German Shepherds Forum banner

1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,034 Posts
I look at this from a business standpoint. Let's pretend I own Nike. (what a dream)

I find out that one of the stores that carries my brand of shoes is marketing them to criminals so they can run faster to get away from cops.

I would NEVER just sit around and say "Well, that's more sales." I would be FURIOUS that MY BRAND NAME was being used for something wrong.

And frankly, that is how AKC should be seeing this. They are losing brand name credibility.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,251 Posts
The HSUS has their own agenda....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
The biggest uphill battle I run into personally, with people looking to buy a purebred puppy, is explaining to them that being registered AKC does not guarantee a healthy well bred dog.

They usually are very surprised to learn that AKC registration does NOT always equal good breeding practices.

IMO this (and along the lines that Lauri mentions above), a lot of this is about marketing and IMHO it really wouldn't take much for the AKC to "market" most bad breeders out of business, if they wanted to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,251 Posts
AKC is supposed to be just a registry, not to police the breeders...though I suppose they should hold who they register somewhat accountable for their breeding practices? They definitely profit from them.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
79 Posts
Media Sensitization.

The reason that inhumane breeders exist is because there is a demand for these dogs. More specifically people willing to buy dogs ignorantly without researching the breeder, inspecting the dogs themselves prior to purchase, seeing the living conditions, viewing the dams & sires for temperament and etc.

In my opinion placing the blame on the AKC is a way of shifting responsibility from an impulsive buyer. I think an educated buyer who viewed that kennel would avoid this place entirely or make a complaint.

There are many unscrupulous individuals out there selling products, animals, services and etc. that prey specifically on the ignorant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,237 Posts
Correct. AKC polices paperwork, not breeding practices. That would (should) be the realm of the breed clubs.
If an AKC representative shows up at a breeding facility to inspect paperwork, and they find illegal/concerning living conditions, the rep is to contact law enforcement/animal control in that district. It is then the job of that agency to ensure a breeder is following the law.

None of us "like" large scale commercial breeding facilities I would imagine. But as long as they meet Dept of Ag standards of care, they are legal.

Would we rather have dogs registered with Continental Kennel Club? ACA?

AKC is not perfect.... but I certainly would not support any other registry here in the USA. (with the exception of UKC.... but I still want my dogs AKC registered.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,124 Posts
I love when people slam the current system...but don't have an answer for a better system. AKC is already a non-profit organization, if they were to start policing breeders that would increase their costs and cause them to increase the cost of entering trials. I think the close to $30 fee is already pushing the limit on how much people want to pay for 5 minutes of glory in the obedience ring and less than 1 minute of glory in a rally or agility competition. And yes, I know that the price is set by the club hosting the event...but they raise it accordingly with what the AKC does.

It's the consumer's problem if they believe that AKC registered means ethical breeding practices...but I've also seen breeders that have put on their website "AKC approved" or something of that matter. There are plenty of people out there pushing that if their dogs are AKC registered, they're doing everything right.

When I was buying my dog I knew that the only think AKC registered meant was that I'm guaranteed to have a purebred. And that's all I wanted from them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,325 Posts
The media's job is to sell fear and consumerism. Maybe the ASPCA will get more donations after viewers see this report.

I found this report missing a lot. For example with the inspections by the AKC, are they random or scheduled? If scheduled, breeder has time to clean their place up nicely. What is on the checklist for inspections?

Then there are always a percentage of dishonest business people, that ruin it for an industry. There may be breeders out there that are illegally claiming to be AKC inspected. I doubt if the the AKC can check every website of every breeder. I just saw this in my husband's industry. His commercial trucks must be inspected by the CHP every year. Our agreement with the CHP is to not advertise that we are CHP approved. Yet we just found a business website in the county next to us that advertises CHP Approved. So the consumers will be shopping for a service and see that out of 10 companies, only one is "approved" and call them when in reality the 9 others are compliant and lose business. This type of story is one of the reasons I seldom watch TV.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,687 Posts
One of the biggest money opponents to the AR agenda (ASPCA, HSUS, PETA) is the AKC. These groups need to discredit the AKC and the media is more than happy to help.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,820 Posts
One of the biggest money opponents to the AR agenda (ASPCA, HSUS, PETA) is the AKC. These groups need to discredit the AKC and the media is more than happy to help.
:thumbup:

The scary part is that those agencies really are not supportive of canine health research or in PITAs case supportive of dog ownership . I have three dogs. My fear w/ legislative efforts sponsored by these agencies is that it could be the first steps toward elimnating pet ownership for many folks and the continued presence of the pure bred dog no matter what the breed. The other thing is the today show needs to win the ratings game so skip balance and fair just go with the down and dirty and not quite true. The motto currently with the media appears to be "You know if you dont have anything nice to say come say it on my show".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
In blue:

The OP linked a report wherein an AKC representative defended their system as being effective at policing.

So this brings two points to bear, by their own admission which have nothing to do with their status of profit v non profit, point 1) they have defacto admitted they DO police breeders and feel what they do is adequate, point 2) in policing breeders they are indirectly admitting there are problems.

The solutions noted thus far are legislation which probably would be onerous for ethical breeders as much if not more then the puppy millers OR the AKC could engage in raising awareness of what an ethical breeder is.

Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.

That does present conundrum for them in that they would rather just brush it under the rug.

A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles at least appearing to be supporting puppy millers.

Personally I'd rather we not have more laws.



I love when people slam the current system...but don't have an answer for a better system. AKC is already a non-profit organization, if they were to start policing breeders that would increase their costs and cause them to increase the cost of entering trials. I think the close to $30 fee is already pushing the limit on how much people want to pay for 5 minutes of glory in the obedience ring and less than 1 minute of glory in a rally or agility competition. And yes, I know that the price is set by the club hosting the event...but they raise it accordingly with what the AKC does.

It's the consumer's problem if they believe that AKC registered means ethical breeding practices...but I've also seen breeders that have put on their website "AKC approved" or something of that matter. There are plenty of people out there pushing that if their dogs are AKC registered, they're doing everything right.

When I was buying my dog I knew that the only think AKC registered meant was that I'm guaranteed to have a purebred. And that's all I wanted from them.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,687 Posts
Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.
We can't even agree on what a good breeder is on this board.


A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles at least appearing to be supporting puppy millers.
No matter how sick it may make us all feel, large puppy factories like the Hunt corp are legal businesses in this country. As long as they follow the rules, maintain their records, and are approved/cleared by the USDA I am not sure what the AKC can do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,124 Posts
I'd like to second both gwen and lisa.

The last thing we need is a "volunteer join" organization having legislative power. And the second to last thing we need is congress discussing dog laws. All that does is promote puppy mills as I've actually heard more "bragging" about having USDA stamps on pedigrees than titles or even an AKC pedigree. Many people don't realize that USDA means the place is run like a farm and therefore probably has hundreds of animals, they just see it as "government approval."

And yeah...its funny how we can't agree on what a good breeder is and yet we expect the AKC or congress to do it for us. Thankfully I don't believe anything will ever pass...but if it did, I'd love to see the first thread that starts with, "I had a breeder picked out and the US government shut them down!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,574 Posts
Now given that the AKC has managed to market itself over the years as the bastion of pure bred dogs it's fair to say that they could also educate>market to the general public what a GOOD AKC breeder is.

That does present conundrum for them in that they would rather just brush it under the rug.

A long sighted view would indicate that they can lead on the issue of puppy millers and be considered the 'good guys' or they can go down in legislative battles at least appearing to be supporting puppy millers.
Yepyep.

Most of the dogs in my (very affluent, well educated, yuppie-ful) neighborhood are either shelter dogs or doodle mixes from "reputable breeders." There is a very broad awareness that puppy mills are bad, although most people don't really have a clear sense of what breeding practices are good. But they know that puppy mills are bad, so if they don't adopt from a shelter or rescue, they get their doodle mixes from backyard breeders who at least seem to be nice people concerned with the welfare of their pets and who know some basic stuff about dogs.

Purely as a matter of marketing and public perception, the AKC is going down hard, because there's also a broad public sense that AKC = puppy mill supporters. And that is really unfortunate, because there is a HUGE HUGE gap in public understanding of what an actual good breeder is, other than "not a puppy mill."

The hunger for knowledge is out there. People want to do the right thing. They want healthy, sweet-tempered, stable family pets. The AKC is doing a really bad job right now of reaching out to fill that information gap. Instead of leading with information about "here's the absolute floor on what good breeding is, here are some additional things on which reasonable people disagree, and here's why you might choose one thing or another," and making SOME effort to support rescue/condemn puppy mills -- which they can do even without crossing the aisle to mixed breeds, since there are so many breed-specific rescues out there to support -- they're just seen as stonewalling dinosaurs, even though there is a huge demand for the very information they are in a prime position to offer.

I don't think legislation is the answer, or at least not the answer that the AKC is in any position to give. I do think education is. So, basically, +1 to Gwen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,662 Posts
Understood however the OP's link showed puppy millers. I think in a broad sense we can (in a large percentage) agree that the dogs showed in the video would definately be bad breeders.

The AKC (nor even laws) can completely stop bad breeding practices, but the AKC can certainly dedicate some of the budget it has set aside to pay for lawyers in fighting legislation....to educating the public about how to find a good breeder thereby using the free market to help dry up demand and lessen the need for legislation.

What really made me step back and be willing to give the AKC some of the responsibility (not all mind you) was the way the AKCs representative tried to reassure the reporter that they do indeed police and therefore are representative of good breeding practices. That's patently false.

What the lady in the clip should have said is "We ensure that breeders are breeding purebred dogs, we verify pedigrees but we do not and cannot guarantee the health or quality of the dog."

She was implying the opposite!

In other words they are misleading the public, lulling them into a false sense of security when the AKC emblem appears on a breeders web site or paper work.

This is why I think they could do more, if they wanted to.

We can't even agree on what a good breeder is on this board.




No matter how sick it may make us all feel, large puppy factories like the Hunt corp are legal businesses in this country. As long as they follow the rules, maintain their records, and are approved/cleared by the USDA I am not sure what the AKC can do.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
Top