# Today shows slams AKC



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

Rossen Reports: AKC failing to protect dogs? - Video on TODAY.com


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

The Facts The Today Show Didn?t Tell You | AKC Dog Lovers


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

I look at this from a business standpoint. Let's pretend I own Nike. (what a dream)

I find out that one of the stores that carries my brand of shoes is marketing them to criminals so they can run faster to get away from cops.

I would NEVER just sit around and say "Well, that's more sales." I would be FURIOUS that MY BRAND NAME was being used for something wrong.

And frankly, that is how AKC should be seeing this. They are losing brand name credibility.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

The HSUS has their own agenda....


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

Doesn't make what they are saying any less correct though. 

When you look at just the relationship between Hunte Corp and AKC.... 

I won't even do the CGC/STAR anymore. Not another penny to AKC if I can avoid it. Would love to see a more European system gain some traction.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The biggest uphill battle I run into personally, with people looking to buy a purebred puppy, is explaining to them that being registered AKC does not guarantee a healthy well bred dog. 

They usually are *very* surprised to learn that AKC registration does NOT always equal good breeding practices.

IMO this (and along the lines that Lauri mentions above), a lot of this is about marketing and IMHO it really wouldn't take much for the AKC to "market" most bad breeders out of business,_ if they wanted to_.


----------



## onyx'girl (May 18, 2007)

AKC is supposed to be just a registry, not to police the breeders...though I suppose they should hold who they register somewhat accountable for their breeding practices? They definitely profit from them.


----------



## Metro_Mike (Mar 29, 2013)

Media Sensitization.

The reason that inhumane breeders exist is because there is a demand for these dogs. More specifically people willing to buy dogs ignorantly without researching the breeder, inspecting the dogs themselves prior to purchase, seeing the living conditions, viewing the dams & sires for temperament and etc.

In my opinion placing the blame on the AKC is a way of shifting responsibility from an impulsive buyer. I think an educated buyer who viewed that kennel would avoid this place entirely or make a complaint.

There are many unscrupulous individuals out there selling products, animals, services and etc. that prey specifically on the ignorant.


----------



## gagsd (Apr 24, 2003)

Correct. AKC polices paperwork, not breeding practices. That would (should) be the realm of the breed clubs.
If an AKC representative shows up at a breeding facility to inspect paperwork, and they find illegal/concerning living conditions, the rep is to contact law enforcement/animal control in that district. It is then the job of that agency to ensure a breeder is following the law.

None of us "like" large scale commercial breeding facilities I would imagine. But as long as they meet Dept of Ag standards of care, they are legal. 

Would we rather have dogs registered with Continental Kennel Club? ACA?

AKC is not perfect.... but I certainly would not support any other registry here in the USA. (with the exception of UKC.... but I still want my dogs AKC registered.)


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

Totally agree with Mary and Mike! :thumbup:


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I love when people slam the current system...but don't have an answer for a better system. AKC is already a non-profit organization, if they were to start policing breeders that would increase their costs and cause them to increase the cost of entering trials. I think the close to $30 fee is already pushing the limit on how much people want to pay for 5 minutes of glory in the obedience ring and less than 1 minute of glory in a rally or agility competition. And yes, I know that the price is set by the club hosting the event...but they raise it accordingly with what the AKC does.

It's the consumer's problem if they believe that AKC registered means ethical breeding practices...but I've also seen breeders that have put on their website "AKC approved" or something of that matter. There are plenty of people out there pushing that if their dogs are AKC registered, they're doing everything right.

When I was buying my dog I knew that the only think AKC registered meant was that I'm guaranteed to have a purebred. And that's all I wanted from them.


----------



## Gretchen (Jan 20, 2011)

The media's job is to sell fear and consumerism. Maybe the ASPCA will get more donations after viewers see this report.

I found this report missing a lot. For example with the inspections by the AKC, are they random or scheduled? If scheduled, breeder has time to clean their place up nicely. What is on the checklist for inspections?

Then there are always a percentage of dishonest business people, that ruin it for an industry. There may be breeders out there that are illegally claiming to be AKC inspected. I doubt if the the AKC can check every website of every breeder. I just saw this in my husband's industry. His commercial trucks must be inspected by the CHP every year. Our agreement with the CHP is to *not* advertise that we are CHP approved. Yet we just found a business website in the county next to us that advertises CHP Approved. So the consumers will be shopping for a service and see that out of 10 companies, only one is "approved" and call them when in reality the 9 others are compliant and lose business. This type of story is one of the reasons I seldom watch TV.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

One of the biggest money opponents to the AR agenda (ASPCA, HSUS, PETA) is the AKC. These groups need to discredit the AKC and the media is more than happy to help.


----------



## Daisy&Lucky's Mom (Apr 24, 2011)

lhczth said:


> One of the biggest money opponents to the AR agenda (ASPCA, HSUS, PETA) is the AKC. These groups need to discredit the AKC and the media is more than happy to help.


:thumbup:

The scary part is that those agencies really are not supportive of canine health research or in PITAs case supportive of dog ownership . I have three dogs. My fear w/ legislative efforts sponsored by these agencies is that it could be the first steps toward elimnating pet ownership for many folks and the continued presence of the pure bred dog no matter what the breed. The other thing is the today show needs to win the ratings game so skip balance and fair just go with the down and dirty and not quite true. The motto currently with the media appears to be "You know if you dont have anything nice to say come say it on my show".


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In blue:

The OP linked a report wherein an AKC representative defended their system as being effective at policing.

So this brings two points to bear, by their own admission which have nothing to do with their status of profit v non profit, point 1) they have defacto admitted they DO police breeders and feel what they do is adequate, point 2) in policing breeders they are indirectly admitting there are problems.

The solutions noted thus far are legislation which probably would be onerous for ethical breeders as much if not more then the puppy millers OR the AKC could engage in raising awareness of what an ethical breeder is.

Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.

That does present conundrum for them in that they would rather just brush it under the rug.

A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles _at least appearing_ to be supporting puppy millers. 

Personally I'd rather we not have more laws. 





martemchik said:


> I love when people slam the current system...but don't have an answer for a better system. AKC is already a non-profit organization, if they were to start policing breeders that would increase their costs and cause them to increase the cost of entering trials. I think the close to $30 fee is already pushing the limit on how much people want to pay for 5 minutes of glory in the obedience ring and less than 1 minute of glory in a rally or agility competition. And yes, I know that the price is set by the club hosting the event...but they raise it accordingly with what the AKC does.
> 
> *It's the consumer's problem if they believe that AKC registered means ethical breeding practices*...but I've also seen breeders that have put on their website "AKC approved" or something of that matter. There are plenty of people out there pushing that if their dogs are AKC registered, they're doing everything right.
> 
> When I was buying my dog I knew that the only think AKC registered meant was that I'm guaranteed to have a purebred. And that's all I wanted from them.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.


We can't even agree on what a good breeder is on this board. 




Gwenhwyfair said:


> A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles _at least appearing_ to be supporting puppy millers.


No matter how sick it may make us all feel, large puppy factories like the Hunt corp are legal businesses in this country. As long as they follow the rules, maintain their records, and are approved/cleared by the USDA I am not sure what the AKC can do.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I'd like to second both gwen and lisa.

The last thing we need is a "volunteer join" organization having legislative power. And the second to last thing we need is congress discussing dog laws. All that does is promote puppy mills as I've actually heard more "bragging" about having USDA stamps on pedigrees than titles or even an AKC pedigree. Many people don't realize that USDA means the place is run like a farm and therefore probably has hundreds of animals, they just see it as "government approval."

And yeah...its funny how we can't agree on what a good breeder is and yet we expect the AKC or congress to do it for us. Thankfully I don't believe anything will ever pass...but if it did, I'd love to see the first thread that starts with, "I had a breeder picked out and the US government shut them down!"


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.
> 
> That does present conundrum for them in that they would rather just brush it under the rug.
> 
> A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles _at least appearing_ to be supporting puppy millers.


Yepyep.

Most of the dogs in my (very affluent, well educated, yuppie-ful) neighborhood are either shelter dogs or doodle mixes from "reputable breeders." There is a very broad awareness that puppy mills are bad, although most people don't really have a clear sense of what breeding practices are good. But they know that puppy mills are bad, so if they don't adopt from a shelter or rescue, they get their doodle mixes from backyard breeders who at least seem to be nice people concerned with the welfare of their pets and who know some basic stuff about dogs.

Purely as a matter of *marketing and public perception*, the AKC is going down hard, because there's also a broad public sense that AKC = puppy mill supporters. And that is really unfortunate, because there is a HUGE HUGE gap in public understanding of what an actual good breeder is, other than "not a puppy mill."

The hunger for knowledge is out there. People want to do the right thing. They want healthy, sweet-tempered, stable family pets. The AKC is doing a really bad job right now of reaching out to fill that information gap. Instead of leading with information about "here's the absolute floor on what good breeding is, here are some additional things on which reasonable people disagree, and here's why you might choose one thing or another," and making SOME effort to support rescue/condemn puppy mills -- which they can do even without crossing the aisle to mixed breeds, since there are so many breed-specific rescues out there to support -- they're just seen as stonewalling dinosaurs, even though there is a huge demand for the very information they are in a prime position to offer.

I don't think legislation is the answer, or at least not the answer that the AKC is in any position to give. I do think education is. So, basically, +1 to Gwen.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Understood however the OP's link showed puppy millers. I think in a broad sense we can (in a large percentage) agree that the dogs showed in the video would definately be bad breeders. 

The AKC (nor even laws) can completely stop bad breeding practices, but the AKC can certainly dedicate some of the budget it has set aside to pay for lawyers in fighting legislation....to educating the public about how to find a good breeder thereby using the free market to help dry up demand and lessen the need for legislation. 

What really made me step back and be willing to give the AKC some of the responsibility (not all mind you) was the way the AKCs representative tried to reassure the reporter that they do indeed police and therefore are representative of good breeding practices. That's patently false.

What the lady in the clip should have said is "We ensure that breeders are breeding purebred dogs, we verify pedigrees but we do not and cannot guarantee the health or quality of the dog."

She was implying the opposite! 

In other words they are misleading the public, lulling them into a false sense of security when the AKC emblem appears on a breeders web site or paper work.

This is why I think they could do more, _if they wanted to._



lhczth said:


> We can't even agree on what a good breeder is on this board.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joshlaska (May 2, 2013)

Metro_Mike said:


> Media Sensitization.



That is literally all that needs to be said about this.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Actually, the AKC does do kennel inspections. When they find bad conditions, they notify the police and the Humane Society. Many of the places the humane society shows when they are going off on this horrid breeder or that, came directly from the AKC blowing the whistle. 

There is no way in the world the AKC can go to every breeder out there and inspect their kennel. They generally go to the kennels who are registering a LOT of litters. They turn these kennels in, if it is warranted. 

They also fine and suspend people from AKC privilages for months or years or life. 

Are they perfect? I don't think ANY organization can claim that. 

But the AKC fights bad legislation. They fight legislation that people try to pass to ban or restrict breeds. They fight legislation that people try to pass that requires spay or neuter of all dogs from age 4 months and upwards. They fight legislation that is bad for breeders -- yes. Many of those laws that they fight will not attack the puppy mills, but your small responsible breeders that many people here claim to champion. 

No, getting an AKC registered dog does not mean the dog is quality. It should mean the dog is purebred, and even that might be dependent on the humans registering the dogs. There are many ways to cheat in any undertaking, and breeders who are small will slip between a lot of cracks. Getting a dog from a small breeder with just a few dogs/litters per year will not guaranty a quality puppy either. 

I think overall, the AKC does a lot more good for dogs than we give it credit for. I think the CGC program is highly successful. I think opening performance events to mixed breeds is a positive for dog owners as well. 

The AKC is not the American version of the SV. Not even close. It cannot be. It is an all breed registry where the SV is ONLY GSDs. The SV would be like the GSDCA if the GSDCA held their own shows -- not coupled with the AKC, maintained the stud books, and actually put requirements/standards that dogs needed to meet prior to breeding in order for the litter to be registered. At that point our dogs would not be AKC.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

This issue that I have with AKC is that, while they are just a place to register a dog, they, themselves, take on much more than that by their own account. Are they perfect? No. Could they do more? Probably.

My biggest issue has always been the idea that AKC = Good dog. AKC isn't going to do much to fight that idea because that will cost them money, and the bottom line, is money. 

/shrugs

As long as people understand that AKC doesn't promise anything...even if a dog is purebred, then whatever, I don't really care.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

GSDolch said:


> My biggest issue has always been the idea that AKC = Good dog. AKC isn't going to do much to fight that idea because that will cost them money, and the bottom line, is money.


Kind of...again, AKC is a non for profit agency. They aren't lining anyone's pockets with "earnings." They have strict rules on how much they're allowed to "save" from year to year and even that has to be used for certain things (like capital investments).

Costing them money, means costing their exhibitors money, who don't have that much to begin with. For them to increase marketing campaigns for this or that will bring up show fees (which are already quite high) and probably decrease attendance even more. As probably the most "available" venue, AKC shows are some of the "easier" ways to actually title and prove a dog's worth. You take that entry fee and make it higher...you'll see even more people not bothering with titling their dogs which is probably the last thing we want.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

My thoughts as well except one point, the AKC spends money fighting legislation rather then trying to educate.




GSDolch said:


> This issue that I have with AKC is that, while they are just a place to register a dog, they, themselves, take on much more than that by their own account. Are they perfect? No. Could they do more? Probably.
> 
> My biggest issue has always been the idea that AKC = Good dog. AKC isn't going to do much to fight that idea because that will cost them money, and the bottom line, is money.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Non profit or not is NOT germane. Non profits still make and spend money in order to survive as an organization.

So it's what they choose to spend their money on that matters here AND by whom their fiscal bread is buttered.

The AKC rep in the video flat out stated the AKC does police breeders and implied quite clearly they are doing a fine job of it.

Prior to listening to her statements I was really rather nuetral on the AKC and the issue of extremely bad breeders (as those highlighted in the vid).

It is baloney and her song and dance routine was painfully obvious. When people stutter around, get that 'deer in the head light' look when asked for some basic factual support of her premise i.e. the AKC does a good job at policing breeders then you know something is up. When people start acting like that it's a huge red flag that they are incentivized by something OTHER then what they are trying to convince us of.

In the words of Maya Angelou "When someone shows you who they really are, believe them the first time".

Well that interview showed us who the AKC really is.

All that women had to say was "We are an organization that verifies the pedigrees of purebred dogs, we do not and cannot guarantee the health and quality of the dogs".

She did not say that and you have to ask yourself why?

Furthermore why would we defend an organization on the one hand that says 'we do a good job inspecting breeders' when on the other hand we all here know that's *not* true.

If the AKC can't afford inspectors, doesn't want to get involved in inspections then they *should just say so* but that is NOT their public stance at all. Either they really do care are going to invest in helping to clean up at least the aggregious puppy mill cases OR they can just be honest and say 'that is not the purpose of our organization' They are trying to have this BOTH ways.

They are misleading the public.



martemchik said:


> Kind of...again, AKC is a non for profit agency. They aren't lining anyone's pockets with "earnings." They have strict rules on how much they're allowed to "save" from year to year and even that has to be used for certain things (like capital investments).
> 
> Costing them money, means costing their exhibitors money, who don't have that much to begin with. For them to increase marketing campaigns for this or that will bring up show fees (which are already quite high) and probably decrease attendance even more. As probably the most "available" venue, AKC shows are some of the "easier" ways to actually title and prove a dog's worth. You take that entry fee and make it higher...you'll see even more people not bothering with titling their dogs which is probably the last thing we want.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> My thoughts as well except one point, the AKC spends money fighting legislation rather then trying to educate.


Oh I have no doubt that they do that, I was just pointing out my own thoughts on the education point. I probably shoulda worded that part better.


----------



## FlyAway (Jul 17, 2012)

JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Would love to see a more European system gain some traction.


Amen!

They AKC's not perfect, but I don't like the American breeding system where there are no controls from the breed club.

But, you can't blame the AKC for puppy mill breeders. And the AKC does report these breeders to the authorities. 

I've really notice this year an increase in the AKC trying to reach out to the average person with educational materials. I receive about 5-8 publications a month from them in my email. But you have to subscribe to get them.


----------



## FlyAway (Jul 17, 2012)

Metro_Mike said:


> Media Sensitization.
> 
> The reason that inhumane breeders exist is because there is a demand for these dogs. More specifically people willing to buy dogs ignorantly without researching the breeder, inspecting the dogs themselves prior to purchase, seeing the living conditions, viewing the dams & sires for temperament and etc.


Yep, when people I work with look for a new puppy, it's either Craigslist, or the newspaper. Recently, a woman her found her dog from the paper, a MO phone number, and she met the "person" in a McDonald's parking lot. The "person" was driving a car with crates full of puppies in the back seat. 

And can you say "PetLand"?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

One - There are breeders that most people (when given a bit of education) would agree are really bad breeders. So the argument that we don't agree on what a 'good' breeder is shouldn't stand in the way of at least identifying the truly bad puppy miller types.

Two - There will always be bad people doing bad things to animals but that shouldn't stop us from taking some common sense steps to curb some of the obvious cases of what amounts to severe animal cruelty. Best way is to find ways to lessen demand.

Three - When I grew up 99% of the people I knew smoked. Dr.s used to say smoking was actually good for you and certain groups/companies were invested in promoting that idea. Think about how entrenched smoking was in our society, every restuarant and work place was grey with ciggarette smoke. As time went on and the facts became more known (through the efforts of many groups including Non profits like the Heart & Lung Association) smoking has decreased substantially in our country.

Yes some people still smoke but not nearly as many or as much as they used to. 

Same thought process could be applied here. Through diligent education of the public and groups like the AKC helping to educate people we could see a reduction in demand and people learning to be more careful when they decide to buy a pure bred dog. 

I have worked with marketing and the fact of the matter is people often need to see a message several times (some studies show 11 times on average) for a message to 'stick'. So it's not only the messaging it's how many times that information is put out there for public view.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

selzer said:


> Actually, the AKC does do kennel inspections. When they find bad conditions, they notify the police and the Humane Society. Many of the places the humane society shows when they are going off on this horrid breeder or that, came directly from the AKC blowing the whistle.
> 
> I think overall, the AKC does a lot more good for dogs than we give it credit for. I think the CGC program is highly successful. I think opening performance events to mixed breeds is a positive for dog owners as well.


I mostly agree with your points, except for two small quibbles with these two:

1. The AKC kennel inspections are, at least in certain parts of the country, not very stringent on the rare occasions that they happen at all. I don't know whether this is because the inspectors' warnings go ignored or because the inspectors are fooled by the kennel operators or because they're just genuinely not doing a good job. I have no idea what the underlying reason is.

But whatever the cause, on occasion my rescue group has gotten animals in very bad condition from kennels that were just recently inspected and given passing grades by the AKC. These dogs were in _bad_ shape, and generally as a result of chronic poor care, not potentially sudden-onset diseases like parvo. The AKC does not care if you try to register complaints about kennels they've already passed. They don't do a second investigation, they don't follow up, nothing.

Maybe it's because they just plain don't have the resources to do it; maybe it's because they write off all these complaints as coming from crank callers. Again: I don't know why. What I _do_ know is that the rescue groups who end up getting these unhealthy, unstable, undersocialized dogs, and the adopters who end up trying to rehab these animals and give them some chance at a happy life, end up having very very negative opinions of the AKC.

To echo Gwen (again!), the AKC would be much better off if they flat-out said "we're not in the business of doing inspections" than putting themselves in the position of apparently approving this kind of thing.

2. re: admitting mutts to AKC competitions... yes and no.

I run mixed-breed dogs in competition events. I don't do AKC events. The primary reason I don't do AKC events is because I'm not interested in having my dogs treated as second-class citizens (at best) or begrudgingly admitted untouchable pariahs (at worst). A lot of AKC people are actually very nice and accepting... but a lot aren't, and neither are the organizational policies.

I almost certainly _will_ do AKC events with my future dog(s), who will almost certainly be purebred(s), but starting out in mutts as I did, I'm very aware that a whole lot of mixed-breed owners have a _real_ hard grudge against the AKC for treating their dogs shabbily. And the competition people, by and large, are the serious dog owners, the ones that more casual owners turn to for advice and opinions. Their negative views influence a lot of others, particularly as many many of those casual owners start out with adopted mutts too.

My thoughts on the AKC's policies toward mutts in competition events are complicated and a little confused, but in any event I do think their current position is not helping the organization's PR very much, and is turning away at least as many mixed-breed owners as it's attracting.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Three - When I grew up 99% of the people I knew smoked. Dr.s used to say smoking was actually good for you and certain groups/companies were invested in promoting that idea. Think about how entrenched smoking was in our society, every restuarant and work place was grey with ciggarette smoke. As time went on and the facts became more known (through the efforts of many groups including Non profits like the Heart & Lung Association) smoking has decreased substantially in our country.
> 
> Yes some people still smoke but not nearly as many or as much as they used to.


Who can _afford _to smoke? $50+ for a carton of cigarrettes? I knew a lady back when I was young who did some cleaning for my mother and baby sat for my littlest sister while we were in school. She smoked 4 packs a day. 

No babysitter/temporary maid could afford to smoke 4 packs a day in these days. 

I think there is a lot less smoking out there not because of education, but because it costs too much, pure and simple.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Merciel, 
There well always be petioles who think mixes are second class dogs. Just like the old "show vs working"argument in GSDs.. But they are the exception rather than the norm. And mostly in the"conformation only"crowd. My local club has a couple of those but they also look down at purebred owners who "waste time"with any venue that isn't conformation so everyone just nods and ignores them.
In obedience, rally and agility crowds mixes are welcomed with openarms. In done cases, they outnumber the purebreds by a large margin. You aren't going to find any more p people looking down on mud than you would find walking down the street.

As for the conditions, AKC is fairly tied on what they can do with bad breeders. They can report to the authorities but until there is a legal conviction they can't sanction them. And puppy mill abuse is pretty low on the criminal radar in most of the country. There is a TON of info on how to find a good breeder. If it the AKC's fault if people don't look for it? That people even willfully ignore it? 
These are the same people who know that puppymills are bad but still buy from petstores. "the employee told me it wasn't a puppymill dog. She said puppymills are bad and they would never sell them in their store" 
We aren't blaming the HSUS because puppymills and animal abuse still exist. The AKC isn't any more to blame. AKC has a HUGE education network in the form of the local AKC clubs. They do school visits, meet the breeds workshops, fun shows, and many other outreach programs in their communities. The simple truth is, that the public opinion is what is keeping puppymills and bad breeders in business. Most buyers put more research into a new toaster than they well buying a puppy. They want it NOW and cute and cuddly are the main criteria with"cheap"coming in a close third. Or you have the opposite crowd that think "expensive"automatically means quality and they look no farther than the highest photoflash they can afford


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I used to smoke, I quit when it was .75 a pack was the last time I bought a pack....I quit because of increasing information that it was unhealthy...so cause > effect??? The campaigning against cigarrette smoking started *before* the 'sin taxes'. HOWEVER I think it fair to say the increased costs certainly helps deter people from picking up the habit casually....

And ( I thought of this when I made that post..  )

*Usually* it does cost more to buy a dog from a good breeder that does health testing and is involved in showing or dog sports. I see the ads all the time 'purebred AKC puppies with papers', $250.

I bet you don't charge $250 for your dogs!

So the cost factor is already built in. Now what is needed is the public understand that the AKC does not really police breeders. That, for instance, YOUR AKC puppies are very different from a puppy mill AKC puppy.

The AKC rep in the video said they have ONLY 9 inspectors total. For all breeds for the entire U.S. 




selzer said:


> Who can _afford _to smoke? $50+ for a carton of cigarrettes? I knew a lady back when I was young who did some cleaning for my mother and baby sat for my littlest sister while we were in school. She smoked 4 packs a day.
> 
> No babysitter/temporary maid could afford to smoke 4 packs a day in these days.
> 
> I think there is a lot less smoking out there not because of education, but because it costs too much, pure and simple.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Dainerra said:


> In obedience, rally and agility crowds mixes are welcomed with openarms. In done cases, they outnumber the purebreds by a large margin. You aren't going to find any more p people looking down on mud than you would find walking down the street.


This may vary by region.

In my area (we do competitions within about a two-hour drive from Philly, so that is approximately the NYC-Harrisburg-Baltimore triangle), we're often the only mutt team at the event. It doesn't _matter_ -- we've never been made to feel anything less than totally welcome at any non-AKC event -- but at no sport event I've ever attended have purebreds been outnumbered by mixed breeds. More often it's 80-90% purebreds to 10-20% mixes.

And that's not really surprising, since the usual trajectory (as far as I've observed, which, again, may vary by region) seems to be [owner adopts mixed-breed dog] --> [owner gets involved in dog sports] --> [owner gets REALLY HOOKED on dog sports] --> [owner gets new dog from a lineage that has the potential to be REALLY REALLY GOOD at dog sports].

So most people who have been doing this seriously for a while have dogs selected for that sport. It's why you see so many border collies at agility events: most competitors are not on their first dogs, and lots of them gravitate toward border collies after that first dog retires. Likewise for the "obedience breeds" at those events. If you see someone with a mixed breed, at least in my area, there's a better-than-50% chance that you're seeing a relative newcomer to the sport.

Sorry, that's a bit of a tangent. But I've never been to a sport event that had a majority of mutts. I'm sure they exist -- I know in flyball there are entire teams of crossbreds -- but I've never personally seen one. And I've very definitely gotten the cold shoulder at some AKC events, as have other competitors I know. I'm not saying it's usual, or that there aren't great people in the AKC. I'm just saying that their events can be a mixed bag sometimes, and it leaves a lasting bad taste in the mouths of people who are generally the exact ones you want to recruit. If that's changing, awesome. It's certainly my intention to help push the change once I start doing those events. But I'll be doing it because I love the sports and want to see them thrive and bring new people in.

re: the AKC and what they can do to bring charges -- I know. They _are_ very limited, and it's not easy to bring those charges or make them stick. My day job is as a prosecutor, one of my main "hobbies" (if you can call it that) is dog rescue, I'm painfully aware of how difficult cruelty cases can be to put together and how feeble the penalties can be even when you win a conviction. It's a very frustrating situation on a lot of levels.

I think it's great that the AKC does education and outreach. But I also think it really undercuts their message and their credibility that they lend the "AKC" stamp to known puppy millers, pass some truly lousy kennels on inspection, accept dodgy registrations, and so forth. Because they have an obvious financial incentive to look the other way and pocket registration fees from millers, they need to be extra careful about guarding their public image against such easy accusations of venality -- and they aren't.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

From:American Kennel Club - Investigations and Inspections Department. I don't know, but 45,000 kennel inspections over a 12 year span does seem like they are not exactly doing nothing. I know someone who has passed their inspections many times, so it does happen. They will call in the authorities for major problems. 

*AKC Inspections Fact Sheet*

The AKC is the only purebred registry in the United States with an ongoing routine kennel inspection program. The AKC has a dedicated team of field inspectors who visit kennels to help breeders while ensuring the proper care and conditions of AKC-registered dogs and verify that breeders are maintaining accurate records for their dogs. Since 2000, AKC field inspectors have conducted over 45,000 inspections nationwide.
*Investigations and Inspections*











Routine AKC field inspections involve several steps. Field agents begin every visit with a tour of the overall facility checking that the dogs as well as the condition of their environment are in good order. Field agents also check the dogs for proper identification, microchip, tattoo or collar tag.
After a thorough look at the dogs the field agent will review the breeder’s records, often advising the breeder with options on how to maintain hard copies in addition to using the convenient AKC online record system. Breeders are expected to maintain records for at least five years.
AKC randomly selects breeders for inspection yearly. In addition, to the random selection AKC inspects breeders based on written, signed and substantiated complaints.
Through kennel visits, inspectors seek to work with breeders to help correct any deficiencies, as well as help new breeders develop effective practices and procedures.
If an inspector finds minor deficiencies, the issues are noted and discussed with the breeder in an effort to help the breeder while at the same time meeting AKC’s requirements in the future. While the AKC does not have penal or regulatory authority, breeders who have major kennel deficiencies may lose AKC privileges (ability to register dogs or compete in events). In some cases, fines will be imposed, AKC privileges may be suspended and appropriate law enforcement authorities contacted.
The standard penalty for anyone convicted of animal cruelty involving dogs is a 10-year suspension and a $2,000 fine.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

Many, if not most puppy mills (commercial breeders) do not use AKC as their registry. When AKC implemented thier DNA testing for stud dogs that have sired 7 or more litters, the puppy millers started their own registries. Here in the midwest it is the American Pet Dog Breeders. In other areas the ACA is more common. Those breeders are not inspected by AKC because their dogs are not registered with AKC. They are usually inspected by the USDA, if they are inspected at all.


----------



## Debbieg (Jun 7, 2009)

I think the AKC is doing a good job at what it is supposed to be doing and people are expecting it to be doing what is was never created to do, ensure everyones get a healthy well bred pure bred dog from a knowledgeable and responsible breeder.

I think the media, perhaps funded by HSUS , is trying to smear AKC.

As buyers we need to do our research and support the breeders who breed what we are looking for. We can't expect AKC to do that for us. If people stopped buying from puppy mills they would cease to exist,


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

You are basing this on what information though?

We talk about it all the time on this board and see it IRL, AKC does not = good breeding practices.

Where the AKC shoots itself in the foot is saying they DO police breeders *while* fighting against legislative efforts to put puppy millers out of existence. This is per their own admission.


That equals a *huge* fail.



Debbieg said:


> I think the AKC is doing a good job at what it is supposed to be doing and people are expecting it to be doing what is was never created to do, ensure everyones get a healthy well bred pure bred dog from a knowledgeable and responsible breeder.
> 
> I think the media, perhaps funded by HSUS , is trying to smear AKC.
> 
> As buyers we need to do our research and support the breeders who breed what we are looking for. We can't expect AKC to do that for us. If people stopped buying from puppy mills they would cease to exist,


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Merciel said:


> This may vary by region.
> 
> And that's not really surprising, since the usual trajectory (as far as I've observed, which, again, may vary by region) seems to be [owner adopts mixed-breed dog] --> [owner gets involved in dog sports] --> [owner gets REALLY HOOKED on dog sports] --> [owner gets new dog from a lineage that has the potential to be REALLY REALLY GOOD at dog sports].
> 
> ...


Actually, when the ability came for mixed breeds to compete all of the people I know ran out to register their dogs and start working towards titles. They bring along their purebreds as well as their mixes. You might see someone with several dogs in each class - some pure, some mix.

Our main trainer at the club competes with her mix, Ruger, as well as her GSD. Another member is in collies but also competes with her mixed breeds. Another member has 1 purebred and several rescues.

As for guarding the public image, that would be next to impossible seeing as who it is doing the tarnishing. The HSUS and PETA are doing the same thing to all breeders and going after the AKC is just them going for the jugular. 
They really CAN'T tell puppymillers that they won't register their dogs unless they completely rewrite the constitution of the AKC and outlaw people who register more than X number of dogs per year. As someone else posted, they actually lost many of the puppymills when they implemented the DNA testing.

Also, the biggest selling point to some people is "USDA inspected" because they think that means that the breeder is the best of the best.
Missouri even has a state program called "blue ribbon kennel"
Blue Ribbon Kennel Program People locally brag if they buy a puppy from a kennel with this program. They are actually stunned to learn that only puppymills are required to abide by state and/or federal inspections from the Agriculture Depts.
Instead of saying "OMG I didn't know that" I've actually had people come away with the idea that puppymills must not be as bad as everyone claims if the state inspects them


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Inspections as per "their" report and Merciel has noted from rescue(s) (and I've heard this from other sources as well) that are later discovered to be inadequate inspections at best....

Personally I think the AKC either needs to ramp up and be serious about inspections (c'mon 9 people for all breeds in the entire U.S.?)

Or they should just be honest and say that is not their purpose, and really that's fine. They don't HAVE to be the breed police. It's their choice BUT to do this half way sorta kinda pretend thing is misleading to the public and frankly...it could eventually backfire and besmirch good breeders too. Just sayin....




selzer said:


> From:American Kennel Club - Investigations and Inspections Department. I don't know, but 45,000 kennel inspections over a 12 year span does seem like they are not exactly doing nothing. I know someone who has passed their inspections many times, so it does happen. They will call in the authorities for major problems.
> 
> *AKC Inspections Fact Sheet*
> 
> ...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

The do fight poor legislation. Legislation that does not even target puppy millers, but is put forth as a puppy mill bill. In Ohio, the bill they were fighting had included such things as all dogs wearing a collar and license at ALL times. That has nothing to do with puppy mills, as they are listed as a kennel under section whatever. What it means is for you and me to have our dogs collars/licenses on at all times. Even in our own homes, even in their crates, or while playing with other dogs on our property. 

Not having a license affixed to a dog is considered evidence that the dog is not licensed so it can be taken, sold or destroyed. 

Yes I do want the AKC to fight BAD legislation hiding under PETA/HSUS driven puppy mill garbage.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> You are basing this on what information though?
> 
> We talk about it all the time on this board and see it IRL, AKC does not = good breeding practices.
> 
> ...


Except that they DO police breeders as much as possible. They can't hire enough inspectors to visit every single breeder. 
And most of that legislation won't do a single thing against puppy mills. In honesty, the majority of them would do more to PROMOTE puppy mill practices. No breeding in your homes. No raising puppies as part of the family. The list goes on and on. 
THAT is the type of legislation that they are fighting. You won't see any reputable breeders supporting breeding legislation. They are the ones out there in the trenches fighting against government rules. Remember, the basic puppy mill setup has the USDA stamp of approval. Dogs raised as livestock in tiny cages is what they are fighting against.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

This is my honest noob question: why doesn't the UKC seem to have these issues?

Is it just because it's a smaller registry and lower profile, so the millers don't think it's worth getting UKC papers because they can't charge clueless buyers more for that?

Is it because the UKC actually does a better job of policing registrations? If so, is there anything in their approach that the AKC could borrow? Why/why not?

I'm _really_ new to purebreds so the answer to these questions might be some real big obvious "dur" thing, but I genuinely don't know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Very cool, a lawyer agrees with me!  (I'm not a lawyer, loved studying law in college as a minor, wish I had persued it further!).





Merciel said:


> <snipped>
> 
> re: the AKC and what they can do to bring charges -- I know. They _are_ very limited, and it's not easy to bring those charges or make them stick. My day job is as a prosecutor, one of my main "hobbies" (if you can call it that) is dog rescue, I'm painfully aware of how difficult cruelty cases can be to put together and how feeble the penalties can be even when you win a conviction. It's a very frustrating situation on a lot of levels.
> 
> I think it's great that the AKC does education and outreach. But I also think it really undercuts their message and their credibility that they lend the "AKC" stamp to known puppy millers, pass some truly lousy kennels on inspection, accept dodgy registrations, and so forth. Because they have an obvious financial incentive to look the other way and pocket registration fees from millers, they need to be extra careful about guarding their public image against such easy accusations of venality -- and they aren't.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

If they can't hire enough inspectors then they should just wash their hands of it. Per the AKC rep on the video she states they are doing a good job and clearly they aren't. That is very misleading.

So they need to make up their mind, either really go all in and really 'vet' breeders or just tell it like it is, not pander to a false image that they themselves are propagating.

The irony here is the more the AKC does this smoke and mirrors dance with inspections the more likely there is to be legislative efforts down the road. 

I don't know if you read my earlier posts but I don't want more laws put in place and I explained why.




Dainerra said:


> Except that they DO police breeders as much as possible. They can't hire enough inspectors to visit every single breeder.
> And most of that legislation won't do a single thing against puppy mills. In honesty, the majority of them would do more to PROMOTE puppy mill practices. No breeding in your homes. No raising puppies as part of the family. The list goes on and on.
> THAT is the type of legislation that they are fighting. You won't see any reputable breeders supporting breeding legislation. They are the ones out there in the trenches fighting against government rules. Remember, the basic puppy mill setup has the USDA stamp of approval. Dogs raised as livestock in tiny cages is what they are fighting against.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Inspections as per "their" report and Merciel has noted from rescue(s) (and I've heard this from other sources as well) that are later discovered to be inadequate inspections at best....
> 
> Personally I think the AKC either needs to ramp up and be serious about inspections (c'mon 9 people for all breeds in the entire U.S.?)
> 
> Or they should just be honest and say that is not their purpose, and really that's fine. They don't HAVE to be the breed police. It's their choice BUT to do this half way sorta kinda pretend thing is misleading to the public and frankly...it could eventually backfire and besmirch good breeders too. Just sayin....


How long does it take to get a dog to go from looking adequately cared for to look chronically uncared for? One person says a kennel that passed AKC inspection -- when? How long before. Were all those dogs present when the AKC inspected? How do we know all this? Should we crucify the AKC because we have one report from a biased (rescue) source? 

It is true, the general public is ignorant about some of the things that breeders understand/ people on this site generally understand. USDA inspected is NOT a sign of a good breeder. It is in fact a sign of a breeder who breeds tons of dogs and none of the pups are raised in the house. It is determined that if the dogs are given the sanitation, food, water, and space required for livestock to survive, then the inspection will pass. If the amount of fecies present is less than grusome, they will pass. If the dogs do not look like dying yet, they will pass. 

The AKC and I think the UKC are the ONLY other people doing inspections on breeders until the authorities are called in. The AKC is a registry. They do inspect kennels, and they do fine and ban people for failing to maintain their property and dogs to an acceptible level. 

Lastly, we have a breed that has many issues. That is a fact. How many people here have concerns about skinny dogs/dogs with GI issues, dogs with skin conditions, dogs with hip or other structural issues, dogs with cancer? It is not possible for people with a number of dogs to not have issues here and there. And they do not all rush to euthanizing a critter right off, some do try to manage the problem with appropriate veterinary care. But there it is a dog that looks chronically thin or like it is in pain. If someone raids a kennel and pulls out dogs that are thin or have skin or structural problems and they land in a rescue then suddenly it is the AKCs fault? I don't think so.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

They are going to play right into PETAs hands if they keep this song and dance up. Which is what *I mentioned earlier*. It's called guilt by association.

With respect, specifically to the AKC and policing breeders, they are shooting themselves in the foot and yes we may well all pay for it with more laws. I'm just the messenger here..keep that in mind. Just calling it like I see it.



selzer said:


> The do fight poor legislation. Legislation that does not even target puppy millers, but is put forth as a puppy mill bill. In Ohio, the bill they were fighting had included such things as all dogs wearing a collar and license at ALL times. That has nothing to do with puppy mills, as they are listed as a kennel under section whatever. What it means is for you and me to have our dogs collars/licenses on at all times. Even in our own homes, even in their crates, or while playing with other dogs on our property.
> 
> Not having a license affixed to a dog is considered evidence that the dog is not licensed so it can be taken, sold or destroyed.
> 
> Yes I do want the AKC to fight BAD legislation hiding under PETA/HSUS driven puppy mill garbage.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No one is crucifying the AKC.

Stating that they are taking a bad course of action is NOT crucifying them Selzer and I know you're smart enough to know that.

I don't understand why you would be so invested in defending them on this particular front (breeder policing) given that when they allow bad breeders to blithely go on it will sully the reputation of all AKC breeders.

I have nothing invested in this EITHER way except to look at it objectively based on the information presented by the AKC rep in the video.

You are invested in this but I think you are generalizing the comments criticizing the AKC on this front.




selzer said:


> How long does it take to get a dog to go from looking adequately cared for to look chronically uncared for? One person says a kennel that passed AKC inspection -- when? How long before. Were all those dogs present when the AKC inspected? How do we know all this? Should we crucify the AKC because we have one report from a biased (rescue) source?
> 
> It is true, the general public is ignorant about some of the things that breeders understand/ people on this site generally understand. USDA inspected is NOT a sign of a good breeder. It is in fact a sign of a breeder who breeds tons of dogs and none of the pups are raised in the house. It is determined that if the dogs are given the sanitation, food, water, and space required for livestock to survive, then the inspection will pass. If the amount of fecies present is less than grusome, they will pass. If the dogs do not look like dying yet, they will pass.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Also, the USDA has been brought up a couple of times.

Whether the USDA is doing a good job or not doesn't pertain to what the AKC does or does not do nor what the AKC states it's purpose is.

If the AKC states that part of their mission is policing the breeders who register through them they either need to invest the time and money into doing that (processes, documentation and inspectors) OR just be a breed registry and show organization and be honest about it.

I don't like this 'keeping their cake and eating it too' song and dance they have going on. It really doesn't help anyone. 

It doesn't help ethical breeders, it doesn't help the AKCs image in the long run, it does a disservice to the general public as well.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I don't see what, exactly, the AKC is supposedly doing wrong? Some kennels may not have been inspected? Or perhaps they went downhill since their last inspection? There will never be 100% coverage. It can't be done

Should they follow the politically safe route and support bad legislation just so it looks like they are doing something? After all, that is how many laws get passed isn't it? Better to do something, even if it is the wrong thing, than to have people think you aren't doing anything?

They have the full support of all the breeders I've talked to regarding fighting this type of legislation. Even on this forum, the over-whelming majority have spoken out about the need to fight government regulation of breeding. Government regulation means that there must be cookie-cutter set-ups - concrete and wire kennels instead of living rooms and carpets. 

There is no need to "play into the hands" of the HSUS. They and PETA are well-known for falsifying reports


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

except the AKC can't sanction breeders who aren't legally doing anything wrong. They turn kennels with bad conditions over to the proper authorities. When/if they are convicted, AKC can suspend their ability to register dogs with AKC. 

That is where the USDA comes in. The legislation that the AKC fights is to keep small hobby breeders like Selzer and the others that we support from having to follow those same USDA rules. In essence, only puppy mills would exist with the different proposed laws.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

fwiw, in the incident I was talking about, it wasn't a raid. The guy couldn't sell his puppies while they were young and cute, so once they were big gawky adolescents (and undersocialized, and sick, and riddled with worms, and so on and so forth) he dumped them into rescue.

I don't know if those dogs were on the premises when the AKC inspector passed through. The ones I was originally talking about were large-breed dogs (Great Danes, iirc, and the whole litter was blue-eyed mostly white ones at that -- you could tell just by looking at them that the parents probably shouldn't have been bred, even apart from all the other health issues), but I imagine it's still pretty easy to hide sick dogs or clean them up if you know the inspector's coming. Like I said, I just don't have enough information to say why that particular kennel passed inspection -- we all know that unscrupulous breeders can clean up their operations to look "good enough" when they're expecting a puppy buyer to visit.

But the dogs were in bad shape when the guy dumped them. That I can say for sure. And the AKC was not interested in going back to re-examine the kennel when the receiving rescue called in a complaint.

I think the copy-pasted page upthread goes a long way toward explaining why, though. It was a phone call complaint, not a written/signed/"substantiated" one. So maybe that's the whole story right there: the AKC didn't have enough substantiation to send one of their 9 inspectors out when they didn't know for sure that it wasn't a crank call, and the rescue surely didn't have the time or manpower to do the paperwork for uncertain results, given that the guy had already passed inspection at least once.

So nothing happens and bad feelings result.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The AKC is at best implying that AKC breeders are *mostly* ethical and possibly at worse indicating that they effectively policing breeders. That is misleading the public and that is wrong.

It's bad enough people already have the perception that the AKC is akin to a guarantee of quality the least the AKC could do is educate the public that isn't true.

and ironically I'm going to an AKC show tomorrow with a friend who will be getting back into showing (toy group.... :crazy: :laugh Nah I don't think the AKC is all bad but boy O boy that lady in the video clearly showed that at the very least the AKC is dancing around what could potentially become a big problem for them.....public perception backfiring.



Dainerra said:


> I don't see what, exactly, the AKC is supposedly doing wrong? Some kennels may not have been inspected? Or perhaps they went downhill since their last inspection? There will never be 100% coverage. It can't be done
> 
> Should they follow the politically safe route and support bad legislation just so it looks like they are doing something? After all, that is how many laws get passed isn't it? Better to do something, even if it is the wrong thing, than to have people think you aren't doing anything?
> 
> ...


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I disagree. I think that inspecting 4500 kennels is better than inpecting no kennels. 

I think that conditions are only one thing they look at. They look at ensuring the dogs are properly identified and the paperwork is correct. Because what they are is a registry. 

But they have also cancelled the registration of many dogs due to DNA coming back and not being correct. They do contact the authorities when they see criminal activity that is not in the interest of dogs. 

I am defending the AKC because I really do not see them as the enemy. They will never be a breed club. I do not want a system like Germany. Has the German system wiped out hip or elbow dysplasia? Has the German system provided only perfect temperament? Does the German system ensure that no dogs are living in filthy disgusting conditions? I think it is no on all counts. I think they do what they think is best and that is good. I think the AKC also gives us quite a lot of bang for our buck. 

That is just my opinion. No one has to agree with me. I will continue to support the AKC. It's the only thing we have of any scale that can try to go up against PETA and HSUS.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

Dainerra said:


> There will never be 100% coverage. It can't be done



You're right, it can't be done 100%, but my personal opinion is that AKC is making it out that they are doing more than they really are.

Perhaps its due to area, I don't know, but I can name 10 "breeders" off the top of my head who sell their AKC dogs at the flea market and have never heard one word from AKC on any front except for money wise, in the past 30 years of their breeding. You'd think AKC would at least ONCE do an inspection? Nope, nada..and one of these breeders is a puppy mill big time, with 100 plus dogs. Heck, the animal control in her town wont even do anything about it because there is no limit, and they all have food, water and shelter. No license is required, and the only shot required is rabies. I even contacted AKC once, and pretty much got the generic corporate BS run around about it.

I don't think AKC is doing anything "wrong" per say, but I do believe that they either need to live up better to what they say they do, or be honest about what they really do. /shrugs just my .02


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

GSDolch said:


> You're right, it can't be done 100%, but my personal opinion is that AKC is making it out that they are doing more than they really are.
> 
> Perhaps its due to area, I don't know, but I can name 10 "breeders" off the top of my head who sell their AKC dogs at the flea market and have never heard one word from AKC on any front except for money wise, in the past 30 years of their breeding. You'd think AKC would at least ONCE do an inspection? Nope, nada..and one of these breeders is a puppy mill big time, with 100 plus dogs. Heck, the animal control in her town wont even do anything about it because there is no limit, and they all have food, water and shelter. No license is required, and the only shot required is rabies. I even contacted AKC once, and pretty much got the generic corporate BS run around about it.
> 
> I don't think AKC is doing anything "wrong" per say, but I do believe that they either need to live up better to what they say they do, or be honest about what they really do. /shrugs just my .02


Is there a law that says you cannot sell them at flea-markets? Is that an AKC rule? If it isn't than what the AKC is going to do when they get complaints about people selling them at flea markets is tell them that that is not an infraction. 

But if you know of a puppy mill that is selling AKC puppies in your area that has not been inspected, and you have seen infractions of conditions or anything else that would be a concern of the AKC, have you sent in a complaint?

Just having a lot of dogs does not automatically mean you are criminally neglecting or abusing them. 

Are you on first name basis with these people? Would they tell you if they have been inspected and by whom? Or do you think the AKC would shut them down if they saw the place, and they are still in business, so the AKC must never have shown up.

If not, than it is like a group of people hanging around and everyone saying, something ought to be done, and no one actually doing anything.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The AKC is at best implying that AKC breeders are *mostly* ethical and possibly at worse indicating that they effectively policing breeders. That is misleading the public and that is wrong.
> 
> .



Actually, I agree. I think that breeders are MOSTLY ethical. Just like people are MOSTLY good and honest. Yes, there are vile horrible people in the world. And there are lying dishonest breeders. We all know about them because they are the ones that make the news. They are the ones that the AR groups like to trot out in their ads and videos. But what actual percentage of dog breeders in the US do they make up? I would bet that the percentage is in the single digits. Even with hundreds or thousands of puppy mills, not all of them are going to be making headlines for horrible conditions. 
Yes, *WE* know that there is no such thing as a "good" puppy mill. But most of them are well within accepted guidelines of the USDA which means that there is nothing that AKC can do about them. Their job is to make sure that the paperwork is in order and that they aren't lying about which dog is the father of the litter. 
I don't think it is misleading at all. I think that it is exactly what they do. They inspect what breeders they can. They report anyone that they find that has horrid conditions to the proper authorities. Then, until there is a conviction, they are pretty much out of options.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

GSDolch said:


> Perhaps its due to area, I don't know, but I can name 10 "breeders" off the top of my head who sell their AKC dogs at the flea market and have never heard one word from AKC on any front except for money wise, in the past 30 years of their breeding. You'd think AKC would at least ONCE do an inspection? Nope, nada..and one of these breeders is a puppy mill big time, with 100 plus dogs. Heck, the animal control in her town wont even do anything about it because there is no limit, and they all have food, water and shelter. No license is required, and the only shot required is rabies. I even contacted AKC once, and pretty much got the generic corporate BS run around about it.


I'm with Selzer. What do you want the AKC to do? You say that they have been inspected by local Animal Control. All the dogs have food, water, and shelter. They have the vaccines required by law. 
AKC is the official club of America, actually the only internationally recognized one. They have to abide by the rules that are set forth - make sure that the paperwork is in order. 
Legally, there is no law that says you can't sell at flea markets or local authorities would have stopped them. They aren't being cruel or abusive to the dogs. Animal Control has inspected them.
You say you called and complained. I wonder how many phone calls they get every day about situations like this? You couldn't followup with proof that they were doing anything wrong. You had no claim of fraudulent paperwork. You say yourself that they were cleared by animal control. Did you expect AKC to drop everything and send an inspector immediately because you feel that they have too many dogs? If that was all that it took, we could have the puppy mills out of business by next weekend.

I'm not sure exactly what everyone wants AKC to do about puppy mills? They can't just kick them all out because, legally, they have done nothing wrong. They do inspections, just like they say they do. They sanction people who break the rules or who have animal related convictions. I don't know see where they aren't doing exactly what they say that they do?
They work to educate the public about dogs in general. They fight BSL and mandatory spay/neuter laws. They put on dog shows and keep the paperwork straight for the millions of purebred dogs in America. They inspect kennels, maybe not all of them but they do inspections. People in violation are sanctioned and, if necessary, they contact local authorities.

I'm just really tired of the "Us vs Them"' attitude. Instead of attacking the AKC, perhaps AR groups should work with them. Help with your local kennel clubs events to educate the public about good dogs and good breeders. Instead of attacking AKC for not closing down puppy mills that are perfectly legal, work at home to get zoning changed or whatever is necessary to improve conditions. 
It all comes down to this - puppy mills exist because the public WANTS them to exist. Just as factory farms exist because the public WANTS them. They want to be able to walk into the store and pick up the first cute puppy that catches their eye and swipe their credit card. They want cheap food right now and meat on the table every day. They pay lip service to "animal rights" and "puppy mills are bad" yet they turn around and support them every day with their money.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

*https://www.facebook.com/dogbreedersagainsttoday*



there is a facebook group, dog breeders against the today show, calling for NBC to tell the other side of the story.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I think that this thread http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...ando-cbs-investigates-national-charities.html has a lot of parallel with the AKC controversy.

We have humane groups pointing the finger at AKC yet they have their own dirty little secrets. They rely on people's belief that donating money to the ASPCA will help their local shelter when that is very rarely the case.


----------



## volcano (Jan 14, 2013)

Im no fan of akc, the show people look like weirdos to me. Im happy with my Czech line pup, akc made my breeder do a dna test because they didnt accept the Euro pedigree. Get real with the bs akc crap breeding ethics...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'd rather stick to the more black and white side of this else it gets mucked up with strawman arguments.

The AKC, in the video linked, clearly was defending *THEIR* role of policing breeders. That's what caused me to take the position I did on this issue, their OWN words.

In response people have put forth the following arguments: They can't afford to police breeders, it's not their job to police breeders, the USDA isn't doing a good job either.

None of that has anything to do with the fact the the AKC, from their very own Reps mouth has assumed the mantle of making sure breeders are ethical and producing healthy dogs.

The fact remains they have *ONLY 9 inspectors* for the entire U.S. all breeds, per the AKC rep. 

It is therefore *very* resonable to conclude based on the information provided BY the AKC that they simply cannot and are not policing AKC breeders to the extent they would have us believe.

Now in some circles that's called fraud.

They can lead on this issue or they can just get out of the inspection business all together but to try to ignore reality will probably end up backfiring on them.



Dainerra said:


> Actually, I agree. I think that breeders are MOSTLY ethical. Just like people are MOSTLY good and honest. Yes, there are vile horrible people in the world. And there are lying dishonest breeders. We all know about them because they are the ones that make the news. They are the ones that the AR groups like to trot out in their ads and videos. But what actual percentage of dog breeders in the US do they make up? I would bet that the percentage is in the single digits. Even with hundreds or thousands of puppy mills, not all of them are going to be making headlines for horrible conditions.
> Yes, *WE* know that there is no such thing as a "good" puppy mill. But most of them are well within accepted guidelines of the USDA which means that there is nothing that AKC can do about them. Their job is to make sure that the paperwork is in order and that they aren't lying about which dog is the father of the litter.
> I don't think it is misleading at all. I think that it is exactly what they do. They inspect what breeders they can. They report anyone that they find that has horrid conditions to the proper authorities. Then, until there is a conviction, they are pretty much out of options.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm going to be heading out at 11:00 for the AKC show. I'll keep my ears open for any buzz on this at the show.

In the meantime we human beans...oh my gosh. Rather then working together to educate people to make things better in an impefect world, we would rather gather in our tribal circles and fight against each other.

Really I just don't get what is so wrong with the AKC being honest about what they can and cannot do.... using some of their resources to help educate people about better puppy buying decisions. 

They have a conflict of interest here and it's because they are not being incentivized for the right reasons.






Dainerra said:


> *https://www.facebook.com/dogbreedersagainsttoday*
> 
> 
> 
> there is a facebook group, dog breeders against the today show, calling for NBC to tell the other side of the story.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

selzer said:


> Is there a law that says you cannot sell them at flea-markets? Is that an AKC rule? If it isn't than what the AKC is going to do when they get complaints about people selling them at flea markets is tell them that that is not an infraction.


You missed my point completely and I find is amusing that THAT is the point you want to harp on.



> But if you know of a puppy mill that is selling AKC puppies in your area that has not been inspected, and you have seen infractions of conditions or anything else that would be a concern of the AKC, have you sent in a complaint?


Please re read, specifically where I mention that they didn't really care about the complaint.



> Just having a lot of dogs does not automatically mean you are criminally neglecting or abusing them.


I don't believe I said that, I did mention the amount of dogs that the woman I knew personally had.



> Are you on first name basis with these people? Would they tell you if they have been inspected and by whom? Or do you think the AKC would shut them down if they saw the place, and they are still in business, so the AKC must never have shown up.


Yes I know them personally...Or did, I cut off contact with them and no longer speak to them. I see them still, but ignore them now. Yes, I was told personally that they had never been inspected and the only time they had contact with AKC was in regards to money or getting puppy papers. Yes, the AKC would shut them down, the county wont because the only law is food, water, shelter, yearly rabies. I walked in one of her rooms and it was crates stacked on crates covered in feces and her response to when I asked if one of them had been let out was "um, yesterday or the day before I think." But hey! Food water and shelter....so its OK...welcome to my neck of the woods. Yes, they do still breed dogs. Last time I saw her she had 7 different breeds she was breeding at that time.



> If not, than it is like a group of people hanging around and everyone saying, something ought to be done, and no one actually doing anything.


I thought I made if clear in that post that I knew and did something...I will try to make it more clear next time.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

I think the issue that both qwen and I have, isn't that the AKC is bad, its not that we have something against breeders. Its that the AKC is making it sound like they do more than they really do. It's misleading IMO.


----------



## Muneraven (Sep 4, 2012)

I think much of this is due to the AKC not always being forthright about its own limitations. People want to believe that there is some organization that oversees breeders like a god, and the AKC has kind of been happy to let that perception ride because it suited their purposes. Letting people believe your organization is always in control and THE authority at all times keeps competitors at bay. But when you do that, you set yourself up for a big fall because of course the AKC is not omniscient and cannot make sure every breeder is behaving properly.

I think this story was a good thing. It forced the AKC to be honest about realistic expectations for any dog breeding organization, something they should have done more forcefully before someone took a poke at them.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

volcano said:


> Im no fan of akc, the show people look like weirdos to me. Im happy with my Czech line pup, akc made my breeder do a dna test because they didnt accept the Euro pedigree. Get real with the bs akc crap breeding ethics...


Uhm, there is specific requirements when you import a dog and want to register it with the AKC. You have to provide the papers from the foreign registry, a couple of specific photographs, and the DNA swab. I cannot remember if there is more than that. I had to do more because I was bringing in a bitch who was bred. Mine was from Germany. To get her registered AKC, I had to send in the DNA swab. It is not because the AKC does not trust the Czech registry. It is their practive for _any _foreign registry.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Dainerra said:


> I think that this thread http://www.germanshepherds.com/foru...ando-cbs-investigates-national-charities.html has a lot of parallel with the AKC controversy.
> 
> We have humane groups pointing the finger at AKC yet they have their own dirty little secrets. They rely on people's belief that donating money to the ASPCA will help their local shelter when that is very rarely the case.


At least donating the the ASPCA will probably help dogs somewhere -- mostly in NY where they have their main shelter. Donating to HSUS and PETA does not help dogs at all, actually a good case can be made for the opposite being true. 

PETA likens the AKC to the KKK or the Hitler. And yet the AKC is not practicing genocide, when in fact PETA kills a lot of dogs -- they are perhaps projecting. I don't know. But the media has taken a highly charged article and run with it, promoting what these extremists what to portray. 

And we are fighting about whether or not the AKC does enough. I think the AKC has a budget, and some of that budget funded 45000 kennel inspections, part of that budget is used to maintain the stud books, part of that budget is used to lobby against bad canine legislation, part of that budget is used to educate people about dogs, dog ownership, dog training, dog everything. And they try to stay within a reasonable cost to breeders and exhibitors, so as not to discourage people from showing and registering litters with the AKC. 

If you tally up what these other groups spend the massive amounts of money they draw in each year, after specifically targeting elderly people and pet owners by fraudulently showing them photos of dogs in awful conditions, with the suggestion that the money would be used to help those dogs or others like them, when that is the farthest from the truth. 

I can't hate the AKC. But I can hate PETA and HSUS. The AKC does not need puppy mills to survive, but HSUS and PETA actually do. They need those pictures of dogs suffering to guilt people into sending them money. They are evil. One more evil that people call good. They are not pressing congress to pass bills to eliminate the sales of puppies through pet stores, because pet stores are supplied by puppy mills, and puppy mills fuel the machine for them. IF all the puppy mills went out of business, all the people drawing salaries from these extremist organizations would be laid off. And they do not want that. They want the puppy mills, and this is why most of the bills that they try to push congress to pass target the mid-range breeders, and not puppy mills. 

But whatever, lets continue hating the AKC because that does so much for us.


----------



## Muneraven (Sep 4, 2012)

I don't think the AKC is evil. Too big for their britches, maybe, and now they've been taken down a notch. 

PETA though? Before I heard anything concretely negative about them I didn't trust them because I do not trust ANY sort of organization that smells like a cult to me . . .and oh boy does PETA smell to high heaven of cult. Big, emotional marketing pitches, extreme portrayals of the "enemy" as totally evil, using blood and sex to sell their cause, and, of course $$$$$ at the center of it all. I don't drink that sort of kool-aid, man. 

I support small, local no-kill shelters where I can see the real people working to make a difference locally . . .the ones doing it because they love animals plain and simple.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I'm going to be heading out at 11:00 for the AKC show. I'll keep my ears open for any buzz on this at the show.


How'd it go?

Also I didn't quote the rest of your post but of course I agree entirely. 



selzer said:


> And we are fighting about whether or not the AKC does enough.


No, we're arguing about whether the AKC is being _sufficiently honest_ about representing what it can and can't do.

Nobody is arguing (that I've seen) that the AKC is not doing enough, given the constraints of its budgets and manpower. What people _are_ arguing is that it would be far better for its public image -- and far more honest -- if the organization acknowledged that what it can do is very limited, instead of trying to further the false (and very easily disproven) notion that it's an effective nationwide guardian of humane practices.

Also I haven't seen anyone in this thread holding up HSUS or PETA as in any way morally better. Among on-the-ground rescuers, there's not a lot of love for either organization. The rescue I used to work with got directly screwed by HSUS once, and to this day the founder goes apocalyptic at any mention of their name.

The AKC may be a mixed bag -- at least in my view -- but I honestly don't have a good word to say about PETA and only a couple of very, very grudging ones for HSUS. But they're not really the issue here, at least not in my mind, and I feel like vitriol directed at them just saps energy from fixing the things that might actually be fixable.


----------



## Konotashi (Jan 11, 2010)

Though it would be better for dogs and the public for AKC to be honest about its general limitations, they never will be. That would be bad not only for them (financially), but that would be terrible for the show people and breeders (reputable or not), because then they would have to hike all of the show/registration fees up to an arm and a leg; if that was the case, then no one would want to compete. 

I don't feel it's the AKC's responsibility to govern the dog world. I don't want there to be more laws governing dog breeding. 

It's the consumers responsibility to do more research about the new family member they're bringing into their home and will have and love for the next fifteen years. Not a dog organization's. Not a breed club's. Not the government's. It's the family's who is bringing that puppy home. No one else's.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

(in red) Then the AKC should knock off it's song and dance routine that they do police breeders and do a fine job of it too.

The problem some here seem to be missing is that they can't have this both ways.

It's sort-a like saying just because I don't believe in gravity I won't fall. They want the puppy buying public to believe that the AKC dog = quality and health WITHOUT really investing in that endeavor. Free good will is what they seek.

When the AKC states 'we are doing a good job inspecting breeders' they have accepted the responsibilty AND the liability that comes with it in the public eye. As well they should. 

They rolls their dices they takes their chances.



Konotashi said:


> Though it would be better for dogs and the public for AKC to be honest about its general limitations, they never will be. That would be bad not only for them (financially), but that would be terrible for the show people and breeders (reputable or not), because then they would have to hike all of the show/registration fees up to an arm and a leg; if that was the case, then no one would want to compete.
> 
> I don't feel it's the AKC's responsibility to govern the dog world. I don't want there to be more laws governing dog breeding.
> 
> It's the consumers responsibility to do more research about the new family member they're bringing into their home and will have and love for the next fifteen years. Not a dog organization's. Not a breed club's. Not the government's. It's the family's who is bringing that puppy home. No one else's.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup:



GSDolch said:


> I think the issue that both qwen and I have, isn't that the AKC is bad, its not that we have something against breeders. Its that the AKC is making it sound like they do more than they really do. It's misleading IMO.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It was a A LOT of fun!! In spite of drenching rains here in the south.

I've been hanging around the SchH folks too much! LOL! I'll write up a more detailed report in the 'Stories' subforum but....

The dogs were beautiful and all looked healthy and happy. The dogs were well socialized and quiet at their handler's sides as we crowded under the pavilion for cover at the various rings. I saw a couple of rarer breeds, Black Russian Terrier, Ibizan, Borzoi (gorgeous dogs) met a lady who trained and handled one of her Rhodesian Ridgebacks (certified SAR) at ground zero, 9/11. Everyone one was friendly, welcoming and loved to talk about their breeds. I noted emphasis on being active with dogs in sport/OB and such.

I listened carefully, not a word about the Today show and my friend said she'd only heard a brief snippet about it on the net. She had not followed up on it.

In red, spot on! 




Merciel said:


> How'd it go?
> 
> Also I didn't quote the rest of your post but of course I agree entirely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

:thumbup:

fwiw I didn't agree with his general statement about the AKC, either.....

The AKC is trying to ensure that pedigrees are accurate. If that system falls apart pedigrees will become totally meaningless. Even the most avid "non-conformation show" people rely heavily on knowing pedigrees and the pedigrees being reliably accurate. 




selzer said:


> Uhm, there is specific requirements when you import a dog and want to register it with the AKC. You have to provide the papers from the foreign registry, a couple of specific photographs, and the DNA swab. I cannot remember if there is more than that. I had to do more because I was bringing in a bitch who was bred. Mine was from Germany. To get her registered AKC, I had to send in the DNA swab. It is not because the AKC does not trust the Czech registry. It is their practive for _any _foreign registry.


----------

