I, too have no problem with the AKC staying just for purebreds. It is the "I'm sorry your dog isn't good enough to play with our pedigreed dogs" attitude that makes my skin itch.
Did anyone else fill out the survey from a year or so ago, where they were asking for opinions on this particular decision? I wish I'd saved a copy. One of the comments in the description of their decision (paraphrased, of course) was basically that "the purpose of allowing mixed breeds will be so that people can see the superiority of purebreds". I am almost certain the the word "superiority" was used.
Well, how can I know how superior all their purebreds are if my "mixed breed" (not even mixed, but non-AKC) dog isn't allowed to compete against them? What the heck is the harm in that? I have no problem putting Meg up against the shelties and smaller border collies at USDAA and CPE events.
I'm lucky that I'm in an area where it is easy to find USDAA, CPE, and NADAC trials in reasonable driving distance, so I don't HAVE to go to AKC. I don't know now if I will or not - although obviously some of it is going to depend on whether trials actually offer them. Our local AKC agility trial is this weekend - I'll be curious to hear the buzz. However, since that trial tends to fill the first day of entry, I'm guessing they aren't going to feel the need to add additional classes for mixed breeds.
and it might even not be good for the mixes . . . Sarama would always be up against the border collies, which wouldn't be quite fair to her.
Why not fair? Meg is generally in the classes full of the larger shelties, and the smaller BCs and Aussies. No, she's never going to have the flat out speed of the BCs, but she also doesn't going flying past me to take five off-course obstacles in her speed or pull every other rail because she's jumping flat-out
. We lose to the BCs often, but are right there to take the higher ribbons when they start making mistakes. Trust me, accuracy and training can take you pretty far when going against speed.