Did anyone see Today's report on AKC??? Anyone care to comment?

I have long thought that AKC should require testing (Offa, Cerf, etc) for all breeding stock. I do think too many allowances are given to so called puppy mills.....

Very sad footage

I didn't see it. Can you post a link if you see it pop up on the Today website?

Edit - found the link:
http://www.today.com/news/akc-registered-breeders-raising-dogs-miserable-conditions-6C9640008

Thanks for the link!

That's just horrible. Of course the AKC doesn't want to limit the number of dogs a breeder can have, it would be less puppies, and less money for them.
They don't even have a clue as to how many dogs they have registered?! Only 55,000 inspections since the year 2000! That's crazy. It's a very small number considering it's 13 years. Seems like they are doing nothing for how animals are being treated, and the only thing they care about is getting money. Those poor dogs.

That's just depressing...why wouldn't they want to limit the breeders? I realize they make money off of registering the litters but is it really THAT much money? My breeder was AKC but I wont ever buy from him again. His dogs were in good condition and all, but I don't think he'd done any health testing on the dogs (in fact I don't believe Karli's mother was his, I think he was keeping her while she whelped.)

The primary purpose of the AKC is to keep track of lineages. While it's nice that they include OFA and CERF information with their pedigrees so that people can make informed decisions, it is the job of the breeders to insure they are producing healthy dogs. Unfortunately way too many people get duped (mostly by BYB and puppy mills) in to thinking that an AKC registered dog = quality. This is not true; nor has it ever been true. In reality all it means is that the dog is whatever breed its papers say it is and that there is a record of its ancestry. Articles such as this are nice for raising public awareness about the horrible conditions that some breeders keep their dogs, but the way they perpetuate the misconception that the AKC is some evil money grubbing entity does not help with getting the public to realize that more steps should be taken to reduce/eliminate irresponsible breeding. (By the way, the AKC is a non-profit organization)

Well this just goes to show that a fancy label isn't everything. Even if they are AKC registered it doesn't really mean anything and thinking that it does isn't smart. You should still go see the breeder's place for yourself, ask questions, and stay in contact both over the phone and via email. The breeder should also be asking you plenty of questions to be 100% positive that the puppy is going into a nice home. Or at least, that's what I read...

Still, shame on the AKC they can do better than that!

In terms of what I think, I do think there need to be much tougher standards for breeders to get the AKC stamp of compliance. I wonder if the requirements to be in compliance are published online. I feel like our country in general has a problem with mass production and corruption and I feel like this attitude carries over to dog breeding as well (show/working breeders excluded to an extent). For example, the sensationalization of the pink slime thing last year, and the inspectors weren't really doing their jobs, or weren't even allowed to. Basically the product itself is a result of mass production, and its use is to make more product for less. Or the recent Ikea meatball thing. I think that to run a puppy mill, or commercial breeding facility a person has to be two things, greedy and a psychopath. I can understand if someone doesn't like a particular animal (I don't particularly love cats), but to be able to create suffering to that extent that these dogs deal with in puppy mills is a different ball game. To have no emotional reaction or any sense of responsibility shows a total lack of empathy and human emotion. In fact, I have no doubt that some of these owners even feel a sick sense of joy, which leads me to the psychopath.
I think the AKC protects breeders in the same way the UDSA protects the ag business. It seems like a consumer protection agency, but their first priority is to the businesses. There are so many rampant examples of agencies like this, that end up as lobbyists for the industries they are supposed to be regulating.

I believe to some extent, that the AKC and the specific breed clubs should work together in establishing requirements for registration. I even think that it might be a possible solution to have one breed club handle the AKC registration for their specific breed. For example, the SHCA would be in charge of registering and adding dogs to the database for AKC, but also for inspecting. So each dog would be registered AKC via SHCA. They could even have a say in the requirements specific for that breed. For example, its quite alright for huskies to live outdoors, even in cold climates, provided they have adequate water and shelter. However, it would not be appropriate to house Italian greyhounds outside in cold climates. This would also take some of the burden of inspection off of the AKC, but would require an impartial third party to resolve disputes.

It has also crossed my mind that to be allowed to breed period, a kennel/breeder must register with the AKC, breed club, and federally. So no more unregistered puppies, it would be illegal. The reason I say federally, not state, is because what's to keep someone from opening an operation in one state, then just moving to another if they get shut down? And, that there should be a spay/neuter law. It should be required by law to alter pets, unless there is a valid reason not to, and waivers could be submitted and requested for those reasons. I'm not totally convinced that this is a good idea, I haven't thought through the implications of it in a very deep way.

The other issue, is what power does/should the AKC have to enforce its registration/compliance requirements? Are they legally allowed to enter the properties? I guess that would be included in the agreement with the breeders to gain registration. What are the terms of the inspections? I think there is a lot of murky area here.

Overall though, there needs to be much more regulation of the industry, especially as technology advances. As everything becomes cheaper, easier, and faster to produce, where do we draw the lines morally? Our meat is full of antibiotics and hormones so it grows bigger and faster. Our environment is loaded with chemicals to make things cheaper to make and extend shelf life. Lawsuits have even made it so our clothing and carpet and curtains are full of chemicals to be flame retardant. And we deal with all of this with drugs, which have their own side effects. I digress, but I think the puppy mill problem is a social issue and the blame doesn't just lie with the AKC.

Eresh wrote:

The primary purpose of the AKC is to keep track of lineages. While it's nice that they include OFA and CERF information with their pedigrees so that people can make informed decisions, it is the job of the breeders to insure they are producing healthy dogs. Unfortunately way too many people get duped (mostly by BYB and puppy mills) in to thinking that an AKC registered dog = quality. This is not true; nor has it ever been true. In reality all it means is that the dog is whatever breed its papers say it is and that there is a record of its ancestry. Articles such as this are nice for raising public awareness about the horrible conditions that some breeders keep their dogs, but the way they perpetuate the misconception that the AKC is some evil money grubbing entity does not help with getting the public to realize that more steps should be taken to reduce/eliminate irresponsible breeding. (By the way, the AKC is a non-profit organization)

Well Said.

@wpskier222: I am now desperately wishing this forum had a like button, I agree completely.

Wy Renegade wrote:

Eresh wrote:

The primary purpose of the AKC is to keep track of lineages. While it's nice that they include OFA and CERF information with their pedigrees so that people can make informed decisions, it is the job of the breeders to insure they are producing healthy dogs. Unfortunately way too many people get duped (mostly by BYB and puppy mills) in to thinking that an AKC registered dog = quality. This is not true; nor has it ever been true. In reality all it means is that the dog is whatever breed its papers say it is and that there is a record of its ancestry. Articles such as this are nice for raising public awareness about the horrible conditions that some breeders keep their dogs, but the way they perpetuate the misconception that the AKC is some evil money grubbing entity does not help with getting the public to realize that more steps should be taken to reduce/eliminate irresponsible breeding. (By the way, the AKC is a non-profit organization)

Well Said.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That makes a lot of sense. So, the compliance measures are implemented more in terms of lineage, but don't guarantee anything in terms of conditions or health?

wpskier222 wrote:

Wy Renegade wrote:

Eresh wrote:

The primary purpose of the AKC is to keep track of lineages. While it's nice that they include OFA and CERF information with their pedigrees so that people can make informed decisions, it is the job of the breeders to insure they are producing healthy dogs. Unfortunately way too many people get duped (mostly by BYB and puppy mills) in to thinking that an AKC registered dog = quality. This is not true; nor has it ever been true. In reality all it means is that the dog is whatever breed its papers say it is and that there is a record of its ancestry. Articles such as this are nice for raising public awareness about the horrible conditions that some breeders keep their dogs, but the way they perpetuate the misconception that the AKC is some evil money grubbing entity does not help with getting the public to realize that more steps should be taken to reduce/eliminate irresponsible breeding. (By the way, the AKC is a non-profit organization)

Well Said.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That makes a lot of sense. So, the compliance measures are implemented more in terms of lineage, but don't guarantee anything in terms of conditions or health?

That is basically correct. When person buys an AKC registered dog, they can be reasonably sure of the dog's parentage. period. They DO have inspections to examine a kennel's conditions, but that is geared toward those who register more than a certain number of litters/year. They are woefully understaffed and underfunded and just can't examine every single one. Not only that, but most city/county/state governments have laws about conditions which dogs should be kept. Ultimately it is the breed clubs that determine not only the breed standards, but also set the breeding ethics guidelines for their breed. Unfortunately, most of the general public isn't even aware of this. The people who write articles such as the one posted may not even be aware. Placing the blame on the AKC gains better ratings than informing the general public.

I see, thank you. That makes sense. What do you think a good social solution would be and how could the AKC and breed clubs support that solution? Also, does the AKC get any government funding? Just curious.

Eresh wrote:

That is basically correct. When person buys an AKC registered dog, they can be reasonably sure of the dog's parentage. period. They DO have inspections to examine a kennel's conditions, but that is geared toward those who register more than a certain number of litters/year. They are woefully understaffed and underfunded and just can't examine every single one. Not only that, but most city/county/state governments have laws about conditions which dogs should be kept. Ultimately it is the breed clubs that determine not only the breed standards, but also set the breeding ethics guidelines for their breed. Unfortunately, most of the general public isn't even aware of this. The people who write articles such as the one posted may not even be aware. Placing the blame on the AKC gains better ratings than informing the general public.

Also keep in mind that even that isn't 100% assurred. If I am remembering correctly after something like only three generations of proven breeding, an individual can petition to have their dog registered under AKC as purebred for a particular breed, regardless of what were that originial dog came from.

Eresh wrote:

wpskier222 wrote:

Wy Renegade wrote:

Eresh wrote:

The primary purpose of the AKC is to keep track of lineages. While it's nice that they include OFA and CERF information with their pedigrees so that people can make informed decisions, it is the job of the breeders to insure they are producing healthy dogs. Unfortunately way too many people get duped (mostly by BYB and puppy mills) in to thinking that an AKC registered dog = quality. This is not true; nor has it ever been true. In reality all it means is that the dog is whatever breed its papers say it is and that there is a record of its ancestry. Articles such as this are nice for raising public awareness about the horrible conditions that some breeders keep their dogs, but the way they perpetuate the misconception that the AKC is some evil money grubbing entity does not help with getting the public to realize that more steps should be taken to reduce/eliminate irresponsible breeding. (By the way, the AKC is a non-profit organization)

Well Said.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That makes a lot of sense. So, the compliance measures are implemented more in terms of lineage, but don't guarantee anything in terms of conditions or health?

That is basically correct. When person buys an AKC registered dog, they can be reasonably sure of the dog's parentage. period. They DO have inspections to examine a kennel's conditions, but that is geared toward those who register more than a certain number of litters/year. They are woefully understaffed and underfunded and just can't examine every single one. Not only that, but most city/county/state governments have laws about conditions which dogs should be kept. Ultimately it is the breed clubs that determine not only the breed standards, but also set the breeding ethics guidelines for their breed. Unfortunately, most of the general public isn't even aware of this. The people who write articles such as the one posted may not even be aware. Placing the blame on the AKC gains better ratings than informing the general public.

I really do wish that the AKC would just come out and say that - the way the public's perception of them was going for a long time with all these compliance testing & inspections would have led any layman to think that they were inspecting for the cleanliness & care of the dogs & facilities and saved a LOT of people a LOT of heartbreak...

To be honest with you, I didn't realize that they did any inspections until a few years ago. But, when I hear that term, it calls to mind regulators walking through the kennel with a checklist and the heavy hand of the law behind them. Until I knew they did inspections, always thought of them as sort of a giant paperwork processing entity.

Yeah - I've only been researching dogs thoroughly for the past 1-2 years, so it's been pretty common knowledge. All of this is starting to make me wonder how the CKC does it though...

AKC posted on FB this link to the "facts the today show didn't tell you"

http://akcdoglovers.com/2013/05/01/the-facts-the-today-show-didnt-tell-you/

I always take with a grain of salt any media I read/hear/see. But, I did think AKC was very unprepared for the interview.

And, only 9 inspectors nation wide is shameful.

The AKC is a registry - my real issue has to do with the Animal Control officers who attack decent hobby breeders, yet allow mills to run rampant because they don't have enough "evidence."

This is a very one-sided, murky article. There are little to no facts stated (depending on what your definition of fact is), but the article is toting statements made from each side as cold hard facts. I don't agree with that.

We actually have a very similar thread about an article that was posted about the AKC and it's very, very similar to this one. It actually opened my eyes to what is perceived about the AKC and what they do, and what they ACTUALLY do. Hmm let me find it..

https://www.itsahuskything.com/t8333-damming-article-re-akc-and-puppy-mills?highlight=article

Very informative thread that just SHOWS how much one sided information is out there and how much statements get construed as facts with most people not knowing the difference.