« Does a good home have to be perfect? And who decides? | Main | Oh shirt of my dreams »

19 October 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Fabulous post, Christie. No one rants with more eloquence than you do.


wow, eye opening, thanks for writing this and let the world knows.

Gina Spadafori

Funny thing is, at the end of 2006 when we relaunched PetConnection.com with its new blog (taking the pet-related posts from my old, personal blog to start it), we weren't sure we'd find enough truly meaty topics to write about.

Now, of course, we find instead that there is plenty to write about, but not enough hours in the day!

Great post Christie. My beautiful, smart and honest-to-God working dogs salute you. (That's them, folks, on the bottom of the page, three dogs all doing a sit-stay together.)


Christie -- you GO, girl!

Being an Arizonan and a former owner of a pet Schipperke, I also want to congratulate Betty Jo Patrick of the Schipperke Club of America, for her stand against the AKC's attempt to partner with a pet store chain.

Christie Keith

Oh yeah, it's a jungle out there, and UKC has problems, too.

Sometimes I think that coalitions of parent clubs are a better system, where you don't have dogs of different breeds competing against each other ... I don't know. It sometimes seems hopeless.

What I like about UKC is no handlers and the judges have to give commentary. I'm so irritated at the lack of accountability for AKC judges.


Beware of "the grass is greener on the other side of the fence" syndrome, re: the UKC.

First, despite its name, "the United Kennel Club" is not a kennel club at all. I'm no fan of the AKC either, but AKC is a not-for-profit 501(c)4 organization that is ruled via some sort of democratic process (perhaps not ideal) through its body of club delegates. The UKC, on the other hand, is a privately-owned for profit business. The UKC is *owned* by one Wayne Cavanaugh, former VP of the AKC.

Second, UKC parent clubs have no authority in the UKC, and UKC will make decisions about breeds even when the breed community overwhelmingly opposes them.

UKC owns the copyright to its breed standards, in AKC the parent clubs own them. A UKC parent breed club can make suggestions about the written UKC standards for their breed, but they are only that, suggestions. UKC can and has disregarded them.

UKC makes decisions for the breeds it recognizes even if its parent breed club strongly opposes that decision.

How do I know this? Because Wayne Cavanaugh's UKC threw my breed, the English Shepherd, under the bus.

The UKC has recognized and registered English Shepherds (ES) since the 1930's. The English Shepherd Club (ESC) was the UKC parent club for the ES breed. Up until 2000, the ES breed had a largely amicable relationship with UKC. Then Wayne Cavanaugh bought the UKC, and changed that relationship. So the issue here wasn't a hijacking of a breed in the way AKC "recognized" the Australian Shepherd and Border Collie breeds against the majority wishes of those breed communities. What UKC did was every bit as wrong though.

Without notifying the ESC, the UKC declared in 2000 that ES would be eligible for UKC conformation classes starting in 2001. The ESC contacted UKC about this, and asked that this change not go forward.

The ES is a rare working breed, and the ES breed community does not want it to be turned into yet another "handsome nitwit".

I was involved in that discussion, and I personally asked Wayne Cavanaugh if he would respect a formal vote, as per our club Bylaws, of the full ESC membership on the issue of whether ES should be eligible for UKC conformation shows. He said no. The vote went forward anyway, and it was 95% (yes, really) against ES being shown in UKC conformation shows. The UKC didn't care.

We asked if ES conformation champion status could be made contingent on first earning a working title. Nope.

We asked if ES conformation champion status could be made contingent on obtaining a passing OFA hip rating. Nope.

UKC responded by imposing a bizarre and changing list of requirements on the ESC. Among these, ESC had to host a UKC event every two years. This is tough to do, given a club of fewer than 300 members spread out over the entire nation. But then UKC changed this to ESC had to host a UKC conformation show every two years...how's that for a kick in the teeth?

Then UKC announced that they had veto power over the democratically-produced ESC Bylaws.

On and on it went, until the relationship between the ESC and UKC was severed in late 2003.

A second ES club was formed in 2003, made up of the small number of people in the ESC who wished to maintain the relationship with the UKC, and those who wanted to play in conformation shows. Over a short time, this club has attracted members from outside the breed but from the conformation show world.

So now we have UKC champion and "grand champion" ES. And we are witnessing the creation of a show/working split in the ES breed. The $64,000 question is, can the working ES population survive the split? Or will it disappear, as it has for many other breeds after the Fancy gets involved?

No, UKC does not treat all of its breed communities this shabbily. As long as the breed community's goals align with Wayne Cavanaugh's $$business$$ interests, things are just fine. Otherwise....


What gets me is how the same organization that supported the PAWS legislation came up with the Petland deal. Talk about pissing off your client base every way you can. And how about that judge's conflict of interest thing? That was just a pissing match with UKC and they ended up losing some good judges who prefer the UKC game, particularly in hunt tests and obedience and, yes (shock!) angered yet another set of people in the process. And then when confronted with their own by-laws (and a lawyer), they had to rescind the requirement that AKC judges only judge AKC events anyway. Before they shoved it down our throats, wouldn't it have been wise for someone to check the by-laws? Not smart.

Talk about being out of touch. AKC sees themselves as being a registry and a show organization while those of us who own AKC registered dogs are so much more involved with other things pertaining to our dogs. Disconnect in the extreme.

AKC also recently substantially raised their fees per entry in obedience and agility, I'm assuming to make more money they whine about needing. Hey AKC, how about ditching those expensive NYC offices?

Christie Keith

I know you made this clear, but I'm going to just re-state it so there is no doubt in anyone's mind that the "CKC" you're referring to is the Canadian Kennel Club. :)

Christie Keith

Are you aware that AKC changed its policy about publishing the minutes of delegate meetings as a result of the explosion over the pet store registrations?

Oh, just when I thought it couldn't get any worse!

Thanks for that. I'm just.... speechless.


I am a huge lover of Aussie Shepherds (my next dog gosh darn it!) even though they are not in my price range at the moment from breeders and the rescues here didn't like me enough to allow for adoption. In my searchs I was mainly focusing on Canadian breeders (therefore CKC papers) but the few I looked at in Montana really were as dumb as posts sometimes, not mention they were scared if a sheep so much as looked at them...and for an Aussie that's saying a lot. Any desire I had for an AKC registered pup pretty much left me at that point (not to mention I too have read the Dog Wars book ^-^)From now I will stick to CKC and UKC, at least until I do some more research on both of them.


Are you aware that AKC changed its policy about publishing the minutes of delegate meetings as a result of the explosion over the pet store registrations?

No longer are we going to get any comments word for word from the dels. Just the results of votes.

That takes care of the rest of us ever finding out about what goes on at the meetings. And,of course, puts objections to actions by the board much more under the table.

Nadine L.

I really really want that. :( - Comment by Christie Keith — October 20, 2007 @ 12:02 am

We all want that. But commentary would be too logical and helpful!! More than likely they would say that the shows would take too long. When the Belgian and Dutch judges came from Europe to judge our Bouviers at specialty shows, they gave commentaries. It helped individually and for the breed overall. Everyone truly appreciated it.

Christie Keith

what’s this about UKC judges having to give comentary?? They certainly don’t at the shows I’ve been in.

Well, that sucks. It's what some friends who showed in UKC told me, I wonder if they used to?

I really really want that. :(

Christie Keith

Yes, they are.... trying to find more ways to sell those pieces of paper.

That's one of my points, which is that the culture of the parent clubs and the AKC board seem to be very far apart, and a culture clash is coming. If AKC is going to rely for its existence on doing something its member clubs find unethical or wrong -- and believe me, the deal with the pet stores might have been what they were speaking on, but they feel the same way about puppy mills -- how can that end well for them?

They could reform and actually be a registry that means something. They could just give up and rubber stamp everyone. But either way, I wish the parent clubs would either effectively organize and accomplish the first, or stop enabling AKC to violate its own core mission just to keep having those really good dog shows.


Back around the PAWS controversy, I wrote the following piece which I called "Isn't it time we take back our AKC?". It seems to have relevance here as well:

Isn't it time we take back our AKC?



"The American Kennel Club is a 'club of clubs', and not a club of individuals. There are over 500 clubs that meet AKC membership requirements and have duly elected or appointed Delegates to represent them at quarterly meetings of the Delegate Body. Each delegate functions as a representatives of his or her member club in voting on matters coming before the Delegate Body and electing from amongst their membership the thirteen individuals who serve on AKC's Board of Directors. Under the Constitution and Bylaws of The American Kennel Club, the Delegate Body '. . . shall have sole power to make the Rules governing dog shows and field trials and the clubs or associations formed to conduct them.' "

Sometimes if seems like we've all forgotten that the AKC is a club of clubs. We (the Member Clubs) appoint delegates to attend meetings and introduce issues and take votes according to the wishes of our own clubs' memberships. And the leadership of the AKC is supposed to be responsive to those actions. Ultimately, *we* aren't answerable to the *AKC* - rather, the *AKC* is answerable to *us*.

From the AKC website, I found the following information with regards to membership at the Delegate's meetings:

January 2005 meeting - 299 present

March 2005 meeting - 401 present

June 2005 meeting - 253 present

March 2004 meeting - 355 present

June 2004 - 285 present

September 2004 - 350 present

Based on those numbers, roughly 250-400 delegates are in attendance at any given meeting. I assume the quorum requirements are being met since binding votes are taken at these meetings. This is a way for the Member Clubs to voice their wishes on how things should be done by the AKC. So shouldn't our clubs be using this "voice" to let AKC know they are NOT acting in accordance with the Member Clubs' wishes in their pursuit of the passage of PAWS?



The list of groups who have publicly stepped forward in opposition to PAWS include:

22 Parent Clubs


9 other Member Clubs

*Clackamas Kennel Club (OR)

*Clermont County Kennel Club (OH)

*Greater Clark County Kennel Club (WA)

*Memphis Kennel Club (TN)

*Piedmont Kennel Club (NC)

*Plum Creek Kennel Club of Colorado

*Springfield Kennel Club (MA)

*Sussex Hills Kennel Club (NJ)

*Toledo Kennel Club (OH)

So that's 31 Delegates representing AKC Member Clubs who have gone on the record as opposing PAWS. That calculates out anywhere from 8% to 12% of the Delegates at any given meeting. Is that enough to sway a vote? Perhaps not, but it should certainly be enough to introduce and support some reasoned debate on the subject.

And how about those 22 Parent Clubs? How many of the members of THOSE Clubs *also* belong to *other* Member Clubs that are missing from the list of 9 shown above? I understand that just because a Club has stepped forward in opposition to an issue, that doesn't guarantee that every member of that club agrees. But presumably a majority of those who have made their wishes known within their Club do.

So what if every person who is a member of one of the Parent Clubs listed above and who also individually disagrees with PAWS were to check to see what is the position held by all of the other clubs in which s/he holds membership? What if that person discovered that s/he was a member of another club with Member Club status in the AKC which is not included in that list of 9 above? What if that person could ask that Club to also go public in their opposition to PAWS? How much larger would that list of 9 AKC Member Clubs become then?

Heck - some of those Parent Club members belong to multiple other dog clubs - Performance Clubs, local Specialty Clubs, etc. - and maybe one or more of those Clubs are also missing from the list of 9 above?

Ultimately, how many AKC Member Clubs really SHOULD be on that list that now numbers only 9? How many more than 9 AKC Member Clubs really DO oppose PAWS and just haven't yet let their voice be heard? Ultimately, how many Delegates should be receiving direction from the Clubs they represent to introduce votes that require AKC to withdraw its backing of PAWS?

We have a voice - it's time we let it be heard.

Isn't it time we take back our AKC?


what's this about UKC judges having to give comentary?? They certainly don't at the shows I've been in. And UKC judges are no better than AKC judges...or should I say no more consistent.

The main advantage of UKC over AKC is that they allow mixed breeds in agility/obedience trials.


I too have very ambivalent feelings about the AKC, especially since the deal with Petland /Hunte Co. I do "hate" them more than I love them; however the idea of them not being there is frightening too. Where would we go, right now there is no other alternative. I've looked into the UKC, and they have there issues. I believe it was recently that the UKC hired someone to rewrite breed standards away from AKC-like standards and adopt standards that were closer to FCI standards. For my specific breed that really made a negative impact, as colors that are allowed in American dogs (AKC) are DQs in Europe. And while they aren't DQs by the new UKC standards they are definitely not "preferred." Sort of the opposite for my breed, from the parti-colored poodle example that was given above.

Anyway, great article! I especially enjoyed the responses from the different delegates. A very clever and outspoken group to be sure. And it's true something does need to be done, and soon.


Perhaps I'm mistaken, as I don't know a whole lot about the AKC - but aren't they still actively in the business of issuing papers to mass-breeding facilities (puppy mills)? How is a partnership with Petland any different than their status quo?

Was recently at a shelter receiving 200 dogs from one of those now-shuttered puppy mills. They were breeding dogs with obvious genetic defects - blindness, deformities, skin conditions, underbites, overbites, you name it. Little no no basic medical care. Deplorable. How involved is the AKC with these mills these days, helping them to establish a veneer of respectability to the general public?

Great read, BTW.

Gina Spadafori

No, they're just full of crap. :)


"The program with Petland offers AKC an opportunity to communicate the benefits of registration and involve new puppy owners in the world of AKC but does not imply an endorsement"

Boy, are THEY living in a dreamworld!


TheDogPress.com has this posted:

AKC's rationale for the "done deal" Petland contract and the official release to explain the (current) decision "not to go forward with it."


"...This program allows the AKC inspections team to continue its active presence in the commercial sector. If puppies sold in retail pet stores are not AKC registrable, AKC loses the ability to inspect and influence the care and conditions in pet stores and the breeding kennels that supply the pet stores.

...A written agreement between AKC and Petland exists, in large part, to protect the AKC and ensure that all applicable AKC Registration Rules and Procedures are followed.

...This program has not changed AKC’s registration policies. The AKC has always registered dogs sold through pet retailers as long as the pet store and breeder are in compliance with our standards for accurate record keeping and meet the AKC’s care and conditions requirements. Read our Compliance fact sheet at: AKC Press Center- Facts/Stats, page 6. The program with Petland offers AKC an opportunity to communicate the benefits of registration and involve new puppy owners in the world of AKC but does not imply an endorsement any more than AKC papers have in the past. It will ensure that AKC inspectors and investigators continue to have access to all kennels breeding AKC puppies. This will continue enforcement of our care and conditions policies and compliance with record-keeping.

Why is AKC encouraging the registration of all registrable dogs?

Today, many AKC-registrable dogs sold by pet retailers are not registered with the AKC by their owner. Less than 50 percent of AKC-registrable dogs are registered with the AKC. The AKC strategic plan targets this problem in all customer groups, including pet stores. When these new owners do not register, AKC and our clubs lose the ability to encourage them to become part of the fancy or to educate them about responsible dog ownership. We feel we can best promote our values and bring people into the world of AKC events by reaching out to new dog owners no matter where they choose to purchase their dog.

AKC’s ability to influence legislation and public opinion is directly linked to the number of dog owners we represent. Ultimately, AKC’s ability to take a leadership stand on any issue is closely tied to the size of our constituency (the number of people with AKC registered dogs)..."

PETA's "factsheet" on puppy mills states: "The AKC has minimum care standards for “high-volume breeding” facilities, but with 14 inspectors and an operating budget that is directed toward registration and dog shows, the AKC can only manage to inspect its registered kennels once every two years.(reference - High Volume Breeders Committee, “Report to the AKC Board of Directors,” AKC, 12 Nov. 2002: 5)


Chanin, look for an ASCA(R)-registered aussie. Some of those are conformation-bred, but there are still working dogs registered in ASCA(R), too. See http://asca.org or also see http://www.workingaussiesource.com/ if you need a dog that really is bred to work stock.


My question (and I know it's probably stupid) is "What the HE** does AKC NEED more money for? They get tons of money for registering puppies, (tens of thousands of puppies ever year) and they get money from every dog shown at every AKC show ... So what do they do with the money? A few seminars for judges/prospective judges. A couple pieces of paper for puppy buyers and an entry in a database for exhibitors and???

I'm serious what else do they do? Do they fund rescue efforts? Anything else of value?


They say "we use revenue to support all the things we do for dogs and those who love them – including subsidizing AKC events, supporting the AKC Canine Health Foundation and the AKC Museum of the Dog, funding programs such as our scholarships, veterinary outreach, kennel inspections, our legislative program and providing disaster relief." but what does it ammount to? Millions? Thousands? We all remember how AKC took the lead during the now resolved pet food crises. (pauses waiting for boos, hiss, and whistles to die down) So really, do they do enough "good" to offset the problems that they compound, if not actually cause?

And just so you don't think I'm totally an AKC newbe, I say this as someone who spent today stewarding at a rally trial, going back tomorrow. I spent a couple years as VP of our local AKC obed. club and served on the board, and I'll be the trial sec at our spring trial. And I just wonder if my time wouldn't be better spent elsewhere, like the local animal shelter.


Glock, Tracy's Pets has stated an inaccuracy on their website. Individuals cannot become "members" of the AKC. Only clubs (Parent Breed Clubs, recognized All-Breed Clubs, various Performance clubs such as Obedience clubs which have obtained recognition, etc.) can become "members" of AKC. AKC is a "club of clubs" (as stated in an earlier post of mine - you can find this stated on the AKC website here: http://www.akc.org/about/deleg.....inutes.cfm )

At its most basic level, the AKC is a registry, and the repository of the stud books for the AKC recognized breeds. In "English" (G!) that means they keep records of who was bred to who to produce what offspring, and on through each successive generation. Which is how pedigrees are produced - a pedigree is nothing more than the documentation of the verified lineage of a particular dog.

So as long as a dog is the offspring of two AKC registered parents, the owner of the offspring can apply to get those offspring registered with the AKC. Whether that owner is a Responsible Breeder, your next door neighbor, or the most vile puppy mill breeder imaginable - the registration can be applied for (and usually granted) as long as the proper procedures have been followed and paperwork submitted.

That's a concept a lot of people have trouble getting their minds around, but the fact is that AKC doesn't "censor" who can register dogs as long as the lineage can be verified.

The next step, of course, comes in where AKC does inspections of kennels with respect to the care conditions and their recordkeeping. If they inspect a commercial kennel and find the paperwork is not in order (translation - the breeder can't verify to AKC's satisfaction that THAT puppy really and truly came from THOSE parents) they can rescind the registration of those puppies. Or if they find the care conditions are not up to standards, they can revoke the kennel's registration privileges.

BUt this is where some people feel it's questionable how thoroughly they can live up to their talk given the number of inspectors they have. With inspections generally happening only every other year or so (see shadepuppy's post), how many infractions are slipping through the cracks? (This is much like FDA inspecting only 1% of our imports - you just KNOW stuff is gonna get through). So this is a concern.

Since AKC adopted DNA verification of parentage, it's been a useful tool to catch these infractions after the fact. But guess what? The sudden birth of all these new and highly questionable "registries" sort of conveniently coincided with AKC instituting the requirement that all "Frequently Used Sires" have their offspring verified through DNA testing. Suddenly the puppymillers decided that they didn't want to keep giving their money to AKC, and they formed their own "registries" with pretty paper certificates and pedigrees and everything, and foisted it off on the general public most of whom don't understand what a registry IS - much less with ones have any integrity as to the accuracy of their documentation.

Thus began the AKC's loss of revenue to other "registries" and the regrettable downhill slide that's been continuing ever since. We never used to hear AKC talk much about "revenue", but that sure changed once the puppymillers began hiring marketers to publicize their slick new "registries".

It's such a shame when things keep having a way of coming back to the almighty $$$ . . . . . . . . . .


Have been reading the discussion about the AKC and Petland. This discussion has prompted some questions on my part.

Does anyone know how Tracy's K & J Pets, one of the three largest brokers for puppy mills, became a member of the AKC? See weblink below.


Likewise, does anyone know how various breeders from puppy mills were able to register their dogs with the AKC? I ask this because I have researched my Shiba's pedigree. She came out of known puppy mill sources, but according to the now non-operational K9INFO website,her dam and sire were AKC registered.

(Based upon the pedigree I had for her, I went ahead and registerd her under the AKC ILP provision.)

If the AKC wants to expand the knowledge of recognized, pure bred dogs through various large pet store chains there are other ways to go about it. (Other than the PETLAND approach) Let the stores know about local breed clubs. Encourage them to have "education sessions" with local breed clubs. Let the petstores know about AKC sponsored events. Etc. Etc. This approach could be used for other interest groups (cat, reptile , and rodent fanciers). I think it would be a win-win for all concerned--and it might actually help keep some pets out of shelters.


Comment by glock — October 22, 2007 @ 1:30 pm

"Tracy’s listing of AKC membership may be 'inaccurate' or it may be a marketing ploy."

Oh, I'm sure they think it looks good to say that on their webpage. But it's still inaccurate. Individuals (including businesses) cannot become "members" of AKC since no such status exists. Only clubs can become members.

And that's just the way it is! :)


Thanks the Other Pat for your info.

This is third time I've tried to leave a comment.

Many puppy mills are inspected by the UDSA. The inspections can be requested and could be available to the AKC.

Here is an inspection report for the Bozarth Kennel (scoll to bottem for report)They also auction off puppies at dog auctions.


Here is info on Missouri Department of Agriculture "Blue Ribbon Kennels". Yes, dog breeding is a $$$ producing business.



Thanks for your info THE OTHER Pat.

Tracy's listing of AKC membership may be "inaccurate" or it may be a marketing ploy.

The info about DNA testing prompting development of alternate registries by the puppy millers is interesting. I had not heard that before.

I was aware of the AKC kennel inspection option. Since many of the puppy mills are USDA inspected facilities, the AKC can request inspection data from the USDA. Here is some inspection info on the Bozarth Kennel. (Which registers some of its dogs with the AKC. It also auctions off puppies at local dog auctions.) The inspection report is at the end of the page.


Dog breeding is a big business in Missouri, so much so that the Missouri Department of Agriculture has a "Blue Ribbon Kennel Program"


Barb McKee

Great blog Christie! Totally agree with you! Sad days ahead, I fear!Just had a look at tracyskjpets & am sadly horrified! One of many I'm sure Cheers/Barb

Behaven Shelties


Chanin - There are a LOT of working Aussies out there, still doing their jobs. ASCA was the original parent club, and was very much opposed to the "hijacking" mentioned in the original post - not wanting to have a split in the dogs bred to work, and the dogs for the show ring. If you check out the ASCA website, you can find a huge list of Working Trial Champions - which will give you an idea on which kennels are focused on working dogs. My own Aussie is double-registered with ASCA and AKC, specifically because my breeder's goal is to produce versatile Aussies "with titles at both ends" in just about every venue you can imagine - not just flashy dimwits. We compete primarily in Obedience and Rally, and are training in Tracking, Herding, and Agility at the moment; my dog's sister has earned both her AKC and ASCA Championships, plus her Working Trial Championship, titles in Obedience and Rally, and also is training in Obedience. My breeder is very serious about producing healthy, good looking dogs that move like the wind and can happily do anything you ask of them - and she's not alone among ASCA breeders. Just like the afore-mentioned Flat-Coat person out there in the mud working dogs as they were meant to work, an Aussie should do more than just look pretty running in a circle.

And just as a clarification - ASCA trials are open to any and all breeds and mixes, in all venues save Conformation. ASCA also is unique in that it offers a parallel program for a dog to earn an Altered Championship. I've personally competed in ASCA Obedience trials with more non-Aussies than Aussies, and watched non-Aussies win top awards in Tracking, Herding , Obedience, and other venues. If a dog can do the job, then it's eligible to come and play.

ASCA may not be perfect; any organization is going to have politics and disagreements when there are things involving money. But as far as performance dogs are concerned, I find it to be a more positive venue.

Sorry this strayed a bit from Christie's original AKC rant. I just thought more folks might wish to consider a different competitive venue if they were too furious at AKC or UKC for their policies.


You'll never be able to quote what delegates said at meetings again, because after the Petland fiasco AKC abolished the taking of minutes.

AKC can pull all this crap because the dog fancy is convinced that there's no life possible outside of AKC. But there is. Check out the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America for a model of how a breed club/registry can defy the AKC and still remain vibrant, active and true to their beliefs and their breed. www.jrtca.com


Sorry, I should have said the AKC abolished verbatim transcripts. They still take minutes of the votes.

nora and rufus

Oh my God. Please. Aussies! My Aussie (his parents are both working farm dogs for life) who is not registered (but strikenly beautiful) who to me is more valuble than life itself, has an incredible herding instinct (goats, cattle, ducks and geese) and is even a natural around horses, meaning he knows not to herd (equines) them, but to befriend them, thus no herding required. To think that some poor, beautiful(maybe) registered Aussie will be sold in a pet store makes my skin crawl and blood boil! Puppy Mills are supported by the devil and and if AKC supports them, WHAT CAN BE DONE.


There is much to dislike about the AKC. I'm not sure yet whether reform is possible, but I've started a blog to talk about what I've seen happening and to discuss solutions - whether anyone listens is up to them. Come on over and we can discuss it together.



The one reason why I hate them now is because I was doing a little searching, and I came on this thing about ear cropping(thats not what I looked up, though). I clicked on it and I was shocked at what I read. It said that the some U.S. states has tried to ban ear cropping, but the AKC wouldn't let them because they believed that ear cropping is important not only for defining but also preserving the character of the breed, and to prevent injuries and "enhancing their overall good health!" I couldn't believe it!! Then, they said anyone who believes that ear cropping is unnecessary or cosmetic does not have a full knowledge and respect of their certain breed!!!!!!! That made me so mad that....well....I don't even know! Since when is it good for their health(Don't Answer)? I happen to love boxers and basically what their saying is that I don't know anything about them and don't respect them! Thats a big fat LIE! I love boxers to NO end and I respect them deeply. I know everything about boxer care. I know they need plenty of exercize and owner interaction. I know they're affectionate and loyal. Sorry so long, I'm just ANGRY!!!!!!

Christie Keith

Becky, could you explain to me exactly how the AKC "wouldn't let" a state pass a law?

The comments to this entry are closed.