Complaint Review: American Border Collie Association

 The American Border Collie Associated was founded in 1982 as a member-owned, democratically ran Border Collie Registry. However, in January 2016, President Dr. Mike Neary, and the Board of Directors of the American Border Collie Association took it upon themselves to publish a list on the ABCA’s website equal to that of the McCarthy era blacklist. The general membership did not vote or otherwise have a say on the matter. Thus, the elected officers decided amongst themselves that the registry should be an oligarchy that is just as fair as the Inquisition.

In a newsletter dated November 2015, the Minutes form the Annual Membership Meeting held at York Ranch, Alturas, CA on September 24th, 2015 Stated:

“A list of Breeders that have registered more than 30 dogs per calendar year will be posted on the ABCA. This equates to about 5 to 6 litters per year, a level that good working dog breeders don’t produce annually.  To be very clear that the ABCA doesn’t condone or encourage high volume output of Border Collies, the following statement will appear in conjunction with the list:

The ABCA does not endorse high volume breeders. The main purpose of the ABCA is to protect and promote the working Border Collie. Good working Border Collie Breeders are not high volume breeders.  It is the intent of the ABCA to encourage Breeders to use livestock working ability as the primary criteria to select potential breeding stock.  This is very difficult to do when breeding at a high volume rate.  For further information on this topic please see ABCA’s publication; Code of Ethics and Best Practices.”

The above statement and the vague Code of Ethics and Best Practices was not issued and published until November 2015, and the list published in January 2016 was generated using numbers from 2014.

The above statements and actions are morally wrong for the following reasons:

1. High volume breeders can and do produce good working dogs. Breeders such as Kevin Evans and Derek Scrimgeour, are high volume breeders, and if they would have registered their dogs with the ABCA-they would be at the top of the list. Many working Border Collie breeders, including certain board of director members, have imported dogs from said men or other “high volume” breeders from overseas as they breed working dogs for a living.  Please google the “Active ISDS Border Collie Breeders List”. Hence, disproving the credibility of the statement: “Good working Border Collie Breeders are not high volume Breeders.”

2. The ABCA issued a list going back to 2014 of alleged “high volume breeders” which included breeders that did NOT have five or six litters per year, but instead three or four uncharacteristic large litters, and persons who do not produce any puppies annually. The result was said breeders were purposefully shamed along with breeders that are classified as high volume breeders according to the ABCA’s own vague definition. The ABCA also decided to publish numbers at 30 as opposed to more than 30 as stated in the newsletter. Also, the ABCA made the choice to purposefully slander members in good standing in order to sway potential working dog buyers to not purchase from said breeders because the working ability of a dog somehow “magically disappears”  if said breeder produces 30 or more pups per year. Based on the ABCA's statement, other animals, such as sheep, goats, cattle, horses, also must mysteriously lose their genetic potential if 30 or more animals are produced on the same farm in a calendar year.  Respectively, the competence of the ABCA and Board of Directors is questionable at best if that is their belief.

3. The statement “The ABCA does not endorse high volume breeders” also has no credibility because if the ABCA did not endorse the breeders listed, then the ABCA should not have voluntarily accepted their registration fees or issued promotional money to any of the breeders. If their intention was to shame said breeders-they needed to have given said breeders an advanced warning prior to shaming them.  The result would have been either the breeders would have had the option to either “conform to the ABCA’s new standards of a good breeder” or to use a more reputable registry such as the ISDS, which was established around 1906, or have their names slanderously posted.  

As a result of this unfair ruling by the American Border Collie Association, working dog breeders, including, but not limited to ranchers and farmers are considering the statements issued from the ABCA as what the list truly is-slander- as they themselves do support the working Border Collie. The ABCA has made it clear that they do not care if persons on the list do produce good working dogs, as the ABCA will NOT spend the time or resources to visit their facilities or to see their dogs in action. The ABCA claims to support working dogs, but many of the Board of Directors simply trial or farm as a mere hobby.

 Other persons that do not have the time or resources to trial their dogs to a high level in the USBCHA or if the persons are otherwise not in their clique-then they and their dogs are automatically inferior and they are shunned or treated poorly. The ABCA will also not put forth the effort or funds to create a searchable database or create a “Reputable Breeders List” or even publish everyone’s records to allow potential buyers to make their own informed decision- which also usually includes coming to the breeders’ farm or watching the breeders’ dogs work. The integrity of the list is also questionable, as at least one board of director member advertises “several litters” per year, yet the person’s name is not featured on the blacklist.

The ABCA claims that it is merely a list of high volume breeders and their libel statements in fact mean nothing more. Yet, Attorney and current Board of Director member, Eileen Stein discredited this statement herself when she stated on December 21^st, 2015 that “Also, the ABCA Board was very concerned that this list of highest quantity breeders not be misinterpreted by the public as a list of our most experienced breeders---i.e., a list of breeders one should look to when seeking to buy a Border Collie puppy. To ensure that it would not be interpreted as an official “ABCA list of breeders”---something we are often asked for—we had to append some pretty harsh language to it.  I don’t really think it would be appropriate to append such language to a list of popular sires.”

Consequently, the ABCA violated their own vague “Code of Ethics and Best Practices” regarding advertising, as the statement has proven to be misrepresentative, fraudulent, and/or misleading. Attorney Eileen Stein is aware that defamation is very hard to prove, and therefore the list remains despite numerous members’ opposition to the list. It should be added, that Attorney Eileen Stein is known for stating her “opinions”. Her opinions commonly reflect the idea that she doesn’t care about the sentiments of unknown farmers or otherwise unknown people in general.  Instead of taking the time to develop "standards" for a reputable breeder's list, they instead chose their common negative approach. 

The USBCHA board of directors also cast an unequally unfavorable vote amongst themselves regarding allowing an AKC judge to judge the USBCHA Finals. The ABCA board of directors quickly stated that such a decision should have been decided on a majority, and members should have been alerted before the rule was changed.  The rule allowing an AKC judge to judge the USBCHA Finals was quickly overturned as a result, but the ABCA refuses to change what it did to its own members. The ABCA hates the AKC since they are “ruining” the Border Collie Breed by developing breed "standards."  Considering the ABCA is already beginning to set their own breeding standards- the thought process of the ABCA is very peculiar. For another example, other than the slanderous list, a Border Collie that just so happens to be any color other than a traditional black and white Border Collie is accused of being the result of color breeding.  Traditional black and white Border Collies are predominate on the trial field because the owner would be subject to ridicule as a result.

It seems it will be a matter of time before the ABCA is classified as a hate group equal to that of an animal activist group. Perhaps the ABCA should stand for "Against Border Collie Advocates" instead of the "American Border Collie Association", as the ABCA doesn't seek to find common ground- the love of the working Border Collies. The ABCA instead seeks to support and promote hatred among breeders of working Border Collies that do not "conform" to their magic numbers or that don't have a place within their "elite group".

The list needs to be removed entirely.  The ABCA is well-known for punishing members without conducting proper investigations or so forth on the accused member's behalf- view their website-they intentionally place an emphasis on all of their negative news, and they rarely place an emphasis on anything positive.  If the American Border Collie Association decides a member is not following their vague rules or if they simply do not like a member-then that member will be publically shamed and "convicted" by the ABCA without "a right to a trial" basically. This is exactly what the ABCA did to the breeders featured on their blacklist.

The ABCA claims they started the list as an "innovative approach to puppy mills". Yet, if the ABCA were to take the time to ask for local references, such as the breeders’ licensed veterinarians, people that actually went to that individuals’ property and purchased a puppy, people that have watched dogs that the breeders' in question have bred work-it contradicts what the ABCA boldly claims.  The ABCA has made it clear that it is above them to waste their time doing the above. For that reason, the ABCA must possess a crystal ball- as they stated that "high volume breeders are not good breeders" without desiring to visit or question any of the breeder's listed. As such, the ABCA is more of a dictatorship as what they say is law, and members are afraid of any repercussions if they speak out against the ABCA. An unjust law is not an enforceable law, and it is about time the ABCA is held responsible for their irresponsible actions.

 The American Border Collie Association and the Board of Directors outright refuse to directly answer any questions regarding the list in an attempt to personally protect themselves, as the ABCA and their officers can be personally sued for their bold act of defamation. Since Attorney Eileen Stein is aware defamation would be difficult to prove, and she is also aware that most members of the ABCA do not have deep pockets-consequently the list remains.

Some contradicting questions include: Why do some of the Board of Directors have jobs outside of farming, and yet their own dogs are considered “working dogs” because they simply trial and farm as a hobby? Is it also wrong to make a living farming-as it is to make a living breeding working dogs?  (Hence a possible reason why animal activists are harassing people listed on the blacklist-and the officers of the ABCA currently accept no liability despite the fact that they stabbed their own members in good standing in the back.) If it is wrong to make a “living” breeding working Border Collies, like many of the persons listed probably do, then why is the secretary of the ABCA receiving a higher than normal wages ($72,000 as of 2014) for her secretarial services for the ABCA? Do sheep, goats, cattle, horses, etc also magically lose their genetic potential because 30 or more animals are produced on the same farm in a calendar year? How does the ABCA not endorse “high volume breeders” when they freely and voluntarily accepted registration fees from them only to slander them after it was decided in September 2015 to make a blacklist going back to 2014? How did they determine the magic number of 30 when several reputable ISDS breeders frequently go over that number? (Google Active ISDS Border Collie Breeders) Why wasn’t statics released for general membership to review prior to setting a magic number? How were members supposed to know of the magic number in advance? Why wasn’t the membership and breeders issued a warning prior to being slandered? Why was the new Code of Ethics not released until 2015 yet they slandered breeders going back to 2014? Why wasn’t the general membership given a chance to vote on the idea prior to slandering members? Why does the ABCA and Board of Directors refuse to inform members when the next Board of Directors meeting will be held? Why will the minutes not be posted on the ABCA’s website? Why does the minutes posted in the newsletter dated November 2015 contradict what was posted on the ABCA’s website in January 2016? If the purpose of the list is to make numbers of puppies from a breeder more transparent- why not list everyone along with the numbers produced? Why is the ABCA not willing to disclose information members are entitled to by law-such as a membership listing? Why is the ABCA afraid of the time and money required to update the registry to the 21st century?

The current American Border Collie Association Officers and Board of Directors are as follows:

President Dr. Mike Neary, Currently Employed by Purdue University, address of (((REDATED))). Dr. Mike Neary is above everyone, and his condescending attitude to nearly anyone that questions the list is a reflection of this opinion. He has the ability to remove the list, but he agrees with the listing. He also uses a Purdue University email account to handle his personal business such as to correspond with persons questioning the list-though he now typically doesn’t respond and if he does it is quite negative in nature.

ABCA Secretary Debbie Bailey of GA, listed as earning approximately $72,000 in 2014 according to the ABCA’s newsletter.  If it is wrong to make a “living” with anything pertaining to working Border Collies, like many of the persons listed probably do, it is odd that the secretary is paid about double for the average pay for secretaries in her area. The median average pay of secretaries in GA as of 2016 is only about $35,816. It should be noted that Debbie Bailey stated herself that the list is slanderous in nature. She can currently be reached directly for comment by calling the ABCA.

Vice President Warren Mick of (((REDACTED))) Vice President Warren Mick has voiced his displeasure regarding breeders in general, especially one breeder on that list in particular-hence his refusal to remove the list.

Peg Anderson of (((REDACTED)))- She did not respond.

Allison Jarrard of (((REDACTED)))- Shedid not respond

Sonia Craig of (((REDACTED)))-fully supports the new standards, but she could not state reasons defending her stance.

Emil Luedecke of (((REDACTED)))- He did not respond

Dennis Gellings of (((REDACTED)))-He did not respond.

Patrick Shannahan, Red Top Kennels, (((REDACTED)))-He was against the list.

Mike Hanley of (((REDACTED))) He did not respond.

Jamie Spring, Silver Spring Border Collies, (((REDACTED))) 605-. She was against the list.

Allen Hickenbottom, (((REDACTED))) He did not respond.

Attorney and BC Boards Moderator Eileen Stein (((REDACTED)))- She fully supports the list, and she is well known for going on similar witch hunts.

As stated by Board of Director member, Sonia Craig, on the FaceBook page, Cattle Dog Only, when she was avoiding answering questions by highly perturbed farmers and ranchers “The ABCA is a club you are free to join or not join, register, or not register, it is your choice.  Everyone has been and is welcome. “ Therefore, if you are not a member of the American Border Collie Association, please become one, and let your voice be heard regarding blacklist.

(Caution: if you are a breeder, it is recommended to use another more reputable association to register your working dogs with to avoid any potential repercussions as a result. )

The above was written as an “opinion” and it is protected by the 1^st Amendment. It is also the same method the ABCA is using to defend their slanderous list. The author of this report is an unknown and mere farmer that possesses common sense. Intrinsically, the author wishes to remain 100% anonymous to avoid any hostility that would result from the ABCA due to their malicious track record.