Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
blackacre

Informal Registration Poll

Recommended Posts

Whereas she is a companion dog, and will not be bred, I saw no reason to register her with any other organizations

 

If you were going to breed her, you would register her with a different organization? Or am I reading this incorrectly?

 

Not an attack, just curious.

 

As owners of ABCA registered dogs, do you think the ABCA should be in the business of restricting registration in any way? Or should it stick to its primary role of 'registering, maintaining and verifying the pedigrees of border collies . . .' ? Does the answer depend on whether you work your dogs on stock or not?

 

I think the primary purpose of any registry is simply to maintain an accurate pedigree record so that breeders, handlers, and trainers can make better decisions regarding the dogs that they have and produce.

 

When you ask about restricting registration, I think you are probably asking about enacting a working requirement for registry. In theory this sounds like a great idea; in practice I don't know if it's logistically feasible. Then there comes the question of what constitutes a suitable working test, in which case I'm afraid the chances of falling into the AKC performance title trap apply. I've seen a lot of yelling about how there needs to be a work requirement for registration, but I've yet to see any real, workable proposals for what exactly this would entail, everyone seems to expect someone else to figure this part out. The current guidelines in place for ROM would seem to be reasonable except that enacting this for every dog who wants to be ABCA registered would require way more qualified manpower than I think is available.

 

guess the issue is how do you maintain(ing) and verify(ing) the pedigrees of border collies if you allow AKC registered dogs, presumptively bred for characteristics other than working ability, in the pedigree?

 

I don't think AKC dogs should be allowed in the registry, but I'm not sure this is why. There are (unfortunately) plenty of ABCA registered dogs who are bred for characteristics other than working ability (look at all the color mills out there proudly advertising their red and merle dogs -- and then there are all the casual farm breeders and BYBs who aren't breeding for any characteristics in particular at all). And maintaining/verifying pedigrees has nothing to do with what the dogs are bred for, it's just a matter of keeping a record of who was bred to whom and what they produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And maintaining/verifying pedigrees has nothing to do with what the dogs are bred for, it's just a matter of keeping a record of who was bred to whom and what they produced.
It is if your definition of the breed is how they work - this would be the same as allowing border collies to be part of a lab's (AKC) pedigree, wouldn't it?

 

Oh yes, and the distinction between the AKC border collies vs. "other border collies" is that the AKC explicitly includes conformation as part of the standard whereas it's not clear that other breeders include this criterium. It's not a perfect system, but few are.

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of NASDA ever doing that. I didn't get into BC's till the nineties. I've had several dogs registered with them. I'm pleasantly surprised to hear that they ever did that and hope they can figure out a way to do it again. How was the certification done?

 

What they would do is observe the dog(s) working. When Kerri's parents were certified they had to perform field work - fetch, lift, etc and he also judged them on their everyday work - getting them in and out of the pens, chute work, trailer loading, etc.

 

I think they ran into a few problems like having sufficient people available to travel and certify dogs. At that time, of course, there were no video taping etc as that wasn't the norm like it was now, so the Certifiers had to travel around. I don't know how many of them were there originally, but I know there were two or three for Western Canada at that time.

 

NASDS is still a family run registry. I have always like dealing with them, and have always had registration papers returned very quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is if your definition of the breed is how they work - this would be the same as allowing border collies to be part of a lab's (AKC) pedigree, wouldn't it?

 

Maintaining and verifying pedigrees is simply about making sure that the dog is bred the way the breeder says it is and that the information is recorded properly. Sure, you could record a pedigree for a mixed-breed dog, and verify it too -- it's only a matter of record keeping. The pedigree would show you that you had a mixed-breed dog. The pedigree is just a record.

 

What you're talking about is adding requirements other than verifiable parentage for the privilege of being recorded in the studbook. One of the requirements ABCA has is that the dog is a Border Collie (defined by having ancestors who were Border Collies) or is probably a Border Collie and works like a good Border Collie should. ABCA could add a working requirement, and some people think it should, but as I said logistically I'm not sure how feasible this really is.

 

Oh yes, and the distinction between the AKC border collies vs. "other border collies" is that the AKC explicitly includes conformation as part of the standard whereas it's not clear that other breeders include this criterium. It's not a perfect system, but few are.

 

I think that it's a good idea to exclude AKC dogs because of the clear philosophical differences between the breed communities involved and the different definitions of the breed they employ, so I agree with you in part. But I don't think breeding for conformation in and of itself is a greater evil than breeding for color, or breeding to make a buck, which (unfortunately) a number of ABCA breeders appear to be doing. I do think it's a good idea to let the AKC dogs form their own gene pool and do whatever they're going to do (I'm just annoyed that they've hijacked the name). But, unfortunately (and this is the nature of most registries) there are plenty of legit ABCA dogs out there who are just as poor examples of the breed as a Ch. Fluffmonster [insert pun on words "ewe," "herd," or "sheep" here], HIT, CGC is.

 

We can just keep doing what we're doing -- using the dogs for what they are bred for, and sponsoring, as a breed community, tests of ability like sheepdog trials that show you which dogs are good examples of the breed and which aren't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mine are ABCA registered (some also with the ISDS). When I have pups, I register them with the ABCA.

 

The NASDS had a working certification for quite a long time -- actually, I didn't know they still had it. I have no direct experience with it, but from what I've been told, it didn't work too well. A scarcity of examiners led to very cursory certification ("Well, Bill knows a good dog, so if he says the dog can work I guess it can work."), making exceptions for your buddies, people not bothering to certify because it was widely perceived as not counting for much, that sort of thing. That's only hearsay, but it's hearsay from more than one person.

 

On the issue of what the ABCA should do, I sometimes hear it said that the ABCA needs to decide whether it wants to be "just a registry" (and if so it should just record pedigrees) or whether it wants to be a "real working registry" (and if so it should impose some kind of herding test and health tests and only register the dogs who pass). That sounds odd to me -- sort of like saying the US government should either decide it will only record citizenship or it will be a police state (no snide comments, please). I think (as with the dogs) the best place is the middle ground. The ABCA should care about the welfare and future of the breed, and should try to foresee problems before they become insurmountable, and should take steps to avert harm (because some of these steps only work if they're taken collectively), but should not be repressive about it, or try to do more than it can effectively do.

 

I consider the ABCA a working registry. Not because all its dogs work or can work (anymore than all AKC dogs are shown in conformation or have good conformation), but because working is the one and only standard of excellence the registry recognizes, and the one that guides its policy-making. That doesn't mean the registry has to certify working ability. There are just too many dogs and too few personnel for that to be remotely feasible. But the registry is closely associated with the USBCHA, by whose trialing program dogs' working ability can be tested. The combination works pretty well, and doesn't exclude good working dogs whose owners choose not to trial them. But it works only if alternative standards of judging border collies are pretty rigorously discouraged by the ABCA. That's why I think the registry is right to exclude conformation champions, and why I would like to see it exclude AKC registered dogs generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NASDS had a working certification for quite a long time -- actually, I didn't know they still had it.

They don't Eileen, I think it fizzed out within a year or two of Kerri's parents getting certified, which would have been probably around 1975 or so.

 

Like you said - there were just too many problems, and it probably started out a lot better than it ended up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that a mixed breed dog would/could be registered by the AKC (for example)?

 

But this also assumes that "we" want to pattern "our" registry after the AKC (or similar registries), and I'm not sure that this is necessary or desirable.

 

Kim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

Oh, okay, that's more like it. I thought it had died quite some time ago, but I read the thread quickly and must have misunderstood your post, and I figured you must know more about it than I did.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wolverine
If you were going to breed her, you would register her with a different organization? Or am I reading this incorrectly?
What is your problem, SoloRiver? If you expect me to defend every statement I make on this board, you will be disappointed. You seem to be looking for a hidden meaning or agenda, where none was intended. Mine was a simple statement. I did not say I would register Annie with another organization if I were going to breed her; I simply stated that I saw no need to even consider doing so under the circumstances. Annie is registered with ABCA, and that was my first choice based on the breeder's recommendation; if that is a problem for you, then perhaps you should clarify your reasons. And if perchance I did choose to register Annie with another organization as well, that would be MY decision, and not something that I would feel the need to justify to you or anyone else.

 

You still seem to be carrying a grudge from our prior run-in. GET OVER IT!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My dogs:

 

ABCA and CBCA

 

I support the Canadian version of the ABCA which is the CBCA. Most of my dogs are Canadian bred or have roots to Canada.

 

Why...because I loved what I saw in the working ability. Of the nine dogs that I have, only two are American bred. The rest either were bred, raised or parents were from Canadian. Most the UK lines in my dogs' papers are Scottish.

 

Diane Pagel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You still seem to be carrying a grudge from our prior run-in.

 

If one of us is holding a grudge, it isn't me (I guess I know where you stand on this issue, however).

 

I did state that I was not trying to attack you and was merely curious. At any rate, the wording you used invited the question -- the sentence reads as if you would register her with a different organization if she were going to be bred. It's an honest question.

 

I still find it odd when people post things to a discussion board and then get upset when people discuss what they've posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Wolverine
I still find it odd when people post things to a discussion board and then get upset when people discuss what they've posted.
There is a difference between honest discussion with respect to another person's post, and stalking another poster with the express intent of trying to ridicule a point of view. You have made your approach very clear. There was absolutely no need for your post; but you seemed to feel it necessary to try to take a statement that had no hidden meaning or agenda, and turn it into a point of controversy. You may have seniority in terms of your participation on this board, and your tenure as a BC owner; but after your actions, you can rest assured that the one thing you will never have is my respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sparring with someone OTHER THAN ME?!?

 

Hey, I wasn't aware that Wolverine and I were sparring. I'm not even sure what "run-in" he's referring to. All I did was ask a question. I don't have hidden agendas -- everyone here knows exactly where I stand on pretty much everything. If I wanted to ridicule someone's point of view, I'd be a lot more obvious about it. But hey, whatever works for Wolverine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kim asked:

I guess the issue is how do you maintain(ing) and verify(ing) the pedigrees of border collies if you allow AKC registered dogs, presumptively bred for characteristics other than working ability, in the pedigree?

 

The pedigree is simply the record of ancestry. Who begat whom, etc. This is easy to maintain and verify, regardless of how the dogs are registered, as long as honest information is provided by breeders and is faithfully recorded in the studbook.

 

The quailities reflected in the dogs that are named in that pedigree are another matter altogether.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Melanie, it's a lump of coal in your stocking next year, for sure! Actually, if it's anthracite, low sulfer, etc., you might have a good thing going there. Could be a reason to be naughty.

 

I don't think you asked an unreasonable question. The thought crossed my mind, too, as to what other registry a person would use if they chose to breed. Like you, just curious, not baiting.

 

Anyway, hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and will have a Happy and Healthy New Year!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The pedigree is simply the record of ancestry. Who begat whom, etc. This is easy to maintain and verify, regardless of how the dogs are registered, as long as honest information is provided by breeders and is faithfully recorded in the studbook.
Bill, I fully understand that the pedigree is just a record of the dog's pedigree (ancestors) and am not arguing otherwise (actually, I'm not arguing at all but I don't have a full understanding of the implications of the pedigree). My question is, and I obviously have not been clear so far, how can you include AKC dogs in the ABCA pedigree when their (AKC's)definition of what a border collie IS is fundamentally different from the ABCA's definition? In my simplistic view of registries, and I don't come from a show/competition dog background, this would be like AKC sanctioning inclusion of border collies in a lab's pedigree.

 

Kim

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...