Alternative AKC registries - ?

IME titles don't mean healthy. my corgi comes from one of the top corgi lines, her pedigree is filled with conformation championships and some working titles, and a lot of "cousins" of hers have working titles. she has a long list of health problems. if the health problems aren't visually apparent, there is no reason someone cannot still title the dog. in selecting breeding stock, i am more concerned with what i have than in what others have and how they compare. i have studied the breeds i choose to own, and hope to breed, and i am well versed in proper structure for those breeds. i also will go to breed clubs or other breeders and ask them to point out any structural flaws they see. as for work, i have corgis and malinois. for the mals, if they have titles in protection (since protection sport is what i intend to do with them, that's great. but if they have protection titles, i also want to know what the scores were and why they lost points. i want to see the dog do obedience, i want to see the dog do bite work. titles in and of themselves don't mean the dog can really work, it means the dog made his way through a routine on a given day. for corgis, i am most interested in herding, and second in agility. again, titles are great, but some that do herding with their corgis utilize them on a farm and never take them to a trial. no titles, but a working dog none the less. i want to *see* the parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents work, i want to see their structure, i want to see their health records. a real working dog doesn't need to be titled.

cyclefiend2000

it takes a pretty exceptional dog to win best in show. 

or a pretty exceptional *cough* handler *cough*

Laurelin_429

If you don't title your dogs then how do you go about comparing them to others' breeding stock.  How do you decide which dogs should be bred.  I'm not a breeder, but I look for titles (not just conformation) among many other things as proof that the breeder is breeding towards the betterment of the breed.  If your dogs are as good as you say they are hunting wise, why not compete and get the titles so you can prove it?

     AHA! Thats the millsion dollar question!     
     As breeders, we are not supposed to be planning our litters or keeping on pups on the basis of comparing our potential breeding stock to other breeder's stock. That is not what titles prove, and is not the function of a conformation show or working event. No, the purpose of titles it to prove the indivigual dog adheres to the Breed Standard, not what top breeders are producing. Unfortunately, AKC show events are politics, politics, politics. If you spend enough $$$ in the Show Beagle Quarterly to advertise your hound and get their name "out there", if you spend the $$$ to special your hound, if you analyze the judging schedule so you can show under a judge that doesn't have a thing for men (and will pick the hound belonging to the cutest male handler @@ - seen it happen), or a judge from Great Britan who favors 15" hounds built like Rottweilers - then maybe you'll make a name for yourself and do well in the ring. What I see too much of in AKC is judges not adhering to the Standard in most breeds, then you get breeders breeding to suit the tastes of judges, Standards being altered unnecessarily when those changes permeate the breed. Breed to the standard (and it helps to have a good mentor, too!), cull liberally, keep the rose colored glasses off, and you can't go wrong ...

HoundMusic

or a judge from Great Britan who favors 15" hounds built like Rottweilers

ACK!!!! now i have *that* mental picture stuck for the day...

Your pup may look and act like any other Schnauzer but it's health could be something else.

AKC folks are far more apt to have consciously bred to breed out serious health & temprement problems.

They are more apt to have their breeding stock certified for hip problems, eye problems, etc and will pass along  that clean bill of health to the new owner.  Yes, AKC pups MAY cost more but they live longer & healthier lives because  they were not bred in a hap-hazard manner.

I, like many others who replied here, don't see it as arrogant to support an organization whose main goals are fostering responsible breeding and healthy, well adjusted puppies.

The fact that so many of these fabricated organizations try to intentionally confuse buyers into believing that they are American Kennel Club or other reputable international clubs should be clue enough that they KNOW they are being dishonest and underhanded.

"AKC folks are far more apt to have consciously bred to breed out serious health & temprement problems."

 

that's SO untrue. Many AKC-registered dogs come from puppy mills and BYBs. Many champion AKC conformation dogs have or carry the genetics for serious health and temperament problems. Registration papers mean very little and should only weigh in your decision to buy if you want to compete in events sanctioned by the registry; papers from registries that do not hold any kind of competitions are completely worthless. You want to see the actual certificates proving good health. You want to meet the parents and related dogs and judge their temperaments for yourself. You want to know what health problems the parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, and cousins have had. You want some kind of solid proof the dog has the potential to excell at what you want the dog for, whether that is a working hunting dog, an obedience champion, or just a healthy good tempered pet.

mudpuppy

"AKC folks are far more apt to have consciously bred to breed out serious health & temprement problems."

 

that's SO untrue. Many AKC-registered dogs come from puppy mills and BYBs. Many champion AKC conformation dogs have or carry the genetics for serious health and temperament problems. Registration papers mean very little and should only weigh in your decision to buy if you want to compete in events sanctioned by the registry; papers from registries that do not hold any kind of competitions are completely worthless.

     You hit the nail directly on the head!

Sandy E

AKC folks are far more apt to have consciously bred to breed out serious health & temprement problems.

i know first hand that there are many breeders out there, among the top AKC conformation producers, who do not health test their stock, they breed entirely for looks, and if something shows up in a puppy, they claim to have no idea where it came from, *it couldn't have been their dogs that passed on the problem*. health testing, after all, cuts into the profits. and they need to reserve that part of the budget for entry fees for their multitude of dogs. i prefer someone who decides that allocating funds for entry fees in the breed ring is unnecessary, but that XRays, CERFs, EKG's, etc are necessary.

But you know what? I think you'll find the proportion of breeders who DO health test is higher among the 'snobby' AKC folks than the ones that use one of the puppy mill registries. (And if you think APRI and UABR aren't puppy mill registries? Check out the owners' histories with USDA liscensing. 

Pwca

But you know what? I think you'll find the proportion of breeders who DO health test is higher among the 'snobby' AKC folks than the ones that use one of the puppy mill registries. (And if you think APRI and UABR aren't puppy mill registries? Check out the owners' histories with USDA liscensing. 

 

I don't know, there ARE an awful lot of puppy mill and BYB people throwing off the stats for all registries I think.  The show people only constitute about 10% of AKC's registries...and there are plenty of them who do little for health as well.  It's an ugly statistic but that's what it was last I heard.  I know in my own breed people who breed and show AKC dogs who have unhealthy animals--a lot of the nasty stuff we don't have testing for, but some breed knowing their dog, for example, has a high probability for  producing epilepsy but breed anyway because dog shows are apparently the end all be all.  I do like to use championship winning dogs but it isn't a deal breaker.  I have a girl who hates showing.  Detests the grooming.  Structurally she's very nice and would finish easily, however, because she's been weight pulled, backpacked, sledded, etc since a young age, asking her to stand still and look cute in the ring is not her idea of fun.  Maybe it's more justified because she's the most AMCA working titled girl alive today and has proven her soundness through her activities, but the fact remains, she's not a show Ch.  If she's not trying to bolt around the ring, she's standing there totally bored.  She's taken points but will never finish with that attitude.  I personally do hips, eyes, thyroid, and dwarfism (that's exclusive to my breed) and they have to be working titled or at least tested by me to see if they have what it takes to be a good worker before I will breed to them.  Most people don't do all of that. 

Houndmusic:   And yikes, the field beagles are only living to like 6?  The opposite is true in my breed, the working dogs seem to live well into their teens and are actually still wanting to go on runs at 10 and 12 years old and we usually humor them with short runs.  That's one of the reasons I prefer those homes, it actually is probably a better life, they certainly seem to enjoy it.   Mals really like to have a job.  I can see if the Beagles are much shorter lived that field homes would be less desirable.  

I'd agree it's not just about conformation by a long stretch, but what registries other than AKC and UKC and the single-breed registries (ASCA, JRTCA) offer any performance events at all?  Who else funds health research?

 I'm not saying that AKC automatically equals reputable. I'm saying that APRI and UABR pretty much automatically equal BYB at best, IMO.
 

Not that I have a real desire to get into your discussion, but one thing keeps going through my mind as I read about those who *Praise* the AKC no matter what, and especially when it comes to the *AKC vs quality* topics....

What happened to the Bulldog?  Where were all of the reputable AKC breeders when the health of this breed was destroyed in exchange for it's look?  And how many of them could be considered reputable when they breed dogs that are known to have some degree of HD.  I have yet to see a bulldog who's hips were tested and scored free of HD.  I have yet to see a bulldog that breaths freely, breeds and whelps freely, has no skin allergies or other related skin problems, has absolutely no history of entropion or cherry eye, that has been tested for all of the other problems that are known to occur regularly in this breed and gotten all great results from specialists, yet still looks like the standard of the AKC says it should look.  This is what breeders have done to the bulldog, and this is what AKC has allowed breeders to do to the bulldog, by changing the standard over the years to suit them. 

The AKC is a business, just like any other registry, and businesses need money to operate.  They may do more than other registries in terms of shows etc, but they have been in business longer and charge more than any other registry, they are not doing anything for free or for the love of the breed.  It's all about $$.  You don't think the person who answers the phone when you call the AKC with a question is working for free because of her love for purebred dogs do you?  No, she is the paid employee, hired by this business.     

I have seen and heard many bulldogs grunt, snort and pant around the ring at AKC shows like they were going to fall down and pass out.  Yet they still manage to get these dogs champ'd!  The original bulldogs wasn't meant to be this way, it was a working dog.

If anyone can prove me wrong and show me an AKC registered bulldog that is perfectly healthy in every way and has the test results to prove such, yet still meets the standard I would be very excited to see it and would be glad to admit that I was wrong.

            

I think we can all agree with the fact that the AKC is not the darling it once might have been or was intended to be. It has flaws, there is no doubt, and many of us have said so. But the basic fact is there are several things the AKC does do that are recognizeable.

Read this story:

http://www.dachshundranch.com/AKC_vs_pet_registries.htm

Tru

as I understand, though, it's the breed club that sets the breed standard, not the registering body.  And I share the views on the Bulldog, but I think it's the breed people who have made it that way