Guest PrairieFire Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Hey Melanie - I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with any "livestock" breeder charging enough for his/her stock to make a profit... Most breeders of working stock dogs aren't old money, have not won the lottery, and prefer not to live out of the back of a pickup truck... So why begrudge a profit to them? I guess I don't think breeding for working ability should preclude making some money - just as I don't think that since I breed my livestock "to improve the breed" I need to incorporate as a non-profit. 'Course, I ain't made any money on dogs or sheep yet, but that doesn't stop me from dreaming... ------------------ 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...
wildairbc Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 I agree Melanie. I believe that this is the great divide right here- those that think of their dogs as "livestock" and those that think of them as "companions". Bonnie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Fosher Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Bill, I forget whether it was on the first or second page of this thread that Mark said nothing would change his mind. He's apparently willing to go well out of his way to prove that point. But just in case, let's try this one more time. If an ABCA dog and an ABCA bitch produce a litter of pups, there is nothing in any of the proposals that I back that would keep the people who purchase those puppies from registering them with the AKC. Unless and until the AKC closes its studbook, dual registration of parents is simply uneccesary and blurs the distinction between the two breeds of dogs that are both unfortunately called Border collies. And I believe that the parent club for border collies in the AKC is on record calling for a perpetually open stud book. Be that as it may, we can't control what they do. All we can do is what we think is right for the breed. If you think that dual registration is right for the breed, I'd like to hear why. And so far, all you've come up with is why it's right for some breeders, and the fear that good lines will be lost if the ABCA forces people to choose one or the other, which is a fear founded only on a misunderstanding of the proposals. ------------------ Bill Fosher Surry, NH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Charles Torre Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Wildairbc: I don't think those are the only two options. I'd bet that most people who use their dogs for work (as opposed to sports and play) view their dogs as somewhere in between those two extremes you mentioned. It's not that different from human enterprise. At a business, some people are just employees, some are also friends. Working with the latter is always best. Melanie: Bill G. is always so bashful with his opinions, let me suggest that his use of the term " 'livestock' breeder" was meant to conjure an image of a person who makes his/her living growing, buying, selling animals, e.g., a rancher or farmer. They are trying to make a living at it. That's what they do. Hopefully they are doing it the old fashioned way, by breeding the very best they can. That's how we got the Border Collie. Frankly, I would prefer that the people who are controlling the cutting edge of the breed to be people who make their living at it (at least in part - I don't know any rich breeder/rancher/farmers). I want experts, not hobbyists, controlling the breed. Yikes! This is too political. What was I thinking setting foot in here? I'm out of here. charlie (Sorry for the digression.) [This message has been edited by Charles Torre (edited 10-21-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 21, 2002 Report Share Posted October 21, 2002 Well now, charlie, I've got myself running for president of the National Border Collie Livestock Producers Association - our first goal is to get the price for choice, number 2-3, in the wool, feeder collies up around the $1 per pound range - then, taking advantage of the "brain disease" problem in Oz and Kiwiland we hope to get the Pres to sign a "prime pelt" agreement where choice AMERICAN pelts, especially lilacs and champagnes, reach new levels... Of course, all of this depends on the kibble harvest this year, and due to the drought, many of us may have to sell off our prime breeding stock as boners and canners...especially since the price of propane and fuel oil has caused the big kibble dryers to cost so much to operate... I'm hoping to flash freeze my kibble on the stalks, then let the little doggies graze on the gleanings for much of the winter. Prices, especially for those merles and lilacs, always go up around Christmas time, y'know... Which makes one think - Kinda like "Who guards the guardians?"..."Who herds the flock of Brder Collies" out grazing in the back pasture... Or is it a "Churn" of Border Collies? Or perhaps an "admixture of collies"...wait, wait, I've got it - "a THUNDERATION of Border Collies!".... and a "TARNATION of Border Collie Handlers!" ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-21-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedream Farm Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Bill F. I'm against banning dual registration, not for (or against) dual registration. I know it's subtle, but there is a difference. I've tried to lay out why I think banning dual registration is not neccessary to save the breed and why I think the ban will have significant adverse affects. You believe few breeders will take offence to the ban and will not leave the registry, I believe the number will be more significant. Both of us have formed our opinions based on what we believe and from the input of others around us. Neither of us has numbers to support our beliefs; therefore, neither of us can prove what will happen. Without input from a larger number of breeders, especially those who have the largest impact on our breed, the only way to find out what will happen is to test it. But that's a big step to take when you're only guessing what others will do. ------------------ Mark Billadeau Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Margaret M Wheeler Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Mark, I appreciate your determination. Believe me, you are doing the community and the breed a big favor by refusing to be worn down, shouted down, put in your place, ad hominemed and so on. I imagine there are a lot of people reading this thread who are encouraged by the fact that you have enough concern about the rest of us and our dogs as well as faith in the officers and members of the ABCA to privilege us with your opinion and the reasoning behind it. I think Mr. Mesa's posts and your posts and perhaps Joyce Griers posts in the members forum are directly responsible for the excellent discussion in the genetic pool thread. In its turn, that thread gives me hope that the ABCA will consider carefully before it decides on the best way to limit the effect of AKC stock on ABCA dogs. A friend of mine just sent me a "list of 20 rules." One said something to the effect, "If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming from both directions." With that in mind, Thanks again, Mark. ------------------ Margaret retired terrierwoman, border collie newbie drumlins@adelphia.net Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Denise Wall Candy Kennedy Donald McCaig Eileen Stein Penny Tose Jeanne Weaver Mark and Margaret - Those are the names of the folks who spent a great deal of time considering several options, as a committee, and posted thier thoughts on the ABCA webpage, and in the newsletter... Now, while I can see how some would argue that perhaps they don't represent "those who have the largest impact on our breed" - I would argue that they are a darn good cross section of people who SHOULD influence the breed, the registry, and the trials... So perhaps a number of folks without the background, intensity of beleif, and, for want of a better word, ethics - might exit the registry because of a dual ban...and leave the registry supported mainly by folks of the character and beleifs of the above committee... So be it. ------------------ 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...
ikw Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 >>>"If you stand in the middle of the road you get hit by traffic coming from both directions." <<< That's basically what the dual registry folks wishes to see. In their case,it comes in the form of monetary gains by playing both fields. Few which I've talked with in the past may have inadvertently purchased dogs with dual registries and that's usually enough to make a believer out of them since their dogs are first generations of their dually kind. Surely they work now but few generations down the road when they'll be selected for other traits as a breeding prospects,will their offsprings continue the working abilities? Seriously doubtful especially if they are cut out of the working registry,hence their major worries. As for gene pools,I honestly don't think it is in a critical stages nor it will be unless people breed only from their own kennels or within their own communities. I could come up with 10-15 potential stud dogs for a bitch within the nation with only handful "may or may not" have some very distant relations. However,sheepdoggers (top handlers) in general is such an influential group and the desire to suck up to them is so powerful,most newcomers are easily influenced,they seem to create their own limitations in the gene pools. I've seen ads where people boast on their breeding dogs going back to "such and such dogs 3-4 times". I'll get off my soapbox now and I'm sure I've just managed to insult many more but when the future of these dogs happens to be in grave danger,I'd stick with dogs than making buddies. ------------------ Inci Willard Clearville,PA 814-784-3414 ikw@pennswoods.net [This message has been edited by ikw (edited 10-22-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJK Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 I?m curious as to why anyone that is a top breeder would want to register with AKC for ?business reasons?. If they register all their dogs with AKC and then AKC closes its books ? that would mean from then on they would not be able to breed to anything with ISDS or ABCA bloodlines. Anyone that is trying to breed top quality working dogs is not going to want to eliminate those two registers from their breeding program. I think anyone that runs in USBCHA trials knows the only way to do well is to have the best dogs they can buy or breed. The only reason AKC has good bloodlines now is because of ISDS and ABCA - they don?t have any of their own. How many top dogs do you see with a 5 generation AKC pedigree running in trials? I just don?t see it as a good business decision and I?ve made my living working dogs for the last 20+ years. The reason I?m in favor of the ?ban? that says if you register a dog with AKC then the pups (out of a AKC dog) can?t be registered with ABCA is that it doesn?t hurt people that have great working dogs but are selling to agility homes. I understand ?those? dogs have to be registered with AKC to run in their agility classes but unless ?those? dogs are trained to herd (and I don?t mean AKC herding) then, as far as I?m concerned, they don?t need to be bred. But if the people that own them decide to breed them without knowing if or how they can actually work - then is ABCA really losing much? I also understand that a lot of dogs bred and registered with ABCA don?t ?work? but at the same time ?those? people aren?t a registry that is trying to ?take over? ABCA. Candy Kennedy [This message has been edited by CJK (edited 10-22-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucknjill Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Candy, You know, I can only speak for myself when I say, I am not worried about the loss to the gene pool as I agree with you about the AKC dogs etc we arent pulling from them anyway. I am however, very worried about the affect this decision is going to have on the morale of the ABCA. People are very up in arms about what they feel is a few making decisions for many and as Mark says, when you start hitting people in the pocket book, they start getting serious. I can only speak based on the views of people I have talked to, but there are quite a few. I strongly feel that both sides are motivated by preserving the well being of the border collie and unfortunately, there is no sure fire way to know which side is right. Only time will tell if the board has made the right decision. I for one am very glad that that weight isnt on my shoulders. I think that no matter, the dogs will be alright, but I do worry about the future of the registry. Hurt feelings and club politics have killed more than one organization in the past, and I think it would be easy for that to happen in the future. (something along the lines of united we stand, divided we fall) Anyway, stepping away from the keyboard again. Sam Furman, VA [This message has been edited by tucknjill (edited 10-22-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Someone asked me about the history of ABCA and i thought i'd post the link to Sally Lacy's excellent post on it from these boards (it's about halfway down the page under Keswick Farm). There is also a history of ABCA on ABCA's website. http://www.bordercollie.org/ubb/Forum13/HTML/000026-3.html This was her first paragraph (hope you don't mind me copying it here Sally!) "ABCA background information: The ABCA arose from a community of Border Collie users and breeders who wanted a registry run by people like themselves who felt the Border Collie was a farm/ranch dog possessing innate knowledge and understanding of livestock. They expected the dog could also adapt to being micro-managed over a trial course to test it, providing sport to the handler and pleasure for the dog. They were not interested in top-down management of the breed. They placed no restrictions on breeding decisions by the owners. They wanted a registry that provided prompt, courteous service, that did not intrude in their affairs, that earned enough money to give this service and return to their own community a portion of the fees in grants to be done with as the requester wanted. They did not want this to be a fancy service requiring a large staff." -Robin French [This message has been edited by Shoofly (edited 10-22-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoloRiver Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Frankly, I would prefer that the people who are controlling the cutting edge of the breed to be people who make their living at it (at least in part - I don't know any rich breeder/rancher/farmers). I want experts, not hobbyists, controlling the breed. Charles and Bill, I'm still not buying it. I hope you know which side I'm on. But, if we truly are breeding only to produce a better working dog, I don't even see how it's possible to turn a profit from the sale of puppies. Breeding and growing healthy, sound pups takes a certain amount of investment. Training and nurturing those dogs to the point where their performance can be evaluated takes hundreds of man-hours which translates into however many dollars an hour your time is worth. If you trial your dogs, and enjoy a certain level of success at it (such that your dog is "known" and recognized as being breedworthy by numerous people who would then be interested in progeny), presumably you are spending a certain amount of money to enter trials and to travel to trials, and since you're trialing instead of working you're losing whatever money you'd be making if you were at home working instead. All in all, how could a breeder of good working Border Collies who is adequately taking care of (note, this does not mean squeaky toys and down-filled comforters) and evaluating their breeding stock turn a profit? Profit breeders cut corners. They don't evaluate their dogs. They often don't provide adequate food or health care. They breed way too often. They do what they can to increase the profit margin. They raise and sell in bulk to keep costs down. How is this compatible with the idea of breeding good working Border Collies? I don't even see this as a livestock/companion dichotomy. I can see certain breeders and trainers making a good profit because they are known to have extremely good dogs and because they can charge extremely premium prices for puppies and especially for trained dogs. But I would guess that 95% of breeders out there who are making money off their dogs are doing it by cutting corners, and we all know there are no quick and easy ways to produce top-quality working dogs. How many dogs do you think you could produce a year and still feel certain you were producing worthy dogs, Bill? I think the fact that you AREN'T realizing a profit on your dogs should tell you something. -- Melanie, Solo the Red, and The Fly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJK Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Again ... I come back to a question ... What is the difference between AKC "closing their stud books" and the ABCA saying that it will not accept puppies registered with the AKC? Why don't people see it as "telling them what to do" when AKC does something - but see it that way when ABCA says "in essence" does the same thing? Candy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Hey Melanie - We could probably take this up as a seperate thread and not clutter up this already huge thread - which, in reality, should itself be on the ABCA members (only) forum...and simply not be of concern to folks who haven't bothered to support the registry so far... I'm guessing profit depends on your definition - nobody makes money trialing - very few (working) dog breeders are gona make money on pups, and started and trained dogs probably don't bring more than $1 an hour once you subtract training, vet fees, travel, blah, blah, blah... And it ain't a livestock thang... As the folks that have seen Roy sitting on my lap watching tv will testify - I don't let my sheep OR cattle do that... ------------------ 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...
Shoofly Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 I'm glad Candy has posted here on the boards. I wish more people would speak up and just say what they think so we'd have an idea of how folks really feel about all of this stuff. I'm concerned that people aren't posting because they think they'll be bashed. It really doesn't hurt though and you can just ignore the ugly things that get said. Get your opinions out there and heard and then duck out. So, that said, here's the opinion i've come to over the course of the discussions on these boards and at trials the last few weeks. I'm concerned the bans are an experiment that will financially harm our strong registry. I don't know for sure it will, any more than the proposers know it won't. I'd rather not take that gamble. It also really sticks in my craw that we've gone around year after year screaming that folks should only breed for working ability and working ability alone, period. Now we have to qualify that with "and not AKC registered", even though that piece of paper doesn't mean a thing to the dogs or the livestock or on the trial field or in the barn. It feels hypocritical and politically motivated to me and not purely in the best interests of the dogs/breed. I know the people on the committee making these proposals have their hearts in the right place and are trying to do the right thing and everyone is trying to do right by our dogs, but i don't think this is the right thing to do. I'd rather see the break happen because our dogs and registry are strong and the gap widen naturally because our tests of our dogs are difficult (i.e. more difficult trials and stock) than the fluffy dogs contests or the "prance around a horse arena" akc herding trials. My opinions anyway. -Robin French Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJK Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Robin said: Now we have to qualify that with "and not AKC registered", even though that piece of paper doesn't mean a thing to the dogs or the livestock or on the trial field or in the barn. It feels hypocritical and politically motivated to me and not purely in the best interests of the dogs/breed. BUT - we've always done that with any registry that doesn't use work as their criteria for breeding. We don't accept the British registry (can't remember the name) that shows conformation. Candy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 But we're not talking about taking AKC dogs into our registry. We're talking about throwing ABCA eligible dogs out of the registry, dogs that were supposedly bred according to all the right ideas, out of dogs that are in the ABCA. No one is for taking AKC-only dogs into the ABCA registry in any way other than those available to non-registered dogs. -Robin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJK Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Which would not be an issue if AKC had closed their books as they have said (many a time) they were going to. Again, I ask what's the difference between AKC closing their books - or us saying if they aren't going to - then we "in essence" will? Candy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Candy - I'm not sure i understand what you're saying. If we have a way to close the AKC studbooks i'd sure like to know about it. All of this discussion would be moot if so. None of the proposals stop the flow of ABCA dogs into AKC. AKC is the only one that can close their studbooks and no one seems to know when or if that's going to happen. Cutting dogs out of our registry does nothing to hurt AKC at all. My concern is that it does hurt our registry i.e. we're shooting ourselves in the foot as AKC stabs us in the back. I came into this discussion all for Option B too, but over the course of these last few weeks and the discussion here and at trials, I've come to see that we need more data and i personally need more convincing that it'll work. There's too much at stake to not be more certain of outcomes. -Robin [This message has been edited by Shoofly (edited 10-22-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 > The point is not to hurt AKC, as I'm sure you realize. The point is to prevent insofar as possible intermingling between the traditional breed defined by work and the AKC breed defined by appearance. AKC's closing their studbooks would do this most effectively, but we cannot make them do so. We can make closure more likely, though, by discouraging AKC registration. When the AKC extended the open registration period the last time, they did so (according to their Board minutes) with the following proviso: "The Parent Club was to be advised that no further extension would be granted unless its efforts to increase registrations during this five-year period were successful." Thus, anyone who registers with the AKC contributes to ensuring that the studbook stays open. More data is welcome from any source, but in the end we have to make a decision on the data available. Deciding to do nothing is just as much a decision as deciding to do something, and carries its own risks. There may be people who will choose to register with the AKC even if it means exclusion of those dogs or their offspring from the ABCA, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are also people who will choose not to register with the AKC if it means exclusion of those dogs or their offspring from the ABCA. Like Candy, I can't see why serious breeders who care about the breed as working dogs would choose the AKC over the ABCA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tucknjill Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 My point is not that serious breeders would pick the akc, I am worried that they are so aggravated at the strong arm tactics that they will pick someone like NASDS. I think that is what Robin and I are saying. Do you really want to split the gene pool in that way??? Suppose next years finals winner has a real cracker of a pup and that pup is registered ONLY nasds? Then what? Do you all accept Nasds registered dogs? What if those dogs are also akc registered or have offspring that are? How is the overworked abc going to police any or this anyway? I think that is all we are trying to point out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PrairieFire Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 Actually, Sam, I'm pretty sure the ABCA pretty much accepts any dog from a "non-conformance" registry, i.e., NASDS, AIBC, ISDS, etc... And if the Handler's Finals winner is akc registered, then they won't get the several thousand additional dollars the ABCA is providing as prize money, will they? Remember, the basics of this rule ARE ALREADY SUPPOSED to be in place - at least insofar as the pups go...and we ALL knew that before we registered a single pup or dog - it's printed right on your application for registry... I guess I don't see applying rules everyone agreed to as "strongarm" tactics...as far as older dogs that might be "removed" - surely anyone who has been around knows the dog wars and the general feelings about the akc...if these folks registered akc I'd be willing to bet it was in a hurry to get in before the studbooks closed - worrying that they couldn't get their dogs in afterwards... And doesn't that show a tendency to not support the ABCA anyway? Oh, and by the way, ever tried to get papers from the NASDS or AIBC? ------------------ Bill Gary Kensmuir, Working Stockdog Center River Falls, WI 715.426.9877 www.kensmuir.com [This message has been edited by PrairieFire (edited 10-23-2002).] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eileen Stein Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 > Strong arm tactics? Why is it strong arm tactics to propose a course of action that will protect the breed against a widely-perceived danger, and to adopt that course of action if it has widespread support within the registry? The overwhelming majority of good working breeders strongly opposed AKC recognition of the border collie. Why did they oppose it? Because they thought AKC involvement represented a danger to the breed. If they recognized that danger then, there's no reason to think they don't recognize it now. If they recognize the danger, why wouldn't they want their registry to take action to discourage AKC registration and preserve the integrity of the working breed by enforcing its rule against registering the offspring of AKC dogs, when the open registration period is dragging on and on beyond what anyone expected? The registry is representing their expressed interests. There may be vocal (mostly in private, I guess) opponents of this course of action, but that doesn't mean the vast majority of the membership -- and the vast majority of the good working breeder members -- don't support it. And if they don't, they can elect a board of directors that will change the policy in the future, because ABCA is a member-owned registry which elects its directors. That is not true of the NASDS, where there are no elections and no voice in management for those who register. > Yes, ABCA does accept NASDS registered dogs and their offspring, so this would represent no split in the gene pool. The only consequence would be that that dog would not be eligible for the prize money that ABCA awards to ABCA-registered dogs. > If the NASDS registered dog is also AKC registered, under the future ban or the NB its offspring would not be registerable (except by ROM) with the ABCA unless it had been registered with AKC before the grandfathering date. Same as if the dog was ABCA registered. > Same as they would if the dog were ABCA registered -- by requiring a statement on the application for registration that the dog is not registered with the AKC, and if the application is for a pup, that its sire and dam either are not registered with the AKC or were registered before the grandfathering date. I'm puzzled at this perception that the ABCA is trying to railroad a policy that the members oppose. I hear very, very few members saying that they approve of AKC registration, and even fewer saying that dogs who go the AKC route should be bred and their offspring included in our studbook. I'm really sorry and discouraged if this is beginning to be portrayed as strong arming anyone. I would have thought the invitation for membership comment would have made it clear to everyone that the Board is genuinely interested in learning how the membership feels and what they want. Why aren't these people who are apparently complaining of strong arm tactics speaking up and voicing their opinion about the issue itself? I would love to hear about the merits of the proposals from more than the same old people -- including me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shoofly Posted October 23, 2002 Report Share Posted October 23, 2002 Eileen wrote: "There may be people who will choose to register with the AKC even if it means exclusion of those dogs or their offspring from the ABCA, but you seem to be ignoring the fact that there are also people who will choose not to register with the AKC if it means exclusion of those dogs or their offspring from the ABCA. Like Candy, I can't see why serious breeders who care about the breed as working dogs would choose the AKC over the ABCA." Me: I'm not ignoring it. I believe those kind of breeders would already be making those correct choices and breeding properly. Chances are the proposals don't affect those folks one bit. They might stop registering their breeding dogs with AKC (or might not, that's the gamble) but the pups will continue to be AKC registered by folks that buy them. The proposals do nothing to stop that flow of dogs from ABCA to AKC, which is something we've agreed on further back in this discussion. And using the argument that the market for AKC border collies will influence the "good" breeders' breeding choices doesn't work, because again the proposals do nothing to help with that. AKC's out there and the influence will be there regardless of the proposals. All we can do is educate breeders and owners and do everything we can to support them and help them make proper choices. And it takes a strong registry to support those kinds of efforts. I don't really even understand why the AKC folks are even upset about all of this. They don't stand to lose anything under the proposals. We're the only ones taking a risk. Anyway, we're probably just re-plowing old ground here. I'm with you in hoping to hear some new voices on this. Good to see you at the trial last weekend - believe it or not we got thru *all* of the dogs before dark sunday. I know because i ran dead last! See you down the road... -Robin 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.