Jump to content
BC Boards
Sign in to follow this  
IronHorse

Barbie dog definition

Recommended Posts

Laurie:

 

>

 

I really don't understand the reasoning behind this statement, or bobh's similar statement. Not outlawing something is not the same thing as providing incentives for it. If your state does not have a law banning or regulating ownership of pit bulls, does that mean they are encouraging people to own pit bulls or providing incentives for people to own pit bulls? Hardly. They've just decided that the negatives of enacting such a law outweigh the positives. I think you're right when you say the incentive for the type of breeding you're talking about here is greed, and I don't see how the ABCA is providing the greed.

 

When I say the AKC is providing incentives for bad breeding, I mean that they are setting up an appearance standard as the definition of the perfect border collie, they encourage people to breed dogs to that standard alone (which is in fact bad breeding), they educate the public that only people who breed to that standard are responsible breeders, they sponsor contests to see who is doing the best job of breeding to that standard, they exalt your dog as a "Champion" if they think you've done a good job breeding to that standard, and they shower you and your dog with honor and glory for breeding in that way. Is the ABCA doing anything like that to encourage breeding without regard to working ability, or excessive breeding? No.

 

IronHorse:

 

>

 

I don't agree with this statement and I don't understand the basis for it. I don't see where it follows from anything you quoted. The fact that the ABCA is "dedicated to recording accurate pedigree information for owners and breeders of working Border Collies" does not claim or imply that every dog registered can work. It's the working border collies who are the point of our registry -- our reason for existing, the ones WE honor -- but as Bill and others have explained, that doesn't necessarily mean that we can't or shouldn't register and keep records of their non-working relatives.

 

I do understand that you deplore breeding for other than working ability. So do I. But I can't see any practical, feasible way the registry can do anything to prevent it without producing worse consequences than the current practice, and you haven't suggested any.

 

Kate and others:

 

There's no problem coming up with good wording to ban dual registration. The ABCA simply hasn't been willing to do it--mainly, I think, because a majority of the decision-makers simply don't see what a huge threat the AKC and dual registration is to our dogs. It's a long-range problem, not a short-range one. It's a complex problem, not a simple one. Each little development doesn't look so terrible in itself, but they're gradually forming into a cascade that will progress to an avalanche. It's one of those gradual-onset dangers that it's easy to ignore until it's too late. And that's what's happening, IMO. Also, many directors are afraid that the membership wouldn't support any action against dual registration. I think they're wrong, but there's really no way to know. One thing's for sure -- the longer we wait to act the harder it is to act, and we've waited way too long already.

 

bobh:

 

I sell my pups on a contract, like the one here. It contains the following provision:

 

The Buyer shall not register the puppy or permit the puppy to be registered with the American Kennel Club (AKC). Because the parties recognize that precise damages for breach of this provision might be difficult to ascertain, the parties hereby agree that the Buyer will be liable for damages in the amount of $10,000 in the event of any breach by the Buyer of this provision of the contract.

 

Any breeder can do this if they want to, and I know of several who do. Admittedly, I don't breed much, but I have never had any problem finding good homes for my puppies where they will not be registered with the AKC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Miz and Sue. I didn't mean to sound whiney -- sorry if I did. It's just frustrating not to be able to explain the danger I see well enough so that other people can see it too. I feel like Cassandra sometimes -- and look what happened to her!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think you sounded whiney at all. I just thought you do a lot for the working Border Collie and don't get recognized for your very significant contributions very often.

 

I'd also like to express my appreciation for a number of other folks on this board (but I won't name them), who take time and make an effort to help educate and support Border Collie owners and potential owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel like Cassandra sometimes -- and look what happened to her! [smile]
Heavens, no, Cassandra's curse was that no one at all would heed her. I know your message gets through in general - don't judge by the few who keep this discussion moving with opposing views. This is an extremely important topic - one that warrants regular rehashing. I learn something every time, myself - especially from your posts, Eileen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eileen Stein wrote;

 

I do understand that you deplore breeding for other than working ability. So do I. But I can't see any practical, feasible way the registry can do anything to prevent it without producing worse consequences than the current practice, and you haven't suggested any.

I never said that I deplore breeding for other than working ability.

I just don't think they belong in a "working Border Collie" registry.

 

I did make a suggestion regarding a "Breeder affidavit" earlier in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

Sorry, I misunderstood.

 

You said: "seems to me that the breeding is going to happen for basically 4 different reasons regardless,

1; responsibly for good working dogs

2; For show/conformation

3; for profit

4; accidently"

 

Later you said: "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 . . ."

 

What the ABCA and the USBCC say is that border collies should only be bred for working ability. What the AKC says is that they should be bred for conformation. Taking all this together, I jumped to the conclusion that you disapproved of breeding for other than working ability. I thought I understood what you were saying, but I realize now that I have no idea what you think border collies should be bred for.

 

>

 

Yes you did, but I didn't understand that either. What is the affidavit supposed to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen i certainly appreciate you and the time you put in and in aworld that is perfect almost totaly agree with you. How ever I feel it is the breeders and not Akc that are responsible for the standards and what they breed. I have some dogs that are AKc a lab a aussie and 1 Bc and i have aABCA bc.

Its people not AKc that change dogs Standards can be changed . I know of lots of Bcs that are in akc that do not look like Bcs that you see on TV. I thank all of the people on the boards I am learning tons and appreciate everones Time and effort .bobh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen,

 

What do you think are the politics of dual registration among ABCA board members? Are you the only opponent, or is there a strong minority that would be for it? What about the general membership? What do you think would happen if someone ran for a seat on the board with a platform of working to end dual registration?

 

Has the board discussed dual registration since the AKC decided to leave its studbook open in perpretuity? I have always been an outspoken opponent of dual registration, and I believe that the ABCA already has language in its registration requirements that ban it. When I first spoke out about it, some of the people who were in favor of the non-enforcement of the no-KC ancestry rule said that it was just a matter of time before the studbook was closed. While I hoped that was the case, I was skeptical based on the low numbers of Border collies being registered, and by the influential members of the BCSA who were not primarily interested in showing, but in the myth of the versatile Border collie.

 

I wonder if it would be woth revisiting the question in light of the new situation with the AKC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what I thought, too, Bill. I'd lose to see this revisited, soon.

 

Maybe we could write something up and make it available to the membership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bobh:

 

>

 

If I offer $1,000 to anyone who will do X, do I bear any responsibility for the upsurge of X in the world?

 

Bill:

 

 

Has the board discussed dual registration since the AKC decided to leave its studbook open in perpretuity? >>

 

Right after the AKC made that decision, I said that I thought this was a terrible development, and proposed that the board should discuss what action we could best take in view of it. I suggested four possibilities -- (1) ban dual registration; (2) exclude the offspring of AKC-registered dogs from registration (i.e., if you register an ABCA dog with the AKC, that dog retains its registration but its offspring cannot be registered); (3) exclude anyone who registers a border collie with the AKC from ABCA membership; (4) remove pedigrees from the registration papers (in the hope that AKC, which started out with no studbook and is putting one together based on the papers people submit for open registration, which they currently require to show a 3-generation pedigree, might decline to register dogs with no pedigree) -- and invited other suggestions. Two directors said they agreed we needed to do something and should discuss it in depth, one said we should poll the membership, and the rest were silent. Whether the silent ones don't see a problem, or see a problem and just feel hopeless about it and don't want to have to address this contentious and depressing subject yet again, I don't know. Probably some of both.

 

As for what would happen if someone ran for the board with a platform of ending dual registration, I've always attributed my election to my stand on dual registration. When I ran for the board, it was right after the intense debate in 2003, which fizzled out when no one on the board would make the motion, choosing instead to move for banning conformation champions. I was a strong proponent for banning dual registration in that debate, both publicly and on the committee that initially recommended it, and in my candidate statement (which are usually very bland) I said I was opposed to the AKC-ification of the border collie and supported taking action against dual registration. I was trying my best to make my candidacy a referendum on dual registration, but of course I can't say for sure that that's why I was elected. I've been told I got quite a few votes because of it, though. Other than that, I have no way of knowing how the membership feels, and neither does anyone else. There's a huge financial incentive to cater to the AKC market, and over time breeders will succumb to it, especially as they see those around them doing so and nobody seeming to care. I don't think we've gone too far down that road quite yet, but I could be wrong. And there will certainly come a time when it IS too late.

 

The Catch-22 of my election, of course, was that we had just been through a bruising debate, and there was no way the subject could be re-opened then. Maybe it could be pushed more now, in view of the AKC's action, but I don't think it will get anywhere unless the directors hear from the membership that people want it, or directors are elected who are committed to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen,

My apology if my response last night came across as being curt.

I had just come in from butchering an emu in less then ideal conditions and my fuse was abit short.

I see a distinction between the word "deplore" and "disagree" and felt words were being put in my mouth that I did not say.

 

My personal attitude as to what the Border Collie should be bred for Is that I disagree with any breeding that doesn't place working ability as the primary reason to breed.

 

As for the contents of a "Breeders Affidavit", well I think a document much along the lines of the Breeder/buyer aggreement that you refered to that you have used in the past,just geared more towards the breeder.

perhaps a mandatory breeder/buyer aggreement could also be included.

A signed statement from the breeder as to paticulars of the work preformed by the parent stock.

Photos or perhaps microchipping of the parent stock would not be an unreasonable request in this day and age.

A statement of compliance in regard to laws and ordinances pertaining to the breeding of dogs which may be in effect in the paticular region the breeder is located.

A statement clarifing why the breeder believes the breeding should take place.

The name and contact information of a local vet that if used for no other reason then an emercency.

What the breeder intends to do with offspring of the breeding.

---

These are just ideas that come to my mind and not being a breeder myself I am sure others who are could better formulate the content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
four possibilities -- (1) ban dual registration;
How would ABCA ever know that a dog is dual-registered, except by hearsay? After all, who is to know that "Bob ABCA 1234567" and "Stinking Bishop Roquefort on Milquetoast with whatever alphabet soup preceeding and succeeding AKC 1234567" are the same dog, except that somebody says it is?

 

(2) exclude the offspring of AKC-registered dogs from registration (i.e., if you register an ABCA dog with the AKC, that dog retains its registration but its offspring cannot be registered);
Again, outside of hearsay, how would you know? Does AKC include ABC registration numbers on a dog's papers? Does ABCA even have access to that information?

 

(3) exclude anyone who registers a border collie with the AKC from ABCA membership;
Again, how would ABCA ever know this except by hearsay? Would ABCA members feel compelled to "rat" on their acquaintances and friends who consorted with AKC?

 

(4) remove pedigrees from the registration papers (in the hope that AKC, which started out with no studbook and is putting one together based on the papers people submit for open registration, which they currently require to show a 3-generation pedigree, might decline to register dogs with no pedigree)
I think this would hurt the ABCA members and breeders more than the AKC, by denying them information that traditionally has been theirs with the registration of a dog. Could there be a way to make that information available to ABCA members that would not be available to AKC? I can't see how it could be done.

 

I am afraid the entire issue comes down to integrity. Options 1, 2, and 3 seem dependent on the "offending" person to voluntarily remove themselves and their dogs should they register and ABCA dog with AKC. I can only see that happening if someone's goal is simply to get a dog from the ABCA gene pool and put it entirely into the AKC gene pool. That might be the motivation for many people who can't find dogs within the AKC that have what it takes for stockwork and/or sports (as well as those who show ABCA-bred and dual-registered dogs in conformation). Otherwise, do we become an organization of "spies" ratting on those who dual-register?

 

AKC has not shown itself trustworthy as it and BCSA have repeatedly gone back on their expressed "agreements" with ABCA regarding the Border Collie breed. They are the 800# gorilla on the block and they don't have a problem throwing their weight around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to express my appreciation to All of you who have added to this thread.

No doubt that much of it has been a rehashing by you veteran members,but I do believe it has been very benefical and educational for those of us who have not been around quite so long.

It has added to my knowledge and for that I thank you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eileen,

 

I believe many of us here on this board know and understand what AKC is doing but many are just turning their heads and plugging their ears because many of them feel as though there is absolutely nothing they can do. I also believe many everyday Border collie owners also understand or could understand with the correct person explaining the problem to them.

 

I think the main problem is, none of us have any idea how to get something done about it or get the subject of this matter the fast attention it needs.

 

Just like you said, dual has been going on for way to long and the problem is getting larger and more noticeable with every passing litter of dual registered dogs.

 

So, for those of us who care and feel as though fighting dual registration is something of importance for this breeds survival as a superior dog, why don?t we united and do a protestation?

 

We could send out the papers and have people that hold the same feelings as us from every state take the papers around to current ABCA members or ABCA Border Collie owners for signatures.

 

If I am correct, even rescues would be willing to get in on it. For the large flow of dogs they are currently seeing is partly to blame on the AKCs influence and incorrect exposure of the breed.

 

Katelynn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having some trouble figuring out the current directors - culd be my flu-muddled brain. I think the web site is out of date? It doesn't match my newsletter:

 

Bruce Smart (President) - 2005**

20129, 8th Concession, RR 5

Alexandria, ON K0C 1A0

(613) 525-3473

[email protected]

 

 

Jim Swift (Vice President) - 2006 *

857 22 Road

Grand Junction, CO 81505

(970) 243-1982

[email protected]

 

Larry Burkes - 2005 *

HC 3

Paducah, TX 79248

(806) 492-3456

[email protected]

 

 

Dan Gill - 2006 *

6189 Hwy 51 S

Hernando, MS 38632

(662) 429-6304

[email protected]

 

Merle Newton - 2006 *

14200 Red Bank Rd.

Red Bluff, CA 96080

(530) 529-3700

[email protected]

 

 

Norma Brice - 2007 *

P.O. Box 371

Franklin Springs, GA 30639

(706) 245-7880

[email protected]

 

Mike Neary - 2007**

11723 S. 300 E.

Brookston, IN 47923

765-563-3982

[email protected]

 

 

Eileen Stein - 2006 *

P.O. Box 41

Shady Side, MD 20764

(301)261-9750

[email protected]

 

Robin Nuffer - 2005 *

1082 Cherry Lane

Emmett, ID 83617

(208) 365-7225

[email protected]

 

 

Susan Carvalho - 2007*

615 Lisle Rd..

Georgetown, KY 40324

(502) 867-1920

[email protected]

 

Martin Penfold - 2007 *

Box 359

Austin, MB Canada R0H 0C0

(204) 466-2904

[email protected]

 

 

Gary Westbrook- 2005*

10030 Foxbrook Lane

Benton, AR 72015

(501) 594-5612

[email protected]

 

Gary Westbrook and Larry Burkes were electedto a second term. Robin French and Kate Broadbent are new. So those are the only directors I don't have full contact info for, right?

 

I'm gonna write me some letters when I get over this rotten flu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue, a lot of the AKC records go by the sire and dam as well as the name of a dog. The AKC Border collie world is a VERY small one right now - it would be extremely hard to hide the fact that Bob and Stinking Bishop Milquetoast are the same, because Stinking Bishop Milquetoast would be listed that way on premiums and event listings (available on the AKC web site), the parents would be listed on the award web site - the name of while escapes me (Onofro?), but most people would know that that's "Bob," from such-and-such parents and that he's ABCA registered as well.

 

It would indeed be word of mouth but that's pretty reliable in such a small pond as the AKC Border cllie world. People dual register primarily to retain their connection to the working world for whatever reason, so those who continued to do it after whatever line is drawn, would have to do it secretly - then where would their bragging rights go? I'm not sure that makes sense but maybe someone will say it better . . .I'm REALLY going to bed now . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting thread. I have learned a lot about BCs and related issues from this board. I fully support keeping the Border Collie as a working breed. The Barbie Collie movement is a mistake.

 

My dog is a BC-Whippet-X, that I got from rescue as a puppy. From the BC side he inherited intelligence. From the Whippet side he has keen eyesight and is a great natural watchdog. He is also a mellow companion house dog. I feel very fortunate in having a dog with the characteristics that are most important to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rebecca - I named my hypothetical AKC dog in honor of the funniest name I ever heard, which I believe was from one of your posts ages ago - something about "Flying Gorgonzola". It just summed up my amusement at the contortions folks go through to name AKC and other show animals.

 

I had no idea that AKC sites, premiums, etc., would list parents. That would make it obvious that Milque's parents were ABCA-registered dogs, but would it actually identify Milque as being Bob ABC 1234567? Only the person who sold him to the AKC owners (if they remained the original purchasers) would know if Milque and Bob were one and the same.

 

Anyway, I just don't see how ABCA would be able to enforce these suggestions. I would like to see there be a complete separation between ABCA and AKC by permanent closure of the stud books, but I sure can't figure out how it could be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sue:

 

>

 

We would require the owner's certification of non-AKC registration on our registration applications. Falsification of certifications are subject to disciplinary action. Most people will not lie when they know that they could be proven to be liars and publicly exposed as such. Some will, but if they do, they will have to refrain from advertising that their dogs are dual-registered, refrain from providing AKC papers for the pups they breed, refrain from getting titles on their dogs, etc., because all those things would be evidence that they have lied. If they can't do any of those things, then most of the point of registering with the AKC is lost. We've had no trouble identifying dogs who get conformation championships even though their AKC name is different from their ABCA name -- owner's name, DoB, and name of sire and dam have been sufficient cross-references.

 

As for "ratting out," you can call it that if you like. If you saw a dog being beaten at a dog trial, in violation of the rule against dog abuse, would you be "ratting out" if you brought it to the attention of the HA? Are people who bring to our attention puppy millers' misrepresentations of parentage "ratting out"?

 

I think very few people will try to stay with the ABCA by lying. If they so strongly want to register with the AKC, I think they will just stop registering with the ABCA.

 

As for taking pedigrees off the registration form, of course we would provide the information in some other form that was not identifiable as an official registry document. It's not a great idea, and there's no guarantee it would work. AKC might well just drop its requirement of a 3-generation pedigree, or start accepting pedigrees handwritten on napkins. It is not my preferred course of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Becca, these are the current directors of the ABCA:

 

Mike Neary (President)

11723 S. 300 E

Brookston, IN 47923

(765) 563-3982

[email protected]

 

Jim Swift (Vice President)

857 22 Road

Grand Junction, CO 81505

(970) 243-1982

[email protected]

 

Norma Brice

P.O. Box 371

Franklin Springs, GA 30639

(706) 245-7880

[email protected]

 

Larry Burkes

HC 3

Paducah, TX 79248

(806) 492-3456

[email protected]

 

Susan Carvalho

615 Lisle Rd.

Georgetown, KY 40324

(502) 867-1920

[email protected]

 

Robin French

4535 Sugar Maple Rd.

Oxford, NC 27565

(919) 690-0683

[email protected]

 

Dan Gill

6189 Hwy 51 S

Hernando, MS 38632

(662) 429-6304

[email protected]

 

Merle Newton

14200 Red Bank Rd.

Red Bluff, CA 96080

(530) 529-3700

[email protected]

 

Martin Penfold

Box 359

Austin, MB Canada R0H 0C0

(204) 466-2904

[email protected]

 

Eileen Stein

P.O. Box 41

Shady Side, MD 20764

(301)261-9750

[email protected]

 

Gary Westbrook

10030 Foxbrook Lane

Benton, AR 72015

(501) 594-5612

[email protected]

 

Kate Broadbent has said that she's not able to serve, so the eastern Canada directorship is currently vacant.

 

If I have not managed to get an updated directors list and the minutes for the AGM and BoD meetings since 10/04 put up on the ABCA website by February 15, somebody take me out and shoot me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dual registration has been defended by some claiming they needed to register with AKC so they could compete in AKC sponsered agility trials. And though I can't recall where, I am sure I read that AKC had agreed to let BC registered with ABCA to compete even though not registered with AKC. Can anyone confirm or dispute this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that info Eileen. Umm, well, I don't think shooting would be in order because a)then we'd have two vacancies and :rolleyes: we'd lose one our shoe-in votes for a dula registration ban. We'll just sell you to a pet home, OK? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>

 

IronHorse, I don't mean to be curt either. I appreciate the thought you're giving to this, and I'm always glad when people perceive problems and care enough to want to solve them, or at least make things better. But I have to say this list seems very unrealistic to me, as well as largely pointless.

 

>

 

Do we really want to exclude good dogs from our registry because their owner is a handshake kinda guy rather than a contract kinda guy? Because that's what we'd be doing. If I wrote out a list of the best breeders of working dogs in North America today, I bet more than half of them do not use puppy sales contracts and would not be willing to use a puppy sales contract that was dictated to them by the registry. These are the people who founded the registry, and who the registry exists to serve. How would we, or you, or anyone, be better off if they did not register with us?

 

>

 

How detailed would it have to be? What work would be sufficient for registration and what work would be insufficient? Who would evaluate each and every application to decide if it was good enough for registration? And that's before you even get into the practicalities of enforcement.

 

>

 

Requiring permanent identification of dogs, either by tattoo or microchip, has been under consideration by the board. It would be good if the membership let the directors know their views on this.

 

>

 

Why? Why should this be a registry matter? I bet plenty of good breeders have no idea what if any laws or ordinances there are in their region. Why should the registry require conformance to laws we don't know either, and might not even approve of?

 

>

 

What passes and what fails, and who decides? Is "To improve the breed" good enough? How about "Because Shep has too little eye and Meg has too much, and I'm hoping the pups will be just right"?

 

>

 

For what possible purpose? Is it likely that, in an emergency, someone would contact the registry to ask us to look up the name of the vet listed on the breeder's registration application???

 

>

 

"Sell them." "Keep one and sell the rest." "Keep two and sell the rest." And suppose s/he ends up not doing what s/he intends to do? Is the registry supposed to take some action?

 

I really think a lot of this is an illustration of what I said earlier. Regulation for the sake of regulation is not a good thing. It should only be done if it's needed, if it's likely to be effective, and if its costs are not likely to exceed its benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps more puppies should be sold without papers. As someone who spays/neuters all my dogs,having papers is of no real concern for me. If there is a sport venue I want to participate in, I can just get an ILP # on my dog and compete to my hearts content. If I am correct, you don't have to have a registered dog to compete in USBCHA herding trials, so even if I had a dog that was capable of working sheep, and I was quick witted and agile enough for us to compete in sheep dog trials, registration papers would not be an issue. Most people I know that compete in sport venues have spayed or neutered their dogs. Very few of my friends have intact dogs of any breed. I truly agree with all of y'all about not breeding dogs of inferior working quality. I go to herding breeders because I want a smart healthy dog.

Share this post


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

I can't recall where, I am sure I read that AKC had agreed to let BC registered with ABCA to compete even though not registered with AKC. Can anyone confirm or dispute this?

Almost any dog that resembles a "specific breed" and is neutered can get an ILP - Indefinite Listing Privilege - with AKC that lets it compete in the sports venues - but does not permit it to compete in conformation (Even fully registered neutered dogs can't compete in conformation). Lots of dogs with unknown parentage of various "breeds" are competing in agility and obedience that way. But for those who are against anything to do with AKC or other kennel clubs (UKC), there are also other agility venues available to compete in - USDAA and NADAC don't require any breed registration.

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...