The American Kennel Club does some good things. But if rumors flying around the Internet are true, they're about to undo every last ounce of good will they've ever generated by doing a backroom deal with a chain of petstores, endorsing their sale of puppies and encouraging people to register those puppies with the AKC, all in the name of making money.
This report from the AKC delegate's meeting in New York, by Sally Nist of the Rapid City Kennel Club, has been on several of my dog lists, with permission given to crosspost it; I tried to find it online somewhere so I could link to it instead, but no luck. I am quoting a brief excerpt here and will include the full text of the letter behind the cut:
Buried in the Treasurer's report was a very quick mention of a "new contractual relationship" between AKC and the Petland chain of stores (120 in the US, with 20 more planned for 2007). The difference between Petland and PetSmart or PetCo is that they sell puppies at Petland.
During the final portion of the meeting, several delegates--who were completely caught off guard by thie news of the contract--brought up their concern and asked for more information. We were told that "we would never see the contract (which I heard from another delegate was just signed last Friday)", it is necessary for AKC to meet the bottom line, and that it was the wave of the future and we should get on board. At one point David Merriim, the attorney for AKC actually said he had not seen the contract (great boos and laughter ensued) and that if we don't work with Petland to get more dogs registered we will be looking at $75 entry fees and become an "elitist organization". NOTE: you will be able to read the full details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but very, very close.
From what we could gather from the very sketchy info parsed out by the AKC staff to the delegates, the Board of Directors and the "Management Team" have signed a contract with Petland endorsing the sale of puppies under the AKC banner, with the Petland sales people encouraging people to register the puppies with AKC. Needless to say, all will be sold with no conditional breeding paperwork, as is done by breeders who sell directly to new owners.
You will see when you read the minutes on the website that the discussion went on for a couple of hours. I was in line to speak but everyone had covered my thoughts and I stepped out. Main concerns were the breeding of these puppies, the fact that we have always put AKC above "puppy mills and puppy sales at stores", the fact that these puppies will be the rescue dogs of the future, etc. A motion was made by the Golden Retriever club delegate that the delegates vote to let the board know we want them to rescend the contract.
I wish I could say I'm surprised, but I'm not. I am, however, furious, and as a member of an AKC breed club, the Scottish Deerhound Club of America, and as a breeder who thinks that our breeds and our dogs are a sacred trust and not a means to make a living, if this does turn out to be accurate, I hope that responsible exhibitors and breeders will smack the AKC down on this issue so hard they'll never even think of trying it again.
Because I can tell you, it will be a cold day in hell before I register a puppy with a registry that's in bed with stores that retail puppies as if they were plastic toys.
Here is the full text of Sally Nist's email:
*****PERMISSION TO CROSS POST GRANTED*****
September 13, 2006 From: Sally Nist, AKC Delegate, RCKC
To: Rapid City Kennel Club members
This will be somewhat short as it is late and I will write a more complete report tomorrow. I am just back from the fall Delegate meeting. It began with the normal committee elections and a vote on the first proposed amendment. That was an amendment limiting outside activities by delegates. AKC said it was to assist us if we had to remove a delegate for conflict of interest but it was really setting a stage of sorts. The existing restrictions were enlarged to keep people out of the delegate body who didn't support "AKC objects". Dennis Sprung and Board members explained that we could then keep "animal rights" people from "taking over the AKC".
After lunch came the regular reports from the Treasurer, the new archive program, etc. Buried in the Treasurer's report was a very quick mention of a "new contractual relationship" between AKC and the Petland chain of stores (120 in the US, with 20 more planned for 2007). The difference between Petland and PetSmart or PetCo is that they sell puppies at Petland.
During the final portion of the meeting, several delegates--who were completely caught off guard by thie news of the contract--brought up their concern and asked for more information. We were told that "we would never see the contract (which I heard from another delegate was just signed last Friday)", it is necessary for AKC to meet the bottom line, and that it was the wave of the future and we should get on board. At one point David Merriim, the attorney for AKC actually said he had not seen the contract (great boos and laughter ensued) and that if we don't work with Petland to get more dogs registered we will be looking at $75 entry fees and become an "elitist organization". NOTE: you will be able to read the full details in a couple of days on the AKC website so excuse me if my quotes are not completely accurate. They may not be 100% correct but very, very close.
From what we could gather from the very sketchy info parsed out by the AKC staff to the delegates, the Board of Directors and the "Management Team" have signed a contract with Petland endorsing the sale of puppies under the AKC banner, with the Petland sales people encouraging people to register the puppies with AKC. Needless to say, all will be sold with no conditional breeding paperwork, as is done by breeders who sell directly to new owners.
You will see when you read the minutes on the website that the discussion went on for a couple of hours. I was in line to speak but everyone had covered my thoughts and I stepped out. Main concerns were the breeding of these puppies, the fact that we have always put AKC above "puppy mills and puppy sales at stores", the fact that these puppies will be the rescue dogs of the future, etc. A motion was made by the Golden Retriever club delegate that the delegates vote to let the board know we want them to rescend the contract. The AKC staff kept saying that it was a "non-binding, sense of the delegation vote". It carried nearly unanimously.
The delegate body is stunned. Of course, by the vote earlier in the day, we are not "supporting the AKC object" but I, for one, think it is critical that if members of RCKC do not agree with this sudden and secret action taken by the AKC without any notification of the general population it supposedly supports, we must make our voices heard.
I suggest letters be sent to Dennis Sprung, to every member of the Board of Directors, and every single higher-level management person. Alternative ways to obtain additiional funds (which does have an $8M reserve) we might consider release of the expensive NYC property, a pay cut by AKC staff (often done in private industry to save a business), cutting Board expenses, reviewing every expense line by line, etc.
If you so direct, and if I am elected your delegate to the AKC (a position I would like to hold in the upcoming year), I will vote against every single member of the Board of Directors on this issue alone, no matter how fabulously they may have served the fancy in the past. I will carry any message to the next meeting on this matter.
If this is not a concern, we can move on to other issues. If the anger expressed by delegates is representative of the anger of concerned breeders and members of RCKC, I urge everyone to act. The contract has been signed and none of the delegates is sure if any action can change anything but we can express our outrage and the new direction AKC has taken. It began with our new embrace and acceptance of "large volumne breeders"--some might say puppy mills-- and this seems to be the final nail in the coffin to separate legitimate, concerned breeders from pet shop suppliers.
Because I can tell you, it will be a cold day in hell before I register a puppy with a registry that's in bed with stores that retail puppies as if they were plastic toys.>>>
******
I was SO disgusted to hear about this. Seems the AKC is willing to do just about anything for a $$$$.
If this is true, I won't be getting an ILP on any rescues in the future and will only compete in UKC.
Posted by: Judi | 14 September 2006 at 05:52 PM
HOLY COW!!!!!
Posted by: Gina | 14 September 2006 at 09:50 PM
Can't wait to see how this turns out. I love the description of the total arrogance of the AKC executives and directors. So typical.
I looked at the AKC charter and bylaws. It looks like it would take the solid support of at least 2/3 of the delegates and about a year to amend enough things to call a special election and throw the whole board out. But it could happen.
Posted by: | 15 September 2006 at 01:41 AM
I participate with a breed that is not currently recognized by AKC and so many things I've seen AKC do recently with PAWS and now this has made me grateful for the fact that we are not currently recognized. UKC looks better and better in my eye as far as truly protecting the interests of the dogs and the breed fanciers.
AKC just doesn't deserve the support anymore.
Posted by: Alison Brendel | 15 September 2006 at 01:49 PM
I checked with a breed club rep. It's true.
Posted by: Gina | 15 September 2006 at 03:52 PM
They'll get away with it. Breeders quake at the idea of not being able to say their dogs are AKC registered. One wrote to me this morning and said that it was apparent the AKC is not interested in the well-being of dogs, but that if she or any other breeder were to leave and register with, say, the UKC, no one would ever want any puppy or dog from them. Hers is a large breed that it's difficult to find owners for thanks to their size and their need for space to run; I know this woman cares about her breed and is very careful about how often or even if she breeds. I think she feels trapped and she's probably right.
Posted by: Gil. | 15 September 2006 at 03:53 PM
Gil, I'm sure you're right. That's why a lot of people have read the post ... but few have commented.
Posted by: Gina | 15 September 2006 at 04:02 PM
"Trapped" seems to be the right word exactly. I'm looking at my fall schedule of earthdog events with my Welshie and wanting to cry. Yes, there are other organizations with similar activites, but none so prevelant or structured so well.
I could rationalize the "we're only a registry" official line when it came to registering puppy-mill dogs, but now they're endorsing them? That's some way to show that you really care about the welfare of dogs, that's for sure....
Posted by: Meryl | 15 September 2006 at 04:27 PM
I feel blessed to have an Aussie. ASCA has its faults (moves at glacial speed for one thing), but it still has concern for the breed at its core.
Remember that ASCA performance events are open to non-Aussies, including mixed breeds. We have stockdog (limited breeds/mixes allowed -- must have historical use as a stockdog) trials, obedience, agility, and tracking. Our Nationals and Finals are restricted to Aussies, but that's about it.
Posted by: kabbage | 15 September 2006 at 07:00 PM
OK, it's obvious the AKC is concerned with generating some money through an increase in registrations and who knows, perhaps an increase in fees at some time. Why not? The greedy get greedier. It's obvious the AKC has made this move if the contract has been signed. In the '60's we had a saying...If you push against something long enough and hard enough it WILL fall over. So, if one by one, no matter how long it takes, people in power are replaced, things will change. Who cares if Petland pushes the AKC registrations other than the AKC? De facto the AKC endorses ALL suppliers of Petland, no matter what their reputation. Petland employees will be trained the the AKC? Wow, isn't that great. Throw another puppy on the fire. This looks like an uphill battle from someone on the outside who owns 2 flat-coats.
Posted by: Bruce | 15 September 2006 at 11:08 PM
This just disgusts me. I can't even say how much this upsets me. I am an owner of a beautiful flat-coat and I am in shock that the AKC would do this. Horrified infact. To endorse a puppy mill my oh my, its disgusting and disgraceful. They should be hiding in shame at the AKC. Its simply shameful and as this act shows no regard for the honor and safety of dogs and complete regard for money.
Posted by: Gloria Giblin-Kelnhofer | 16 September 2006 at 06:13 AM
The AKC sucks. They are the Evil Empire. This just shows it more conspicuously than usual. In fact, all multi-breed registries suck. The Jack Russell Terrier Club of America is my ideal. When AKC started registering JRTs against the will of most JRT people (as it did with the Aussie, as it did with the Border Collie, etc.), the JRTCA simply ruled that you had to choose -- if you registered with the AKC you could no longer register with the JRTCA, or judge or participate in any of their events. They are still a vibrant, successful organization that serves the interests and welfare of their breed. JRTCA members have no trouble placing their pups. I wish all purebred dog folks would wake up to the fact that there's life outside the AKC, and follow their example. Walk the walk -- walk away.
Posted by: Kay | 17 September 2006 at 12:47 AM
For the numbing numbers behind the AKC decision, see >> The Mathematics and Symbolism of Misery Puppies at: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2006/09/mathematics-and-symbolism-of-misery.html
Posted by: PBurns | 27 September 2006 at 10:25 AM
This is the reason that I chose not to register my dog when I purchased it from a
reputable breeder. I think they are just
looking to make money on dogs being sold.
My dog is the same dog now as he would be
if he is AKC registered. Big Deal!
Posted by: Jarseneault | 28 September 2006 at 12:08 PM