Earlier this month, ABC’s Nightline featured a story about the problems in purebred dogs. I covered it here.
Unlike their British counterpart, the American dog fancy spammed the heck out of the comments section on the ABC New article.
Now, I’m in political science (at least partially. If anyone would like a Democratic campaign consultant– I can be of some use. )
Whenever you see lots of the same comments in a letters to the editor section of a newsaper or lots of the same comments on a youtube video or blogpost, you know there is a concerted effort at PR. It is very instructive that many of the people placing these comments are using the same logic and invective against the reporter, ABC news, and everyone featured in that piece. This similarity in their comments means that the fancy’s main people have given the breeders some sort of talking points.
The Kennel Club (of the United Kingdom) did not have good PR professionals working for its interests. I can’t believe the president of that particular club actually agreed to be interviewed in Pedigree Dogs Exposed. The journalists who worked that program not only interviewed the KC’s upper echelon, they had extensive interviews. And as a result, the KC people could not effectively manage the crisis. That’s why this program has been so successful in building the outcry for kennel club reform in that country.
The AKC refused to appear in the ABC segment. That was a smart move from a PR perspective. The AKC can stay out of it. It can call the report biased. Just more animal rights extremism.
And then, in wave two, they get their legions of loyal breeders to spam and troll any blog post that features this story, although they have not frequented this blog.
Remember, the mainstream media in this country is a wonderful political football for partisans of all stripes. And here I’m not just talking about the politics as we typically talk about it. Dogs are political. Dogs have lots of money tied up in them, and there are strong institutions that work within the world of dogs. We all know that institutions are mostly about credibility, and these institutions will do anything to protect themselves from losing credibility. With credibility comes power. Reduction in credibility reduces powers. Having no credibility means you’ll cease to exist.
And that’s the war that all PR professionals fight. The PR people working for the AKC are doing quite well at preserving the institutional legitimacy of that institution.
They are not falling into same trap that the KC fell for.
However, good PR works only so long as a spin can be made, and in twenty years, it is likely the number of dog breeds severely damaged by such practices will reach a level that far more people will be demanding reforms. After all, PR can only spin facts. It cannot change them.
I’m not sure it’s REALLY a better gambit.
Two point:
1. Nighltine was seen by 4 million people. While the comments section on the web site version of the show was seen by a few hundred (and most of them the converted).
2. The AKC has seen a 55% decline in registrations in the last 15 years and has no game plane to make a better dog.
In short, while the AKC may not have fed a firestorm of controversy, their house is already on fire and burned down to the wall studs.
Through discussion, the UK Kennel Club may actually change itself, and through change, survive. The AKC will not.
The AKC has a Chevrolet mentality — if they only change the paint color to red metal flake, people will start buying poorly made SUVs again.
Does anyone believe we will be driving 19th century gasoline-fired engines very far into the 21st Century? Does anyone believe we will breed dogs very far into the 21st Century using failed 19th Century eugenics theories centered on closed registries and extreme exaggeration?
PBurns
I think the AKC is one of those organizations that is about to hit the “no credibility” problem. And with that, the institution will cease to exist.
The facts on the ground haven’t changed. The only thing that worries me is that dogs may have to suffer even more before this reaches a critical mass.
I would love it if Pedigree Dogs Exposed or something like it (perhaps an American version) appeared on PBS. (It will never be on Animal Planet, because Animal Planet has its own dog show series.)
There is growing frustration within many breeds that there is no way under AKCs present by laws to require health or temperament screening prior to the acquisition of titles or breeding. I have floated the idea of developing a concurrent registry owned and maintained by the parent club. I was surprised and gratified by the fact that others have apparently have had the same thought. While titles would still be earned through whatever venue the dogs normally participate in, AKC, UKC ATTS whatever, they would not be awarded the breed registries version unless required screening tests have been completed, ditto for the registration of litters and individual full registration as adults. A “gold standard” not possible under the current system. Breeders would be actual members of this organization and required to adhere to a code of standards and practices in order to participate.
Not going to happen tomorrow. But I think that the future of many breeds will lie in this direction. I know of no one who is happy that there is no differentiation by organizations such as AKC between a breeder who screens brood stock endlessly and strictly and those who pump out ill dogs for profit with no concern for the dogs or their owners.
It is an issue in the USA that we have many many alternate all-breed registries. I think that national kennel clubs could be reformed but to do so they must be weaned from the need to cater to puppymills as income. Programs that offer a true service such as Canine Good Citizen I think are worthy endeavors. Allowing the owners of non-AKC recognized breeds or types of dogs and also mixed breed dogs access to performance events like agility and rally would be an excellent start.
I am trying to come up with a good reason other than CHIC to support the AKC. Truly, I am. I just can’t find one at the moment.
My breed dogs and I currently participate in Large Gazehound Racing Assoc sprint races, a racing event not recognized by AKC. If American Sighthound Field Assocation lure coursing was available in my area, we’d be pursing that venue too. Although ASFA and AKC LC trials are often held together, it’s not necessary to participate in both.
We are training for Association of Pet Dog Trainers Rally Obedience (AKC has their own more dumbed down version) and learning Musical Dog Sports Association freestyle, another venue not recognized by AKC.
I don’t breed or participate in Conformation, and if I did pursue the latter, I’d show in United Kennel Club events, as the UKC is geared for the amateur owner/handler not the paid professional. If I still did Agility, I’d be doing United States Dog Agility Association and Teacup Dog Agility Association trials. They require better handling skills for the competing teams, and the course design is apt to be more dog friendly/better designed than AKC.
So from my dog owning perspective, who really needs the AKC?
Personally, I think AKC should stop trying to be more than it can or should be.
It WAS a registration organization that also sponsored competitions relevant to the conformation and working abilities of the dogs it registered. I think adding a health database is swell. In the 21st century, it should.
But there is no way AKC can be ambassador, diplomat, dictator, quality-control officer, legislative lobbyist, arbiter of all disputes, puppy-mill shutter-downer, educator of all consumers and breeders, guarantor of health, trainer to the world, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, they can choose to provide some valuable services–but that should be outreach work, not their primary mission. Because no one organization can do everything for every dog and the people associated with it.