An Open Letter to AKC's VP of Performance

Note - AKC's BOD rescinded the age lowering - restoring it to 12 mos - at the March 2014 meeting. Kudos to AKC for responding so quickly to correct this.

24 February 2014

to: Doug Ljungren, VP of Performance and Companion Events

re: AKC Board Minutes 2/7/14 - CAT rule change - minimum age reduction

Dear Mr. Ljungren -

I am writing to ensure you are aware of my acute dismay at the recently published AKC Board Minutes, dated 7 February 2014 in which the following change is announced on page 10: "The Board VOTED to amend the Regulations for Coursing Ability Tests, Chapter XV, Sections 3 and 9, to open the Coursing Ability Test (CAT) up to a wider range of dogs by (1) lowering the minimum age for a dog to participate to 6 months..."

I must express to you my most strenuous objection to this change, and to the manner in which it was carried out. As the immediate past-Secretary, previous President, and current Director on the Board for Albuquerque Whippet Fanciers Association/Lobo Lure Coursing Club, we were not allowed the opportunity to provide feedback on this proposal. Neither were current active Lure Coursing Judges asked to weigh in.

As you are aware, lure coursing is a Performance event, not a Companion event. As an agility competitor since 2001 and a lure coursing participant and judge, I am keenly aware of the distinction between the two categories. Your own involvement in field trials no doubt gives you a similar appreciation.

As you can see from this chart the average age for growth plate closure of the critical tibial crest (stifles being the last joint in which growth plates close, and in all canines the joint most prone to injury) is 11 months, with the range being up to 14 months (the study used beagles and greyhounds). In my own borzoi, I have seen (via digital radiograph) some males' growth plates still open at 18 months of age.

It is therefore my considered opinion - as owner, breeder, and judge - that the 12 month age MINIMUM for entry into any lure coursing activity is an essential safety rule. I find it unconscionable that AKC would enable entry in a performance event by immature animals.

It has been brought to my attention that several clubs will be dropping CAT events from their hosting activities; countless judges have stated that they will decline CAT assignments; and the NM club has lost its FTS for future CAT events. Please work with the AKC BOD to rescind this rule change before dogs are needlessly put at risk of suffering career-ending injurys.

Thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter.

- Leonore

AKC LC Judge

AKC Breeder of Merit

cc:

AKC LC Field Rep

and the following AKC clubs, of which I am a member in good standing:

Albuquerque Whippet Fanciers Association / Lobo Lure Coursing Club - President

Rocky Mountain Borzoi Club - Performance Chairman

Borzoi Club of America - AKC Delegate

Feedback and food for thought

Perusing my morning e-mail I was pleasantly surprised to find one from AKC asking my recommendations for the AKC / Eukanuba National Championship judges for borzoi. As a Breeder of Merit this is a nice thing for AKC to ask.

I didn't give them any names, but did write out two suggestions. Fingers crossed somebody at least reads what I took time to write:

Thank you for asking BOM's for input. I would ask you to do two things:

1 - Select judges with experience with performance events relevant to the breed they are judging. Herding, hunting, coursing, etc.

2 - Scrip the TV announcers with information calling particular attention to Best of Breed winners in the Group ring - since that is all that is on TV for the public to see - that have CHIC numbers, OFA Clearances, are temperament and / or performance titled- and have health tested parents / get. And dogs that are FIT not fat.

In my opinion the AKC/ENC is the public relations event of the year. PLEASE use it for appropriate education of the millions of TV viewers at home.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

"Bend over and cough"

OK, I'm paraphrasing. Perhaps describing impact rather than intent. Decide for yourself.

There was a discussion on registration fees, which were last raised in 2007. Following a motion by Dr. Garvin, seconded by Mr. Ashby, it was VOTED (unanimously) to implement the following, effective January 1, 2012:
•  A price increase of $10.00 from $20.00 to $30.00 for dog registration and transfer fees.

This quote is taken from the October 2011 AKC Board of Directors minutes, and it is sending shock-waves through the ranks of Responsible Ethical Breeders (REBs). As a group of people that, almost without exception, lose money on every litter bred, the prospect of losing more money is being met with understandable outrage and horror. (Don't believe me? ask Google)


Adding insult to injury, at the same meeting, came this:

Following discussion, there was a motion by Dr. Garvin, seconded by Dr. Davies, and it was VOTED (unanimously) to implement a $10 fee for each additional owner added to the dog during the original registration of the dog and any subsequent transfers, effective January 1, 2012. A dog may be registered with one Primary Owner at no additional cost. Co-owned dam owners registering members of the litter to the litter owners will be exempt from this additional fee.

Forget doing co-breedings with like-minded REB's on the other side of the country. Forget selling a puppy to a husband and wife and putting both on the papers. Forget ensuring dogs have more than one person to own them should somebody die. Madness!


What I can't quite wrap my head around is the AKC's ability to understand the critical role REB's have...

Truly the lifeblood of our sport, the breeder is owed a special debt of thanks from all who enjoy the sport—owners, handlers, judges, and spectators. So essential are they... those breeders who have dedicated their lives to improving the health, temperament, and quality of purebred dogs. 

..., and then throw REB's under the bus anyway. These statements are taken from the 2010 Annual Report. Lip service, anyone?

What I find interesting is that the AKC clearly understands the differences between REB's and - well, them that ain't. AKC has a committee that deals solely with what they term "high volume breeders" and, that even these are a step above "puppy mills."

For purposes of the committee’s work, the term “puppy mill” was reserved for substandard commercial breeders...

This statement was published in 2002. It goes on:

...the impact that high-volume breeders have on rescue... the committee felt that the high volume producers should be encouraged to become accountable for their part of the problem.

Which is to say, it is understood at all levels of the dog fancy that REB's take care of their own; high-volume breeders and puppy mills (both of which are commercial) don't.


But you already knew that. And, actually, isn't the point.


AKC has been, publicly, struggling for many years now, financially. Registrations, the primary mission, are down, which reduces income. The situation has gotten so bad, the AKC no longer publishes registration statistics, only rankings. So it makes financial sense for the AKC to pursue high volume commercial breeders. Those companies make a profit, and have any number of options regarding that additional $10 per puppy expense: take it out of their profit margin, pass it along to their buyers, go to another registry, or sell un-papered animals.


(It seems obvious to me that the AKC wants to eat its cake and have it, too: high quantity of registrations to ensure revenue, while preserving the illusion of quality through papered puppies. As we all know, it's hard to have it both ways at once.)

REB's, on the other hand, don't have much in the way of options. Sure, there are other registries, but if your breed's parent club belongs to AKC, that means REB's have to play the AKC game. Going to another registry isn't an option for most REB's - unless you want to double-register your puppies, which means you pay even more in registration fees.

So, what to do? Break out your keyboard and telephone, that's what. Contact the AKC BOD and tell them what you think of their unanimous vote to screw REB's. Contact the AKC Officers and tell them what you think of their leadership in this area. In particular, let the Executive Secretary, James P. Crowley, know your thoughts. You can contact him by e-mail or phone: 212-696-8234  He's been identified as the point-person for this issue.


When I make phone calls of this sort, I try to remember a simple process from way-back-when in my corporate wage-slave days. Three little parts: "I like... My concern is... My suggestion is..." It is easy to focus on that middle one, which tends to put people on the defensive and makes it less likely they will hear anything else. Flatter a little, be polite with the issue, and then most importantly, offer constructive suggestions.


My own list of suggestions for the AKC to retain registrations and increase revenue goes something like this: focus on quality, and the quantity will follow. Allow individuals to join AKC and become members; simplify the registered kennel name process so REB's can protect their good names; discounts for breeders that belong to their breed's parent club; discounts for Breeders of Merit; discounts for registering puppies from parents with current health clearances, CHIC #'s, etc.; discounts for registering puppies from litters in which both parents have AKC DNA profiles; discounts for registering puppies with permanent ID (tattoo or microchip). Here's a great idea: make those discounts cumulative, so REBs get credit for doing the right things - all of which cost lots of money. In short, more carrot and less stick. I think REB's could come up with a long list of suggestions.


Not the least of which is, AKC needs to be kissing the collective ass of REB's, not screwing us with our pants on.