Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
krista

registration with abca ?

Recommended Posts

Please bear with me this might be long. I found Pasha's abca cert of reg. and had a few ?.s I looked on their website and didn't find the answers and also did a search here and made since of some of it. I'm just curious since she has these papers does that mean her parents are automatically ofa certified? Looks like yes but am not certain. Also are they able to control inbreeding and not certify them if they are. Thank you
Krista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think the registration papers mean anything other than that they are registered.

I'm pretty sure all it takes to be registerd is to have registered parents - no special testing needed. Many reputable breeders do hip and eye testing, but it is not a requirement.

While the ABCA is the registry for working BCs,being ABCA registered is no guarentee of working ability or health.

I'm looking at Missy's registration paper and it looks like to me that an "@" by the dogs name certifies that their hips have been approved, and the "^" certifies that their eyes have been tested.

I'm not sure if this answers your question or not, though.

Edited to add:
Here is another question I have - What do you consider inbreeding in a dog? Looking over Missy's papers it appears that all the dogs on her mothers side go back two or three generations to the same two dogs, and all were bred by the same person.

Is there a way I can find out more about the dogs on her registration papers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you can look up CERF and OFA on the web sites for each...

CERF: [url="http://www.vmdb.org/verify.html"]http://www.vmdb.org/verify.html[/url]

OFA: [url="http://www.offa.org/search.html"]http://www.offa.org/search.html[/url]

Allie, Tess, & Kipp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pretty much what you described where they have one dog listed more than once. Noticed the same thing and was curious. Only one dog listed twice way which would be her great,great,great sire's side. But did notice closer to her the same breeder appears often. She's also only two and seems to get stiff in her back hip if she sleeps to long on a hard surface. Not a problem now but think it might be in future.
Krista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just because a dog is ABCA reg. dosen't necessarly mean that the parents have been OFA or CERF certified (yet, I've herd that may be changing sometime in the future). If on the Registration papers there is a @ or ^ next to the parents name that only means that the PAPERS for the certification have been sent to ABCA. The parents may still have been certified (or not) and not sent the paper work into ABCA. In order to find out for sure if the parents have been certified, one needs to contact the breeder and request a copy of the form sent by OFA or CERF. They should keep a copy in their files and be willing to provide them to people as requested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actual inbreeding is a possibility if "line breeding" has been done carelessly. This will happen with some puppy millers and backyard breeders (who have a limited access to good stock).

On eway to tell the difference is [i]before[/i] you consider the litter, ask what the purpose was in doubling up those particular dogs. If the point wasn't to concentrate some [i]particular[/i] and [i]unique[/i] working skill, run.

At this point, your dog is nearly two, so you can go have her hips evaluated yourself and settle the question right now of whether she's sound. Even on the best bred pups you can't tell that from looking at a pedigree anyway. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was looking at her papers last night closer and only saw one dog listed twice. Way back on the line. She was our first pet that we didn't get from a shelter. We should have run once we got there but thought we where rescueing her. Know better now. But she is a wonderful family pet so I feel we did get lucky this time. Thank you. The hip stiffness is what made me wonder a little. We don't plan on working her . Just a lot of backyard frisbee,ball, and walking with mom helps me get in shape a little I hope. and playing with kids. Krista

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, a couple repeats way back happens all the time on Border collie papers. Working Border collies are actually inbred much less than a lot of conformation breeds, because there's a certain amount of outcrossing that has to be done to keep a balance of working ability.

Breeding for standard physical characteristics requires very tight lines. This is why diseases and other interesting recessive characteristics tend to show up more consistently in conformation lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Looking at Missy's papers, all the dogs on her mothers side were related and owned by the same person. I'm kinda guessing the person was in it more to raise dogs than raise working BC's.

On the other hand most of the dogs on her sires side appear to be from working lines, with a couple recognizable working BC people listed.

The folks that owned her before me owned both parents and had bred her litter.

Is there a way that I can find out some more about some of the dogs listed on her papers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, just for the fun of it you can post some of the names. Name, number, and breeder name and location will help people recognise the dogs. Maybe you'll find some long lost cousins. (c:

Even if your dog has a questionable background, I don't think there's anything wrong with finding out what your dogs' predecesors were like - famous ones especially. If nothing else, it will help you see whether the things you like about your dog are things she inherited (highly likely) and something you can seek out in the future either in a rescue or a reputable breeder who uses those lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Originally posted by Rebecca, Brook Cove Farm:
[b]Working Border collies are actually inbred much less than a lot of conformation breeds [/b][/quote]Rebecca,

I definitely agree with your statement, particularly because you qualified it with "a lot"!

In my own experience with Border Collies, I see waaaaaay more inbreeding and linebreeding (in a good way) with current herding lines than with conformation lines. My conformation BC is typical for current show dogs in that he does not have a single "doubled-up" name in a six generation pedigree. And yet, he is a total clone of his Australian-bred parents, grandparents and even great-grandparents. The conformation dogs today tend to be "cookie cutters" as far as looks go.

What I'm guessing is that the conformation dogs were probably highly inbred/linebred back in the early 1900's, when the BC first became eligible for conformation showing in Australia. Today, MOST BC conformation and sport breeders (with a couple notable exceptions) keep only 2-4 dogs and do not have kennels big enough to practice extensive line breeding. However, most conformation dogs still probably qualify as "inbred" from their past.

In comparison, the ABCA trial people that breed in this area generally have 8-20 dogs and do a LOT of line breeding. When I look at most ABCA pedigrees online, 25-50% of the dogs in a 4-generation pedigree are owned/bred by the same person. Top trial winners frequently appear 3-4 times on a single pedigree, and the big trial winners of the 60's-80's typically used to sire 500+ puppies--I'm not sure if this is still going on. This is unheard of (so far) in BC conformation lines. My conformation dog's sire was "Pedigree Top Producer of 2004" and is an older dog that has sired a lifetime total of about 40-50 puppies.

Anyway, these are just "fun, personal observations" and I'm not trying to start any flames or debates. I'm just wondering out of curiousity if the current trend in linebreeding that I see in ABCA dogs is going to end up with them someday having as standardized an appearance (purely by accident) as the conformation dogs do? Which would be bad--I love all the different styles of BC currently available. I wish I could hang around for another 100 years and see what happens!

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< When I look at most ABCA pedigrees online, 25-50% of the dogs in a 4-generation pedigree are owned/bred by the same person. Top trial winners frequently appear 3-4 times on a single pedigree, and the big trial winners of the 60's-80's typically used to sire 500+ puppies--I'm not sure if this is still going on. >>

It's almost impossible to respond to something as vague and generalized as this. Most ABCA pedigrees online??? Like where?

All I can say is that this is very different from the pedigrees I see. Based on those, I would say it's not uncommon for one dog to appear twice in the same 4-generation pedigree (though it's not typical); it's rare for one dog to appear more often than that. Before "Missy's Pedigree" was posted I had NEVER seen a pedigree where 25% or more of the dogs in a 4-generation pedigree were owned or bred by the same person, and that includes puppy mill pedigrees. Perhaps it would help if you posted a list of the top trial winners of the 60's-80's who sired 500+ puppies -- if that was indeed "typical," it should be easy to compile quite a long list. I don't believe overall statistics are available in the US, but in the whole history of the ISDS only 15 dogs have sired more than 500 pups.

The best indicator of the extent of inbreeding in any particular dog is to calculate its Coefficient of Inbreeding. In general, the CoI's of working border collies are on the low side compared to the kennel club breeds.

I hope someone with more systematic knowledge in this area can contribute here.

<< I'm just wondering out of curiousity if the current trend in linebreeding that I see in ABCA dogs is going to end up with them someday having as standardized an appearance {purely by accident} as the conformation dogs do? >>

Seems highly unlikely, even if there were a current trend in linebreeding. When you linebreed to fix a standardized appearance, it kinda stands to reason that you're more likely to end up with a standardized appearance than when you're linebreeding for a different purpose, doesn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maralynn, I think you're right in your "kinda guess" about her mother's breeder.

As for her father's side, Bruce Fogt's Hope (one of your dog's great great grandmothers) is in the ABCA Hall of Fame, and was a personal favorite of mine. Terrific dog. She in turn is the daughter of Lewis Pulfer's Dell (who has toppled off the right side of the pedigree), another very, very highly regarded dog. Great grandfather Nathan Mooney's Max was also a very highly regarded dog, one of the best male dogs around in his day for natural ability, some think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The very top line on Missy is obedience dogs. Dreamalot is an old line - pre AKC recognition, in fact. Star Spider is familar but I can't remember why. Many of those lines were built on good working lines, mentored by working people - but they've strayed sadly since then, of course.

My old Rick went back to that Roy 98067.

Nathan Mooney's Max contributed a lot to our American breed. Big black hairy dog with lots of guts, very popular stud in his time.

As Eileen said, you are correct in your initital assessment of the mother's side. Sometimes I see this sort of thing rarely in cattle dog breeding where they are deliberately trying to concentrate some working trait that's known to come from a single cross. However, I don't recognize any of the names here (not to say they aren't famous cattle dogs, but I suspect you'd know that if they were!).

One interesting thing - you will note that your dog's mother's paternal grandparents are actually littermates - the ABCA numbers are close to each other. On the other hand, her mother's father Billie is a full brother but a later breeding - the number is different and higher. Finally, "Bright Eyes" and "Rock" are also littermates (apprently bred about the same time as Billie, their uncle, as the number is very close). That's assuming all the documentation is actually accurate. Nothing like making due with what you've got. :rolleyes:

Enjoy your young dog and just chalk it up to experience, I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the information, Eileen and Rebecca!

I had noticed all the close breeding on her mothers side. I know very little about breeding, but in buying a dog it would be a big red flag for me! That kind of breeding seems like it would lead to no good. I know I wouldn't breed my sheep that close.

Interesting about the obedience lines. I was wondering about those dogs. I recognized a few of the working dogs and owners, but Star Spider and Dreamalot did'nt seem to fit serious working dogs.

And it's nice to hear that there are some really good dogs there, too.

Is there a website I can go to to find out more about these dogs?

Miss was given to me when she was three. Looking back I know I went about looking for a BC the wrong way. But when someone I called offered to give her to me I jumped at the chance. In fact the guy even told me he didn't know if she would ever work sheep as she had shut down working for him after he corrected her. She had about zero self confidence when I got her, but bonded to me very quickly. Surprisingly enough, as soon as she saw my sheep you could tell she was interested. She does barnyard chores for me, and I would really like to get lessons from someone who knows what they are doing.

She has turned out to be a all-around super dog for me, and I can't imagine life without her. For initialy going about it all the wrong way, I've been extremly blessed to end up with a dog that is such a good fit. But she is 6 now so I'm thinking I'm going to have to start getting around to some trials so I can figure out where to get my next dog from!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One nice thing about having the papers is you can see whether similiarly bred dogs work the same way, that you've come to like. That happened to me with Ben. It took a little bit of a journey, but I've at last decided that dogs that go back to Dryden Joe and Fortune's Glen, with a cross to Moss, are the ones that appeal best to me.

Of course, those dogs are getting pretty far back so now I look for dogs with their [i]type[/i] as well as their genes. Getting around to trials is most important for this. So is going and hanging out at people's farms. (c:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi,

Eileen wrote:

>>Perhaps it would help if you posted a list of the top trial winners of the 60's-80's who sired 500+ puppies -- if that was indeed "typical," it should be easy to compile quite a long list. ...in the whole history of the ISDS only 15 dogs have sired more than 500 pups.

I said just that: it was typical for BIG trial winners (like the International). When you consider that half of the winners are likely to be female, those fifteen dogs you mention are probably exactly the ones I'm talking about: dogs like Wisp and Blwch Taff who are in just about everybody's pedigree. Heck, my conformation champion has Blwch Taff back there!

Whenever I hear about these popular sires, I look them up online, and they usually pop up on a European site (Dutch maybe?) that has bio's on all the famous International winners, along with how many litters/puppies they produced. There are a bunch that I've looked up over the past three years, and the male International winners tend to have TONS of puppies, including several of the over 500 range.

At trials in this area, competitors often tell me that their Open trial winners are used at stud a minimum of once a month (often for local farmers' dogs). I'm assuming that over a 5 year period, with 7 puppies per litter, that this would lead to around 420 puppies.

I was by no means insinuating that this was the norm for working BCs (only those top winners), but I do find it scary that pretty much every BC alive today goes back to Wisp--or any other single individual. I like to see lots of genetic diversity in a breed. Luckily, Wisp didn't pass along anything like CEA or whatever, but he very easily could have, as no tests were available at the time he was being bred so frequently.

I would like to see some sort of rule where no dog can ever be bred more than 10 times in his lifetime. If the breeder can't get an improved puppy (or at least a replacement for the stud) after 70 puppies, I would say they're probably choosing the wrong breeding dogs.

By the way, I have a question about Missy's pedigree. I see that most dogs are AIBC registered, until the dam, who is ABC registered. Is the AIBC still an active registry? I can't find a website for them online.

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was by no means insinuating that this was the norm for working BCs (only those top winners), but I do find it scary that pretty much every BC alive today goes back to Wisp--or any other single individual.>>>

I realize that many dogs do have Wisp in their pedigrees but just wanted to mention that I have 6 Border Collies here, some related, some not, and have owned several others. None of them go back to Wisp in the last 4 generations (or beyond as far as I know- maybe in Jane's background but not sure and too lazy to dig out papers)- in fact, except for the mother/daughter I own, and the two littermates we have- none of them have or had many common "big name" ancestors. The only very close linebreeding I can recall is from my old dog Rhett- 4 generations back her grandmother was her grandmother twice or something like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smokjbc,

I'm glad for your reassurance that there are still some pedigrees of EITHER type of BC that are not closely inbred or linebred.

Thanks for looking for Wisp. I had read somewhere (one of the major sites like USBCC or ABCA or whatever) that "virtually" every Border Collie in American had both Wisp and Wiston Cap in the pedigree if you looked back far enough. I do not have a pedigree for my rescue puppy (from working lines), so I can't look him up. My show dog goes back to Blwch Taff, but I only have a bit of his pedigree filled in past the fourth generation. Blwch Taff goes back to Wiston Cap though.

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Regarding Missy's pedigree, I got to looking at it this morning, and there was a heck of a lot of inbreeding going on.

Based on the AIBC numbers alone, there are at least 2 brother/sister matings (Jem/Jackie, Billie/Bright Eyes).

First, Jem/Jackie produced Rock, Billie and Bright Eyes. Then two of these inbred puppies, Billie and Bright Eyes were bred to each other to produce Babe. Then Babe was bred back to her parents' sibling Rock. With this degree of inbreeding, no wonder Missy has some hip soreness! I'm so glad that her temperament turned out nice though--you got very lucky.

The really confusing part is when you look at the names vs. AIBC numbers, especially the breedings between White's JR and Sissy. In one case, they produce a puppy with a number of 90410. In another case, they produce a puppy with a number of 112403, which is very close to the numbers of their two (apparent) grandchildren, Rock and Bright Eyes.

Does anybody have an explanation for this discrepancy? All I can think is that the two generations had litters on the same day or so, and all the registration numbers were given out at the same time. Right now, it is too early on a Sunday for my brain to work through this tangle!

Columbia, MO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The litters were just registered at the same time probably - they may have been years apart even. ABCA used to allow this but I think it's changing/has changed. I know AIBC is perfectly all right with it because I registered my dog long after he was born - he was four by the time I got my papers back from AIBC.

Columbia, the dog it's going to be hard to find modern pedigrees without is John Thomas' Don. At one point about two dog generations ago, it was estimated that 80% of ISDS dogs were his direct descendants. And he probably DID pass on the gene for CEA - or his mother did, anyway.

Every generation has their key dogs. It's really OK. There's a lot of genetic diversity within the key dogs themselves, generally, that the soundness of the breed remains stable.

Don't forget the overall soundness of the breed is constantly being monitored by the work it does. It's not like a couch potato breed where a lot of unsound progeny could produce a lot of unsound progeny and no one would notice for several generations (ahem, storage disease). Certainly defects are present but with a working breed the choice to cull breaks at "Is this dog sound enough to to the work?" The choice to breed breaks at, "Will this cross potentially produce pups that can't do the work?" That's really different from trying to decide whether it's "good enough" to be a nice pet - like Missy, hips a little sore but probably a back yard breeder with a lot of dogs would miss that.

Anyway, the work makes sure (or is SUPPOSED to ensure) that any concentration of lines remains healthy ones. Outcrossing is tested in the same way to ensure a consistent level of working ability, and new soundness issues would be observed then (in the old days it might not be recognized as such - "She won't go to her right" was bad enough to cull - same result as if we took her to a vet and found out she had mild dysplasia on the left hip.

One big point is that these days we've GOT to make sure we are still holding our breeders to those standards. And there's new technology out there to screen for defects to back up the old ways, too. I like to see, personally, at least one parent screened for hips and both CERFed.

But I think the work they do is the MOST important. That's how we got a breed where an individual (Missy's mom) goes back to the same two parents five generations back, over and over, and obviously the result of that breeding could still walk and reproduce and have a reasonably healthy puppy! But it won't STAY that way - those original two were from the old days for sure - I've seen stuff like that around here pretty often. I ought to type in pedigrees of the sisters Steve rescued last year. These pups were sold as breeding stock to someone - talk about a family tree with no branches!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no way that "pretty much every BC alive today goes back to Wisp." Heck, Wisp only died about 5 or 6 years ago (time flies, so I could be off a little, but not much). He certainly was a popular sire, and he fathered more than 500 pups, but it would be totally impossible for him to have serviced most of the working border collie bitches alive at the same time he was, and there has not been time since then for the lines to which he didn't contribute to have withered away. Not that they ARE withering away, mind you. It's just an obvious impossibility.

You must be thinking of Wiston Cap? (Or Old Hemp?) Wiston Cap was the most used stud in ISDS history, and he appears somewhere in the great majority (but not all) of border collie pedigrees, but you won't find many working border collie people lamenting that fact. It's generally agreed that the breed took a great leap forward in working ability thanks to Wiston Cap, and yet it still has exemplary genetic diversity. The working border collie would be a lot poorer today if he had only been bred ten times in his life.

Formulas like a 10x cap on breeding for any stud dog, while they may be desirable for show breeds, are inappropriate for the border collie. If your trade-off is between a perfect ear set and the possibility of concentrating some potentially harmful recessive gene, it's a no-brainer. Limit the trendy dog with the perfect ear set to 10 breedings. But where you're weighing the possible negative recessive gene against something that really matters, like what Wiston Cap contributed to working ability, then the risk-benefit equation is totally different. I hope there will never be a limit such as you propose, and if there ever should be, it'll portend the demise of the working border collie, IMO, because it will be a sign that the majority of breeders have their values seriously skewed.

From 1960 through 1989 the International was won 24 times by a dog, 6 times by a bitch.

As for the AIBC registry, it has been "re-organizing under new management" for more than ten years now, and throughout that time it's been virtually impossible to get papers out of them. I think as a practical matter it's defunct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Smokjbc,

I'm glad for your reassurance that there are still some pedigrees of EITHER type of BC that are not closely inbred or linebred.
>>>Columbia

My assurances have only to do with working border collies- not "either" type. For myself, there is only one "type" of Border Collie.

Jaime Green
[email=smokinjbc@msn.com]smokinjbc@msn.com[/email]
Las Vegas,NV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and I've looked at an awful lot of working pedigrees and haven't even noticed a high degree of line breeding, much less inbreeding. I own pups that are about as line bred as I generally see. They have the same bitch as their great grandmother on the top and great great grandmother on the bottom. Most dogs I see I have to run right off the papers to start seeing direct relationships.

I only have one Border collie, out of eight that I've ever owned, that goes back to Wisp. I actually owned two that didn't go back to Wiston Cap at all - both old cattle working lines. I don't go out of my way to avoid either of those lines, so I suppose I'm probably fairly representative. I've also seen zillions of rescue pedigrees (well, maybe just a couple hundred), and just don't see any inbreeding or even dangerous linebreeding problem - even among the various random bred Border collies out there.

I don't have to guess, either. There's a scientific measure for this sort of thing and it's been show that the working Border collie has a remarkably low inbreeding coefficient (um, I don't think that's the right name for it), even as represented by its worst inbred individuals!

The only reason I'm hammering on this point, is that I've heard this idea that "working dogs are horrendously inbred" before from, well, people who think working breeders are in need of serious guidance. We won't say WHERE that mindset comes from. But I do contend that it's completely baseless.

Here is an interesting discussion of inbreeding and linebreeding - more or less seperating fact from speculation, at least I thought so. Even though it's from the standpoint of a breed specialist :rolleyes: his points are still valid. He addresses in particular sire limitation, by the way, near the end of this article. Basically he points out that sire limitation means you can't select for anything - your breed will turn "average" within a few generations. [url="http://www.dobermanns.info/info/PEDIGREE%20.htm"]http://www.dobermanns.info/info/PEDIGREE%20.htm[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×