AKC Chairman's Report, Sept. 2008

[SoloRiver]

They are "losing market share."

 

http://www.akc.org/about/chairmans_report/2008.cfm?page=9

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I am just loving how the answer is to pursue puppymillers aggressively. Self-preservation at all costs!

[airbear]

Geez, I wonder if they'd like a little cheese with their whine? Well, I guess this is how they will justify their pursuit of the "retail sector" again (remember the PetLand scheme of 2006?).

[Kate@JIm]

Wow, what a load of crap...

 

"We know that AKC puppies and our breeders are the best. They are the “Gold Standard” in the marketplace. We need to continue to reinforce that. Let’s not allow those other registries to weaken us or put us out of business. Let’s not allow them to make AKC a nostalgic memory as well."

[stockdogranch]

Crap, indeed!

 

"The American Kennel Club provides what no other registry provides."

 

Which would be, um...exactly...what?

 

A

[1sheepdoggal]

The Gold Standard?? Eek! I wonder since when did AKC equate to quality?

[MaggieDog]

Oh gag - they jump into the "retail sector" immediately, and yet the mere thought of registering mixes for performance purposes isn't even discussed (hopefully altered mixes of course). Heaven forbid we deign to admit mixes into the premier registry...Yet another HUGE reason to avoid them at all costs.

[Janba]

Oh gag - they jump into the "retail sector" immediately, and yet the mere thought of registering mixes for performance purposes isn't even discussed (hopefully altered mixes of course). Heaven forbid we deign to admit mixes into the premier registry...Yet another HUGE reason to avoid them at all costs.

 

I am struggling to understand the ANKC registration of dogs for sports.

 

What is you ILP and what dogs are accepted ?

 

Here in Australia our ANKC has its own registry with main and limited registration (cannot be shown or have offspring registered), but also has an Associate Register(AR) and a Sporting Register (SR) for participating in sports. AR dogs can be any breed or cross and must be desexed. SR dogs are registered on one of the working registries and don't need to be desexed and if they are bred their pups would be registered on the working registry not ANKC

 

ETA SR and AR dogs can't be conformation shown.

[Sue R]

For AKC, a huge part of the issue is that it is about "the sport of purebred dogs". Therefore, it is based solely on purebred dogs for conformation, and dogs registered with AKC (or dual-registered with AKC if from an "acceptable" registry, like ABCA or ISDS).

 

Dogs of unknown lineage can be ILP'd if they are neutered and also "passed" as a breed. In other words, if the pictures look like a particular breed, the ILP application can be accepted (in other words, by appearance, it appears it could be purebred). That tends to be somewhat arbitrary as some folks have had obviously crossbred dogs accepted and others with marginal-looking purebreds have had them rejected. I guess it can depend on who is looking at the application.

 

AKC did a major survey within the last few years, polling members of affiliate clubs and such, as to their feelings on allowing crossbreds to have some sort of paperword and participate in performance sports. The prejudice against the crossbred/mutt dog was obvious in that it was a consideration that such dogs should not (also, in their opinion, could not) compete against the purebred dog. I think it was more a fear that crossbreds/mutts might actually win their share of competitions over purebreds that prompted the leaning towards separate events.

 

As pointed out, AKC's revenues are not primarily from events but rather from registrations. The vast bulk of (essentially) pet dog owners are the ones supporting the organization financially. The local affiliate club here has been known to make a substantial profit on conformation and performance events, but those monies largely stay with the local club, and do not contribute to the AKC as a whole.

 

It's an expensive organization to run, and it's been run on the backs of the pet-owning public for years. They are worried for good cause at the upper levels. It's big business and losing their market share.

 

On the other hand (I'm putting on my flame gear now), other than UKC (of which I know nothing), virtually all of the all-breed "registries" are nothing more than puppy mill and backyard breeder papermills. I may dislike the AKC but I think these registries don't even make a show of being associated with quality-bred dogs. They are like the folks that were disbarred from ABCA and made up their own "registry".

 

I believe that AKC's cleaning up of their own house with regards to large-scale puppy producers provided the opening for a whole slew of totally unethical and irresponsible "organizations" and "registries" to proliferate. I don't know why they did it, and I don't see how this particular result could have been avoided (barring the effective education of and good sense lacking in the general public with regards to pet shop and backyard-bred pups). I am not talking about single-bred registries or similar groups, like the Jack Russell folks, who predate AKC. They, like ABCA, are not the "enemy" of the well-bred dog.

 

As I said, not being at all familiar with UKC, and not regarding the recognition by AKC of the Border Collie and the attendant issues, in the realm of all-breed registries in the US, I think AKC is simply the best of a bad lot. Maybe that's what they mean by "gold standard".

[Tranquilis]

Sue, so what you're saying is that the AKC sucks the least? Actually, I've heard fairly positive things about the UKC, but very little good about any of the other US domestic market 'all-breed' registries.

 

In their desperation, the AKC has created the Administrative Pedigree Research Service, which will paper dogs from other registries, and will paper unpapered dogs of AKC parentage. Now, why is that last so important? Well, when a breeder sells a pet-quality dog, they often withold papers until after the spay/neuter contract has been completed. This allows breeders to prevent unsuitable dogs* from entering the breeding population, and the withholding of papers is one of the few effective tools that they have to enforce the spay/neuter contract. The AKC, will provide papers for these dogs unless all interested parties have signed the contract - That means that somone can make a straw purchase, pass the dog on to a third party, and the dog will then be immediately registerable, no matter what the contract, nor any matter what the breeder's intent. Bam! Instant puppy-mill breedstock!

 

 

 

 

 

*NOT getting into the argument about whether or not AKC dogs are 'proper' and healthy, or any of that rot - I'm discussing the breeder's perceptions, intentions, and privileges.

[Sue R]

What you say, absolutely!

 

And yes, while they are at, they are just kicking their responsible breeders right in the teeth.

[SoloRiver]

I had hoped that by pointing out the fact that ABCA and ISDS will register mutts and dogs of unknown origin, AKC might be persuaded to drop them as acceptable registries. I could easily register Fly, who is part Beardie, with AKC and no one would be the wiser and she is unremarkable to look at. But knowing how desperate they are and that they will target pet store and mill dogs, I no longer have any hope for this.

[Debbie Meier]

I had hoped that by pointing out the fact that ABCA and ISDS will register mutts and dogs of unknown origin, AKC might be persuaded to drop them as acceptable registries.

 

I think they may if, there was a large influx of ROM dogs that were obviously not Border Collies and then a few of those dogs end up applying for AKC Papers as Border Collies. The AKC Border Collie owners may then complain that dogs of none Border Collie decent were being allowed into AKC and eventually lead to the closing of the AKC books to ABCA registered dogs. If the AKC Border Collie breeders didn't complain, I would think that breeders of other purebred breeds would, or then try to petition that their breed get open stud books based on what was happening with the border collies, especially those breeds that are in genetic health jepordy. A breed group could petition with the legal courts to force AKC to open their books to outcrossing basing it on predjedice. In an effort to short circuit that mess, AKC may then nip the problem in the bud by disallowing ABCA/ISDS papered dogs.

 

I'm actually surprised that advocates trying to save some of the other breeds by wanting to outcross have not tried following this line, but it maybe has explored and not considered worth following without folks bringing cross breds or non BC's into the AKC via the ABCA loophole.

 

Deb

[Tranquilis]

I'm actually surprised that advocates trying to save some of the other breeds by wanting to outcross have not tried following this line, but it maybe has explored and not considered worth following...

Actually, the individual parent breed clubs can do this, if they wish. The parent clubs still set the standards - the Dalmatian parent club did exactly that - opened the books to selected pointer ouitcrosses to try and do some damage control on the Dalmatian breed. Unfortunately, it all fell a part in political wrangling and in-fighting. A complicating factor is while the parent clubs have the authority, they're heavily under the influence of the AKC, which is intensely set in its ways.

[SoloRiver]

Well, yes and no. The parent clubs have to petition AKC to reopen the studbooks, which AKC is extremely reluctant to do and only will do in what it considers exceptional circumstances. It's not like the breed clubs can just decide to do it and it's done. There's a lot about the Dalmatian backcross project and the African Basenji project online, and it's very interesting reading.

 

Breeders have also historically been reluctant to use outcrosses in any significant way because they are trapped in the kennel club paradigm, as you mention. Of the 20-odd dogs brought from Africa to expand the Basenji gene pool in the 1980s, only 13 were used and their influence is limited, since many Basenji breeders considered them lacking in type (never mind that they are from the "real" African Basenji population and should therefore be considered more representative) and further breeding quickly swamped their genetic contributions with those from domestic dogs. The Dalmatian project has the same problem. I mean, let's face it -- how much effect is adding one outside dog like a dozen generations back really going to have?

[Tranquilis]

Ah - I missed the requirement to petition. *Shrug* That just makes it worse.

 

The other points are interesting, and give more details than I previously had.

 

Breeders, as a bunch, tend to be intensely conservative - Not as in 'GOP,' but as in "change nothing." There are some visionaries out there, but dang few, relatively speaking. That's kinda understandible, as there are far more ways to go wrong in breeding than there are of going right; but the stick-in-the-mud attitude is harmful. One of the constant attacks made on the ISSR Shiloh population, for instance, is that the breed founder makes a point of bringing outcrosses under very strict controls; two outcross dogs every decade. No more than that - It'd be very hard to sort out the 'whats, whys, and whos' of the genetics if more dogs were coming in all the time, but enough are brought in to provide a constant, controlled influx of new, healthy, diverse genetic material. So, a number of the factional groups that broke away like to accuse her of breeding 'mutts.' If you go back to the core meaning of 'mutt,' as 'a dog of no particular breeding,' well, the accusation falls flat. But it has an emotional impact that carries heavy freight - And I suspect that the same argument carried weight with the Basenji and Dalmatian breeding community, too.

[Janba]

Actually, the individual parent breed clubs can do this, if they wish. The parent clubs still set the standards - the Dalmatian parent club did exactly that - opened the books to selected pointer ouitcrosses to try and do some damage control on the Dalmatian breed. Unfortunately, it all fell a part in political wrangling and in-fighting. A complicating factor is while the parent clubs have the authority, they're heavily under the influence of the AKC, which is intensely set in its ways.

 

I wouldn't call it damage control on the dalmatians as the uric acid problem would have nothing to do with AKC or any other selective breeding. You don't get a world wide population lacking a dominant gene that can't be actively selected against by physical appearances alone in the time dog showing and registration has been around. Also it was a vote of the DCA membership that opposed the registration of the backcross dallies and tha ANK followed their decision. I agree that it was not a good move on the DCA part but the decision is being reviewed and we may see backcross dallies being accepted in the near future.

 

how much effect is adding one outside dog like a dozen generations back really going to have?

 

That depends on the desirability of the traits introduced. Have you read about the breeding of bob-tailed boxers in the UK to overcome the anti tail docking legislation? A corgi was bred to a boxer and the subsequent bob tailed pups bred back to a boxer for 4 or 5 generations. These dogs were given KC registration and exported to many countries that disallow tail docking. These dogs are becoming very popular among the "fancy" and stud dogs are being used extensively so the inflence of that one corgi is increased each generation. The same with the backcross dalmatians where I feel the breeding program should probably have had more than the one original outcross.

 

I don't know what you answer is with the AKC as while we have similar issues with falling registration numbers etc we don't have that many alternative "purebred" registries and our ANKC doesn't recognise any of the working registries except greyhounds so our working dogs are relatively safe. Our alternative registries are for things like designer crossbreds. The gap filled by the falling ANKC numbers seems to be filled here mostly by backyard bred DDs and puppy farms and to me most of them are far worse than what is happening to some of the ANKC breeds. Hybrid vigor means nothing if you don't start of with genetically and structurally sound parents, especially if the two parent breeds suffer the same problems.

[Northof49]

Part of the ROM Program is:

A. A pedigree of the dog should be supplied to the Secretary, giving all details available on the sire and dam, including registration numbers when available.

 

B. Evidence that both sire and dam have received an OFA rating of "good" or "excellent" hips, or Cornell University Veterinary Radiology Department reports stating that their hips are not dysplastic. (This condition may be impractical or impossible to meet in some cases. The ROM Committee has the authority to waive this condition in some circumstances.)

 

 

I really can't see ISDS or ABCA registering a Norwich Terrier as a Border Collie

[Sue R]

Just how many Norwich Terriers could qualify by doing the work?

 

Some ROM dogs have pedigree information but ROM is a way for dogs that don't have pedigree information, to obtain registation by proving that they can do the work. That's the standard. Too bad too many dogs that are registered don't meet the standard.