Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
libby-at-home

Agility Show

Recommended Posts

I did a quick Google search and found much, all about like this:

 

---"VOTE NO ON HR 3484 because This bill is unfair it punishes the responsible hobby breeder and does nothing but give puppy mills irresponsible breeders and pet stores the the ability to avoid being prosecuted for a problem that is partially their fault the rest of the fault lies on the irresponsible pet owners not breeders.

Hello, my name is Sonja and I am a hobby dog breeder of Australian Shepherds registered American Kennel Club, Australian Shepherd Club of America, and United Kennel Club. I am also involved in activities in all of the registries listed. I am 1 of the 2 rescue representatives for Aussie Rescue & Placement Helpline, Inc. in Oklahoma.

I train my dogs at Tulsa Dog Training Club and K9 Manners. I teach at Tulsa Dog Training Club and I also teach some small classes of my own(PupEtiquette). I spend hundreds of if not thousands of dollars every year registering, showing, providing health care, feeding, and training my dogs (much to my husbands dismay)

I have some dogs that I will breed and some that I will not and some that I cannot because they are already altered. I am very picky about where my puppies or rescue Aussie's go. One woman even said it was harder to adopt a dog from me than to adopt a child from the State of Oklahoma.

Most puppies I sell or place and all rescues are on limited papers which means not for breeding purposes or already altered.

I breed therefor I rescue, I rescue therefor I teach. I am a responsible breeder who will take back a puppy/dog any time during it's life for whatever reason. I only breed once per year if that and all of the hobby breeders I know are close to the same in their programs. I cannot afford to pay 100.00 per dog that is intact on the off chance I may breed them. And yes I feel I should have that right and not be gouged because I have a proven track record of being responsible.

If this bill were to pass I would not be able to afford to participate in much of the activities like showing, obedience, agility, herding, and raising quality pups for other people like me. My quality of life and my dogs quality of life would decline.

This law would force people to purchase their pets from pet stores which get their dogs from USDA kennels and puppy mills. Most of the problem dogs come from these places. The problems range from genetic, health and social behavior. When puppies are raised in cages with no humane interaction other than feeding and cleaning cages, they are not usually suitable as family pets. That is the beginning of the cycle of irresponsible pet owners. When I purchase a dog, I want to know the dog's pedigree, see the parents, and know the medical history. Try getting that from a pet store. They may have inspections and licensing, but their breeding programs are strictly for numbers and not quality. They do not care about the specific breeds and the genetic problems. Also, a female dog should only be bred once a year not twice a year. Dogs and Bitches should not be bred until they are over the age of two (2).

 

Furthermore this bill would be punishing people like me instead deterring the people who are already violating similar laws and still selling puppies on the street corner every weekend. And these people will not stop because you put new laws in place. Nothing is being done about the laws already on the books. These people are reported but nothing happens.

There are a few references to both sb 1130 and HR3484 they should both be defeated.

 

Bixby , OK"---

 

Seems that it regulates in a way that is not good enough, that puppy mills and other less responsible breeders can still get away with their business as normal.

Those are the ones that bills should target, not responsible dog people.

 

The bill is still being amended, so no telling how it will end up.

 

Some of the amendments are really silly, like requiring a vet to qualify any dog before breeding, etc.

Who would that deter? Puppy mills have their own vets to sign papers without even having seen the dogs. They do that now for health papers. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HR 3484 is an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act and it applies to people who must have a license. Look at the subsection that defines who must get a license and you?ll find that most breeders are exempt.

 

(3) The following persons are exempt from the licensing requirements under section 2 or section 3 of the Act:

 

(iii) Any person who maintains a total of three (3) or fewer breeding female dogs and/or cats and who sells only the offspring of these dogs or cats, which were born and raised on his or her premises, for pets or exhibition, and is not otherwise required to obtain a license; of the Act and this subchapter.

 

(vii) Any person who breeds and raises domestic pet animals for direct retail sales to another person for the buyer?s own use and who buys no animals for resale and who sells no animals to a research facility, an exhibitor, a dealer, or a pet store (e.g., a purebred dog or cat fancier) and is not otherwise required to obtain a license;

 

from Section 2.1

 

Sure makes you wonder why the AKC is fighting this amendment; it doesn?t seem to me that it will affect the typical AKC breeder.

 

Mark

 

P.S. Eileen, did I get this right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AKC (as the NRA does for arms and so many other lobbying associations do for their particular interests) fight anything that will curtail reasonable use of dogs, on principle.

 

Those sentences you presented, if nothing else, leave the real culprit of so much of the dog oversupply, the backyard breeders, free to continue, if I am reading it right.

 

For your information, many AKC people are not breeders and from those that are, they have only one or two dogs they show or put out with a handler, most times a female.

The turnover rate of people interesed in conformation shows averages five years, not long enough to build a kennelful and their own bloodlines.

 

Few are the kennels that can keep more than a very few dogs.

 

On the other hand, herding trialers around here seem to keep dogs by the dozen. You would think that it would affect them if it passes as written so they would be objecting to it too, if they knew about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1:

 

"Those sentences you presented, if nothing else, leave the real culprit of so much of the dog oversupply, the backyard breeders, free to continue, if I am reading it right."

 

That's the way I read it too. However, it's not individual BYBs that are the culprit but the number of BYBs that's the culprit. The law regulates high-volume individual sources of animals not large numbers of very small volume producers.

 

 

"On the other hand, herding trialers around here seem to keep dogs by the dozen."

 

HR3484 will affect them if they maintain more than 3 breeding females (not related to total number of dogs); but then the Animal Welfare Act should already be affecting them. That means these herding people are having litters from >3 different females at one time. That's a whole lot of puppies.

 

"reasonable use of dogs"

 

So I guess that means the AKC feels it's reasonable for high-volume producers to breed females more than 3x in 24 months and/or before 1 year of age.

 

The obvious reason I can see the AKC objecting to this is if the AKC or its influential members are deriving income by means the admendment would curb.

 

 

Simple math:

 

gestation = 9 weeks

weaning = 6-8 weeks

total = 15-17 weeks

 

Amendment will allow breeding every 34-35 weeks

 

Does this sound reasonable to you?

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am told that one way the AKC keeps check of the breeding going on is what tells them who may be a puppy mill type breeder, when they register from very young stock or very often from the same mother.

 

They are going to require even more DNA for registration and eventuallly that will curb much of any overboard breeding any one may be tempted to do, at least with them.

 

Let's remember that they are not the only registry around, only the one that most like to pick on. :rolleyes:

 

And yes, several herding trialers around here keep more than three intact animals around, some in training, etc. and seem to have litters regularly.

They often exchange dogs between themselves, have a big turnover.

Remember that most of those are not pets but kennel dogs and that most have never seen the inside of a house. They are taken out to exercise/train and back to their kennel.

They only stay in one place as long as they are doing their part, be it training, breeding or the few good enough ones, trialing.

That revolving door for dogs is common practice for many kennel dogs, be it herding, field, race or show dogs.

 

When Eileen Stein comes back, she can tell us more about that bill.

She seems to know more about it than I have heard.

I didn't seem to be able to find what the bill's wording was, only some of the amendments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1,

 

there are links in my post to the Animal Welfare Act wording and there are several postings (AKC for one) that has the wording of the amendment.

 

"Let's remember that they are not the only registry around, only the one that most like to pick on."

 

I guess when you claim to be THE registry you've got to expect to be THE target of criticism.

 

I'm not sure on the USDA's interpretation of 3 breeding females, but I took it to mean three that are being bred not 3 intact females.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1,

Why is it that whenever someone criticizes the AKC you come back and try to turn the table and point a finger at the "working dog people"? Isn't that what folks call a red herring (i.e., trying to distract people from the real issue)? It's fine with me if you want to be an apologist for the AKC, but to try and paint working dog people as the bad guys to deflect criticism away from your beloved AKC simply smells bad.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The AKC is not without controversy and herding people are not either.

 

They happen to be part of the problem, around here at least, by the breeding and selling that goes on in a market saturated with dogs that end at the shelter, plus other issues that come from handling stock dogs more like livestock.

 

Do you know how so many people on ranches and trialers generally handle dogs?

 

Some are my friends and I know it is their right to conduct their business as they see proper, even if I don't agree with some of it, just as I do with the AKC.

The world is not black and white but shaded.

 

If and when I point at herding people in a positive or negative matter, it is because it is part of what we are discussing.

 

Do you really think that just by being against the AKC, owning border collies and using them on stock, people are without fault?

 

By the way, do you realize that you are not contibuting to this but only picking on me? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that just by being against the AKC, owning border collies and using them on stock, people are without fault?

 

No, but it's a good start!! :rolleyes:

 

-L

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let's remember that they are not the only registry around, only the one that most like to pick on."

 

With 915,668 registrations in 2003 at $15 per registration ($13,735,020) it dwarfs all other registries; that's almost 1 million new dogs a year.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1,

Sorry if you feel picked on, but if the discussion is the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act and how the AKC is opposing that amendment, then please tell me how bringing up working dog people who have intact dogs contributes to the discussion. Are these people organized and opposing the amendment along with AKC? If so, then say so and you will also be contributing to the discussion. Otherwise your fingerpointing is no more of a contribution than my pointing it out.

 

No one has said that other groups are without fault, but only you seem to consistently try to direct the discussion away from the AKC's opposition to this amendment by trying to redirect attention to some other nonorganized group of people, a majority of whom I would venture to guess aren't as bad as you seem to think. There are puppy millers or their equivalent in all walks of life, but as far as I know, none but the AKC are actively opposing the amendment. If I'm wrong, by all means name some other groups.

 

Personally I am not terribly bothered by the amendment, and I am a working dog person with (gasp!) two intact females, never bred and not likely to be bred. And funny thing, most of the working dog folks I know also don't have more than three breeding females, nor are they breeding them on a regular basis, if at all.

 

So that brings us back to the real issue. Why does the AKC oppose this amendment?

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---"With 915,668 registrations in 2003 at $15 per registration ($13,735,020) it dwarfs all other registries; that's almost 1 million new dogs a year.

 

Mark"---

 

Any figures for other registries, like UKC or the one in Canada?

How about non AKC (which many are now) puppy mill numbers?

Figures on backyard breeders?

Any others?

 

We know that we are euthanizing, as far as we can count, over 3 million dogs a year in shelters.

 

Hard to compare with only one number to go by.

 

 

As John Adams said, more than two centuries ago:

"Facts are stubborn things, and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1,

Why is it that whenever someone criticizes the AKC you come back and try to turn the table and point a finger at the "working dog people"? Isn't that what folks call a red herring (i.e., trying to distract people from the real issue)? It's fine with me if you want to be an apologist for the AKC, but to try and paint working dog people as the bad guys to deflect criticism away from your beloved AKC simply smells bad.

 

I agree with Julie, Cholla. It also makes me wonder why you're here. I'm not trying to say that the working dog world does not need to clean house -- I think it does. But I'm totally puzzled by your heartfelt defense of the AKC. If you're really that interested in talking about how wonderful the AKC is, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cholla1:

Any figures for other registries, like UKC or the one in Canada? ...Hard to compare with only one number to go by.

I'm not Mark, but here you go:

 

CKC (the one in Canada): 100,000 dogs per year, at about $20. Oh, and in Canada, border collies are registered with the CBCA, NOT the CKC.

 

UKC: 250,000 dogs per year at $28 per dog

 

So no, AKC is not the only registry around but they are the largest in North America by a long shot.

 

Kristi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---"I agree with Julie, Cholla. It also makes me wonder why you're here. I'm not trying to say that the working dog world does not need to clean house -- I think it does. But I'm totally puzzled by your heartfelt defense of the AKC. If you're really that interested in talking about how wonderful the AKC is, I'm afraid you're in the wrong place."---

 

"My heartfelt defense of the AKC" according to you, I guess and several here, it seems.

Not in my mind. I was trying to show that there is more to the AKC than conformation, a true statement, even if you don't welcome it.

 

I have been posting because I thought that I could contribute something and learn, since I do use my dogs on stock and have for over 30 years.

 

You are right, there are not hardly any one here that does make a living off stock. Wrong place for that, it seems.

It used to be, long ago...

 

The attitude is that the AKC is indefensible, let's have a party calling all it does wrong, with many misconceptions about what they are thrown in, but don't touch the herding people even if they are doing some of the same things that anyone would consider objectionable.

 

I like fairness in any debate but my Adams quote explains why that is hard to find on this matter here.

 

I was expecting someone or several to question why I was here, but didn't expect such from Melanie.

That she deigned to be judge and jury about my presence here surprised me.

 

I know that I don't write well and am hard to understand sometimes but I thought that it was clear that I agree on principle that the AKC does much wrong, especially on the matter at hand, the showing of border collies in conformation.

 

I guess that, according to Melanie at least, unless someone is not a dyed in the wool AKC hater, they are not welcome here.

 

I wonder then why have an obedience and agility part on these boards?

How do those feel that do show in some AKC shows, as some indicate they do?

Need posters hide that, to be able to be part of the discourse here?

 

When you can't conduct the discussion the way you want, attacking the messeger is always a good way to try to go about it, to end the discussion. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cholla1:

The attitude is that the AKC is indefensible, let's have a party calling all it does wrong, with many misconceptions about what they are thrown in, but don't touch the herding people even if they are doing some of the same things that anyone would consider objectionable.

I'm not attacking, so please don't interpret this observation as such, but I think the quoted paragraph above perhaps sheds some light on where Cholla is coming from (pardon the sentence-ending preposition).

 

Cholla, has your aim in these discussions been not to defend the AKC but rather to obliquely attack the herding community?

 

It's an honest question because I, frankly, have been having difficulty discerning your position. It seems that you sometimes state your disdain for the AKC concurrent with your defending them - coupled with an occasional barb toward the herding community.

 

I may be alone in my inability to interpret(which wouldn't surprise me in the slightest) but if you could boil it down this uneducated bumpkin who would be grateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whew...............Where to start?

 

Cholla and I were having sort of an on line debate on our respective views on the AKC as an organization, as each of us are entitled. I have had this same debate with others offline.

 

While I do not necessarily agree with her, she has as much a right to her opinions as anyone else. I know there are thousands of people for whom the AKC is a source of enjoyment for agility, performance, socialization and just plain having a good time. That is their right, which I wholeheartedly will defend. Not everyone, actually the minority, is the Westminister crowd. 99% of them if for no other reason just can't afford it in money or time.

 

There are political parties I don't like as well, but I don't condemn the members for the actions of the organization.

 

Cholla, I am sure you are not an irresponsible breeder and by reading many of your posts on other subjects the first and foremost thing on your mind is the welfare of the animals. That in its own right is commendable.

 

Attacking Cholla for her stance that the AKC is not the only source of the overpopulation is indefensible. Most all of our experiences whether it be with humane societies, rescues, no kills, or whatever know that there is more than enough blame to go around.

 

I may be a bit hardline on this, but given the millions of dogs needlessly euthanised (euthanized?, never seem to know which is right) to me ANYONE that breeds a litter without having a pre-defined need or outlet for the results is a contributor to the problem and shares as much responsibility as the BYB's, puppy mills, and alphabit soup of registries. Its kinda like the "little bit preggy" argument.

 

Cholla, I for one will offer my apology for the way I believe this thread has gotten out of hand from the OP and my followup post(s). I believe that much of what you have said has been misunderstood, accidentally or otherwise.

 

Also my reply of "If you want to jump on me for my disdain of the AKC and their contribution to dog overpopulation and the irrepairable harm they have done to many once proud breeds, be my guest. If I can get 1 person to get the death row or rescue dog and forgo the AKC as a source, I consider it an even trade" was not one of my better moments :D (note the time of the post 1:31 am. I have been working a night shift and I work 6 am to 3pm 99% of the time) and for that too I am sorry. Correct sentiment(re:AKC), horrible attitude and disposition(jump on.. and be my guest). (guess its time to head for the crate for a time-out :rolleyes: :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your clarifying post.

 

I am hard to understand and know it. Something about the way I say things, partly because English is not a language I learned in shool but later in life when I came here and had to, partly because I live fairly isolated so don't have much practice with discourse and forget people can't read my mind and leave much out.

 

I am allergic to dogs so have had very few at once, the last years only one at the time.

 

I have never bred or intend to but helped breeders raise litters and know that someone has to be the good breeders that keep the different breeds alive and useful for the indended purpose, like border collies for herding, so I am not agains breeding in itself.

 

I am also talking about the oversupply that is getting so many dogs out there that don't possibly can find homes.

 

As you say, all of us are partly to blame, not just the AKC, even if they are a big contributor.

 

To clarify further, I was speaking about the AKC numbers not being a true measure, in the posts where that was mentioned, in a strictly statistical manner.

With, according to the 2002 humane association figures, 3 million dogs are euthanized in shelters every year, the one million the AKC registers is not that many.

Somewhere else there are another two million dogs coming from, plus many AKC dogs I assume are really getting into homes, not that many, even if one is too many, end up in shelters.

 

There is so much to condemn the AKC for, but when we are not using good sense blaming it is when I didn't agree and posted about it.

 

Some seem to have taken offense to the comments I made about trialers, just as I seemed to when I defended some of the anti-AKC comments I didn't agree where correct.

 

Why am I reading and posting here? Because this used to be a very active herding site when I lost my dog and now, with a new puppy, I thought that I could refresh and learn again so much.

 

As far as any "barbs against the herding community", I am speaking of what is going on here, not throwing barbs.

Ignoring the truth won't help dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread has many discussions occurring simultaneously that they are becoming entangled with one another. The part I?m interested in is HR 3484 and why the AKC is trying to defeat it and whether or not we should be concerned about it. We have heard from a couple of people on this (I have no problem with the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act and Julie has no problems with it); but Cholla1 (who brought up the subject) has only stated what the AKC is telling their people about HR3484:

 

?The AKC had much to say about that bill that would restrict how people can own dogs. According to them, any person could file a complaint against the way you were keeping, raising and training, much less breeding your dogs, if it passes as written and you would have to defend yourself.? (source: Cholla1)

 

But this is not what the AKC is saying about HR 3484; actually the AKC is saying: ?The PPA would amend the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to require the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to regulate the breeding practices of dog breeders covered by the Act, including the frequency and age at which bitches are bred.? (source: The "Puppy Protection Act" Introduced in the House) In fact the AKC goes on to say: ?The AKC strongly supports the Animal Welfare Act?? (source: AKC). Therefore it?s only the amendment the AKC is against. But why are they against it?

 

?The Animal Welfare Act currently does not regulate breeding practices of any species of animals. H.R. 3484 will, for the first time, thrust the federal government into a whole new arena of animal regulation. The federal government should not be in the business of specifying and regulating breeding practices of dog breeders. Furthermore, and very importantly, there is no scientific basis for the specific breeding restrictions included in H.R. 3484.? (source: AKC)

 

Since the Animal Welfare Act only covers high-volume breeders the AKC is saying that the government has no business specifying and regulating breeding practices of high-volume breeders (i.e. puppy mills). Hmmmmm, why doesn?t the AKC want the government restricting the number of dogs puppy mills are producing?

 

The AKC goes on to say: ?The USDA's Animal Care regulations already require commercial dog breeders to follow a program of veterinary care developed and supervised by a licensed veterinarian to protect the health of all animals in commercial breeding facilities, including the breeding stock. Breeding decisions should be made by breeders and their veterinarians.? Again the AKC is saying to the government we don?t want you telling high-volume breeders how soon or how often a bitch can be bred; leave that up to the puppy mills and their veterinarians.

 

So my question still stands, why is the AKC against the government regulating how soon or how often a puppy mill breeds a bitch?

 

It?s interesting that the AKC has been able to get their people to write congress to vote no on HR 3484 and that these people really don?t know what the bill will do. Read the quote Cholla1 has posted. This person is against HR 3484 because ?This bill is unfair it punishes the responsible hobby breeder and does nothing but give puppy mills irresponsible breeders and pet stores the the ability to avoid being prosecuted for a problem that is partially their fault the rest of the fault lies on the irresponsible pet owners not breeders.? But the Animal Welfare Act only applies to high-volume breeders who are deriving substantial income from breeding and therefore not really a hobby breeder. In fact the AKC is very specific in what it wants people to state as reasons for voting no on this bill ?Contact your U.S. Representative in Washington. Ask them not to sponsor H.R. 3484 for the reasons stated above.? (for the reasons see The "Puppy Protection Act" Introduced in the House) But the reasons stated in the quote included by Cholla1 are way off base.

 

I have hinted as to why I think the AKC is against HR 3484, but let me make it very clear. I believe the AKC is opposed to HR 3484 because the AKC is worried (or believes) it will reduce their or their influential members? income. It also provides a means for the government to reduce the number of dogs produced by puppy mills; something the AKC wants to be viewed by the public as the champion of, curbing puppy mills.

 

But don?t take my word for it and don?t just take the AKC?s opinion (or even my opinion). Go find the facts and form your own opinion; that is why I include links in my posts.

 

Cholla1, since you seem to believe what the AKC says; here is what they say about themselves: ?Affiliated with more than 4,500 American dog clubs, AKC operates the world?s largest registry of purebred dogs and is a leader in the international canine community.? (source: AKC 2002 Annual Report) With a little under $50 million in net assets it?s a big (and therefore powerful) not-for-profit organization which will have a lot of influence in Washington for the good of the canine community or their own good. I'm not saying the AKC does no good; that is clearly not the case. What I am doing is calling into question their motives for why they are against a bill that will allow the government to reduce the number of dogs being produced by puppy mills.

 

Mark

 

P.S. Since the AKC is only intersted in purebred dogs they will not be interested in the plight of probably the largest group of dogs being produced in this country: mutts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, you clarify much with your post.

 

AS far as the AKC only being interesed in their members, AKC registered dogs, what is wrong with that?

The ABCA is not interesed in any AKC or other dogs, only ABCA.

That is the mandate of any association, not only dog ones, to take care of their own.

 

The AKC has been battling puppy mills for long and, as I already mentioned, puppy mills now have their own registries.

To use that allegation of AKC interest in puppy mills as money makers is not valid any more.

 

As far as the bill and the amendments, I don't know enough and was waiting for Eileen, that said she knew about it, to chime in, as she promised, when she got back.

When I posted about it I clearly indicated that it was all I could find in short notice and didn't know how much of the total picture it was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cholla1,

 

if as you state "?puppy mills now have their own registries. To use that allegation of AKC interest in puppy mills as money makers is not valid any more." and ?That is the mandate of any association, not only dog ones, to take care of their own.? why is the AKC even interested in HR 3484 since it really only pertains to high-volume breeders (i.e. puppy mills)?

 

Why wait for Eileen to tell you what HR 3484 and the Animal Welfare Act deals with; why not read it for yourself? Then you'll be more informed when Eileen does present her take on HR 3484.

 

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Cholla1:

You are right, there are not hardly any one here that does make a living off stock. Wrong place for that, it seems.

? ? ?

I wonder then why have an obedience and agility part on these boards?

How do those feel that do show in some AKC shows, as some indicate they do?

Need posters hide that, to be able to be part of the discourse here?

Hi Cholla,

I have extracted both of the above statements from your last post because in some ways I agree with you and have said so before.

The horse left the barn a long time ago for the ABCA as a working dog registry. I would venture that most border collies registered with them today are being bred for pet and dog sports. I KNOW that that is the case with the CBCA, which is the only registry for border collies in Canada. The ABCA has allowed this to happen and has some ways even encouraged it, albeit inadvertantly. Witness these Boards, sponsored by the ABCA, which, as you say, implicitly approves of these activities by the very nature of the categories of discussion.

The inevitable result of this failure to act has been a strengthening of the sport and pet contingent. You can observe and follow this development, in microcosm, on these Boards. There used to be lots of working dog owners posting. I know many of them are still reading, even the breakaway contingent. However, almost none of them post any more. Why? Because the pet and sport folks overwhelm anyone who posts the working dog owner's perspective. Jean Donaldson has written a new book, didn't you know? No one uses those old school methods any more.

Blaming the AKC for this is attacking a straw man (sorry for mixing my metaphors). However, there is no doubt that the AKC is now positioned to capitalize on this development by providing the very things that many border collie owners crave, having long ago left the working world. Sports events, 'herding' events, obedience events etc. I would venture that, as you suspect, many of the folks here attend these events. They're just not about to admit it in this venue.

These developments undoubtedly threatens the good that the ABCA is able to do as as large registry with substantial sums of money at its disposal, some of which it uses to subsidize the national finals and support health research.

So, whither the ABCA? As a registry, it is in a conundrum. Does it put its money where its mouth is and restrict registration to dogs that can actually work? Or at least indicate working certified dogs by some symbol on pedigress? Or does it continue to accept registrations for dogs that could not herd their way out of a paper bag so as to keep the money coming in?

Frankly, if you take these developments to their logical conclusion, the ABCA should be sponsoring sport events for these same folks so that they do not migrate to the AKC.

As to the real working dogs, they will continue to be bred for so long as there is still a practical need for them and a structure to showcase their talents. I know where to find one, no problem, so I'm not worried. Yes, the dog will be registered with the ABCA or the CBCA, but that is incidental.

Do I support the ABCA and CBCA? Absolutely, I am a member of both. My attitude is that, although they are not really working registries at all, they still provide a 5 generation pedigree and they do good with the money they collect. Better than nothing, in other words.

Andrea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Cholla1,

Just to clarify my stance again, my argument with you is simply that you are mixing up your own arguments, as I pointed out in my last post. I will be the first to agree with you that there are problems in the herding community.

 

But the discussion here was/is about the AKC's attempts to stop the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act.

 

My complaint is that you keep drifting off on a tangent about the herding community. If you want to discuss that topic, why not start a new thread about the herding community and then we can all make our comments on that topic there. And that way we can stick to the actual discussion here, which still is why the AKC opposes the amendment to the Animal Welfare Act. Is that clearer?

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to go off topic again, but I have to add that I am utterly opposed to the AKC. While there may be some philosophical issues within our registry that need to be addressed, life would be infinitely worse under the AKC. Like any large corporation, the AKC is principally concerned with its own survival and only nominally responsive to its shareholders ie the members. It's focus, inevitably, is on supporting and maintaining its bloated bureaucracy.

A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...