Forming a breed club in the US

Gypsy Wolf · 16-01-2011, 03:22

Though there are a lot of things I DON'T like about AKC, it still is the "more recognized" registrar here in the U.S.
As AKC is just a registry, it CANNOT impose such rulings as health requirements - though why you would blame the AKC for that is beyond me... If you want to "blame" anyone - it is the parent club that has control over the breed, not the AKC - they only approve/disapprove changes to by-laws and standards. As far as health test requirements, personally I think such things should be done by a responsible breeder - and if the person is not a responsible breeder, only idiots would buy from them anyway...
Our breed club needs to incorporate and have approved by-laws and then AKC will incorporate said "parent club" - so it really boils down to whoever gets their butt in gear to develop a functioning breed club first....
Personally, I feel that affiliating with the AKC has some advantages for a burgeoning breed - I dual-register my dogs with AKC and UKC (who I prefer as a regisry, actually) and it opens up more venues in which to compete, as well.

yukidomari · 16-01-2011, 03:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

Though there are a lot of things I DON'T like about AKC, it still is the "more recognized" registrar here in the U.S.
As AKC is just a registry, it CANNOT impose such rulings as health requirements - though why you would blame the AKC for that is beyond me... If you want to "blame" anyone - it is the parent club that has control over the breed, not the AKC - they only approve/disapprove changes to by-laws and standards.

Please reread the post. I said "This also means that the parent club cannot stipulate what health tests must be done either. This is why every single breed club has a Code of Ethics that merely 'suggest' which tests be done, but can NEVER use the lack of said testing as a condition of registration. "

I am well aware that the AKC doesn't impose health requirements. They simply choose the breed club that won't require it. In fact it is the AKC's method to pick the breed club that will not reinforce stringent standards on health testing as a requirement of registration. Again, reference the newly recognized Leonberger. It is not simply who 'gets their butts in gear' first. For reference, the CKCS parent club, the original club, was simply passed over because they would not compromise on their testing requirements.

As I previously stated, the AKC likes to pick splinter clubs that like to cater to the easiest way to promote a breed. Just because a club was first doesn't prevent that. I don't know how it was not sufficiently apparent that the post is directed at the AKC's selection of parent clubs. I have never said once that the AKC is responsible for enforcing health testing.

Gypsy Wolf · 16-01-2011, 03:44

I don't know that your assumption on why one breed club was picked over the other is correct - as I mentioned before, the club's by-laws have to be acceptable to the AKC and as far as I know, "requiring" health tests is not something allowable in the parent club by-laws... one reason there is a lot of friction between Germany's SV and the AKC...
Kennel Club politics is really no different than international politics - everyone has different rules and regulations, and a lot of crazy loop-holes, too. Not to mention folks who take advantage of those loop-holes!
But who you decide to register with is a personal choice - and thankfully here in the United States we have that freedom.
Personally, there are so many thing I like to do under AKC auspices (Rally, Obedience, Agility, Herding, Tracking), it would severly limit my ability to compete with my dogs. If I were to acquire another vlcak here in the US, I would not want to purchase a pup that I could not AKC register - it will be nice to be the first vlcak with an AKC title - and literally make breed history. Not to mention the far-off day Vlcaks show in such prestigious events like Eukanuba or Westminster. Having show multiple times in both, thre IS something pretty cool about showing on the carpet with the whole world watching...

yukidomari · 16-01-2011, 03:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

.. the club's by-laws have to be acceptable to the AKC and as far as I know, "requiring" health tests is not something allowable in the parent club by-laws...

This is what I mean, though. Requiring it is not allowed. So in essence the AKC refuses to recognize clubs that have by-laws that require it.

While most the rest of the world's KCs have requirements on minimal health standards in order to be registered, the AKC lacks that. As I said, for a long time I believed that all fell on the shoulders of the breed club, that they simply did not have strong enough bylaws. But it seems this is only partially right.. they are not allowed to have these types of bylaws as a requirement of being the parent club.

Competitive titles aren't the only things there are to do with a dog anyway.. There are actual working venues.. those without titles and without the world watching.. that are really worthy too.

Me? I would rather the breed be bred under stringent standards and be elusively rare, than to have lax rules but popular and on the red carpet, so to speak. Just a difference in opinion, I guess!

Gypsy Wolf · 16-01-2011, 04:02

I think one of the major reasons that AKC cannot have parent clubs that have such health requirements is that they are a registry and if it is a purebred dog - regardless of whatever faults it may have - it can be registered.
The only reason to deny registration is if the parentage is impure/in question (this coming for a friend who also happens to be a Delegate). Things like disqualifying faults are for the responsible breeder to remove from their breeding program (or exploit - as in the case of the white Dobermann)... not to mention that thre are some things that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water...
For instance, I know a GSD that was an AMAZING SchH dog - 100 points in all 3 phases - perfect as a playful kitten off the field - heck, he even represented the US on the World Team a few years ago... he was Affected for DM and unfortunately became symptomatic at a relatively young age... should he have been removed from the breeding program when he had so many GREAT things to contribute? If that was a "health requirement" he would have been, despite the fact that the disease is relatively easy to eradicate and there is a MUCH greater need for his super temperament and correct drives to bring proper balance to some of the working lines...
It is personal responsability and morals - things you can't legislate - that need to be brought to the forefront, and if the breeder doesn't do the testing you feel is appropriate, don't buy from them. On the flipside, you will see folks who don't do a single health test on their dog but as he is THE NEWF who won Westminster, he gets bred to anything that will hold still. Would I take that chance? I don't know, but I like that I have the choice...

yukidomari · 16-01-2011, 04:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunas Mom

It is personal responsability and morals - things you can't legislate - that need to be brought to the forefront, and if the breeder doesn't do the testing you feel is appropriate, don't buy from them. On the flipside, you will see folks who don't do a single health test on their dog but as he is THE NEWF who won Westminster, he gets bred to anything that will hold still. Would I take that chance? I don't know, but I like that I have the choice...

See, the thing is that, there may be "dog people", dog-savvy people, with the ability to discern a good breeder from not, but as you know this is painfully not the case with the general public. From purely personal experience with 0 statistic to back this up, more than 90% of all the dogs I have known from day to day life outside of shows and other dog-centric activities are dogs from mills or back yard breeders with zero knowledge of pedigree and health testing.

You can say, only idiots buy like that, but that doesn't stop the fact that most people will continue to buy like that not because they are idiots but simply because they don't know and dogs, as much as they love them, are simply just a family pet, just a dog, and will never be more interested on how to find a breeder that is actually trying to better the breed.

It is true that legislation cannot stop all incidences of the huge amount of millers and BYBs here, but it can certainly curtail what can or cannot be sold as an "AKC pedigree x breed", which the general public views as a stamp of quality, kinda like when you buy a Nike sneaker, you know it's Nike quality. People are simple like that. There are things I don't know much about, that I would buy based simply on the 'brand'.. stuff like lawnmowers and cars. If the AKC is "the dog's champion", I would really hope one day they will care about their brand.

I don't have to buy from someone who doesn't test, but that doesn't stop the production of dogs that are bred like that. They will never be my dogs but that doesn't make it less sad...

I would think it is a good idea to take a look at countries that have rules for breeding and registration, and take what we can from them, see what works, what doesn't work... more than just depending on people to learn themselves and make the right choice.

Gypsy Wolf · 16-01-2011, 04:28

I agree - which is why I have a GSD from Belgium (German Highlines) - because the GSD here are crap, for the most part.
Personally I think it is all EDUCATION - educating the general public... just like AKC did back in the day to make their name synonomous with "quality" - the breed clubs need to educate the public on what to look for in a good breeder - and in a good dog.
Personally I think what we need to do first is get rid of "commercial breeders" (puppy mills) as the biggest detriment to caninedom in our country, but that is another story...
I do think legislating morals/ethics is a slippery slope - and I do agree that most of the dog-buying public are idiots... but I don't know any other way of remedying that aside from banning stupid people from breeding. AKC can't be responsible for idiots - their PARENTS should have raised them to do their homework, no?

GalomyOak · 16-01-2011, 16:03

On a side note, I have now had to produce my AKC papers twice for animal control when a crazy neighbor and then a group of angry hunters (my dogs were carrying on while they were in the forest behind my house) reported me for breeding wolf hybrids - and then coyotes. FCI papers, not enough. At least out here in the country, most people - even dog wardens - have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world, and are always wary of someone trying to pull a fast one on them. The AKC logo at least looks recognizeable, and can be matched to microchips. That's usually enough.

If you follow these same standards, you won't register UKC either - they require even less to breed, no DNA requirements. That will pretty much eliminate the possibility of doing any kind of working, companion or performance event in the USA, unless you go through some other organization (such as DVG or USA, in schutzhund), but those organizations also don't necessarily require health testing. It is possible to register FCI through Puerto Rico, but that still doesn't eliminate, or even really touch upon poor breeding here. I'm sure owners from many other FCI breeds can testify to that. I don't know what kind of problems (maybe none) that might arise when you list the stud dog with a US address if you were to breed to a bitch here, and the owner of the bitch wanted to register the litter AKC. I also don't know how the reciprocity agreement will work with FCI when we go full AKC for dogs who are PR/FCI registered. Of course, it's always a personal decision how anyone proceeds.

I do agree that we (USA, all breeds) need to have higher breeding standards...with regards to health as well as breeding standards - such as bonitations, and mental health ratings as they do in the nordic countries. I think this would help solve other problems too - our shelters would be far less crowded due to the costs of producing a screened litter driving the number of cheap/bad/in-it-only-for-the-money breeders down, and it would force people to become aware of health tests. I think AKC's Breeder of Merit program is a step in the right direction; I wish they would make it mandatory. Essentially it comes back to the classic US political debate of government regulation vs. deregulation. Left vs. right.

We are in a unique position right now. We have only had 2 litters in the US; they aren't being mass produced...yet. I have an idea of where the next 4-5 litters will come from. We also have an incredibly small and tight international breed "circle"...it's generally not too hard to find when puppies are imported here, and because there isn't much information on the breed here, most people importing have a tendency to reach out to owners here, if they can find contact info for them. By maintaining a cohesive group of owners, we will hopefully help to drive collective knowledge about our breed, until such time (150-200 registered dogs) that we can push to be the official parent club, and we do have official breed recognition. I think it would be detrimental to push for seperate groups/clubs - i.e AKC club v. non-AKC club - at this point. AKC is the big fish, it will eventually get it's way if it thinks there is money to be made. The ignorant masses, when buying, will look for what AKC says is "good", which comes about through showing and exhibiting AKC...I'd like to help define this rather than turning away and leaving it solely in the hands of future importers/breeders who might not take the time to educate themselves in the way I try to do for myself, and think their very untypical dogs are beautiful, and worthy of breeding.... "Those people" are out there. I hear from them all the time.

I'd personally rather not fight it, or one another, but work constructively within our own ranks as a breed. This doesn't necessarily mean liking one another or agreeing with one another all the time. That's any organization. But I do think we should, hope we will, stick together, now, and in the future, as breeders and owners. Once established, clubs have the ability to require health testing as part of their coveted futurities and maturities, hopefully the USA/AKC will evolve and do the right thing eventually.

16-01-2011, 16:03	#8
GalomyOak Howling Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Colorado Posts: 436	On a side note, I have now had to produce my AKC papers twice for animal control when a crazy neighbor and then a group of angry hunters (my dogs were carrying on while they were in the forest behind my house) reported me for breeding wolf hybrids - and then coyotes. FCI papers, not enough. At least out here in the country, most people - even dog wardens - have no clue what goes on in the rest of the world, and are always wary of someone trying to pull a fast one on them. The AKC logo at least looks recognizeable, and can be matched to microchips. That's usually enough. If you follow these same standards, you won't register UKC either - they require even less to breed, no DNA requirements. That will pretty much eliminate the possibility of doing any kind of working, companion or performance event in the USA, unless you go through some other organization (such as DVG or USA, in schutzhund), but those organizations also don't necessarily require health testing. It is possible to register FCI through Puerto Rico, but that still doesn't eliminate, or even really touch upon poor breeding here. I'm sure owners from many other FCI breeds can testify to that. I don't know what kind of problems (maybe none) that might arise when you list the stud dog with a US address if you were to breed to a bitch here, and the owner of the bitch wanted to register the litter AKC. I also don't know how the reciprocity agreement will work with FCI when we go full AKC for dogs who are PR/FCI registered. Of course, it's always a personal decision how anyone proceeds. I do agree that we (USA, all breeds) need to have higher breeding standards...with regards to health as well as breeding standards - such as bonitations, and mental health ratings as they do in the nordic countries. I think this would help solve other problems too - our shelters would be far less crowded due to the costs of producing a screened litter driving the number of cheap/bad/in-it-only-for-the-money breeders down, and it would force people to become aware of health tests. I think AKC's Breeder of Merit program is a step in the right direction; I wish they would make it mandatory. Essentially it comes back to the classic US political debate of government regulation vs. deregulation. Left vs. right. We are in a unique position right now. We have only had 2 litters in the US; they aren't being mass produced...yet. I have an idea of where the next 4-5 litters will come from. We also have an incredibly small and tight international breed "circle"...it's generally not too hard to find when puppies are imported here, and because there isn't much information on the breed here, most people importing have a tendency to reach out to owners here, if they can find contact info for them. By maintaining a cohesive group of owners, we will hopefully help to drive collective knowledge about our breed, until such time (150-200 registered dogs) that we can push to be the official parent club, and we do have official breed recognition. I think it would be detrimental to push for seperate groups/clubs - i.e AKC club v. non-AKC club - at this point. AKC is the big fish, it will eventually get it's way if it thinks there is money to be made. The ignorant masses, when buying, will look for what AKC says is "good", which comes about through showing and exhibiting AKC...I'd like to help define this rather than turning away and leaving it solely in the hands of future importers/breeders who might not take the time to educate themselves in the way I try to do for myself, and think their very untypical dogs are beautiful, and worthy of breeding.... "Those people" are out there. I hear from them all the time. I'd personally rather not fight it, or one another, but work constructively within our own ranks as a breed. This doesn't necessarily mean liking one another or agreeing with one another all the time. That's any organization. But I do think we should, hope we will, stick together, now, and in the future, as breeders and owners. Once established, clubs have the ability to require health testing as part of their coveted futurities and maturities, hopefully the USA/AKC will evolve and do the right thing eventually. __________________ "What lies behind us and what lies ahead of us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us."~Henry David Thoreau http://www.galomyoak.com

16-01-2011, 03:22	#1
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	Though there are a lot of things I DON'T like about AKC, it still is the "more recognized" registrar here in the U.S. As AKC is just a registry, it CANNOT impose such rulings as health requirements - though why you would blame the AKC for that is beyond me... If you want to "blame" anyone - it is the parent club that has control over the breed, not the AKC - they only approve/disapprove changes to by-laws and standards. As far as health test requirements, personally I think such things should be done by a responsible breeder - and if the person is not a responsible breeder, only idiots would buy from them anyway... Our breed club needs to incorporate and have approved by-laws and then AKC will incorporate said "parent club" - so it really boils down to whoever gets their butt in gear to develop a functioning breed club first.... Personally, I feel that affiliating with the AKC has some advantages for a burgeoning breed - I dual-register my dogs with AKC and UKC (who I prefer as a regisry, actually) and it opens up more venues in which to compete, as well.

16-01-2011, 03:44	#3
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	I don't know that your assumption on why one breed club was picked over the other is correct - as I mentioned before, the club's by-laws have to be acceptable to the AKC and as far as I know, "requiring" health tests is not something allowable in the parent club by-laws... one reason there is a lot of friction between Germany's SV and the AKC... Kennel Club politics is really no different than international politics - everyone has different rules and regulations, and a lot of crazy loop-holes, too. Not to mention folks who take advantage of those loop-holes! But who you decide to register with is a personal choice - and thankfully here in the United States we have that freedom. Personally, there are so many thing I like to do under AKC auspices (Rally, Obedience, Agility, Herding, Tracking), it would severly limit my ability to compete with my dogs. If I were to acquire another vlcak here in the US, I would not want to purchase a pup that I could not AKC register - it will be nice to be the first vlcak with an AKC title - and literally make breed history. Not to mention the far-off day Vlcaks show in such prestigious events like Eukanuba or Westminster. Having show multiple times in both, thre IS something pretty cool about showing on the carpet with the whole world watching...

16-01-2011, 04:02	#5
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	I think one of the major reasons that AKC cannot have parent clubs that have such health requirements is that they are a registry and if it is a purebred dog - regardless of whatever faults it may have - it can be registered. The only reason to deny registration is if the parentage is impure/in question (this coming for a friend who also happens to be a Delegate). Things like disqualifying faults are for the responsible breeder to remove from their breeding program (or exploit - as in the case of the white Dobermann)... not to mention that thre are some things that would be throwing the baby out with the bath water... For instance, I know a GSD that was an AMAZING SchH dog - 100 points in all 3 phases - perfect as a playful kitten off the field - heck, he even represented the US on the World Team a few years ago... he was Affected for DM and unfortunately became symptomatic at a relatively young age... should he have been removed from the breeding program when he had so many GREAT things to contribute? If that was a "health requirement" he would have been, despite the fact that the disease is relatively easy to eradicate and there is a MUCH greater need for his super temperament and correct drives to bring proper balance to some of the working lines... It is personal responsability and morals - things you can't legislate - that need to be brought to the forefront, and if the breeder doesn't do the testing you feel is appropriate, don't buy from them. On the flipside, you will see folks who don't do a single health test on their dog but as he is THE NEWF who won Westminster, he gets bred to anything that will hold still. Would I take that chance? I don't know, but I like that I have the choice...

16-01-2011, 04:28	#7
Gypsy Wolf Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Florida & Minnesota U.S. Posts: 252	I agree - which is why I have a GSD from Belgium (German Highlines) - because the GSD here are crap, for the most part. Personally I think it is all EDUCATION - educating the general public... just like AKC did back in the day to make their name synonomous with "quality" - the breed clubs need to educate the public on what to look for in a good breeder - and in a good dog. Personally I think what we need to do first is get rid of "commercial breeders" (puppy mills) as the biggest detriment to caninedom in our country, but that is another story... I do think legislating morals/ethics is a slippery slope - and I do agree that most of the dog-buying public are idiots... but I don't know any other way of remedying that aside from banning stupid people from breeding. AKC can't be responsible for idiots - their PARENTS should have raised them to do their homework, no?