AKC agility

[mum24dog]

I'm aware of the AKC's plan to allow non papered dogs to compete at its trials, and also that it has now ditched its unworkable plan to have them compete seperately from the untouchable purebreeds under pressure from trial organisers who saw no point in the extra work involved.

Whatever the selfish motives of the AKC in making this move, it seems to me that there really has been no change of heart at all since it will still be a requirement that non papered dogs be neutered before registration with the AKC.

Not neutered - no registration - can't compete.

You could have the best dog in the world but you couldn't try to pass on its ability.

Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% behind neutering; what I hate is discrimination in any form.

I was wondering whether to post this in Politics or here. In Politics I think I can predict the response - might be a bit different here.

Does anyone really think that the AKC leopard has changed its spots?

 

Pam

[Laurae]

Does anyone really think that the AKC leopard has changed its spots?

 

Did anyone ever think the AKC leopard had changed its spot$?

[Blackdawgs]

The sentiment on the Baggage Agility group seemed to be that this was a positive move by the AKC and it appeared that many of those folks would register their mixed breeds.

 

Being a cynic, I believe that this was purely a financial decision in this era of declining AKC registrations. Agility aside, the AKC will make a mint on Rally.

 

Within 2-3 hours of me, I can compete in an agility trial every weekend in CPE, NADAC, and USDAA. So, the AKC can kiss my butt.

 

Within an hour from me, we have a series of NADAC and CPE shows. Initially, these venues were very popular. Over the years, the number of entries have really declined to the point where the NADAC folks are talking about cutting back on shows. If there is a conflict between NADAC and AKC, most people will chose AKC.

 

And now that the AKC is giving equal status to the mixes that really scares me.

[Rave]

The more important question, especially on these boards, is WHO CARES? Certainly not I. Even if the org wasn't AKC, their agility still sucks. Courses suck, atmosphere at many trials sucks, as do the number of courses you can run per day.

 

It's not "non-papered" dogs they're allowing in (as that implies purebreds w/o papers), they've already done that through the ILP program. They are now allowing MIXED BREEDS. Of course it's purely financial. I think it's hilarious reading all the responses from the old biddy conformation breeders, who are pretty much disgusted by this move.

[Sue R]

AKC "only" charges $35 for each animal in the Canine Partners program ("A $75 value!"). Just another way to bolster dropping registration revenues...

 

Even if AKC is your "only game in town" for a sport, each club putting on an eligible event can still choose whether or not to allow mixed-breeds/Canine Parters. So, while AKC gets the fees up front, not all eligible events will even allow entry of mixed breeds. And eligible events are limited to obedience, agility, and rally so if you want to run your Canine Partner in a "herding" event or any other non-eligible event, you are out of luck.

[jdarling]

You could have the best dog in the world but you couldn't try to pass on its ability.

 

Its ability to do agility?

[mum24dog]

It's not "non-papered" dogs they're allowing in (as that implies purebreds w/o papers)

 

I was using it as a catch all term for all dogs not on the breed register.

I'm guessing that all dogs of a specific breed won't necessarily be the subject of an application for ILP recognition, but since we only have pedigrees with papers on the Breed Register or the rest (obvious breeds or mutts) on the Activity Register I'm not really sure how it works with the AKC letting dogs in the back door.

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

Its ability to do agility?

 

Yes.

I'm talking about all dogs here and continued discrimination, not whether breeding should or shouldn't be done.

As a matter of fact I don't personally think any dog should be bred specifically for the sport, but I'm a firm believer in freedom of the individual (within moral and ethical bounds) and I would defend anyone's right to make a decision I don't agree with (to paraphrase Voltaire).

 

Pam

[mum24dog]

And now that the AKC is giving equal status to the mixes that really scares me.

 

But it isn't equal status, is it?

It would be equal if the purebred dogs had to be neutered too.

 

Pam

[juliepoudrier]

But it isn't equal status, is it?

It would be equal if the purebred dogs had to be neutered too.

 

Pam

I don't quite get the whole discrimination argument. If a mixed breed is crossed to a mixed breed, then it's some other sort of mixed breed. What's really the point in that sort of breeding? If you're mixing breeds with a goal in mind and an eventual plan to fix certain traits that breed true, then it will eventually be recognized as a pure breed, if not by the AKC then by some other registry or the folks who are aficianodos of the new breed. And if your (the generic you) mixed breed is all that, then you can simply keep it intact, compete in other venues besides AKC, and breed the hell out of it.

 

J.

[IPSY]

All I can say is maybe there will be more room in the indoor tents for us redneck agility folk because conformation breeders are so disgusted. I personally dont care about what AKC does anymore. Of course its its purely financial.

The AKC is making a huge ASS out of themselves and theyre pissing off the very people who supported them for years. They will crash and burn sooner or later Im sure .

Unfortunatley for myself , there are more AKC agility trials in my area and fewer other venues .

I will still enter AKC because my dogs and I love competing . The dogs dont care if its AKC or CPE , they just want to have fun with their Mom.

 

 

The more important question, especially on these boards, is WHO CARES? Certainly not I. Even if the org wasn't AKC, their agility still sucks. Courses suck, atmosphere at many trials sucks, as do the number of courses you can run per day.

 

It's not "non-papered" dogs they're allowing in (as that implies purebreds w/o papers), they've already done that through the ILP program. They are now allowing MIXED BREEDS. Of course it's purely financial. I think it's hilarious reading all the responses from the old biddy conformation breeders, who are pretty much disgusted by this move.

[Sue R]

And now that the AKC is giving equal status to the mixes that really scares me.

Why? Do you think it will encourage mixed breedings? If that were the case, that would bother me.

 

It certainly isn't equal status if the club putting on any event can decide whether or not to allow mixed breeds in competition. It's like saying that you can certainly ante up your money to get the paperwork, but you may or may not be able to compete in any particular event once you've paid for those papers.

 

Would anyone want to pay for a "registration" and not know if you'd be able to use it no matter how well qualified?

[Sue R]

But it isn't equal status, is it?

It would be equal if the purebred dogs had to be neutered too.

 

Pam

The neutering aspect would be fine with me - it is the "you must pay for your paperwork but you may or may not be allowed to compete in any particular club's event" that would rankle me - if I cared to compete in anything like that at all.

[mum24dog]

I don't quite get the whole discrimination argument.

J.

 

It's OK for the AKC to say that it will only register mixed breeds if they are neutered but make no such rule for their favoured purebreeds? That's not discrimination? Some of those purebred dogs would be better off sterile.

Whether anyone should want to breed from mixed breed dogs is irrelevant; freedom of the individual to choose matters.

Eugenics at work with mixed breeds as the underclass.

I can't help my nature - matters of personal liberty and principle really get to me, even from thousands of miles away, and even if in practice people can go elsewhere.

I'm not surprised though. When I was sent a copy of the AKC's letter to clubs I thought it was a joke - with the effective date being 1st April.

 

Pam

[Sue R]

Interestingly enough, regular dog registration is only $20. Fees are higher for add-on services and special cases (registration one or more years after litter registration). Mixed breeds cost $35. Am I the only one who sees a disconnect? Or maybe I should say, a money-making opportunity? I know we all see that!

[MaggieDog]

I'm glad mixes must be neutered - we don't need people to be encouraged to breed mixes imo. I agree with Julie that the issue for me is more the "pay to play, but you might not be able to play" than the neutering thing. And there's the whole "only at stand alone events" thing too - like the purebreds competing in the confo rings will somehow be tainted by the mixes if they were in a ring nearby.

 

That being said I have toyed with registering my gang so we can use AKC events as practice runs since other venues are a much further drive for us now that mixes can compete side by side in performance stuff.

 

I was at a B Match for agility the other day (all proceeds went to a shelter, animals didn't have to be registered but needed to be "registerable") with my mixes and really liked not having to worry about being called out for having mixes, even though they were the only ones on the trial site. I did get called out for having my puppy wearing a head halter tho...

[Blackdawgs]

I wrote, "And now that the AKC is giving equal status to the mixes that really scares me."

 

Why? Do you think it will encourage mixed breedings? If that were the case, that would bother me.

 

No, my concern is that by allowing mixes to compete in AKC, it will pull mixes from other venues and lower entries. As I said, locally, we are already loosing entries (of purebreds) to the AKC.

 

My concern is strictly business and the viability of other venues. If the AKC increases it's market share, it may be at the expense of other venues--venues that have been traditionally friendly towards mixed breeds.

[juliepoudrier]

It's OK for the AKC to say that it will only register mixed breeds if they are neutered but make no such rule for their favoured purebreeds? That's not discrimination? Some of those purebred dogs would be better off sterile.

 

The question isn't whether some or many purebred dogs are more or less worthy of being bred than some mixed-breed dogs. I honestly don't see an issue with requiring mixed breeds to be neutered. Last I knew, the AKC was a registry for PUREBRED dogs. Since their supposed mission is the breeding and promotion of the PUREBRED dog, then I don't think one can claim discrimination against mixed breeds. It's not a mixed-breed registry. You can argue that they are stepping outside their purview (purebred dogs) by allowing mixed breeds into their competitions other than conformation (and yes, it's a clear grab for more revenue), but I don't think you can argue that they are discriminating now, any more than they ever "discriminated" in the past when they had nothing to do with mixed breeds.

 

Whether anyone should want to breed from mixed breed dogs is irrelevant; freedom of the individual to choose matters.

 

Well, and any individual is quite free to have nothing to do with AKC. If I had a mixed-breed dog, I would be no more likely to get in bed with the AKC than I would if I had a purebred dog. The choice is at that level, and if you *choose* to play with AKC then I guess you have to play by their rules. That's the way most things are in life.

 

Eugenics at work with mixed breeds as the underclass.

 

Dogs are not people, so the eugenics argument is an awful stretch IMO.

 

I can't help my nature - matters of personal liberty and principle really get to me, even from thousands of miles away, and even if in practice people can go elsewhere.

I'm not surprised though. When I was sent a copy of the AKC's letter to clubs I thought it was a joke - with the effective date being 1st April.

 

I guess if I were worried about matters of personal liberty and principle when it comes to *breeding mixed-breed dogs,* I'd lose sleep at night over it too. But really, your argument only makes sense if AKC were the only venue on the planet in which people were allowed to compete at anything with their dogs. But since there are all sorts of organizations that offer the exact same things AKC does, your argument really does fall apart. People aren't being forced to neuter their mixed-breed dogs in order to do any sport or activity at all with them; that's the case only if they want to do that sport or activity under the auspices of the AKC. And there's a world of difference between those two points.

 

I'm with Laura on this one: it should be filed under "who cares?"

 

J.

[Sue R]

I wrote, "And now that the AKC is giving equal status to the mixes that really scares me."

 

No, my concern is that by allowing mixes to compete in AKC, it will pull mixes from other venues and lower entries. As I said, locally, we are already loosing entries (of purebreds) to the AKC.

 

My concern is strictly business and the viability of other venues. If the AKC increases it's market share, it may be at the expense of other venues--venues that have been traditionally friendly towards mixed breeds.

Oh, I didn't get that - sorry, I must not have read carefully enough. You have a very valid point here because the other venues have welcomed the mixed breeds and been their only venues.

 

Another example of AKC trampling all over everyone else in a rush to try and up revenues...

[Blackdawgs]

Another example of AKC trampling all over everyone else in a rush to try and up revenues...

 

In this regard, I don't fault the AKC. Times are tough and consumers aren't spending. One way of increasing revenues is to steal business from one's competitors.

 

This IS strictly a business and marketing decision.

 

However, in the rush to prove that mutts are just as good, if not better than purebreds, owners of mixed breeds could wind up putting some local non AKC venues out of business for lack of entries.

[Sue R]

I don't quite agree - AKC has had decades of being "The Sport of Purebred Dogs". Accepting mixed breeds into "the fold" (or at least the paying fringes of the fold) does (IMO) run contrary to those decades of "what they stand for".

 

AKC registrations have been declining for years, and I don't believe it's just the current economy. Negative publicity about puppy mills, the rise of what I would call bogus registries, and similar things have chipped away at AKC registrations. The current economy is just adding to those problems.

 

Yes, it is marketing and business. So is Wal-Mart moving into a new town and contributing to the destruction of locally-owned and operated business because the 800# gorilla has resources behind it that no local business has.

 

You are right - it's nothing personal and it is all about the money.

[Rave]

I was going to write pretty much what Julie wrote above, so I'll just say DITTO. :-)

 

We're talking about dog agility here, not Rosa Parks on a bus. AKC has always been discriminatory and they're far from the gold standard in agility, so really, who cares? This whole discussion is pretty lame. I'm mean we're all for AKC-bashing here, but this one's a yawner. Are you going to get all riled up about vets who only see cats next?

[herdcentral]

I dont really see what the fuss is either. Where I live the AKC equivalent the ANKC is the only venue for agility we have. Recently they have been running a few AADA trials but the judges have to be bought in from interstate.

 

The ANKC allows mixed breeds or unregistered purebreds to be registered as associate dogs or on the sporting register, they also recognise the working bred registers and those dogs dont have to be registered with ANKC to run as long as the owners are members.

 

Very recently they are now requiring associate dogs to be sterilised which doesnt seem to worry anyone, as most responsible owners sterilise their dogs.

 

The majority of purebreds are also sterilised except those that also compete in the conformation classes. Of couse the AKC are not going to insist on sterilising purebred dogs, this would be ridiculous. Neither do they require sterilisation of working dogs registered on the working registers.

 

Here at least in our agility community the only criteria is performance, some of our best dogs are mixes and are highly regarded, many of the best dogs are on the working registers too, as well as some good purebreds.

[Root Beer]

It's OK for the AKC to say that it will only register mixed breeds if they are neutered but make no such rule for their favoured purebreeds? That's not discrimination?

 

Actually, any dog that is not AKC registered would have to be neutered to play AKC games. The dogs in the ILP or PAL program are purebreds - or, supposedly since plenty of mutts have passed for purebreds to get numbers - but must be neutered.

 

The mixed breed class is really like an ILP for mutts.

 

Disclaimer - I am not taking up for AKC. Just giving a reason why I personally don't see this rule as discrimination.

 

As far as pulling the mutts from other venues, I myself am not leaving CPE - a venue that welcomed my beautiful mutt girl when AKC would not. And most people that I know personally don't plan to abandon participation in other venues to go to AKC to compete. And some of them have purebreds.

[IPSY]

I havent read all the posts , so it this might have been mentioned , but maybe , its got a little to do with all the designer breeds around ? There is probably more of them then there is pure breeds now. It would be considered a "smart" move in any business to involve them somehow.