Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
IronHorse

Barbie dog definition

Recommended Posts

Bob -

 

The AKC sets a standard based on how a dog looks, and invites people to breed their purebred dogs to that standard and to compete to see who has the prettiest dogs. I think people would agree with me when I say the AKC and the breeders share in the responsbility for what the "Barbie Collie" is today.

 

I don't think anyone is "not blaming" the ABCA for "letting" unworthy BCs from being registered or bred. I think it comes down to HOW to do it where it would be fair, cost effective, and an asset to the breed without losing valuable dogs. The method by which to do this is open for suggestions. Got any ideas? :rolleyes:

 

Jodi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

As you well know, I could write a tome on this subject, but since it has so far proven to be an exercise in futility I decided I would only reply to this if I could limit it to five sentences. So here goes:

 

I believe we can withstand the overwhelming gravitational pull of the AKC -- the effects of which can be seen all around us, clearer with every passing day -- only if we are able to draw a sharp line with no overlap between their dogs and our dogs, and compel a clear and conscious choice. Permanent open registration certainly makes it harder to resist the gravitational pull, but it doesn't prevent us from drawing that line if we have the will to do it. The purpose is not really to eliminate current breeding for bad reasons, it's to avert the increase in that type of breeding that's inevitable if we do nothing and continue drifting into the AKC's sphere of influence.

 

There would be little if any added burden for enforcement -- all registration papers would simply contain a statement to be signed. We would rely on people's honesty (or, to take a more cynical view, on their reluctance to be caught publicly in a lie) and on whatever information came to hand. At the very least it would prevent the advertisement and flaunting of dual registered dogs, which in itself is a form of pressure pushing us toward AKC hegemony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Because the AKC provides incentives to encourage bad breeding, and the ABCA does not."

 

Wow. That sums it up perfectly, Eileen.

 

Jodi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not the ABCA also Add incentives at lest in the ovver breeding of some bitches by sponsering trials.When looking for my newest dog i found some top bitches were being breed at 8 years old that seems old to me but i am not a breeder I THINK WE COULD AT LEST SAY THAT NO DOGS CAN BE BREED BEFORE 2 AND NOT AFTER 6 AND ONLY EVERY 2 YEARS

CAN ANYONE THINK WHY A BITCH SHOULKD BE BREED MORE THAN EVERY 2YEARS AND NOT BEFOR 2 AND NOT AFTER 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen, please don't feel like you're wasting your time. I'm learning from you and others and hope to use this knowledge in a useful way someday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A healthy, well-cared-for bitch ought to be able to handle a pregnancy once a year in ordinary circumstances. I personally think that breeding on every heat is too much, and doesn't provide adequate recovery time between pregnancies. But unless the litters are pretty big and take a lot out of the bitch, or there's some other issue with management or health, I don't see a reason from a medical standpoint why you couldn't do pregnacies in consecutive years a couple of times. If you say a bitch can only be bred evey two years, you limit circumstances arbitrarily, I think. What if your outstanding bitch doesn't begin a breeding career til she's four? Then by your proposal, she'd have only one shot, since by the time her two years are up and depending on when she went back into heat again, she might be over six. What if you have a terrific bitch who had a litter last year, and this year you have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to breed to the world's most perfect male for her? Would you be willing to skip that just because you had an every-other-year restriction placed on you?

 

To me - and I'm not a breeder either, so this is JMO - it seems like there are too many variables in the real world to make an arbitrary rule like that. Moreover, there are wide variations in how well a given dog does with whelping and rearing pups, and what may be "too much" in one bitch may be just fine in another.

 

I also think this would be hard to enforce, but again, JMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen - I hope you don't mind if I quote something you said earlier ...

 

Bob - Read back to where I asked about this. Eileen said, "The board actually did recently consider limiting the number of litters per year that any one person can register to seven, and limiting the number of litters registrable out of one bitch in a 2-year period. The latter proposal failed on a tie vote, and the former proposal was tabled. I think the main problems people had with this, aside from the longstanding reflex aversion to regulation by the registry, is that any number set will apply to all breeders and could come to be looked on as a norm. Breeding good working dogs is an art, and breeders with the knowledge and skill to breed good working dogs are few, and are the pillars of the breed. We don't want to limit our good breeders to a number that would be appropriate for bad breeders, and we don't want to "approve" of breeding by bad breeders at a level that's appropriate for good breeders. Besides, there was a feeling that any numerical limit on the number of litter registrations per year by a single breeder could be easily circumvented by the very people it was aimed at, since they could spread title to their breeding dogs around among family members, etc."

 

Any other suggestions?

 

Jodi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it can't be said enough that people can get around registration regulations very easily. I know of a couple of places that put hundreds of pups on the ground every year, that have few or no pups actually registered in their names. And they are simply doing it for PR reasons - no registration issues are at stake. I knew someone who bred littermates together and then falsified the papers, just because it "looked bad." Piling on regulations would only hurt the good breeders or drive them to other registries which currently have open, friendly relations with the AKC.

 

I believe in the "line" and I think it's worth pursuing again. Beyond that, I don't think the registry has the obligation to police breeding practices other than to ensure accurate reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I'd also like to point out, referring back to the original topic, that most "barbie breeders" would fall right in line with any regulations you cared to put in place. Most of them are very responsible in terms of how they treat their dogs and jumping through all the hoops of clinnical testing, etc.

 

So what would we be doing by instituting a "good housekeeping seal of approval" without drawing any other line? We'd be tipping the scales heavily in favor of the wealthy, hobby breeders of sport and conformation dogs. Do we want to do that? Remember, anything you ask the REGISTRY to do, messes with the genetics of the breed. It's not just about politics or economics, it's about the shape of the breed as a whole.

 

I think we can get the word out about the responsible WORKING breeders - but I don't think it's the onus of the registry to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited to add: Oops, I responded to BobH's post on page 2 without realizing there was a third pages of answers to his question already. Oh well. Here it is anyway.

 

Bob wrote:

CAN ANYONE THINK WHY A BITCH SHOULKD BE BREED MORE THAN EVERY 2YEARS AND NOT BEFOR 2 AND NOT AFTER 6
Bob,

Yes I can think of a reason. If I have a bitch who is 3 or 4 before she is running in open and then I give her time to prove herself there and on the farm before breeding her, I'm already approaching your cut off before ever breeding her. If I breed her at 4, by the time her pups are proving themselves, she's approaching (or has laready turned) 6. If said pups turn out to be superior workers I might want to repeat that breeding, but by then my bitch is probably 6 and so I would no longer be allowed to breed her by your rules.

 

So while I agree with past statements you have made about folks who produce lots of pups every year or who breed a bitch on every heat, I cannot agree with limiting the age at which a bitch *can* be bred.

 

Upper age limits may work better for the conformation folks because a conformation dog could well have its championship (and therefore be determined breedworthy by the KC standard) before age 2. At that age, a working bred dog may just be stepping out into the world of proving itself (as in the example I gave above).

 

Once again it comes down to the breeder being responsible. The real risk to the bitch is if she is bred for the *first* time after age 6. While I may not breed an older bitch numerous times, if I bred one at 5 and the pups turned out to be a signficant improvement to the breed, then I certainly would consider repeating the breeding two or more years later (i.e., when the bitch is older than 6). That said, I would go into it with eyes open to the risks and with my vet on hand to make sure we could minimize those risks.

 

It seems to me that you are trying to find an easy answer where none exists. As I've said here and elsewhere before, you can't legistlate ethics or morals.

 

J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen - You put in a lot of effort to provide this forum and on behalf of the working-bred Border Collie. I'm sorry that you often get flack and not the thanks that you deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Eileen Stein:

Because the AKC provides incentives to encourage bad breeding, and the ABCA does not.

Devil's advocate here again...I don't know - I understand the "don't fence me in" feelings of actual farmers and ranchers who are breeding for the right reasons, and ABCA doesn't want to step on their toes or P*** them off by over-regulation.

But I think that ABCA's "live and let live - don't ask, don't tell" policies regarding number of litters per year/per bitch/per stud dog without any kind of written guidelines are fostering quite a bit of (unintentional)incentive - and that incentive is "greed" in many cases. I personally know "sport breeders" who no longer register with AKC because of number of litters produced, but happily sell many, many ABCA registered litters each year from "warehoused" parents who never do a lick of work to prove themselves except as puppy producers. They even advertised themselves as "working dog breeders" because of their ABCA lifetime memberships and affiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an idea that could possibly work to some extent with the dedication of people committed to preserving the breed as it was over a hundred years ago.

 

On the puppy register forms something like below could be added to make breeders think twice of registering with AKC (below).

 

Guessing that the ABCA would not openly search out breeders that will continue to dual register with the AKC they could leave it up to the public to expose people that are breaking the associations wishes. In other words, leaving the breed to the association?s people for saving from the AKC in some form.

 

There has to be some way to get around these people both registering with a association that supports breeding fully for working ability and soundness over all and also supporting one that is ruining that of which the association stands for.

 

Just a start with some ideas.

 

Katelynn

________________________________________________________________________

 

SIRE?S NAME & NO.____________ OWNER/CO-OWNERS_________________

 

I, _______________________, and ____________________________________,

(Signature of Sire?s Owner) (Signature of Sire?s Co-Owner, if applicable)

 

Owner(s) of Stud Dog, certify that the above named Sire was mated to the Dam named below on ________________

(Date)

 

AND THAT he has not been awarded the title of conformation Champion at any time after January 1, 2004 OR registered itself or offspring with the AKC after January 1, 2007.

 

 

DAM?S NAME & NO._____________ OWNER/CO-OWNERS___________________

 

I, _______________________, and ____________________________________,

(Signature of Dam?s Owner) (Signature of Dam?s Co-Owner, if applicable)

 

certify by signature that the above particulars and breeding are correct, AND THAT the above-named Dam has not been

 

awarded the title of conformation Champion at any time after January 1, 2004 OR registered itself or offspring with the AKC after January 1, 2007.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

I hereby apply for Registration in the Stud Book according to and in compliance with the rules and provision of the ABCA. I certify that the dog(s) for whom registration is sought have not been awarded a conformation championship by any registry OR registered itself or offspring with the AKC after January 1, 2007.

 

On this the ___________ day of _________________________, 20______

 

Signed: ______________________________________________________

(signature of member requesting registration)

________________________________________________________________________

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't try to regulate whether the offpring are registered ACK. I'm totally against that.

 

It's not the wording that's the problem, it's the effect that such a restriction would have. The last time this was discussed officially, the community was not quite ready for that complete division. The provision about the conformation championship was a compromise (and a pretty good one, I thought).

 

I do believe it's time to start thinking about drawing that line, since ACK has failed to draw theirs. I think a lot of people were hoping that would happen and make it unecessary for US to define the line. Perhaps those people would now be more willing to consider the natural next step.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know if this would pass i do agility and so many Bcs are coming from Working lines (Abc) and there is lots of money involved. would you all refuse to sell one of your pups to some one that will do herding hike swim and take their dogs on vacation but also want to do AKc agility because there is no other venue around? these people also tend to spend money on their dogs health and wealfare.

bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the ABCA create a website where people who have purchased pups from ABCA breeders provide input on how their pups turned out? Not just working ability but temperament and health issues and such? Like a rating type thing (not just people writing whatever they want)?

 

Maybe something like this:

 

So-and-So's Border Collies

 

4 stars

 

3 ratings

 

August 2001

 

Working ability 4 stars

 

temperament 3 stars

 

health 5 stars

 

Would you recommend this breeder? 4 stars

 

May 2002

 

Working ability 5 stars

 

temperament 3 stars

 

health 5 stars

 

Would you recommend this breeder? 5 stars

 

Then the next person's rating...

 

Maybe it each category can be fleshed out a bit too?

 

Just an idea. Probably a bad idea since I'm not versed in this, but I want to help, so threw it out there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see how such a site could be abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bobh,

 

Yes, I would quickly refuse to sell a dog to someone that does AKC anything. I only breed working dogs though and nothing else.

 

By supporting any kind of AKC event, in some form or another, you are supporting AKC conformation and what they are doing to this amazing breed.

 

There are other venues that do agility; AKC is not the only way to go.

 

If anyone that does AKC events wants us to keep our working dogs available to them just so they can still have a good sport dog instead of the Barbie Dogs that their venue/registry has to offer really needs to do some rethinking about what they are supporting and why.

 

If the breeding that your venue/registry is doing is forcing you to go somewhere else to buy good dogs, why are you supporting that group at all? This is just careless in my eyes.

 

I don?t understand peoples thinking sometime.

 

If something if wrong, don?t support it, especially when it affects you to the point of forcing you to buy outside that registry?s lines for a good dog.

 

The question here shouldn?t be would Border Collie breeders (working Border Collie breeders) refuse to sell into a AKC sport home. No, the question should be why would you support such a registry such as AKC when it is, by no doubt, forcing you to buy dogs from other registries to get a good dog instead of going with your venue's registry?

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, this isn't the role of a registry. Anything a registry does in this line is going to affect the genetics of the breed. So if you tried to be as neutral as possible on issues that are not directly working-related (or not quantifiable), you'd end up with meaningless listings.

 

An effort like this should come from the "breed club." The US Border Collie Club is the club that supports the working dog, and it would make sense to offer some service for people who are looking for responsible breeders, but really don't know where to start. Right now they'd be drawn to the AKC because there's a "recommended breeder" list and you know what you are getting when you select from that.

 

So we ARE working on such a tool for WORKING breeders. But, I have to be clear about this, the guidelines that are being considered are NOT going to comprise a "good herding seal of approval" - probably some excellent breeders will choose not to be listed. But it will (we hope) fill a need to draw a line between the KC and the working world, to offer a place for consicentious breeders of working dogs to trade information, and to promote the working Border collie breed to the public as the REAL Border collie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebecca, Brook Cove Farm wrote;

 

I believe in the "line" and I think it's worth pursuing again. Beyond that, I don't think the registry has the obligation to police breeding practices other than to ensure accurate reporting.

I would disagree with this statement based on the following,

An organisation that takes on the responsibility of maintaining a specific registry designed to record and archive the authenticity of the hereditary lineage of a specific breed of dog also is obligated to have a clear and percise set of parameters as to what consitutes an acceptable candidate into that registry.By the acceptance and installation of an individual dog's lineage into said registry and the issuance of a pedigree linking the dog to that specific registry, then the organisation maintaining the registry is in essence acting as a guarantor that the information contained in the registry is indeed correct according to the parameters set forth to govern the integrity of that specific registry.

 

The second paragraph on the home page of the ABCA website states;

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.

 

I do not find anywhere on the site what the ABCA defines as a "Border Collie"

 

Now on the registration page the ABCA does state;

 

ABCA Registration Requirements

The American Border Collie Association is dedicated to recording accurate pedigree information for owners and breeders of working Border Collies. These guidelines were developed to help insure the quality and accuracy of pedigrees in the registry.

 

My question is ; How do they insure this?

Without verifiable documentation of a dog's working ability how can the accuracy of these guidelines be maintained?

 

So what would we be doing by instituting a "good housekeeping seal of approval" without drawing any other line? We'd be tipping the scales heavily in favor of the wealthy, hobby breeders of sport and conformation dogs. Do we want to do that? Remember, anything you ask the REGISTRY to do, messes with the genetics of the breed. It's not just about politics or economics, it's about the shape of the breed as a whole.
Rebecca,

I agree that it is about the shape of the breed as a whole, but I would point out that the ABCA by issuing pedigrees that they very much are placing their "seal of approval" on the dog and by their own mission statement are implying the dog is of working stock.

 

As more and more intact ABCA registered dogs are finding their way into the hands of breeders whos intent is to breed for "looks" with little if any regard to working ability and the offspring of these dogs are being registered into the ABCA registry then the very principles of that registry are being diluted.

Like it or not it is happening, ABCA registered dogs are developing into more then just "working Border Collies", there are ABCA "Barbie lines",ABCA sports lines, ABCA agility lines and so on.

This is not just based upon what I have read, it is based upon my hands on personal observations over the past year in my endeavor to educate myself with regards to the breed of dog known as the Border Collie.

I know that there are no easy nor are there any quick responses that the ABCA can impliment in order to maintain the integrity of their "working Border Collie" registry, but I do know that in order for them to proceed into the future with the intent to establish and maintain a creditable "working Border Collie" registry, then many of these issues are going to have to be addressed.

 

I admire the ABCA for their efforts and intentions and wish them the best of luck.

My thoughts and statements made on these boards are made solely with the intent to cultivate constructive and perhaps helpful discussion.

These are only my personal opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
have a clear and percise set of parameters as to what consitutes an acceptable candidate into that registry
The ABCA (unlike other registries) has TWO ways to define a Border collie. One is the common method of accepting that a puppy with parents registered with the ABCA (or acceptable "other" registries like the ISDS), can also be registered. You'd be asking that the ABCA be MORE specific in its requirements in that respect, than most registries?

 

Sorry, under the curent system, it isn't going to happen. It's not like the JRTCA, where you can get a working certificate if your dog passes a "go-to-ground" test and several other tests. It's pretty easy to quantify what makes a good terrier. How exactly would you quantify what makes a competant working dog and how would you require it of EVERY SINGLE candidate for registration? And how do you explain to people who will never work their dog that their dog won't be registered until it, say, places in the top 50% of an Open trial or whatever? You'd better believe even good breeders will be leaving the ABCA in droves.

 

The ABCA does have one other method of registration which pretty well defines what they consider to be a minimal Border collie of breeding potential, if that's what you are concerned about. Check out the ROM program. Look at what it entails, remember that there are, what, exactly TWO paid employees of the ABCA, and then imagine trying to apply those standards to every dog registered with the ABCA.

 

I think the current system is fine. I'd just like to open discussion again on the dual registration clause. That would accomplish what you seem to be concerned about (ABCA dogs being registered with the Kennel Clubs), without entailing a great deal of extra work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, as I stated before, I wanted Jackson to work sheep. I went to the breeders, I instisted on seeing the dog and bitch work. They had sheep on the property. I knew the blood line was there. Still no guarentee Jackson will ever be "great" on sheep, but I knew he had the potential. Now if I had gone to the breeders, and they lived in town and not a sheep could be found for 20 miles, where do I get the idea Jackson could work sheep? They might have been breeding "dumb down" dogs for generations. That is the point. BCs are versatile, yes. But to breed BCs without their herding abilities in mind, is to ruin the breed. It is everything a BC is that makes it able to "do other things". They did NOT breed an agility BC when people started using them in agility. When you start messing with the breed, you won't know what you will end up with, but it won't be a true BC. Because for everything you "add" something will be lost. All dogs are 100% dogs,,,not 110%. The ABCA can not logicaly go around herd testing all the pups registered. And not all pups, regardless of parents, will make great herders. But these are the pups who, if they do GREAT at say, agility, will be bred with Andy Agilities dog who is great at agility, but also not a good herder, and just like that, the true BC line is disrupted. Because a higher percentage of those pups will be good at agility and not at herding. If a BC is NOT at least good at herding, it should not be bred. Or it should at least be given a new name,,,,Agility collie, flyball collie, barbie collie,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...