AKC mixed breed survey

[Rosanne]

Someone emailed this link around. What do you guys think? Just a ploy to get more people's money by entering as many dogs as they can? There are some odd questions in there that made me wonder what their goals really are (money, of course, but also their political image (??)) I would think they really can't go wrong with a political image that promotes adopting dogs from shelters, however, that *may* take some business away from their breeders. . .

 

http://www.akc.org/mixedbreed_survey/

[juliepoudrier]

Someone emailed this link around. What do you guys think? Just a ploy to get more people's money by entering as many dogs as they can? There are some odd questions in there that made me wonder what their goals really are (money, of course, but also their political image (??)) I would think they really can't go wrong with a political image that promotes adopting dogs from shelters, however, that *may* take some business away from their breeders. . .

 

http://www.akc.org/mixedbreed_survey/

Rosanne,

This was being discussed on a list I'm on unrelated to breeding but which has a number of AKC breeders on it. The general consensus among them seemed to be that the Continental KC, by allowing mixed breeds to compete, was taking money and/or influence away from the AKC and this was AKC's way of trying to get some of that back. Interestingly, a couple of people even mentioned that the next step would be to start registering the designer breeds out there.... And the losing business aspect for breeders was also mentioned, but some also pointed out that this was just another of those stupid marketing ideas like the agreement with Petland. The way I understand it though is that the mixed breeds would have to be neutered, which would leave out folks actively breeding/promoting designer dogs. I suppose the AKC is playing it as a way to get JQP with a mutt to gain an interest in purebreds and later buy into the whole AKC thing. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.

 

J.

[Rosanne]

It does mention in the survey that the mixes would have to be neutered/spayed - sounds like an ILP but without a designated breed.

 

I always thought if a dog that LOOKS like a breed can get an ILP, why not a dog that doesn't look like a breed? When I did agility with my flat-coated retriever (and I didn't do AKC with her, only USDAA) I used to get really mad because somebody with an ILP flat-coat who only did AKC used to claim she had the #1 flat-coat in agility. The dog has semi-erect ears (like a lot of BC's) and a bit of white on it's chest, and just was clearly NOT a purebred, if you knew the breed. Which was fine with me - what got me was that the claim she was making. Here my dog was in the USDAA finals twice and had an ADCH (the overall championship in USDAA), and WAS purebred. . .

 

Anyway, they are looking for people to say whether they think they should be allowed to compete in championship events and such, or have different title-designations. The general tone of it does not in any way suggest the registration be anything other than ILP-type. It says numerous times "for Companion Events" or whatever - meaning obedience/agility/tracking etc, not confirmation. I wonder if herding qualifies?

[airbear]

My $0.02 is that I will continue to support the organizations that have always welcomed my dogs, that distinguishes not between "mixed" and "pure". AAC, USDAA, NADAC, ASCA, NAFA and the others have embraced the idea that ANY dog should have the opportunity to participate. That's where my entry fees will go.

 

I do like this bit, listed as a "Potential Benefit" of allowing the great unwashed to compete in ACK:

Exposing mixed breed dog owners to AKC and encouraging them to make their next dog a purebred by showing that purebreds consistently outperform mixed breeds (Purebreds consistently score better than mixed breeds in head-to-head competition. The U.S. Dog Agility Association has given 63 lifetime achievement awards for outstanding performance, and only three of those have gone to mixed breed dogs.)

 

So the idea is that my dog of dubious parentage will try ACK, get whupped by a 3-generation purebred, and I will say "Zoinks! To be competitive, I should pursue a purebred dog! Then we would win!" Not.

 

Oh yeah, currently, the USDAA lists 288 LAA dogs, 135 of which are border collies. Incidentally, the mixed breed numbers are up to 22.

[Rosanne]

Oh yeah, currently, the USDAA lists 288 LAA dogs, 135 of which are border collies. Incidentally, the mixed breed numbers are up to 22.

 

 

Wow, you mean they acknowledged that USDAA means something?!? Hehe, they have long denied our existence!!!

That's ridiculous! You know why? Because LOTS of mixed breeds register as a breed in USDAA because there's no pedigree checking! Got a BC-mix? can be registered as a BC. No questions asked. No ILPs either.

I wonder what the number of LAA dogs would be if they took out ALL dogs who were either ILP'd, mixed, or unregistered in AKC. A lot smaller, I'd guess.

(one of those LAA BC's is mine! and one is my mother's!)

 

I quit AKC as of last fall. I doubt I will register my pup with them. I WAS trying to get my dog on the FCI world team (let's not argue whether I'm good enough, we are a national-level team, just lacking a bit of consistency right now), but clearly they don't want my type (I'm not rich and can't double-Q all the time - my dog liked to Q once EACH day, rather than twice on the same day - dumbest rule EVER!). I never liked AKC, just wanted to get to the big time - I love competition. I used to boycott AKC till I got my current dog, on moral grounds - this is the state I've returned to.

 

With USDAA changing the qualifications for IFCS, I actually have a shot at it this year (I think- they haven't announced it yet).

[SoloRiver]

The general consensus among them seemed to be that the Continental KC, by allowing mixed breeds to compete, was taking money and/or influence away from the AKC and this was AKC's way of trying to get some of that back.

 

I think this is probably correct, but that they meant to refer to the UKC. The Continental Kennel Club is a paper mill and does not sanction any dog-related competitions or events unless they've changed a lot lately.

[juliepoudrier]

I think this is probably correct, but that they meant to refer to the UKC. The Continental Kennel Club is a paper mill and does not sanction any dog-related competitions or events unless they've changed a lot lately.

You may be right Melanie. The poster wrote Con KC, which I took to mean CKC as above, but the original poster (on that list) also made mention of registering mixed breed dogs and registering dogs from breeders who had been banned from AKC, so may have just been generalizing about AKC's motives with respect to that one registry. At any rate, it seems that most folks on that list thought it was all about the money, which we probably all can believe.

 

J.

[Root Beer]

Someone emailed this link around. What do you guys think? Just a ploy to get more people's money by entering as many dogs as they can? There are some odd questions in there that made me wonder what their goals really are (money, of course, but also their political image (??)) I would think they really can't go wrong with a political image that promotes adopting dogs from shelters, however, that *may* take some business away from their breeders. . .

 

http://www.akc.org/mixedbreed_survey/

 

Based on some of the questions, I was kind of suspicious, too.

 

Do I think that letting mixed breeds into AKC events will influence people to get purebreds in the future? Well, that would help their breeders, I suppose.

 

Should mixes compete for different titles than purebreds? OK, we'll let them in, but they may officially be known as second class citizens!!

 

I'm not saying that's their intention, I'm just saying that's what I personally read into it.

 

I will be very interested to see what they decide on this. On one hand, there are those who say that the mission of the AKC is for purebreds, so they should just leave their events open to purebreds. On the other hand, people are ILPing more and more mixes, based on what I've heard in casual conversation with folks. They are already getting in, in some circumstances, so AKC may as well just open these events to all dogs and be done with it.

[toney]

Actually, the ConKC does have performance events- agility, obedience, weight pulling and now they are branching into the hunting dog events in beagles, go-to ground, bird dogs and have recently joined with a rather prestigous kennel (at least the kennel is "Orvis approved", which is pretty hoity-toity and normally means pretty high dollar) to offer a british style retriever contest this year. I would think AKC is concerned not only about ConKC but also UKC, since a big wig in the UKC now is a former AKC person that was rather high up in the corporate AKC ladder. I only know this from gleaning bits and pieces of different postings on the retriever boards and this board, so be aware that it was subject to my interpretation at the time and may not be entirely correct.

[kelpiegirl]

What gets me is that AKC asks about including mixed breed dogs- those not allowed now, but they make no mention of other been around a LOOOOONG time breeds, as if they are not purebred because they are not reg'd with AKC. Well, we are the only breed to pull free from the AKC clutches, and most of us like it that way (I say most, because I know some would like akc reg) NOT ME.

AKC can go scratch. This is just a money making scheme- let's make money however we can- even from those poor misguided mixed breed owners. If mixed breed folks want to register their dogs with AKC to compete in the events, that's fine with me- with the caveat that you work your butt off to kick some AKC butt.

Julie

[Eileen Stein]

The Continental Kennel Club does have performance events, albeit just a minimal number to justify their claim to be a kennel club (about 15 events total for the whole of 2006, and five are scheduled for the first half of 2007). But AKC is VERY concerned about CKC's growing market share of registrations, and may fear that CKC will expand in this area. AKC and UKC are also doing some serious jockeying for position recently.

 

I agree with everything Roseanne said. (And I do mean everything -- good for you, Roseanne!) I also think it's kind of comical that they say only 3 USDAA LAAs have gone to mixed breed dogs, if the number is really 22. Is it really possible that 19 have been added since their list of "potential benefits" was compiled? Actually, the whole notion of "Exposing mixed breed dog owners to AKC and encouraging them to make their next dog a purebred by showing that purebreds consistently outperform mixed breeds" is very comical. Um, might it not depend more on which particular pure breed it is, rather than just the possession of papers signifying racial purity? I wonder how many basset hounds have gotten LAAs, for example. But I have no doubt that simply exposing mixed breed dog owners to AKC will encourage many of them to make their next dog a purebred -- I would never underestimate the power of AKC culture on those that can be brought within its force field.

[Sue R]

The money-making aspect of AKC is registrations. Shows and performance events are notorious for costing AKC money, or simply not netting revenue. While entry fees are high, costs are also, and so "events" don't produce the income that registrations do. It is interesting that local KC events can make money, but the AKC itself profits little if any from them.

 

That is why AKC is pushing to increase registration numbers, as in the ill-fated Petland deal that widespread hue-and-cry doomed. AKC isn't looking at becoming inclusive to mixed breeds because of "love of the dogs" - it's looking at an uptapped supply of revenues from the millions of people owning and loving their mixed-breeds.

 

I am sure it is also an appeal to human vanity - I remember reading some time ago about several horse "registries" of dubious merit (actually, of no merit at all because an animal with no background and no proof of any worthwhile ability other than color could be "registered"), similar to many of the laughable dog registries springing up in the US. The comment was that "registering your animal" would make it "more valuable".

 

The gullible view papers of any sort as making something intrinsically better. I transported a German Shepherd Dog bitch into rescue. She was "registered" with CKC and had been used as a brood bitch. Her "registration papers" consisted of nothing more than her "registered" owner's name and address, and the bitch's name and number. All ancestry was devoid of information as it was inferred her parents, etc., were registered elsewhere. So what good were the "papers"?

 

In addition, an increase in registration numbers, people affiliated, etc., could only increase AKC's profile as the "voice for dogs and their owners" when it comes to legislative matters and public profile.

[Jack & Co.]

I can't contribute much to this topic except my experience. I chose a BC mix from the animal shelter because I didn't want another purebred dog. My purebred cocker spaniel was a wonderful dog but he had many health problems. After grieving for 4 years, we decided to find a new family member at the shelter and Jack stole our hearts.