Are you an AKC/CKC advocate? Or is it a dynasty past it's prime.?

Are you an AKC/CKC advocate? Or is it a dynasty past it's prime.?


I found this article – link attached, thought it was interesting.

I’ve snipped some of her editorial , so you can chew that over. And then respond to the question yourself?

Is the AKC (or in Canada the Canadian Kennel Club) a valued institution? Does is advocate for the betterment of dogs?

Is showing dogs actually creating better bred dogs? If yes, which breeds exactly? I’m curious to hear of a breed that has been recognized by the CKC/AKC and has either been dramatically improved upon, or maybe even saved from disaster. Is there any notable milestones in the recent 30 years that deserve attention.

And generally, what exactly does either of this kennel clubs do that is so valued and necessary and why can we not live without them?

The contrarion opinion is also appreciated

Below are some highlights:

Next in, Heather Houlahan of Raised by Wolves, her wrath prompted by the image of a smiling Leonberger. The Leo, like the border collie and others, is a breed that was “recognized” by the AKC over the intense objections of many of its breeders, who (quite rightfully) saw the move as a money-grab by an ailing organization that (quite accurately) has shown itself an institutional supporter of puppy-mills and a lip-service advocate for better canine health.

Thereafter followed “discussion” that mostly consisted of the desire to see the American Kennel Club bombed into tiny fragments, the pieces then bulldozed into a very deep pit and covered with concrete. Seriously, if you think PETA hates the AKC, you haven’t listened to non-AKC breed advocates. Funny thing is, except for the bombing, bulldozing and cement-covering bits, I agree with these non-AKC breed advocates. The AKC, instead of changing its game to actually be what it pretends to be (‘the dogs’ champion”), is instead doubling down on the same bad bet that has plunged it into a state of financial retreat and increasing irrelevance.

But what do you do with a breed that has been developed for companionship only, like the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel? Or a breed whose purpose has long ago disappeared, like the Bulldog, a breed so utterly and completely destroyed by fashion that last summer at the American Veterinary Medical Association conference, I listened to a presentation where a top specialist said the only way to offer Bulldogs (and Pugs, too) a shot at a life not full of oxygen-deprived, overheated misery is to have their nostrils surgically widened and their soft palates clipped at the time they’re in for a spay or neuter, before the age of one year. Otherwise, noted the veterinarian, many will have to be euthanized young when the build up of scar tissue from their struggles to breathe finally blocks their ability to do so. If, that is, they haven’t dropped dead from overexertion already from walking around the block on a mildly warm day. Folks, if breeding for an appearance not compatible with breathing or walking isn’t animal cruelty, it’s hard to imagine what would be.
First, I will only give TU to all responses. Second, below is my 2cents at this point.
So far, all very good responses and I thank you. I will wait to see if anyone else responds.

If its sole mandate is a registry, why stop at registering births. If (for example) all vets were required to file a "reason for death" certificate for every dog euthanized, wouldn’t that drive better health and breed standards if the consuming public had upfront knowledge of what a breeders track record was – how many died prematurely – how many lived long healthy lives, which ones died of cardio, or cancer or had hip problems etc.

Also, wouldn’t breeders be better informed and avoid breeding mistakes. Is operating in silo’s within breed clubs really sustainable?

In any other industry I have worked in, greater transparency has yielded better results and balanced demand with supply – for the consumer and those that provide value. Perhaps I am naiive, but I would think breeders that truly better th
the breed would benefit and unscrupulous breeders selling sickly dogs would not survive. It would not solve world hunger, but I think quantiatively and qualitatively categorize what for many is still very obscure : BYB, Puppy Mill, Reputable Breeder. Just my 2c

Other Dog Kennel Accessories Sites of Interest

7 Responses to “Are you an AKC/CKC advocate? Or is it a dynasty past it's prime.?”

  1. anne b says:

    I guess I am confused here. I was under the impression that a Breed Club had to petition to the AKC to be accepted. If the Leonberger breeders did not want in, why did the Breed Club petition for it? I fail to see how the AKC did anything wrong or bad by accepting them.

    All businesses need money to operate. If the AKC started recording deaths and medical issues to blame for deaths, they would need to hire more people to input that data. That would mean higher fees for breeders, and who wouldn’t complain about that?

    As far as puppy mills registering their pups with the AKC, why shouldn’t they? After all, the AKC is merely a registry of purebred dogs, and many puppy mills still have purebreds, good or bad.
    It is not the AKCs responsibility to do away with puppy mills. That is OUR job as registered voters and citizens of this country. You can’t place the burden on the shoulders of one group of people who are registering dogs. That is the major problem with this country. Everyone wants to b**** about what they don’t like, but no one wants to step up and do anything about it. They want to pass the buck to others, like the AKC.

    The best way to get rid of puppy mills is to make the sale of live animals over the Internet illegal, and make sure everyone is educated about pet store pups. That would eliminate their entire clientele and they would go out of business very quickly. How do we get that done? By lobbying for it, petitioning, and making sure we elect people who feel the same way we do about puppy mills, and understand how to go after them without getting good breeders in the middle.

    We don’t get it done by expecting someone else to do it.

  2. poodle mom says:

    I think the AKC should do more. I agree that they are a "lip-service" advocate for better canine health. They, in my opinion, should do more to rid our country of puppy mills. But this would be like "cutting your nose off despite your face. On the other hand I would not have my three wonderful standard poodles if it were not for people that breed dogs – we need a middle ground. Unfortunately I do not have the answer -other than to spay or neuter your dog and be a responsible pet owner. Does anyone realize that if there was not an AKC, CKC, et. there would be no puppy mills – because who would want to buy a dog that is unregistered and guaranteed to be pure bred for $500.00 plus – no one. I am just saying — something to think about.

  3. Sheri says:

    There will always be articles you can find on the internet that are full of hot air and those that take that information and assume it is factual.

    The AKC is a registry and does not make any determinations on the breed standards set forth on any breed, the breed clubs themselves determine the set standards.

    As for the American Veterinary Medical Association and most vets in general … Most veterinarians know general information on breeds and simply care for canines in general, due to there being so many breeds. Their ability to specialize in certain breeds is limited and they comprise all breeds simply in the canine category.

    These vets also have little if any experience with breeding, their expertise generally is limited to c-sections and not the specifics of breeding correctly. As far as most vets are concerned, breeders be they, professional breeders or byb’s simply generate their income.

    Brachycephalic breeds such as the pug, bulldog, boxer, etc … may have problems with breathing but that is from people who had no knowledge on responsibly breeding with no knowledge, resulting in deformities which need surgical intervention. When bred properly brachycephalic breeds are fine.

    The truth is that professional reputable breeders go above and beyond other breeders to ensure that their pups are healthy and will have little to no genetic problems. It is the unknowledgable people that breed carelessly that cause problems with any breed, continuing with genetic conditions whereas the reputable breeder, clubs and associations are working together to eliminate them.

    As for what the AKC does that is valuable .. You’ll have to look it up yourself as I am too lazy to be bothered listing everything for you.

    PETA .. DON"T even get me started on those loons

  4. PitGirl says:

    To an extent I have to agree with SOME, not all, but SOME of what is said. I agree 100% about bulldogs being bred for looks to the point of them not being able to even function. I agree that dogs shouldn’t be bred for looks only. Form AND Function. These are both things necessary in breeding a dog. Today there are now two different classifications for many breeds. I hear the terms field bred and show bred being tossed around. Basically show bred dogs are ones bred for looks alone, and field bred are ones being bred for their ability to do the work they were intended to do.
    Honestly, I feel that the ideas behind breeding have been lost. Back in the day when dogs were bred for a specific job, and had a purpose other than being a companion animal, dogs didn’t look the same as they do now. Sure, they adhered to "breed standards", but breed standards were set so dogs would be able to FUNCTION properly, and so people would know what a physically sound dog of that breed looked like.
    I don’t have a specific opinion toward the AKC. I am an affiliate, and I am a certified CGC Facilitator through them, but I don’t feel either way about them.
    I know what dogs "should" be bred for, and I see what they are most commonly bred for. Breeders are slowly starting to realize that there needs to be a balance between Temperament/Form/Function when breeding a dog, and one should not rely so heavily on any of the three, but strive for a happy balance.
    We see soo many unhealthy purebred dogs not because of the breed, but because people are breeding strictly for looks alone, and only taking temperament into consideration about 80% of the time.
    Because dogs roles have changed from working to being human companions, many breeders don’t think that functionality is as necessary as it used to be. This isn’t true for all, but quite a few that I’ve seen.
    I feel that a shift toward the more fundamental and basics of breeding for what the dogs breed was intended is necessary, along with a heavier focus on breeding out certain genetic health issues. Only then will we see a decrease in Labs and Goldens with ACL and hip problems, Rots with bone cancer, etc.
    I’m done with my soap box, but ya, that’s about it for me.

  5. Pamela D. says:

    The AKC is the most notable kennel club in the USA. Same as with the CKC in Canada. The other CKC Conckc is a scam registry and will register anything.

  6. Kaper says:

    AKC/CKC have their issues, but they are better than not having a registry at all. They are a record keeping organization, not Police of the breeds. It is up to the breeders and breed clubs to look after their breeds.
    I disagree with breeding for conformation only, for breeding for certain characteristics particularly when they cause health issues. But this is on the breeders. Even if it is judges preference, if the breeders stopped producing/showing dogs like this, preference would change.

    I should add I am not a fan of AKC/CKC, nor am I a fan of conformation lines in my breed. But again, I blame the breeders, not the actual registry.

    I dont’ blame the AKC for the ski slope GSDs with zero working ability popular in their shows. I blame the breeders who decided that working temperament was optional (its still in the standard) and that a pretty trot was more important.
    Judges are breeders/owners/handlers. The standard hasn’t changed. Their preference has.

    One thing I really dislike about the AKC is the fact they did not use the FCI standard for GSDs (not sure about other breeds).

    I am neither an advocate nor an opponent to the AKC. But I do feel that the anti-AKC sentiment on further helps those destroying the breeds. I hear too often of people breeding unregistered dogs with no health clearances claiming they will be healthier because they are not show dogs.

    Why is it up to AKC to get rid of puppymills?
    They are a registry. They keep records. Dog A was bred to Dog B and produced these pups.
    If we do charge them with ensuring quality, who’s level of quality are we going to use?
    How many litters it too many? A large kennel produces more litters than a hobby breeder.
    What health clearances are necessary for what breeds? There are a number of things we can test for in every breed. Some are generally accepted as required, others aren’t.
    What titles are "good" or do we even need them? If I have exceptional hunting dogs, should I still reqyire a title to breed them.
    Everyone has different ideas of the answers to this question, I doubt it would be easy for the AKC to lay down a standard.

  7. Jennifer M~ Got the Giggles says:

    Good question.

    I think for me, the problem is that there are way too many sham registries around as well. I had someone tell me the other day that their Schnoodle was registered with a "reputable registry".

    There is a big debate on the evolution of certain breeds BUT it isn’t the AKC that sets breed standard, it is the breed clubs. I think the breed clubs and the AKC need to figure out a few things. #1 how to weed out bad breeding. #2 how to encourage good breeding and produce dogs that are not just conformationally correct. Working breeds should still be able to work. Appearances should not be so extreme that they interfere with health.