The Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show is going to be on television tonight.
I am also here to announce that I am operating under a moderated position.
I hear my blog being taken off blogrolls right now.
Stop.
Hear me out.
I’m not against the concept of the dog show. I’m against dog shows entirely consuming dogs. They are not the only measure of quality of dogs.
I would be among the last people to tell you that conformation isn’t important. If a dog is built in a fashion that keeps it from moving efficiently or comfortably while doing its work, then we can say it has bad conformation.
Conformation is but one pillar on which dogs are built. Conformation complements the other traits.
And that should be the perspective on which we focus our energies.
I think it all can hang on a simple rule for working dogs:
If you start to get a split in your breed between show and working forms, I think it’s time to have a discussion about conformation.
Another rule applies for nonworking dogs:
If the top dogs in your breed have difficulty moving, whelping, mating, and cooling themselves, you might need to have a discussion about conformation.
For all dogs another rule should apply:
If you notice that lots of genetic disorders have started to pop up in your dogs and if you also notice that you have a Tristan da Cunha situation in your registry system, it’s time to have a discussion about health testing and possibly opening up the registries.
I think that if we can have civil conversations about these issues, I am fine with dog shows.
And you know, I think most people in dogs are willing to talk about these issues. The trick is getting an institution that will respond to these needs. The KC in Britain is starting to take these issues seriously, mainly because the public, including many breeders, are trying to push for reform.
Can the AKC be reformed?
Well, I’m not convinced that it can’t.
And even if it can’t, we have nothing to replace it.
Maybe we can work to build our own institutions.
That’s not a bad start.
But we have to have some kind of institution. People will do awful things to dogs in the quest for mammon, and there has to be an institution, at least at the level of civil society, that ensures that we are doing right by our animals.
I sincerely believe that most people aren’t in dogs because they want to hurt them.
Everyone wants the best for these animals. Those who don’t want the best for the animals shouldn’t even own a goldfish.
We have to have this discussion here. I am willing to listen to anyone, provided that this person comes in good faith. That’s how I moderate this blog.
So if you choose to watch the dog show tonight, please think about the animals, their gene pools, their history, and what the future might hold. Think about that ancient bond that man has with Canis lupus familiaris. Think about that time when we were just another species in the ecosystem, and the proto-dog wolves were both our alarm systems and hunting assistants. Think about how far we’ve come from those hunter-gatherer camps. Man and dog, wagons hitched to the same star, our destinies forever linked.
Let’s hope that we choose to do right by them. They deserve it.
***
Now that I’ve waxed poetic for a moment, I need to offer one observation.
I don’t know how the average person would know what is going on the ring.
It is always said that the dogs are being judged to their breed standard, but it is never said what these are.
And it would make for very bad television for the announcers to present every breed standard and every little esoteric quibble and fancy point.
However, I don’t think the average person really understands what is going on. I think the average American is just sitting there rooting for his or her favorite breed, which is interesting, I guess.
The really interesting part of what goes on in a dog show is during the breed ring competitions, but these competition are virtually never televised. It’s always group and then BIS.
I think that if people really knew what was going on, these shows would be far more interesting.
Update: I am watching it, but I just switched from USA to CNBC. I’m not that much into wrasslin’.
I would think the dog sports would be the most popular events to watch, but they’re never shown, either. I can’t be alone in thinking that dogs racing through an obstacle course is a heck of a lot more exciting than just prancing around a ring.
As long as AKC remains subject to the breed clubs, and the breed clubs remain subject to politics and other human shortcomings, AKC cannot be reformed. The British KC operates differently and that is why you are seeing reforms there.
That’s right, but I don’t see anything else to do. We could build up our own institutions.
But it’s hard to have a international institution for any breed of dog.
Plus, there is a quisling and fifth column factor.
The international problem is a huge problem. Had that discussion many, many times, and still haven’t heard any viable solutions except a worldwide acceptance of a new definition for ‘purebred’ dog, something like three generations of ‘pure’ or documented breeding.
Ah, Quislings…. I first heard this term in the mid-70s, at the Defense Language Institute, from non-drafted volunteers – like me – who tried, for a very short time, to think we were better than the draftees were. Quisling = Traitor. Ouch.
I will watch tonight because I love dogs, even and especially pure bred dogs, and this is a place to see them, and cringe as we see them. What have we done to these marvelous creatures? How could we? What kind of traitors are we?
http://www.mnc.net/norway/quisling.htm
We have a Wyandotte hen named Quisling.
She used to hang out, by choice, with the evil guineas that would beat on and torture the other hens.
When I locked up the guineas, she’d try to get in with them.
Quisling is a much better term than Benedict Arnold or Arnold Benedict.
It sounds like the name of a worm, someone with no scruples.
Plus only Americans care about Benedict Arnold.
Of F*ck – the first one up in your video is Yes. From my post at Pet Connection Blog today….
“I used to love watching dog shows because I love dogs – and dog shows are one of the few places one can see so many different dogs. But the reality of the downside of dog shows and their influence on the health of pure bred dogs has over taken the good for me and I can no longer enjoy them without cringing.
Let’s take the Bichon Frise, shall we? Corn starch? Um, no – more likely it’s clown makeup. And those dark little eyes wouldn’t stand out nearly as well if it weren’t for the black eyeliner applied by the handler and/or his/her assistant – along with a ton of hair spray and powder and/or just the right hair color/whitening shampoo (but please – stay away from too much bluing as that will be obvious and ugly). But these are just cosmetic things – and they all come out in the wash, right? Unlike de-barking – that’s for life. As are pemphigus and calcium oxalate stones, both problems in the breed and problems show breeders/owners/handlers routinely cover up/hide/deny exist in their lines, often in the most interesting, convoluted ways. And why not? Dog shows aren’t about health. They’re about “business,” and we all know cheating and lying and winning is what matters in business.
It would be nice if the NYT would include a discussion of the health and health problems of pure bred dogs in its Westminster coverage. Inbreeding, line breeding, popular sire syndrome, closed registries, and the consequences of the loss of genetic diversity in purebred dogs – Westminster is the perfect context for such a discussion. But that’s not how it works….
Last year’s NYT’s article about the nonsporting group winner, standard poodle Yes, could have/should have contained such a discussion (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02…..ozen.html). Yes was sired by 25 year old frozen semen from a popular sire, Snapper – a known producer of Addison’s disease. (See Eaton Affirmed in http://www.poodlehealthregistr…..html)“In June, Yes will be in season again, and those who shepherded her into this world are planning. No decisions have been made, but they are talking about impregnating her with frozen semen. Snapper has not been ruled out as a sire.” My head explodes every time I read that….
Am I going to watch Westminster tonight and tomorrow? Probably – for as long as I can stand it. But it breaks my heart to know what the “show” does to the dogs.”
My head explodes again….
One thing I noticed, having not seen this clip before, is that with the arguable exception of the deerhound, every “group” winner is from a hair breed.
All breeds whose coat maintenance is a liability for the pet owner, not to speak of anyone who wants a dog to function. But those fancy-ass coats give plenty of opportunity for the richest owners to hire the most technically skilled handlers and grooming staffs.
Whatever.
I disagree with you that institutions are necessary for the protection of the dogs, either as individuals or as gene pools. Dogs did fine as a species and as breeds/types for millenia without institutions defining them. (And purebred dog institutions do precisely nothing for animal welfare.) Sporting dogs, working dogs, lapdogs — all developed without any oversight from the overlords of dogs. Certainly the AKC has done nothing to protect dogs from being sacrificed to Mammon, and in many cases has provided the altar.
I also disagree that it is very difficult to have an independent club.
Independent breed clubs have their people problems, just like any organization. But the biggest one — the elephant in the room, always — is the spectre of an AKC hostile takeover.
As for international recognition — so? If Europe doesn’t believe that your golden retriever is purebred without ACK say-so, I guess you lose out on that huge, lucrative European puppy market. It wouldn’t stop you from acquiring animals or their genetics from outside the US.
The problem is golden retrievers have such a Tristan da Cunha problem with their gene pools. I mean the best working lines are in Europe, and I don’t think you could even get close to prying one of those dogs.
A performance registry is still an institution, and it’s far better than what we have. However, even these registries are prone to most-used sire problems. A performance registry and club would be excellent for my type of dogs.
The only reason why we need an institution is to prevent incidents like Murder Hollow. People like this shouldn’t be in dogs. Clubs should police their members. I’d certainly prefer the clubs weeding out these people than having to tie up the criminal justice system.
I wish we could still use flat-coats, Irish setters (both colors), and Labs as outcrosses. The flat-coats need it worse than we do, but it’s very hard to get these things to happen. All of these breeds have become institutionalized, and not a single one has been a closed registry breed for a hundred years.
The AKC is a failed institution. It has sacrificed it all to mammon. We need something else.
BTW, just watching the show, why do people still repeat than nonsense about bloodhounds coming from their purity of their blood? Bloodhound is a term in French and German that means a dog that follows a blood spoor!
But Murder Hollow is a perfect example of institutional (and personal) failure. The dogs were all presumably registered — but whatever registry it was, did nothing. The pack was maintained by a hunt club. The kennel keeper was a member of a number of organizations. And none of them kept her to a high standard of husbandry and welfare, either by coercive pressure or solicitous help. (I don’t pretend to know which would have been effective, if either, in this case.) They didn’t even ensure that they stayed within the well-established limit law of the town where they kenneled the pack.
Or our own breed club — refused to give a breeder’s listing to someone we knew to be a puppymiller with prior convictions and a long history of animal cruelty. She threatened to sue. The club didn’t cave in. Well it made no damned difference — she is a puppymiller, and kept right on at it, until we had the Linda Kapsa / Shady Lane kennels debacle anyway. The AKC kept right on registering her pugs for decades; they suspended her after the conviction. But it would have made no difference if they’d stopped registering — people would have still bought her cheap internet pugs.
Maybe institutions such as breed clubs do help prevent animal welfare problems with member education and peer pressure. But the giant kennel clubs sure don’t. And in the end, the law and its enforcement arms are the only institutions that can “influence” some people.
BTW, the purpose of the post wasn’t to give exactly what I normally give.
It was an olive branch.
Naive? Probably.
Even the Canine Chronicle has posted recent articles decrying the decay and ego-driven fiasco that the AKC show world has become:
‘The Dog Show Game’
http://www.onlinedigitalpubs.com/publication/?i=31613&p=289
‘The Rise and Decline of the AKC’
http://www.onlinedigitalpubs.com/publication/?i=31613&p=305
Discontent is simmering in many quarters of ‘the fancy’ nowadays, an eventually that will end up boiling over. When enough breeders realize that they don’t need some self-appointed arbiters who have no clue what they’re doing to tell them whether their dogs are ‘worthy’ to be bred, they can form better breed communities and organization. And once the dust clears, maybe we’ll end up with a healthier, saner world for purpose-bred dogs.
I think that’s what going to happen in the end.
I know many people in one of my breeds who show simply to show the judge what a moderate dog looks like. Showing for these people is also a social occasion, a chance to meet with people with similar interests, look at and talk dogs, and have a nice meal out. These are people who have opinions I respect and they harbor no illusions about whether a great show dog is actually a great dog.
I’ve seen a number of breeders comment that they only show so that people won’t call them ‘puppy mills.’ Grow some balls already.
When people in toy breeds say such things, I am always confused. They’re in a breed that was created SOLELY to be an aesthetically pleasing pet, yet you feel that breeding them ‘just to be pets’ is some kind of sin against the breed? It’s completely illogical.
To me, that’s like someone in GSDs feeling ashamed to breed dogs for police and military work.
Lots of cognitive dissonance in the dog world.
Watching this sporting group is very hard.
The breed histories are summaries, but many of them are terrible.
I noticed a very moderate basset hound in the ring last night.
I think the problem with AKC is that the money is in “conformation” which is essentially a beauty contest. The history of most herding dogs shows that when a “conformation” standard is established, it’s usually with some “expert” determining what the dogs “should” look like even though that so-called expert may never have used those dogs in their original function. Consequently, the “standard” is often dysfunctional right from the start. Initially, the rules seem relatively benign — but the “winner takes all” and the push for both money and prestige based on having that winner make the alterations progress on an almost geometrical pattern. Because the conformation has no requirement to match up with function, it progressively becomes less and less functional.
There are similar geometric progressive exaggerations in “sport dogs” for the same reason — money and prestige for the “winner takes all” position encourage dogs to match the trial and for the trials to have less and less connection with functional “work”. Functional dogs –by which I mean the “gentleman’s shooting dog” or the “working herding dog on a ranch/farm”, etc, always have a place, but they are always a minority compared to the sport or the “bench” dogs. The only time I’ve seen that changed is in countries where function is of significant importance — working police dogs, dogs whose hunting skills put food in the pot, etc and there is little or no “sport” or “bench” — the old USSR and East Germany before reunification being examples.
In any registry, the trick would be to either allow all three types but to distinguish and equally support them or to find a way to support the functional dog without falling into the pit of exaggeration.
vr, Peggy Richter.
The money isn’t in conformation, it’s in registries. The money that’s spent ON conformation goes to everyone BUT the AKC or the owners of the winners of these big events.
The only money AKC could conceivably make from one of these events is through the advertising from Mars Pet for the advertising spots.
Unless something has changed in the last 10 years or so, which is possible; there are several European countries that will not offer a conformation Championship to a dog unless it has competed in a venue specific to it’s breed. Sporting dogs must have had to compete and placed in a sporting event, working dogs, hounds and so on.
It was my understanding that the UKC was interested in reviewing it’s charter a few years ago to reflect that and if I am not mistaken, I think France or Belgium’s KC’s were the model for their proposed changes.
The AKC was faced with something involving the FCI a few years ago and the breed clubs were given the option to rewrite their standards to come in compliance to be recognized with them.
The AKC refused even though there were many breed clubs who were interested.
The National Championship was the result, as was the ‘working dog’ platforms certain breeds were green lighted for.
I think that if the AKC changed their focus to a performance-first registry there would be a greater movement on health and peer pressure would take care of the rest.
I was a member of the GSDCA for decades. Back in the eighties, the WUSV threatened to pull it’s support from the American working GSD community unless they translated their charters to reflect the FCI standard, which was the SV’s own. The FCI’s standards are written and controlled by the COUNTRY OF ORIGIN for each breed. When the GSDCA balked at the requirement, the WDA was born, effectively shutting out the DSV and the USCA.
The GSDCA was able to finesse the WUSV into accepting the charter for the WDA, allowing the parent club to be recognized on a world stage, ending the USCA and the DVG’s recognition by the WUSV.
This argument is about 20 years old:
http://pnwschutzhund.blogspot.com/
Scroll down to some of the other entries.
It’s pretty telling.
The money is in registering mill puppies.
Absolutely. It’s certainly not in the registering of “show dogs”. If the AKC invited the top 5 winners (800+) of all their recognized breeds for the 2010 show and the remaining entry was comprised of finished champions of the same recognized breeds (1700 dogs this year) who made their entries before they closed, then it stands to reason that the percentages of champions of record are going to be a LOT less than the total number of individual registration numbers per breed.
The NYT article mentioned over 90 Goldens entered for this years show. That is probably less than one percent of all Goldens registered in 2009. I don’t know what it represents for % of ‘new’ Champions for the same calendar year. Dogs normally do not become champions in the first year of their lives, so it’s a pretty safe bet that if one dog becomes a champion in it’s LIFETIME, it is still a paltry reflection based on litter vs individual registrations for any calendar year.
I tried getting the records from the AKC about a month or so ago for Labrador Retrievers but thought the price tag was a little too steep for the information that they used to provide for FREE in the Gazette.
Although show breeders are part of the problem with their limited purview of breeding to a standard of aesthetics, they are not the entirety of the problem.
I wish these breeds would start turning on each other (the people, not the dogs, though pit vs. tosa inu…oh, nevermind), to call out the most offensive examples within their ranks. Got a healthy breed, with a unique purpose/history/ability/appeal? Great! But show some spine, and begin to refuse to participate in local events with breeds that are (as a group) unhealthy from the minute they are born.
I just cannot believe that a self-respecting aussie shepherd person would stand backstage at this event, chatting politely with a pekingese breeder as if the hobby they dedicate so much of their life to are perfectly equal, just different examples of dogdom.
Walking around a dog show with an animal that cant breathe, cool itself, or piss without getting kidney stones should get about the same reaction as wearing a t-shirt advocating more animal testing by cosmetic companies, or a dog fighting supply website or something. It should elicit ridicule and derision from the group.
Why not look at the Laverack-Lewellyn English Setter history to review breeding to type and no outcrossing.
http://www.llewellin.com/whatis.htm.
note: these dogs are usually registered in the Field Dog Stud Book, which is older than the AKC.
http://www.americanfield.com/Pages/FDSBinfo.html
A registry for that one purpose only, eat your heart out ack!
I’ve known about this one for a while.
Llewellins are kind of like border collies. I’ve never seen two that looked anything alike.
But, I don’t think the dogs care.
I meant that as a compliment to the Llewellins.
They are an entirely performance-based line.
I think dog shows “work” for some breeds and not for others. I think the national club, the type of dog, the written standard, the breed numbers, the type of person that gravitates toward that breed, and all sorts of other vagaries, play into this.
For the breeds where the spirit of the standard remains intact and dogs that conform in large part to the standard have the opportunity to receive the CH as one indicator (ONE indicator) of suitability as breeding stock, then I think it’s silly to throw the baby out with the bath.
We disagree on many things, Scottie, but your olive branch has been noted!
it’s true that AKC gets some of it’s money from registrations (I believe it’s a little less than half these days. the rest is from investments, some of which have nothing to do with dogs) and yes, volume registrations are $. But there are, as noted by others, “working registries”. Several are solvent. So why hasn’t AKC gone for “working registries”? they have made some efforts — coonhounds being an example — but they promptly tried to “improve” trials and ran into problems. AKC can run a paper “registry” for field dogs but they seem to always flail about when they make the attempt. The herding program is a case in point. AKC wanted the registrations of Australian Shepherds and Border collies. It’s a lot of dogs. There really was no particular good reason why AKC couldn’t have set up a BC’s only herding program with Meeker level courses. But they didn’t. They went with the Australian “show BC” folk instead. Why? Somehow the management of AKC was “convinced” that the “show/conformation” protocol would appeal to more people. that they could “improve” a trial program via management rather than by developing programs based on what participants want (go to some of the furor over the 2000 AKC herding regulations to see a perfect example). another snafu was their stab at trying to create a “protection sport” program to get those Ring/Schutzhund/Mondo dogs. Management and advisors came up with their “PC acceptable” program that failed badly.
For most people participating in AKC, the “image” AKC has is conformation. The advertising and promotion is conformation. Their “dog book” shows conformation dogs– you don’t see a photo of the top winning field dog in there representing Setters. I rather think that the upper echelons of AKC still think of all those performaance dogs as something only “peasants” deal with. The popularity of performance has been ground up rather than encouragement from AKC. They have a consistent problem in this area, despite the fact that if they could do it right, they could easily gain all those registrations and the reflective $.
The majority of AKC’s existing dog clubs are conformation clubs. They might do obedience or rally “on the side”. But the vast majority of these clubs (and their members) think of performance as some kind of dirty smelly peasant come to the formal dining room. Would the conformation rings have been stashed on the flooded parking lot in Long Beach? Until that mindset changes, AKC is going to struggle with understanding why so many people are becoming convinced that AKC on the label doesn’t really mean quality for health or anything else.
VR, Peggy Richter.
http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2008/02/akc-loves-puppy-mills-and-naive.html
Peggy R. wrote: “The majority of AKC’s existing dog clubs are conformation clubs. They might do obedience or rally “on the side”. But the vast majority of these clubs (and their members) think of performance as some kind of dirty smelly peasant come to the formal dining room.”
I don’t think that description applies to the FCRSA. Here’s a link to the 2008 National Specialty schedule.
http://2008.flatcoat.us/schedule.html
The specialty started on April 4 and ended on April 12. Included were Hunt Tests, WC/WCX tests, Steady & Unsteady Singles, Agility, Obedience, Rally and Tracking. The first conformation event was Veteran Sweeps, on the evening of the fourth day of the specialty.
In order to earn a “Paradise Award” (named in memory of an FCRSA member who was an avid Field Trial/Hunt Test competitor and mentor), a dog had to title in three different venues. In fact, in order to be inducted into the FCRSA Hall of Fame, a flatcoat must have earned at least a Junior Hunter or WCX title, no matter how many Best In Show awards they’ve earned.
Exactly. And it is within the realm of the like minded parent clubs to do the same. To hell with an organization that won’t recognize the designations offered by the parent breed clubs. What difference does it really make to the caretakers of the breeds themselves?
The AKC got an argument from the BC people who were interested in keeping their dogs out of the registry period.
The BC people didn’t want to sacrifice the working quality of the breed to the dumbing down of the herding events offered to dogs whose bloodlines have been strictly conformation for generations. Doesn’t the official stock dog registry boot any AKC CH dog, as opposed to the other way around?
Note the JRTC and the Parson’s terrier, aka AKC-Lite Terrier.
Their Foundation Stock program is a joke. The Plott brothers are abso-LUTELY CHURNING in their graves.
They recently stripped the registration of an Irish Red and White Setter (2007 I think) and all of his domestically sired progeny under dubious circumstances when it became noted that the dog in question was cleaning up in AKC field events.
They threaten to close the registry between the FDSB and sporting breeds on a continual basis since the show style dogs can no longer compete against their working bred counterparts. They will not accept the registry of Irish Setters from the FDSB.
The Irish Red and White Setter is the most recent victim of the AKC’s double standard.
http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/AKC/06_IrishRW.Setters.Website.Story_10.asp
They continue to make it easy for closed minded, arbitrary selection of a narrow goal to be the focal point for their registry. I don’t disagree that the principal mindset of the general public is one of the pretty show dogs when they think of AKC, but from what I understand the number of show giving clubs that are also AKC member clubs have also declined dramatically.
They have discovered that they can no longer survive in such a hostile climate. Show entries are down across the board. The only things growing are rally and agility and the AKC version of herding. That says something dramatically to the bottom line. Performance venues generates more interest, are appealing to the many who do not have dogs that are competitive in the conformation ring.
It is a gateway for two significant things, hence the interest in registering non-pure dogs AND paves the way for the advancement of a priority on work as opposed to looks.
Income streams aside, it is a step in the right direction. If they would dedicate more time in developing programs as Pai’s wonderful links pointed out, the shift would not be so cataclysmic as one might fear.
Geeky snow-day statistic gathering:
First number is dogs that have an AKC performance title OR a sire or dam with a performance title (any performance title; cgc isn’t listed, nor is wc/wcx); the second number is the number of dogs entered.
NSDTR 10/14–71 percent
FCR 13/19–68 percent
Lab 12/42
Curly 5/10
Golden 10/40
Chessie 6/20
Woops! Hit reply too soon.
Geeky snow-day statistic gathering:
First number is dogs that have an AKC performance title OR a sire or dam with a performance title (any performance title; cgc isn’t listed, nor is wc/wcx); the second number is the number of dogs entered.
NSDTR 10/14–71 percent
FCR 13/19–68 percent
Curly 5/10–50 percent
Lab 12/42–29 percent
Golden 10/40–25 percent
Chessie 6/20
What is the total number of entries per breed?
The second number is the number of entries in the breed.
With Patti’s correction noted, FCR’s are 14/19–74 percent, edging out the tollers.
;)
Here are links to Breed Entries
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2010/entries/breed/index.html
Breed Results
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2010/results/breed/index2.html
Videos of the Breed Judging
http://www.westminsterkennelclub.org/2010/video/breed/index2.html
And you can find links to Group Results in the navigation bar near the top of the page.
Woops again– Chessies 30 percent
Greta, if you’re using titles from the 2010 Breed Entries catalog, add a JH OA AXJ to Ch Quillquest Etched in Stone. They aren’t listed on his catalog listing, but he has them.
He just won the breed. At ten years of age.
Thanks! I don’t think I’ll repost, but I will add it into my next calculation.
I was rooting for the Hawk puppy or grandpuppy, but I’m sure the Quillquest dog is lovely!
The Wingmaster dog (a Hawk puppy) got a JAM.
And the Meadowrue dog? (a Hawk grand-puppy) Just curious.
Best of Breed –
12 Ch Quillquest Etched In Stone JH OA AXJ
Sex: Dog
Best of Opposite Sex
15 Ch Blazin’s Ice Mountain CD
Sex: Bitch
JAMs
9 Ch Fishercreek S A Star Is Born
Sex: Dog
7 Ch Wingmaster’s History Repeats CD JH RE
Sex: Dog
Thanks. I don’t really know what any of it means–I just like to root for the Gamekeepers connections. :)
Just realized this is “Cutter.” I still don’t know all the big names. :)
I just saw Cutter in the ring. He, the Curly, and Irish red and white look normal.
Dogs with any AKC performance title/dogs entered:
NSDTR 6/14–43 percent
Curly 3/10–33 percent
FCR 3/19–16 percent
Lab 6/42–14 percent
Golden 4/40–10 percent
Chessie 1/20–5 percent
Alright, FCRs 4/19–21 percent.
Also, CH Jubilee’s Curveball Majic has a CD, and while I wouldn’t exactly call a CGC a performance title, a least one dog, Blazin’s Ice Mountain has one.
Okay, Patti–5/19–26 percent.
I think I’m done, though!
Hunt test titles/dogs entered:
NSDTR 5/14–36 percent
FCR 4/19–21 percent
Lab 3/42–7 percent
Chessie 1/20–5 percent
Golden 1/40–2.5 percent
Curly 0/10
One thing to point out is that in some breeds, performance titles are usually for later in life- most Cardis finish by 4 and many start performance at that point. Rally is changing things in a way I think is interesting- a lot of dogs are ready for rally MUCH earlier than competition obedience. (One of my instructors thinks it’s due to the extra feedback and the more ‘natural’ way you can talk to your dog in rally vs obedience- dogs don’t have to be proofed to the level of needing NO feedback from the handler during an exercise.)
Two PETA twits tried to disrupt the show by walking into the ring holding up signs saying ‘Breeders Kill’ and ‘Mutts Rule’. They’re such laughable hypocrites.