66 replies to this topic

[geonni banner]

Regardless of whether or not it 'should' come as any surprise, it does. I've never seen those practices among show breeders. Those puppy mills and BYB's that engage in such practices are also AKC breeders. So, there is plenty of AKC criticism to go around.

I just don't think I'd have much integrity if I let my "surprise" that SHOW breeders would do those things slip. Just as I wouldn't let slip someone who faked papers or sold to pet shops. I would have been alerting the AKC for the former (that is one thing they actually do care about) and the breed club for the latter (most bylaws forbid sales to pet shops). But that's just me.

EDIT: Most bylaws or code of ethics address sales to pet shops is what I meant

So what are you saying? That it's worse when show breeders do unethical things than when BYBs or puppy mills do them? There is a very large overlap between show breeders and BYBs. I've known both and many who were in a gray area. How many dogs does a BYB have to have to be considered a puppy mill? You can fit a lot of Yorkies into cages in someone's back yard. Does it make any difference if some of them have a CH in front of their names? If you've been around conformation shows you know that it's not that tough to put a CH on any decent-looking dog if you pick your shows - no specialties - go to all-breed shows held on the same weekends as big specialties in your breed. Pick up a few BOBs and there you are - a yard full of ribbons and "cheap champions."

As for me reporting them, I did not have ties to breed clubs. (And they are mostly paper tigers anyway.) I did not have photos, letters or any other "court-worthy" evidence. It would be my word against theirs. I don't mind a fight, but I like a little better odds.

Hobby show breeders are only one thing that is wrong with the AKC. And there are worse things, like supporting out-and-out puppy mills, the ruination of dogs like Bulldogs, and co-opting breeds like the Border Collie. But just because a large segment of a group - like show breeders, think they are doing the right thing doesn't mean they are blameless.

[terrecar]

So what are you saying? That it's worse when show breeders do unethical things than when BYBs or puppy mills do them?

Really? You came up with that strawman from reading my post? Of course I'm not saying that. What an absurd interpretation.

I am saying that I have experienced a pretty significant sampling of show breeders over a good number of years, that I am familiar with the culture and the taboos in those circles, and that I know that those three things you mentioned are the very things THEY lament when pointing the finger at puppy mills and backyard breeders. I made no attempts to weigh in on their ethics at all.

At this point I have to say I am, quite frankly, questioning the veracity of your claim. But I'm a skeptic that way.


And who knows, maybe I simply ran in better circles.

As for the rest of the cheerleading bit, I left AKC events in 1999 after some soul searching, so you're pretty much preaching to the choir regarding the ethics of breeding. The dog I have now isn't even purebred. That's how much I care about 'the fancy' these days.

[terrecar]

But just because a large segment of a group - like show breeders, think they are doing the right thing doesn't mean they are blameless.

Okay hold up. Do they think they're doing the right thing? Or are they faking AKC papers, breeding lethal MM and selling to pet stores? Be consistent.

No need to answer. That question was rhetorical.

I'm not attempting to exonerate dog show people for their questionable ethics. I just want to be honest and fair to people.

[terrecar]

<<<<And who knows, maybe I simply ran in better circles.>>>>

I have to chuckle at myself for using that one.

If the teenager down the road runs over one of my dogs and kills him just for fun, and the nice old lady next door runs over one of my dogs because she can't half see, the result is certainly still the same. I have a dead dog (or two).

'Better' is a rating best left to those philosophers who use big three dollar words like 'utilitarian' and 'deontological' while deciding for the rest of us just what our basis of ethics should be.

[juliepoudrier]

I've never shown dogs and don't really have a lot to do with folks who do (just the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but ISTM that shows like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" did specifically mention secret surgeries to make dogs acceptable for showing that otherwise wouldn't be. So I don't suppose it's out of the realm of possibility that show breeders other than the ones "exposed" also do stuff like that. I doubt it's widespread, but where money and prestige are involved stranger things have certainly happened, and those who have the means and the desire to do so probably do. It's not as if there aren't myriad examples of such "tricks" (including falsification of pedigrees) in conformation showing of any number of species, not just dogs.

J.

[terrecar]

I've never shown dogs and don't really have a lot to do with folks who do (just the nature of the beast, no pun intended), but ISTM that shows like "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" did specifically mention secret surgeries to make dogs acceptable for showing that otherwise wouldn't be. So I don't suppose it's out of the realm of possibility that show breeders other than the ones "exposed" also do stuff like that. I doubt it's widespread, but where money and prestige are involved stranger things have certainly happened, and those who have the means and the desire to do so probably do. It's not as if there aren't myriad examples of such "tricks" (including falsification of pedigrees) in conformation showing of any number of species, not just dogs.
J.

It would be silly for me to assert that falsification of papers "never" happens among breeders who show dogs, but like you, I also doubt it's widespread, and I have some experience with the culture that leads me to that conclusion. Hence, based on my own experience, I am reluctant to make a blanket association, and I very much want to disassociate myself from unsubstantiated claims to that effect.

I would be more inclined to believe that the fixing is widespread, based on my anecdotal experience, but that is also an unsubstantiated claim, so take it for what it's worth.

[juliepoudrier]

Terrecar,
I don't think anyone--including any of your show friends--would read this thread and believe that you are participating in generalized accusations about cheating.

Other than the articles like the one that started this conversation and the few shows out there like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, I imagine most "evidence" is anecdotal. But just for example, I know someone who has bred a particular type of sheep for decades. This person no longer bothers to sell sheep as registered, but instead sells them as *purebred*. This person will say that it's tacit acknowledgment that the term registered is pretty meaningless anymore when breeding (purebred) sheep for show.

I doubt that such behavior is widespread among dog breeding simply because of the ease of checking through DNA testing and a culture that might even expect such testing to take place. But I don't really know, so you're right that what we're discussing here is more speculation than fact.

That said, I think a culture of silence in many venues is the very reason that people get away with cheating (or abuse, for that matter, but that's another topic).

I don't think it's a great leap to assume--knowing what we do of human nature--that if chalk and mousse, strategic clipping, etc., can reap succees in the show ring that *some* people will always go a bit further to ensure success.

But I understand that you don't want to be associated with any such assumptions or generalizations, and that's certainly your right.

J.

[rushdoggie]

Do you mean you have had the same experience as me, or as the other poster?

Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear.

Aside from creative hair trimming, ear cement and chalk, all the folks who I counted as friends who participated in conformation events were very honest. I have heard of the things Geonni talked about, but I did not find them to be widespread. I have been involved in showing dogs in obedience since 1991 or so, so that's when I started attending dog shows.

Its possible that the folks I knew were the exception, and most were people who showed in obedience or agility too and did conformation as part of a contract with a breeder or if they were a breeder because they felt their dogs should have "titles on both ends," as they say...so that may have been different. I also only knew one Collie person and she was a real newbie so maybe its more rampant in Collies.

But no, most were good people who believed in the function following form idea and that all good breeders should show their dogs and prove they were worthy. I did not hear of faked papers, selling to pet stores, surgical correction of real problems or deliberate breeding of colors that one knew would be dangerous.

[terrecar]

But no, most were good people who believed in the function following form idea and that all good breeders should show their dogs and prove they were worthy. I did not hear of faked papers, selling to pet stores, surgical correction of real problems or deliberate breeding of colors that one knew would be dangerous.

Your experience is the same as mine, and I handled in the breed ring here and there since about 1974 until 1999.

I guess I probably should have simply stated my own experience, because looking back on my post, I can see how my commments appear as a challenge to someone's honesty. I basically just wanted to give my own experience and a more balanced picture.

I'll state it more succinctly here:
I have a good deal of experience with this group, and while they are guilty of a lot of things, there are other things to which, in my experience, they show quite a bit of disdain. Fixing paperwork, breeding MM and selling to pet stores are three of those things. Therefore, my own observations have been that they tend to police themselves via their Bylaws and Code of Ethics in those specific matters.

I think one of the things that makes me question some accusations and generalizations is the tone of some of them. I get real nervous when things start looking like a free-for-all or a witch-hunt (not that there aren't any witches that need huntin').

[alligande]

This article merits close, attentive reading. It provides so many insights into AKC culture, and into the fundamental, puzzling question: How can people who love their dogs and their breed deliberately breed them to be defective?

But they're good people! They love their dogs! Their dogs are their whole lives! They're responsible breeders! They spare no expense and never stint on vet care! They are respected by their peers! They produce champions!

How can they fail to see what is so glaringly, painfully obvious?

Thanks, Robin.

Eileen, you sum up my thoughts about the article perfectly. I was both saddened and confused by the attitudes expressed. I went and googled the re-bred bulldogs and to me they still looked like bulldogs, but I guess border collie owners are not fussed by having identical dogs!

I read the article a few days ago just after we met a bulldog on a walk, he was a nice friendly dog who wanted to play with our boys really badly but just lacked the physical ability to, it seemed like every step was hard work. I thought he was obese, but my husband who got a little more physical with him trying to get our bumper back said he was solid muscle, the poor boy just could not breathe.

[Laurae]

I have a good deal of experience with this group, and while they are guilty of a lot of things, there are other things to which, in my experience, they show quite a bit of disdain. Fixing paperwork, breeding MM and selling to pet stores are three of those things. Therefore, my own observations have been that they tend to police themselves via their Bylaws and Code of Ethics in those specific matters.

I think we're all pretty clear by now what you are saying, terrecar.

[terrecar]

Terrecar,
I don't think anyone--including any of your show friends--would read this thread and believe that you are participating in generalized accusations about cheating.

Other than the articles like the one that started this conversation and the few shows out there like Pedigree Dogs Exposed, I imagine most "evidence" is anecdotal. But just for example, I know someone who has bred a particular type of sheep for decades. This person no longer bothers to sell sheep as registered, but instead sells them as *purebred*. This person will say that it's tacit acknowledgment that the term registered is pretty meaningless anymore when breeding (purebred) sheep for show.

I doubt that such behavior is widespread among dog breeding simply because of the ease of checking through DNA testing and a culture that might even expect such testing to take place. But I don't really know, so you're right that what we're discussing here is more speculation than fact.

That said, I think a culture of silence in many venues is the very reason that people get away with cheating (or abuse, for that matter, but that's another topic).

I don't think it's a great leap to assume--knowing what we do of human nature--that if chalk and mousse, strategic clipping, etc., can reap succees in the show ring that *some* people will always go a bit further to ensure success.

But I understand that you don't want to be associated with any such assumptions or generalizations, and that's certainly your right.

J.

Julie:

I am more concerned with presenting a fair and balanced picture than I am with what my 'show friends' think, and quite frankly, I don't travel in those circles any more. I see too many problems with breeding for the show ring (or at all for that matter) in general. But yes, you are right. I don't want to be associated with assumptions and generalizations.

[terrecar]

I think we're all pretty clear by now what you are saying, terrecar.

While I am not quite as sure as you are about that, I'll leave off this discussion simply because it's diverting from the original subject of the post, which is an important one for anyone who cares about dogs.Just save me from myself and give me the command "that'll do"

ETA: Oh wait, that's only for a job well done, right? Scratch that.

[geonni banner]

For anyone who is interested:
Re: Pedigree fraud

Pedigree fraud in Norwich Terriers
http://www.dignpop.c...es/Page568.html

Bulldog, Kuvaz, Samoyed AKC Studbook corruption
http://www.thedogpre...raud.1-0603.asp

Look at section entitled “Registration”
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/akc.html

Also, if one reads my post (#18 on this thread) one will see that I don't accuse all or even most conformation breeders of these abuses.

But there is money in pedigreed dogs. And like most things that involve money (and ego) there are abuses. My point was simply that for a number of people who breed show dogs, or run puppy mills, and some who fall between these designations, there are abuses and unethical goings-on. The ones I mentioned I have seen for myself. If others have not, well and good. I was not in the ring with the show dogs, getting paid as a handler. I was in rescue, trying to pick up the pieces of Collies in trouble, whether from the stupidity of uninformed or uncaring owners, or the unethical practices or of show, backyard or puppy-mill breeders. So yeah, I was "running in different circles."

Personally, I don't see too much difference in surgically altering a Collie's ears so they "fall right" or plastering them in place with moleskin, string, carburetor-cleaning fluid, Popsicle sticks or whatever. But one is forbidden by AKC rules and the others are not - so long as the dog isn't wearing them when it steps into the ring. Both types of alteration involve varying degrees of discomfort for the dog, and both are pretty pointless except in the pursuit of a ribbon. It was (and still is) done to Collies, and I have no doubt it is now being done to Border Collies. Unfortunately, it is one of the least damaging things being done to the Border Collie by it's "recognition" by the AKC.

The point is, there are all kinds of unnecessary,stupid, and bad things done to dogs in the AKC world - from the show ring to the puppy mill.

Like bulimic supermodels and child labor in the clothing industry, AKC dogs suffer from human vanity and the greed and abuse in the pet/show industry. And that is very much the point of the article on Bulldogs in the New York Times.

[Grizel]

Grizel,
Could you point me somewhere towards this test?
maja

First, I have to apologize - the disease in question is degenerative myelopathy NOT myasthenia gravis. Not to blame everything on breeders, but myasthenia gravis is banging around in my brain because it came up when I was trying to figure out what was wrong with yet another purebred dog. Anyway, my friend found a wealth of information on offa.org.


My experience with AKC breeders is similar to Terrecar and RushDoggie. Over the years, I've known a number of breeders who have tried to produce healthy, sound dogs. The people who participate in conformation are not a monolithic whole. Still, it seems like well-intentioned people have the cards stacked against them.
And not just with creeps faking papers or refusing to screen for horrible diseases, but with the foundations of what they are trying to do.

However, I have to admit that the border collies of the world are fortunate that their breeders have a non-physical goal. So many other breeds are defined only by their appearance that it's hard to know what their breeders would work for, even if they decided to try a different road.

[Mark Billadeau]

......Just save me from myself and give me the command "that'll do"

ETA: Oh wait, that's only for a job well done, right? Scratch that.

"That will do" (that is enough) is correct for the situation you described.
We will use that'll do during a dog skirmish to break it up or when one dog is thinking about working or obsessing on another dog (clearly not jobs well done).

[Eileen Stein]

"That will do" (that is enough) is correct for the situation you described.
We will use that'll do during a dog skirmish to break it up or when one dog is thinking about working or obsessing on another dog (clearly not jobs well done).

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

Sorry for the hijack.

[geonni banner]

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

Sorry for the hijack.

Growing up in Texas I heard "That'll do!" directed at both dogs and children that were "acting up." We were definitely not what you'd call upper class. It's true that most of those people had never been around sheep or sheepdogs - or wouldn't admit to it even if they had. (It was cow country there. And men didn't use dogs, they used Quarter Horses and a rope.) But, (I blush with shame)I never heard "That'll do" in the way you mean it until I saw the movie Babe

[Sue R]

Huh. That's interesting, Mark. I never use "That'll do" in situations like that, or as any kind of correction (although of course I'm familiar with the term in its "upperclass reproof" sense). Between me and my dogs it has the meaning, "Stop what you're doing, which was a perfectly okay thing to be doing, and return to me."

Sorry for the hijack.

This is my approach, or at least the approach I try to use. "That'll do" means "That's okay but it's time to stop now".

The tangent on this discussion (breeders doing outright unethical practices) reminds me that there are rotten apples in every barrel - but I think there may be some barrels (situations) that may provide more rewards for unethical practices - and I think the show ring (for many species and disciplines) may be one of those places.

With regards to merle-to-merle breeding, the ASCA website advises against it, naming some of the unfortunate potential side effects (deafness, blindness, etc.) but ASCA does not forbid it. That, in itself, to me, says volumes about ASCA as a registry. I would like to think that any responsible registry would not allow the registration of pups from a MM breeding, to discourage breedings that produce defective, throw-away pups in the name of producing color.

[juliepoudrier]

A question for those of you with friends who show dogs in AKC, to bring this back to the main topic at hand: do the ethical breeders, those who want to do the right thing by the dogs, make any sort of concerted effort to influence breeding trends?

I ask this because I have a friend who loves bloodhounds and wanted to raise them, but she was concerned about the (what she considered to be) excessive numbers of dogs with persistent eye infections resulting from breeding for drooping eyelids. She said she could find dogs with "tighter" eyes, but of course those dogs weren't desirable because they couldn't win in the show ring.

So, if there are breeders out there who love and care for their breeds and they know that there are also serious health issues associated with that breed--issues that can be ameliorated, at least somewhat, by changing breeding practices, why aren't they doing it?

The only logical answer I can come up with is that in doing so they'd be ensuring healthier dogs but giving up breed ring wins. I understand from my participation on a herding e-mail list that is largely populated by AKC folk that driving change in AKC is not easy, but shouldn't these good breeders be trying to effect change? And if they could bring together a critical mass of breeders working to breed dogs who are healthier and less extreme would it be possible to influence breed ring judging?

And if they can't influence AKC in this way, then does it make sense to continue to participate in an organization that is creating (either through benign neglect or direct participation) breeds with serious health problems?

FWIW, my friend chose to stop involvement with AKC. She later got Cavalier King Charles spaniels and bred them but did not register them. I would consider her a BYB, but honestly it's difficult to fault her completely because her goal was to breed healthy dogs that met the breed standard if not the de facto show ring standard.

J.