Showing posts with label Misery Puppies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Misery Puppies. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

AKC Registrations Crash, Operating Deficits Follow


The AKC seems to be running pretty steady deficits, forcing them to slowly draw down from their massive portfolio of stocks.

What's the problem?

The core problem is that AKC dog registrations have fallen through the floor, and while they once declined at a rate of about 4% a year, they are now declining at a rate of about 10% a year, as indexed by their financial statements.

We have to go by the financial statements, as the decline in registrations has become so precipitous that the AKC no longer reports registration numbers to the public or at board meetings, though the law and normal financial reporting require the decline in revenue to be documented.

Even as registration numbers crash, the AKC is furiously adding more and more rare breeds, which increases administrative costs while doing very little to bolster the bottom line since rare breeds are, by definition, rare.  

Rare dog breeds also tend to have incredibly narrow gene pools, which means the AKC will remain the Mother Church of Inbreeding -- they are speeding up in this department, not slowing down.

As I have noted in the past, AKC puppy mill registrations are used to pay for the cost of dog shows and other "events" held by the AKC, including those fancy wine-and-dine events that are held as part of the Westminter and the Eukanuba National Champtionship.

As Jim Stevens, Chief Financial Officer of the AKC noted at the last AKC board meeting:


[I]n 2010 AKC’s events incurred an operating loss of more than $11 million. Since registrations generated an operating profit of only $7.5 million in 2010, there was a first time shortfall of more than $3.5 million in the annual events subsidy from registration revenue.

Note the careful wording.  This is not a first-time shortfall in "events" revenue; AKC dog shows and trials have never paid for themselves. Now, however, the cost of "events" has risen, and the steep decline in AKC puppy registrations cannot be made to paper over the cracks and holes.

As it stands now, AKC registrations appear to have fallen from a high of 1.528 million in 1992, to less than 450,000 today -- a decline of more than 70 percent. If things continue along this steep and steady decline, the AKC may be out of business entirely by 2025.

Saturday, March 10, 2012

Dennis Sprung is Baghdad Bob of the AKC

AKC registrations have collapsed by 70 percent and the collapse is speeding up, not slowing down.

Americans are walking away from the AKC in droves; only 13 percent of all dogs in the U.S. are AKC registered at all, and that includes all those puppy mill dogs which the AKC has created a special computer program in order to help register.

Who wants an AKC dog when AKC dogs are identified with disease, deformity and defect, to say nothing of pretension and fantasy?

So what is the AKC's response to the disqualification of a few dogs at the Crufts dog show in the U.K. -- a move being widely applauded by dog writers, pet owners, and working dog enthusiasts who want dogs to be returned to health? Here you go:

From: Dennis Sprung
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2012 08:44 AM
To: Robin Stansell; Sheila Goffe; Margaret Poindexter; John Lyons
Cc: Gina DiNardo
Subject: Re: Any advice for Bulldog Club of America (BCA) and the other targeted breeds??

We should prepare a statement after all facts are in. However you can assure and share with everyone that AKC will NEVER allow any such practice to occur. Our Parent Clubs own their respective standard and we support them 100 percent. Furthermore a Judges' decision is final and we respect that as well. The situation is a very disappointing one here from the point of view of breeders, exhibitors and judges and fanciers from around the world. In summary while our PCs have a right to be upset and concerned I will never allow this wrongful practice in America. Never!!!

Dennis

Right. Neeeeeevvvvaaaah!

Dennis Sprung is Baghdad Bob of the Kennel Club -- losing and surrounded, his troops fleaing and falling, he thinks that if he only blusters with nonsense, maybe the nodding Know Nothings will believe it. Never mind the declines in registrations -- that just make it easier for you to get a ribbon!

But the time for Baghdad Bobs in this world has come and gone. Ditto Dennis Sprung. Even his name is in the past tense.

Dogs may yet spring forward, but I am afraid the AKC era has sprung. And Dennis Sprung is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Snap a jelly pack -- with leadership like this, the AKC is toast.

Thursday, May 12, 2011

The Vanishing Pet Shop Puppy

An increasingly rare sight -- the pet shop puppy.

Los Angeles Councilmember Paul Koretz has proposed legislation to ban the sale of puppies in Los Angeles pet shops.

Excellent!  Awesome.  Now, here's a question: 

Are there really very many puppies being sold in Los Angeles?

I do not live in Los Angeles, so I cannot tell you based on experience walking around LA, but I can tell you that it's been at least two decades since I saw a puppy being sold in a pet store.
I shot out a quick email to a half dozen other dog people around the country, and they too said they had not seen a pet store puppy in years.

A little more research and I turned up a list of the top pet store chains in the country. Here they are:
.
  • PetSmart:  PetSmart was the first "big-box" pet superstore chain.  Founded by John Doherty in Phoenix in 1987, it is publicly traded, and has over 1,135 stores across the country doing more than $5-billion worth of business.  It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • PETCO:   PETCO was created in 1967 but remained a California-only chain until 1987, when it hired a manager from Toys R Us to grow the chain. PETCO quickly bought up 200 smaller pet stores across the country, and today it has over 950 stores doing more than $2.5 billion in sales. It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Pet Supplies “Plus”:  Pet Supplies “Plus” was started in Michigan and is the largest franchised pet store chain in the U.S. with 225 stores in 22 midwest and eastern states. It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Pet Valu:  Pet Value operates in Ontario, Canada and in the Mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. (mainly Pennsylvania and Delaware) and it has 350 stores. It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Petland:  Petland once had 140 franchised stores across U.S., and is the largest pet store chain that sells puppies, but it appears to only sell puppies in a minority of stores and this chain is actually gettting smaller.  HSUS initiated a lawsuit against Petland  for puppy sales, but reports only 21 Petland stores selling puppies, and at least one of those stores has since quit the practice. Not said by HSUS:  Petland stores have placed more than 310,000 homeless pets through their stores, including over 72,000 puppies and dogs and over 230,00 kittens and cats.
    .
  • Pet Supermarket:  Pet Supermarket has 115 stores in Florida and the Southeastern United States.  It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Pet Food Express:  Pet Food Express has 34 stores in Northern California. It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Complete Petmart:  Complete Petmart is a chain with 32 stores in Ohio and North Carolina. It has NO puppy sales..
    .
  • Petland Discounts:  Petland Discounts is a small chain in New York.  It has NO puppy sales.
    .
  • Pet Depot:  Pet Depot is a small franchise with less than 30 stores scattered across the U.S and Canada.  It has NO puppy sales.
    .
That's a pretty interesting list.   And, of course, it's hardly the end of the story, is it? 

Today's "big box stores" like Wal-Mart and Target (to say nothing of huge supermarket chains like Safeway, Publix, Krogers, and Food Lion), are where most people now buy their dog food, leashes, collars, dog bowls, dog beds and even dog houses.

And then, of course, there are the online stores with deep discounts, endless variety, and ease of stay-at-home shopping:  Amazon, Drs. Foster and Smith, KV Supply, PetEdge, and the like.

Which is not to say that there are no longer pet stores that sell puppies. 

The point is that most of these operations are small outfits and are (for the most part) undercapitalized and fairly marginal businesses.

How many puppies are sold every year through these small-time pet stores? 

The simple truth is that no one knows.  

Numbers are tossed around (I will give my own best-guess in a minute based on a literature review), but for all of the anti-puppy mill web sites that exist, I could not find one that offered up a state-based list of pet stores selling puppies.  Pretty odd!

One clue as to the relative extent of pet store sales is to look at the biggest player in the business, the Hunte Corporation. 

Contrary to popular belief, Hunte does not breed its own dogs, but instead operates as a broker or "buncher" of commercially-bred dogs that are then vet-inspected, vaccinated, and trucked to pet stores across the U.S.

Hunte's top management not only sits in the American Kennel Club box at the Westminster dog show, they are such an important registrar of AKC dogs that the Kennel Club has created a computer program so their pet-store puppies can be directly registered even before they hit the parking lot.

And how much business is Hunte doing? 

The Hunte Corporation is moving about 80,000 puppies a year.

That may sound like a phenomenal amount of dogs (it is), but it helps to put a denominator on it.

In a country of about 75 million dogs, with a new-puppy acquisition rate of over 7 million dogs a year, 80,000 puppies represents less than 1.2 percent of all dog sales.

Of course the Hunte Corporation is not the only broker or supplier of pet store dogs.  Other pet store puppy suppliers include Lambriar Kennels in Kansas, Mid-America Pet Broker in Missouri, Tracy’s K & J Pets in Missouri, and Perfect Puppies in Iowa, to name just five large brokers.

So what's my best guess of total pet store puppy sales based on my own review of the literature?

My best guess is that about 250,000 puppies are sold in approximately 2,500 pet stores across the U.S.

This represents, by my calculation, less than 4 pecent of all puppy sales in the U.S. and this number is clearly coming down as more cities and towns ban pet store puppy sales altogether and as Internet sales (including on-line classified listings such as Craigslist) expand.
.
Where do pet stores sales of puppies rank on the canine "misery index" here in the U.S.?

That's a hard question.

To start, let's give a nod to the fact that most pet stores puppies are healthy and most end up in loving homes despite the fact that their purchasers are dangerously clueless people.

Most pet store puppies are up-to-snuff on their vaccines, and most move to new homes pretty quickly, and do not suffer from lack of stimulation or socialization (pet store puppies see a lot of people and other pets while on display).

Inbred? No more than any other Kennel Club dog, and probably less.

Health care testing?  Very few Kennel Club breeders health test their dogs for anything. As for the 53% of dogs in America that are mutts or crossbreeds, health tests for these animals were never even considered.

And, truth be told, some pet shop puppy brokers do a few things well.  For example, the two largest puppy brokers in the U.S. -- Hunte and Lambriar -- microchip all their puppies for lifetime identification. How many AKC breeder can say that?

So what's the problem with puppy mills dogs?

The problem is not necessarily in the store -- it's back in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, or Pennsylvania.... out of sight, but not out of mind.

Back there, far from prying eyes, are thousands and thousands of breeder bitches warehoused in wire-bottom cages with no room to run, and little human contact or mental stimulation.

These dogs are "bred until dead."

Most Americans think this is cruelty on stilts, and I am one of them.

That said, it's worth putting a number on it.

How many misery-dams are we talking about?

Based on the number of puppies being whelped it's likely to be 50,000 to 60,000 dogs.

That's a hell of a lot of misery, but it barely scales on a graph next to the nearly one million Pit Bulls that are whelped, acquired, and then abandoned to be killed in local "shelters" by America's "pit bull lovers."  

And how does it compare next to the number of dogs languishing unloved and ignored in the back yards of countless "hobby" show dog breeders and owners across the nation?

Forgot about them, did you?  I don't!  Do you really think anyone with 20 dogs in a kennel in their backyard and a full-time day job actually does anything with those dogs more than pooper-scoop and (maybe) bathe them once in a while? 

And what of the huge number of brachycephalic breeds which struggle every day to simply breathe?

In 2006, the American Kennel Club registered over 21,000 English Bulldogs. Assuming a Bulldog only lives for 6 years (a good assumption!), that means there's at least twice as many English Bulldogs in America as there are puppy mill dams, and most of these flat-faced and heavy-headed dogs are having a hard time breathing.  How do you count that misery? 

None of this is meant to make light of puppy mills or pet shop sales. 

It is to say, however, that the scope of canine pain in the United States is a lot larger that pet shop puppies alone.

The good news is that a lot of folks are focused on pet shops and puppy mills, and problems there appear to be in decline.

But what about the rest of it?  Who will lead in these other arenas?
.

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Humane Society did WHAT?

Has Hell frozen over?

You might think so.

You see, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) is quoting this blog in the cover story of All Animals magazine, which is HSUS's full-color bimonthly membership magazine which goes out to their 10 million members.

In a long, well-written, and fair piece, author Carrie Allan lays out The Purebred Paradox whose strap line is "Is the quest for the 'perfect dog' driving a genetic health crisis?"

Once upon a time, people believed that purebred dogs were naturally healthier than mixed breeds. How have we arrived at a point where it may be safer to presume the opposite? ....

.... The more limited the number of mates, the greater the chance a dog will be bred with a relative who shares similar genes. Genetic diseases are caused by recessive genes, so a good gene from one parent will trump a bad gene from the other. But if both parents have a bad gene—such as one that predisposes them to hip dysplasia or blindness—the likelihood of a sick puppy increases.

“What happens when you have a small and inbreeding population is that the probability of two negative recessive genes finding each other increases as the gene pool chokes down to a smaller and smaller pool,” says Patrick Burns, a Dogs Today columnist who frequently writes about genetic health issues on his blog, Terrierman’s Daily Dose.

A closed registry that allows no “new blood” into the mix exacerbates the problem, he argues: “In many AKC dogs, the founding gene pool was less than 50 dogs. For some breeds, it was less than 20 dogs.”

This year’s Westminster champion, a Scottish terrier named Sadie, hails from one of these tiny gene pools and is “very heavily inbred,” says Burns. The limited ancestry for AKC-registered Scotties, he adds, helps explain why 45 percent die of cancer.

“We do not need to have a closed registry to keep a breed,” Burns says, pointing out that breeds existed long before there was an organization to track them. “We did not create the dogs we love in a closed registry system—we have only ruined them there.”


Read the whole thing. The HTML version (multiple jump pages) is here, and the PDF version (8 pages) is here.

This is one of the longest and best articles done so far on the American "dog mess" that is a confluence between disease, deformity and defect caused by inbreeding and contrived and twisted breed standards, and the sick internacine economic relationships that exist between puppy mills and the AKC.

This article also details what has been going on in the United Kingdom since the advent of Pedigree Dogs Exposed. As Carrie Allan writes:

[I]in the United Kingdom, at least, there seems to be momentum for change. Whether that momentum will gather steam in the U.S. remains to be seen


Spread this article around!

Remember that if you want the Humane Society of the U.S. to move in the right direction, you need to click and treat.

I assure you this is the right direction. They have not taken any gratuitous swipes at pedigree dogs or dog breeders. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Take this line for example. Anyone think this is not fair and well-said?

At The HSUS, we’re big fans of adoption. By going to a local shelter or rescue group, you stand a good chance of both saving a life and finding a purebred — after all, they make up an estimated 25 percent of dogs in shelters.

When you can’t find the dog you’re looking for, however, responsible breeders are another option; they are devoted to their animals’ well-being and committed to placing them in loving homes. And if every shelter dog were adopted and every puppy mill were shuttered, there would still be a need for good breeders to supply dogs to American households.


Full applause to HSUS for this article, and to author Carrie Allan in particular. This is a big subject, and she has done an extraordinarily good job of wrapping herself around it and presenting it in a cogent and fair manner.

Thursday, June 17, 2010

Dogs In America Today



Before Chris Hansen was catching pedophiles and predators, he was catching puppy mill peddlers, and those who wink at puppy mill misery.

Watch this whole piece, which Chris Hansen put together for NBC's Dateline back in 2000.

Nothing much has changed.

In fact, things are actually a little bit worse, as I will explain.

Because most folks will not take the time to watch the whole 45-minute video, I have appended an excerpt below, which shows the unblinking reaction of Ron DeHaven, the man in charge of puppy mill inspection at the U.S, Department of Agriculture.





Ron DeHaven, of course, is now head of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

As for Petland, puppy mills, and the AKC (see the entire Dateline piece here), they are still in bed with each other right up to their eyeballs.

In fact, the AKC has even created special software for Petland so that Petland's puppy mill dogs can be sold even faster under the auspices of the AKC.

And is the AKC still in bed with puppy mills? Absolutely.

In fact, AKC Chairman Ron Menaker says the AKC has always been in bed with puppy mills, and that it's financial future depends on being in bed with "high volume breeders," because dog shows actually lose money for the AKC.

Yes, that's right, "misery puppies" have to die so that people can go on collecting rosettes and ribbons at dog shows.

Nice!

This is the American Kennel Club (AKC).

This is the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

This is the the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

This is puppy mills.

This is Petland.

And this is dogs in America today.
.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Puppy Mills, Veterinary Bills and the AVMA


This aisle of dog feces did not result in a direct violation from the USDA.

If I told you the current head of the American Veterinary Medical Association had been in charge of puppy mill inspections at the U.S. Department of Agriculture at a time when inspectors rarely issued a citation for even the most horrific situation, would you believe me?

Would you believe me if I told you this same gentleman -- Ron DeHaven -- is now a cheerleader for veterinary bill padding?

The good news is that you do not have to believe me.

I have video tape and records from the U.S. Department of Agriculture itself to prove it.

Let's start with the USDA's "Animal Care" division.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Inspector General released a report last month admitting the Agency has done a very poor job of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act, the law designed to make sure that "commercial breeding facilities" for dogs and cats are something less than centers for horror, pain and misery.

You can read the entire report yourself right here [PDF], complete with graphic pictures.

The report starts off noting that:


In our last audit [2005] on animals in research facilities, we found that the agency was not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of AWA [Animal Welfare Act] and that it assessed minimal monetary penalties against them....


And guess what? Things did not improve!

As The Los Angeles Times summarized in its story on the USDA's Inspector General report:


An internal government report says dogs are dying and living in horrific conditions due to lax government enforcement of large kennels known as puppy mills.

Investigators say the Department of Agriculture agency in charge of enforcing the Animal Welfare Act often ignores repeat violations, waives penalties and doesn't adequately document inhumane treatment of dogs. In one case cited by the department's inspector general, 27 dogs died at an Oklahoma breeding facility after inspectors had visited the facility several times and cited it for violations.

The review, conducted between 2006 and 2008, found that more than half of those who had already been cited for violations flouted the law again. It details grisly conditions at several facilities and includes photos of dogs with gaping wounds, covered in ticks and living among pools of feces.


So who was running Animal Control during those years?

None other than Ron DeHaven, the current head of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

DeHaven was deputy administrator for Animal Care (AC) from 1996-2001, deputy administrator of APHIS for Veterinary Services from 2002-2004 and head administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service from April 2004-July 2007.

In short, if commerial dog breeding facilities in the U.S. are a mess, that mess is parked right at his door.


Ticks on this dog were deemed to not be a direct violation, and so no follow up.



So what's DeHaven's message now?
Watch the video below to find out.



Isn't that wonderful? Ron DeHaven is the new face of veterinary bill padding; a pusher for contrived crisis and the "dependency model" of veterinary care.

The current head of the AVMA is the same fellow who gave a "big wink" to the kind of puppy mill abuse the USDA's Inspector General found so shocking only last month.

This is who represents your veterinarian on Capitol Hill.

Nice!

You know what you won't find the AVMA talking about?

You won't hear them talking about contrived standards in Kennel Club dogs.

You won't hear them talking inbreeding and disease in Kennel Club dogs.

And why would they? For veterinarians, silence has been golden.


Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Minimum Standards for Puppy Peddlers?



If you decide to start a ketchup company, you will quickly discover you cannot just put just anything you want into a bottle and sell it; there are labeling requirements, health requirements, and licensing requirements.

The same is true for vehicles. If you decide to start a car or motorcycle company, you will soon find there are safety requirements, inspection requirements, manufacturing standards, and licensing requirements.

If you want to claim to be able do a job, be advised that whether you are a bartender or a barber, a carpenter or a cake-maker, a plumber or a roofer, you will face educational requirements, skills tests, licensing requirements, site inspections, and mandatory insurance requirements. Also, your clients will have real consumer protections, should you screw up or demonstrate total incompetence.

But not in the world of dogs.

In the world of dogs,
any person can throw any two dogs together for a quick breeding, claim the progeny is anything they want, do no health testing at all, and sell the puppies off to an unsuspecting and poorly informed public.

And what is the result? Simple: A glut of inbred and poorly bred dogs, and dogs with serious health defects that will cause their new owners a lifetime of expense, and the dogs a lifetime of pain and discomfort.

That may soon come to an end in the U.K., however. The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare has just put out a new report entitled A Healthier Future for Pedigree Dogs. As The London Times reports:

Puppies should be sold with a full family medical history to alert new owners to the risk of genetic disorders, an inquiry will recommend today.

All future sales must be accompanied by a contract stating that the dog’s parents have undergone health checks before breeding to ensure puppies are born free from genetic disorders, MPs and peers will say.

The Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare recommends that breeders provide a veterinary certificate confirming that the dog’s parents have been screened for health defects prior to mating.

Other recommendations include:

• a statutory limit on the number of times a dog can sire puppies, to prevent inbreeding;

• random checks on breeders;

• that all pedigree dogs be microchipped;

• that champion showdogs undergo health screening before prizes are awarded;

• guidelines to inform owners about what to look for in a healthy dog.

The new rules should apply to all puppies sold as pets, whether from a breeder registered with the Kennel Club, a licensed puppy farmer or someone breeding dogs as a hobby at home.

The safeguards come after a year-long review into pedigree breeding after the controversial BBC documentary, Pedigree Dogs Exposed, was aired in August last year.


Interested in reading the whole report? Here it is (PDF).

Will this new APGAW report gain traction in the U.K.?

Quite possibly; it follows hard on the heels of an earlier critical report on dog breeding by the RSPCA, and comes just a few months before a report by Professor Patrick Bateson, commission by the Kennel Club itself, is due to be released.

The Bateson report is supposed to be independent, but the rule is "he who pays the band gets to call the tune," so we shall see.

One thing is certain: as more and more people look into the world of dogs and ask common-sense questions, both consumers and dogs are likely to benefit..
.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Hunte Corporation: Pushing AKC Puppy Mill Pets

What's the Hunte Corporation?

Simple: the Hunte Corporation is a "puppy bundler" business which gathers together very young puppies (typically 6 or 7 weeks old) from puppy mills in Missouri and around the mid-West.

These very young dogs are too young to have full immunity, and are too young for shots, but time is the enemy of the puppy industry, and so they are gathered up at a very young age and mixed together, helter-skelter, in trucks.

The dogs are then sent to a Hunte facility where they are given shots, looked over, groomed and washed, and moved out the door, as fast as possible, to a pet store near you.

Why the rush to collect such young dogs and get them out the door so fast?

Simple: puppies are like fruit; they go rotten with age.


Most people want a puppy; they do not want a dog.

An eight-week old puppy is very saleable commodity. A 12-week old puppy is not.

A 16-week old puppy will be marked down 90 percent.

And the result of this push to gather up young dogs?

Well, think about it.

Parvo and distemper do not incubate overnight, and so it should come as no surprise to learn that a significant percentage of puppy mill dogs supplied by Hunte end up coming down sick.

The problem here is the same one as occurs with hamburger: take one pound of Listeria-infected beef and mix well with 500 pounds of "clean" beef and what comes out the other end is a lot of sickness.

It only takes a one parvo- or distemper-infected dog from a puppy mill to infect every other dog in the truck going to Hunte.

It takes only one dog at the vaccinate-and-sort center run by Hunte, for a lot of disease to spread and then shoot out to five or six states over a three-day period.

And does this happen? Almost every day.

Remember the dogs are not being held at Hunte long enough for them to do much more than give the puppies a cursory look-over, quick grooming, and a first vaccination shot. Then it's out the door.

Everyone in the business understands that puppies "go rotten" with age.

To the credit of the British Kennel Club, their web site tells you what the Hunte Corporation and the AKC leave off:
Puppy farms are like factory farms where dogs are bred purely for profit. The dogs are normally bred too often, many are unhealthy, and often live in unbearably poor conditions. The puppies are generally removed from their mothers far too early and sent by rail or van to ‘dealers’ or pet shops in the big cities to satisfy the public’s demands. Many are severely traumatised by the transition, and some do not make it alive. Do not buy a puppy or a dog from these sources, as they will have had the worst possible start in life, and are far more likely to have health and temperament problems.

Many ‘puppy farm’ puppies come with complete pedigrees, however, a pedigree in itself, is not necessarily an indication of quality.

‘Dealers’ are agents for puppy farms. They buy puppies and sell them on, advertising them in newspapers and magazines, often masquerading as breeders. If an advert lists more than one breed of puppy for sale, then the person placing it is probably a dealer....


Does this mean the UK Kennel Club refuses to register puppy farm dogs? No. They too pocket the money. That said, they at least are not a cheering squad for puppy mill misery like the American Kennel Club is.

For the record, the Hunte Corporation's web site is co-branded with AKC on every single page. Check it out at the bottom of their home page.

The Hunte Corporation's web site also features a picture of a Border Terrier. Is Hunte puppy farming Border Terriers now? Apparently.

As the Hunte web site notes:



Hunte routinely offers over one hundred different breeds to pet retailers who understand the importance of providing a broad selection of breeds to families in search of the ideal companion.

For a complete list of AKC breeds, click the link below [the link is to the AKC's web site].



.

Monday, October 26, 2009

AKC In Bed With the Puppy Mill Industry



Check out this poster featuring a brachycephahlic bulldog and the co-branding of the AKC with Hunte, the #1 puppy mill puveyor in the U.S.


For those who are wondering, this is "outreach" being done by the AKC's "High Volume Breeders Committee." A "high volume breeder" is the AKC's new name for what used to be called a puppy mill.

The AKC's new goals are two-fold: to "raise the bar" through health testing (but not by changing breed standards or by allowing outcrossing), and to streamline the registration process at pet store outlets so that more puppy mill dogs can be moved through these parvo- and distemper-plagued distribution points.

And what's going on back at the puppy mill?

The same as it ever was -- dogs bred until dead, raised on wire, and never properly socialized. Nice!

This is your AKC.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Battery Cage Dogs are the AKC's Cash Machine

ABC TV's Nightline program will be featuring a "state of the art" puppy mill tonight.

Some promotional video is up right now, however. Check it out.

The owner of this establishment is correct, in that he is running a state-of-the-art commercial dog breeding facility with a high-tech waste management system.

This is what a pretty good commercial dog breeding facility looks like: Small dogs (toy breeds and terriers) raised like chickens in battery cages.

And, for the record, this is what the AKC wants more of ... provided they are all AKC registered puppies, of course.

And why does the AKC want more commercial facilities breeding AKC dogs?

Simple: it needs more commercial kennel registrations in order to subsidize dog shows, which are not paying their way.

In the minutes of the September, 2006 AKC Board meeting (link to PDF file), Ron Menaker notes that the AKC has been registering puppy mill dogs "for the past 122 years" and "we have collected millions of dollars" as a result.

In short: Get over it!

And why does the AKC snuggle up to the puppy mill industry?

The Board of the AKC is rather blunt about the problem: though the AKC made a profit of several million dollars last year, it is not enough, as registration numbers are trending sharply downward and "events" are costing millions more than they are bringing in.

"Events," of course, is a euphemism for dog shows.

In short, because rosette-chasing is a money-losing proposition for the American Kennel Club, they need more puppy mill registrations in order to subsidize dog shows.

As recently as September of 2008, AKC President Ron Menaker wrote:

Today, there are at least 30 All-Breed registries in addition to the AKC, whose combined registration numbers exceed that of the AKC. If this trend is allowed to continue, if we do not stop the hemorrhaging of declining registrations, we will no longer be the premier registry in the world, let alone in our country.

Management has been directed by the Board to aggressively pursue all dogs eligible for AKC registration....

.... AKC used to dominate the marketplace. Even places like Macy’s and Gimbels sold AKC puppies. Many pet owners who bought these puppies, and I was one of them, tried their hand at showing and breeding. These owners who purchased their first purebred from a retail outlet, not only added to AKC’s registrations, but those who wanted to advance in the sport, then sought out fanciers to continue their
journey....

....Last year less than one half of our revenues came from registrations. Dog registrations peaked at 1.5 million in 1992. By the end of 2008 it is projected we will register only 725,000 dogs. This is a staggering 53% decline....

.... If the current trend continues and dog registrations decline to 250,000 over the next several years, AKC will face an annual revenue shortfall of $40 million. To put this in perspective, if this scenario occurred, and we relied solely on raising the event service fees to make up for this revenue shortfall, the fee would be a staggering $20 per entry.


.

Thursday, July 03, 2008

AKC Tries to Peddle Defective Dogs to the Obama's


The AKC is suggesting Barack Obama to commit political suicide.


The American Kennel Club is asking Americans to cast a vote for the best qualified "first pet" for the family, limiting the list to a selection of American Kennel Club dogs that they claim are "hypoallergenic" breeds because Obama's daughters' are supposed to have some allergies.

Let's cut to the chase: there's no such thing as a "hypoallergenic" dog.

There are some dogs that shed a little less than others, but in that bailiwick you would have to include just about all of the terriers that actually have to be stripped (i.e. the true terriers), including such great dogs as the:


But never mind.

The AKC is not interested in offering sensible advice, are they? They are only interested in marketing the AKC.

And so, instead of offering up sensible choices, they laughably offer up a bunch of exotic mutants and dogs-that-only-a-hair-dresser-could-love, such as the Bichon Frise, the Chinese Crested, the Poodle, the Soft-Coated Wheaten Terrier (a dog that sheds and does not have a true terrier coat) and the Miniature Schnauzer (which is not a terrier at all, no matter what the AKC says).

My advice to Barack and Michelle Obama: Forget the AKC. .

This Madison Avenue Club of Clowns has has been fobbing off
defective dogs on the American people for more than 100 years.

Follow their advice, and you will be a laughing stock from coast-to-coast.

Remember what the AKC stands for. These sniffing social snobs think coat color and pedigree matter more than ability. True! Tell me if that doesn't sound like the most bitter and fear-driven bigots the Republican Party has to offer.

Mix that kind of nonsense in with with the AKC's long history of
anything-for-a-dollar puppy mill mercantilism, and you get the ugliest kind of thing that America has to offer.

Read all about the AKC's "misery puppies"
here, and then ask yourself whether ANY thinking person (much less a political candidate) would want to lay down with that kind of thinking!

If you want a dog that is good for the kids on every level, let me suggest almost any terrier or terrier-mutt taken out of rescue. Say "no" to the poodles and French lap dogs if you can; they are the wrong image and the girls will love just as much. Promise.

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

AKC Depends on Puppy Mills to Subsidize Shows





"In order to recoup the money lost from dog shows, the AKC needs to register 666,666 puppy mill dogs a year."

One of the dirty little secrets of the AKC is that the organization would go bankrupt without puppy mill registration dollars.

Ron Menaker, Chairman of the AKC's Board of Directors notes in the minutes of the September, 2006 AKC Board meeting (link to PDF file), that the AKC has been registering puppy mill dogs "for the past 122 years" and "we have collected millions of dollars" as a result. He goes on to further observe that "registering puppies that come from these puppy brokers or pet shops" "is not a new phenomenon."

Why does the AKC snuggle up to the puppy mill industry? The Board of the AKC is rather blunt about the problem: though the AKC made a profit of $5.7 million last year, that is not enough. A core problem, says Jim Stevens Chief Financial Officer of the AKC, is that events "lost approximately ten million dollars in 2005."

"Events" is a euphemism for dog shows. In short, because rosette-chasing is a money-losing proposition for the American Kennel Club, they have to subsidize dog shows with blood-money derived from puppy mill registrations.

So how many AKC puppy mill registrations does it take to zero out the deficit created by AKC dog shows?

The math is simple. It costs $15 to register a puppy with the AKC. In order to recoup the $10 million a year lost from dog shows, the AKC needs to register 666,666 "misery puppies" a year.

To put it another way, the AKC is losing about $1,175 dollars per event (i.e. per dog show), which means about 78 misery puppies need to be registered to underwrite every AKC event.

How many rosettes are awarded at an AKC show? I have no idea, and the number shifts, but I think it's safe to say that every breed and performance win requires at least one puppy mill "misery puppy" to be registered.

So enjoy those dog shows! Take pride in those ribbons, especially those of you who did not breed the dog and then paid a handler to walk it around the ring.

And remember that with every rosette comes an added bonus -- a little bit of misery in fur huddled in some commercial breeding pen pulled well back from the highway. There the dogs are pregnant for life, and when they are too old to produce more, they are killed to make room for the next generation of breeders. And all of this is AKC-approved and rationalized in your name!


[ Feel free to cross post ]
.

Friday, October 05, 2007

Border Collie Owners Battle What Doesn't Work


In 1848, Queen Victoria was introduced to working Collies at Balmoral Castle. She became captivated by these intelligent dogs and brought a few back with her to London, where they became the rage -- hitting center stage just as the first dog shows were starting to take off in the U.K.

With the rise of organized dog shows between 1860 and 1890, a show standard was written up for the Collie by John Henry Walsh (aka "Stonehenge"), a man who himself did not own or work Collies, but who felt himself expert enough in nearly every breed of dog to write a standard by which they could be judged by appearance alone.

Needless to say, dogs were soon being bred to this "standard," which assigned large numbers of points to head shape and size, coat length, and coat color.

A Collies ability to actually work sheep or take commands was not allotted a single point.


A Border Collie rides herd on sheep in a chute.


In 1893, the fate of the Collie took another bad turn when the very young Czar Nicholas II sent 15 Borzois to the aged Queen Victoria. Intended as a diplomatic gift to curry favor with an aged dog collector who also happened to be his wife's grandmother, the Borzois more than left their mark, as they were soon crossed with Queen Victoria's Collies, thereby helping to create the strange-looking, impossibly narrow-headed dog we now know as "the Lassie" Rough-coated Collie.

By the 1920s, these non-working and narrow-headed Collies appeared to be a different breed from the working Collies found in rural parts of Scotland, Wales and the rest of the British Isles.

While the show dogs were increasingly homogeneous, the working dogs were of varied sizes and colors. Some had short coats and prick ears, others had longer coats and folded ears. The dogs themselves ranged from 25 to 75 pounds, and they came in a wide variety of colors from brown or red, to black and white, from dappled Merle to various hues of gun metal gray. In fact, almost the only thing all these dogs had in common was an obsessive devotion to work created by breeding worker-to-worker for generations.


"Big one, little one, handsome one, ugly ones, long-coated, short-coated: nobody gave a damn. How's his outrun? Can he read sheep? Can he move a rank old cow?"
. . . . - Don McCaig, Dog Wars

Needless to say, these were not the kind of questions being asked by the folks at The Kennel Club shows!

As a result of divergent selection criteria -- working ability versus conformation -- the smart, working, heterogeneous collies that had been so admired by Queen Victoria in 1848, were systematically selected out of The Kennel Club gene pool in favor of more homogeneous conformation stock.

Could these pretty show dogs herd a cat across a living room? Perhaps, but no one had much illusion that they would be of any real use on a mountain side with 500 head of semi-wild sheep to pen before an approaching storm. Shepherds looked elsewhere for their working dogs.

But what did that matter? How many people really had sheep to pen? Never mind that the sheep and the hill created the Collie. How could a dog be harmed if it still looked good? A non-working Collie could be bred to a non-working Collie, and it would still chase a stick. What else was needed?

In fact, by The Kennel Club's light, what mattered was not the dog, but the name. And so, in 1924, when the International Sheep Dog Society (ISDS) brought working Collies to Hyde Park for a sheepdog trial, The Kennel Club objected. How could these feral-looking dogs be called Collies, they demanded!? They had no resemblance at all to the dogs in The Kennel Club ring!

"Fine," the ISDS replied, and promptly began calling their working dogs by a new name: "Border Collies," to differentiate them from their non-working Kennel Club cousins.


A Border Collie at Crufts: a bored animal at a dog show started by a man that never owned a dog.


Much the same story played out with working Fox Terriers at about this same period of time (complete with Queen Victoria in a supporting role).

Here too a breed of working dog, was quickly wrecked by Kennel Club breeders focused on pure conformation standards within a closed-registry system.

And here too, the true working dog continued to live on in the countryside under a different name -- the Jack Russell Terrier.

Move forward 100 years, and the tale plays out anew, as the Kennel Club bureaucracy circles back to try to round up two popular working dog breeds that somehow (how?) slipped out of sight and off their roles.

"The Border Collie? The Jack Russell Terrier? Oh, we must have them."

Never mind that these dogs had already been pulled onto the Kennel Club roles. By now the Kennel Clun dogs were ruined beyond recognition and operating under a different name. Time to try again!

It is here, at the start of the Second Battle for the Border Collie that Virginia sheep man and writer Don McCaig begins his tale in The Dog Wars: How the Border Collie Battled the American Kennel Club.

In its simplest form, McCaig's book is a battle between what works and what doesn't.

On one side you have the American Kennel Club -- a 19th Century organization driven by 19th Century genetic theories and an almost Kremlin-like bureaucracy in New York City. These people have the strange notion that all canine breeds can best be judged at a glance while trotting a dog around a ring on a thin string leash.

On the other side, you have a small collection of not-too-sophisticated farmers and sheep dog trialers; the very people who made the working collie what it is. These folks may not own a tuxedo or ball dress, but by God they know two true things; 1) that the show ring has never made a working dog, and; 2) that the mettle of a Border Collie can only be determined on the hill while working cattle, sheep or goats.

The fact that McCaig is a partisan in this war does not mean he has not written a fair book.

In fact, he is more than fair.

While he mentions some of the breeds ruined by the Kennel Club's love affair with closed registries and show ring standards, he does not catalogue them (or their ills) to the extent he could.

Nor does McCaig open up both barrels in order to blast the AKC' for their sordid history as puppy mill profiteers.

Instead, McCaig's book focuses on the straight-forward history of the "Border Collie War" of the 1990s, leavening historical chronology with short divergent tales of his own working dogs, Silk, Moose and Harry.

McCaig does a pretty fair job of puncturing the American Kennel Club lie that they "only register dogs," and that it is individual breeders -- not AKC policies -- that are responsible for the general decline in pure-breed quality and performance.

In fact, McCaig notes, the Kennel Club does far more than register dogs. It also mandates that all AKC breed be maintained in a closed registry which almost guarantees mounting levels of inbreeding.

The AKC also prohibits performance tests as a requirement of winning a championship, and they will not allow a club to ban puppy mill or pet store registrations which are a large part of the AKC's bread-and-butter business plan.

The staff of the AKC have forced the rewriting of show standards (as they did with the Labrador Retriever), and they will not allow a breed club to mandate a health check as a condition of registration, even if the breed has a serious, pervasive, debilitating, gene-based health care issue such as deafness, cataracts or dysplasia.

In fact, as McCaig makes clear, the AKC is really not interested in power-sharing with a strong breed club. If a strong breed club already exists outside the AKC, they are not willing to do much to woo its support in order to have them join the AKC.

It's much easier -- and safer -- to simply create a new club from whole cloth; a simple matter of finding a few dozen people who are anxious to "get in on the ground floor" with a new AKC breed.

These new AKC converts are likely to already believe that dog shows are the beginning-and-end-all in the world of dogs.

What does it matter that geneticists have said that the AKC's breeding scheme is unsound and bad for working dogs? They will be careful and breed smart.

So what if the AKC is a major engine driving the puppy mill and pet shop trade of dogs? If the AKC was not pocketing the cash, someone else would.

And who really needs working dogs any more anyway? Sheep herding with dogs is an anachronism, and fox hunting has been banned in the U.K. The modern world is all about fly-ball, agility, and Frisbee. If the dogs have a little less obsession and drive, they will still be fine for that.

And, so the AKC charges ahead and does what it wants.

When the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club (founded in 1954) turned down AKC overtures because the AKC would not allow their Club to deny membership and registration to puppy millers and breeders that sold their dogs to pet shops, the AKC simply created its own Cavalier King Charles Spaniel Club to compete.

When the Border Collie folks said they would greenlight AKC admission only if there was a performance standard, the AKC would have none of it.

When the Jack Russell Terrier folks opposed a too-limited conformation standard and maintenance of the breed in a closed registry system with no limits on coefficients of inbreeding, the AKC simply rounded up a collection of breeders who cared more about blue ribbons and green cash than the future of this working dog.

McCaig gives a nod to these other dog battles, of course, but his concern is the Border Collie.

McCaig details an AKC in which both officials and staff are secretive, arrogant and clannish. They think nothing of omitting facts, telling lies, and stretching the truth. When asked to explain their intentions, they become a collection of Know Nothings, and when asked to sit down to see if common ground can be found, they express outrage that -- after 100 years of wrecking dogs -- the entire world is not willing to roll over and give them the benefit of the doubt on their say-so alone.

After all, they will tell you, they are the experts on dogs. What, you don't believe it? Well, just ask any of their all-breed judges who claim they can judge the value of a sheep-working dog at 40 feet, never mind that they themselves have never seen a sheep.

Ask any one of the terrier judges who have never dug four feet to a fox, or carried a shovel out of their own backyard.

You want to to know about whippets and greyhounds? Well the AKC has experts on chasing plastic bags on a string. Who would know more about running dogs than people with experience like that?





Though McCaig's book is brutal in its accounting, his tone is generally dispassionate and he sticks to the facts.

In fact, I would argue that McCaig's book is actually generous to the American Kennel Club.

Recognizing that the organization is behaving irrationally -- spending money to lose money, winking at puppy mills, capriciously changing breed standards, and ignoring the wishes of both breed clubs and dog owners alike, he wonders what is going on. How could people, whom he generously supposes are neither evil nor stupid, be so terribly misguided?

He dismisses the notion that it's all about money. He says it is not -- in discussions with the AKC they never mention money, and they seem offended that anyone would suggest theirs is a business (never mind the Madison Avenue offices, high salaries, black-tie galas, and plethora of cross-promotional activities with dog food companies, veterinarians, and dog toy manufacturers).

McCaig generously suggests that the AKC is guided by something else -- a vision that can best be described as religious in nature, since it seems to operate both independent of fact and based on faith alone.

And what is that faith? McCaig writes:

"Throughout the fight, I kept stumbling over a simple truth without quite seeing it: dog fanciers and their creature, the AKC, really do believe that what is most valuable about any dog can be judged in the show ring, that the show ring is the sole legitimate purpose and reward for all dog breeding. They even believe, against all evidence, that the show ring 'improves' breeds."


And, to give credit, McCaig cuts them a little slack about their belief system. He even tries to identify in -- at least a little bit.

"The AKC's faith in the show ring is no more implausible than the fourth-century creed I recite every Sunday in the Williamsville Presbyterian Church."



McCaig
goes on to note
that while AKC dog show folks really do believe a dog is all about looks, the AKC staff is motivated by something else in their eternal quest to pull ever-more breeds into the AKC show ring.

"When AKC staffers argued with traditionalists that they should abandon their venerable snobberies and recognize every breed they could, the staffers were just doing what staffers have done since the time of the pharaohs; increase their importance by swelling their organization."


And so, in the end, McCaig tries to humanize the AKC. He does not forgive them their lies, their pettifoggery, or for what they have done to the Border Collie and other working breeds, but he does try to see the world through their eyes.

Unfortunately, it's still not a pretty picture.

One big issue seems to be that the staff of the AKC feels that their power in the world of dogs is slipping from their fingers.

The United Kennel Club already registers more breeds, and other for-profit dog registries are popping up left and right.

The American Press Corps (from Time magazine to ABC's 20/20) have informed everyone that AKC dogs are more likely to have specific genetic defects than run-of-the-mill pound puppies.

And with their recent disastrous attempt to form an alliance with Petland, everyone now knows that a huge portion of AKC's bottom line comes from the registration fees pocketed from the sale of "misery puppies" cranked out by commercial puppy mill breeders.

Slowly, the glow is coming off the rose. So what to do?

Well of course, your double down your efforts and continue doing the same thing! Isn't that so often the way?

So how does it all end?

When the smoke and fog of war lifted, it turned out that both sides had lost the Border Collie War.

The Border Collie had lost because they were now just one more dog within the American Kennel Club where they were to be judged on looks alone rather on the brains, obsessive drive, and bidability that make them truly unique in the world of dogs.

The American Kennel Club lost because they not only activated a permanent (and growing) base of opposition outside of the AKC, but also because the public was apparently not deceived by their shennaningans. Ten years after the Border Collie were first drawn into the AKC, that organization registers only 2,000 border collies annually; only a tenth of the dogs the American Border Collie Association registers.

And while McCaig notes that the AKC has twice the number of herding trial events as the American Border Collie Association, the AKC events are poorly attended because "ordinary citizens seem to understand what's real and what's not."

At least for now, it seems, common sense has won out.

The same can be said in the battle for the Jack Russell. Not only is the AKC version of the dog not as popular as the AKC had hoped it would be, but it is no longer even called a Jack Russell Terrier. Meanwhile, the Jack Russell Terrier Club of America continues to prosper and thrive as the largest Jack Russell Terrier registry in the world. It's focus: to preserve and protect the Jack Russell as "first and foremost" a hunting dog.

And so, as George Santayana might have predicted, the world of working dogs has come full circle.

The AKC once again has drawn into its folds a type of working collie (and a type of working terrier too), and put them on the fast track to ruin in a closed registry system with a pure-conformation standard.

Within 50 years, these new AKC dogs will be as as close to their working cousins as chalk is to cheese, and 100 years from now, if the AKC is still around, the whole process will probably start all over again. Nonetheless, I suspect the working Border Collie and the working Jack Russell Terrier will continue to endure.

Bottom Line: Buy and read Don McCaig's new book about the battle for the Border Collie. It's a good book, and an important book. And, truth be told, there are damn few of those.



A Proposed New AKC Class: "Working Dogs Ruined by the Show Ring"


.