Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
IronHorse

Barbie dog definition

Recommended Posts

Firchow,
No doubt that the Border Collie is a concept, but it is, as well as a conceptual class of dog, a recognized breed of dog that by registry documentation classifies an individual legally as a Border Collie.So my statement
"If the dog is registered properly then it is in fact a Border Collie even though it might be concidered a "barbie" by some." is not WRONG.
I did find the article that you supplied a link to interesting and informative however I fail to see how it clarifies the term "Barbie" as it applies to the Border Collie.

Julie Poudrier,
I believe your post is possibly the best definition so far as to what the term "barbie" is refering to when used on these forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebecca writes
[quote]"working bred" Border collies are not just bred to be working machines. What makes them superior partners for the livestock handler also makes them great at lots of other stuff. Border collies are a fragile balance of reactiveness and impulse control, drive and biddability, work ethic and loyalty, intensity and patience, athletic prowess and structural balance. Successful representatives of this ideal are nice to live with (assuming you are ready to meet their need for exercise and mental stimulation) and are capable of just about anything.[/quote]I'd like to add that all these things are hard enough for a true working breeder to access and breed for. When you have a Barbie breeder add in some "working lines" to their barbie collies you often get a "pretty" bc who have some of the traits a true working dog might and some not. That can be a pitiful mix. They usually get a pretty dog that can do a bit of everything but nothing really well. I've also seen some that come out with crazy working traits without the traits that will keep the "craziness" in check. It ends up with the public having to warn people away from bc's because they take to much work to own. I had a barbie owner out to my place and she thought my dogs were strange because they were sleeping in the kitchen instead of bouncing off the walls. Both her barbies are always bouncing off the walls (I really think that?s in the training but that?s another story all together)
I consider my working dogs to be a bit like Idiot Savants. The barbies in my mind end up with just the Idiot and not the Savant part.
I would like to think that I'm not insulting barbie owners and I know there are some great barbies out there, I just don't think you can compare the 2 breeds. So if you own and love a barbie collie and aren't breeding it. Good on you!
Hope that makes a bit of since.
Kristen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< What defines a "barbie" collie from other BCs? >>

Barbie Collies are dogs bred to Kennel Club appearance standards. To see examples, watch Westminster -- every "Border Collie" there is a Barbie Collie.

<< But isn't it possible to obtain a good working dog out of a "barbie" line? >>

Theoretically, I suppose. But they are very rare. I accept that they might exist, but I have never seen one. Among people who care only about working ability, I've never known one to seek a pup or a stud from Barbie lines.

<< So lets say someone is interested in a Border Collie as a pet/companion dog,,perhaps looking for a dog to play frisbie,fetch or whatever,would you say that they would be more satisfied with a "barbie"? >>

No. Why would they?

<< Ok then Let me ask this question?
How many of you with purebred BCs are actually working them on stock? >>

All of mine do (except the pup, who's too young yet). What's the connection between this question and your Barbie question?

<< If the dog is registered properly then it is in fact a Border Collie even though it might be concidered a "barbie" by some. >>

It's a border collie if you define a border collie as any dog that's registered under that name by a registry.

Glenn Firchow's point is tremendously important. The AKC is trying to change the border collie from a breed in the Alaskan husky sense to a breed in the conformation sense. To see why AKC Border Collies are not true border collies you have to be able to conceptualize a breed as something other than AKC's concept of a breed. Since AKC's concept of what a breed is is pervasive in our society ("What do Border Collies look like?"), the article Glenn linked to is of great help in appreciating the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If the dog is registered properly then it is in fact a Border Collie even though it might be concidered a "barbie" by some." is not WRONG."


The BREED Border Collie should be what was created 100 yrs ago-- and should still be the same in another 200yrs.
Papers won't guarantee that consistancy for any working breed.
Papers are not a certificate of Breedability. They just document lineages-with an oath of truthfulness.

If I had a registered Daushound-- but it looked like a Great Dane-- Do you really think the papers should be given much value????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dazzle doesn't work stock (she may someday but not any time real soon), but I don't think of her as a Barbie Collie.
Why? Because she is out of great (herding)champions and right out of 2 great herding dogs.

When someone breeds dogs that don't work or are not any good at working (they just take some pictures of the dog with sheep and say they work) I consider full blown Barbie Collies.

Dogs that are are out of good working stock will have to have "good looks". A dog with bad joint problems and that has eye problems couldn't very well work stock could they? So dogs with a good and healthy body type are the best at working, that is why Border Collies at least sort of look alike - but ear sets don't and color don't matter at all. But dogs that are alowed to breed just for looks alone, Barbies.

If someone wants a companion dog "would they be better with a Barbie". Well, why do they want a BC at all? Why not a nice Lab or Golden. Those are still active but better for the calm life style. They shouldn't want a BC if they want a REALLY low key border collie. Those aren't Border Collies at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eileen,
The question I stated in this thread
<< How many of you with purebred BCs are actually working them on stock?>>
really should of been a seperate post I did go OT with that.
As for what the AKC is promoting in its policy, I am quite aware of and totally disagree with their approach.

As for the policy that the ABCA and the USBCC state well I agree with the words but in reality over the course of this past year I have personally witnessed no less then 4 ABCA registered breeders that DO breed for "looks" and very much breed what others have stated on this thread as "barbies".
I would agree that Glenn Firchow's point is tremendously important but what is the ABCA doing to maintain its own mission statement amongst breeders who are useing the ABCA registry?
What critia and how is it enforced to ensure that ABCA breeders are producing reliable working Border Collies?

This is not meant as an attack against the ABCA nor a defense of what the AKC is doing.
It is simply an inquiry from a person who sees one group calling another groups dogs "barbies" but has witnessed first hand the exact same breeding pratices being nurtured by at least some ABCA breeders.

Certainly you as one of the ABCA directors can address this question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anybody with an ABCA-registered bitch and access to an ABCA-registered dog, can be called an ABCA breeder by paying their annual dues and breeding said dogs and registering the pups with the ABCA.

Personal integrity and the desire and knowledge to make breedings for the right reasons are what separate good breeders from irresponsible breeders.

Lots of people pass a test and get a driver's license, but that doesn't guarantee that they are all good drivers. Lots of folks have children, but that doesn't make them good parents.

The working dog world (including USBCHA and ABCA) relies heavily on personal integrity and the true desire of its members to make decisions that maintain and improve the breed, and on minimal (in our society) laws and rules.

Nit-picking rules are common in "the dog fancy", as has been pointed out on another board and in conformation discussions. They are not in the working Border Collie world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< Certainly you as one of the ABCA directors can address this question. >>

Well, sure.

The ABCA cannot prevent people who register with us from breeding dogs for the wrong reasons, any more than the AKC can prevent its breeders from breeding dogs who don't conform to their appearance standard. Both things happen often, unfortunately, which is why registration alone is not a guarantee that the dog will live up to the ideals of the registry.

What the ABCA can do, and does, is to hold up working ability as the one and only standard of excellence in our breed, and in association with the USBCHA offer competitions through which dogs' working abilities can be demonstrated and improved, and reward those dogs who best exemplify the working standard with honors and prizes. An incentive program, if you will, for those who breed in accordance with the traditions of the breed, and a way of making it easier for buyers and breeders to identify the best border collies. We also try, through public education, to advocate for the working-bred border collie as the only true border collie, and to discourage breeding for appearance in every way possible. We de-register dogs who are awarded conformation championships in the breed ring.

We fought AKC recognition because we knew that having a competing standard of excellence advocated and flaunted by the largest and most powerful dog organization in the world would make our task much harder. We were right -- it has. The AKC is in a position to shape public perception and public demand more than we are, and breeders who are producing dogs chiefly for money want to cater to that AKC-shaped perception and demand. We can discourage this, but we can't prevent it. Or at least no method of preventing it that I have ever heard, out of years of brainstorming, has ever been feasible as a practical matter or desirable from a population genetics point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll stick my pathetic two cents in here. My grandfather's favorite dog was a border collie that worked both his dairy cows and a couple hundred sheep as well. What made that dog a true border collie, and my understanding of the breed, is that Jack did anything he was asked by my grandfather (handler) and instinctually knew what was asked of him as well. It wasn't so much that he wanted to work livestock (a given), but that he would do anything for his owner/handler. When my grandfather turned the farm over to a son, the dog stayed by my grandfather's side at all times. From the experienced on this board, am I wrong thinking this is that the main difference with the true border collie and just any herding breed?

This attracts me to the breed. Who cares what they look like. Until I found this website though, I had no idea how to find a breeder, but knew to avoid AKC from watching info way back on TV while owning a bc. I believe as I've heard so many times on this board they should only be bred by those who know what they are doing to preserve the amazing characteristics. I believe it's a crap shoot if a dog that was not bred from the proven working parents is a good worker or not, even if they have a good pedigree (just like humans I suppose). Just learning here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JMO, ABCA could do alot more to insure that only the best dogs are breed by not just recomending breeding practices but insisting on it .

for example all dogs that are to be breed must excell in open trials . have full x-rays, eyes tested .No history of genetic DX.
ABca could also have a reporting system so they could see if a certain dog combination has a large number of problems in their litters.
One could still breed their dogs but could not reg, the pups if they did not meet the standards.

What do you think

bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eileen I did not see your post .
Why cant AbCA insist on seeing health records and alowing only so m,any litters by a bitch in her breeding years. Dna samples and so on .
bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The answer is not in ABCA setting RULES-- Its too unwieldy for that organisation.

The answer is education of buyers and USBCC seems to be trying to fill that need.

Years ago the average good breeder of Border Collies wasn't too concerned about hips or eyes. Their breeding program kept those issues mostly at bay.
But the BUYERS got educated and insisted on some medical proof- and walla its very common now for most good breeders to get them.

If the BUYERS insist on working integrity- it will be there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is the key........the BUYERS insisting on working integrety. When I visited the ranch where I bought Jackson, I insisted on watching the bitch and dog work some sheep. The owners were quite surprised that I asked this, but were quite willing to oblige me. It was in a small pen but it was enough for me to see the parents WERE working dogs. The bitch was imported from Ireland at 2yrs old, but I still had to see her work. Who knows why she was sold here? But it was no guarantee that Jackson would or could work sheep, but it showed it was possible. And the odds were way better than if Jackson came from parents that had a bunch of AKC beauty contest ribbons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< JMO, ABCA could do alot more to insure that only the best dogs are breed by not just recomending breeding practices but insisting on it .

for example all dogs that are to be breed must excell in open trials . >>

That would exclude many, many excellent working dogs who earn their keep on farms and ranches but whose owners don't trial them. Don't have the time, don't have the money, don't have the interest. Do we really want to kick them out of our registry? The alternative is what we do now -- register them and also register dogs that excel in open trials and dogs that do not work that well or do not work at all.

The fundamental purpose of a registry is to maintain accurate pedigree records, so that breeders can trace and understand bloodlines and breed better border collies. Registering them all achieves this purpose, while still enabling a buyer, in the exercise of ordinary prudence, to do his own research, ask his own questions, and find a suitable dog. Refusing to register pups from dogs who haven't excelled in open trials would not achieve this purpose -- their pedigree records would cease to be available, at least through us, no matter how good they are.

We cannot and do not claim that every dog we register is a good working dog. What we can and do claim is that we are the registry good working dog breeders register with, because we are dedicated to the working border collie, and therefore your chances of finding a good dog are best with us. That doesn't relieve you of doing your homework.

<< all dogs that are to be breed must . . . have full x-rays, eyes tested .No history of genetic DX >>

<< Why cant AbCA insist on seeing health records >>

Okay, suppose we refused to register dogs who didn't have "full x-rays" (not sure what that means -- elbows as well as hips?) or eye tests. That would mean throwing out the offspring of many good working dogs who have a long history of disease free lines, and who we have no reason to believe are diseased themselves, but whose owners didn't choose to have full x-rays or eye tests. Some breeders choose not to test because they're crappy breeders who don't give a damn, and I would be happy to see them gone. But some breeders choose not to test because they feel they can't afford it, and/or don't really believe there's much of a problem with hip dysplasia and eye diseases precisely because they haven't run into it. And some breeders choose not to test because they don't have much regard for the tests. They may know of a dog whose hips were rated Good by one OFA panel and dysplastic by another (yes, this has happened). Or they may know enough about hip dysplasia to know the limitations in terms of accuracy and effectiveness of hip testing, and conclude that testing their dog with real work is a better way.

There ARE real bases for reservations about the accuracy and effectiveness of hip x-rays to predict good hips in offspring (I can elaborate on these if you like). At present we recommend it because it's the only medical tool we've got, but it's far from perfect. I personally would not want us to exclude dogs from the studbook just because their parents were not x-rayed. I think we would be doing more harm than good. Years ago the ISDS adopted a policy of requiring eye exams, and excluding from registration dogs who were diagnosed with PRA or CEA, or who produced pups that were diagnosed with PRA or CEA. There is now good reason to believe that most of the dogs they excluded for PRA (some of whom were brilliant working dogs) were misdiagnosed, and actually had FMAR (Focal/Multifocal Acquired Retinopathy -- "acquired" meaning that it's not hereditary), and that PRA is actually rare or nonexistent in border collies. Wouldn't it be better if we had those dogs in our studbooks -- to have pedigree records for them? By registering without requiring these tests we maintain pedigree records for all ABC dogs. If your priority as a pet buyer is to minimize your chances of buying a pup with hereditary disease, you can simply require evidence from the breeder that the tests you care about were done and are favorable. When enough people have this as their priority and insist on the tests, breeders are driven to provide them -- we have seen this happening. If OTOH you're dubious about the value of the tests and prefer to go on pure working accomplishments, you can make your purchase accordingly. Either way, the dog will be registered and you can therefore trace its ancestry. (Note: I should say that we do currently exclude dogs with CEA and their progeny from registration, although this is a policy that will likely be modified in the near future, now that we have the DNA test for CEA.)

Moeover, don't overestimate the impact we would have on breeding practices if we refused to register dogs unless they were bred to our liking. Most puppy buyers who don't know enough not to buy from bad breeders don't know anything about the ABCA either. They don't care whether the dog is ABC-registered or not, as long as it's registered. That's why puppy mill registries have been created. Richard Swafford, who was expelled from the ABCA back in 2004 and can no longer register with us, is still selling plenty of dogs over the internet, registering the pups he breeds with an outfit that would register a ham sandwich.

Well, this is getting pretty long, and I have an ailing sheep to go see to, so I'll bring it to a close before getting into populations genetics, the size of the gene pool, genetic bottlenecks, etc. Maybe later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Originally posted by Eileen Stein:][/quote]The ABCA cannot prevent people who register with us from breeding dogs for the wrong reasons,

Why not?
It would appear to me that if a breeder petitions you to register a litter from ABCA registry or registries recognized by ABCA parents that the ABCA could insist upon documentation of the parent dogs working ability.

I would think that at least as much thought and effort that went into the creation of
The Association?s bylaws as well as the ABCA Disciplinary Rules would also be justified in the creation of regulations pertaining to the breeding of ABCA registered dogs, after all isn't the integrity of working Border Collies the primary goal of the ABCA?

[quote]The ABCA exists to register, maintain and verify the pedigrees of Border Collies, to promote and foster in North America the breeding, training and distribution of reliable working Border Collies, and to promote stockdog trials and exhibitions.[/quote]Please enlighten me if I am missing such information,but I could not find anything pertaining to regulations regarding the breeding of ABCA registered dogs in my search of the ABCA website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iron Horse, I went to NEBCA web site and found Breeding recomendations,
Eileen thanks for the Post ,
but ithink something could be figured out that would insure some standards are met .
Bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ironhorse,
Eileen never said that the ABCA has regulations regarding how breeding should be done. In fact, she said the ABCA as a registry simply keeps accurate pedigrees on dogs. What you're missing in the equation here is that rules and their enforcement cost money. Does that mean raising registration fees to astronomical heights (while at the same time severely cutting the number of registrations to only proven working dogs with proven medical hsitories)? Just who would that benefit? Corporate breeders with big bucks at hand? The average farmer/stockman who wants a good working dog to help on the farm? I can assure you it's not likely the latter.

Like it or not, we do live in a capitalist society. We are free to do what we want with our personal possessions, which includes our dogs. I don't think we've been terribly successful at legislating morality or ethics in the past, and I sincerely doubt that will change in the future.

I don't know who said it and I'm too lazy to go back through the thread and look, but it comes down to the buyer doing his or her homework. You don't go buy a house, a car, spend money on college, or perhaps even try a new restaurant (in general) without doing a little research. Why should a potential puppy buyer do any less when thinking of spending $$ for a living being? In other words, why should ABCA "legislate" ethics? And how would it enforce that legistlation given the budget it has (which isn't huge by any means)? It's all well and good to say ABCA should do this or that, but concrete workable ideas might be more useful.

I for one have learned about the dogs and the work and who the good breeders are. I won't have any confusion over barbie vs. sport vs. pet vs. working when I go to get my next dog. I didn't need any governing body to do that for me. I did it for myself and learned a lot of useful things in the process.

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have seen this discussion per years in the world of the GSD and, finally, I could to say that nobody won, not those that breed for character (though it is necessary to do the difference of which in the world of the GSD this character It's seen almost exclusively in sports terms that in the real work, unlike the BC) not those that breed for structure. What today we see are two almost completely different breeds, with genetic lines that had get separated decades ago and to which the eye of a not knowledgeable person of the topic often is not capable of distinguishing as the same dog. It would be very sad that it happened to the BC, but unfortunately, I am afraid that it is exactly what is going to happen because as with the GSD, the BC has a great point against himself that eventually it goes in opposition to the same breed: It is a beautiful dog.

Today in day, one of the work breed by excellence as police dogs, of defense, of deteci?n, SAR, etc. is the Belgan Shepherd Malinois, simply because to the eye of anyone, it is a dog so ugly and so mad that nobody is interested in taking it as a pet. It is not a dog that someone would buy to have of adornment in the garden or to presume of it with his friends and is precisely it what has supported to the Malinois as the excellent dog of work that todaty is, the fact that it has been raised almost exclusively for his intentions as work dog. On the other hand, the Border Collie is a sweet animal that yes, can be a good pet in hands of someone who does not work with it but who offer it sufficient stimulus, and still the BC more far looking from the standards of the AKC can be considered to be a nice dog to have in house.

I have a Border Collie not because I like neither her pretty colors nor her nice coat, I have it because it is an intense dog, which loves to work and with one of the more sharp minds of the canine world. And not, I do not herd with her, my aim is different and for the same reason, I'm not planning in breed her. Mine might be considered inside the "sport dogs" group though what we do should not be a sport, but I choose a BC between a pool of breeds by his skills like sheepdog and to me is of interest that the breed continues being that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catu - The majority of members on this board would agree with and approve of what you have said. You chose your Border Collie because its skills fit your needs. Since you will not "prove" her by training in stock work and stockdog trialling, you are choosing to not breed her.

People on these boards don't object to a "non-traditional" (stockworking) home as long as the Border Collie lives a satisfying life in a caring environment. Their objection has always been based on the breeding of Border Collies for anything but "the work" which is stock work.

It is breeding for the traits that make it the world's best stock dog, that has made it the unique breed that the working Border Collie is. Breeding for anything else (color, coat, eye shape, ear set, "soft" facial expression, man-made determinations of structure, etc.) just produces dogs that are "something else" but not true Border Collies.

You seem to understand these concepts very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If we do not exspect any standards from ABCA than why not let Akc dogs be dual Reg with ABCA. Let the regestries regester dogs and educate the Public to what A Bc is and let the public decided onthe breeder. But why punish the dog because we do not like its looks (Barb). i would bet that some AKc BC someware is a better stock dog than some ABCA reg. Bcs.
Bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< It would appear to me that if a breeder petitions you to register a litter from ABCA registry or registries recognized by ABCA parents that the ABCA could insist upon documentation of the parent dogs working ability.

I would think that at least as much thought and effort that went into the creation of The Association?s bylaws as well as the ABCA Disciplinary Rules would also be justified in the creation of regulations pertaining to the breeding of ABCA registered dogs, after all isn't the integrity of working Border Collies the primary goal of the ABCA? >>

Did you read my last post? Believe me, Iron Horse, at least as much thought and effort has gone into considering whether and how we should regulate the breeding of ABC-registered dogs as went into those other documents. It is a perennial subject of discussion. Nobody has come up with a workable scheme for "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" that seems better, on cost/benefit analysis, taking into account both intended and unintended consequences, than the system we currently use. But if you would like to propose something, by all means feel free to do so.

<< Eileen thanks for the Post ,
but ithink something could be figured out that would insure some standards are met . >>

Easy to say. Try doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote]Today in day, one of the work breed by excellence as police dogs, of defense, of deteci?n, SAR, etc. is the Belgan Shepherd Malinois, simply because to the eye of anyone, it is a dog so ugly and so mad that nobody is interested in taking it as a pet.[/quote]See? I knew we'd get some fresh ideas from our newer international members! We just need to breed the ugliest and craziest dogs we've got! :D Just kidding of course, that would be just as bad as breeding the prettiest dogs. :rolleyes:

You certainly are right, I have a friend with a Malinois. He's an awfully nice dog but I sure wouldn't want one if I didn't NEED one (and I don't!). Bouvier des flanders are another neat dog that is an acquired taste - it's rather unfortunate for the breed that the conformation breeders have acquired that taste! Thanks to the AKC again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<< If we do not exspect any standards from ABCA than why not let Akc dogs be dual Reg with ABCA. Let the regestries regester dogs and educate the Public to what A Bc is and let the public decided onthe breeder. But why punish the dog because we do not like its looks {Barb}. i would bet that some AKc BC someware is a better stock dog than some ABCA reg. Bcs. >>

Regrettably, the ABCA does permit dual registration with the AKC. If it were up to me, we would not do so. However, we don't accept into our registry "Border Collies" that have previously been registered only with the AKC or other conformation based kennel clubs, because we don't regard those dogs, bred to a different standard, as being the same breed as ours.

It's not a matter of our not liking a Barbie's looks. We do not like [b]breeding for looks[/b] no matter what the favored look might be. A dog bred to look a certain way is not what a border collie is. The philosophy of the ABCA is that border collies should be bred for working ability -- that the breed is defined by its abilities, not by how it looks. Within the ABCA, there will be people who uphold its philosophy to the highest extent, and people who are seriously deficient in upholding its philosophy, and everything in between. That is true in any organization. The breeders who most live up to the philosophy will be honored and respected, and the breeders who don't will be despised and deplored. But what there should not be within the ABCA, IMO, is people who support a different and incompatible philosophy, which is what border collie breeders do when they register with the AKC. If enough people do that, collectively they will change the nature of the breed, which the garden-variety bad breeders we've always had with us could never do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eileen,

[quote]Nobody has come up with a workable scheme for "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" that seems better, on cost/benefit analysis, taking into account both intended and unintended consequences, than the system we currently use. But if you would like to propose something, by all means feel free to do so.[/quote]A realistic proposal could only be formulated by having access to information that is the sole property of the ABCA. Therefore the most that I can do is to suggest,ask questions and to discuss what is flawed IMO.

[quote]Regrettably, the ABCA does permit dual registration with the AKC.[/quote]How in the world does allowing this promote the working Border Collie?
It doesn't take a genius to see how the "barbie" lines benefit.
I would really like to know by what critia this decision was reached.
By allowing this in my mind the ABCA is in a fasion supporting a different and incompatible philosophy then what it states as its primary goal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IronHorse -

Here is my oh-so-novice opinion, so take it for what it's worth -- which doesn't amount to much.

A lot of the problem with "documentation of the parent dogs working ability" is that there would have to be someone to test all the dogs for something like that. This means having evaluators being available for people to bring their dogs to. There are many farmers and ranchers who, if it was the only means of registering their dogs, wouldn't bother. That would be a lot of money lost for the ABCA. The other option would be to have evaluators go out to their homes to evaluate their dogs for registration, and that would be very costly, if the ABCA could find enough people interested in being evaluators. And then you get into the whole problem of "what qualifies someone to be an evaluator?" and "to what level does the dog need to work to be accepted for registration?" among other things.

As far as the ABCA allowing dual registration, the biggest argument for it that I've heard is that the ABCA would stand to lose a lot of money because of the percentage of people who would lean toward ACK registration and drop the ABCA registration.

One issue that is a sore point with me that I don't have an answer for is why the ABCA doesn't put a limit on the number of litters per year any one person can register, or how many litters out of one bitch can be registered in their lifetime. There are tons of "breeders" out there who are putting nearly 100 puppies (or more) on the ground PER YEAR, dual registering the litters, and they are allowed to register all of them. Now I know this is not just an ABCA issue. Being the puppies are being dual registered, it is also an ACK issue despite the fact that ACK has a breeding limit in place. But the people who "only" breed their bitches once a year, keep impeccable records, hip and eye test, and even go so far as to test their breeding stock in a round pen on dog broke sheep, no one even so much as bats an eye at them. From what I have been told, the ABCA does not have the money, manpower, or interest in being the breeding police. I can understand that. I just wish I had an answer for it. Like possibly hiring even just a few people to do spot investigations on certain kennels and banning certain breeders from registering pups with ABCA, which they have done. I just wish it could be on a larger scale. Even so, it doesn't stop the breeding, as those breeders just turn to other less-reputable registries. But at least the ABCA would be making a stronger stand against that type of rampant breeding.

Jodi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×