Jump to content
BC Boards

NY Times Article on Criticism of AKC

Recommended Posts

I am no fan of AKC but... that article failed to make any real connection with the world of AKC and the condition of the dogs. IF the couple were such big time breeders ignored by AKC, you would think they would have more than 4 litters registered. It failed to show the motive for keeping the dogs in these conditions (With so many dogs and supposedly only 4 litters, the motive is probably not profit) and does seem more like a hoarding situation. Multiple houses, too many dogs for no apparent reason sounds like hoarding to me and a person who is mentally ill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The best part of AKC's response letter was the part under the "Nonprofit" subhead where they didn't even adress for profit vs. non-profit.


I'm sure there are many small breeders whose dogs live as pets in the house, etc., who register with the AKC. But as long as AKC refuses to address the issue of mills, they are going to get bad press (leaving the genetic health of dogs aside for the moment), and as long as the registrations coming from mills are a source of income for AKC, AKC is going to pay only lip service to standards of care. Nine inspectors? There's no way so few people can be effective, even if the good intent was there through the parent organization (AKC). I'd like someone to find an example or two of an industry that does a good job of self regulating when the implementation of that regulation can affect the bottom line....



Link to post
Share on other sites

Last week in a neighboring town the SPCA took 64 pomeranians out of a ladies house. The dogs were living in feces filled crates in her suburban house with no kennel license (the town does not give those out in residential zones) from the town and all her poms where.... you guessed, AKC registered.


You know what the media outcry was with many people? That the SPCA is evil liars who took her purebred AKC registered poms to resell at the shelter for a profit. It seems that most people think that because you have a 'cute' website and have AKC registration that there is no way the dogs could be in bad condition. It was laughable how the average person sees nothing wrong with the situation, defending the lady and blaming the SPCA all because she had a website and AKC registration.


I hope more articles like the NY Times one are written. Even though they may not go into all the nitty-gritty about the AKC, at least for some people they may stop supporting mills with AKC dogs. It is, I believe, a big reason that our local commercial kennel/mill does so well with sales-they sell AKC dogs and people think that means something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I very quickly glanced through the AKC's response and this caught my eye:


Chilinski Case: Likewise, the story fails to acknowledge that along with the seizure of Mr. Chilinski's dogs, law enforcement seized over 200 marijuana plants that he was growing on his property, a vocation which likely led to the deterioration of his kennel and his overall ability to care for his dogs in the two years between his last AKC inspection and the raid of this property.




And I love how they say: AKC Respected As An Animal Welfare Organization.

That's news to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...