Wednesday, 11 September 2013

AKC PR offensive - good luck with that...

The AKC has decided to hire Edelman PR ("the world's largest public relations firm") to improve the image of AKC breeders.

In an extraordinary article for this month's Canine Chronicle (read it here), AKC Chairman Alan Kalter lays the blame for the AKC's decline and dwindling reputation entirely on the AR movement.

He writes:

"Just 20 years ago, a purebred dog was the dog to have in your life. Twenty years ago, a responsible breeder was viewed as a respected resource. Twenty years ago there were virtually no important legislative efforts aimed at eradicating all dog breeding.
"What changed in those 20 years? The noble quest to give every dog a “forever” home was co-opted by the animal rights organizations as a method to raise funds for their mission to completely eliminate pet ownership."

There isn't even a nod  to the fact that the AKC continues to embrace breeding practices that, if not modified, will lead to the genetic annihilation of all the breeds (or at least the AKC incarnation of them).

There's no mention of the fact that AKC shows continue to reward distortion, deformity and disease.

There's no acknowledgment at all of the responsibility the AKC needs to shoulder for chasing registration dollars rather than good health.

Kalter even goes so far as to say:
"As told by AR groups, purebred dogs have been wrongly defined as being plagued with genetic health and temperament problems caused by breeders."
But who else is to blame for Cavaliers with brain cases too small for their brains, or Boston Terriers that can't breathe or breed; or Rough Collies with eyes so small that they verge on micropthalmia?

Neither, when I last looked, was PETA the ones responsible for producing Shar-pei riddled with Shar-pei Fever and entropion, or Flatcoats shot through with cancer - or the growing number breeds falling apart with immune-mediated problems.

And neither is it the HSUS's fault that, for instance, the AKC (English) Bulldog standard still demands a "massive head"- refusing, even to embrace the breed standard modifications introduced in the breed's country of origin.

And, last time I looked, it wasn't the ASPCA that continues to suggest that mating mothers to son/fathers to daughters and brothers to sisters might actually be a good thing.  (See here.)

Instead, the AKC has resolutely stuck its heels in, resisted almost all reform, and fired off disparaging potshots at those KCs that have (partially) woken up and smelled the roses.

The AKC has built its house on sand and continues to stick its head into it. And yet Kalter maintains the concerns raised by critics are all "propaganda" and "fiction".

Sure, the anti-breeder camp overstates its case and blogs like mine tend to focus on the bad stuff.

And, sure, there are dedicated breeders that produce good dogs with love and care under the AKC umbrella.

But not to shoulder any responsibility at all for purebred dogs' falling star?

It is true that purebred dogs are in need of some good PR - and, actually, there's real potential to do a good job. Selectively-bred dogs produced by responsible breeders should be treasured and they do have some advantages over crossbreeds/mixed breeds.

But you don't do it by claiming that black is white.

How do you do it?

For a much smaller fee than Edelman PR, please feel free to ask. Although, gratis, I can tell you this:  it requires change. 

And it does not feature the sleight of brand involved in hiring a PR company to illuminate the good stuff while doing fuck-nothing about the bad stuff.


  1. If KCs, internationally, refuse to acknowledge their responsibility in allowing/accepting that there are breeds that are deformed because of the exaggerated standards laid down by them had better have very good insurance cover. They are encouraging the production of these deformities and they are accepting money for that deformity. Nobody else is responsible because the empty headed breeders are doing what is prescribed by the "Leader" of their dog world. They haven't, won't, don't look and hear what is before them, they don't want to, why should they, their authority acknowledges the good work they are doing!!! Shocking, distressing, disgusting. "Intelligent", "animal loving" members of our canine authoraties are straying into a dangerous area. Because litigation will happen, it will affect the breeder and it will affect the kennel clubs. Americans that thrive on litigation for the most ridiculous problem will wake up and the pedigree dog buying population will realise that there is somebody responsible for their sick puppy and they will seek recompense for the terrible sadness they have had to endure trying to save their puppy. I bleat on about it, it has happened once and was successful and it will happen again and again and it will be the only way that these closed minds accept that they have been irresponsible on lots of counts. I assume that the AKC runs on goodwill as does the UKKC, good responsible breeders will start to leave because they will not wish to have their stock associated with some shambolic, unprofessional set up. Another body not for profit interested in pedigree dogs and their well being will be developed by dog lovers, and over time these bodies will be effective for as long as pedigree dogs are in the arena of life. It may shortly be a case of KCs RIP.

    1. A case of, where there's blame, there's a claim. Fair point, well made Georgina.

  2. Why, oh why, oh why does everything have to be about "AR" with the Americans?

    When will they get it through their thick skulls that the AR activists are one very tiny minority and the vast majority of people are very happy for people to have pets.

    But what that vast majority want and more importantly, what the pets deserve, is leadership in canine matters taking the bull(dog!) by the horns and tackling the growing health issues through the promotion of responsible breeding that can only come with changes in the breed standards that eliminate exaggerations.

    I just don't get how they can be so stupid not to see they're on a kamikaze mission and when they crash, they're taking their beloved pets with them.

    Great statement from a chairman who's head is buried so deep, it's taken root.

    1. You have GOT to be kidding. Get this through YOUR thick stupid skull. AR activists are writing the laws in our country. Mandatory spay-neuter, breed bans, retail sales bans and now your "minority" are ingratiating themselves into positions of authority in animal-related departments like Calfornia's veterinary medical board and the USDA who regulate commercial breeders.
      Your head is buried so deep....oh, never mind.

  3. Seems to me based on my experience with my Breed that it's the Breed Club and breeders who should be making changes in both standards and the breeding of carefully selected parents to avoid those problems that seem to plague certain breeds. The AKC should be a holder of those Standards and registrar of the dogs produced, not the arbiter of what the dogs should be. they could however take the high road to encourage the changes needed in those questionable breeds.

  4. The AKC has substantial power, and is highly culpable. Here's an extract from Article I of the Labrador Retriever Club Constitution (under Objectives)

    "(b) encourage members and breeders to accept the Standard of the breed as approved by The American Kennel Club as the standard of excellence by which Labrador Retrievers shall be judged;"

    The AKC is in a position to make rules about inbreeding (I think we should ban the phrase line breeding. Line breeding IS inbreeding).

  5. The AKC Hires Tobacco Industry Liars for Hire


    1. Good post, Patrick. The parallels between kennel-club breeding and the tobacco industry have always been pertinent. Both peddle something that harms while trying to divert with "but look at all the money we spend on hospitals/research/testing/charidee."


    2. 'People want healthy pets for home. The AKC has never offered anything for pet people, and now actually tells them they are evil for not going to ribbon-and-paper chasing show ring breeders rather than trying to save a dog that might soon be gassed in a shelter? Wonderful!'

      Exactly! Since when was it a sin to want a healthy dog as a pet for dogs' sake!? It is far more socially and ethically responsible to try to locate a suitable pet dog in a shelter too. Sadly, there are plenty to choose from and not all of them are beyond hope in the hands of a sensible, caring and patient human being.

    3. nice try Patrick to direct people to your blog what happened traffic down a little? people tired of your same old same old?
      You may not like Humane Watch but let's be truthful .. when have they ever published anything about the HSUS that was not true? yeah thought so.. if they did HSUS donor paid bank of lawyers would be down on them like as we say "white on rice" so far nada.. you may not like the messenger but you cannot refute the message Wayne loves to use your old saw about "alcohol, tobacco and "fast foods" when trying to demean HW who cares.. most adults can make choices about what to smoke, drink or eat.. we are not children. or sheep.
      and Hey I actually saw Wayne drink some wine at a function.. "nay no alcohol shall ne'er touch these lips as long as Rick Berman lives" unless of course it is vegan.. Hypocrisy knows no bounds at the HSUS ( and I might add at the RSPCA as well)....

  6. "It is true that purebred dogs are in need of some good PR - and, actually, there's real potential to do a good job. Selectively-bred dogs produced by responsible breeders should be treasured and they do have some advantages over crossbreeds/mixed breeds.

    But you don't do it by claiming that black is white.

    How do you do it?"

    By publicising the good as loudly as condemning the bad, so that people learn how to recognise the difference.

    If the only message about purebred and pedigree dogs WHATEVER THEIR HEALTH STATUS is one of doom and gloom, then the public are, ipso facto, being pushed towards crossbreeds and mongrels WHATEVER THEIR HEALTH STATUS.

    A good educator has an open mind and ALWAYS puts both sides of a story.

    1. Who are you referring to Mary? The AKC or Jemima's blog?

      'If the only message about purebred and pedigree dogs WHATEVER THEIR HEALTH STATUS is one of doom and gloom, then the public are, ipso facto, being pushed towards crossbreeds and mongrels WHATEVER THEIR HEALTH STATUS.

      A good educator has an open mind and ALWAYS puts both sides of a story.'

      What is wrong with a crossbreed or mongrel anyway? A reasonably intelligent person who has a basic understanding of evolution and natural selection may well be more inclined to take a 'gamble' with a mongrel or crossbreed, due to a high probability that it may well be genetically healthier overall. There are NO guarantees in life. All living creatures can and WILL get sick, including mongrels. What is perverse is continuing to breed dogs with KNOWN genetic mutations that give rise to horrendous diseases. It is entirely preventable.

      Given my own disapointing experience dealing with pedigree dog breeders, I went with my gut and adopted a mutt. Best decision all round. There is no way on earth I would part with hundreds of pounds for a sick animal, which on the whole pedigree dogs tend to be.

      I would rather take a gamble with a mutt than with a pedigree dog. Because the latter to me will no longer be genetically viable anyway if people keep on heading down the same, tired old road...

      Shame on the AKC.

    2. F1 hybrids are likely to be healthier than the purebreds used in the cross. Since the F1 hybrids can carry any of the mutations of both the sire and dam subsequent offspring from the F1 hybrid are at just as much at risk of genetic disease as purebreds if both breeds are carriers the same genetic diseases (i.e. dysplasia, entropion, CEA, von Willebrand's disease, mitral valve disease, etc.)

    3. As the owner of an F1 hybrid, I will also clarify:
      Some breeds carry the Exact Same Destructive Genes, because really they only branched out a couple of hundred years ago.
      My "designer" "hybrid" "poo-chon" has abnormally small tear duct openings, even though neither of her parents had this condition. This gene is believed to be recessive and prevalent in both breeds.
      I sincerely believe that if the kennel club reformed all of their policies today, and authorized selective out-crossing within similar breeds, this may not be enough to save them. How many genetic conditions haunt multiple breeds - luxating patellas, syringomyalgia, hip displasia, immune disorders?
      Healthy dogs have a wide and varied genome, while I'd be interested in a responsibly bred purebred, more interested in a responsibly bred f1 hybrid, I'd probably have the best odds for a healthy dog if I went with the "mutt".

    4. I don't want a dog that has been bred within the current structure of the pedigree dog world. My choice. I prefer to adopt adult mutts as what you see is what you get. And most behaviour problems can be modified and helped in the right hands....Call it social responsibility or lunacy, it depends on your own frame of reference on how you interpret that particular human behaviour.

      Would we have to be so concerned with genetic disease in dogs if the breeding practices had been sensible in the first place? Genetic disease in human beings is relatively rare, simply because in most cultures and societies it is socially and morally repugnant if we f@X& our sisters....In fact in some parts of India and Pakistan, the phrase 'Sister F*&£^r' is considered even worse of an insult than Mother F&*%r.... I have seen the wrath of a man who was insulted this way. It was on a cricket pitch, he missed a catch and it was ugly...A piece of useless information to brighten your day.

      'F1 hybrids are likely to be healthier than the purebreds used in the cross. Since the F1 hybrids can carry any of the mutations of both the sire and dam subsequent offspring from the F1 hybrid are at just as much at risk of genetic disease as purebreds if both breeds are carriers the same genetic diseases'

      If you are deliberately breeding these type of dogs (as opposed to crosses or mutts from' whoops! happy accidental matings') shouldn't breeders have checks/guidelines in place to ensure any appropriate genetic screening tests have been fulfilled before hand?

    5. Anon 16:05

      "If you are deliberately breeding these type of dogs (as opposed to crosses or mutts from' whoops! happy accidental matings') shouldn't breeders have checks/guidelines in place to ensure any appropriate genetic screening tests have been fulfilled before hand?"

      Yes, of course they should. But they're relying on the 'F1 hybrids are healthy' stance to excuse their lack of care.

    6. Thoughtful out-crosses work. For example, Chinook out-crosses require health testing before being considered "pure."

    7. "shouldn't breeders have checks/guidelines in place to ensure any appropriate genetic screening tests have been fulfilled before hand?"

      I wish that people were more knowledgeable about what checks and or screening are actually available for breeders.

      There are actually relatively few for the sheer number of genetically predisposed conditions in dogs

      I know of no test, for example for luxating patellas, and often this condition does not show up until later (past prime breeding age) in the animals life.

      A conscientious breeder makes every attempt to follow up on her puppies, and remove animals with these conditions from his/her lines, but with every animal she eliminates from her stock, her inbreeding co-efficient increases.

      Attempts to purchase other animals for the purpose of out-crossing are often disheartening, because she is dependent on the other breeder to both be scrupulously honest about her product, and to have made similar efforts to follow up with her puppy-buyers.

      It seems like everyone wants to condemn pedigree and designer breeders as people who don't care. And maybe some of them don't. But mostly, they are trying their best with a system flawed by design.

    8. seabrooksr - if it truly is a system flawed by design, then isn't it time to change it?

    9. change it to what? invent a dog that has no genetic material to pass on? or invent some test that covers all diseases and anomalies that genetic material carries.. you ask for something that no one has been able to to do.. so I ask you .. change it to what?

    10. 'invent a dog that has no genetic material to pass on? or invent some test that covers all diseases and anomalies that genetic material carries.. '

      Er, no. Change the destructive system of breeding dogs within a paradigm of closed gene pools. 'Inventing' doesn't come into it. However, working with science, education and empiricism does. Outcross, introduce genetic diversity and quit clinging to the it really that difficult to improve the breeding practices of pet dogs when farmers breed with health at the forefront, for example? What is difficult to change is people's attachment to the false human construct of the breed standard. Even when it is sick.

    11. "...invent some test that covers all diseases and anomalies that genetic material carries."

      Admittedly I know squat about breeding but it occurs to me that breeders already have a test that covers all diseases, etc available to them: time. If only healthy sires over age 10, say, were used for breeding, wouldn't that help?

    12. SanDiegoDogMa - That is admittedly both common sense and absolutely brilliant. And, in fact, breeding to older studs occurs quite regularly in dogs bred for work - because longevity has an actual tangible economic value.

      Admittedly, I still love purebred dogs, and I want to own one, and my latest search for a family member led to an F1 hybrid from a small "backyard breeder". The stud was healthy & vet approved, but still younger and untested by time. However, the mom was a very healthy bitch who at eight years old was having her third and very last litter.

      I took a chance on this puppy, because this was the only breeder who was actually breeding a dog over five years old, and was willing to let me see the parents and judge the health for myself. For reference: I was looking for a small dog - one that on average will live 15 years, and I couldn't find a breeder willing to show me breeding stock more than 5 years old.

    13. Hasn't there been some concerns about the quality of DNA in older men's semen when they father children? Concerns regarding a higher propensity for genetic mutations due to DNA fragility. Need to find some references....

      I just wondered if the same applied to dog sires?

  7. Chiliray, your comments are so obvious and honest. The breed clubs and their members are on the ground floor who see the breed on a day to day basis, collectively at shows, hear the gossip and know exactly what is going on. Effectively they should direct the KCs not the other way around. However, politics, power, greed and fear dominate within breed clubs. Committees appear to be respectful, concerned, aiming for the same resolution. In practice those who disagree with ideas or want to instigate a change of direction are wiped out. Breed clubs can be dangerous cliques whereby the old established ring of friends operate within their own parameters. I had always thought that my breed was welcoming, informative and caring, but since I stopped showing my goodness I have been shocked to the point that after 40 years of membership I was so sickened I withdrew my support. I explained to the secretary, who I obviously know, my reasons, there was dead silence and the clubs continue on their way. In my opinion, not for the benefit of the breed but the establishment, coming closely to being an offshoot of the "KC Old Boys Club". Human nature is a horrible condition when money comes into play and I hate to say that pedigree dogs are a great generator of that commodity resulting in some pretty vile people becoming involved. The work done by people who invest hours of their own time and finances in order to save or help dogs during their last hours are where my admiration now lies. Not the twits who run up and down a hall and win a crummy piece of cardboard and consequently blinded by that "power/glory rush" rather than love the dog at the end of the lead and love him for who he is, not for what he may win.

    1. The US is much larger, geographically, than the UK. It takes a large commitment in time and travel for a breeder to get involved with a breed club, and most good breeders have other priorities. Thus, I would expect, the breed clubs are at least as much of an old boys club as the AKC.

      Some breed clubs have good people, eg., on their health committees, at least from time to time. See, for example, some of the article posted on the Boston Terrier Club's site back in 2001. ( However, it seems to be rare for such people to break through to the top and produce rewrites of the breed standard or effective regulations to prevent over-use of popular sires or inbreeding.

    2. I think you are right. One of the things I have found is that the people who remain on the committee for a very long time, breed, show and judge, use one another's dogs, establish a type and then only accept "their" type as acceptable. They can dictate in a short period of time an exaggerated "desired" trait, i.e. copious coat, long ears, "quizzical expression" (a very undesirable trait in my breed sadly losing the jaunty devil may care attitude.) And yes you are correct again, sometimes their sires became the sires of the time and that is why my breed and many others are on their knees, instead of limiting their use they exploited them for maximum profit, cashing in on the moment.

  8. The AKC is really just a registry service here in the USA. They do not set the standards or layout the proper breeding practices. The Breed clubs do that. These clubs have most of the blame to shoulder for what has become of their precious dogs. And reform needs to begin at that level. The AKC is able to put pressure on these clubs for change, but when the same people involved with the AKC decision making also have a vested interest in the clubs then its not going to move anywhere positive. And if any club threatens to pull out of the AKC because of whatever pressures for change not meshing with their current thinking then its the AKC that stands to lose more revenue. With memberships down and more awareness from the educated consumer about what is really going on behind the scenes the former badge of honor is more like a scarlet letter. Where the term "papered dog" or "AKC registered" tends to raise an eyebrow or bring about a "MEH" attitude in the potential buyers nowadays.

    Right now the best thing to happen would be for an entirely new registry service to evolve into something better as an answer to the shortcomings of the AKC. And it might not be a non-profit type of setup either, although whether the AKC is actually a non-profit is also a BIG question mark.

    The UKC is a paid into service here in the United states and the second largest registry service. But, they are also more open to making reforms that the breed clubs need to adhere to in order to remain a part of their service. More breeders are choosing the UKC over the AKC as more awareness is gained. Breeders who've been slighted by the mafia type clicks within their own clubs and are unable to make any positive headway in any AKC sanctioned events because the current established clicks and judges have it all pretty much locked down.

    Perhaps for a closed minded group of clubs like many of the ones here in the would require actually seeing the meltdown happen...where breeds just stop producing and things collapse. Then you'll see them in a position where they're forced to make a change instead of where they are now. Being asked to consider it against everything they believe in.

    Or Maybe we just wait for all the old timers to finally just die and wait to see what the next generation of breeders do with all the information starring them in the face. If they're educated and not brainwashed...they might just see the light.

    1. 'The AKC is really just a registry service here in the USA.'

      A registry does not organize, sanction events, and give out titles that will be used to select which dogs should be bred. A registry just keeps the books.

      AKC sanctions and organizes bench shows, agility, obedience, hunt trials and tests, tracking trials and tests, herding trials and tests, etc......

    2. Actually The regional breed clubs, or other interested benefactors like dog food products etc etc sponsor the events for AKC registered dogs. RAU DOG SHOWS actually operates and organizes all this in the background regarding entrance fees and implementation of securing the venue for the event and uses the AKC as the draw for the audiences. A portion of the proceeds goes to the AKC. A portion goes back to the sponsoring member or club and some of it goes to the Event organizer RAU DOG Shows.

      The AKC standards on record are what the judges use as their baseline for measure of the dogs seen in front of them.

      The Judges are paid by the event organizer. The prizes are also funded by the Sponsor and the organizer. Who buy much of the chachkis for the event from the AKC.

      Its a rather evolved circle of BS.

      Basically everybody in the picture is in collusion for some monetary gain.

    3. In other words, the AKC is not solely a breed registry; if they were then there would be no AKC sanctioned events; running under AKC rules and the AKC banner; with fees going to the AKC from the events; and placings, points, and titles for dogs coming from the AKC.

    4. "Who buy much of the chachkis for the event from the AKC."
      I am a dog show exhibitor and have been for years.. never ever received anything purchased from the AKC as a prize.. never. as for monetary gain ah yes the olf dogs should not be used to make a profit mantra.. boring

    5. AKC is not just a registry. It makes the final decisions on the content of breed standards. The breed clubs (called parent clubs) propose their breed standards and the board of the AKC votes yea or nay. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    6. Oh I assure you... if you need to contest anything with regards to breed standards its not the AKC you'll wind up bitching to. They will always refer you to the "Parent Club". There's a lot of meaning in that title..."Parent Club". Because literally its the revenue generated by the parent clubs that carry the AKC.

      Perhaps if those same clubs weren't so clicky they wouldn't see such a big drop in the memberships. I can only speak for the clubs I know....

      They need to generate revenue and the conduit for it is the "parent clubs", which sponsor events that are organized by RAU Dog Shows... There is always a sponsor behind each event. And its sanctioned by the AKC since its their registry used to verify the entrants. The Sanctioning means its the AKC registry verifying against their stud records supplied by those parent clubs and/or other sponsors the Organizer is working for. There's a reason big names like Eukanuba are blurted out as the sponsor of a televised event... they are essentially Marketing to the viewing audience. And more of the local events are sponsored by the Parent Clubs in that demographic area. Anything with an AKC Sanctioned stamp on it is provided by the AKC... and it ain't free. Its like having a batch of T-Shirts with the name of the venue stamped on it.

      You pay exhibition fees...who do you think divides that fee? You pay to have a booth on the campgrounds to peddle your wares...who do you think that fee to be there gets divided amongst? You pay to gain entry to the campgrounds or venue, who do you think those collections go to?

      Where do you think the ribbons and trophies come from? They didn't just fall there from the sky. The Parent Club buys them and who do you think they are ordered from? The AKC Fairy?

      They are a registry service, that makes money from registration fees, Parent Club dues and offers other services like DNA verification and now Microchips and Pet Health insurance ... And Chackis like T-Shirts and anythin with the AKC moniker on it. but their primary purpose is a registry...that's it.

      Since they are so dependent upon outside sources for their you really think they are going to force any "Parent Club" to change the way they've been doing things for generations?? They they are going to force a Club that pays their bills to do something that might make them drop the AKC altogether. Really? This is nothing like the KC in the UK. It's a registry service used as a badge of honor to elevate the perceived status of the dogs that are on record in their registry. A perception built upon by tall these "Parent Clubs" for generations.

      Think about it.

    7. Chatham Hill Gang writes: "do you really think they are going to force any "Parent Club" to change the way they've been doing things for generations??" --- YES! AKC can and has done so. Most recently in November 2010, AKC's board informed the Dalmatian Club of America (the parent club of Dalmatians) that if it did not approve the registration of a certain line of cross-bred Dalmatians, AKC's board would consider registering them anyway. The DCA membership buckled under AKC's pressure and voted to approve the cross-breed registrations. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    8. Chatham Hill Gang writes: "do you really think they are going to force any "Parent Club" to change the way they've been doing things for generations??" --- YES! AKC can and has done so. Most recently in November 2010, AKC's board informed the Dalmatian Club of America (the parent club of Dalmatians) that if it did not approve the registration of a certain line of cross-bred Dalmatians, AKC's board would consider registering them anyway. The DCA membership buckled under AKC's pressure and voted to
      approve the cross-breed registrations. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    9. This had far more to do with the public awareness that was raised. And the pressure would not have forced the Parent club to change anything. It was the pressure of a windfall of public opinion. You know the same public that provides all the funds for the Parent clubs.

      The same public that takes information from hard hitting documentaries or news segments and decide they no longer want anything to do with a breed club that does not do the right thing.

      Therefore the AKC can only strongly suggest. But, in the end the final decision is entirely the Parent Club's decision. The club could just as easily fought it and decided to lobby for a purely DNA backed solution to fix the issue like it was done in Irish Setters. But back then the public awareness was not as high as today with the assistance of Social media and Internet fed hype.

      As for the AKC...They can consider anything they want. But if the breed's parent club doesn't accept it...then you'll likely have seen a division where the breed club makes a distinction between the two. Like its been done with so many other breeds.

    10. There wasn't, actually, a "DNA backed" solution to fix the issue of high uric acid levels in Dals - because the mutation is fixed in the general Dal population. The only way to fix it was by using the outcrossed Dals (or another outcross). Social media played a huge part in forcing the change in; as well as, critically, the acceptance of the dogs by the KC here after a lot of persistence by breeder Julie Evans.

      It was an incredibly long and bitter battle, particularly in the States.

      Thee outcrossed Dals are still treated by many here as Pariahs, despite now being registered by the KC and being shown. There is still no official mention of the outcrossed Dals on the British Dal Club, for instance, which still states that "All Dalmatians carry a genetic mutation which prevents them from processing uric acid". Puppy buyers there would simply never know there was an alternative.


    11. Chatham Hill Gang wrongly states: "Therefore the AKC can only strongly suggest. But, in the end the final decision is entirely the Parent Club's decision." --- You really ought to read the operative ACK documents regarding its relationship with the national breed clubs and how breed standards are created and then ruled upon by AKC. Thus far, you seem to be making knee-jerk comments which are inconsistent with reality. -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA.

    12. No actually its based on real world experience and knowing or interacted with people in key places in the hierarchy of the Parent Clubs and The AKC. You can say all you want,but in the end the power in final decisions is where the funding sources come from. And that's not coming from within the AKC. If you want to use the AKC for leverage then its primarily about the status that the papers provide for the breeder. For the Breed clubs its recognition in the public arena as being a part of a long established prestigious registry. If the Parent Breed clubs decided tomorrow that some standards require changes and that even with what is in place at the AKC they can decide to either go with it or overule it....Its after all the Parent clubs that set the standards. The AKC has guidelines to be met for recognition and very small amounts of arbitration with regards to matters of registration.

      Been there and done that and that's how I know. If it comes down to legal and contractual matters in the end the AKC does nothing and refers you to the Parent breed clubs and to seek legal assistance.

      As far as Matters of registration...its only what they have in Black and white in their own bylaws. And outside of that you're deal with parent clubs. You can only get so far with arguing the AKC's own documentation with them, especially when there are areas where the language which is based on matters of ownership and registration that has loopholes you can technically flip back on them....At which point it then becomes a legal matter and they will not speak to you except to repeat their policies regarding matters of registration and ownership. Nothing more.

      Then its up to you to argue with the parent club and that's another can of worms since this is where the "clicks" of who you know come in, and any relative newcomer is not going to get a foot in among them unless you play by their rules. The AKC is nothing like the KC. The AKC registry is a tool used by the Parent Clubs... not the other way around. And the way tools work...if they don't do want you find another tool.

      If a Parent club in the USA does not want to accept ...let's say the LUA dalmations as a new established line. Then it ain't gonna happen. If the AKC says we're gonna acknowledge them anyway...Then you can be damn sure if the parent club wanted to, they would rewrite the standards or find some way to segregate the differences between LUA's and Established Dals within their own studbooks and devalue the LUA's in the public eye. But, the public already knows that the value of an LUA Dal is far more beneficial due to the amount of exposure and education that has been available on this topic..

      There's been so much exposure to this that's its public pressure ...Worldwide. That brought the hammer down on it... If those parent club's want to keep producing Dal's and selling them.... they needed to cave to that pressure. Or wake up and see the logic behind the science.

      Or you could have just sat idly by and watched the breed of Dalmations slowly go extinct like so many other have before them.

  9. Talk about headS in the sand!! While you folks are yammering on about AKC and how much you hate the system, your buddies at the HSUS just wrote new rules for the USDA that are going to make hobby breeding obsolete.
    One can no longer ship a dog to a buyer who hasn't personally observe said dog. To do so means you must register with the USDA and comply with commercial kennel requirements which are impossible to meet in a home environment. The dogs primary enclosure must be sanitized regularly, no rugs, plush toys or upholstered furniture. Anyone with more than four intact females must also register as a commercial breeder. Most people will quit breeding. Sarah Conant of HSUS is now the head of the enforcement department for the USDA. They can't wait to enroll more breeders in their program so they can list their names, addresses, phone numbers and aerial photos of their homes online for all to see, so that the anti-breeding humaniacs can persecute us out of existence. So you'll have to excuse us if we don't give a rat's ass right now about your campaign against kennel clubs. We have more important worries, like survival.

    1. There is an easy pathway to be exempted from being required to get a USDA license:

      The transition between seller and buyer must occur with the dog, seller and buyer being in the same location (from USDA conference call on new rules): breeder's kennel or any other location even a walmart parking lot (this example was given by the USDA)

      The rules are not well written but the simple act of meeting the buyer in person with the dog will provide an exemption

    2. Well, then some good comes of this. Since a buyer beware policy is reinforced with actually having the buyer as responsible as the breeder for investigating into the puppy a bit more than just an advertisement on the internet and the seller is forced to know more about the intended buyer as well. I can't understand how breeders would want to ship their pups/dogs to anyone without requiring them to have visited the parents and puppies prior to the scheduled pickup date? How is sending someone sight unseen a puppy being responsible? How is buying a puppy with parents sight unseen or the facilities unvisited being responsible?

      If you are breeding with more than 4 intact bitches then you are more on a commercial level. Regardless of how few litters you actually produce you still can potentially produce much more.

      If you don't already provide a sanitary environment for your dogs then ...really... do we need to go over why this is so important? Would your kids sleep in disgusting filth? Would you? Do you know some kennels can actually be more sanitary than some people's homes... yeah I said it.

      And if you're already responsible enough and are already doing what the HSUS is asking, what's the panic? Listing names and addresses. How else are people going to find where you are so they can visit your operations and meet the parents of the puppies they plan to buy. How else are you going to meet them???.

      Education is the key to how this will work in the end. Forcing our consumers who demand these dogs to be more cautious and educated in the process is a good thing. Forcing the reform on housing and maintenance will push the people who really have no desire to do the right thing out of the equation. Welcome to the new modern world.

      What you'll have left are hobby breeders with a business plan and commercial breeders who need to actually compete with them by cleaning up their act.

      In the end it might just be a good thing, since breeding purely for a hobby is more a myth than actually breeding for some profit in the positive. At least this way you'll have breeders who provide a better product for their buyers. With better procedures in place to promote education on both sides of the fence.

      With a diversity breeding program its easy to meet the HSUS demand since you're not so much focused on that single Stud or Dam producing a cookie cutter clone of themselves. But, instead more equilibrium in the foundation stock is a part of the picture. More conducive to better diversity and breeding choices that are thinking outside the box and moving away from the old school thinking that screwed things up to begin with.

    3. Sorry, "Pipedream" but you are wrong. Anyone who OWNS more than FOUR intact bitches must register with the USDA. Anyone who ships even ONE dog must register.
      The only exemptions are "rescues" and working dogs.
      Since these are "rules" and not laws, they can be changed at whim at any time.
      Don't labor under the illusion that the ARistas who now work for the USDA are not coming after us; aided and abetted by the anti-KC pack attackers posting on this blog.
      And "Chatham Hill" how do you expect people to import dogs from other states or countries for their breeding programs? What about someone who wants to buy a dog across country and cannot travel thousands of miles to pick it up? Those who deal in some of the more rare breeds are going to be particularly affected. I'm sorry you seem to believe that the HSUS "demands" should be accomodated. They are a scam organization who are not interested in the welfare of dogs or any other animals. Have any of you brainiacs folllowed "Humanewatch" which exposes the abuses of the HSUS on a regular basis? No, I didn't think so. Your insular thinking doesn't allow for any other about you thinking outside the box for a change?

    4. I get your point....but I still feel that a lot of what they're asking is basic common sense. Whether its 1 dog or 100.

      And I also don't see why the people who invested in those rare breeds won't invest in traveling to investigate a little further. After all these breeds were not cheap to begin with.

      Perhaps part of the beginning of reforming things is to actually shake things up a bit.

      Just saying.

    5. you must live in the UK where you can drive the whole country in a matter of hours.. or you must have tons of money to be able to fly everywhere to view dogs you are interested in.. most of us do not have that luxury and if you think they are expensive now.. just wait becaseu the ultimate goal of these groups ( and this blogger I might add) is to eliminate the pure bred dog.. and they the groups ( an probably not the blogger) will eliminate ALL dog breeding because you see.. if hobby breeders are the first target.. the commercially licensed breeders will fill the void with commercially bred dogs.. they are a much stronger group to fight Andrew Hunte of the largest dog brokerage in the USA has stated that every breeder should be licensed.. why because he knows that home breeders cannot fulfill the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act that calls for sterile, separate environments of dogs.. they do not let puppies mix with adults etc.. yes Mr Hunte is happy today as he sees the "little guy" ie those of us who do register our dogs with the AKC, have fun with them, have friends in our little world and actually cares about our dogs slowly fading from his view and leaving the open plain of commercial dog breeding by licensed breeders wide open. CHA CHING

    6. There is some sense and good reasoning in some of the above blogs. In essence no body should fear inspection from any official body if they keep their dogs in good conditions. So an effort to eliminate the horrific cruelty and degradation of breeding dogs should be enforced. There are far too many dogs being bred internationally and it is time for a slow down if only from the view point that we can retain as healthy as possibly the breeds for as long as possibly so that future generations can delight in their variety. But of course, moderation is advisable in setting up any scheme and some of the points anon 22:21 raises sound ridiculous and I agree with her/him. Honestly, from my heart, I would not subject a puppy to a long unaccompanied journey and even if long distances are involved it is the responsibility of the seller to take responsibility and expense of taking the puppy to a new home, or meet halfway to pass the puppy over no question. After all, if they do otherwise, then the points raised about "overly aggressive monitoring" means to me that the breeder of the puppy is commercially minded rather than for the love of dogs. But it doesn't mean that the puppy purchaser is exonerated from responsibility because I believe they should visit the premises where the puppy has been bred. In the UK there are huge sums of money being generated by "hobbyist" breeders, some of whom show, and I wouldn't mind betting that some of those premises owned by these people would be found wanting and undesirable for all concerned. Dog breeders will not self restrain because of the huge sums of money generated and regrettably I believe that we will see more legislation, restriction, monitoring undertaken by government bodies, I deplore it, part of me is with it for the sake of the dogs who would hopefully benefit but the major part of me would prefer human nature to be so much kinder, responsible and considerate and a great deal less greedy in the treatment and expection of their dogs. Their dogs are more like slot machines to them and not living, breathing lovely dogs.

    7. Starbreeze were you on the USDA conference call to get the USDA’s interpretation of the new rules? The interpretation I posted came from our registry's president (lawyer) who read the entire rules and was on the question & answer conference call by the USDA. Her summary is posted here:

      The exemption I'm talking about is the "retail pet store" exemption which is the exemption rescues fall under.

      BTW, anyone who ones 4 intact females is not required to register as long as they never sell a dog (one they bred or one they purchased and then sold).


    8. I see you were on the call. It's interesting how two people listening to the same call can come away with different information. I'll continue to trust our president's interpretation of the new rules and if worse come to worse we will no longer sell pets, only working dogs.

    9. "If you are breeding with more than 4 intact bitches then you are more on a commercial level. Regardless of how few litters you actually produce you still can potentially produce much more." --- The USDA rule applies to any intact females of any type of pet animals. You could have three intact cavalier King Charles spaniel bitches, one of which is only 4 months old, plus two intact female cats, and the rule applies. You could co-own five bitches, only one of which lives with you, and the rule applies. And that means not only getting a USDA license, but building a kennel separate from your house, to USDA specifications (e.g., cement floors, no soft toys ...). And, being subjected to "inspections", the likes of which you cannot imagine. Consider this "inspection" of a mine in Alaska by the EPA to check water quality. EPA stormtroopers just last week "surged out of the wilderness ... wearing body armor and jackets emblazoned with POLICE in big, bold letters". -- Rod Russell, Orlando, Florida USA

    10. "If you are breeding with more than 4 intact bitches then you are more on a commercial level. Regardless of how few litters you actually produce you still can potentially produce much more."

      Bullshit. I can think of a dozen breeders off the top of my head that own more than four intact bitches and don't even breed a litter every year. I'm one of them. It's been four years since my last litter. I probably know a couple dozen more on Facebook.

      By your logic, we should just lock up everybody right now, because we all have the 'potential' to do 'something.' Speed, murder, assault, stealing, breeding dogs.

      USDA could have written the rule based on number of puppy sales. They could have written it based on numbers of puppies shipped. They could have based it on number of litters, or percentage of income made from puppy sales, or any number of things. But the show and working community commonly keeps intact bitches that aren't being bred, and of course, if we want to affect those people, we'll base the new rule on number of intact bitches. And let's have the inspector decide which bitches are 'breeding'. I have a bitch here that's almost ten; I don't consider her breedable, just like I didn't consider her mother breedable when she died at almost fifteen, still with all her lady parts. But an inspector might. My nine year old is in good shape, she could easily whelp a litter.

      I will hopefully have a litter in December, and one of the people on my puppy list already owns a puppy from me. Under this rule, I cannot simply ship the puppy to her without needing to be licensed by USDA. She will have to come and get it, and it will still have to fly in cargo because it will be too big to fit under the seat.

      I strongly suggest that anyone who is expounding about the new APHIS rule READ the regulations, not the FAQ (APHIS contradicted themselves on the last FAQ), not the phone conference (APHIS stated things in the last conference that did not match the written rule). One of my favorites is that you cannot house puppies under four months old with ANY other dogs except their mother. That's a great way to produce well-rounded puppies (not). Unless, of course, you never keep a pup for yourself, and you get all of them out the door at eight weeks before too much social damage is done.

    11. Its looking more like anyone who does this to make any sort of profit need to design their program to function more like a private kennel and less like a hobby.

      And focus a bit of attention on Who is getting your puppy and where its going.

      its not very unreasonable of an expectation. Its just more than what the average breeders with a stud and a few bitches is used to.

    12. BTW Jess....I'm not saying I agree with it. It is total Bullshit... But these people are clever in the details of what they're asking....Its like they're attempting to force the process in the name of being politically correct in the name of humane rights. And just asking for compliance where the public would also think...that makes sense and is not an unreasonable request.

      They are targeting the potential... not investigating any further into the individuals and their actual best practices.

      This is basically profiling and lumping all people who happen to have four or more intact bitches together. The real scumbags along with the people who are not all about the money and profits.

      Again... I can see a lot of people who would be affect by this simply because its not the norm for them.

  10. did not bother to read the article after I saw your "picture" how crude to put something like that on your page on 9-11. just goes to show you what type of person you really are. let' hope one of the victims families saw or read this... how disgusting. your hubris knows no bounds

    1. What does the above illustration have to do with 9-11, Bestuvall?

      Its original use appears to have been in connection with global warming.


    2. bestuvall - that comment is totally inappropriate and a sad, pathetic excuse to simply have a go at Jemima because she has posted something you probably take issue with but CBA to constructively criticise. You could interpret that picture as the USA having it's head in the sand about all sorts of things!! Global warming?? Obesity?? World Police?? But you really believe that a picture of a US Flag on a dog blog is going to upset victims of 911?
      Perhaps they have better things to concern themselves with....

      Christ on a bike...

    3. I had to go back and look at the picture in case I had missed something...

    4. I personally don't give a rats ass what you think person who will not give their name. It was tasteless and uncalled for. How do you know that I or one of my friends is not a victim of the 9-11 massacre? It is not just the flag..and I assume you can see that.It is tasteless and uncalled for.. and if you all think Ms Harrison is so smart then you know she does nothing without a premeditated thought, except maybe insult the whole nation of the USA. As we sat yesterday mourning the victims and consoling their families Jemima posts a n ostrich with an American flag stuck to it.. the message is clear enough.. no wonder we left your shores for a better life.. and found it..

    5. Holy s*** on a stick.

      I could absolutely not make any sense of your complaint. I went back and I looked at the picture, trying to make sense of just what was so objectionable. I finally had to sleep on it.

      It came to me like a dream: Jemima posted a picture featuring the American Flag on the anniversary of 9/11.


      The flag is a symbol of your great nation, it represents its people, their ideals, and their sense of unity. The flag was in no way diminished or tarnished by the events of that tragic day. It certainly in no way represents the terrible actions of that day, nor does the use of the image in any connotation, positive or negative, support them.

      It's use in this cartoon had the potential to be taken in a negative light, it's true. The use of the flag was sartorial, to be sure, but presented a juxtaposition between the ideals of a nation and the actions of an agency that claims to represent that nation - the /American/ Kennel Club.

      The relation to 9/11? None, to be sure, except that someone had the audacity update their blog on September 11. Perhaps there is some honor in your vitriol; the desire to see this day sacrosanct in solemn memorial. I only wish your tone had conveyed some of that respect for the losses of your people and your nation.

      I would hope that you read my post and find it both enlightening and illuminating, but I have tendency to be both verbose and excessive in my vocabulary when I am irate, and I fear that you may have to sleep on it.

    6. I'd just like to say that, as an American, I don't have any issue with the picture. The flag is commonly used as a symbol of our nation, and there are issues that we definitely could be paying more attention to. I think trying to improve lives is not a bad way to honor 9-11 victims, even if the lives are just canine.

      Maybe you just hate the myth that ostriches bury their heads in the sand, in which case I'm totally with you there.

    7. Thank you Jordan Lee. That last sentence made me laugh.


  11. I doubt it is any coincidence that the AKC has ramped up its "PR" campaign on the same week as the USDA announced its expansion of the Animal Welfare Act. In just 60 days the loophole allowing unregulated sales of puppies over the internet will close - affecting up to 15,000 dog breeders! - who will now have to license their operations and be subject to outside inspection.

    The AKC had fought loud and hard, using its usual slippery slope arguments over the past year, to rile up the fear of its breed clubs to battle this USDA change. Most of the breeders complied. They wrote, agitated, debated and petitioned with abandon. In short, the AKC, and the breed clubs gave the fight their best shot. They lost.

    It's further proof that the AKC is on the ropes- and they know it. Dog showing is falling from favor. Doodle-dog sales are driving them insane. Their coffers are eroding. And, where once they were the preeminent voice that could promote the ideas that purebred dogs are better, healthier and desirable symbols of class status - today the tsunami of social media and informed documentaries like PDE and HBO's One Nation Under Dog, etc, have blown them into a corner by exposing the truth about purebred "health" and the sordid reality of commercial dog breeding. Add to this the television industry that realizes shows about bad breeders, sad homeless dogs and hoarders makes great (and inexpensive) viewing - and it's no wonder the AKC needs to do something - fast.

    Unfortunately AKC chairman Alan Kalter is as nimble as a turtle when it comes to public relations, judging from his September Chairman's Report where he unveiled the hire of the Edelman PR firm. In just one idiotic (I'm sorry, there is just no other word for it) sentence he has drawn his battle line and unintentionally further marginalized the AKC.

    Instead of writing to inspire the average Joe dog lover to see the AKC in a better light he wrote: "...What changed in those 20 years? The noble quest to give every dog a “forever” home was co-opted by the animal rights organizations as a method to raise funds for their mission to completely eliminate pet ownership. Under the guise of supporting adoption, they have been raising a significant war chest – over $200 million last year alone – to fuel a campaign aimed squarely at destroying our ability to preserve breeds for future generations.."


    Such loopy, conspiracy-theory hysteria is self-defeating for many reasons - beyond the fact that it is idiotic. Instead of owning up to any of its failings it suggests the only problem with the AKC is "AR extremists" which, by their broad definition, is any person who questions why the AKC doesn't do more to actually help the lives of dogs. It is saying "if you believe a shelter dog is worth saving you are an AR Extremist and are intent on the complete elimination of dog ownership."

    This stance is no way to build a consensus among reasonable dog lovers. It is the shovel that is digging the AKC's own grave. While the AKC is denying its own failings and fighting phantom enemies the regular Joe dog lover is becoming increasingly sold on the idea of rescuing a dog. In the time it took me to write this probably a few hundred posts of worthy dogs in need have landed in people's Facebook feeds - with compelling photos and heart-wrenching stories, and the constant, drum beat urge to consider rescue over buying from a breeder.

    Sorry Alan Kalter, but THAT is PR.

    Maria Nation

    1. Maria you are living in a dream world if you believe that humaniacs are not orchestrating the demise of planned dog breeding. You are right, these same humaniac "rescue" numbskulls are experts at PR and those rescue groups import hundreds of thousands of dogs and puppies into the US each and every year. It's a big business. You just gave the quintessential scenario for the so-called "conspiracy theory" that is reality, not hysteria.

    2. Maria.. who should breed dogs? simple question

    3. I doubt that Alan ever said a shelter dog was not worth saving and as for those postings.. are all of those dogs free? they just give them away.. and where do they come from.. in your world they come from people who should not be breeding dogs .. correct? they are the ones who "dump" their dogs.. abandon them.. and breed them without regard to their welfare.. so it seems you want those people to continue breeding those dogs so you can continue to beat the "rescue drum" about how terrible most people are except those who "rescue" It even has a name. martyr syndrome:
      Martyr syndrome is a term that describes people who use self-sacrifice and suffering to control or manipulate their environment.
      doodle dogs and poo mixes fill the shelters.. so no they are not driving the AKC insane
      as for the new USDA regulations. you are mistaken. the new regulations will INCREASE commercial breeding not decrease it as many hobby breeders will stop breeding out of fear.. and frankly they cannot comply with having a separate kennel building or making sure the dog lives on concrete as no carpeting or upholstered furniture is allowed in the kennel along with many other regulations that will bring then "up" to the status of a commercial breeder.. the commercial USDA licensed breeder will fill the void left by caring AKC hobby breeders
      and the USDA states no where near the amount of breeders that will be affected .. where did you get that number .. oh wait I know.

    4. Thank you for asking, Bestuvall. Ethical breeders - and there are many, and they put their lives and hearts into the job and into the pups they produce - are the ones who should be breeding dogs. I am not against purebred dogs or the fine breeders who live for them. I own purebred dogs, I have bred them, and I have been very deep into the organization and running of a parent club. That being said, I do not believe that purebred dogs are necessarily "better" than mutts. Sometimes, due to the arrogance, ignorance, greed and/or egos of some breeders, some purebreds are very much worse off. Either way, purebred or not, healthy or sick, abused or coddled, the dog will try its best to be our loyal companion, despite our shortcomings. It is this fact that is my moral compass.

      In my opinion, the AKC is antiquated and sputtering. It is lightyears behind the KC in its consciousness. Where it could be useful aggregating its resources to help parent clubs and breeders make smart, science-based, data-informed choices, instead it spends its capital lobbying to protect the "rights" of large scale commercial breeders to be free of regulation and creating (unfortunately laughable) PR propaganda to make small breeders be afraid.

      Just because I believe that no innocent creature should suffer due to human arrogance, greed or ego - and if humans can't stop themselves then laws should - does not make me an AR-ist, although it is easier for some breeders to tar a person like me with that epithet than it is to look in the mirror.

      I like Pets Australia's post below: Why don't we stop fighting each other and start fighting for the health and well being of all dogs?

      thanks for asking,


    5. I get it Maria that you are special and would not hurt a fly. Now what exactly is an "ethical breeder"? again.. simple question.. what makes one breeder "ethical" and another not? What are the rules that an ethical breeder should practice? Can an 'ethical breeder " breed mutts? Is it ethical to breed a Great Dane to a Springer Spaniel to produce a "mutt' if you do everything "ethically"
      Everyones moral compass points is a slightly different direction when it comes to ethics.
      Ethical and responsible are two words that people like to toss around.. they really like to use it to point to themselves and to point to others saying they are not......

    6. Definition of ethical - 'being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession'.

      Are pedigree dog breeders who continue to breed within a paradigm of closed gene pools practicing ethically, when there is lots and lots of evidence to suggest this is genetic suicide? They certainly are responsible for their actions when it comes to knowingly breeding sick dogs.

      1.Having an obligation to do something as part of a job or role.
      2.Being the primary cause of something and so able to be blamed or credited for it.

      liable - accountable - answerable
      Go figure.

    7. lots and lots.. always a factual point.. as for "ethical' what is a "sick dog'? what health test makes a dog able to be used at stud or to have puppies? Is a breeder ethical if they breed their bitch 3 times? 4? 5 6/ where is the "cut off" I know the KC has a limit but why? Dogs are not people. should all pedigreed dog breeder breed outside of their "paradigm of closed gene pools" in order to be "ethical"?
      Breed clubs in the USA already have a code of ethics.. each one.. you can look them up on each site

    8. Yeah like Breed clubs are at the cutting edge of science...! And dogs are not people! Hey, great point!

      Seriously, what IS your point?

      Yes. Dog breeders should not continue to inbreed. Not unless they are intentionally trying to breed genetically inferior and sick dogs that is.

  12. A Government For the People and By the People and the People are Pissed! 24 hours later, 24 hours of reflection, and I'm still pissed. In fact, I'm even more pissed than I was yesterday. As I think over the nitty gritty, the small print, the fine details, I'm even more pissed. There is never a more important day to be pissed. Today is 9-11, the day America was attacked by foreign terrorists. But while we are focused on enemies from without, we completely miss the enemies within, the statists of both the right and the left who spend their days dreaming of ways to take our rights away. And we let them. The United States Constitution, which is the highest law of our land spells it out very clearly. The federal government is tasked with just four limited and defined powers. The power to make war, peace, negotiation and promote foreign commerce. That's it! All other powers are reserved to the states. The vast majority of what our government is doing today is unconstitutional.

    “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined… (and) will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.” James Madison, Federalist #45.

    Does that resemble the vast behemoth we taxpayers are supporting today? We are paying unelected bureaucrats to take our rights away. As I listened to the APHIS/USDA teleconference yesterday, the animal rights activists dominated the call. Over and over again they expressed to the APHIS bureaucrats by personal name, just how thrilled they all were with this massive regulatory overreach by APHIS. Thrilled I tell ya! Which means they already knew what it said. Which means, while Americans had no more than 12 hours notice of this teleconference call and the resulting new regulation which has the power of law, the animal rights front already knew all about it and what would be said. Right Kevin? Dog breeders, exhibitors, cat breeders, rabbit breeders, all were taken by surprise by this sudden announcement just one day before 9-11. Animal rights activists already knew it was coming. And why not? After all, they wrote it. You can tell because they are all on a first name basis with the bureaucrats and representatives of three major animal rights groups all got through on the call while most of the animal industry was shut out. It should then come as no surprise that the mother ship of animal rights extremists posted their gloating joy at the early Christmas present, at the same time as the APHIS press release. Now just when did Whiney Wayne have the time to write, edit, and proof all of that if he had no clue about this Rule's release until the rest of America did? Yeah, whatever. Spray Tan Wayne, we aren't that stupid.!/2013/09/a-government-for-people-and-by-people.html

    1. Starbreeze, I want to thank you for this post. Many good points here for those that are paying attention.

    2. Pissed, as in drunk? I'm a little pissed too. It's Saturday and hot and I had a couple beers.

      I get pissed-OFF when people clip and paste long spiels from one blog and repost to another.

  13. one more thing that the USDA new rule will stop.. shipping dogs.. now this is a strange one.. because in a country as large as ours we often have to ship a dog to an new owner.. we may have had a friend check the place out.. or we may be replacing a dog that has passed away and we are sending them a new family member or we may be shipping a puppy to another breeder for a stud fee. there are many scenarios.. but now the "seller buyer and animal ( this in not just about dogs.. but many species) must be in the same place so the buyer can see what they are getting" HUH?
    NO animal may be shipped in the USA without a USDA approved veterinarian health checking the dog ( or animal) and certifying it healthy.. yes that is correct a USDA CERTIFIED VET must.. no exceptions. check out the animal BEFORE it is sent.. so if people are receiving sick animals ( as USDA/HSUS claims although no numbers were given or any studies cited) then methinks the USDA is at fault and they should clean up their own act.
    The vet signs a form after he /she fills in the health information declaring they have done everything in their power to send a healthy animals. You would think that if they do not the very people that certify them would be to blame no?

    1. Can you please provide a link to the exact wording of these regulations.

      it's worth noting that the USDA certifies most vets for this purpose (I just contacted the state USDA office and they provided the information) . . . and that many states already require a health check before selling any puppy. As for shipping adult dogs, a health check before shipping is not a bad idea in an absurdly litigenous (sp?) country.

      I would rather not have these additional regulations. But I can see the point. The add section in our local free online advertisement blurb (Craigslist) often has posts about avoiding this or that seller and buyers beware, with sad stories about puppies dying of parvo soon after they were brought home. The regulations may not be as onerous as they appear at first glance. I'm not sure how much of this is AR bullshit and how much is survival and keeping peace in a world where too many people cheat.

    2. exactly most places do require a health check before selling I would never sell a puppy without one.. but what this does is remove the hobby breeders ability to expand the gene pool.. or ship a dog to a friend or buyer they trust even if they know them well.. i repeat NO ONE can ship any dog without a health certificate issued by a USDA certified vet.. and yet they now implement rules saying their own vets are not good enough. I do not understand that line of thinking
      You can look up the rule yourself.. easy to find.

    3. I spent many years as a research professional and I do not find the rule easy to find. All I find is terrified reactions to the impending rule. If it's easy, please provide a link. Decent research begins from a primary source and this one is not obvious.

      The central issue here is how hard it is to obtain a health certificate from a USDA certified vet. I contacted the USDA in my local area and they said they were not allowed to give referrals, but most local vets are USDA certified for doing travel certifications. They also said to check with my local vet and if they are not certified, they could recommend a local certified vet. That does not sound too awful.

      As is widely known, USDA has too few inspectors, and I doubt the local offices welcome yet another set of duties. It is in their interest to certify as many vets as reasonably possible.

  14. There is no question that Animal Rights activists (NOT Animal welfare, which is the antithesis or AR) is "writing laws" that if not opposed will result in loss of dog ownership right - so to that extent we applaud any group with the guts and $$ to stand up to them (and cop the AR'ists death threats, like we have).

    BUT - we "get" the issues about genetics, so perhaps there's also an opportunity to start doing something POSITIVE as well as screaming from the mountaintops about how had things are (and they are, in some cases).

    This is a strong blog with a grip on science - why not get together and begin to write positive breed profiles, breed by breed? Why not set out a list of genetic things TO DO as well as not to do? (Yup, we aren't into parent or sibling matings either). Why not get key international vets on board - like McGreevey in Australia? Why not begin to advertise ethical breeders? Why not give people a positive alternative? You can count us into any international working group and we can bring two Australian breeding groups with us.....

    Then the KC's lose their reason to just blast this group as extremist whingers - and the good breeders have a positive place to go... Interested in people's thoughts..

    1. Excellent and all of the energy could be used positively to this end, the benefit and continuance of good dog breeding by intelligent, genuine dog lovers. There is definitely going to be a change with regard to owning dogs internationally but before it goes down the wrong path it will need a lot of constructive, positive pro dog intervention but well informed, professional bodies.

    2. Thanks for this constructive post, Pets Australia. Some good ideas (and Paul McGreevy is a friend).

      "why not get together and begin to write positive breed profiles, breed by breed?"

      Can you expand on what you mean by this?

      "Why not set out a list of genetic things TO DO as well as not to do? (Yup, we aren't into parent or sibling matings either)"

      "Why not begin to advertise ethical breeders? Why not give people a positive alternative?

      I do try to do this from time to time - not enough, though, you're right.


    3. Very good post, Pets Australia, although from my perspective (Scandinavia) I don´t quite get the concern about the AR threat. I think there is a real future threat to dog ownership coming, here too - it will materialize as some politician´s gift to the people when there has been one too many of the dog-mauls-kid front page stories, or headlines about dog-to-kid-spread infection, and suddenly it will be obvious that in the ever growing cities, there NEVER was such a vast number of dogs before and something must be done about it. I think the problem isn´t AR. I think the problem is that there are much too many dogs in the hands of people who shouldn´t have them, that being the future threat to all dogs, regardless of breed; and second in importance is the mess that "pedigree" breeding has made of many breeds... which is the present threat to the breeds, and to the which credit breeders can hope for. Otherwise, agree. Good breeders should get together and advertise themselves!

    4. Why don't the good breeders form their own code of practice in their own professional association?

    5. Yep. For breeders that go above and beyond what's demanded by their Kennel Clubs and breed clubs. For those that have truly embraced the science. For those that are wiling to be accountable for what they produce - and who in turn demand the best from their buyers; part of an exclusive, desirable, virtual professional association of elite, artisan dog breeders.

      If someone builds it, they will come.


    6. An attempt to do this in Australia, btw... Can anyone report on how its doing?


    7. Nice one Jemima. Looks like the Aussies are getting their act together. I like the site. I particularly like the clear codes of conduct for the various roles. Responsibilities are clear, the focus is on empiricism and welfare and the organisational goals are there for all to see.

      I would like to see evidence of how they uphold these standards. How do they monitor the breeders' practices and ensure they partake in continuing professional development for example. Looks good though....modem, professional and rooted in science.

    8. For a long time I have been advocating a health data base in my breed. In fact in my effort to do so the animosity was so great that the site I voiced my words on I was banned! Interestingly the most vocal antis were people still very active in the breed, showing and breeding. My idea was to register the name, reg number, health tests whether negative/positive, health conditions etc etc whatever was relevant for a full overview. I had thought that people wishing to purchase a bloodline, breed into a bloodline would be able to make a full and informed decision instead of believing the breeder who we now know may be less than honest. It would also help relieve the breeder of any potential litigation because it would really be buyer beware. The data would have to be collected by an independent body to avoid undue influence thus total impartiality. It is just data, end of. A person proven to submit false information could be fined or treated legally as appropriate under the "sales of goods act" or whatever the correct phraseology is. It needs to be strong, cold and factual. Our dogs depend on it. I felt that the club that spearheaded a data base of this calibre would start the recovery, respect and wellbeing of dog people and have a positive effect on the public opinion that pedigree dogs and their breeders are "professional and concerned" for their puppies and aftercare for their new owners. It could also apply to cross breeds. This is just a skeletal overview, somebody much more able and practical than I would be able to dress it appropriately. Funding? The funding would come from the members who actively breed and because their real concern is for dogs and not money(hmmm???) they should be made to donate the cost of a puppy per litter to a database fund. They, after all, are going to benefit the most from a good and reliable database for their breed and should be seen to support same. The KC could make it a requirement before accepting registration etc etc.

    9. Jemima, why don´t you go ahead and announce a start for the BRU, Respectable Breeders United? If someone whose name was known just took that first step... No, I´m not joking. It´s a dull, drizzling, cold and dark early autumn Sunday afternoon here in Scandinavia (which isn´t half the land of glory in terms of dog welfare that some of you hope, alas) and I´ve seen one internet argument too many. Dog behaviour, Cesar Millan. There are too many dogs around in the hands of people who should have kept to gold fish. Yes, with or without the aid of AR zealots, there will be restrictions on the rights to keep large dogs, first of all in the cities. Breeders can do very little about backyard breeding, whether of crossbreeds or registered dogs; but one thing you can do is to get together, agree to breed on health and temperament assessments only; and to sell only to people who already have, or are willing to get, the basic knowledge needed to handle a dog. Particularly a large dog. If such a group got started, many breeders in many countries would join, and many more people like myself would be happy to be supporting members. It would add immensely to the reputation and status of dogs and dog breeders. So Jemima, please...? Georgina? Somebody?

    10. I've explored it, Bodil. And in some depth. It's desperately needed. But I'm the wrong person. It needs to come with within, not without.


    11. Jemima, Bodil, this is an area which desperately needs addressing.
      How do we do it? Only yesterday I had an amygdala hijack when a young, inexperienced handler of a reactive GSD decided the best way to handle his dog's panic attack in the middle of a busy street was to wrap the lead/chain around the poor dog's neck, drag it to the floor and cover it's eyes while it screamed. All the while I was 'happy talking' my dog as we tried to pass by on the other side of the street without distressing the dog. I'm an atheist yet all the while I was literally praying that he was strong enough to restrain his dog.....Being afraid in your own neighbourhood of companion dogs is unacceptable. The Dog Warden isn't interested of course because nobody has YET been hurt....even if a dog is hurt, they are not interested. Why is it that a human being has to get seriously damaged before anything is done?

    12. Shocking anon 11:51 the poor dog, dreadful way to treat him. I had responded to Bodil's response but it has been eaten by the gremlins! Bu

  15. are you kidding that would take WORK instead of just blogging and advertise a BREEDER what you want the HSUS/RSPCA/ASPCA hammer to come down on this blog when now they use it to their advantage to wipe out dog breeders around the world as PDE was meant to do...... nope is not going to happen much easier to dis every body and everything and say everything is wrong. This blog is a haven for animal rights groups and sadly many others who are sheeple and are happy to be led by the nose to slaughter.

  16. So you think you can say "doing fuck-nothing about the bad stuff" what a clever person you wonder none of the press now call you for comments. The biggest problem in dogs these days are rescues, and you now add to that problem by importing them to the UK.

    1. 'The biggest problem in dogs these days are rescues, and you now add to that problem by importing them to the UK.'


      The biggest problem is the root cause - irresponsible breeding, irresponsible ownership, 'no kill' shelters. People basically. Scandinavia do not have the scale of the 'rescue problem', or the health issues in pedigree dogs for that matter, because they have taken corrective actions on their dog policies that are sensible, accountable, based on empiricism and in the best interests of the most important issue - the dog's welfare.

    2. ah yes the wonderful Scandinavia.. held up a s model for all of dogdom where pit bulls and many other breeds are illegal.. where the Danish government actually told people how to kill their dogs at home if they were an illegal breed. yes lovely how concerned they are with a dogs welfare.

    3. Well, 99.9% better than America bestuvall. Nowhere is perfect after all.....

    4. epic fail.. 0 % when they allow dogs to be killed just because of the way they look

    5. Anon 16:55 a somewhat naive and I'll informed comment.

      Tell me why you think BSL exists.....?

      Because of how the dog looks?

      Or is it because of irresponsible human beings? You better believe this - size matters when it comes to aggression. And is it morally and ethically acceptable to continue to selectively breed dogs with unsociable, animal aggressive and potentially human aggressive behavioural traits? We live in a world with increasing numbers of people and dogs. Is that why BSL exists perhaps? It is not the dog's fault. But they will always continue to suffer the consequences of our foolish and selfish actions won't they as long as stupid people are allowed to breed and own them.

    6. something is very rotten in Denmark that bastion of "dog health" maybe that would =make a good blog JH
      please read this and then tell me how great Europe is for dogs..

    7. "Tell me why you think BSL exists.....?

      Because of how the dog looks?"

      actually YES many dogs have been killed because of bsl.. bsl is based on how the dog LOOKS not on its behavior. read a few laws on bsl they are ALL based on how the dog looks.. by breed or by some jerk at the animal control who looks at a chart and decides that dog "looks like' whatever.. and be aware it is not just breeds of dogs.. bsl usually includes a statement like this "or any dog having the characteristics of...""
      BSL exists because stupid people think stupid things. and lump all of a breed together no mater what the temperament of the dog is.. if it "walks like a duck.. it gets killed"
      BSL was started and perpetuated by animal rights groups. PETA still advocates for the killing of all pit bulls.. HSUS did until recently they felt the pressure after the Vick bust and the ASPCA killed Orea.. a dog that had been thrown off a building when a rescue was more than willing to take her and surely you have heard of Lennox..a dog held for a considerable amount of time in which he lost weight and suffered at the hands of the Northern Ireland animal control and then was killed .
      I am not naive not by a long shot but you fit in to the category quite well

    8. Bestuvall. Is this a competition about who is better? I thought that what people were actually trying to do was to take the better practices from WHATEVER country and then look to see how they could improve on their own policies. It's called benchmarking. Nowhere is perfect but they are considerably more progressive practices when it comes to canine welfare in the Scandinavian countries.

      As for Anon's emotional outburst,

      I do not want to have to suffer at the hands of idiots who are allowed to breed and own dogs who have been bred to kill another dog, be fearful of people and have the physical capability of doing severe damage in full blown emotional arousal. Pitties have been bred for their predatory response to other dogs. Why on earth do we want to continue breeding dogs with genetic predisposition to attack and kill? As for the PETA default kneejerk response. I have no idea about AR because I don't believe in it. It is another example of extreme ideology that has no place in a civilised world. However, I do believe in welfare, common sense and empiricism. We need genetically healthy dogs for both physical health and good social temperament as pets. But above all that we need empathy, not sympathy. Some breeds of dog just don't fit the bill as suitable sociable pet dogs. What would you rather fight off in full blown attack mode? A JRT or an Akita?

      The DDA is highly controversial and they screwed it up, but one way round protecting dogs from stupid and irresponsible people would be making it much more difficult to own and breed certain types of dogs. No such thing as a bad dog, all types of dogs can be wonderful pets. But the equation only balances with intelligent and responsible ownership. The latter is sadly lacking in most societies hence the Scandinavian model. It's called progression.

      I know where I would rather live. And it's not the good old U.S of A!

    9. Anon 05:10
      There are tools such as DNA tests which can help determine a breed of dog. Perhaps the 'jerks' in animal control may find these sort of tools useful?

      Not absolutely definitive of course. But a lttle more objective than taking a guess on the look of the dog and comparing it to a picture I agree.

      Temperament testing too is helpful in determining the predatory or aggressive nature of a dog, particularly around other dogs and human beings. Sue Sternberg has done a lot of excellent work with Shelter dogs in this regard.

      Your emotional outburst does nothing to address the issue at hand here. What is the root cause of the problem we are discussing?


      Not dogs. Not breed. Not temperament.

      People's capability of screwing up dogs - by selectively breeding for crappy physical and temperamental traits and then screwing the animal up by throughly useless handling. A complete lack of behavioural understanding and approach to training doesn't help. And the fact that on the whole, there is very little we can actually do legally to protect dogs from that happening in the first place means it's OK to carry on doing what we have always done?

      If BSL exists because 'stupid people think stupid things', then tell me, what do YOU think is the solution to the number of Pittie, Bully and predatory type dogs who continue fill the rescue centres because nobody wants them? To carry on doing what has always been done?

      Sadly, your 'knee jerk PETA' type response to discussing this issue is yet another example of extreme ideologocal thinking (just like PETA, I may add) clouding moral, ethical, common sense-based and empirical discussions aimed at rational approaches to solutions to the continuing problems in society with dog breeding and ownership.

      I am realistic and pragmatic. That means accepting the cold, harsh truth about situations and facing up to your responsibilities as an adult human being, no matter how difficult or 'unfair' it may appear.

      BSL is not the solution to the route cause. The solution is education, regulation and better control over breeding practices and ownership of certain types of dogs in society. Having a moral and ethical obligation to the welfare of dogs, regardless of breed, does not make you a PETA fanatic! Neither does participating in an honest and pragmatic discussion on the advantages, disadvantages and practicalities of breeding and owning certain types of breeds as pet dogs over others!



      A brilliant project which is helping disenfranchised young men rehabilitate back into society using abandoned dogs.

      Win win.

  17. Along with being troglodyte with respect to health concerns, the AKC has self-neutered in the debates relating to regulation of puppy mills. Its long history of providing support, in cooperation with USDA, for highly commercial dog breeding and marketing enterprises, notably the Hunte Corp, and its willingness to cooperate in sale of puppies through pet stores leaves it with zero credibility when it speaks out against ASPCA, HSUS and the more extreme parts of the AR community.

    See: ... or more mainstream

    1. But wait... HSUS now says pet stores are the BEST place to get a dog.. after all they wrote the new regulations for the USDA so that no one else can breed a pet and sell it without abiding by USDA rules .. so the HSUS/ASPCA must be perfectly happy with the way the commercial breeders that are licensed by the USDA are doing things..
      so where does the credibility lie now?
      as for being a troglodyte about health.. do you get the weekly podcasts from the AKC about all health matters.. do you donate regularly to the AKC Canine Health Foundation.. do you even know that the AKC has a health foundation.. do you donate to the AKC scholarship funds to train new veterinarians or do you just send your 19 dollars a month to the HSUS/ASPCA industrial animal rights mill?

    2. Anonymous 16:57. I can see why you remain anonymous.

      The AKC spends a few percent of its huge budget on health matters. True. BFD. It is totally passive about inbreeding (linebreeding) and will not take a stand about extreme conformation that compromises health. Net effect, it does far more harm than good. If the AKC gave a hoot about dog health they would record, and publish, mortality data as well as litter registrations (as the Finnish KC does). I can't think of anything that would help breeders more, in efforts to produce healthy dogs, than a registry that effectively tracks health. How I would love, in picking a stud dog, to have several generations of data on age of death and cause of death. People are always saying, "they're just a registry". So, give us a good, useful, register.

      I don't know where your get information that HSUS recommends pet stores for puppy purchase. Its advice on puppy buying begins with (1) consider adoption and (2) find a responsible breeder; (3) beware of pet stores. HSUS is strongly anti-puppy farm. See:

      AKC embraces a number of 'high volume' breeders that most people would call puppy farms, and they grant AKC pedigrees to puppy farm pups. AKC has a long history of having individuals with pet store and puppy farm interests holding high office.

      I am well aware of the AKC health foundation; Phillip Morris also makes large contributions to medical research. It is not my first priority for donations as AKC is strongly profit and commerce oriented, and I suspect that only a small fraction of the donations made for dog health would make it to researchers' hands. Nor do I donate to HSUS/ASPCA for much the same reasons. I do donate directly to local animal rescue outfits where I know the money will go to good use . . . not slick PR campaigns.

    3. LOL opinions are like well you know what.. everybody has one.. and yours is just an opinion not facts to back you up at all. What percent doers the AKC spend on health matter what exactly is a "few percent"? what is the "small fraction that you "suspect"?
      Exactly what commercial breeders are "embraced" by the AKC and please name the individuals you refer to as the "long history working with "puppy farms" that work or have worked for the AKC in "high places"
      Cause of death?.. who knows what that would be.. hit by a car.. died of unknown causes.. should every dog be necropsied after death to provide you with your "data". We have two registries in the USA to register your dogs health testing.. want info.. go there.
      HSUS now recommends pet stores as they have passed a rule written by them to shut down hobby breeders and to make it more difficult for hobby breeders to exist.. the rules they wrote protect pet stores and the puppies sold there.. so they are now supporting the pet store market and trying to shut down good breeders.
      If you want to throw out your opinion make sure it is JUST your opinion and because what you write has no basis in fact.

    4. Is the AKC annual report factual enough for you?
      In 2012 total expenditures on grants and contributions (thousands) $1,069
      Total operating support and revenues $62,180.
      1,7% of budget going to grants and contributions . . .

      See a long series of articles in The Dog Press for documentation of AKC's high volume breeder shinanigans going back, at least, to 2001. The Hunte Corp is the biggest name to be named.

      see eg.

      and links therein

      Please give references supporting your contention that HSUS now recommends pet stores . . . I presented evidence that it does not.

      I would recommend taking a look at the Finnish KC's database. Yes, there are lots of deaths recorded as 'accident', or 'unknown causes'. The data aren't perfect. But the average lifespan is a significant number, and some of the recorded causes are revealing (eg, cancer deaths, euthanasia for behavioural problems). See:

      That is, if you are interested in facts.

    5. oh please you take Dog Press as fact.. that alone tells me you are off track What actual person held high office in the AKC that was involved in "puppy mills"? come on you can do it.. the AKC Canine Health foundation is a separate group and would not show up in those stats.. but never mind.. you know all

      any of these look worthy of your hard earned $$.. no thought not.. but you are so concerned.. yeah right..

    6. Try Patti Strand. AKC board member since 1995, co-founder of the National Animal Interest Alliance (NAIA), a front group and industry funded lobbying organization for animal commerce. She chaired the report of the AKC's High Volume Breeder Committe Report of 2002 (which blessed the very large scale breeding establishments and their link to petshops).

      See also the AKC Chairman's report of 2008 . . . which shows how worried the AKC is about loosing registrations (and income) and highlights the importance of keeping the numbers up. The AKC has seen volume breeders and chain store pet sales (eg., Petland) as critical sources of revenue and has gone way out of its way to keep these enterprises on board, eg., through the AKC's Puppy Registration & Inventory Management Extranet (PRIME).

      Yah, yah, yah. Now you're going to discount Terrrierman as a reference. If youi're not even willing to reveal your own identity, mr/ms/??? Anonymous, how can you credibly discount sources (eg Dog Press above) with no evidence. Not the terrierman link only points to a download of a document that the AKC has not gone out of its way to make public.

      I'm no accountant and untangling the AKC Canine Health foundation from the AKC is not simple ...AKC claims credit for its Canine Health foundation. But should note that AKC's contribution to health research is much smaller if you discount the Canine Health Foundation (heavily supported by corporate donations).

      "any of these look worthy of your hard earned $$.. no thought not.. but you are so concerned.. yeah right.." You, again, show poor reasoning ability. Of all the hundreds of thousands of worthy causes seeking donations, why should I, or anyone, choose a health foundation established by the AKC...given that I, and many others, regard the AKC's concern over dog health with great skepticism. (Btw, I have volunteered to participate in one of the trials funded by the AKC Canine Health Foundation's research program ...a look at tick attractions to dogs being done by the entimology department at the University of Florida.

      If you're going to offer only snide remarks evidence, please shut up!!!!!

  18. "Selectively-bred dogs produced by responsible breeders should be treasured and they do have some advantages over crossbreeds/mixed breeds."
    It was surprising. I should ask two things: what do you mean by crossbreeds/mixed breed? When you compare certain breed/line with some range, that range can consist of pug-chihuahua and lab-dachshund mixes. What advantages do you mean, who got those advantages of purebred, does it concern pet owners?

    1. When I read this quote I wonder about the selectively bred crossbreeds and mutts that seem to always be left out of the equation. Of course I live far away from where registries have impacted (Northern Canada) and have had the wonderful experiences of a dogs from Northern Farm Collie and Alaskan Husky landraces for many of my years.

  19. Yes of course it concerns pet owners, Matus. Now, I love my mutts - love their diversity and vibrancy. But, at its best, selective breeding offers much to celebrate too - including dogs which are perfectly honed to do a specific job e.g. collies, terriers, retrievers, setters etc. I think the world would be a far poorer (and less efficient, less fun) place without them. There is obvious benefit in breeding dogs that are predictable in size, colour, coat-length, biddability, temperament, pet-worthiness etc (whether purebred or cross/mixed).

    The 'campaign' here is not to rid the world of purebred dogs. It is to try to keep them all the good/great things about them, to ensure that they are here for us to enjoy in the future, while ensuring that neither they (in welfare terms) nor us (in financial or emotional terms) pay too high a price for them being what they are.


    1. Realistically that may be hard to do, given a healthy gene pool should include over a thousand (hopefully) individuals for diversity, yet order for what we specifically want out of them. That is a very hard thing to track though when we get so many cases of missing data or horrible inbred samples, not to mention tracking any mixes with their own set of problems/attributes. With our bottleneck it took hundreds of years to re-diversify, with the help of geological selection. I'd like to see the same happen with dogs, but even if we succeed I could only see have several dozen breeds at the very most, being considered healthy through it despite the selective pressures. Since DNA comes in packages, I would think it would take a long-term amount of time, like several decades, to select against specific traits while still conforming to standards for each of those thousand individuals per breed.

      Alas, I think its the best we can all do, but when I think about it I find it like trying to build a golden gate bridge with only several people, and only the materials for one mile of construction.

    2. I don't know where your numbers come from (eg >1000 individuals). Healthy wild populations seem to have been rebuilt from a dozen or so individuals, eg., the foxes in the Channel Islands, California condors, etc. Islands appear to have ended out with healthy populations after colonization by a single pregnant female. I don't mean to imply that it is ok for effective population sizes to get very low. But the situation for narrow gene pools is far from hopeless. With strong balancing selection, recovery after a serious bottleneck IS possible. While breeders cannot realistically put the whole population together and allow the animals to freely select their mates, the tools for selection of mates that maximizes heterozygosity and avoids deleterious mutations are improving rapidly.

      The problem is that people are still selecting for show conformation (or maximum 'cute') in many of the breeds where the gene pool has been seriously depleted.

  20. Ummm.... is this part of the new campaign?

    Larry the Cable Guy

  21. People seem to not realise we had all these breed before & they where in much better health it has been breeding for extreme breed type & narrow gene pools that have caused the damage to their health.
    Back in the old days it did not matter if a dog had something unknown in his pedigree as long as he did the job right, so dogs where chosen on work ability not looks & if we went back to that we be in a far better place now.

    1. yes and in the :old days" we has NO health testing so a great working dog that died at 4 was used anyway because who knew what he was carrying so yes it did not matter..

    2. Well actually anyone worth their damn as a working breeder would not breed a dog under 3 to 4 yrs as thats the age you really know as some of the best are the latest maturers.
      Also hip or any joint issues where no where near as common as today as a lame dog could not keep up so no way it would be breed on. Their joints where put under the regular test of being a working dog & earning their keep & believe me they show signs of weakness they would not likely make it back home never mind be breed on.

    3. you do know of course that many dogs have hip problems and joint problems that are not diagnosed by "lameness and that many lame dog have no joint or hip problems.. and I ma not sure what you mean by 'would not lilely make it back home" except to say they would be done away with..

    4. bestuvall,

      Are you honestly saying you're looking at the health issues of GS, poodles, springers, dobies, collies (traditional not border) pugs, bull dogs and you don't see how breeding to a cosmetic standard has endangered the health of all of these breeds.

      And that's not considering the deafness, skin issues, gastrointestinal issues that keep coming up in some lines of these breeds.

      I with anon - breeding dogs for working ability & temperament led to better dogs and healthier dogs.

  22. Jemima
    From watching your documentaries - your voice reminds me of Siri lol So every time I read your curses I have a bit of a laugh...

  23. here is some more of what the AKC does "not " do:

  24. Donating in the times of tragedy has nothing to do with doing the right thing for the dogs the Kennel Clubs register.

    This PR tactic is practiced by big tobacco which donates when tragedies occur and they continue to target middle and high schoolers for their products (e-cigarettes is the latest).

    1. you mean like HSUS? a perfect example thanks. nobody uses a disaster as well as the HSUS/ASPCA industrial fund raising machine.they love a good disaster.. actually AKC has been doing a lot of relief work for years they just do not toot their own horn.. about time they did.
      meanwhile ask HSUS how much they donated to health research for dogs last year.. hmm crickets..

  25. I think it's more than a PR tactic. There are plenty of people in the AKC who love dogs and want to do the right thing. But no question the AKC captializes on the PR value. Note, their contributions haven't typically been huge. In the 2012 Annual Report we se $6k for the Colorado fires last year; ~10K for Superstorm Sandy. Some of this came in to them as donations and they channeled the money. I'm sure they got more good press out of those activities than they could have bought for $16k.

  26. The AKC is not talking about the state of the purebred dog, they are talking about its REPUTATION and breeders REPUTATION, which DOES fall squarely to blame on the AR movement, which has made pedigree dogs a shameful thing to have, and breeders who produce them pariahs, spat on, scorned. "Don't breed or buy while shelter pets die" has become the zealous mantra of the AR masses, and its spreading faster than wildfire. YOU dont live in America, YOU dont see it.

    1. Yeah right. Because the AKC's and breeders' complicity in the state of the purebred dogs has no relevance to their reputation. It's purely the fault of the AR movement.

    2. WhatAmILookingAt: "The AKC is not talking about the state of the purebred dog,"

      Yup! If they had been concerned with the state of the purebred dog, they would not be so vulnerable to attack by AR wackos.

      I see that as the main point of this post. PR, without real change, is doomed. REPUTATION is doomed if you policies result increasingly more extreme features and increasingly narrow genetic foundations for many many breeds.

    a new canine for the Newtown area the place where the children were shot..nah AKC does nothing.. funny I don't see HSUS/ASPCA/PETA industry anywhere here as contributors

  28. well the AR' do get some help from those of you here. Jemima in particular. PDE is quoted as gospel in many many AR missives as the absolute in why dog breeders are awful greedy, disgusting and lazy.. when in fact they are not but hey Jemima is the AR's hero because she also perpetuates the myth.

    1. Interesting how some pedigree dog breeders appear to be so deep in denial that they wildly fling accusations of blame at the people who actually understand the issues and most importantly, are trying to improve the situation. Lack of accountability and guilt is just so easy to spot in people who resort to wild outbursts on blogs and fail to continue a thread of rational and empirical discussion when challenged.

      I think that there are some well balanced views with regard to Jemima's work by the people who are involved in the process of improving dogs' lives for the better. The AR rant is a default knee-jerk reaction that is quite frankly getting boring now.

    2. Eloquently stated anon 10:34. Perhaps Bestuvall is a double bluffer but interestingly "Jan" has not responded to JH's request.

  29. Want to give me a link to examples of this, Jan?


  30. I think it's wrong to blame and condemn an entire fancy. I'm not referring to any particular registry here, but what portion of any given breed in any given registry is actively being campaigned in its given country? By campaigned, I mean seriously put out with the goal of winning conformation dog shows? I'm guessing it's small, but it's as much a fault of the kennel club as it is the general public for considering these kinds of competitions the be all end all of purebred dogs. Until there's grass roots education that there are many positive reasons to own a purebred and many of the genetic diseases can also be prevented by selecting an alternative breeder who prioritizes health and working ability over appearance and popularity, the dog show fancy is going to be over-run by people willing to pay insane prices for over-bred "champion" pedigrees. Kennel club or no kennel club, if the perception/market weren't there in the first place and alternative breeders were sought out as the more desirable breeders, fewer breeds would likely be in the genetic pickle that they're in today.

  31. Bodil thanks for your response. There is an opportunity for a responsible professional body to set up and organise an impartial, free of litigation data base open to breeders, purchasers and researchers. I have always thought that the KC is the obvious body but I am now unsure about the politics within that organisation. The advertising/marketing opportunity for a dog food/pharmaceutical/rescue/health research company is more possible. Especially as they would have manpower/facilities/computers etc etc to set up such a database. The KC could have an input insofar as they could make it a requirement that the cost of a puppy from every litter they register would be donated to the organisation in the form of a "health trust". For a trial, one breed could be selected and run for a period of say 2 years, then audited for results from which it would become an open register for all breeds. But I am a fossil and maybe right off the scale in my expectations in human nature and the real reason why so many people are involved in dogs. The benefit of such a database would be so beneficial for dog breeders and healthier dogs with the caveat that if the genetic information is correct every living being on the planet is sliding into oblivion then any effort is pointless. The only benefit would be that the dogs alive today and to be bred in the immediate future would live a more healthy and fulfilled life.

    1. Georgina, certainly every presently alive creature and all species will slide into oblivion; hopefully, however, before the very sun goes out, there will be new lives and new species. :-) And while we have world enough and time, let`s think what we might do to secure as best we can a future for those intelligent, useful and companionable animals which we call dogs.We have here, in this country, a large animal insurance company, which registers health statistics from purebred and mixed-breed dogs; we also have national KC data open to public access. It´s not a bad start. And I do think, that if a group of breeders of a few well-known breeds were to get together and announce their purpose - healthy, level-headed dogs for sale only to knowledgeable buyers - it would attract enough attention for major insurance companies and major veterinary schools and hospitals to want to help. Imagine: "Responsible GSD breeders of Britain, a section of the BRU international group, in cooperation with the Royal School of Veterinary Medicine and the Whatever Animal Insurance, offer for sale this year 15 expected litters. Straight-back, temperament assessed sires and dams, tested free of X,Y and Z, good hips for five generations.You can que up on our shared waiting list of buyers. Don´t bother to phone, unless you understand that a good GSD demands a good owner!"

    2. A policy well worth pushing and the wording in your last sentence should apply to all breeds. I guess the insurance aspect is possibly why a lot of breeders do not want to divulge data because they would be excluded from provision. It is a deep and troubling worry about what is going to happen to dogs, the poodle disclosure today is sickening. Labradoodles beware, it is going to be one of the major pitfalls when crossbreeding. Someone had previously stated that in attempt to save on breed by outcrossing imperils the breed it has been crossed with in so far as all of the genes within the new "breed" are compromised healthwise. I absolutely agree that it is now, and the near future (50 years) whereby a lot of care and attention has to be undertaken when breeding dogs and most importantly restraint. Dogs and their owners are about to be subjected to a lot of constraints from international governments mainly because they are easy targets, genuine dog breeders are open and honest and their dogs innocent. A world without the compassion of these owners and the dogs becomes a desert and I personally abhor the very thought of it.