Talk:Breed registry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit comments - comment history - watch comments · refresh this page) Very good, comprehensive and complete article.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
	This article is within the scope of the Horse breeds task force.

	Agropedia Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Agriculture, which collaborates on articles related to agriculture. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) Very good, comprehensive and complete article.

Contents 1 questionable wild animal registry 2 registry not associated with a breed or kennel club 3 Working dog registers use KP? 4 ROM don't look like anything?! 5 Define "Breed registry"

[edit] questionable wild animal registry

In the section on questionable registries referencing "at least one" which claims to recognize wild animal breed/species clubs and register wild animal individual specimens, I didn't give the example -- which is the IPBA, through their IPEBA subsidiary. Three reasons: one, the IPBA wants to do this, but apparently has had no luck actually doing so; two, didn't want to target the IPBA because there's surely some other group(s) out with the same idea; three, to avoid attracting the IPBA's attention and possible revisionism. -- Lisasmall 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] registry not associated with a breed or kennel club

For an example of a registry not associated with a breed or kennel club, the "Field Dog Stud Book" is a registry of field and hunting dogs that is maintained by a magazine publisher. (AKC recognizes FDSB registration for all sporting dogs except the Irish Setter.) --jdege 22:31, 2005 Feb 23 (UTC)

[edit] Working dog registers use KP?

.(!<--!I'm not sure whether or not this is completely true; do working dog registers use a KP? -->) I won't pretend to speak for all working dog registries. But among JRTC owners registry names and nicknames are often both used. My Bear's name is "Moose Cavern Kennel's Grizzly Bear", but we call him "Bear". That said, the registry names can't get as complicated are common in the AKC. The JRTC registry name is the kennel prefix plus the dog's name, and the name can be at most fifteen characters, including no more than one space. --jdege 22:19, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have been more specific--I was actually thinking more of sheepdogs and the like; where the dogs have to be called a simple, working name--and wondering if their registration papers contained KPs? Quill 23:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wait a sec--15 characters inc. one space? Then how do you end up with "Moose Cavern Kennel's Grizzly Bear"?? Quill 23:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

With the JRTC, the name is 15 characters, and his name is Grizzly Bear. The Kennel prefix is separate and isn't included.

I don't think one can draw too many hard-and-fast rules, here. Bear's pedigree is full of names both simple and fancy: Lady Mabiline of Moose Cavern, Briarpatch Rio of Hines Hill, Paxton Tequilla, Bess, Gin, and Scrap. Different people do different things.

--jdege 16:56, 2005 Apr 8 (UTC)

As I said, I was thinking of herding dog registries, where it is stated in the rules that the names have to be no-nonsense. JRTs are an interesting case. Maybe update to include the fact that independent registries have their own rules? Quill 23:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More--gave it a tweak and think it's more comprehensive now.Quill 05:39, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROM don't look like anything?!

Wait a second! So I can take a koolie into the sheep trials of a Border Collie working dog registry and if it does well, register it as a Border Collie?

I seem to remember reading at one of those sites that you had to have some proof of ancestry for registering a working Border Collie, (both parents working BCs--might even have required two generations) and also health tests, and also that some clubs will not allow a registered show dog to compete.

The way the section is written now, one would believe that one could bring any well-trained dog in and register it as a sheep dog; I don't believe that is the case.

Rewrite needed!

Quill 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed the case that if your dog wins three National sheepdog trials (and passes some health checks) they will register it as a Border Collie. Doesn't matter if it is a poodle or a pug. However, to win the Nationals requires the right genetics, almost exclusively found in border collies. Training is important, but the dog has to have the genetics first. Only dogs bred from border collies are likely to have the right genetics, so only dogs bred from border collies have a chance of winning. The chance of even qualifying a poodle or pug for the a Nationals is zero. The extreme nature of the performance test takes care of eliminating dogs that don't look something like a border collie; you can't get the performance genes without getting the conformation genes as well.

It is the case for the ABCA that the Board of Directors must vote to register a dog on merit. There's no assurance that they would vote to register a pug, but there is no formal rule preventing it. In practice it is a hypothetical question, because form follows function. Dsurber 15:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the koolie page. Doesn't look that different from a BC. Given the herding background, if you found one that had a strong eye, the dog might do well in a Nationals. The sheepdog men I know would be happy to register such a dog.

A lot of people don't get ROM. These guys really don't care what the dog looks like. The only thing they care about is the dog's ability to work. For the most part they are always happy to breed to a strong working dog that is healthy. That really is all they care about. Pretty is as pretty does. Dsurber 15:50, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Define "Breed registry"

I don't think a registry is identical to a stud book, as this article implies... looking up breed registry on the web, it refers to organizations that either oversee one breed or oversee many breeds; they may sponsor shows and whatnot. A stud book is a stud book; "Stud book" should be a separate article, I think.--Hafwyn (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. A stud book is a tool for registry kept by a breed registry (organization). They are not one and the same. VanTucky 18:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, and have been meaning for a while to do something about this redirect, but ... not a lot of time! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

We could throw some verbiage in here to that effect as at least a temporary fix. I'd be curious to see if the original stud book article had much in it. If it sat around as a stub for ages, then it might have been appropriate to merge here. Another thought is to expand the section specifically describing stud books as a subsection of a breed organization until or unless it gets ong enough to break back out again. (though I could also argue that a horse is "registered" in a "stud book," and so there are some semantics that could be fussed over) I guess I'm in no hurry to take this one on, but have no objection to some language in the article clarifying matters a bit. Montanabw^(talk) 02:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

One of the major problems with this article as is, is that it is too dog and horse specific. For horses the registry and stud book may be synonymous, but there are some animals that have registries and standards, but no stud book for individual animals. So separating the two is a factor in keeping the article from focusing too much on horses. VanTucky 04:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothing stopping anyone from expanding the article. If the cat fanciers and whomever want to add to it, I see no problem with expanding the article to encompass various registries (there are cattle and sheep registries too), I just don't have the time or interest at the moment to do anything about it, personally. I noticed that the purebred dog article uses the term "stud book", but I don't know the dog world, so no clue if that's correct for them or not. "Stud book" is sort of colloquial within the horse world, pretty much all stud books are contained within a breed organization, so I am personally OK with keeping the term redirected here, but I also don't care all that deeply. I guess my feeling is that if other animals feel dissed, it's their responsibility to nag their owners to edit wiki and fix it! (LOL!) Montanabw^(talk) 05:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)