I just received this press release in my inbox:
The United Kennel Club, Inc., is first and foremost a worldwide registry of purebred dogs, but we feel our moral duty to the canine world goes beyond maintaining data. We are alarmed by the paths of exaggeration that many breeds have taken, all of which directly affect the health, function and performance of those breeds. It is an elemental fact that these breed changes have developed unchecked as a result of fads and fancies, as well as a lack of accountability on the part of breeders, owners and judges.
UKC feels something must be done to address this problem, and we are willing to do our part, hoping the canine world will follow suit. Toward that end, we have decided to revise all of our breed standards to reflect that goal. Breed standards are viewed as a blueprint to which dogs are to be bred. UKC believes that breed standards are more than that, and we will be including directives to breeders, judges and owners.
All of our breed standards will now include the following introductory statement: “The goals and purposes of this breed standard include: to furnish guidelines for breeders who wish to maintain the quality of their breed and to improve it; to advance this breed to a state of similarity throughout the world; and to act as a guide for judges. Breeders and judges have the responsibility to avoid any conditions or exaggerations that are detrimental to the health, welfare and soundness of this breed, and must take the responsibility to see that these are not perpetuated. Any departure from the following should be considered a fault, and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog and on the dog’s ability to perform its traditional work.”
In addition, each breed standard will be updated to include problems specific to that breed in order to clarify the direction to be taken when they are encountered.
All of these breed standard revisions reflect the foundation of the “UKC Total Dog” philosophy. The exponential growth in “UKC Total Dog” events is living proof that dogs can have the health, temperament and conformation to be excellent representatives of their breed. We understand that breed standards are left to subjective interpretation and are not a panacea on their own; however, combined with UKC Total Dog events and our UKC Judges Education program, they are a natural extension and essential continuation of our commitment to the future of purebred dogs.
The United Kennel Club, Inc., is very serious about this project and encourages all dog breeders, judges and owners to follow suit. As each standard is updated, it will be posted on the UKC website, www.ukcdogs.com, with its effective date.
The UKC has decided to be responsive to the needs and concerns of so many dog owners and breeders in this country.
It’s also an alternative to the American Kennel Club. If your dog is AKC registered, then it is pretty easy to get it registered with the UKC.
So we do have an all-breed registry that cares about all of these issues in North America.
And you can’t call this registry an animal rights organization. The biggest events the UKC puts on around here are coonhound trials.
The UKC has decided to do the right thing, and purebred dogs have a voice in North America.
It is speaking while the other registries are either remaining silent or denouncing moves to real reform.
They recognized the opening the AKC has given them with it’s anti-health standard statements, and they’re taking it. By making a public statement of their alternative philosophy, they can increase their membership by welcoming the people the AKC is repelling.
A savvy move, as well as good for the dogs.
Competition in a market economy.
Isn’t that what most of these people want?
IIRC UKC is actually a business, not a non-profit like AKC. I think not having to compete (ie resting on it’s laurels) has been a problem for AKC. It is unfortunate that AKC will not have to compete to maintain the FCI reciprocity deal.
That is a shame.
The AKC’s nonprofit status is pretty baffling. It’s not well-run at all, and it’s essentially being hollowed out by its officers.
I wonder what it would take to get the FCI to drop its reciprocity deal with the AKC.
I know people with APRI registered dogs that will not go back to AKC because the customer service is so bad.
AKC basically sells services. That’s a business, whether it’s for profit or not.
No idea about FCI.
The AKC is not-for-profit… there is a big difference (not saying that they aren’t badly run)
AKC is seriously hampered by an archaic 19th-century constitution and by-laws, which many (AKC) people have pointed out to those in charge. Until that foundation is brought up to date, it’s likely not much will change.
My worry is that change is going to have to be forced by outsiders. AKC is putting itself in a position of great weakness by their absolute refusal to confront these issues.
It is unfortunate that due to their reciprocity deal with the FCI, AKC *represents* purebred dogs for most breeds in the United States. This carries a huge amount of responsibility, and by not considering and addressing the changes being made in FCI countries and the UK, they are basically throwing US breeders under the bus.
I went searching on the AKC website and found an organizational chart that has actual contacts on the last page… I am going to draft a letter to email asking opinions regarding breed health and the trend to breed towards extremes. I want to test out how impossible the AKC people really are. Here is the link in case others want to do the same: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/about/organizational_chart.pdf
It doesn’t hurt to check it out. What is the worst they will do, send me hate email in return? I think I can handle that.
As to breed standards — under the AKC Constitution, it is the Parent Club for each breed that has the responsibility for writing/defining the Standard for that breed. The AKC does have the ability to approve or not approve the Standard that the Parent Club submits to them, but the real responsibility is with the Parent Club. And these clubs vary tremendously in the makeup of their membership, and in their attitudes. Some clubs accept anyone in good standing who applies. Some are extremely exclusive in whom they accept. Standards vary as much, or even more, than the clubs. Some standards are so vague that they are useless, unless one already knows what to look for. Some clubs are so fossilized they are impervious to change; others, far more in touch. and everything inbetween.
Working with some 180 or more Parent Clubs– well, herding cats is a cinch compared to that.
Well, I may be naive but I’m not totally stupid. If the UKC has your endorsement M.R.S., then I’m for switching gears. Maybe the AKC is too difficult to sway. The only thing is that people interpret the standards differently. I understand why there are in many breeds a “working dog” and a “runway dog.” The latter just isn’t capable always of the former. I am not a conformation person myself. I go to conformation shows and I always come back feeling conflicted. My 3 Goldens are very out-crossed. The male is a little large (78lbs) but he has a brother who is 58lbs. That is what happens I guess in an out-crossed litter. You don’t know what you will get. I have never owned a dog with a high COI. I just don’t believe in that. Common sense says it is asking for trouble. Just look at the various monarchies where people are inbred… or groups of people like the “Jackson Whites.” The term “line breeding” is a smoke screen. The only thing in the Golden as far as the differences within the breed is that it seems that the larger “teddy bear” type do really well as assistance dogs. Maybe that should be a separate branch of the breed. Just a thought. They can make a huge difference in people’s lives.
Beautiful Ricochet is a field Golden and didn’t cut it as an assistance dog because she is too birdy… Although the owners made the most of her talents (to be applauded most loudly,) there still is a need for assistance dogs. It seems there are needs that require 2 different standards.
Many of the assistance programs are breeding Goldens and Labs together for better health. Maybe there should be a category for assistance dog. The “Assistance dog” breed. We have different needs today than back in the 1860′s…
Years ago, one of the larger service dog organizations approached the Golden Retriever Club of America with plans to cross Golden with Labrador. The purpose was primarily for health reasons (the dogs they planned to use of both breeds were quite good in that respect) but because they wanted to get a dog with the Golden’s more laid-back personality and the Labrador’s short coat (partly for ease of care by handicapped owners). Only first-generation offspring were used. The GRCA gave their assent to the program. And in fact, a number of GRCA members have donated dogs or stud service to the organization. And still do.
Ooops, that should read “the purpose was NOT primarily for health reasons…”
(reminder to self: re-read more carefully!)
With just a little publicity, the public should come to regard the UKC as the healthy alternative to the corrupt AKC. I don’t think anyone will be impressed with whatever the AKC comes up with now.
Well, why bother with the AKC anymore? I’m going to register my entire pack with the UKC. Just makes sense. It’s more in tune with what the educated consumer is looking for. And it seems pro-dog not pro-show.
Sengi… great words used…Indeed that is what this whole issue boils down to, pro dog rather than pro show. Its a right and wrong choice that any breeder with an ounce of morality should be able to make easily….oh but wait they say if we focus on healthier dogs we might miss out on some ribbons during the transition :(
Sorry for the sarcasm but i have zero tolerance for those who put dog prizes above dog health. Good thing that UKC are smart enough to realise there are millions of others like me…Sadly AKC seem too busy framing their ribbons and polishing trophies to notice.
In fact.. I wonder if after doing so if I can rescind my registrations with the AKC? They seriously suck at this point. Sort of a blemish against my dogs rather than a badge of honor.
I think I’ll wait to see their revised standards before switching . . . . though spite to the AKC is a strong motive. It’s not clear to me what: “to advance this breed to a state of similarity throughout the world” means.
Anyone know where you write to the IRS to question an organization’s tax-exempt status?
They’ve already modified the German Shepherd standard: http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/GermanShepherdDogRevisedMay12012
As someone who has reviewed a lot of breed standards critically, the (new) GSD standard has some places that still need improvement. For instance, it states that the front pasterns should slope no more than 25 degrees– but does not say whether that is off the vertical or off the horizontal. Quite a difference, I’d think.
“nonprofit” has nothing to do with an organization’s financial status or bank account.
It has to do with an educational purpose and a non-compensated board of directors. And limited lobbying IRT specific laws.
If one reads the AKC Constitution (findable on AKC website), the organization is described as a “membership corporation”. The members, in this case, are the clubs; each club elects a Delegate. From the Delegates, a board of 13 Directors is elected. The Constitution does provide for paying a “Director’s fee” to each director, and also compensation for expenses incurred in carrying out a Director’s duties, such as attending meetings. Officers, on the other hand, do receive a salary; these include the President and the Executive Secretary.
With more than 600 member clubs at present, this a rather unwieldy body. And, as the Constitution specifies that only clubs which hold (conformation) shows, obedience trials, and field trials may become member clubs, the hundreds of Agility clubs, as well as any Herding,Tracking, or other clubs, have no representation.
Its a good start.
Agreed!
That is good news. I’d love for the FCI to follow the UK KC regarding vet checks at Ch. shows. I think it would make a difference for the dogs with current extreme traits.
By the way, have you read the Crufts’ vets letter to ‘Veterinary Record’? It is here: http://veterinaryrecord.bmj.com/content/170/12/317.1.full
From the UKC standard for the Patterdale Terrier:
“Scars resulting from wounds received while working are considered honorable and are not to be penalized”
Hmmm. I wonder if you’d ever see that sort of language in an AKC or KC standard………………
Actually, you do see that language in some breeds. Here’s what the AKC standard for the dachshund says:
“Inasmuch as the Dachshund is a hunting dog, scars from honorable wounds shall not be considered a fault.”
http://www.akc.org/breeds/dachshund/
I wonder how many dachshunds actually shown in the AKC ring have “honorable wounds:? Serious question with no snark intended. I have seen only one dachshund at our regional earth dog trials and none doing any sort of other sporting work.
I can attest that I’ve seen patterdales shown with some battle scars at the UKC shows and that many of the same pats shown in the show ring are often doing weight pull, splash dog, and earth dog work on other weekends.
While some purists may scoff that weight pulling and staged trials don’t “prove” the breed, I think that any sort of athleticism in addition to showing is better than breeding solely for looks.
Even for FCR it mentions battle scars from field work are acceptable.
The UKC has always been the alternative to the AKC, though snubbed by the AKC- until now! . They deal with some dogs the AKC won’t touch like the hairless terriers.
This is a great move and I hope someone starts a fb page supporting them- or have they already?
I like to do events such as Obedience, Rally, Tracking, and Agility… I don’t see many events listed with the UKC for us folks in the North Eastern US…
The solution to that, is to get folks together and form more UKC clubs in that region, to put on events. The process is much easier than with AKC and the people at UKC have always been very helpful.
I would feel better if the UKC applied for not-for-profit status. It is easier to trust a not-for-profit registry.
That is my opinion.
Only one of my dogs is registered UKC as well as AKC but if it helps the dog situation any, I’ll register the other two as well… if this helps to promote a healthier view of the breeds, I’m all for it.
I think where the UKC will prevail long term is in putting a relevant value in the actual registration of a dog via this registry Vs the AKC. It’s quite obvious that as a registry with a focus on the same things an educated consumer looks for its way ahead in the game when compared to the AKC. Even its puppy Mill policies is way ahead of the curve by comparison.
And making an announcement on its stance to focus on standards in conformation that are not detrimental to the health of the dog. In which case for dogs like…. Pekinese…. an interested buyer would likely find dogs with better health since the extreme pushed in faces are counterintuitive to a healthy dog.
Its based in Kalamazoo Michigan. Hmmmm? No mention of FCI recognition?
Did the information you get indicate who exactly is in charge of defining each new breed standard within the UKC?
We’ve competed in HRC hunt tests (the HRC is affiliated with the UKC), and belong to a somewhat active local HRC club. And here in the Pacific NW, there are some UKC Obedience and Rally trials, and somewhat fewer conformation shows. I wish there were more.
The info I received is nothing more than than this press release. I did not include the paragraph identifying the United Kennel Club and its mission.
I don’t see people jumping ship from AKC to UKC because the AKC is just too well established with allot of resources and all kinds of events and such… Since the AKC is not-for-profit, one could get involved with the actual organization to make changes. The UKC is for profit, I would be afraid that if the UKC got really big that it would be even harder for people to make changes. From my experience here in the US, big business can be pretty hard to deal with. JMO A grass roots movement should be able to make a difference with the AKC. The exaggerated features of breeds seem to stem from the conformation ring. A grass roots movement could set up booths at various events and hand out literature regarding dog breeding and health. It doesn’t have to be noisy and rude, it would be most effective quiet and intelligent. No screaming in people’s faces… media attention is good, but a quiet face to the movement is strongest… once again JMO.
Honestly, I just don’t care for “events.’
I’m not a joiner.
Events help to judge a dog’s movement, structure, intelligence, specific aptitudes such as tracking, retrieving, herding, luring… I would think you would be supportive of those events from reading your blog. You seem to place an emphasis on purpose and events help to judge that (also are great fun for allot of us dog owners and for our dogs too.)
Agreed. We picked our last patterdale pup from a breeder that we met at several events with our older dog.
When you can see the sire and dam take part in athletic events, see how well they move, how they handle the stress of the competition (be it dock diving, earth dog, weight pulling, etc) and couple it with the health tests the breeder has performed, it goes a long way in making sure you are buying a dog of sound mind and body.
I went to the Golden Gate Kennel Club dog show in January (AKC) event and the whole toddlers and tiaras thing is just not my cup of tea. I’ve really enjoyed the “event” scene – working with the dogs at home and then competing. Hanging out with people with similar interests and knowing that there are people out there that are less concerned with conformation and more worried about the temperament and athleticism of the dog.
Well…even being NFP the AKC still has no other competition to deal with domestically with the exception of the UKC. And the UKC is in a perfect position to make this stance and force the AKC to actually take notice. And offer a choice for the people who are fed up with the AKC. This is not to say the UKC is perfect, but at least they seem to have chosen a better direction and taken a stronger stance for the benefit of dogs than the AKC. As a registry service with benefits you can weigh them both, regardless of being for profit or not. At least we now have choices and the ability to leverage one against the other. In the end the outcome should be better representation on the behalf of all breeds. Or those breed clubs can break off and do their own thing. Its not like the AKC really differentiates one dog from the other anymore in terms of being healthier. That was possibly never an advantage of being AKC registered. It was likely more a badge of honor that put the average Joe on the same plateau as the elitists that dreamed up all these unrealistic standards in the first place. If the AKC papers in fact were an indication of you getting a better dog long term than a dog without it, then it really would be an added value. In reality once you know the details behind the fancy, the limitations of a closed registry the, basics behind population genetics, the concept behind genetic depletion, Line breeding, Same sire syndrome, Inbreeding, Champion Sire syndrome etc etc….then the AKC papers are really an indication that what you bought into was perpetuating the continued demise of purebred dogs. In fact its almost a guarantee that what you actually purchased has more chances of being a disappointment of ever increasing veterinary bills, continued mounting health issues, and further weakened immune systems. In other words The AKC label could one day very well be the factor that tells people…”I should avoid buying this dog”.
I guess what I am trying to say is why use the UKC to change the AKC? Why not work with the AKC directly? A movement to educate just seems smart. I’m big on charts and graphs. A picture says a thousand words so it is said.
Breeders will listen to someone who is making a calm, logical appeal to look at the scientific data as far as healthy breeding. It’s a huge effort to show and breed and the majority of breeders really love their breed.
I guess I’m saying that it’s not the good guys and the bad guys out there. There are allot of people on a quest to do the right thing, if you have good information to offer (and it sounds like you do) then collecting the information and presenting it properly can make a huge difference.
Which came first, the breeder or the AKC? …they will listen if approached in a civil and intelligent manner. I wouldn’t write the AKC off as a loss as far as listening. It may take a huge amount of work to make a difference but it would be rewarding work for all involved.
JMO
“Breeders will listen to someone who is making a calm, logical appeal to look at the scientific data as far as healthy breeding. It’s a huge effort to show and breed and the majority of breeders really love their breed.”
Go here: http://retrieverman.wordpress.com/2012/03/16/crufts-vet-makes-public-statement/#comment-31040
That is a typical ‘dog fancy’ response when presented with real, actual data that contradicts a cherished belief. I’ve seen it over and over again. I got called an anti-purebred AR for my article on the MHC, which is linked in Scottie’s sidebar.
The AKC, as an organisation, has had THREE YEARS of listening opportunities since the original PDE aired and the shit hit the fan in the UK. Three years. And they’ve done nothing to address public concerns. This is what I said back then:
“If the AKC is smart, they will hire a geneticist or three, use the data in their database to see what the average COIs for each breed are, and work with the breed clubs to deal with exaggeration and genetic diversity issues. At the VERY LEAST, it will look like they are *trying* to do something, making an effort. This would be invaluable PR.”
I got called a traitor for that. I was told that I was playing into the hands of PeTA and HSUS. I was told that the dog fancy doesn’t *need* propaganda, because it is just so perfect and honest that people will have no problems seeing the truth!
Yeah, right.
Read this: http://got50.blogspot.com/2011/11/first-four-parts-of-my-purebred-paradox.html
Sharyn Hutchens is an AKC delegate. She posted that on the Pet Law list after attending the Purebred Paradox conference.
She was called, repeatedly, a traitor and a sell out.
Until the dog fancy, and that includes the AKC, *grows up*, they will be at risk. They put every breeder in the US at risk along with them. And this is purely my emotion speaking, because I have had to deal with people who DO NOT GET IT, who firmly believe that even talking about health issues in purebreds is traitorous and provides ‘ammo’ for the ‘antis’, and I have seen the complete lack of logic and the whopping load of bullshit intellectual dishonesty that these people employ, and are applauded for, and I’ll tell you, quite frankly, that I would very much like to stand back and watch it all burn down around their feet.
Except that my ability to breed my dogs would go down in flames with it.
This response to a posting in a blog is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a well thought out movement where a team of people get together and have discussions and put together information with charts and graphs and well worded literature… Literature, lectures, and conversation using scientific data. That is what I am talking about. Not all people are the same. Not all people react the same to information. But if the information is laid out in a logical way and presented well, I think there is a chance for a change. At first I was ready to jump to the UKC but the more that I think about the fact that the UKC is for profit, the more I think that it is not something I will support. I do not trust dog breeds to profiteers. I think it could end up worse over time than the stagnant AKC (which I think could be totally revitalized).
Do you actually understand what the Canine Health Foundation does? Do you understand how all those studies of defects in purebred dogs come about? Breeders quite happily cooperate and contribute to these studies (and health ‘testing’ falls under this purview) because these things help them to maintain the status quo, the closed registry, the ‘purebred’ dog.
Why outcross to another breed to see if we can bring cancer rates down? We’ll just look for the ‘mutation’ for twenty-odd years.
Dog breeders looooooove science and tech as long as it confirms their worldview.
If it tells them they need to change their practices it’s a tool of the anti-purebred ARs.
You can lead a horse to water but YOU CANNOT MAKE IT DRINK.
There will be wholesale change when the old guard DIES.
You are so right. Wish I could remember where I read this, but I read that scientists value purebred dogs for research into genetic causes of human diseases precisely because purebred dogs are so homozygous. I guess the dogs’ loss is our gain.
Yes, exactly. It is easier to find genes associated with disease in an animal that is inbred.
Here’s the thing: you get disease prevalence due to a limited gene pool. There is a very, very simple way to expand the gene pool. But instead of that, let’s do a bunch of studies trying to find genes for diseases, and pat ourselves on the back for it, and do ‘health tests’ and pat ourselves on the back for those, meanwhile completely ignoring this very simple way of producing more heterozygous animals that pretty much every other type of animal breeder already uses!
Like I said, dog breeders lovelovelove science, but only when it reinforces their worldview.
You might actually be on the receiving end of threats and lots of horrible rumors if you actually attempt to step outside the box.
Might be?
Give this a read and get back to me ;)
http://www2.ucsc.edu/culturalstudies/EVENTS/Fall08/C4_ExaminedLives.pdf
Been there myself Jess. Completely understand.
Everyone should read that, actually. It’s long but interesting, concerning health issues and discussing them in Aussies.
Very interesting. One very minor thing in particular got my attention. She refers to the leash law as an “enclosure”. And so it is, having to do with rules about land use. For example, I saw in broad daylight, a red fox trotting down a suburban street. Wildlife is nice, but what a radical change that amounts to. For centuries, up until just a few years ago, no fox could do that. And how about the stories about bears annoying suburbanites? And the employment of Karelian Bear Dogs to chase them away. Any old bunch of neighborhood dogs would and did do as well.
Not to mention the genetic enclosures. All of our efforts to control dogs just wind up contributing to their genetic ruin, IMHO. What looks like “accidental” breeding from our standpoint, may be the salvation of the species.
There are plenty of delegates who ‘get it.’ Change from inside is going at a glacial pace, and WE DON’T HAVE TIME TO WAIT.
No screaming in people’s faces? The public is screaming right now. It took PDE, which was about as subtle as a sledgehammer to the head, to create real visible change to the UK KC. That wasn’t because they had a change of heart, it was because their reputation with the general public went down the toilet.
AKC has two choices: they can confront these issues in the public sphere head on, and direct the dialogue on the issue, or they can continue hiding their heads in the sand and watch while the dialogue goes on without them. The next step is going to be legislation. HSUS has already stated their intent if AKC continues their no comment policy.
As far as the UKC getting “really big,” the UKC already IS pretty big. They register large numbers of dogs every year and sanction a lot of events every year. As far as being for profit vs non profit, I’m not sure that this is necessarily a bad thing. As a for profit organization, you need to pay attention to the wants/needs of your customers. If the customers are calling for change then you have a stronger incentive to listen to them if your objective is to make money.
Well… The HSUS has good fodder to play with…
This is directly from the AKC web site:
There is a widely held belief that “AKC” or “AKC papers” guarantee the quality of a dog. This is not the case. AKC is a registry body. A registration certificate identifies the dog as the offspring of a known sire and dam, born on a known date. It in no way indicates the quality or state of health of the dog.
—–CHUCKLES—–
That’s a statement of fact (that registration is not a guarantee of quality), whether one may consider that fact good, bad or indifferent. If a buyer desires any sort of warranty or guarantee of health and/or quality, that is to be sought from the breeder or seller. The AKC can, however, determine parentage through use of DNA testing, if that is questioned.
If you go to one of the petition websites and set up a petition for the AKC to open registries (of course it would be good to have some sort of guideline prepared first as far as what is acceptable out-crossing or you just end up having all kinds of weird crosses going on) You would end up with a larger following than you probably would expect. No one wants unhealthy dogs. Some people just get so caught up with the status quo that they blind side themselves.
There are all kinds of ways to approach making changes. I think changing the UKC to change the AKC seems inefficient. Level heads and intelligent presentations supported by scientific data…
For what you’re suggesting to work it would mean that the people actually petitioning would have to be the public that buys the puppies. That’s hardly going to be effective since many times the registration process is already handled by the breeder. And even then if its a show breeder or trial breeder… they’re likely staunch defenders of the breed standards as is. The public basically … rarely proceeds with a registration of their purchased dog if its sold as limited. That’s just a fact. And also one of the big reasons why the AKC has seen a decline in registrations. The one way they’ve tried to counter this is by allowing the breeders themselves to register all the puppies in the litter in advance. Which if you’re a breeder with a vested interest in controlling your sold product (lets face it…that’s what the puppies are) and preventing the possibility of having to compete in your own market with buyers of your own pups who might for one reason or another, decide they want to breed their dog… the ability to somehow devalue that dog’s puppies has just been achieved by limiting registration. Now the AKC will not allow the resulting pups to be registered. And your breeder doesn’t have to flip the status if they don’t gain anything from doing so…usually several puppies or outrageous fees.
The whole system is stacked against diversity. And petitioning won’t help since there is extreme favoritism from the AKC towards the upper echelon of the established breed clubs. It becomes a Lose- Lose situation for the typical buyers of the puppies produced and for the dogs, since the public won’t rally behind it in numbers to make a difference and the breed clubs themselves would have to agree to what that petition is asking. And in order for them to do that they would have to admit there is a problem. Ummm have you witnessed the pontificating from many of the breed clubs?
Not gonna happen.
I am part of 2 large breed clubs and in the one I have been taking part in discussions of investigating breed lines going back 150 years and following lines of longevity. There is an active group of breeders who are working with club documents that contain the pedigrees. Also members of the club are trying to uncover COD of dogs from as far back as possible to uncover genetic disease lines. Contrary to what people may think, there are many breeders who love their breed and wish to improve. I have been in discussions where a well known breeder spoke of opening the registries. I don’t know if that will happen and if so when but if enough people feel the breeds need more diversity I thnk it best to not just voice opinions but rather present opinions with scientific data (there is allot of data already out there that discusses inbreeding) and do it in a civilized manner, I think that the movement to bring more diversity for health reasons could actually make a difference. I wouldn’t attack the AKC which is just a tool used by breeders, I would educate breeders and what better venue than at dog events. Renting a table and presenting charts and graphs and handing out leaflets and engaging in great conversation could be effective.
Members in a breed club won’t sway the leaders of the club to act on anything. And then you have to have each chapter of that club in agreement. West Coast, Mid West, Central and East Coast chapters. In theory it sounds easy… Actually getting it done…for many clubs …with decades of their dogma behind them… You’ll have to wait for the old regime to grow old and die and hope the new regime is still open minded.
As for the scientific Data… It’s been around for a LONG time with many very capable and level headed people presenting it. The AKC just isn’t listening. Like Scottie pointed out… They’re covering their ears and screaming “I’m not listening” “I’m not Listening”.
Have you ever taken part in such discussions? I guess it is easy in a blog to make these generalizations and assumptions. Yes, Data has been around for a long time. That’s exactly what I was saying above. It just needs to be put in front of breeders in a way that they can see what is happening to their breed. Change does happen.
I hear posters trying to compare responses to a blog to responses from the AKC. I don’t hear anyone here saying, I spoke to delegates from the AKC personally…
Write letters, create petitions, set up booths and literature… go on talk shows… go viral on the web. There are tools to get your voice across.
Jan, the dog world has had examples and science regarding closed registries, etc. in front of it for a hundred years. Dogs are the only species where a closed registry is the NORM. Many other species maintain open registries for health reasons, or have accepted outcrosses, and this has been pointed out to the dog world time and time again.
Mark Derr wrote a scathing article called the Politics of Dogs for the Atlantic decrying the exaggerations and closed registries in 1990. There was a huge stink at the time. But nothing changed.
BTW, the delegates can do nothing but speak. The breed clubs have the power to open their studbooks, etc. AKC cannot force that. Please read M.R.S’s comments about how AKC works.
There are many, many breeders who DO NOT LIKE the system the way it is. They do what they can with their own dogs because they know that the AKC system is so convoluted and clumsy that by the time the need for change is understood and acted on, it will likely be too late.
When you have breeds where it is NORMAL for there to be a high rate of cancer, NORMAL for dogs to die young, NORMAL to have high puppy mortality rates or very small litters or poor fertility, and the ONLY considered solutions are those which keep the status quo of ‘purity,’ you have a big problem.
This problem is NOT going to be solved by ‘presenting information.’ Information is out there, loads of it. People talk about it and link to it all the time. The problem is not ‘access to information’ but ‘ACCEPTANCE of information.’ That is not going to be changed without changing the very concept of what a ‘purebred’ dog is, leaving breed mythology behind and accepting the biological definition.
The Dalmatian Clubs issues with the LUA Dals is a perfect example of this. You should google it and check it out, to get a sample of the mind set that you will be trying to change with your petitions and your talk show appearances.
Regarding Shikokus:
Reply:
I find it confusing since the AKC does endorse breeds like the Chinooks which are clearly being out-crossed. I understand what M.R.S. is saying as far as the breed clubs are leading the way… I am familiar with dogs that M.R.S. has judged and she has my utmost respect. In the breed club shows, various judges have various opinions and interpretations. I see them as being all over the place. I also would love to have those dogs jump in a pool or hosed down before entering the ring. Those beautiful coiffed coats hide the structure of the dog. I also don’t know who started the fad of blocky head and heavy bone… that drives me nuts but some of those dogs do seem to have a calmer disposition that is good for doing assistance work. Unfortunately the blocky, overly furred dogs are what people see when looking at the breed in general. I would never purchase a Golden from the area where I live because they are all that way. I like sporting dogs.
Yes Jan… my family has been a part of a Kennel Club….and when it was discovered we had our first litter of hybrids we were quickly forced out of the Kennel club for my area. The pressure came from above from the US Eastern chapter of two Breed clubs.
So yes… this is not coming from hearsay… its from experience.
The Dog fancy is predominantly screwed up mentally.
From the April 2012 board minutes for AKC: Proposed Amendment to ARTICLE III: Objects of the Club of the AKC Bylaws
The Board reviewed a proposal from the Delegate Bylaws Committee to add the phrase “to advance health and well-being,” to the Objects of the organization, which are listed in ARTICLE III of the AKC Bylaws. This will be considered further at the May meeting.
== for AKC, this is actually “movement in the right direction”. Sometimes the glacier starts melting with the tiniest of water drops.