Whilst I do now wish to mention any names it is more than clear to me that ISDS collie people wish nothing more to be done with KC - they will make use of registrations to allow dogs to compete in agility/obedience and heaven forbid showing, so perhaps a stud dog will be dual registered... to allow ease for people from abroad to use his services... they do not wish the KC to have any further input into their registration.....although they are happy with current joint health schemes.

additionally as well as compulsory eye tests they are implementing compulsory DNA testing for CEA and microchipping before registration.

Folk I've talked to feel that the KC and anyone talking about KC extending their registrations is 'of no concern' to them.

We should be quite clear that the KC isn't the sole protector of registrations, of health etc and any discussion over expanding KC's remit should be considered carefully not seen as a blanket solution.  There are other reputable registers, not just ISDS but other working registers.... discussions over breeding and health should bear this in mind, it's not a 'one size fits all' situation.

Ok going to head back to my bunker (the ISDS people think I'm mad to even try and explain the situation) and I'm going to try not to be 'goaded' but as the other thread is (rightly perhaps) closed I wanted to provide feedback to what I was saying but which got somewhat spuriously sidetracked....

Well at least the Kennel club are happy to accept dogs onto their register who come from a bona-fide breed registry, so their really is not an issue.

The Kennel club are a multibreed/all breed registry where the ISDS are a breed/working dog registry, akin to a breed club.

As I understood it the Border collie was already a show dog in other countries before KC recognition, and the situation could not remain unresolved, as it would have been possible that showring enthusiasts would have brought these dogs in, and they could not have them as a foreign rare breed in their country of origin.

I do feel it is a bit strange for ISDS people to criticise KC bench dogs and breeders yet not have their dogs used to improve the breed if the dogs are better/more correct.  It is fortunate the KC do allow any ISDS dog to come on it's register for the good of the breed, albeit as a show and sports dog rather than purely a sheepdog.

Each to their own, and at least the situation is better than is some other breeds where the working dogs are very different from the show, and very few of the working side take part in health testing.

As for the third group of Non KC or ISDS registered BC/WSD dogs registered on Activities register, the situation is similar with low uptake of health tests.

The Activity register was never really designed for breeding, and to breed and register puppies on it does cause confusion.  It could, and I am sure sometimes has been used in order to register dogs and pups that can't legitimately be registered on the breed register, in order that the dog has more perceived value with 'papers'.

Not sure why you feel that ISDS people don't 'use their' dogs to 'improve' the breed... don't forget that initially all show dogs came from ISDS and many did both, or at least had dogs and did a variety with them.... however as with most breeds there has become quite a gap  between 'working' and 'showing' and few dogs now do both 'jobs', many working dogs would be 'laughed' out of the ring.  It is the case of show people picking their dogs rather than ISDS not wanting them used.... 

The ISDS made it a 'condition' of the KC recognising border collies that the register would remain 'open' to working dogs on ISDS register - a good thing I have to agree, but not down to the KC who tend to view them as 'those dogs' or that was what they said when I rang up about my dual registered dogs... 'oh is he one of those dogs?' which I thought was rather rude. 

A lot of show dogs here now have come full circle from dogs exported to Australia in the early 20th century.

I can only agree with you about the activity register - but some dogs on this register have now been accepted onto the 'breed' register through the new opening of the registers.  Additionally if a pedigree is 'known' and the dog will work sheep it could be registered 'on merit' with the ISDS and thus become eligible for KC registry.

> as the other thread is (rightly perhaps) closed

I thought the colour genetic thread was closed, not the ISDS/Collie registration one *puzzled*

> but some dogs on this register have now been accepted onto the 'breed' register through the new opening of the registers.

Is that such a bad thing, when so many breeds are suffering from limited gene pools? Mainly caused (in this country) by our strict quarantine laws which were in force for so long.

> A lot of show dogs here now have come full circle from dogs exported to Australia in the early 20th century.

Yes they were, but in your opinion, where has the Australian Red come from? A spontaneous mutation, or from crossing to other breeds? If I'm not mistaken, we didn't have that colour present in our root-stock, so that's admitting some extramural crossing, which we have now allowed into the breed register.

I have relatives in trialling but haven't - and wouldn't - ask their opinion.

I think you have to differentiate KC staff from the Kennel club, as in many organisations the Office staff are not necessarily involved other than their jobs.

So the comment > 'oh is he one of those dogs?' which I thought was rather rude.

Was more likely to do with some aspect of their clerical work with the database, not a comment on merits of any particular line within a breed.

Interestingly I was invited by KC office staff to take part in a GSD showcase in the kennel Gazette, yet have never owned or bred GSD's. 

I think it a shame that in the UK we have this gulf between working and show type in many breeds that still work.  The truth is probably in the middle, a working dog ought to look typical of it's breed and show dogs still have working instincts.

My own breed dogs cannot become show champions unless they pass hunting tests, but equally a dog cannot become a hunting champion unless it conforms closely to correct breed type, and can be graded Excellent.  This prevents a division in type, though unfortunately it does prevent people who do not hunt from having the breed, so it is a bit male dominated.

It is interesting to see for example Scandinavian English Setters, they a e not dripping in coat like our show dogs.

just to discuss colours briefly - ISDS haven't a 'good' track record of keeping a note of colours (as it's not seen as important) - working dogs have tended to be preferred to be mostly black and white, tri... anything other than this tends not to have been 'noted', merle's weren't particularly popular, neither were dilute nor even brown/red...

colours in australia and new zealand have been much more 'open' in records and rather than bred 'out' they have been bred 'for'.  Additionally it may well be that dogs exported were good workers, but maybe had some 'faults' which confirmed their choice.  This is why dilutes, and true red have 'come out' there... also of course CL which is unheard of here, although TNS is in both sets of dogs

it's known that wiston cap was a carrier of brown/red and the fact that he's in practically every dog's pedigree in UK dogs is one reason (other being desire) for the huge increase in those coloured dogs.  another ch is a known carrier of dilute - but the fact that ISDS don't note dilute means it's more difficult to 'find' the dilute gene in UK working line dogs... and this is why true red is more common in aussie dogs... being recessive it may be found here, but we may not know where.  More may 'come out' in the future with an increase of true red in dogs in UK (although the line also carries glaucoma so much care is needed)