# What a piece of $&(@^! (Mini Aussie proposal and the AKC)



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

AKC= American Kennel Club
USASA= United States Australian Shepherd Club
ASCA= Australian Shepherd Club of America
NAMASCUSA= North American Miniature Australian Shepherd club of the USA
FSS= Foundation Stock Service

UGH!!! This is just soo........agh!!

*Proposal things I have a HUGE issue with!*
Any dog who is ILP/PAL registered with the AKC as an Australian Shepherd and is under 18" will be reclassified as a "Mini" This has HUGE ramifications for ASCA registered aussies who are under 18" with AKC ILP's

UASASA/AKC will take this new breed into their FFS weather the NAMASCUSA membership vote to approve the changes or not.

Here is where you can read up on it
http://www.australianshepherds.org/forms/USASANewBreedAnnounce.pdf


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Holy crap x.x That's like, eyetwitchingly....no...


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Why?

I just don't understand all this stuff. Why all breeds aren't recognized, why there's distinctions, why some arbitrary number (why 18" and not 14 or 12 or 17 or 22, etc)

And people say training a dog is complicated. It looks like the easiest thing in the dog world compared to all this stuff.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Why?


Because they're talking about taking Aussies who are PURE Aussies, not mixed breeds, being classified as Mini Aussies (who are working towards being a separate breeds).

Also, the numbers aren't "arbitrary" even if you think they are. The size of a breed is very much a part of it's breed type. Breed type being why a GSD looks like a GSD, and not like a Belgian Sheepdog.

The specific proportions called for for the head of an ideal Coton du Tulear is part of what makes it distinguishable from another breed like the Havanese.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Basically they are saying that a purebred aussie should not be under 18" even tho the Breed standard specifically states that size isn't as important as quality. If this passes, 17" aussies can still show and win in the breed ring but 17" ILP'ed Aussies will be kicked out.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Because they're talking about taking Aussies who are PURE Aussies, not mixed breeds, being classified as Mini Aussies (who are working towards being a separate breeds).
> 
> Also, the numbers aren't "arbitrary" even if you think they are. The size of a breed is very much a part of it's breed type. Breed type being why a GSD looks like a GSD, and not like a Belgian Sheepdog.
> 
> The specific proportions called for for the head of an ideal Coton du Tulear is part of what makes it distinguishable from another breed like the Havanese.


Right, but why is 18" the chosen size for mini? What made them decide on that specific height? 

And why 'create' a mini-Aussie? Out of thin air? If the dogs were all Aussies, why not just leave them as Aussies?

Why are there separate standards? If it's not arbitrary why can there even be more than one "definition" of a breed? If a 15" Aussie is still an Aussie, then...why make "Mini Ausssies". 

It doesn't make logical sense.

To use your Coton example, UKC and FCI and Coton Club of America have differences in their standards. How can that be if the breed type requires certain attributes?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Actually, what you're saying in this instance makes more sense. I thought you were asking why current Aussies had an "arbitrary" height.

I guess maybe the mini aussie people decided 18" was the cut off. Couldn't tell ya. Why create this breed? The simple answer is because they can, and people will buy.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

Wait - so are the Minis going to be a separate breed, or a type within Australian Shephereds? Can they be crossbred and still be considered purebred?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

You guys read the proposal all your questons and answers are in there



Independent George said:


> Wait - so are the Minis going to be a separate breed, or a type within Australian Shephereds? Can they be crossbred and still be considered purebred?


Minis will be a seperate breed because they don't share the same original foundation dogs as the Aussie, and no they can not be cross bred.



KBLover said:


> Right, but why is 18" the chosen size for mini? What made them decide on that specific height?
> 
> And why 'create' a mini-Aussie? Out of thin air? If the dogs were all Aussies, why not just leave them as Aussies?
> 
> ...


They choose 18" because 18" is the small end of the "recomended size" for the Australian Shepherd

They are different breeds because they have different pedigrees

Smaller than normal AKC registered Aussies will not be affected(unless they choose to leave to join the new breed), it's the smaller than normal ILP'd Aussies that will be affected.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

WHAT?!!! Reading the proposal now, but.... NO. AKC THAT IS NOT HOW BREEDS WORK AND YOU KNOW THAT. ASDFGHJKASDFGHJASDFGHJ NO. So ****ing stupid.

Okay. The first thing I see that I object to is that IPL/PAL dogs are automatically changed. It should be at the owner's discretion, like papered dogs. Because the only difference ISN'T height. If it was, they couldn't be a separate breed. Because that's not how a breed is defined. Aussies under 18 inches are just Aussies under 18 inches. My dog is three inches over the height window for Miniature Schnauzers. That doesn't make him a Standard Schnauzer, it makes him a large Miniature Schnauzer.

I do like this line:


> The new breed’s standard will have a maximum height disqualification over 18” at the withers for dogs and over 17” at the withers for bitches. This ensures that there is a permanent size distinction between Aussies and MAS. There is no stipulation as to minimum height disqualifications.


 I feel that disqualification is very important to keep the breeds distinct.

Finished with the overview now, reading the actual proposal. So far I really only object to the mandatory breed change of ILP dogs. The rest of it really seems quite reasonable, bearing in mind I don't like the breed split at all.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

The AKC is allowing a breed in that they know does not have a pure pedigree (I personally have no problem with that but it IS against AKC's purebloodlines policy), the AKC knows that Minis are still cross bred with Aussies. Of course if this proposal passes AKC will put a stop to the cross breeding. But AKC has a history of doing what it pleases and throwing away it's own rules so whatever I don't care that Minis are being accepted I just don't like that it could affect Aussies!


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

So if the MAS is actually a separate breed - then why weren't they just called that to begin with but not put under Aussie Shepards?

So I guess I don't understand why:

-they were combined in the first place if an Aussie can never be under 18" (i.e. genetics dictates this is impossible). Why were these shorter dogs even brought under the same breed and not given their own name, making this whole thing moot today?

-they aren't left alone if the only difference is that there's some outliers in the height curve? I.E. they are Aussie in every way except for some fluke of randomness - whatever creates dogs of different heights in the same breed in the first place - made some Aussie "lose an inch".

-Does this mean MAS will be anything from a 4" to a 17" dog? You could have a chihuahua sized Aussie be a MAS?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Keechak, do MAS have other breeds in them, or are they strictly smaller and smaller Aussies?


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

KBLover said:


> So if the MAS is actually a separate breed - then why weren't they just called that to begin with but not put under Aussie Shepards?
> 
> So I guess I don't understand why:
> 
> ...


Answers in bold



RaeganW said:


> Keechak, do MAS have other breeds in them, or are they strictly smaller and smaller Aussies?


"purebred" MAS (ie NAMASCUSA MAS) only have Aussie and old farm dog in them. 
Of course the MAS you see in the newspaper that are not NAMASCUSA registered are mixes of all sorts of things but those dogs are not elegable for AKC registration.

Preferance was given to the smaller puppies in the litters. 

Aussies are also born from the old farm dogs but not the same individual old farm dogs as went into the MAS, The farm dogs used for the MAS were chosen for their smaller size.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

No offense intended, but isn't this the kind of thing the AKC _always_ does?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Wait... cause I'm thick... does this mean Mini Aussies are going to be FSS? Don't all breeds have to go through FSS first?


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Laurelin said:


> Wait... cause I'm thick... does this mean Mini Aussies are going to be FSS? Don't all breeds have to go through FSS first?


I think that's the three year "reclassifying period." After that they evaluate, and probably move to Misc.

I've calmed down significantly. Still don't like it, but I don't really object if the mandatory ILP gets changed.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

What they are saying is that non AKC Aussies must jump 20" or higher in agility, If they jump 16" they are not aussies, that's BS


----------



## Legacy (Mar 9, 2009)

Just for the heck of it, I looked at the back of Shayna's registration paper where ASCA lists the breed standards. It states:

"Preferred height at the withers for males is 20 to 23 inches. That for females is 18 to 21 inches. However, quality is not to be sacrificed in favor of size."

My guess is the last part about quality vs size is what gives AKC the idea that they can make changes to keep the mini show people happy. Apparently the Mini breeder/show people were more vocal than the Standard ones. This is why I don't like AKC...they let politics rule them a bit too much in my opinion.

In this world of designer dogs, I am afraid the original Aussie we know and love will be "lost" in the mini/toy breeding. In my search for Shayna, I visited one litter where the breeder wasn't honest with me until I was standing in their yard looking at the parents. I was told "They are Aussies, just mini ones and they are registered!" Now, I may get flamed for saying this but I wish the mini/toy breeders would have to come up with something other than "Aussie" when referring to their dogs. It's very confusing and sometimes misleading. Again, my opinion only. 

Nope, I don't like what I am hearing/reading in AKC. Breed stands are set and should be followed across the board. Not picked and chosen for specific events/classes.

Legacy


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Keechak said:


> What they are saying is that non AKC Aussies must jump 20" or higher in agility, If they jump 16" they are not aussies, that's BS


What? Seriously? Wow. There's a new one - judge a breed by how high he can jump. 

Wow - that is BS.




Keechak said:


> They were called the same breed by Mini folks because they were cross bred with aussies and some MAS breeders started to say that since their dogs had a lot of aussie that their dogs are aussies even tho they were still breeding to different standard


Do what now? Their dog had "a lot of aussie" so that means they are aussies?

Yeah....no. That's like...not a pure breed dog then. 

I think I'm starting to understand why some of the larger Coton breed clubs are adamant against AKC recognition.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Then if they are going to do this then does this mean all dogs must be 12-18mo old before registration is determined? Will Shelties & all other breeds will have heights for "standard" & "Mini" or whatever they want to call them to show size difference? That doesn't make sense - it isn't even similar to how they have American Eskimos guidelines set, which have more than one size allowed. It sounds like they are trying to make Mini Aussies a separate breed then why not leave the current aussie standard rules alone and create the "North American Shepherd" which has been suggested?



Xeph said:


> Actually, what you're saying in this instance makes more sense. I thought you were asking why current Aussies had an "arbitrary" height.
> 
> I guess maybe the mini aussie people decided 18" was the cut off. Couldn't tell ya. Why create this breed? The simple answer is because they can, and people will buy.


I don't agree with AKC messing around with all the hard work aussie owners have put in to their dogs, breeding, showing, trials...whatever. I think its wrong. 

As for "creating" this breed, look at eskies, poodle, schnauzer...many breeds have multiple sizes acknowledged (for that matter look up cat breeds scotish fold & munchin). Yes I will buy...from a reputable breeder, and I did buy a mini, with research, prior to choosing our Skyler - we wanted aussie mentality in a slightly more compact size, wanted a dog with drive, personality, energy, spunk just to name a few personality traits we knew we would enjoy. I wanted a Sheltie but hubby was in love with aussies, after much research we made our choice. Now, there are some breeders that when you look at their dogs there is NO way in he*l that they can tell me that those dogs were breed from a long line of "mini" aussies. Such as http://www.toyminiaussies.com/ (I feel so bad for the lives they are creating without shame!) but then you look at http://www.wigglebuttaussies.com/ and there is no doubt of their lineage.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> but then you look at http://www.wigglebuttaussies.com/ and there is no doubt of their lineage.


I agree.. I have a mini, who I feel is nothing but a smaller aussie. She's currently 16.5" tall at 9 months. I won't be shocked if she hits 17" or even a little taller by the time she is done growing.. which really is not that much smaller than the australian shepherd standard calls for. I've actually met smaller registered australian shepherds (not minis, but dogs in the 16-17" range).. what AKC is saying is that those dogs are somehow not going to be considered aussies any more by AKC? It makes NO SENSE at all. You could have 2 ASCA registered aussies, from the same litter..one ends up 19" and is ILP'd with AKC as an Aussie, and another at 17.75" is going to be required to be put into whatever breed the MAS is being railroaded into because it falls under the 18" requirement to be ILP'd as an Aussie.. and that makes sense, how? Is one really less of an aussie than the other? No! But AKC will soon be deciding that this is so, despite there not currently being a height disqualification for Aussies. A breed standard, yes, but a dog over/under that standard is not DQ'd.

What USASA and AKC and NAMASCUSA are doing is just irrational IMO. Two dogs at different heights are not different breeds.

I personally don't really see the problem/damage from adopting the MAS as a size variety of the Aussie, at least in cases where the lines are clearly connected and the relationship can be proven.. because they are fundamentally the same dogs (and please be clear I am really referring to legitimately small aussies, not the ones that are obviously crossed with paps or chis or poms or even poodles, as with that one horrid toy breeder). There are certainly quite a lot of designer/toy aussies out there who are clearly crosses or might even be paperhanged and have AKC registrations... but adopting a size variety doesn't really change anything there. The BYB's will do whatever they want regardless of what AKC does... just as they always have.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

The thing is, is that the woman who created the Mini Aussie created it with the intention of it being a seperate breed.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Aren't Poodles classified by their size? So that a large Toy Poodle would be considered a Miniature, a large Miniature would be considered a Standard, etc.? Regardless of what their parents and littermates are classified as. Is that what they're trying to do with Aussies? LOL, I don't understand any of this either.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

Keechak said:


> The thing is, is that the woman who created the Mini Aussie created it with the intention of it being a seperate breed.


I won't argue that, but intent doesn't really change where the dogs came from (meaning lines.. and at one point all Aussies were unregistered farm dogs)


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Well Minis WILL be a seperate breed in the AKC that is not up for discussion it's aleady been agreed upon with the Mini folks.


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

Keechak said:


> Well Minis WILL be a seperate breed in the AKC that is not up for discussion it's aleady been agreed upon with the Mini folks.


As a mini owner I think that is stupid. Either make it same breed with 2 distinctions OR call our dogs something other than mini aussies.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> OR call our dogs something other than mini aussies.


That is sort of the plan, I believe they will be North American Shepherds. 

And FWIW, not all mini folks are on board with the "seperate breed" distinction... and the migration will be voluntary for dogs already AKC registered. How many do you think are really going to make that move?


----------



## luv2byte (Oct 21, 2009)

sarahspins said:


> That is sort of the plan, I believe they will be North American Shepherds.
> 
> And FWIW, not all mini folks are on board with the "seperate breed" distinction... and the migration will be voluntary for dogs already AKC registered. How many do you think are really going to make that move?


If they are a separate breed then I do not think they should be called a mini aussie & I do think the aussies that are currently recognized by AKC should not be compramised. Based on what I've read of their history I do think if they are giong to be called something different then North American Shepherd makes sense but I don't understand why they can't be mini aussies have have the ranges like they do eskies and other breeds.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> I don't understand why they can't be mini aussies have have the ranges like they do eskies and other breeds.


I don't disagree... but basically it's up to the parent club to go that route, and they wont' do it, stating our dogs are "mutts". I'm not going to get into the argument that it may or may not be true (for some, sure, they're absolutely crossed with random breeds).. but that is what the problem is.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

KBLover said:


> What? Seriously? Wow. There's a new one - judge a breed by how high he can jump.
> 
> Wow - that is BS.


Erm, I believe what she meant is that effectively any dog jumping 16" or lower is a Mini and 20" or higher is now a "standard" Aussie because the height cutoff they chose is 18" which is also the height cutoff between 16" and 20" jump heights in AKC obedience...not that they literally were judging how high a dog can jump. A "preferred" class Aussie (a dog who is measured for 20" but is only entered at 16", one jump height lower) would still be a "standard" Aussie.

If I misunderstood your comment, forgive me...just wanted to clarify in case there was indeed confusion...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Either make it same breed with 2 distinctions OR call our dogs something other than mini aussies.


The AKC is no longer accepting "varieties" in any breeds.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Shaina said:


> Erm, I believe what she meant is that effectively any dog jumping 16" or lower is a Mini and 20" or higher is now a "standard" Aussie because the height cutoff they chose is 18" which is also the height cutoff between 16" and 20" jump heights in AKC obedience...not that they literally were judging how high a dog can jump. A "preferred" class Aussie (a dog who is measured for 20" but is only entered at 16", one jump height lower) would still be a "standard" Aussie.
> 
> If I misunderstood your comment, forgive me...just wanted to clarify in case there was indeed confusion...


Oh there's plenty of confusion in my mind on this so thanks for the explanation


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Xeph said:


> The AKC is no longer accepting "varieties" in any breeds.


Just curious, but is there a reason for this?


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

Don't know for sure. All I know is that they aren't interested in doing such any longer, so any changes of this nature involve dogs either needing to become a separate breed, or just fitting into the existing standard.

For example, the AKC would not accept the white GSD as a variety of the GSD. The DQ for whites either needs to be removed so they can show with the other colors, or they need to be accepted as a separate breed such as the White Shepherd or Berger Blanc Suisse (these are just examples, so don't get all up in arms about the difference between white GSDs and BBS).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Why aren't white GSDs accepted? 

Is there some reason the color they are was so important that it needed to be in the standard unlike, say, BCs, who come in pretty much every natural possible dog color in the world in like a billion patterns?



sarahspins said:


> And FWIW, not all mini folks are on board with the "seperate breed" distinction... and the migration will be voluntary for dogs already AKC registered. How many do you think are really going to make that move?


Interesting, so owners can pick which breed their dog is? That sounds kinda strange.

Too bad I can't call Wally a "large Maltese"...everyone else that sees him seems to...


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Why aren't white GSDs accepted?


Eh....it's a whole big political thing.

The breed founder himself, while he didn't outright disqualify them, didn't care for the color at all. There were also many misconceptions about the color in terms of what albinism actually was, and white being connected to health issues. However, the genetics that cause a white GSD to be white are not the same genes that breeds like white Dobermans or Boxers have. White GSDs will not suffer from things like deafness.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

luv2byte said:


> I don't agree with AKC messing around with all the hard work aussie owners have put in to their dogs, breeding, showing, trials...whatever. I think its wrong.


This isn't actually the AKC's mess. It's the AKC Aussie people and the MAS people (who will be coming up with a different name for their dogs). The MAS people (primarily NAMASCUSA? and/or some other acronym) feel it is in the best interest to split the breeds. Since the AKC isn't doing varieties (good call, IMO) anymore, they can either stay the same or split. Those are really the only two options. Honestly it's better than the AKC Aussies jamming their fingers in their ears going "LALALALALA" with their eyes closed and ignoring the existence of MAS. 

I do wonder how this is going to affect ASCA dogs. For a while I don't think it will have much impact on say shelter mystery looks-close-enough Aussies. Over 18 inches? You're an Aussie. Under? MAS. Since at the beginning the only difference will be height. But after a while splits start getting more noticeable... at what point is a dog an oversized MAS? Gatsby is closer to being a Standard Schnauzer than a Miniature, but I know for a fact that his parents were unpapered Minis. You can look at those two breeds, once separated only by height, and see that they are distinctly different breeds.



KBLover said:


> Interesting, so owners can pick which breed their dog is? That sounds kinda strange.
> 
> Too bad I can't call Wally a "large Maltese"...everyone else that sees him seems to...


This case is a little different than calling Wally a large Maltese though. In the case of MAS, it seems like they are 100% Aussie, simply selected for smaller sizes. It's not like people mixed in Sheltie to get a smaller dog (some might have, but I don't think that's the issue at hand). So owners of AKC-registered dogs can say "I bought this Australian Shepherd and he never quite grew up all the way" or "I bought a MAS, he grew exactly as big I as thought he would." That distinction IS important, particularly when you look at qualifying for AKC Nationals. The top 5 dogs in the breed are invited to conformation/obedience/agility, so if you change the breed of your dog, that could mean the difference between being invited or not.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

Nargle said:


> Just curious, but is there a reason for this?


I understood it to be because they didn't want groups to get too bloated with redundant varieties of coat colors and other minor 'differences'. I think it should've been implemented on a case-by-case basis depending on individual breed factors, rather than as a blanket clause on every new breed (and been retroactively applied in some cases), but meh.


----------



## Independent George (Mar 26, 2009)

My main problem with disallowing types is that genetic variation is a one-way street. Some breeds are already at the point of no return (Cavaliers come to mind), and others are headed there. Any change that basically halves the gene pool is not going to be good for the dogs in the long run.


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> I understood it to be because they didn't want groups to get too bloated with redundant varieties of coat colors and other minor 'differences'.


I wish they'd nipped it with the stupid Cocker Spaniel thing. The Beagle thing ticks me off too.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

One big issue with the "jump hieghts" is that Aussies are supposed to be 18-23 inches, an 18 inch dog will jump 16" So a dog that is applying for ILP/PAL and is still correct size wise for an aussie (18") will be jumping 16" and be denied aussie status.

and the MAS people voted on weather they would accept going into the AKC as a seperate breed.


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

RaeganW said:


> This case is a little different than calling Wally a large Maltese though. In the case of MAS, it seems like they are 100% Aussie, simply selected for smaller sizes. It's not like people mixed in Sheltie to get a smaller dog (some might have, but I don't think that's the issue at hand). So owners of AKC-registered dogs can say "I bought this Australian Shepherd and he never quite grew up all the way" or "I bought a MAS, he grew exactly as big I as thought he would." That distinction IS important, particularly when you look at qualifying for AKC Nationals. The top 5 dogs in the breed are invited to conformation/obedience/agility, so if you change the breed of your dog, that could mean the difference between being invited or not.



Hmm...I see.

So I imagine AKC just expanding the "legal" height of an Aussie would be out of the question? For example, if the MAS has a range of 14"-17" then the standard for Aussies could still "prefer" 18" minimum, but 14"-17" is not considered a fault. I.E. all things being equal, if a 16" and an 18" both conform to their standard equally well, the 18" will win because he has the "preferred" height range. However, if the 16" is better in all ways, he should still win because being shorter isn't an outright fault.

Sort of making height a tie breaker - and just call them all Aussie if they are indeed pure Aussie that just happened to roll a smaller number on the height dice.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Lots of crazy stuff going on. I think that mini as a seperate breed isn't bad, but some of this stuff is confusing or silly.

As for pure Aussies who are smaller that's a whole different thing then a mini.

I know with the APBT i'd never support different variety in size. Some think its a good idea. Um like people with out of standard mixed dogs. American Bully should always be called such IMO yet it was proposed that the APBT should just have different size standard and that it would probably happen. What I don't think so. Mini, standard and giant. There is no way I accept my 30lbs Pit being called "mini"


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

KBLover said:


> So I imagine AKC just expanding the "legal" height of an Aussie would be out of the question? For example, if the MAS has a range of 14"-17" then the standard for Aussies could still "prefer" 18" minimum, but 14"-17" is not considered a fault. I.E. all things being equal, if a 16" and an 18" both conform to their standard equally well, the 18" will win because he has the "preferred" height range. However, if the 16" is better in all ways, he should still win because being shorter isn't an outright fault.
> 
> Sort of making height a tie breaker - and just call them all Aussie if they are indeed pure Aussie that just happened to roll a smaller number on the height dice.


Currently that is the way it works.. you can take your dog (one registered elsewhere, a dog that just looks like an Aussie, like a shelter dog/mutt) of any size, and get an ILP registration as an Aussie to compete in agility. There is not currently a DQ for height, even if your dog is outside of the standard.. the changes would mean that many Aussies that are WITHIN the heights listed as the current breed standard (as keechak pointed out), who are jumping at 16", would suddenly be forced into being declared a completely _different_ breed... that's really not okay. 

The system isn't exactly broken as it currently is.. at least as far as it concerns performance events like agility (excluding the fact that some Aussie owners are highly bothered by the fact that minis can be ILP'd and compete against their "legitimate" aussies.. and they're highly competitive). The problem really is that one MAS group wants to show AKC, and be a recognized AKC breed, not a size variety. They have basically stated that they do have a different breed, which isn't entirely true. They've actually "manipulated" some of the documentation they provided of the history of the breed, to distance it even further from the Aussie (despite that many "mini" aussies used in breeding programs are ASCA, USASA, or AKC registered aussies - USASA even stated recently that it could be 15% of their registry, though I personally suspect it's likely more pervasive than that). 

There's actually a large amount of discourse regarding this within the mini community... not everyone likes the direction that NAMASCUSA has taken things. They're not the only "parent club" for the mini aussie - but they are the only one who seemingly wants to keep insisting that the MAS is some other breed and not an aussie, and they're the ones who went to AKC. The others are all pretty clear on that point, that the mini is simply a small aussie.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

sarahspins said:


> The others are all pretty clear on that point, that the mini is simply a small aussie.


and that I will never understand, why don't they compete in ASCA and AKC conformation as Aussies why do they want to add the name "mini" onto their name? The WiggleButt "Minis" I saw could easily get their ASCA CH if they wanted to, and the breed standards allows smaller dogs and bitches to get a Championship as long as they are of good quality. WHY do they want to be called "Mini" why not just stay with everyone else and be called Australian Shepherds?

A WiggleButt dog for all curious









This breeder claims her dogs are a size variety of Aussie but at the same time refuses to compete with her dogs in any of the Australian Shepherd parent clubs as an aussie. Her dog's are beautiful but she distances herself from the Australian Shepherd world, why? Maybe if there were more upstanding active members in ASCA with smaller than prefered size dogs the Aussie people may be more open to the idea but instead the Mini people keep seperate pedigrees and choose not to "play" with the rest of us. Seperate but equal?


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

My assumption (because I don't know the registrations for all of Angela's dogs) is that the reason she doesn't compete with ASCA dogs is likely due to registries, and limitations.... if your dogs aren't already within the ASCA registry, or eligible for some kind of hardship registration, then how can you compete with them? You can't, flat out. And if you happen to prefer smaller aussies, or refer to them as a "mini" in any capacity, then you basically end up ridiculed for being a BYB, whether you are or not, and you are shut out. There have been MANY discussions on various mini lists, of how people have been ostracized for even owning a mini AND a standard, and doing any kind of performance/conformation with both... it's like you have to choose one way or the other, yet honestly most of the hostility is not coming from the mini community - we love aussies of any size, it seems the other way around, if you like or own a small aussie (mini or not), your moral character is suddenly in question someow because those dogs are "illegitimate", poorly bred, or a made up designer dog. Many years ago I went in search of a smaller aussie before I bought my first mini, and I was basically told by several breeders that I just wasn't going to FIND a dog in the size I wanted (I would have been just peachy with an 18-19" aussie). To be honest most of the breeders near me were breeding aussies well OVER the standard size... I didn't want a 26" 80lb Aussie. That's really when I started looking into mini's. I bought my first over 10 years ago.. he was a GREAT dog, and we were crushed when we lost him (farm accident).

Sure, Wiggle Butt could potentially rebuild her breeding program with ASCA (or some other registry) aussies, breeding for a smaller dog with all of the things she has going for her lines now, but some of her foundation dogs are from "mini" lines.. and she's pretty much a rockstar in the mini community (and well supported), and I think that's where she wants to stay. Do you really think she'd be welcomed with fully open arms to ASCA for wanting to breed a genuine aussie in a smaller package? I wish she could be, but I know that's not the attitude that is out there. 

Now, I want to be clear, I am NOT in favor of toy aussies, I honestly do think they're too small, and it seems like the smaller they get the more sketchy parts of the aussie temperament seem to get magnified (because of poor breeding, and the fact that a majority of the breeders of those tiny dogs are not working them in any capacity to test their herding ability or instincts, and I am not arguing that for a second).. but it is possible to breed a structurally correct and sound dog in a smaller package if it's done right, and a 16" dog is just as capable of working livestock as a 20". However, if you go to an aussie breeder looking for that, it's not going to be something that is easy to find.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

but why arn't her dogs ASCA registered? does she boycott the organization? ASCA has had open registration throughout the years with much opportunity for new dogs to enter. To me calling my dog a "mini" something automatically suggests that these dogs are an "offshoot" of the original, I wish she would just call her dogs Australian shepherds and leave the word "mini" out of it. I love her dogs and her breeding program I think they are awesome and I would love for them to be Australian Shepherds and not a size variety called the Mini Australian Shepherd.

And yes I think that If ASCA was invaded by a bunch of awesome breeders like her the Aussie folks wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. But All most ASCA people know is the Sheltie and Papillon mixed propaganda that is shoved at us. Very few upstanding Aussie people know that there are great "Minis" out there with as much of a pure bloodline as our Aussies.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

Keechak said:


> Very few upstanding Aussie people know that there are great "minis" out there.


And that, honestly, is unfortunate - it's the bad apples that ruined it for everyone.

As far as why not ASCA, I don't know... I think only Angela can answer that, but I do know she registers with MASCA (which is NOT the mini group that voted to take their dogs to AKC). MASCA has always seemed a little more on top of things than the "other" mini groups.. with advocating for health checks, performance events, and so forth.

I personally think it's unfortunate that NAMASCUSA is the group bringing the mini to AKC.. I think in the end it only causes futher conflict.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

And People who own smaller than normal aussies are not ostracized as long as they don't call their dogs Minis. A good friend of mine owns Hawkeye's litter sister and she is under 18". I'm sure if someone brought a 21" German Shepherd bitch into the ring people wouldn't yell at the owner or ask them to leave, but they sure as heck would ask them to leave if this person went around the crowd and touted their dog as a Mini German Shepherd size variety, and that person would indeed be ostracized.


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

sarahspins said:


> I personally think it's unfortunate that NAMASCUSA is the group bringing the mini to AKC.. I think in the end it only causes futher conflict.


It's not the only time the club with the lowest standards (or the one most willing to compromise to appease the AKC) ends up becoming the AKC-recognized club, either. I can remember if happening with JRTs, BCs, and CKCS, off the top of my head.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Pai said:


> It's not the only time the club with the lowest standards (or the one most willing to compromise to appease the AKC) ends up becoming the AKC-recognized club, either. I can remember if happening with JRTs, BCs, and CKCS, off the top of my head.


Yep it happened with the Australian Shepherd. ASCA refused AKC's every request to join them. so AKC just asked the few aussie people that wanted to be in the AKC to start a new club specifically for the purpose (USASA).


----------



## KBLover (Sep 9, 2008)

Keechak said:


> A WiggleButt dog for all curious


All of this political stuff is confusing to me, but that dog isn't.

That's a beautiful dog. I want one.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

Keechak said:


> but why arn't her dogs ASCA registered? does she boycott the organization? ASCA has had open registration throughout the years with much opportunity for new dogs to enter. To me calling my dog a "mini" something automatically suggests that these dogs are an "offshoot" of the original, I wish she would just call her dogs Australian shepherds and leave the word "mini" out of it. I love her dogs and her breeding program I think they are awesome and I would love for them to be Australian Shepherds and not a size variety called the Mini Australian Shepherd.
> 
> And yes I think that If ASCA was invaded by a bunch of awesome breeders like her the Aussie folks wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. But All most ASCA people know is the Sheltie and Papillon mixed propaganda that is shoved at us. Very few upstanding Aussie people know that there are great "Minis" out there with as much of a pure bloodline as our Aussies.


I dunno, if it was this breeder and others' choice to decide to take the breed in their own direction, don't you think it's a little unfair for them not to be able to participate with the ASCA unless they call their dogs something other than what they want to call them? If people want to breed minis and call their dogs minis, I think that it's their business and no one else's. Being excluded from a certain club until you bend to the club's will would certainly make me not want to be a part of that club. (Sort of like how working border collie people are boycotting the AKC because it isn't what they had in mind for their own breed?) Also, don't you think the preference for bigger dogs, therefore making showing and winning an unfair challenge for minis, would also be something that would turn mini breeders away? Personally it seems to me that it would be best for mini aussie breeders to stay away from the ASCA until they accept mini aussies as a separate variety, or at least change the standard to include the smaller size range rather than stating that larger dogs between a certain size range are preferred (eliminating the unfair favoritism for larger dogs). If the ASCA is unwilling to change to accept minis, though, then it sounds like it would be in the best interest of mini aussies to stay completely separate from the ASCA and probably try to become its own breed.

Now for my general commentary (Not directed at you, Keechak). As far as what's happening with the AKC, it sounds like a total mess IMO, lol! First of all, I think it's totally unfair for any current australian shepherds to have to change in any way to accommodate minis. It's totally illogical to exclude a dog from its own breed just because it happened not to be the preferred size for the breed. Basil is still a Papillon even though he's 15 inches tall and 18 lbs (We think he's purebred, not totally sure, but the point is the same). I think dogs should remain the breed that their parents were and the breed that their breeders intended they be. So if an "Australian Shepherd breeder" breeds a 16 inch dog, it's still an aussie, and if a "Mini Australian Shepherd Breeder" breeds an 18 inch dog, it's still a mini. There's no reason to be messing with Australian Shepherds, period.

Also, just curious, if a West Highland White Terrier is born colored, is it considered a Cairn Terrier (and vice-versa)? 

As for joining the AKC, based on what I'm hearing, I'm beginning to wonder if trying to join the AKC was such a good move for MAS. It sounds like it's going to be doing more harm then good. But discussing the AKC is a different issue, I suppose. I'm guessing that MASCA will stay separate from the AKC, and there will be MAS breeders that aren't going to be involved with the AKC? Sort of like how the ASCA is currently? (Am I correct on this?)


----------



## Xeph (May 7, 2007)

> Also, just curious, if a West Highland White Terrier is born colored, is it considered a Cairn Terrier (and vice-versa)?


No. The Belgian dogs are certainly an interesting registration conundrum outside of AKC though.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

Nargle said:


> I'm guessing that MASCA will stay separate from the AKC, and there will be MAS breeders that aren't going to be involved with the AKC? Sort of like how the ASCA is currently? (Am I correct on this?)


That's what I would assume.. I know that if I were to want to compete in conformation or any sort of mini-aussie specific performance event, MASCA would be the club I would choose.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Nargle said:


> I dunno, if it was this breeder and others' choice to decide to take the breed in their own direction, don't you think it's a little unfair for them not to be able to participate with the ASCA unless they call their dogs something other than what they want to call them? If people want to breed minis and call their dogs minis, I think that it's their business and no one else's. Being excluded from a certain club until you bend to the club's will would certainly make me not want to be a part of that club. (Sort of like how working border collie people are boycotting the AKC because it isn't what they had in mind for their own breed?) Also, don't you think the preference for bigger dogs, therefore making showing and winning an unfair challenge for minis, would also be something that would turn mini breeders away? *Personally it seems to me that it would be best for mini aussie breeders to stay away from the ASCA until they accept mini aussies as a separate variety, or at least change the standard to include the smaller size range rather than stating that larger dogs between a certain size range are preferred (eliminating the unfair favoritism for larger dogs). If the ASCA is unwilling to change to accept minis, though, then it sounds like it would be in the best interest of mini aussies to stay completely separate from the ASCA and probably try to become its own breed.*
> Now for my general commentary (Not directed at you, Keechak). *As far as what's happening with the AKC, it sounds like a total mess IMO, lol! First of all, I think it's totally unfair for any current australian shepherds to have to change in any way to accommodate minis. It's totally illogical to exclude a dog from its own breed just because it happened not to be the preferred size for the breed. Basil is still a Papillon even though he's 15 inches tall and 18 lbs (We think he's purebred, not totally sure, but the point is the same). I think dogs should remain the breed that their parents were and the breed that their breeders intended they be. So if an "Australian Shepherd breeder" breeds a 16 inch dog, it's still an aussie, and if a "Mini Australian Shepherd Breeder" breeds an 18 inch dog, it's still a mini. There's no reason to be messing with Australian Shepherds, period.*
> Also, just curious, if a West Highland White Terrier is born colored, is it considered a Cairn Terrier (and vice-versa)?
> 
> As for joining the AKC, based on what I'm hearing, I'm beginning to wonder if trying to join the AKC was such a good move for MAS. It sounds like it's going to be doing more harm then good. But discussing the AKC is a different issue, I suppose. I'm guessing that MASCA will stay separate from the AKC, and there will be MAS breeders that aren't going to be involved with the AKC? Sort of like how the ASCA is currently? (Am I correct on this?)


ASCA has no reason to change their standard to accept a size variety when there are no ASCA members who are campaining for it, If there were a bunch of ASCA member breeders who breed and show smaller than normal dogs and they wanted to bring it to the board that is a possibility, but that's not whats happening. 

(This of course is compleatly unrelated to the AKC and NAMASCUSA thing this thread is about just so no one is confused)

And I agree with you on the second bolded, but keep in mind the dogs being affected will be AKC ILP aussies and not AKC registered aussies.


Breed standards CAN change when the MEMBERSHIP of the club wills it to be, Mini aussies being a size variety in ASCA (Not USASA) IS a possibility but there is not a big enough or active enough ASCA memberhip following for the mini.


----------



## heartdogs (Aug 19, 2007)

Keechak said:


> The thing is, is that the woman who created the Mini Aussie created it with the intention of it being a seperate breed.


Then why the bloody blue (^%* didn't she call it something else and leave our breed alone??????????????? Some of my AKC friends are fine with this, and cannot understand why ASCA is "putting their head in the sand" - IMO, they aren't, they are simply refusing to acknowledge the idiocy of miniaturizing a breed that is not going to be everyone's perfect lap dog. Next, they'' be miniaturizing sheep for them to herd. My dog is, thankfully, 18" - but I would NEVER register her with AKC as either. They just want the 4000+ registrations and the money from all the competitions, and care nothing about this breed. Funny, but back in the day you see photos of stockdogs winning conformation shows. When do you ever see that now? AKC has, IMO, ruined the Aussies and Border Collies. They look like Golden Retrievers in fancy colors, not like farm dogs that can actually do the job they were bred for.


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

heartdogs said:


> AKC has, IMO, ruined the Aussies and Border Collies. They look like Golden Retrievers in fancy colors, not like farm dogs that can actually do the job they were bred for.


No kidding.. when I saw pictures of the national champion on the AKC page, I was like "WTF, that's an aussie?!" He just looks... weird.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

heartdogs said:


> *Then why the bloody blue (^%* didn't she call it something else and leave our breed alone??????????????? *Some of my AKC friends are fine with this, and cannot understand why ASCA is "putting their head in the sand" - IMO, they aren't, *they are simply refusing to acknowledge the idiocy of miniaturizing a breed that is not going to be everyone's perfect lap dog. Next, they'' be miniaturizing sheep for them to herd.* My dog is, thankfully, 18" - but I would NEVER register her with AKC as either. *They just want the 4000+ registrations and the money from all the competitions, and care nothing about this breed.* Funny, but *back in the day you see photos of stockdogs winning conformation shows.* When do you ever see that now? AKC has, IMO, ruined the Aussies and Border Collies. They look like Golden Retrievers in fancy colors, not like farm dogs that can actually do the job they were bred for.


1st bolded, From what I understand she didn't give a name to her dogs it was other people who stuck the Mini name on it, while other people who also beleived it should be a different breed called it the North American Shepherd (which is the name AKC will be taking)

2nd bolded, There actually is not much miniaturizing being done, they are simply ONLY breeding the dogs that are already small from normal litters, For instance My Aussie Hawkeye who is 21.5 inches has a littermate sister who is an awesome stockdog and is 17". If she had gone to a mini breeder they would have used her, She can move cattle and sheep just as well as Hawkeye can. 
And believe it or not there ARE miniature sheep NOT created for the Mini dogs but created for "teacup" farmers (aka people who want adorable farms lol)

3rd bolded, couldn't agree more, and lots of AKC conformation judges don't even know how to judge the aussie I have known aussies in AKC breed rings who were KICKED OUT OF THE RING for having BLUE EYES!! WTF!?

4th bolded, thats what I like about ASCA there are still lots of BOB winners who are rough and rugged stockdogs.


----------



## Nargle (Oct 1, 2007)

heartdogs said:


> IMO, they aren't, they are simply refusing to acknowledge the idiocy of miniaturizing a breed that is not going to be everyone's perfect lap dog. Next, they'' be miniaturizing sheep for them to herd.


I don't think the point of the breed was to create a "mini lapdog" version of Aussies. I've read that the creator of the breed was trying to get back the small working farm dog aussies she remembered from her past in response to the very large aussies that have come about relatively recently. There are many mini aussie breeders and owners who herd full sized sheep and do farm work with their dogs just fine, if not extremely well. Smaller doesn't mean unable to work. I mean, there are shelties and corgis that can herd very well, heck, weren't corgis originally bred to work cattle?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Keechak said:


> they sure as heck would ask them to leave if this person went around the crowd and touted their dog as a Mini German Shepherd size variety, and that person would indeed be ostracized.


So much for marketing Webster as the start of my Miniature German Shepherd line.

'Course first I'd have to ask the vets if they saved his testicles...hm...wonder how THAT conversation would go...


----------



## xxxxdogdragoness (Jul 22, 2010)

OMG what's next, mini ACD's (I sure hope not). I also can't understand why smooth & wire fox terriers, which are essentually the same breed but they are shown as different entries. The AKC has personally lostits respectfullness in my eyes.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

I've been just reading quietly, but I have to add that I did get a kick out of seeing Willow mentioned by name. xD I brought it up to a internet friend who competes in agility with his BCs and knows the contention there.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

Am I the only one irked that they want to call them North American Shepherds? It's a term that fits Aussies better than Aussies, IMO. I like Basque Shepherds too.



ThoseWordsAtBest said:


> I've been just reading quietly, but I have to add that I did get a kick out of seeing Willow mentioned by name. xD I brought it up to a internet friend who competes in agility with his BCs and knows the contention there.


I missed this Willow business, link me?


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> I missed this Willow business, link me?


In the announcement Keechak posted there is a little blurb after number 9. :


> "This includes dogs that are currently competing. This means that as of the effective date for inclusion in the Miscellaneous Class, all under 18" inch dogs, including current competitors such as Willow would automatically move to the new breed. Titles, points, legs, etc., earned in AKC competition would be maintained."


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

heartdogs said:


> They look like Golden Retrievers in fancy colors, not like farm dogs that can actually do the job they were bred for.


Ironically, the modern show-style Golden looks nothing like the field-bred dog, either. They're not supposed to be heavy-boned and so shaggy.


----------



## RaeganW (Jul 14, 2009)

But WHO is Willow, that she would be named specifically?


----------



## sarahspins (Apr 6, 2009)

Willow is a Mini Aussie.. ILP'd as an australian shepherd... competing at a very high level in agility... and winning. The problem though is that she competes at a jump height most Aussies wouldn't.


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

RaeganW said:


> But WHO is Willow, that she would be named specifically?


Ohhh sorry, I thought you were looking for the bit in the article. Like Saraspins said, Willow is a mini that's ILP'd as an Aussie and is a huge point of contention in the agility community. According to my friend, most refer to minis as "the Willow problem" because she jumps at a different height than all the other Aussie's and minis like her are taking away spots in agility invitationals from "legit" Aussies.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Sorry to drag this back up. Please help me understand if this is correct...

So now the Miniature American Shepherd is AKC FSS registered. So mini aussies that had owners that chose to go MASCUSA are now called Miniature American shepherds. And MASCUSA used to be called NAMASCUSA and the dogs North American Shepherds? Name had to be changed to American Shepherds because AKC won't accept varieties in breeds anymore, right? ASCA doesn't acknowledge size varieties either, right?

BUT the MASCA still registers dogs as Miniature Australian Shepherds and has revoked recognition of the dogs that are AKC FSS registered. 

So basically because MASCUSA and MASCA can't get along and decide if this is a separate breed or not, they're going to be splitting the breed in half essentially? When AKC closes the books on the Mini American shepherd then the two genepools won't cross. But the MASCA dogs can still use AKC aussies since most Mini aussies are registered as AKC Aussies as well as with MASCA.

But ASCA isn't ever going to recognize a mini variety so I guess I'm confused at what MASCA wants/hopes for if aussies are never going to recognize a smaller size variant? 

If I see an 18" Aussie like dog now it could be one of THREE things? (Aussie, Mini Aussie, or Mini American). This whole thing confuses the hell out of me.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Wow just read this old thread stuff and.. well such confusion. My girl is currently right at about the 17-18"" area.. kinda on the small side even though both of her parents are "standard" size.

Wat do i even hav.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

How much does your girl weigh? Just curious. 

I was thnking some more and I guess MASCA's benefit to not doing the Mini American thing would be that they don't have to stop crossing to AKC and ASCA aussies. Since Mini Americans are AKC and becoming a separate breed they will have to close the stud books and lose the ability to cross to aussies like they had previously. So I guess it just comes down to the debate if they're a breed of their own or a variant of aussies.

I always think it's a shame when gene pools are split because of breed politics though.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Laurelin said:


> Sorry to drag this back up. Please help me understand if this is correct...
> 
> So now the Miniature American Shepherd is AKC FSS registered. So mini aussies that had owners that chose to go MASCUSA are now called Miniature American shepherds. And MASCUSA used to be called NAMASCUSA and the dogs North American Shepherds? Name had to be changed to American Shepherds because AKC won't accept varieties in breeds anymore, right? ASCA doesn't acknowledge size varieties either, right?
> 
> ...


You hit the nail on the head. The confusion is real, there is NO way looking at an 18 Aussie to know if it is an ASCA/AKC registered Aussie, an AKC/MASCA registered MAS, or an AKC/MASCUSA registered MAS.

ASCA will also revoke registration on any dog advertised as, or registered under, any other breed name other than simply "Australian Shepherd" if they are made aware of it. Which is why this whole deal with the Mini's in AKC didn't work out well for ASCA only dogs. If they are 18 inches or under and only ASCA registered they basically are not allowed to do AKC agility anymore because AKC would force them to be registered as MAS to compete but ASCA would revoke their registration for that.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Laurelin said:


> How much does your girl weigh? Just curious.


She is 31lbs. She is still an adolescent, so I imagine she will at least gain some weight, especially after she is spayed. I doubt she is really going to get any taller though. 

Her and her parents are AKC/ASCA registered. This isn't going to affect me, right?


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

Oh god, that's confusing. I did not know that ASCA will revoke registration for a dog that is regged as a mini elsewhere. How do the MASCA people get away with hosting their own shows and calling the dogs minis? 

So basically there's 3 factions and no one can agree on how it should be handled, correct?

To make things even MORE confusing, some of the mini pedigrees I've looked at are 100% aussie with none of the 'known mini lines'. Both show and working. 

Gah, I really really like the idea of a smaller more working type herder. 16-17" and 30ish lbs is like my ideal. And I like the small aussies so much better than the shelties. I had thought maybe the split to Mini Americans would make everything a bit more legit to the aussie folk and outside breed people. Did not know people were still hanging onto the mini aussie name.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

ForTheLoveOfDogs said:


> She is 31lbs. She is still an adolescent, so I imagine she will at least gain some weight, especially after she is spayed. I doubt she is really going to get any taller though.
> 
> Her and her parents are AKC/ASCA registered. This isn't going to affect me, right?


No doesn't affect you because your dog's litter was registered with the AKC, the AKC will allow you to do agility as an Aussie no matter how tall your dog grows.


----------



## Laurelin (Nov 2, 2006)

I also noticed that USDAA does not give you the option of registering your dog with them as a miniature american yet. It's either aussie or mini aussie.


----------



## ForTheLoveOfDogs (Jun 3, 2007)

Thank goodness. This is all confusing, and a whole lot of silly.


----------

