped up on, no matter how valid or invalid their questions. -Robin French Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toney Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 We'll just have to agree to disagree on the complexity of surveys, I suppose, but I sure wish I could have convinced all my professors of your viewpoint. It would have saved me a LOT of work. As far as having a representative voice, if you're not a paid member of the ABCA, you should not have a voice in this debate at all. Rightly, this thread should have been posted in the ABCA member section, since it is membership business. Terry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuck's BCBuddy Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Nope, Mark, didn't misread your post, but your gonna have to get it through my thick PA Dutch skull. I still stand by what I said, even if your not promoting dual registration, but are against disallowing it, it still sounds like your a support of it, IMO (and I say this also having reread your other posts in this thread, where you do alot of debating on anyone who is a proponent of banning dual registration). If you have no stance on the issue, and have such a high tolerance level for others views, why does it appear to bother you so much that others are against dual registration? You can call it a lack of tolerance on these boards, but you can't possibly expect to come to a public forum, and have everyone agree with your stance, which appears to be "if it doesn't effect me, directly, let it be". Carl Hochberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Munroe Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Hi everyone, My family has bred registered working Border Collies for at least 55 years. I have taken on that role for the past 20+ years. I have always bred pups from 2 working parents. The need to continue to breed working Border Collies has continued to be a healthy discussion over all of these years. I grew up with this same discussion going on around the dinner table. My parents had to have their breeding pairs assessed by a specified Border Collie breeder to insure that they displayed working ability. In my opinion their are many reputable Border Collie owners who would volunteerily train to become ABCA inspectors to inspect the breeding dogs of other would be breeders. This could be another option for discussion in the ABCA. Are any of these reduced numbers accounted for in registrations with the CBCA (Canadian Border Collie Association) which I understand is a sister organization to the ABCA. When I sell pups I include a note to the new owners with their papers that outlines the current ABCA policy and specifically ask that they not dual register their pup with the AKC or CKC unless it is neutered. Happily most of my pups that have gone to none working homes have been neutered. The few that are breeding have gone to working dog breeders. ------------------ Mare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Carl, I have no problem with people being against dual registration, I have a problem with a vocal minority trying to force their views on everone else with a rule change. On this board we hear from VERY few people in the working BC world, and yet it appears that the vocal minority (in terms of the working BC world) on this board is guiding the decision process and this minority has no time or desire to find out what the majority of working border collie breeders opinions are. That's the impression this board gives the world. I'm still against banning dual registration, I feel it's bad for the ABCA in the short term and long term and no amount of proselytizing by the zealots here will change my mind. I've read all the "arguments" for the ban and I don't buy into them or believe the flawed working hypothesis that "because it happened to the other herding breeds it WILL happen to the working border collie". I've stated why that hypothesis is flawed; success on the trial field is a very strong motivation for breeders to not only preserve the working ability but improve upon it. Mark Billadeau [This message has been edited by Pipedream Farm (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Mare - I don't know you but thank you for posting. It's refreshing to hear from someone new on the subject. Terry - I think where you're not seeing my point is that I'm talking about surveying the whole population of ABCA members, not a sample. Statistical significance doesn't play a part. The "vote" is the opinion of the majority of interested voters to the question asked, period. Validity will need to be addressed in the form of allowing both sides of the issue to be presented fairly and in a manner agreeable to both sides. I'm glad you took some graduate school classes and all, but i've spent the last 15 years working in survey research and spent 6 years before that studying politics and the political process. This is a pretty simple vote, kinda like the presidential election. One person, one vote. -Robin French Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuck's BCBuddy Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Mark, Thanks for your response, gives some further insight into where your coming from on this topic, and I'm glad we didn't degenerate into some of insult slinging you often see (if my posts came off that way, that was not my intention). While I see the point of the proponents of doing away with dual registration (of course I'm not an expert, but I'd tend to agree), I see your point about majority opinion, etc., and in a democratic society, that's the way it should be. Sooo, I'm thinking they other polling discussion that is presently occuring within this same thread, may be at least one possibility of achieving this. Carl Hochberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Robin, My familiarity with polling and statistics is limited to a "social statistics" course I had to take to graduate, so I'll leave the how of it to you. But, we can agree that the president, senators and representatives see to the daily running of the country, can't we? We vote for them, and they make laws and appoint policy makers and so on. U.S. citizens don't vote directly on particular acts of law, even the really important ones. So, on that basis I think it is entirely appropriate for the board of the ABCA to make this decision without returning to the membership for a vote. In my experience, they have already gone a lot further than any club I have known to determine the memberships' will. That said, I don't necessarily agree that this is the best way to keep kennel club dogs out of the registry. I feel encouraged right now because a member of the dual registration committee responded to my offer of help and gave me some feedback on my ideas regarding a consistent reliable way to determine the AKC registration status of dogs applying for ABCA registration. I was also persuaded by a comment in the reply that suggested to me that those seeking registration for dogs would simply be expected to attest to the fact that their dogs are not registered with the AKC. I infer from this that in the absence of a reliable means to verify AKC registration, that breeders would be taken at their word. I would like to feel confident that any complaints or issues regarding the AKC registration of a given dog would be handled with great privacy and tact by the registry. Also, I think it would be important to have a no tolerance policy for any inappropriate behavior with regard to ABCA officials who did not handle such information with the utmost sensitivity and care. Mark, I hope you don't feel that I was intolerant of your opinion. I really appreciate your posts and Mr. Mesa's posts for their honesty and tough mindedness. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net [This message has been edited by Margaret M Wheeler (edited 10-16-2002).] [This message has been edited by Margaret M Wheeler (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholla1 Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 ---"My parents had to have their breeding pairs assessed by a specified Border Collie breeder to insure that they displayed working ability. In my opinion their are many reputable Border Collie owners who would volunteerily train to become ABCA inspectors to inspect the breeding dogs of other would be breeders. This could be another option for discussion in the ABCA"--- If you want to deny registration of offspring to anyone that bred two properly registered border collies, you better have it clear in the club's by-laws that this will be an option the club registrar reserves and under what conditions or the club will be subject to lawsuits over it. The American Quarter Horse Association started by inspecting the horses before they were given registration papers but finally had to quit and accept any properly registred pair's offspring because of the legal troubles that ensued. Dogs are not horses but there are several legal precedents that may bear checking out before going this route. This is an open forum, I believe. [This message has been edited by Cholla1 (edited 10-16-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMESA Posted October 16, 2002 Author Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Margaret, Thank you for being tolerant of others views.The intolerance that has been shown here by what I also to believe is a small but vocal minority within the USBCA and ABCA. If a poll was taken it would have to be done by an outside organization and posted independently as to not cast doubt upon the results. I think people are thinking backwords about dual registry. The worry is AKC dogs being registered ABCA. Most of the dogs that I am familar with are ABCA dogs that have been registered AKC.If it was the other way around, the ABCA would not be losing numbers but instead gaining. There is no incintive for a dog that was born into the AKC registry to go to the ABCA but all of AKC Border Collies that do herding as well as agility(at least in the beginnig)came from the ABCA. Also the judges for the AKC trials in the beginning came from the USBCHA ranks. I guess one could say that at least some of the rank and file had a hand in creating the AKC herding program. I would not consider these people traitors but instead forward thinking and wanting to influence in a positive way that fledgling herding organization.It is too bad there are not more of them now. Also the finals that were put on in Va. had alot of AKC dog owners helping in the background and attending to watch. The organizers of that trial welcomed them with open arms. The AKC may in some peoples mind be the devil incarnate, but the owners of AKC dogs are not. Marc Mesa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Robin, the ABCA has publicized these proposals very widely, and has urged members to make known their views on the subject. A forum was established on these boards so members could express and discuss their views. If a majority of members are opposed to the proposals, they could easily become the majority voice on the ABCA Member's forum simply by posting their views. Nevertheless, any members who don't care to post to these boards for any reason are free to express their views to their directors in person, by letter, by phone, by email. If people don't care enough to make their opinions known by any of these methods, I don't see why the ABCA should expend further effort and resources trying to elicit input from them. I'm not on the board, so it's not my decision to make, but as a member I think the registry has done all that could reasonably be expected to solicit membership input, and should not waste money trying to poll more than 7,000 voting members by mail. But should they choose to do so, I think they would find that the majority voice on these boards truly reflects the majority view of the membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Cholla - this is an open forum, and your comments are welcome. Do you happen to have any info on some of the "other" quarter horse registries and how they handle being seperate from the AQHA? Mark - there was some beleif at the time of akc recognition that the akc would become a sort of "novice" training ground for folks interested in herding - so far that has not happened, simply a lot of title acruing and "titles on both ends" of dogs that are essentially "other" dogs and do some measure of "herding" by akc definitions. Many of us, myself included, have friends that are bcsa/akc members - and many of those folks help out quite a bit at local trials, including mine. And you are right, there have been some crossovers - of course there have been, people being people... I, and others, think they are misled - and that they do not understand the danger that things such as worrying about "taping" a dog's ears up - or breeding for color - will have on the "intangibles" of working bred dogs...it is the "intangibles" that make these dogs what they are - not conformance to a standard "look"...no matter how much folks try to justify that. If the akc were to drop any visual standards of breed looks - and adopt a registration standard based on "performance" - I would support that registry. I don't think that will happen, though. Personally, I have challenged both the akc and ABCA to adopt a "working test" for registry, and haven't been well recieved by either organization...I think that would be the best mehtod of registration, but will settle for the banning of dual registration. In the meantime, if you feel strongly about the issue, why don't you join the ABCA and have a voice - rather than standing outside and csting stones? Mark - While there are relatively few folks posting, many are reading - many haven't made up thier minds - many simply don't have an interest. But I have voted for a Board of Directors that I support - whether my candidates have won or not - and it thier job to create whatever they think they need to defend the registry and the dogs...that is why they are elected. Should you wish a different board with a different viewpoint, whatever that actually is at this time, it is simply a matter of supporting and running candidates that support your view. ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cholla1 Posted October 16, 2002 Report Share Posted October 16, 2002 Answering the question about the "other" quarter horse registries, there has been for some 30+ years a pony quarter horse registry, the last 15 years or so a foundation quarter horse registry and color breeds like the palomino and buckskin registries all have mostly quarter horses in them. All those registries have many double registered horses, in their particular registry and the main AQHA. There was some talk of the foundation association members asking the AQHA to assimilate them few years back as they were having some trouble functioning but nothing came of it as their business picked back up. AQHA will only honor those that have AQHA papers, those that only have the other registries papers and their offspring are not elegible for AQHA registration, best I know. Now, since DNA testing of parents, lineage is much more accurate. That may eventually change the way things are for all registries. 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.