In defense of AKC...

[TAC2]

As a newbie here I realize I'm going out on a limb here but I'd like to share my opinion on the AKC debate anyway.

 

First a perspective on the AKC. The AKC was founded by a group of "sportsmen," probably affluent, at the turn of the 19th century to compare their best dogs for bragging rights. Another club, the UKC (United Kennel Club) was also founded around the same time for the same reasons. While the UKC is still in existence and supports many activities like the AKC, the AKC became the pre-eminent "brand" for the purebred dog...because it is FIRST and foremost a BUSINESS and its product is its registry. The shows, trials, titles, magazines, philanthropic and lobbying activities are all "value added products."

 

The AKC was incorporated in the State of New York on May 19, 1908. Its mission statement (as shown on the current website): "The American Kennel Club is dedicated to upholding the integrity of its Registry, promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function. Founded in 1884, the AKC® and its affiliated organizations advocate for the purebred dog as a family companion, advance canine health and well-being, work to protect rights of all dog owners and promote responsible dog ownership." Its stated objective: Advance the study, breeding, exhibiting, running and maintenance of purebred dogs. They are the first to say that the actual breeding, buying and selling are the provinces of the individuals, and they are strictly hands off (for liability issues I'm sure.)

 

Now, taken in the context of history, the AKC and UKC were founded at a time in America when the Industrial Revolution was changing the structure of society and allowing the growth of the middle class. Innovation and mechanization gave these people more affluence and free time. We continue this trend today with new technologies, though I would argue that we don't have more free time because of it. Mechanization began the decline of animal labor on the farm (John Deere crated the first steel plow in 1837.) "The Iron Horse" (railways) and industrial jobs were moving the population from rural farms to urban centers and the advent of refrigeration meant produce could travel further distances and support more people in the cities (first refrigerated rail car was built in 1867 by Parker Earle) The Gold Rush hit in 1848/9 and the transcontinental railway was completed in 1869.

 

During this same period, the upper classes, artists and naturalists (like John Muir) were exploring and manipulating nature and developing retreats in places like the Adirondacks and Jersey Shore. The style to become known as Art Nouveau "modernized" and conceptualized natural form in art and decoration. Many recreational activities like baseball (1871) and the Miss America pageant (1921) became national pastimes. Is it really so strange then that people with time and money on their hands began to manipulate the dog to create fashionable breeds and then show them off in "dog shows" a.k.a canine beauty pageants?

 

To be fair, some of the early affluent fanciers managed to "save" breeds that would otherwise have been lost due to lessening need. Unfortunately this desire for form over function has become the absurdity it is today in far too many breeds. The show structure is probably the root of the problem; a standard is only as good as its interpretation. Each judge is a breeder first. This is as true of sheep, goats, horses, cattle, etc. as it is of dogs. Each breeder, owner or judge holds his or her own mental image of the ideal animal. It's human nature. Even working border collies appear to have different but categorically identifiable outlines or styles to their work. Some are fast, others slow and steady, those work low to the ground while another is upright, one is better for cattle, etc. I'm sure there are several people on this board that can identify bloodlines merely by watching a dog work.

 

I don't believe it is right to manipulate a breed, dog or otherwise, to the detriment of its health or sanity to attain someone's ideal of beauty, any more than it is right to judge someone (and award scholarships, contracts, etc.) based upon looks as in the Miss America type pageants; but there are many who are passionate about it. Since this is America, they are free to do so as long as no civil or criminal laws (animal cruelty) are violated. If a business (AKC) sees or creates a market for its product, is it wrong to sell it? No. Do you have to buy it? No.

 

Some dogs have never been meant to be more than a pocket pet and there is nothing wrong with that unless it creates a detrimental anomaly of structure or temperament. I also don't have any problems with showing per se. Though it doesn't appear to be, it is actually hard work, can be lots of fun and there used to be many nice folks who participate. It is rare that the handlers in Group or BIS at Westminster are owners, those are the professionals handling dogs sometimes owned by celebrities (Bill Cosby, Martha Stewart, etc.) And the sport seems to be heading to the pros only.

 

Having a dog (or sheep, goat, horse, pig, etc.) as a pet is not wrong either, as long as the animal's well being, both mental and physical, are served. That said, I personally don't like working dog breeds that have been turned into brainless "deformed" objects, but I've learned from GSDs, that I can't change the opinions of so many. Even though working dogs are, in my opinion, much better than their beauty queen cousins, the "show folks" are as passionate about their way of doing things as the working breeders are about theirs. Realistically, working breeders have as much chance of convincing show or sport breeders to "see the light" as show or sport breeders have of convincing working breeders to see things their way. Ain't likely to happen except in a very few instances.

 

So I take my purchasing power elsewhere and share my reasoning when asked. Thankfully, there seem to be many folks dedicated to preserving the working qualities and original "type" for these breeds. If the Border Collie breed must split into working and show lines (with sport somewhere in between?), and as long sufficient genetic diversity is carefully maintained within the working lines there should be no harm. And yes, this imposes a significant duty on working breeders. Do working breeders really want their working bred dogs to end in homes where they are confined alone all day, never to see livestock or use their gifts productively? Wouldn't the show bred pet with no drive other than to seek the most comfy lap be happier there? I don't believe anyone truly in need of a working dog, is going to be duped into purchasing a show or sport dog. On the other hand someone who thinks they want a working dog and who really should have a couch potato is probably better off with a show bred dog. The dog would be happier and fewer would end in rescue. The sad fact is there are more pet/sport/show homes available these days than farms or hobby farms for the herding dogs. BTW, I am NOT advocating breeding BCs for show or pet homes, but if they are out there already, I see no harm in placing them properly. Educate folks who ask certainly, but I'm not the kind of person to see a point in beating ones head against a brick wall trying to convince the unconvince-able.

 

Okay, dissertation and soap-box completed, deep breath...bracing myself for responses...

[bsms99]

You seem to assume that breeding for work is contradictory to breeding for a pet. That CAN be true, IF someone defines a pet as an animal to leave alone for most of the day. However, I'm looking for another Border Collie - for a pet - because my first pure Border Collie was such a great one. She would have herded flies if she had wings, but she was an intense, highly focused, energetic and loving pet. She herded our kids. When the baby was born, she herded the baby. Since she couldn't use eye or tooth, she would lie down on top of the baby when needed.

 

Many a soccer ball died for defying her stare. She chased frisbees and ran a lot of miles by my side. She ran a lot more miles in the house, checking on each room in sequence to see who was there and if they needed her assistance. My wife was her God. I was The Boss. The kids were upstarts who deserved to be below her on the pecking order (she thought), but she took care of them because we wanted her to. If she got really pissed at the kids, she would turn her head to one side and gnash her teeth.

 

She was bred of working dogs on a farm near Bicester, England. She was bred to herd sheep. But the same qualities that made her parents good sheep dogs (and, from her one try at herding sheep, were probably passed on to her) also made her a great pet. The intelligence, independent judgment, drive, focus and desire to please were at the core of her appeal.

 

As for show breeds - I don't care if someone does it, provided they change the name of what they are breeding so that everyone knows they aren't real border collies. If they would change the name to Border Phluffpots, I'd have no objection.

 

But no person of integrity would breed an animal for looks and call it a Border Collie or Australian Shepherd. 30 years ago, I had a roommate with an Aussie. Dan was a fine herding dog - better with cattle than sheep. I looked a bit a few months ago for Aussies. With one exception, all were raised for show or agility or companionship. You could tell at a glance that they were no longer herd dogs. Too heavy, too fluffy, too...dull. You can see the same thing in Border Phluffpots...the back is wrong, they are heavyset, too much hair, too little focus.

 

If one looks hard, you can still find fine Aussies - but you have to look hard. 30 years ago, Aussie breeders were afraid the AKC would ruin the breed. Their fears were justified. I would hate to see Border Collies follow that path.

 

So no. I will not ever buy an AKC dog, although I might rescue one. Nor will I accept an AKC Phluffpot as a Border Collie. You might as well compromise with cancer.

[hsnrs]

My Alfie is a Aussie from working lines and she is also AKC/ASCA registered so these dogs do exist. You just have to look harder. We just happened to get lucky. Narita

[TAC2]

You seem to assume that breeding for work is contradictory to breeding for a pet. That CAN be true, IF someone defines a pet as an animal to leave alone for most of the day.

 

Actually I don't assume breeding for work is contradictory I thought that was clear here: "Having a dog (or sheep, goat, horse, pig, etc.) as a pet is not wrong either, as long as the animal's well being, both mental and physical, are served. " Obviously you met the physical and mental needs of your particular working bred pet dog in your own way.

 

Also here: "On the other hand someone who thinks they want a working dog and who really should have a couch potato is probably better off with a show bred dog." The important part of this statement is someone thinks they do, when they REALLY don't. A working dog with proper drive is not for everyone. This is a BC board, so I do assume everyone here admires the qualities of the BC. I was referring to the people who see a dog at a trial, think they're pretty and smart and want one just like it when they cannot or will not provide proper care/conditions/training. And training does not necessarily mean herding though anyone who watches one of these dogs work cannot doubt the joy they find in it. People that see one at a show and contact the show breeder are more likely (though maybe not) getting the type of dog they probably need. Does that make sense?

 

I probably didn't make my intentions as clear as I thought. The post was entitled in defense of the AKC. The AKC is a registry, not a breeder. Judges are breeders, breeders are breeders and the responsibility for selecting, awarding and breeding the dogs that they do rests solely with them. That is my biggest peeve with public perception of the AKC (though the AKC has fostered it) is that those registration papers somehow convey all kinds of wonderful things beyond a simple piece of paper that says daddy is registered with us, mommy is registered with us, the grandparents are registered with us so you have a "purebred" registered dog. Within those parameters working or show doesn't matter. The AKC is not guaranteeing quality, working ability or even conformation....just pedigree.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

My Alfie is a Aussie from working lines and she is also AKC/ASCA registered so these dogs do exist. You just have to look harder. We just happened to get lucky. Narita

 

Whick is exactly what I don't want to say of Border Collies in twenty years - or less.

[bsms99]

The Aussie I knew 30 years ago was a great dog. It was my time with him that motivated me, years later, to look for a herding dog. And in England, it was easier to find a BC than an Aussie - although my BC was a blue merle...

 

I suspect if I had recently looked as hard for a good breeder of Aussies as I did for Border Collies, I could have found one. I couldn't count the emails I sent out trying to find a reputable breeder...happily, a number of breeders were willing to steer me in the right direction. It was the trials people who helped me for no reason other than niceness, that I can tell.

 

The shame of it is that ALL breeders of Aussies and Border Collies should do so for working dogs - that is what made their breeds. I've no wish to knock Australian Shepherds. I DO knock how the AKC is impacting the breed, and it would be far too easy for Border Collies to suffer the same impact. That is why I have a 'no compromise' attitude towards the AKC.

 

It is the same for many other working breeds. You can find great retrievers, but the AKC makes it harder by diluting the pool with bad breeders. And not only diluting the pool, but promoting their activities! I see no reason to compromise with an organization that contributes nothing good, but does much harm.

[bsms99]

"On the other hand someone who thinks they want a working dog and who really should have a couch potato is probably better off with a show bred dog."

 

Someone like that is better off with no dog at all, and certainly no Border Collie.

 

"The post was entitled in defense of the AKC...The AKC is not guaranteeing quality, working ability or even conformation....just pedigree."

 

So the only thing they guarantee is the thing with no value. In return, they do much harm - and that is a defense? Color me underwhelmed.

[TAC2]

Sorry, had to go pick up the child from the football game.

 

Just a few more comments to add:

 

"You could tell at a glance that they were no longer herd dogs. Too heavy, too fluffy, too...dull." Devil's advocate here, but this is kind of judging the book by its cover isn't it? Beauty judging in reverse? What if those dogs lost a little weight, so what about the hair, and "sparked" when they saw a sheep?

 

"On the other hand someone who thinks they want a working dog and who really should have a couch potato is probably better off with a show bred dog." --- Someone like that is better off with no dog at all, and certainly no Border Collie." 'Fraid we'll just have to disagree on this. Many sedentary owners and quiet, mellow dogs happily co-exist.

 

"So the only thing they guarantee is the thing with no value" --- EXACTLY...its only value is to the person that wants proof that both parents were the same breed. "In return, they do much harm - and that is a defense?" Okay, I'll bite, what does the AKC...NOT the breeders, exhibitors, or others who buy their services do, specifically, that is harmful? Provide a forum for their breeders to show off their breeding stock or owners to play with agility, conformation, rally or "herding" (yes I know that is laughable to this group)? The USBCHA does the same thing with herding trials. Register pedigrees and provide a piece of paper, ABCA does the same thing. Lobby for canine legislation? Well you would have me there, that is definitely a double edged sword. Provide, through its charitable health foundation, funding for University research on canine diseases, genetic tests and someday, hopefully cures? Sorry, but I don't see that as a bad thing, and the money from registration and competition fees pays for it. What else?

 

Now back to where I left off...

 

I repeat (it feels like ad nauseum) the AKC is a business entity, like AT&T. They sell/promote their registry - if there are bad breeders, it isn't the AKC doing it anymore than AT&T is promoting or causing telemarketers to call and annoy you at dinner time. They are selling a service/product...what the buyer does is at their own discretion. I'm not making a judgment as to good or bad, just that it is what it is, like it or not. Show breeders get all bent out of shape because the AKC still registers pet store pups and others get upset because they "pander" to show breeders. Hello... THE AKC IS IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY AND THEY DO IT BY REGISTERING DOGS. I'm not advocating anyone go out and buy an AKC dog or suddenly fall in love with the organization. Just recognize that it is what it is and don't expect more from it.

 

The fact remains however, that like it or not, some BC folks wanted AKC recognition, the deal is done and cannot (by all means correct me if I'm wrong) be undone. You cannot change the ancestors of those dogs...they are Border Collies, registered under the ABCA and transferred/dual enrolled by the AKC at acceptance. They are what they are. Whatever they become will not change that. However, the beauty with the BC breed is that the ABCA did not fold itself up and roll into the AKC BC club. It has taken steps to maintain the integrity of the working (true, original, call it what you will) Border Collie and will not register those that pursue AKC titles or breed to a non-functional standard. So I still don't get why there is this animosity toward AKC other than many people didn't want that recognition in the first place...and again...it's spilt milk. Why get your knickers in a twist over what cannot be changed? Given that there is sufficient genetic diversity, breeders that care enough to maintain it and an organization/registry (ABCA) that supports that goal, I have yet to see a persuasive reason for the negativity. Couldn't the negativity be channeled into positive things?

[bsms99]

I suggest a more apt analogy might be this:

 

Omega makes fine watches. They are easily recognized and have a reputation for lasting several lifetimes. In another country, a company with no connection starts making cheap quartz watches that may or may not last the week without falling apart. They label them Omega, and want to market them on an equal footing with the original Omega.

 

Does the original company have a right to be upset?

[TAC2]

I suggest a more apt analogy might be this:

 

Omega makes fine watches. They are easily recognized and have a reputation for lasting several lifetimes. In another country, a company with no connection starts making cheap quartz watches that may or may not last the week without falling apart. They label them Omega, and want to market them on an equal footing with the original Omega.

 

Does the original company have a right to be upset?

 

Not quite the same thing I think. The show BC shares the same ancestors in the not so distant past so they are still in actuality, the same thing even if they are developing different characteristics (Omega watch with a 18Kt solid gold band as opposed to a 10 Kt gold plated band studded with rhinestones to follow your analogy.) Where they go over time may or may not diverge further (I suspect it will if they follow the path of other breeds.) Unfortunately, grumbling about it will do nothing to change it. That horse has already left the barn.

 

A more apt analogy would be Omega makes fine watches...a subsidiary opens overseas and its management hires cheap labor then begins substituting cheaper but flashier parts. Down the road, they are no longer the same classic quality product, even though they share the same label. Savvy consumers will buy continue to buy the better product.

 

BTW, my point is not that working lines and show lines are the same...just that it depends on your point of view. The AKC really has nothing to do with it other than some breeders chose to go that route for whatever reason, with a detrimental effect on the (whole) breed image if not the actual quality of the dogs maintaining original "type." Education is the best defense, and it's up to the current ABCA membership, to determine how far to go. Do they keep the working BC a "secret" to protect it or get out the facts and risk everyone and his uncle wanting the wonderful b/w herding dog, which could have the same end result as the show breedings are currently experiencing --- fad purchaser demand.

[juliepoudrier]

Okay, I'll bite, what does the AKC...NOT the breeders, exhibitors, or others who buy their services do, specifically, that is harmful? Provide a forum for their breeders to show off their breeding stock or owners to play with agility, conformation, rally or "herding" (yes I know that is laughable to this group)?

 

I think the problem is in the forum (conformation showing) AKC provides for the owners/breeders. It is in the conformation shows that the judges interpret the standards according to their fancy or the latest fad and then owners/breeders go out and copy what's winning. It's in supporting the attitude that form really does define function. AKC judges have to be certified through an AKC-run program. So AKC has a hand (and a very large one it is) right in there in the conformation showing world. They control how the shows are run and who judges them. If the judging then leads to dogs that are no longer functional, well, then the ultimate blame does indeed lie with the organization who promotes the shows and certifies the judges.

 

The USBCHA does the same thing with herding trials.

 

Not really, because in the herding trials the dog actually has to be able to perform the function for which it was bred. That's a really huge difference. No one at a USBCHA trial is judging the dog based on anything other than its ability to work livestock.

 

Register pedigrees and provide a piece of paper, ABCA does the same thing.

 

Yep, and it's a shame that a registry can't entirely control what breeders do, but at least ABCA isn't promoting competitions that reward for something else other than purpose and ability (which ABCA does through its support of the USBCHA).

 

Lobby for canine legislation? Well you would have me there, that is definitely a double edged sword. Provide, through its charitable health foundation, funding for University research on canine diseases, genetic tests and someday, hopefully cures? Sorry, but I don't see that as a bad thing, and the money from registration and competition fees pays for it. What else?

 

Providing funding is not a bad thing for sure, but where are all those genetic diseases they're providing funding for coming from? And there's the rub. Take a gene pool, limit it, add in popular sire effect and breeding for extremes of structure and voila! you end up with a bunch of genetic problems that then require funding to figure out how to manage them. So sure, kudos to AKC for providing funding for the research, but it seems to me that the money might be better spent in up front education of breeders and judges and perhaps even including some sort or performance standard (at least for those breeds whose purpose was other than as a lap warmer). Require judges to stick to the standard and enforce it. Make the standards very clear. Refuse championships on dogs who have been bred (overbred) to some extreme. There are lots of ways the AKC could spend its money to help prevent the problems from arising in the first place, rather than waiting to build a new barn door after the horse is long gone. To reiterate my point: the AKC has set up a system that allows the abuses by judges and breeders and then throws money at the resulting problems after the fact. I'm sure there's a better way.

 

The problem as I see it is that the AKC has set a brand for dogs that makes the average consumer believe that s/he has to have a purebred dog in order to have a good pet. The AKC created a demand for purebred dogs, and who filled that demand? The mills and the BYBs. On the other side, they promote conformation showing without any performance standard, which allowed whim and fashion to dictate what a dog should look like--not usefulnss--and those whims and fashions have led to dogs that are often genetic or physical messes.

 

It's all well and good for the AKC to then stand back and say, "But we only register purebred dogs, what comes after that is the purview of the breeders," when in fact the AKC supports the very activity that ultimately creates dogs that can no longer function as they were meant to and often have physical deformities that are just sickening.

 

AKC can't have it both ways. Sorry.

 

J.

[bsms99]

"Okay, I'll bite, what does the AKC...NOT the breeders, exhibitors, or others who buy their services do, specifically, that is harmful?"

 

Given the number of breeds ruined, I'd have to conclude the AKC fosters / encourages / supports the transformation of working dogs into junk. If they knocked off the conformation shows and pushed genuine trials of retrieving / herding / hunting etc as the 'standard', you would have a point. Read up on the history of dog breeds before suggesting the AKC does no harm, and only faulty breeders are to blame.

 

"a subsidiary opens overseas"

 

Not a subsidiary, but a rival with a history of destroying the original brands...

 

"The AKC really has nothing to do with it other than some breeders chose to go that route for whatever reason..."

 

Again, you need to read some history. Breeders go that route with the full support and encouragement of the AKC, so they can 'win' AKC events.

 

I won't respond again. Either you don't know enough about the history of the AKC to discuss it knowledgeably, or you choose to turn a blind eye to the destruction of many breeds. We're both newbies to this board, but I remember what Australian Shepherds were 30 years ago and have no desire for Border Collies to follow the AKC path. You're like someone saying, "It is just a few lumps, and we all die eventually - so what is REALLY wrong with cancer?"

[Sue R]

My Alfie is a Aussie from working lines and she is also AKC/ASCA registered so these dogs do exist. You just have to look harder. We just happened to get lucky. Narita

This quote alone confirms what AKC (and ASCA to a large degree as well, with its show venues, emphasis on "versatility" and support of breeding dogs for other than working abilities) has done to many non-pet, purposeful breeds. It is certainly NOT a justification for promoting breeding for other than working ability, but rather the opposite. It is a case study in what happens when breeding is not based on working ability, when show venues become a part of a breed, and when titles become "important" considerations in breeding.

 

Who wants to find that good, working, sound, sensible dogs are the minority, hard to find, and require "luck" to locate? Not me, and not the farmers and ranchers who depend on these dogs. Your criteria, however, may differ and you might be happy with that situation in your chosen breed.

 

What Julie wrote is, as usual, a clear and well-based rebuttal to the premises of the OP, and Becca's comment was right on the mark.

[Mona Howard]

QUOTE. Not really, because in the herding trials the dog actually has to be able to perform the function for which it was bred. That's a really huge difference. No one at a USBCHA trial is judging the dog based on anything other than its ability to work livestock. UNQUOTE.

 

I agree with Julie on this one too. I had a friend that would show her conformation bred German Shepard in Novice-Novice

in Arizona. She had dogs that did well in conformation classes. Sometimes she brought her dog out to my place to work him.

He really enjoyed the work but it was a little sad in that whenever he had to make a tight turn he would fall over. Those camped out Ger. Shep back legs couldn't handle it.

[Shetlander]

. I had a friend that would show her conformation bred German Shepard in Novice-Novice in Arizona. She had dogs that did well in conformation classes. Sometimes she brought her dog out to my place to work him. He really enjoyed the work but it was a little sad in that whenever he had to make a tight turn he would fall over. Those camped out Ger. Shep back legs couldn't handle it.

 

That sounds a lot sad to me.

[Pearse]

The AKC is a registry, not a breeder. Judges are breeders, breeders are breeders and the responsibility for selecting, awarding and breeding the dogs that they do rests solely with them. That is my biggest peeve with public perception of the AKC (though the AKC has fostered it) is that those registration papers somehow convey all kinds of wonderful things beyond a simple piece of paper that says daddy is registered with us, mommy is registered with us, the grandparents are registered with us so you have a "purebred" registered dog. Within those parameters working or show doesn't matter. The AKC is not guaranteeing quality, working ability or even conformation....just pedigree.

 

This is where your argument fails.

 

The AKC is NOT "just a registry". The AKC sanctions conformation shows, agility meets, flyball tournaments, herding trials, etc etc etc. They set the standards and they take the money. Were they simply a registry, they would not be involved with these other activities. The judges for these activities are AKC approved, not approved by the breed clubs. Therefore the AKC has a very big influence over which dogs get titles. Titles play a big role in determining which dogs are bred. Therefore, the AKC bears much of the responsibility for what is happening to breeds included in its registry.

 

Compare this to the working dog world. The ABCA is really "just a registry". All trials are pretty much independent but are sanctioned by the USBCHA (basically a collection of handlers trialling in Open and Nursery). The registry has no say in how the courses are set, or who gets to judge. Furthermore, most trials are entirely Open. Unregistered dogs of any breed can compete. The registry does not invent titles to generate revenue.

 

 

Pearse

[Pippin's person]

Just a quick correction--the AKC doesn't sanction flyball tournaments. The North American Flyball Association and the United Flyball League do. Given that flyball allows mixed-breed dogs to compete and only cares about the breed of the dog in "mixed breed" teams (which require four dogs of different breeds, one of which can be a mixed breed), the AKC would never be interested in sanctioning flyball.

[TAC2]

The problem as I see it is that the AKC has set a brand for dogs that makes the average consumer believe that s/he has to have a purebred dog in order to have a good pet. The AKC created a demand for purebred dogs, and who filled that demand? The mills and the BYBs.

 

Absolutely, I agree with this statement and this is my point and peeve. They created a market, sell to it and perpetuate it. However,

 

On the other side, they promote conformation showing without any performance standard, which allowed whim and fashion to dictate what a dog should look like--not usefulnss--and those whims and fashions have led to dogs that are often genetic or physical messes.

 

Actually it is the breed club or parent club for each particular breed that determines the Standard. So the splinter group of BC breeders that sought AKC recognition in order to "win at AKC events" in this case conformation are the ones who failed the breed, not the body corporate.

 

" The judges for these activities are AKC approved, not approved by the breed clubs. " This is not quite accurate since the judges are not selected by the AKC and certified. Breeders decide they want to become judges and are sponsored by the parent club - delegates of which do have input into how AKC sanctioned things are run. It is really quite complicated and quite beyond my ability to understand, much less explain.

 

The corporate AKC, its board of directors, etc. cannot possibly manage every single breed they recognize and rely on the member breed clubs...and perhaps that is the root of the problem...member breed clubs, their AKC delegates and breeder members (from whom the judging pool is drawn) that are actually doing the damage. Which is my original point, but I concede that more intelligent oversight is needed.

 

Mona:

 

Please do not get me started on the GSD in America or you will have me ranting and frothing at the mouth We had a wonderful working bred, SV registered GSD and if you want to see what a breed organization should be, that is a good one. Each country/region is assigned a Breed Warden. This person had to be very knowledgeable about all aspects of the breed (and the ability to read/understand German too). He or she would judge each dog before it could be bred. At a minimum, the hips had to be rated "A" or in OFA "normal" or better; the dog must have attained a working title of SchI or better; if shown in conformation, must have 'V' rating or better, plus a hands on inspection by the Warden. And conformation shows in Germany are no cakewalk. Instead of gaiting round a 20' square ring for 45 seconds, those dogs were gaited at full out trot --- around a football sized stadium, for at least a mile, to demonstrate both structure and endurance - basically, soundness. Dogs that run their handlers ragged are heartily cheered, those that lag behind or show signs of tiredness are booed off the field. Each dog's pedigree is an Ahnantafel (sp?) which not only include the names and titles of the parents, grandparents, etc., but the key points of the Warden's breed inspection report on each dog; including temperament test (B rating.) Now THAT would be something for the AKC or any breed club to promote.

[herdcentral]

On the other hand someone who thinks they want a working dog and who really should have a couch potato is probably better off with a show bred dog. The dog would be happier and fewer would end in rescue. The sad fact is there are more pet/sport/show homes available these days than farms or hobby farms for the herding dogs. BTW, I am NOT advocating breeding BCs for show or pet homes, but if they are out there already, I see no harm in placing them properly. Educate folks who ask certainly, but I'm not the kind of person to see a point in beating ones head against a brick wall trying to convince the unconvince-able.

 

Yes I can see where you are coming from.

 

I am a first time BC owner and was looking for a kelpie when I adopted a young BC at 5 months old that was looking for a home. She is from showbred lines and ANKC registered. Knowing nothing about BCs but seeing a dog looking for a home, she came to live with me. I live in the country and also have ACDS.

 

My assessment of this showbred dog is that she would make and excellent pet for an active family. She is very mellow but will come running and walking for hours. She is smart and easy to train but is not particularly driven unless you throw her ball or she can chase and herd seagulls on the beach, but she is equally happy on my lap and lying around the house. She is light, long and lean and athletic in structure, is very sound, very beautiful and is a great training partner for my sister who trains for marathons and triathlons.

 

She definitely lacks the drive and intensity of my ACDS and of the working BCs I have come to know. She is friendly and socially adept with every other life form. She loves activity but doesnt demand it. She is a very easy and sweet dog to live with and would have had a very low chance of ending up in rescue if she had been adopted into a family home. She is definitely not a fat , fluffy brainless lump, quite the opposite and stuns me with the speed she works things out. The perfect suburban companion really.

 

However since joining this board I have learnt alot and am in agreement with the boards philosophy about the BC as a working dog first and foremost and that breeding for looks is contrary to every thing a BC stands for.

[juliepoudrier]

Actually it is the breed club or parent club for each particular breed that determines the Standard. So the splinter group of BC breeders that sought AKC recognition in order to "win at AKC events" in this case conformation are the ones who failed the breed, not the body corporate.

 

Tru,

Well, except that no one forced AKC to recognize the breed when a number of registries were fightng against registration. If I remember correctly, the parent club that was chosen was chosen because it did not argue with AKC abotu performance standards and the like.

 

Actually it is the breed club or parent club for each particular breed that determines the Standard. So the splinter group of BC breeders that sought AKC recognition in order to "win at AKC events" in this case conformation are the ones who failed the breed, not the body corporate.

 

So do you think that the AKC corporate folks have no input there? I think such a belief is somewhat naive.

 

I have a suggestion for you. Join Herders-L and listen to what those folks have to say about the AKC, since they all do performance events with their dogs and show in conformation. They are pro-AKC because they participate in conformation shows and they are the folks who have been trying for years without luck to work within the system to bring about change (changes that they think would improve the breeds, improve the current performance programs, etc.). You may like to believe that AKC has little control over what the breed clubs do and the standards they establish, but having been a member of Herd-L for close to a decade I can tell you that the folks there don't complain about their breed clubs preventing change--they lay the blame squarely at the feet of AKC and if what I've been reading over the years is any indication, AKC rules with an iron fist, with little consideration for the needs of the various breeds under its umbrella. (Beware if you join though that there is some entrenched animosity toward working border collie folks, so you need to tread lightly in that respect.)

 

No one can stop you from being an AKC apologist, certainly, but I wonder if you really know much about the AKC and the "power" structure between the AKC and the parent clubs. Have you read Don McCaig's The Dog Wars? If you haven't, you should. Although it's about the recognition of the border collie, it will give you some insight into how AKC works. You may be surprised.

 

FWIW, the corporate AKC doesn't have to micromanage every breed club, but you can bet your britches that breed clubs aren't allowed to just do what they want--they must operate within AKC rules. I think you're splitting hairs when you claim that the AKC corporate entity is not responsible for what the delegates, breed clubs, individuals do. The AKC is a political organization above all else, and you can be sure that the people who don't conform to what the parent wants don't get far and don't gain much power or influence within the organization.

 

Really, go ask the folks on Herders-L who controls what goes on within AKC programs. I think they'll be happy to answer you.

 

J.

[TAC2]

I think I need to clarify a few things here before I make these last few comments.

 

My parents were long time fanciers, exhibitors and in the end, breeders of Boston Terriers. This was in the late 50s - 70s. I did a little junior handling in the 70s and really enjoyed it. Many of my friends at the time were also the children of fanciers.

 

I owned and showed a Dalmatian in the 80s before the 101 Dal movie remake came out, breed popularity exploded and quality declined. Breeds that don't become popular with the public seem to continue life as usual.

 

However, that was over 20 years ago now. From everything I am reading here, things must have drastically changed and gone waaaay down hill. However, if people "inside the organization" who are trying can't effect change, then I don't know what can be done. Bemoaning the fact isn't going to help. From the limited amount I've seen, the ABCA is heading in the right direction, but it may be too little too late. Wish I had solutions for you, but I don't.

 

Since I freely admit I know nothing about the whys, hows, and wherefores of the BC recognition (last I paid attention to AKC things, BCs were still in the misc class) I still can't grasp how the AKC or any organization could "force" breed clubs to join. At least one person, likely more, must have wanted to show BCs in conformation and earn AKC titles for marketing purposes (again that whole skewed value concept.) If agility and like sports were the motivator, then there are plenty such canine sports organizations outside of the AKC. Likewise, the UKC sponsors and promotes conformation shows and perhaps other agility type events. They just don't have the branding with John Q. Public that the AKC has. And again, this is something the public needs to be aware of, the AKC provides papers, period. It doesn't guarantee quality, working ability or anything else.

 

Unfortunately, I think too many John Q. Publics don't much care about working ability, hunting ability or any specific breed skill set. John Q. wants a cool dog (like the one on TV), that preferably has no real doggie characteristics (sheds, poops, eats/rolls in disgusting stuff, pukes, tracks dirt in the house, needs attention, grooming, training, etc.) If everyone else wants the same one too, all the better, and for a relatively small number of folks, if it is a status "breed" with an outrageous price tag and a waiting list...like XXXXXdoodles (now there is a breed to pity...the poodle!)...i.e. mutts, WOOHOO!

 

Since I would have much research to do before I post anymore on the subject, and I'm much more concerned with reading about herding and working with our new BC , I guess I'm done here. Feel free to carry on...

[Mona Howard]

Please do not get me started on the GSD in America or you will have me ranting and frothing at the mouth We had a wonderful working bred, SV registered GSD and if you want to see what a breed organization should be, that is a good one. Each country/region is assigned a Breed Warden. This person had to be very knowledgeable about all aspects of the breed (and the ability to read/understand German too). He or she would judge each dog before it could be bred. At a minimum, the hips had to be rated "A" or in OFA "normal" or better; the dog must have attained a working title of SchI or better; if shown in conformation, must have 'V' rating or better, plus a hands on inspection by the Warden. And conformation shows in Germany are no cakewalk. Instead of gaiting round a 20' square ring for 45 seconds, those dogs were gaited at full out trot --- around a football sized stadium, for at least a mile, to demonstrate both structure and endurance - basically, soundness. Dogs that run their handlers ragged are heartily cheered, those that lag behind or show signs of tiredness are booed off the field. Each dog's pedigree is an Ahnantafel (sp?) which not only include the names and titles of the parents, grandparents, etc., but the key points of the Warden's breed inspection report on each dog; including temperament test (B rating.) Now THAT would be something for the AKC or any breed club to promote.

 

TAC2

I am not trying to slam the german shepards. I think they are wonderful dogs. I understand the German judging system too.

My family is german, I am the only one born in the U.S. I am simply stating that they were originally bred for stock work and thru

breeding for conformation have become, in my opinion, rendered unable to perform the job they were originally bred for. Growing

up on Langley Air Force base I would watch the K-9 handlers put their dogs thru their workouts in what looked to me like an Agility

course. These dogs were something amazing to see. This was back in the 60's mind you. I know people with Ger. Sheps. with Titles in Schultzhund 3. A few in agility. Alot in tracking. They are great dogs. As stockdogs they have lost alot of what they were

originally bred to do.

[Eileen Stein]

TAC2, there is basic information about AKC recognition of the border collie here. You may be surprised to learn that the AKC recognized the border collie without designating a breed club, and it was the AKC itself, not a breed club, which set the first AKC show standard for the breed. That was because the USBCC was opposed to AKC recognition and therefore unwilling to serve as breed club, which left only two recently formed, competing clubs as possibilities, neither of which AKC thought was "ready" to be a breed club. This is an indication of how hollow is the claim that the breed clubs set the standards, not the AKC. Actually the AKC dictates the form of the breed club's constitution, the requirements that the breed standard must meet (e.g., the BCSA originally proposed a herding requirement to be fulfilled before a dog could earn the title of conformation Champion, but AKC said no), the requirements for all other titles, the people who may judge its shows and trials (breed club can "recommend," AKC decides) and everything else of any importance. The idea that the breed club is the real decider is no more than a useful fiction to deflect blame.

 

As Pearse said, the AKC is not merely a registry, because it purports to define excellence in a breed through the titles it confers. This gives it enormous powers over public opinion and enormous powers to shape the future evolution of the breed. This power has resulted in detriment to nearly every working breed that has ever been brought within its registry. Do you think the breeders you deplore would be breeding for conformation if the AKC did not offer titles in conformation?

 

People who want a couch potato dog that they can leave alone all day and ignore the rest of the time have plenty of breeds to choose from. The AKC is performing no service by encouraging the transformation of border collies into such a dog.

 

Finally, you say "Unfortunately, grumbling about it will do nothing to change it. That horse has already left the barn," and then you say "Education is the best defense." Has it occurred to you that what you consider grumbling might actually be a form of education?

[Amelia]

Hello all. One of my favorite sayings; when you breed for the way ears hang on a dog's head you lose what's between the ears. to suggest that a border collie without keen instinct has value as a pet is completely absurd, because that dog isn't a border collie. that's like suggesting that a car without an engine still has a place in the car pool. change the name of the conformation-bred border collies and i don't care what you do with them.

 

when people think of a border collie they should think of a highly intelligent, structurally sound, genetically healthy and physically fit dog that's suitable for hard work and not right for everybody. in what reality is it acceptable to take a dog fitting that description and change it to make it suitable for life in a Newport Beach condo? besides the AKC reality I mean?

 

when I think of a conformation-bred border collie I think of the one that showed up at my place for an instinct test one day. it looked like a corgie with a border collie head, paid very little attention to sheep and was so structurally mishapen that after 5 minutes of exertion, collapsed in a fluffy heap panting heavily and refused to move. oh, and it didn't like to meet your eye. simply put, it was creepy. suitable for a pet? well, i guess so. a border collie? not even close.

 

after looking at the effects of the AKC standard on german shepards, terrier breeds, austrailian shepards, cavalier king charles spaniels and retrievers, how can anyone defend the AKC????

 

well, is there any breed that has been improved for it's original, intended purpose by conformation breeding? can you name one?

[Sue R]

Thank you for a fresh voice, expressing what many of us have felt and tried to communicate here for some time.