# AKC Registration



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

A couple of months ago a bill was finally passed in the state of Indiana to help legislate the treatment & care of those unfortunate ones to be purchased and bred in puppy mills. Unfortunately it was so watered down that it doesn't change too much the horrific practices of puppy mills. But at least it's a start. My new groomer who is also a vet tech showed Rep. Walorski (who was the major driving force in support of this bill) around to some of the worst puppy mills in our area and was a fighting force in trying to get the bill to pass herself. She used to breed and show Shih-Tzu's. She told me that the AKC was not in support of the bill because of the greed factor. That is why she has chosen to no longer be a show breeder. Her last litter she did not register with the AKC as a matter of principle and is no longer going to be breeding Tzu's.

Is there anything we can do to voice our outrage with the AKC? What a dilemma for a show breeder to be in. To not show and have your dogs registered with the AKC would put you in the byb bracket. But to continue to register with the AKC (and you have to in order to show), is supporting a group that apparently does not have the welfare of the dogs at heart. So I guess you could put them in the same bracket as 'greeders'.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

AKC is not the only show on the market...and over the last few years I have heard UKC (United KC) registrations are increasing and their shows are becoming more popular. You also have to remember that AKC is a REGISTRY, not a governing body...


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (JMM @ Jul 5 2009, 09:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801514


> AKC is not the only show on the market...and over the last few years I have heard UKC (United KC) registrations are increasing and their shows are becoming more popular. You also have to remember that AKC is a REGISTRY, not a governing body...[/B]




AKC makes millions off registrations on dogs from mills and byb's but if they stop, how do they determine who is whom? The best way to battle this is
to fight and educate owners and prospective buyers. Once the mills and byb's aren't making money, the registrations stop.


----------



## myfairlacy (Dec 28, 2007)

QUOTE (JMM @ Jul 5 2009, 09:21 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801514


> AKC is not the only show on the market...and over the last few years I have heard UKC (United KC) registrations are increasing and their shows are becoming more popular. You also have to remember that AKC is a REGISTRY, not a governing body...[/B]


It's MUCH easier to finish a dog in UKC than AKC. I think UKC shows are great to do for fun but I put a lot more worth in an AKC championship title.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

Easier to finish a Ch....but I put quite a bit of value in their Grand Ch. title. It also depends on the breed and the number of entries.


----------



## myfairlacy (Dec 28, 2007)

QUOTE (JMM @ Jul 6 2009, 12:12 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801586


> Easier to finish a Ch....but I put quite a bit of value in their Grand Ch. title. It also depends on the breed and the number of entries.[/B]


True..it takes a lot more effort to get the Grand Championship title..that would be more equivalent to an AKC championship to me. But a dog can get a championship title in one or two days at a UKC show. UKC shows are a lot like CFA cat shows...you can get a cat's championship title in one day too and doesn't require many points..but you need 200 points to get a Grand Championship title. So a cat that is a champion doesn't really impress me..but a grand champion is definitely impressive. 

I just recently saw a yorkie that got it's UKC championship title and couldn't beleive it...the coat was black and it's face had a lot of black in it...the dog would most likely get disqualified at most AKC shows due to the recent changes to the Yorkie standard. She was also under 4lbs and had a soft coat...not silky. I know some dogs are finished in AKC that probably aren't worthy of the title but seems much more common in UKC.


----------



## Cosy (Feb 9, 2006)

QUOTE (MyFairLacy @ Jul 6 2009, 12:30 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801591


> QUOTE (JMM @ Jul 6 2009, 12:12 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801586





> Easier to finish a Ch....but I put quite a bit of value in their Grand Ch. title. It also depends on the breed and the number of entries.[/B]


True..it takes a lot more effort to get the Grand Championship title..that would be more equivalent to an AKC championship to me. But a dog can get a championship title in one or two days at a UKC show. UKC shows are a lot like CFA cat shows...you can get a cat's championship title in one day too and doesn't require many points..but you need 200 points to get a Grand Championship title. So a cat that is a champion doesn't really impress me..but a grand champion is definitely impressive. 

I just recently saw a yorkie that got it's UKC championship title and couldn't beleive it...the coat was black and it's face had a lot of black in it...the dog would most likely get disqualified at most AKC shows due to the recent changes to the Yorkie standard. She was also under 4lbs and had a soft coat...not silky. I know some dogs are finished in AKC that probably aren't worthy of the title but seems much more common in UKC.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Yorkies are a tough breed to judge by coat texture, etc since they need those black coats in there now and then to keep the silk from going platinum. I've seen little yorkies under four pounds get their ch. only because they were cute and met the standard other than size. I've also seen pups in AKC shows with black on the face win their class as it takes quite some time for faces to clear in some lines. It doesn't mean they aren't worthy.
Anyway, I don't like that it takes less to get a UKC championship. I think it shows less study of the breed and more opportunity for BYB's to finish an unworthy dog and call it a champion to the unknowing public. Just think how deceiving websites can be saying CH. this and CH. that with not a mention of AKC *OR* UKC.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

I think you really need to take UKC in perspective before knocking it. You have to keep in mind that UKC has been focused on sporting, working, and more rare breeds. Most toy/companion breeds showing up at UKC shows are relatively new. A judge seeing one for the first time is not going to have the same knowledge as an AKC judge who has a good entry of yorkies every weekend. Nothing is perfect. UKC is an alternative and, should entries increase in more breeds, I would expect to see the same quality of judging that came about in other breeds there with toys.


----------



## jmm (Nov 23, 2004)

QUOTE (Cosy @ Jul 6 2009, 01:04 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801593


> Yorkies are a tough breed to judge by coat texture, etc since they need those black coats in there now and then to keep the silk from going platinum. I've seen little yorkies under four pounds get their ch. only because they were cute and met the standard other than size. I've also seen pups in AKC shows with black on the face win their class as it takes quite some time for faces to clear in some lines. It doesn't mean they aren't worthy.
> Anyway, I don't like that it takes less to get a UKC championship. I think it shows less study of the breed and more opportunity for BYB's to finish an unworthy dog and call it a champion to the unknowing public. Just think how deceiving websites can be saying CH. this and CH. that with not a mention of AKC *OR* UKC.[/B]



The accepted abbreviation for UKC Champion is UCH. Labradors would be a great breed to look at for examples of UCH dogs that they will mention being AKC pnted.


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

Well surely the AKC can tell by the the sheer volume of litters being born to certain breeders who are most likely puppy mills. And if they truly have not only the welfare of the dog, but the betterment of the breeds at heart, why would they actually NOT support bills to help shut down puppy mills. It's just discouraging. You're right Brit, we need to educate the general public, but if the general public hears the AKC is not in support of shutting down the mills, what kind of a message does that send? And couldn't the actual breed groups, like the AMA, let them know of their disappointment and try to get them to change?

I kind of hope that you're right Jackie. That the AKC will loose some of it's popularity due to this and that the UKC continues to grow in not only popularity, but also in it's judging.

I'm just a bit emotional right now because I'm smack in the middle of puppy mill heck here and in the past couple of weeks people have been bringing in 6 week old puppies that they bought at the flea market. They've NEVER sold puppies at the flea market before and we just had record high heat and humidity. These tiny babies come in and can't even hold their heads up! One was trying to nurse on the lady's finger and they said she hasn't drank any water all day, no matter how hard they tried to get her to drink. It's illegal in the state of Indiana to sell puppies under 8 weeks. There's just no easy solution.


----------



## wooflife (Aug 8, 2007)

QUOTE (Crystal&Zoe @ Jul 6 2009, 11:52 AM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801704


> Well surely the AKC can tell by the the sheer volume of litters being born to certain breeders who are most likely puppy mills. And if they truly have not only the welfare of the dog, but the betterment of the breeds at heart, why would they actually NOT support bills to help shut down puppy mills. It's just discouraging. You're right Brit, we need to educate the general public, but if the general public hears the AKC is not in support of shutting down the mills, what kind of a message does that send? And couldn't the actual breed groups, like the AMA, let them know of their disappointment and try to get them to change?
> 
> I kind of hope that you're right Jackie. That the AKC will loose some of it's popularity due to this and that the UKC continues to grow in not only popularity, but also in it's judging.
> 
> I'm just a bit emotional right now because I'm smack in the middle of puppy mill heck here and in the past couple of weeks people have been bringing in 6 week old puppies that they bought at the flea market. They've NEVER sold puppies at the flea market before and we just had record high heat and humidity. These tiny babies come in and can't even hold their heads up! One was trying to nurse on the lady's finger and they said she hasn't drank any water all day, no matter how hard they tried to get her to drink. It's illegal in the state of Indiana to sell puppies under 8 weeks. There's just no easy solution. [/B]


And here I was thinking I'd like to go to that flea market - not if they are selling puppies! I'll just hang out with you in the store. 

It must be so hard for you Crystal. You feel so strongly about pupply mills and BYB's and yet your smack in the middle of the Amish dog breeding world and most of your doggie customers come from those breeders. What a tough situation to be in. 

Maybe you can stock some nutrical - and some other emergency puppy products to try to help educate customers when they do buy those puppies. You can't stop them from buying the puppy but you can help them understand the puppies immediate health needs from being born in that environment - maybe proceeds from those items could go to dog rescues in your area so you wouldn't feel like you were profiting from the puppymills. 

I also just started my blog www.doggiekisses.com - I'll try to write something about the puppymills in your area. My goal is to try to keep the topics light so people will enjoy reading them but make also to make a strong a point.


Leslie


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

QUOTE (Crystal&Zoe @ Jul 6 2009, 12:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801704


> Well surely the AKC can tell by the the sheer volume of litters being born to certain breeders who are most likely puppy mills. And if they truly have not only the welfare of the dog, but the betterment of the breeds at heart, why would they actually NOT support bills to help shut down puppy mills. It's just discouraging. You're right Brit, we need to educate the general public, but if the general public hears the AKC is not in support of shutting down the mills, what kind of a message does that send? And couldn't the actual breed groups, like the AMA, let them know of their disappointment and try to get them to change?[/B]


The AKC, parent breed clubs, and state by state dog club federations *DO* support reasonable animal welfare bills. They do not support bills that are so broadly written that *good responsible* breeders will be unfairly burdened or punished by the same bill. Here's an example -- a couple of years ago a bill was introduced in Massachusetts known as the "Dangerous Dog Bill". AKC supported it, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners supported it, the Massachusetts Animal Control Officers Association supported it, shelters, rescues, everybody supported it. It was approved with minor changes, passed into some committee for review and once there was changed (by one state rep. known for his outrageous anti-dog positions) from a bill putting the responsibility and punishment onto the shoulders of an irresponsible owner of a dangerous dog to a bill that banned breed specific dogs, required every dog over 4 mos. old to be spayed/neutered except for intact dogs owned by breeders who would have to (i) prove that they were showing their dogs and (ii) purchase a $500 permit/dog/year for each intact dog in their possession. Additionally, all dogs must be licensed and *VACCINATED* *YEARLY FOR ALL VACCINATIONS* (currently we are required to vaccinate every 3 years for rabies and there is no requirement for any other vaccination). Needless to say, AKC and everybody else pulled their support and chose to oppose the bill.

I applaud the AKC for taking a stand to protect *GOOD RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS.* I also applaud them for spending so much of their money on public education and canine health research. Here is a link to AKC's Legislative Alerts page summarizing the various bills and stating their position on each bill. AKC Legislative Alerts 

I despise puppy mills as much as anybody but if we punish every breeder in an effort to get at just the bad apples in the bunch then we will have no good responsible breeders left to breed the dogs we all love.

MaryH


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

QUOTE (MaryH @ Jul 6 2009, 02:49 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801740


> QUOTE (Crystal&Zoe @ Jul 6 2009, 12:52 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801704





> Well surely the AKC can tell by the the sheer volume of litters being born to certain breeders who are most likely puppy mills. And if they truly have not only the welfare of the dog, but the betterment of the breeds at heart, why would they actually NOT support bills to help shut down puppy mills. It's just discouraging. You're right Brit, we need to educate the general public, but if the general public hears the AKC is not in support of shutting down the mills, what kind of a message does that send? And couldn't the actual breed groups, like the AMA, let them know of their disappointment and try to get them to change?[/B]


The AKC, parent breed clubs, and state by state dog club federations *DO* support reasonable animal welfare bills. They do not support bills that are so broadly written that *good responsible* breeders will be unfairly burdened or punished by the same bill. Here's an example -- a couple of years ago a bill was introduced in Massachusetts known as the "Dangerous Dog Bill". AKC supported it, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners supported it, the Massachusetts Animal Control Officers Association supported it, shelters, rescues, everybody supported it. It was approved with minor changes, passed into some committee for review and once there was changed (by one state rep. known for his outrageous anti-dog positions) from a bill putting the responsibility and punishment onto the shoulders of an irresponsible owner of a dangerous dog to a bill that banned breed specific dogs, required every dog over 4 mos. old to be spayed/neutered except for intact dogs owned by breeders who would have to (i) prove that they were showing their dogs and (ii) purchase a $500 permit/dog/year for each intact dog in their possession. Additionally, all dogs must be licensed and *VACCINATED* *YEARLY FOR ALL VACCINATIONS* (currently we are required to vaccinate every 3 years for rabies and there is no requirement for any other vaccination). Needless to say, AKC and everybody else pulled their support and chose to oppose the bill.

I applaud the AKC for taking a stand to protect *GOOD RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS.* I also applaud them for spending so much of their money on public education and canine health research. Here is a link to AKC's Legislative Alerts page summarizing the various bills and stating their position on each bill. AKC Legislative Alerts 

I despise puppy mills as much as anybody but if we punish every breeder in an effort to get at just the bad apples in the bunch then we will have no good responsible breeders left to breed the dogs we all love.

MaryH
[/B][/QUOTE]

I guess I just didn't see anything in the first proposed bill that would have been a problem for a responsible show breeder or even a hobby breeder. I'm just trying to understand, not be argumentive. Can you explain what some of the issues in the first proposed bill would have been unfair to responsible show breeders?


----------



## roxybaby22 (Feb 25, 2009)

Very well said MaryH! You are always very informative.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

QUOTE (Crystal&Zoe @ Jul 6 2009, 03:29 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801754


> I guess I just didn't see anything in the first proposed bill that would have been a problem for a responsible show breeder or even a hobby breeder. I'm just trying to understand, not be argumentive. Can you explain what some of the issues in the first proposed bill would have been unfair to responsible show breeders?[/B]


It seems that there were two bills under consideration in Indiana. While I pay attention to what's happening in Massachusetts, unfortunately I don't have the time to read all of the bills from all of the other states that I hear about so I can't tell you what's good vs. bad in the Indiana bills. I know that you are not being argumentative. And like you, it really rubs me raw to think that a bill that could potentially stop the existence of puppy mills is being opposed by organizations who claim to love dogs and care deeply for their welfare. But too often law enforcement agencies and politicians want to punish everyone instead of just the criminals. We blame the AKC, claiming they do nothing but sit in their swank offices collecting fees from anybody willing to pay them to register anything with four legs. For as bad as behavior seems to be, the AKC is still the only dog registry in this country conducting routine inspections on breeders and suspending privileges for substandard conditions, fraudulent paperwork practices, etc. Every month the AKC publishes their "Secretary's Report" and every month they list all of the breeders who have failed an inspection. I think there is some blame that can fairly be placed at the local level, too. Who wants to pay higher property taxes so that their local town/city/county can hire enough animal control officers to enforce the animal welfare laws already on the books? Nothing about the puppymill issue is easy but I do believe the AKC is more interested in protecting the rights of good responsible breeders than they are in collecting registration fees from the mills. And it's because of the AKC's routine inspections that so many of the mills have turned to other registries and now sell "CKC", "ACA", etc. registered puppies.

I wish I had a better answer for you.

MaryH


----------



## CrystalAndZoe (Jul 11, 2006)

QUOTE (MaryH @ Jul 6 2009, 04:25 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801768


> I wish I had a better answer for you.
> 
> MaryH[/B]


Me too. And I'm truly glad I didn't come across as some PETA activist who would be sending Live Fly Traps to the President. :wacko1: I am truly glad that you did bring up the fact that some bills could be so outlandish that it would hurt even the reputable breeders.

It's just at the last meeting before the last changes to the bill had been made and then passed, it was all the Amish Puppy Millers and then one of the LARGEST Puppy Millers in Northern Indiana from Syracuse who was really up in arms, telling everyone that we would be hurting their income and livelihood if the bill were passed as is. There were no reputable breeders there that had a problem with the original proposed bill. And I won't go into detail the horrors that are a daily ritual for these poor dogs in those puppy mills. Let alone the Parvo outbreak that happens routinely in this area this time of year that is traced directly back to the puppy mills in my area.


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

QUOTE (Crystal&Zoe @ Jul 6 2009, 04:48 PM) index.php?act=findpost&pid=801777


> And I'm truly glad I didn't come across as some PETA activist who would be sending Live Fly Traps to the President.[/B]


Never!! 

QUOTE


> There were no reputable breeders there that had a problem with the original proposed bill.[/B]


A lot of times reputable breeders who oppose a bill skip the public hearings and voice their opposition by email, phone, fax, letter or not at all. Many are afraid that if they stand in a room expressing their very valid concerns about a bill but they're surrounded by millers and greeders, they are going to be accused of being a miller just like the rest of the bunch. It's a lousy situation all the way around.

MaryH


----------



## MaryH (Mar 7, 2006)

California is at it again -- a perfect example of a bill that looks good but unfairly would punish the masses for the few.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/...ded_sen_v95.pdf

This bill would give an animal control officer the authority to force a person to sterilize their dog should it be found to be running loose somewhere in the community. On the surface it seems reasonable because nobody should have the right to open their door and let their dog run loose terrorizing everything in the neighborhood. But what if the dog got loose unknowingly and it happened to be your top winning champion? How many times have we read on this forum about someone's dog getting loose through no real fault of their own? Not only would this bill force the sterizilation of the dog who got loose but because the owner is now in violation of the law, it would give the animal control agency in that community the authority to revoke the "unaltered dog license" of any other dog owned by the owner of this dog. In effect, if a responsible breeder has one dog that gets loose that responsible breeder could be forced to sterilize every dog that they own. Needless to say, the AKC and every dog federation in California opposes this bill (rightly so in my opinion) because it is so broadly written that it will punish the masses for the few. Even the ASPCA has taken the position that mandatory spay/neuter laws are not effective in controlling shelter population and euthanasia.

AKC's position on California SB 250 - http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=3890

ASPCA's position on mandatory spay/neuter - http://www.aspca.org/about-us/policy-posit...euter-laws.html


MaryH


----------

