The AKC Ruins Breeds

[Raegan]

To note, the USASCA is the group of people that split from the ASCA back in the late 80's/early 90's when AKC reg. was brought to the table. The ASCA people were *vehemently* against the idea, because they had eyes and a brain and saw what it did to other breeds. Thus, the USASCA was born to give a parent club to sponsor AKC registration through and in 1994, the AKC got their hands on the Aussie and immediately began turning it into a docked, multi-colored Golden Retriever.

Zoom, I hope you don't mind that I quoted this, I don't mean to call you out or anything. But it's illustrative of thinking I hear fairly often, and I'm curious about the details behind it.

It's certainly not news that many breeds, upon recognition by the AKC, change. Often there is a loss of working ability, and that leads to claims that the AKC "ruined" the Northern Spotted Snipehound, or whatever. At the same time, I've seen examples where a breed has improved, usually to a sounder conformation. Fronts and rears balance out, get more angulation, shoulder layback especially seems to improve. In breeds where there is a strong working/show split, often the show dogs are just better made. Hocks aren't three feet long, knees don't stick out, elbows are held close to the body. And many breeds have managed to resist a split: Brittanys, GSP, Tollers (I am most familiar with sporting dogs, but I am sure there are other examples)

And while I will freely admit that I feel the AKC has an agenda and that agenda is not always in the best interests of true working dogs (I do believe that the AKC does what it thinks is in the best interest of dogs, but they can be kind of stupid and money grubbing on that point), they don't write standards and they don't breed dogs. They're a filing cabinet that holds shows. A filing cabinet can't ruin dogs.

So what does ruin dogs once they get accepted by the AKC? Does the same happen when breeds are accepted by the UKC? What about other kennel clubs around the world?

 

[Beanie]

And while I will freely admit that I feel the AKC has an agenda and that agenda is not always in the best interests of true working dogs (I do believe that the AKC does what it thinks is in the best interest of dogs, but they can be kind of stupid and money grubbing on that point), they don't write standards and they don't breed dogs. They're a filing cabinet that holds shows. A filing cabinet can't ruin dogs.

So what does ruin dogs once they get accepted by the AKC? Does the same happen when breeds are accepted by the UKC? What about other kennel clubs around the world?

Agreed. I think what starts ruining dogs is that unscrupulous breeders get ahold of them and start breeding for the wrong thing. They start breeding for ring trends, their main concern is ribbons... totally the wrong thing to have be your "main concern." IMO even in companion breeds, there are still better things that "did great in the show ring!" to be your main concern. Overall health and temperament come to mind first.
I do think it happens in other kennel clubs too, not just the AKC... it's a breeder problem, not an AKC problem. It's not a heck of a lot different than what happens when breeds become "famous," like dalmatians and 101 Dalmatians. When a breed becomes an AKC recognized breed, people start to see them on the dog shows on TV, the breed becomes more popular, and that doesn't exactly end well.

 

[release the hounds]

often the show dogs are just better made.

I disagree with that, especially for my breed. I'll take, my old working dogs and would gladly put them against any younger showline of any age and see which one holds up the best. When a dog can't jump, or make a tight turn without falling over, I don't think they're better made. For every one or two that looks good, there are many born with missing teeth, floppy ears or any other number of faults.

anyway, it's everybody's fault. the AKC because they hide behind being "just a registry" when in reality to every joe blow on the street, AKC papers are like gold in the dog industry. They are percieved as being the authority and do hold a lot of power being they are the FCI recongnized registry in this country.

They "train" the judges for shows, but these judges, at least for my breed have no clue about what makes them so. They don't have much for breeding requirements, and some can argue they shouldn't. BUT if a breed club has a breed standard for breeding, I think the AKC should at least honor those and require them. That's one step they could take.

But the breeders are to blame for breeding to fads not standards, judges are to blame for being bought and biased, consumers are to blame for not being halfway educated about what they're getting involved with.

 

[Fran101]

I don't think the AKC is necessarily a BAD organization.. they are just a registry and I do believe they have good intentions
do these intentions always agree with "working dogs"? Nope. But I do think they do their best to preserve breeds and do what they think is best

Breeds do change when they are accepted by the AKC but its not like the AKC goes around with a hatchet stealing dogs from homes and forcing changes on people

If people who love the breed don't agree with the changes...just don't register their dogs. Continue breeding to a standard you and the breed club see fit and there is NOTHING the AKC can do about it, it's not like they are forcing you to join or your dogs to be their standard.
It does create "splits" in breeds (AKC show/other lines) but I don't see the big deal with the splits or why everyone gets so upset about them.
Don't like show lines or vice versa? don't breed your dogs with them, don't buy from show or whatever breeders. there ya go lol

I think BOTH AKC show breeders and other/old/working line breeders have an important purpose. and although it does create changes within a breed and separate "old"/AKC lines, I don't see the harm in that. As long as nobody is being FORCED to change their breed or to pick a standard they don't want to, then I don't see the big deal with having an AKC dog of a breed that looks/acts a certain way and having a more working line dog that acts/looks another way. As long as the difference in made clear for potential puppy buyers and the general public, than I don't see the harm. Usually, the difference is so obvious it's pretty hard to miss.

I personally PREFER AKC show standards of breeds more than working or other standards.. I don't think that makes me this evil person lol as long as the breeder is responsible, I simply consider AKC/working line breeders different. not necessarily good or bad because of what they are, they are just breeding towards a different ideal/with different sets of goals.

There are good and bad seeds on both sides. AKC or any other type of organization or standard doesn't really HARM the breed in itself, its the breeders within that organization that take the standard too far and forget their morals and what they loved about the breed in the first place.

There are AKC breeders that breed these "cookie cutter boring fluffy dogs" and working breeders that breed "overhyper totally uncontrollable dogs with no health testing or standard"
..these bad eggs do not make the ENTIRE basket of breeders on either side bad.

 

[Dekka]

Its not unscrupulous breeders though. Its the way the AKC and CKC are designed. Take JRTs, some people wanted to take them KC. The KC forced them to choose a more restrictive size standard. Was that in the best interest of the breed...no. But if you want AKC recognition you have to play by their rules. That is why parsons are 12-15 vs 10-15 because it wasn't acceptable to KC..

And conformation shows reward fads. If you look at how much breeds have changed since the inception of kennel club conformation shows. Sure some has been good, but much has been bad. Things are taken to the extreme. I don't really blame anyone in particular, its the system thats flawed. If you have 5 dogs out there who are all very good examples of the breed, the judge MUST pick one that they think is best. So they pick the one with the flashiest movement, most extreme head, most coat.. something that distiguishes that dog.

Now if that dog wins enough it becomes popular. A few generations later the ring is full of dogs with that trait, and now the judge will have to pick another extreme. Its not the judges fault, they HAVE to pick someone. Also not fair to judges is that they are expected to be experts in all breeds. When everyone in the breed club comes up and tells you you have a nice dog, yet your dog gets consistently beat by a dog that they plan to fix as its not nice enough... you know you have problems.

There is no criteria for breeding dogs that do more than 'look' good. (yes people can do dog sports, but the KC get most of their money from, therefore most of their focus is on conformation. It makes business sense. And that is my issue, its a business, its not looking out for dogs in the long run, its looking out for the KC. Which would be fine if people realized that.

More and more I am thrilled with the way that the JRTCC and JRTCA type clubs do it. To win the most prestigious confo awards your dog first has to be a working dog. To register your dog it has to be a good example of the breed and have basic health clearances.

IMO yes indirectly the AKC does ruin breeds. Not intentionally, just due to the inherent issues in the system.

 

[Raegan]

It does create "splits" in breeds (show/working lines) but I don't see the big deal with the splits or why everyone gets so upset about them.
Don't like show lines or vice versa? don't breed your dogs with them, don't buy from show or whatever breeders. there ya go lol

Personally, I feel breed split is death. It's a terrible, terrible thing and one of the worst things that can happen to a breed. It's up there with being the star of a Disney movie. A breed split artificially and needlessly divides your breeding pool as effectively as if they were truly two different breeds. A breed is more than how it looks, and it's more than what it does. You really have to have both, there's just no way around it. There are reasons not all dogs are built like Pariah dogs, and that has to do with their function. Form and function are meaningless without each other.

One of the most dramatic examples is show vs. field trial labs. FT Labs are interesting because they're selected in just as artificial a manner as conformation is. I read a very interesting piece on Lab type from a show breeder today.

...Retrievers were selectively bred to work differently from the other gundog breeds. They were designed to be "specialists" not "generalists," as they are so often currently used. The Labrador’s ability to handle water—and the structure that makes it efficient doing so—does not lend itself well to hours of running in a field as a game finder.... Form follows function... and they are supposed to move like a water dog, not a pointer...

I don't agree 100% with everything the author has said (the rest of the article and her other writings merit a read), but both the show type and the field type are extremes. The ideal lies somewhere in the middle but no one seems interested in going there. There are a few breeders with moderate dogs, but they usually have to play the hunt test game because their dogs aren't specialized enough for FT. There hasn't been a dual champion Labrador in what, 50 years? Goldens even longer. Chessies never, I don't think. And that is criminal.

 

[release the hounds]

There are AKC breeders that breed these "cookie cutter boring fluffy dogs" and working breeders that breed "overhyper totally uncontrollable dogs with no health testing or standard"
..these bad eggs do not make the ENTIRE basket of breeders on either side bad.

I can only speak for my breed, but I have to say that i've met far more dogs bred from breeders breeding "cookie cutter boring fluffy dogs" than the other way around. I can easily name breeders off the top of my head that breed those types of dogs that I have personally worked with.

I can't however think of a single "working" breeder that I have worked dogs from that didn't breed to a standard, that didn't have health testing, and the dogs were obviously controllable. Usually dogs are out of control because owners don't know how or don't want to put in the time to get control.

 

[MafiaPrincess]

Kennel clubs are partly to blame as they hold confo events and it's 'their' judges. Breed clubs are to blame as they come up with the standards including changing them because they can. And then there are breeders breeding to what is winning in the ring whether it reflects the standard or not.

Flashy cockers with useless overdone coat are winning. So then breeders breed for copious coat. I like coat. I don't need that much coat.

Cocker club of America decided sables were suddenly not cool although they've always been in the breed's history. Sudden confo DQ cause they can. Toller club decided more than a splotch of white was a bad thing, new DQ cause they could. Poodle club of america tossed partis a century ago even though they were always in the breed's history.

The clubs make arbitrary changes just because and that doesn't lead to better breeding either.

Afghans. Oversized are winning. Smaller correct ones are being left in the dust. So what's bred bigger and bigger one doing more than toeing the line of in the standard these days. So then the kennel clubs are to blame in part as judge's are picking these dogs to win and people then breed to what is winning.

 

[Linds]

I've seen examples where a breed has improved, usually to a sounder conformation. Fronts and rears balance out, get more angulation, shoulder layback especially seems to improve. In breeds where there is a strong working/show split, often the show dogs are just better made. Hocks aren't three feet long, knees don't stick out, elbows are held close to the body. And many breeds have managed to resist a split: Brittanys, GSP, Tollers (I am most familiar with sporting dogs, but I am sure there are other examples)

Can't find words strong enough for how much I disagree with this.

They may look to you to be better put together and more physically appealing but how do you know there conformation is truly sounder? Are they being physically tested in the field? Are they out hunting, herding and/or working all day without breaking down? Form follows function. Point blank. The dog bred to look pretty has in no way shape or form sounder conformation. It's untested. The dog bred to work and work hard and not break down has been tested and proven as sound, not the dog in the ring.

Working bred may not be the prettiest but they are like that for a reason.

Nature doesn't work that way because nature doesn't care about pretty.

.....based on my experience in the coursing field, is that visible, palpable aspects of conformation don't mean as much as most people think they do. You can have apparently malformed, unsound looking dogs that you would swear couldn't run perform brilliantly.

Both of these are taken from The Functional Saluki. A very insightful and interesting read

The functional Saluki

Is the AKC inherently evil? I don't think so. But I can't say I think much of most of the people involved with them or how it's run.

 

[Dekka]

That is very true about the appearing better built. JRTs were being bred with more and more angulation, it was pretty. But those dogs actually had a harder time working in the earth.

Just look what happened to the Fox Terrier. How on earth is that an improvement. Sure it looks pretty and balanced trotting around a ring, but it can't enter the earth if it wanted too.

Also how is judging all breeds on their movement at the trot a good indication of how athletic they are? I have seen enough dogs (and horses for that matter) that look stunning at a trot, but horrible in any other gait.

 

[Raegan]

And conformation shows reward fads. If you look at how much breeds have changed since the inception of kennel club conformation shows. Sure some has been good, but much has been bad. Things are taken to the extreme. I don't really blame anyone in particular, its the system thats flawed. If you have 5 dogs out there who are all very good examples of the breed, the judge MUST pick one that they think is best. So they pick the one with the flashiest movement, most extreme head, most coat.. something that distiguishes that dog.

You've put that very well, thank you. I hear all the time "the show ring rewards extremes" but could never really figure out HOW, this helped a lot. Thanks.

The bold is why I really love that more and more clubs are offering a conformation certificate. Goldens do it, and I know there are a couple other breeds too. A judge basically looks over the dog and makes sure they are sound and more or less Golden Retriever shaped. I think it's a really useful and great program and more clubs should do it. It's really newbie friendly too, since I think s/n dogs are eligible.

 

[Fran101]

I can only speak for my breed, but I have to say that i've met far more dogs bred from breeders breeding "cookie cutter boring fluffy dogs" than the other way around. I can easily name breeders off the top of my head that breed those types of dogs that I have personally worked with.

I can't however think of a single "working" breeder that I have worked dogs from that didn't breed to a standard, that didn't have health testing, and the dogs were obviously controllable. Usually dogs are out of control because owners don't know how or don't want to put in the time to get control.

I'm not going to jump into this show vs. working debate because it is pointless but maybe it does have to do with breed because with goldens, a breed commonly thrown around in these kinds of debates.. I searched HIGH AND LOW for breeders on both sides of the spectrum and only met a tiny handful of purely show breeders but met plenty of working breeders with...what I would consider less than ideal examples of temperament in their dogs.

The breeder I ended up choosing is primarily show but also does hunt tests, agility, etc..etc.. because I do appreciate versatility. But I WANTED a primarily confirmation breeder because I found working line goldens to be different from what I wanted in a golden
.. not bad, not good.. just DIFFERENT
and I think each person should make that choice for THEMSELVES.

Golden retrievers are heavily split.. and again, hasn't been the kiss of death at all for them. I find that both sides are seperate and work quite well together
AGAIN MY EXPERIENCE IS LIMITED, and limited to a very popular breed for "breeding pools" isn't really a problem.
I'm not going to say the split has been great, because I'm no expert on the subject and yea, the breeds popularity has created downfalls and issues... but I'm saying it hasn't been the kiss of death
and more than that I'm saying, it hasn't been the AKCs fault.

The huge coats, the bad show traits.. that is a CHOICE. I know many people try to do the "oh the poor breeders they are just trying to win" but we have to remember that showing dogs is a CHOICE and breeds CHOOSE to follow standards and fads. nobody is forcing them.
There will be people that create/follow the fads but honestly, I would rather see a breeder with nice, versatile dogs that may not do as well in the show ring, then a lot of champions that look/act odd to follow some show fad.

I think people need to remember that the AKC is just a registry and its not some crazy communist organization out to CHANGE THE BREED AND CHANGE THE WORLD!! lol breeders still have a CHOICE in the matter and a choice in what they want to do with their lines/their breed and it all rolls down to values and what these breeders consider to be important.

If I was putting my dog in a show, and the judges kept picking dogs with giant heads.
Does that FORCE me to breed towards giant heads? no.

That forces me to take an honest look at myself and my dogs and wonder what is important to me.. The REAL breed standard and following it...or winning show ribbons?

 

[Dekka]

The huge coats, the bad show traits.. that is a CHOICE. I know many people try to do the "oh the poor breeders they are just trying to win" but we have to remember that showing dogs is a CHOICE and breeds CHOOSE to follow standards and fads. nobody is forcing them.
There will be people that create/follow the fads but honestly, I would rather see a breeder with nice, versatile dogs that may not do as well in the show ring, then a lot of champions that look/act odd to follow some show fad.

It is a choice. But its also the choice of being a respected breeder who can place puppies and someone who isn't much 'better' than a BYB. Look how much people like to hate on Shiloh shepherds. It was just one person trying to do what she felt was right for her breed. Obviously there were enough people who felt the same way she did. Are they respected? No. Making up your own standard is pretty much never respected and you likely aren't going ot find the best puppy buyers. So people who feel this way likely stop breeding. As breeding is a choice too.

So sure its a choice, you can have the respect and support of your peers or you can go your own way and sound (fairly or not) like every byb out there who claims they don't breed for anything because confo showing and trials (like hunt tests) aren't good for their dogs.

 

[Sekah]

If I was putting my dog in a show, and the judges kept picking dogs with giant heads.
Does that FORCE me to breed towards giant heads? no.

The issue is that it happens by minute degrees. Changes that happen gradually over several decades are barely noticed at all. It's not like new trends in the ring appear overnight, you know? I think it's enormously easy for people involved in the dog show world to lose sight of historic references to breeds when they feel like they change so gradually.

Obviously there are exceptions to all rules, but I think the relatively slow pace of change plays a major part here.

 

[Fran101]

It is a choice. But its also the choice of being a respected breeder who can place puppies and someone who isn't much 'better' than a BYB. Look how much people like to hate on Shiloh shepherds. It was just one person trying to do what she felt was right for her breed. Obviously there were enough people who felt the same way she did. Are they respected? No. Making up your own standard is pretty much never respected and you likely aren't going ot find the best puppy buyers. So people who feel this way likely stop breeding. As breeding is a choice too.

So sure its a choice, you can have the respect and support of your peers or you can go your own way and sound (fairly or not) like every byb out there who claims they don't breed for anything because confo showing and trials (like hunt tests) aren't good for their dogs.

Oh I meant more like "follow your breed club" or working people or some kind of standard created by people who are working towards a goal, not just one you made up yourself . Because it really must feel a bit impossible to see flaws and issues with dogs so close to you lol don't we all think our dogs are perfect? I think there does have to be some standard written by some kind of group or organization working towards something... just that it doesn't necessarily have to be the AKC.

Shiloh shepherds, doodles, and other breeds like that I feel get hate and no respect because it is just basically a free for all. There really is no real purpose or standard... they all start out with someone with good intentions and then go awry and become a real mess most of the time.

Really, all this stuff isn't my expertise. I'm not a breeder or show person, but just sharing my 2 cents lol

 

[release the hounds]

Look how much people like to hate on Shiloh shepherds. It was just one person trying to do what she felt was right for her breed. Obviously there were enough people who felt the same way she did. Are they respected? No.

It's not that I disliked what she was trying to do. She could have created anything she wanted. The fact that she kept trying to piggy back one breed and use it's reputation to sell her "breed" all the while boasting outright lies about what the breed was to sell her dogs even more was what brought upon all the "hate".

I have never owned a working GSD that could be described as she did, nor were the overwhelming majority that i've worked with over the years. Yet she'd yammer on and on about bad they had become and how her "breed" was what the GSD was supposed to be. Much more to do with the "hate" than the breed itself I think.

But that is kind of in the past. She died recently

 

[monkeys23]

You could not pay me enough to own a showline of any of my top five favorite breeds.

Give me a good working line dog any day. They can't work properly if they aren't built correctly.

 

[Dekka]

It's not that I disliked what she was trying to do. She could have created anything she wanted. The fact that she kept trying to piggy back one breed and use it's reputation to sell her "breed" all the while boasting outright lies about what the breed was to sell her dogs even more was what brought upon all the "hate".

I have never owned a working GSD that could be described as she did, nor were the overwhelming majority that i've worked with over the years. Yet she'd yammer on and on about bad they had become and how her "breed" was what the GSD was supposed to be. Much more to do with the "hate" than the breed itself I think.

But that is kind of in the past. She died recently

I know... Fran was saying people can make choices, I just used her as an example of how doing what she thought was right for her breed didn't bring her respect from that breed. I am sure she believed what she was saying...

 

[Dekka]

Because it really must feel a bit impossible to see flaws and issues with dogs so close to you lol don't we all think our dogs are perfect?

As perfect as I think Dekka is, I am far from blind to her faults. I think she is perfect for ME warts and all... but when I went to breed her I very carefully chose a male I thought would fix her flaws. It worked for the most part.

Shiloh shepherds, doodles, and other breeds like that I feel get hate and no respect because it is just basically a free for all.

See and Shiloh's have a breed standard they all seem to be working towards, they have confo shows. They have a solid breed type vs the doodles. I am all for them being their own breed. They are an excellent choice for people who want a big hair shepherd like dog with out all the drive.

 

[RD]

AKC doesn't ruin breeds.

Breeding well-designed working breeds for success in the conformation ring ruins breeds. Not all breeds were designed with appearance/type in mind, and that's all the show ring can/does judge.