What do you think of the AKC?

Question

For many yrs they have been proven to not really do anything to insure the dogs listed with them are real....so why bother?

Europe has some really good ideas and practices to insure dogs are real and to insure quality....why aren't we doing the same?

Consider this: Most breeders are breeding a good looking dog to another good looking dog and praying they get one good looking puppy...is that what you want?

Should we insist on better breeding practices like Europe where litter sizes are limited and a selection committee picks the dogs who can breed and then selects the pups who get papers?

What do you think?

Some of you have said the AKC insures your dog is pure bred...I ask how? Do they come to your home and check? Did they check the parents? The short answer is no...so why do folks think they do?

Some of you have said dog breeding is about money...So wouldn't it be better to insure the dogs are good examples by someone who really knows and then have the pups selected as such if it increases the profit margin from $1000 to in excess of $5000 per pup as well as increasing the value of you breeding dogs like it does in Europe.???

Ok some have asked how do you limit the litter size....well lets look at an example in Europe...Germany...They sell dogs to the world....everyone is after their blood lines here, but why?
Parents have to be approved by a breeding tech who is a Gov Offical...who has studied the subject at the college level...and served an appretice program....next the pups are born he returns...selects 6 (the number that a mom can handle the best from the nutition and attention stand point) ...now if there are more pups than this the owner has an option....remove them to another site to be raised and sole with no papers or he will kill them......
This provides very good dogs for a price and also provides lower quality dogs as pets at a greatly reduced price.....seems win win to me

Let me thank all of you for pointing out just what the AKC really is, as many folks think (for reason unclear to me) that they police breeders....the truth is no one really knows if the paperwork filled out is accurate or not....

So far no one has said anything about how to stop Mary and Jane from breeding their dogs together just for the heck of it....???

With a registry and dogs the world looks to buy at any cost because they are the best there is why not demand something like that here? it is best for the dogs...it is best for the owners....

Finally I'd like to add I am in no way trying to upset folks here....It is a valid question I feel....If things are ever gonna get better here...we need a change....perhaps something at a local level....perhaps a "building" permit of sorts from your town or city...that requires a Vets approval....a seperate certification of sorts?

Answer 1

loki and k have it right.

i do have some thing to add. i think that a good breeder should have animals they are selling as only pets be fixed BEFORE sale. many vets will do it now before 'they' drop on the males. i believe this will help stop some byb. and really a better educated public who gives a dam. the blood testing for the pups is a great way to ensure they are full blooded...but as far as quailty...its on the buyer. and to many times puppies are brought home on impulse....so thats what keep the pet stores and millers in business. to me akc is better then say the ckc...or the lovely new hybrid one for 'designer dogs'. it just a peice of paper to me it means nothing and really for most not worth the paper it written on. if i wanted to show a dog then yeah i'd get papers. other then that i'm a proud owner of muttley pound puppies...

Answer 2

I am not familar with Europes laws of breeding.. I understand your concern on why are all these people breeding when there are breeders out there who run puppy mills and say they have show lines and so on and so forth.. but, you don't think these people can lie and say they won't do that, and so on and so forth? And then on top of that, if we have restrictions like that, You will have to buy a dog for $2500.00 and have it shipped? i mean? hmm, and you can buy the same dog, same registry here for $500.00.. Sometimes EVEN FROM THE SAME LINES.. And how do you limit a litter size? does that mean you KILL puppies? I guess that i am an anti puppy killer cause i can't see how to limit litter size unless your killing puppies.. I do anything i can to make sure I breed the best quality i can. And if they are not up to PAR to the AKC code, then my puppies are sold on Spay/neuter contacts and they don't get papers til this is done to avoid over populations of Lesser quality dogs.. Even if you breed 2 show dogs it does not mean all dogs in that litter are show quality either..
I can go on.. But i will stop there. good question though..

Answer 3

I see the AKC as a necessary evil for what I like to do with my dogs -- i.e. showing. And no, UKC shows aren't a good alternative.

I respect the AKC's history and heritage, although I'm very aware that they are highly concerned about their marketability in this day and age -- wasn't always the case. I'm a little wary of the corporate mentality so prevalent in a non-profit organization.

As to your question: The AKC has NEVER been anything more than a registration body. It polices breeders only so far as recordkeeping goes. It investigates fraud when fraud is brought to its attention. It provides rules/licensing for dog shows, tabulates points, and awards championships. It really is a very inert organization, with no regulatory jurisdiction over breeders or their ethics.

As far as quality and ethics are concerned, those are left to the breeder, not the AKC. I don't think enough people understand this.

Thus, the idea that "AKC=Quality"...although this is something AKC likes to encourage, it is not entirely accurate. A well bred dog is usually an AKC registered dog (in the USA, and I am obviously excluding imports)...however, not all AKC registered dogs are well bred.

There is much more that goes into a well-bred dog than its registration. I wish more people understood that.

ADDED:
Have to agree with K that the AKC does a lot of good work as far as canine genetic health is concerned. This is not the case with any other registry in this country.

ADDED:
Frankly, I don't much give a d*mn if "the world is looking to buy" my dogs. I don't breed dogs for the world, and I have no interest in selling dogs to the world. Trust me, I've been approached by overseas buyers plenty of times looking for show dogs. No thanks. The worth of my dogs is not to be determined by how much someone overseas paid for them.

Frankly also, in my breed the North American dogs are considered "the best in the world", and are sought after by people in Europe. Are they looking at Joe BYB's dogs? No. They are looking at the top kennels, just as many people here are looking at the top kennels in Europe for their imports. Quality is quality, regardless of which continent it is on. If you can separate it from the crap, you're a step ahead.

The only difference between here and Europe is that Europe has governing bodies to help separate the the quality from the garbage, and we do not. We have to rely on our own vision.

The idea of a committee telling Joe BYB whether or not he can breed his dog will *never* fly in the USA, although perhaps it should. Why? Because we're all about individual freedoms, and god forbid you tell anyone what they can and cannot do with their property, even if that "property" is a living, breathing thing.

Not to mention, a committee is a group of people making subjective decisions. What makes them any more correct in their subjectiveness?

I'd rather base breeding rights on something objective...such as working and showing accomplishments...oh, wait. I already do. ;-)

Answer 4

The AKC is okay, but there just isn't a guarantee that AKC registered dogs are actually from good reputable breeders. There are plenty that register with them that are far less desirable.

I think giving the last call to a panel of judges, as to if any pups of a litter are of quality enuf to be registered could work, even more so than your typical "dog show" where one judge decides based on their own bias. It would limit the affects of bias in this area if more than one were participating in making the call.

Tho I doubt this will ever happen, as I supspect it's way more time and money than the AKC is willing to invest to ensure proper breedings.

Answer 5

I agree that there are flaws with the AKC. As of now breeders are required to submit three blood samples from both parents to acqure papers. However a dog can have pups from multiple fathers so one stray pup could effect the whole litter. I have a lot of respect for the AKC because they try to encourage responsible breeding and encourage healthy dog breeding but much like the rest of America they are young and in time I think there will be a lot of changes that will take place to make the organization even better. I like the idea of someone evaluating a dog for breeding possibilites and just letting anyone breed. I would like to see this incorporated into the AKC. Most responsible breeders will take it upon themselves to get the pups registered but many of them leave the responsibility to the new owners which I think is entirely irresponsible. The AKC supports spay and neutering of non-purebreds. I'm not sure where so many people get the idea that they don't In a whay it's up to the ones buying these pups to do their research to find out if the breeder is registered as a breeder or if the pups are registered. It has nothing to do with status or show. Dogs in show are not judged by their appearance but on health qualities, attitude, and breed standard. These dogs are proven to be of the highest quality base on these standards. They try to find the highest quality dogs to breed together. Yes, it's good to adopt from shelters but there have to be people who set the bar for breeding and if you want to call these people snobs because they produce a healthy purebred pup then that is fine. The fact is that these people regardless of how much money they spend are the most responsible breeders. I have never bought a purebred because I believe in rescues but I will tell anyone who wants to but a purebred to go to a reputable breeder who is registered through the AKC and not a backyard breeder or puppymill dog.

Answer 6

Wow- what a question! I do not believe we need the AKC to act as a governmental agency and tell us who we can breed to. This is America. We do not need any further restrictions with regard to dogs. We breeders are the best suited to choose what dog we should breed to. We know our bloodlines and the bloodlines of the dogs we are considering. We know what health issues are a couple of generations back and what might come back to haunt us.

As far as the AKC not doing anything to ensure our dogs are healthy, an organization like the AKC can only do so much. It started just as a registry and clearinghouse for information. It has grown to be the single most valuable source for answers, knowledge and legislative representation for the dog owner.

It is up to us breeders of AKC registered dogs to act with integrity, breeding only healthy animals who will further our breed and improve upon our own lines. That is the purpose of breeding. We can do that without restrictions and government intervention.

Answer 7

Truthfully, I don't really believe that a "pedigree" or "full-blooded" dog is any better or worse than a normal dog. As for litter limitations, what happens to the ones who break the limit? I think our country has far too many unwanted dogs already. Whether the litter is limited or not, extra dogs bring unwanted euthenization in dogs that never asked to be brought into a world where no one wants them. They are shunned upon because sometimes they are not of "pure blood". It isn't there fault is it. It's ours. It is the fact that no one cares.

As for the seleciton committee, who says that they would choose the pups who actually deserve papers rather than the ones who LOOK as if they deserve papers. This pup looks more like a German Shepherd or this one looks more like Viszla. What about the others who are just as pure blooded as the others although they may not look like it?

Frankly, breeding limits and selecton committees.... it's all too personal to me. My dogs - a Jack Russell Terrier and a medium sized mixed breed dog - are just as good to me as any full blooded dog in the nation. Who decides if a dog is "good enough".... some selection committee who could care less.... or their family?

Answer 8

The Irish Red & White Setter truthfully got here earlier than the Irish Setter All three of those breeds are very ancient and old breeds. These aren't "new" breeds. There are many very ancient and old breeds that the AKC does now not appreciate. It obviously doesn't suggest their now not a breed, it simply signifies that there aren't ample individuals who possess them in th U.S. to style a breed membership

Answer 9

The AKC is NOT a governing body. It's a registry. A club made up of clubs. Decisions pertaining to the welfare of the breed are by and large made by the Breed Parent Club.
While AKC is not perfect, it is the only registry that has an investigations department and conducts between 4,000-5,000 inspections each year. They also founded and fund the Canine Health Foundation, which works with breeders and geneticists to eradicate health issues from dogs.
Those are the reasons I register my dogs with them.

Answer 10

My main concern is that the AKC has not done its part to stop puppy milling and backyard breeding of poor quality animals or to encourage spaying and neutering of animals that should not be bred to stop pet overpopulation. There are too many people who think they should be breeders, too many dogs, not enough homes and AKC and the purebred breeders have not done enough to reduce breeding of unsuitable animals. The main reason for this: money.