Wandering around the internet now planning is over for me & the sheep are all back out on the hills grazing, I came across a discussion about converting a dogs KC activities register to full breed register & changing the breed from WSD to BC.

What has confused me is that the aforesaid dogs pedigree on the KC website is totally blank & no details of breeding or siblings recorded along with their health testing.

Is this correct ? There are three stars against the dogs name which indicates the conversion, but surely details of parentage & siblings(of which there are several) should be recorded, one sibling is an Obedience Champion & the dam has a 1 ED score(& shouldn't have been bred from IMHO). No clinical eye testing is shown on another database another big nono for me.

There are other health issues that there are no DNA tests for, but don't appear to have been clinically tested for either.

Do the KC not record the pedigrees for these converted dogs or has the owner simply not supplied the information to the KC. Just curious as I have been sent a copy of the dog's pedigree which is "interesting" to say the least health condition wise !

According to the KC forms if the dog is isds registered the owner needs to supply a copy of its reg certificate and pedigree. The form itself you must put in the parents and grand patients in. The notes also say this Info along with any other Info connected to the dog submitted like health tests would be displayed on mykc.
I would guess health tests done before the dog was on the breed register would need to be sent to the KC to be recorded by them.

There is no mention of having *** by the name with this, however the dogs of unverified parentage scheme does use the *s and would have a blank pedigree. With this scheme an accepted dog has *** by its name, it's offspring has ** and those dogs offspring have *. After that no stars on further generations.

Are you sure this dog has been registered using the isds kc agreement rather than the dogs of unverified parentage scheme?

Tommee made no mention of ISDS pedigree she is talking about a dog that has been added by the unverified parentage scheme from the activities register. However the parentage seems to be known so should it have been added?

Where did I mention the dog/bitch being ISDS registered ? I know that ISDS dogs can automatically be KC reg by using the agreement between the ISDS & KC from when the KC first opened their registry to a "new"breed of Border Collies.

This is a dog/bitch previously registered as a WSD on the activities register & converted to a Border Collie using the £100, two Breed CC awarding judges, DNA profiling & ABS health testing scheme. In other words because it looks like a Border Collie it is one.

It's pedigree is totally blank all noted unknown & no siblings on it's entry either despite have siblings from the same litter being WSDs on the activities register.

Totally ridiculous especially because there are known health issues with dogs in the pedigree especially off the 5 generations behind this dog/bitch. This is why there are *** now behind it's name, which reduce to ** after this dogs progeny, then * after this dog's progeny's progeny & disappearing on the 3 generation's registrations. Instead of improving the very "small"gene pool of Borde Collies, IMHO this is a retrograde step.

I just asumed being down as a working sheepdog it would be isds, you never mentioned which scheme it got on the breed register threw so I just asumed the most common way would be the one you were talking about. Sorry.

From what I can find an owner just needs to supply a letter to say how they got the dog so I guess it's possible the owner didn't supply the dogs pedigree or they did and kc does not display/recognise the unregistered parents on these dogs accepted threw the scheme (like how import dogs past the 3rd gen will say unknown). If either case is right the KC database would then not recognize this 'new' BC as being related to its WS siblings.

Out of curiosity, is the dog in question isds registered?

Nope its a pure KC activities reg dog for a good few generations. If it was an ISDS registered dog it would have been registered by the KC as a BC. There are NO BCs on the activities register since BCs were recognized in the 1970s.

What is very strange is the owner is the breeder of the dog & it's mother & is the only one at the moment on the full breed register from the litter. They haven't converted the mother to a BC & the sire is a very well known stud & top winning Obedience WSD. Why they have done this I have my suspicions but I have no proof.

FYI an ISDS registration certificate reads Working Sheepdog(or Border Collie) not Border Collie alone. An ISDS registered dog would not need it's registration converting to Border Collie at the KC nor does it cost £100, no one has to say it looks like a BC & they do not require all the ABS health tests done. They just require a certified ISDS 5 generation pedigree, the ISDS registration certificate(or it's parents ISDS certificates & their pedigrees) & the special BC KC registration form, which explains which dogs qualify for automatic KC registration on the full breed register. Did you know non ISDS registered offspring of ISDS registered dogs can be KC registered on the full KC breed register, as can the offspring of a KC registered bitch & an ISDS dog.

"Border Collie
Last Updated 1st August 2017

The Kennel Club would accepted the registration of a Border Collie on the Breed Register when -

The dog is registered with the ISDS (International Sheep Dog Society)
Or, both parents are registered with the ISDS
Or, the dam is registered with the ISDS and the sire is registered on the Breed Register"

The KC hold a copy of the ISDS database

KC activities WSD are not the product of unregistered offspring of ISDS dogs for whatever reason(the usual one is the owners of the parents are not ISDS members)they are mainly dogs that allegedly look like a BCs but have unknown pedigrees & often other breeds/mongrels in their pedigree. You could register any dog as a WSD or any breed other than a BC on the activities register & they will be accepted as such. I have a dog of unknown breeding from Ireland who is a brilliant worker & clearly is a WSD as he can control Herdwicks one of the hardest breed of sheep to work as they are very difficult & have beaten many an ISDS trialling dog. He isn't very pretty & I doubt as conformation judge would consider him to be a BC par se, but I have turned down offers to buy him based on the quality of his working ability & no I do not use my dogs at stud especially my rescues.

> KC activities WSD are not the product of unregistered offspring of ISDS dogs for whatever reason(the usual one is the owners of the parents are not ISDS members)they are mainly dogs that allegedly look like a BCs but have unknown pedigrees & often other breeds/mongrels in their pedigree.

> I have a dog of unknown breeding from Ireland who is a brilliant worker & clearly is a WSD as he can control Herdwicks one of the hardest breed of sheep to work

It may be the way I am reading your post but those two statements seem to contradict each other? My KC activity registered WSD is also an Irish rescue, who did work sheep (and cattle) and has a known parentage, grandparents and greatgrandparents and I personally believe that his registration as a WSD on the activities register is the correct way of recording him.

Just out of interest what would your preferred wording for "breed"  on the activities regester be for such dogs?  You obviously have a lot of knowledge and very firm beliefs on what constitutes a particular breed and I am genuinely interested in your views of how such dogs should be labelled on the AR? My unregistered dog has a known lineage, was fit for purpose and most certainly resembles a BC ( I am not trying to be controversial - just interested).

I have no problems with real WSD like the Irish dogs that clearly are WSD being registered as such on the KC activities register. However some of the dogs in the past are known to have other breeds behind them(& can think of a long deceased obedience champion who was registered with the KC as a WSD however the dog had a Labrador as a maternal grandsire making the dog a cross breed & not a WSD. The dog did look like a WSD & using the route this breeder has gone down could, if he was still alive, today be converted to a full breed register BC.)

However my main concern is serious known health issues behind the dog that has just be registered as a BC. Instead of improving the health of the KC breed, the breeder has introduced a serious inherited health condition for which there is no clinical or DNA test into a breed that already has enough known multiple producers & lines in existence. If they have deliberately not supplied the KC with pedigree information in order to hide the known producers & lines behind their dog they are being extremely devious & I wonder why the KC has allowed this ?

I fully understand your concerns with the dog in your post - was just wondering how you would like to see dogs (BC types ) registered on the KC Activity register?

I am hugely in support of all possible health testing being done for any dog that is to be used for breeding and have met many dogs who have suffered from debilitating hereditary conditions who should just never have been bred in the first place. I actually owned one such rescue - a crossbreed - who had lots of problems, BYB bred and a serial return to rescue until he came to me.

If the breeding is known & all sheepdogs for a minimum of 5 generations behind the dog or the dog has proven it can work sheep or stock then WSD is ok. The ability to work would not be a trial but simply show instinctive behaviour to work in the opinion of a sheepdog handler.

Otherwise they should be cross breed or WSD X or type I rescued a "WSD" from a local all breed rescue & he too was a multiple bounce back. He isn't a WSD he's a spitz type cross, his behaviour is typical spitz & now he's an adult, he resembles a huge tip eared Mittel German spitz. He is a mongrel/cross breed simple as that. However he could with the right friendly breed judges pass for a WSD/BC & ergo a BC. & join the KC breed register.

Now I have a medium coated ISDS bitch who is my main work dog, not a coat type that is ever seen in the show ring plus she is white & black. I would be pushed to find 1 breed judge let alone 2 that would agree she is s BC. She is fully health tested(as well as parental DNA profiled)& from an impeccable bloodline & I have yet to find stock she cannot work, but if she had no ISDS registration she wouldn't be able to be KC registered. This is were the registering without pedigree information is so wrong especially for a non endangered breed like the BC

> What is very strange is the owner is the breeder of the dog & it's mother & is the only one at the moment on the full breed register from the litter. They haven't converted the mother to a BC & the sire is a very well known stud & top winning Obedience WSD. Why they have done this I have my suspicions but I have no proof.

At £100 a time I'd guess they would only do it for a dog that is to be used in a kc border breeding program, or if it's a male so it can be used at stud and produce registable pups so more attractive to kc bitch owners and non kc bitch owners, or they wish to show in Confromation?

At £100 a time I'd guess they would only do it for a dog that is to be used in a kc border breeding program, or if it's a male so it can be used at stud


Oddly enough the dog concerned is a female & TBH the wrong colour to do well in breed shows(i.e. not black & white)& from what I have seen being successful in breed shows not the current fashion(massive coat, tipped ears etc)

I was astounded to learn a few years back that KC AR registered pups from non health tested parents were costing £100s more than KC BCs from health tested parents these too came from a litter that was bred to dogs that produced life threatening health conditions & sadly at least 2 succumbed to the condition. I just despair at times

> or they wish to show in Confromation?

or they wish to compete in Obedience abroad where only dogs on the breed are allowed to compete.

There are many within the kc breed who dont care for this method of adding to the breed register for alot of the reasons you mention. The method was thought to be a good way of increasing gene pools and for one breed I have an interest in I can see its value as they are a native vunerable breed that needs to look outside the kc breed  to keep a healthy gene diversity. However BC's do not have the traditional closed gene pool of other breeds ISDS lines can and have been used within the breed as you are well aware, so I do question the need for this route to be available. I must add I am not aware of the bitch concerned so this is just my general opinion.

Answering Brainless. This can also apply to a lot of the FCI agility competitions

The owner/breeder would not be competing abroad as FCI obedience is very different to UK KC obedience & they do not do agility

Sorry to sidetrack the thread, but can someone explain to me how the different breed names actually apply?  I've never quite gotten my head round it.  I have two collies here, one money-bred (tiny scale puppy farm type thing) and one accidental but both purebred, but neither KC reg.  Willow is working line type, from farm stock (on the sire's side, at least).  What should I actually be calling them?  They're not on the activity register either, I'm just curious as to how they would be categorised!

The KC treat all unregistered BC type dogs as WSD.

The ISDS register their dogs as Working Sheepdogs(or Border Collies).

Traditionally Border Collies descend from dogs born in the borderlands between Scotland & England( not Wales as one internet source states) all others are actually Working Sheepdogs.

Confusing isn't it.

I would call yours WSD unless they were born in Border Country but that's just my opinion

Ah ok, I understand.  Thanks.