Jump to content
BC Boards

Kennel Club Timeline


chene
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm getting to the point where I need to feel better educated in order to convince other people not to support the CKC/AKC. I know lots of bits here and there but I'm lacking understand in the fundamental threat that Kennel Clubs pose for the working lines. I'm not looking for broad answers about everything that's wrong, I've heard a lot of those. I want to be able to put together something concise and convincing that I can tell people when I need to explain my point of view, so bear with me.

I'm going to give you what I understand of the timeline of how a breed gets ruined by the AKC. If you guys could correct me or add to it or steer me in a better direction that would be awesome. Australian Shepherds seem to be a good example if people can give info on them as well.

-A breed is bred to do some sort of work.
-The breed is acknowledged by a kennel club, who then formulates a standard based primarily on appearance.
-Breeders start breeding for that appearance instead of anything else.

-People go looking to get this dog and what comes up first are the appearance-based breeders, not the work-based breeders, because that's what the kennel club suggests.

-As more people buy from appearance-based breeders work-based breeders start to not have enough people to buy their puppies.
-Work-based breeders start to stop breeding their dogs. The work-based line dies off.
-People who actually want working dogs can't find them anymore, so they switch to other breeds or stop using dogs altogether.

-Now the appearance-based dog is all that's left.

I'm certain there are big gaps in my understanding and knowledge, so I need some help here. Am I completely wrong about this timeline? The way the working line dies off is pretty much guesswork and filling in the blanks, because I've just not heard a lot about it. But clearly it happens because all the dogs that used to be used for work aren't anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 78
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

And then the people breeding the appearance-based dogs determine that if a certain amount of some characteristic is "good" or "desirable", then even more of that characteristic is "better" or "more desirable" - so you see more coat, flatter faces, thicker and deeper wrinkles, more flashy coloration, etc....and the race to extremes is on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point to be made about the AKC is that, within its auspices, the breed fanciers have taken formerly useful dogs and turned them into caricatures of themselves, not only useless for their original purpose but sometimes to the detriment of the breed's health.

For example: Cocker spaniels were once vigorous hunting dogs, used for ferreting downed birds out of brush and hedgerows. Now their tremendous coats wouldn't last 60 seconds in the brush and they are often subject to nervous, snappish temperaments. English bull dogs cannot mate or give birth without surgical help, and they are fraught with breathing problems and other health issues. Cavalier King Charles spaniels are plagued with heart disease and with a defect wherein the skull is sometimes not large enough for the brain, resulting in spinal problems, trouble walking plus terrible pain. Labrador retrievers have diverged into at least two distinct branches, one being the show lines who are short, fat and certainly not able to hunt or retrieve the way their much more vigorous field-bred cousins still do. Bernese Mountain dogs are now struggling with a 45% cancer rate. Bull Terriers have gone from a handsome, sturdy terrier dog to a physical freak whose skull now bends to a 45 degree angle at the muzzle. That breed is plagued by neurotic behaviors such as spinning and self-mutilation chewing. The Shar-pei was once a formidable hunting and farm protection dog, but now they are most known for their extremely wrinkled skin - which leads to skin problems, allergies and infections.

And of course the German Shepherd has gone from this:

To this:


While the basset hound has gone from this:

To this:


The argument of course can be made that people don't need basset hounds to hunt or German shepherds to scale mountains or run gauntlets of enemy fire, so why shouldn't breeders aspire to a more pleasing aesthetic? My reply then is, no reason at all, except when these cosmetic ideals cause genuine damage to the health and physical well-being of the breed and add unnatural health problems and defects that did not occur, or only rarely occurred, within the origins of that breed.

In other words, some of the breed fanciers have created their own monsters and are perpetuating their own genetic defects.

THAT is my beef with the kennel clubs. They don't create these breed problems, but neither do they do much to discourage or penalize damaging breed trends. AKC judges are putting up and rewarding these genetic disasters, when in my opinion, there should be a strong lobby within the organization to police against extremes.

Finally, it's not that AKC breeders drive working breeders out of business, it's that AKC is like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval: if a puppy's papers say AKC, the general public takes that to mean they are getting the best of a breed, and that this is what the breed is supposed to be like. They don't know that horrible hips, skin infections, brain damage or obesity are not hallmarks of the best for any dog breed, and yet the AKC "brand name" makes it seem so.

Anyhow ... this got overlong, so I'll shut up. This is food for thought, nothing more. :)

~ Gloria



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well they do in the sense that people start thinking that working dogs have to be a member of/conform to AKC standards or they are not a true member of the breed. The AKC had become the gold standard in whether or not a dog is a good model of its breed. I don't know how many times I have been told my working border collie or even ABCA border collies are not real border collies or from a good breeder because they aren't members of the AKC. Which in reality means nothing anyone can breed a dog with an AKC registration so long as the parents of that dog also had the AKC registration and they paid their fees. My grandmas first question to me when hearing about Lily was to ask why I got a dog that wasn't an AKC dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I often wonder why people would want to dumb down dogs. It is like wanting a sports car with a golf cart engine! Once the change starts in a breed (and it is not always the AKC's doing-look at the Australian Shepherd, it's breed club did the same thing!). If you want a particular breed, step up to the breed, do not dumb it down so it is easier to live with and a 'better pet'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kennel Clubs create the environment that allows the ruination of breeds to take place. They do not dictate the details of that ruination; that is down to the breed clubs.

 

And KCs have compounded their complicity but doing nothing about the excesses perpetrated by those breed clubs.

 

That's not to say all KCs are equally bad though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that you used the race car analogy. A few weeks ago, a man was killed at a theme park attraction while driving a Lamborghini.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, these dumb-downed kennel club dogs do fufill a niche because lets face it, most people can't handle working bred dogs. So now they can parade around town and go to dog parks with dogs that look like German Shepherds, Border Collies, and Labradors, etc, but don't act like them.

 

Yesterday, a lady told me that I was "mean" because I demanded that she leash her loose dogs that were accosting my dog on a trail in a public park. It seems that she wanted little Muffy and Fluffy to have one last (illegal) off leash romp (at my dog's expense) before going on vacation. I encounter stupidity like this or worse *all*the*time. Jane and John Average don't need ANY dog let alone a working dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I don´t understand is how the working lines and working breeders suffer from this, other than mentally because people are making their breed into shitty dogs and thinking that that's what the breed is supposed to be. Is the process not really a threat to working lines? Because it's talked about like it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be good to mention that registration of puppy-mill pups is a big piece of the pie for the AKC. (Don't know about the KC) Any organization that supports the factory farming of puppies is no friend of dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People that think of the AKC dogs being the gold standard does effect the working dogs, because people aren't even getting the option to buy a working dog unless they know better that AKC dogs are not working dogs. If people knew that there was a difference there could be a flood of people wanting the Authentic border collie not the barbie collie. Before I knew better I just though all dogs that looked like a border collie were a border collie, but once I knew better I wanted the 'real thing' and as it turns out they are a lot harder to find.

 

The real issue is that they need to name it something different not that they shouldn't breed a dog for looks if that's the dog they want. However breeding for looks also causes a slew of health problems for the breed, which is why dog shows are bad for all dogs not just the working ones.

 

Think of it like going to the store for a regular Pepsi and realizing that now regular Pepsi and Diet Pepsi looks the same on the outside with no way to tell which is which until you open it up and taste it. You would probably be frustrated that the company didn't tell you that although they look the same on the outside they are two very different products. Just like dogs people aren't being told that this isn't exactly the breed you think it is. They just look the same. Now if kennel clubs came out and called the new border collies by another name I don't think working dog people would have a big issue with the dogs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know all this. But I've found that telling people that they're making a breed that looks the same but isn't the same just doesn't...people don't care about that. They say it's not really a big deal. It's too abstract.

So let's go back to the fact that people don't buy working bred dogs, because the AKC doesn't ever mention them. Do we want everyone to be buying working bred dogs, ideally? Would a perfect solution involve getting rid of barbie collies as a breed altogether? Or are working dogs better suited to stay on the farm and have people buy barbie collies for pets as long as they aren't called border collies?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's even just that the AKC doesn't mention "working". Most AKC people will swear up one side and down the other that their dog, whatever breed it is, would be totally functional for the original purpose of the breed. For instance, many insist that their show-bred (for generations) "Border Collie" has all the instincts hard-wired in and is perfectly capable of being a "herding dog" if they only had time to pursue that. The same with every other once-purposeful (versus breeds strictly bred for pets to begin with) breed. This is my experience - the insistence that a show-bred Beagle has everything it needs to be a rabbit dog; that the English Bulldog could go right out and bait bulls (that flat face is what allows it to breathe when it's gripping the bull's nose and blood is pouring out of the bite holes, of course); that the Newfoundland could rescue people from a shipwreck; that the Greyhound could course down wild game; that the Irish Setter (and other bird dogs) could go out in the field and help you bring home dinner; and so on.

 

What fascinates me, in my experience, is how people can feel you have to select strongly in each breeding for physical characteristics (including things that are largely cosmetic such as color, coat, eye shape, ear set, etc.), but that you do not have to select one bit for the mental characteristics that are the basis for working ability because it's going to be in there no matter what you do. Excuse me, but where's the logic in that? And, even more so, the people who actively breed away from the characteristics that define a purpose-bred dog because people want what that breed *looks* like but they sure don't want what that breed *is* like.

 

The future of all purposeful breeds lies in the hands of those who breed for usefulness, not those who breed for an arbitrary definition of what a particular dog should *look like*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

Some years ago I attended a Newfoundland water test where, although the test was so simple one participant told me an Australian Shepherd had passed it, the Newfoundlands would have been useful to life guards.

 

I was also told that unreg Newfounds were still being used for water rescue in France and by the Canadian coastguard. I asked, "Why not breed to one of these?"

 

"Oh. Because we wouldn't be able to get our championship."

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know all this. But I've found that telling people that they're making a breed that looks the same but isn't the same just doesn't...people don't care about that. They say it's not really a big deal. It's too abstract.

 

I think this illustrates the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make her drink.

 

You can't *make* people care, I don't think. The best you can do is keep providing a different perspective and hope it gets them to think a little bit. People have to decide they care on their own. How did you come to care?

 

I came to care because I could see the difference in what the dogs could do and it made me reflect on how what I thought I knew was actually woefully inadequate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the only people you can influence are those who do care and who are willing to be educated/influenced. It is always very rewarding when new people come on here and after some discussions, the light bulb goes on (they have to be willing to let it come on) and they "get it" and become advocates themselves for responsible breeding.

 

I sadly fear that Joe and Jane Q Public may not fit into this description but I hold out hope that more and more people might over time and with folks being willing to help educate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know I read all the comments. One thing comes to mind. We live in a society that for the most part judges everything by appearance not function. Maybe it is because we can do this. Because if you are hungry you can go to the try and save. You no longer need to have good hunting dogs to help feed your family or good stockdogs to gather your livestock. If your dog is a poor hunter you go hungry.Most folks do not live in a situation where that is a requirement of life. So instead we concentrate on pretty tomatoes, not tasty ones.

 

I commend the folks that are trying to breed good work dogs and horses. A difficult and often frustrating thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know all this. But I've found that telling people that they're making a breed that looks the same but isn't the same just doesn't...people don't care about that. They say it's not really a big deal. It's too abstract.

 

 

Ah, yes . . . how do you get people to care about something they don't care about? I'm surprised it can ever be done, but sometimes it can. The people you succeed with are the ones who are open-minded enough to entertain a new thought, smart enough to reason it through, and have enough empathy to imagine themselves in the shoes of someone who needs working dogs. Such people will always be a minority, but once they're convinced, they make the best advocates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There a lots of comments that I want to make about earlier posts, but I'll just focus on the initial post.

 

What it comes down to is that your initial argument is flawed. There is a connection in the argument with no supporting premise. Basically, it is the link between the AKC dogs and the working dogs. Sure, the name of the dog links them, but the argument being made is about the breeding of the dogs. Your argument is missing the link of how the AKC breeding affects the working dog breeding. You even said it yourself:

 

I'm lacking understand in the fundamental threat that Kennel Clubs pose for the working lines.

 

I don't believe that there is a fundamental link between KC and working lines. There may be some effect, but unless you can say that workers are being forced to buy and breed AKC dogs, then this argument is impossible to make. Also, I don't think this is the argument that you should be making. You stated that your goal is to get people to not support the AKC/CKC, yet you are trying to do two things: not support that AKC/CKC and to support working dogs. Sure, it would be nice to support working dogs, but I think you are overreaching. Not everyone needs or cares about working dogs, which makes that point of the argument more of a hindrance then a supporting fact. This then leads to a challenge in the human thought process. Maybe you can convince them to not support the AKC, but they aren't so sure about the working dogs. If they disagree with one point then they will likely default to disagreeing with both (the human thought process has some pretty serious flaws when it comes to logical reasoning).

 

I think the argument you should be making is against the AKC directly, not the AKC's impact on working dogs. The effects of breeding for appearance are pretty clear at this point. It is likely an unintended consequence of the standard, but it is one that should be corrected. These dogs are being bred in a way that is leading to unhealthy dogs. There are likely some underlying genetic problems being worsened, and there are the deformities that are being awarded (ex. the slope of the german shepherds back, and the flat face of the pug). The AKC's lack of oversight in it registered breeders has also lead to poor breeding practices.

 

I would never try to make someone care about the working dog. What's the point? Not everyone needs or wants a working dog. Maybe some of you are against the idea of companion dog breeding, but I am not. People want dogs, so why not let them breed dogs that are right for them. How to do this while maintaining responsible breeding will definitely be a challenge, but I think we have found that the appearance standard is not the correct way to go about it (also, naming is of course an issue). I like what Gloria said:

 

The argument of course can be made that people don't need basset hounds to hunt or German shepherds to scale mountains or run gauntlets of enemy fire, so why shouldn't breeders aspire to a more pleasing aesthetic? My reply then is, no reason at all, except when these cosmetic ideals cause genuine damage to the health and physical well-being of the breed and add unnatural health problems and defects that did not occur, or only rarely occurred, within the origins of that breed.

 

So, I would stop using the working dog argument against the AKC. There is so much more that you can fault them for and that people will actually care about. You can tell them what those AKC papers actually represent. Explain to them what they are actually spending their money on. Lots of people still see the AKC as the gold standard for dogs. Explain to them how meaningless an AKC registration actually is. Inform them about the flawed organization that they are supporting by buying an AKC dog or registering with the AKC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess what I don´t understand is how the working lines and working breeders suffer from this, other than mentally because people are making their breed into shitty dogs and thinking that that's what the breed is supposed to be. Is the process not really a threat to working lines? Because it's talked about like it is.

 

 

Twice now Cass C has nailed it. :) What the kennel clubs do is marginalize the working lines simply by having the far better, shinier, more noticeable advertisement. Everyone knows who AKC is, but how many people have even heard of the ABCA? The AKC brand name is basically like putting a Lamborghini decal on a go-cart.

 

It's serious enough to the ABCA registry that they forbid registration of any border collie that has an AKC conformation championship, and also any pups from that dog, and they will de-register any ABCA border collie that earns an AKC conformation champ title. They take the "watering-down" of the border collie seriously.

 

And the people who do AKC "herding" will say that their dogs all "work." They don't bother to differentiate between a dog that's obedience-trained to move dog-broke sheep around an arena and the working dogs out there in the larger world. And some of these breeders attempt to rationalize their practices by periodically out-crossing to some notable working sire. Look at us, our AKC candy-colored dogs have Bobby Dalziel's Joe in their pedigrees: we've got real working dogs, folks. And what irks me then is that well-meaning people who want to get into sheepdogging buy into the AKC label and .... the dog may move sheep around, but if they ever decide to move up to field trials, they will probably discover that their dog falls short.

 

Hey, maybe in the greater scheme of things it doesn't matter. I've often said that if the border collie splintered into two distinct breeds or types, the Show and Work lines, it would suit me just fine. It seems to be working for the Labrador retriever. But the AKC breeders rarely make that distinction. They bill their diluted border collies as working dogs or "versatility" dogs and are perfectly content to let John Q Public continue in his ignorance, so long as he's buying AKC pups from them. That irks me. That irks many of us. Their pretty little poop-sniffers are definitely not the same as the working-bred dogs.

 

Guess that's all I've got to say, anyhow. ;)

 

~ Gloria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but I don't see why the working lines care about being marginalized if they don't depend on the public buying their pups to be able to keep breeding. What's wrong with only farmers wanting the working dogs? Why do working lines need the general public's acknowledgement and approval?

I know there are a lot of frustrating things about the situation, like people saying that their dogs can herd and not understanding what a border collie is about. I know that it sucks to have people dismiss the real breed in favor of the barbie one. But a border collie will still be a border collie regardless of what the public thinks it is. And people who work with them will always know it. Am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

Ms. Chene asks: "Am I missing something?"

 

Yes. "Border" and "Collie" are words. "Border Collie", like any dog breed, is a human concept. That concept can change - as it has for "Bearded Collie" and "Cocker Spaniel".

 

One can still find a very, very few working Bearded Collies if one knows where to look.

 

Ms. Chene goes on to say, "a border collie will still be a border collie regardless of what the public thinks it is."

 

Concepts have consequences.

 

If our culture came to believe "Border Collie" is thus and such tall with thus and such coat, the "Border Collie" wouldn't be the Border Collie we know.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should the ability to get a real border collie just be limited to those who want to herd sheep?

 

I would say no because a real border collie can fulfill any use, but the same cannot be said for Barbie collies. So why not let anyone who wants a real border collie be able to find one without AKC bred dog overshadowing them to the point you have to know someone who knows someone to get a real border collie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^This.

 

The thing that brings us to border collies -- the construct that Donald so accurately points out -- is more than a superficial appearance of the thing. It's a package that is so much more than what it looks like. "Border collie" is more than skin deep.

 

Would you have been so enamored of border collies if all you'd ever known was the ghost version that is the ACK "border collie"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I feel like we've hit on 4 different, but related arguments, and I kinda want to know what chene's goal is with whichever argument is being made.

 

1. Don't support the AKC

2. Dying off of a working breed

3. The difference between an AKC dog and a working dog

4. The naming of the AKC dog and the working dog

 

I feel like #3 and #4 are what we focus on a lot here, but we tend to switch between them and confuse the argument.

 

#1: This is what my first post was getting at. If you are just aiming to get people to not support the AKC then talk about the AKC. There is no need to confuse the situation by bringing in the working dog argument, which people may or may not care about.

 

#2: This is something chene mentioned in the original post. I think the goal was to link the AKC with the end of a working line. We have kinda touched on this and I believe that if a working dog is needed then a working dog will be found (which is why the lab split into two types). So I don't think the AKC is capable of ending a working line. The name of the dog and what makes a BC a BC can be made confusing by the AKC though, but I think that is for point #4.

 

#3: I think we can all agree that a working dog is different then an AKC dog. The claims being made by the AKC breeders are the problem here. Just trying to convince someone that the AKC is not the gold standard is the challenge with this one.

 

#4: I would say that this one is the most challenging and I think is the main point of the last comments of Mr. McCaig and GentleLake. Calling these AKC dogs a BC takes something away from the working BCs. But, I don't think that the fault rest entirely on the AKC. This "lesser BC" problem really started once BCs were purchased/acquired by non-herders. Anyone that took their BC to an AKC event put those wheels in motion to define the public image of the BC. The AKC just capitalizes on this, which is unfortunate, but I don't think they are the sole culprits in creating this image. Regardless of what the BC standard says, the BC has developed a general look. People are able to identify a BC. Someone posted an article about the Saluki recently and I found one of the lines very interesting. The author said "The working definition of a Saluki that I'll start with is: a dog that looks like a Saluki." I believe that the same applies to the BC, a lot of you may disagree with this, but it is a difficult point to argue. If I can't accept your argument that a BC doesn't look like a BC (yeah, that is confusing), then I doubt you will convince the general populace.

 

 

 

So my question is this: What argument are you trying to win chene? Are you trying to point out the flaws in the AKC and refute the idea that they are the gold standard? Or are you trying to convince someone why they should search for a non-AKC border collie? Is someone you know looking for a BC for agility and are they convinced they need an AKC dog? Or are you just trying to be more general and convince someone that the AKC BC is different from a working bred BC? Or are you trying to somehow link the AKC to being harmful for breeders of working dogs?

 

Your original post was about how to convince someone about your point of view. If you ever want to achieve winning someone over to your side then I think you need to simplify your argument and really define what your goal is. Accomplishing any one of those 4 points I listed can be a challenge, but trying to accomplish all 4 at the same time is probably close to impossible. I personally feel that points 1 and 3 are the key ones. Explain why the AKC is not the good organization that people think it is. Then convince people why they don't need an AKC dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...