Thinking out loud

There are things I definitely dislike about the AKC. One is the fact they seem to support commercial breeders. They almost jumped into bed with Petland a few years ago but came to their senses when the fur started going up as people heard about the pending deal. I think they realized the move would give them a huge black eye in the PR department. (well bigger than the one they got for even considering it) They say they can't do anything about puppymills because they are only a registry but I have to wonder how true that really is. If they required more of the people doing the registrating then things could change. Consider how much money those puppy registrations are bringing in after all.
*
On the other hand they have supported health testing for some breed issues. They also have programs like the Canine Good Citizen test and more recently the S.T.A.R program. (think CGC for puppies and their owners)
*
It has been on my mind lately because I have been thinking about some of my long term training goals for the year. If I decide to show in obedience who do I send my registration fees to? AKC of course. If I decide to pursue a tracking title who puts on the event and again benefits from my registration fee? Yup the good ole AKC. I am even a member of a local kennel club that puts on a yearly show. Who for? Pick yourself a prize if you said the AKC. The downside to living in the boonies is less access to UKC events without major travel time. Let's face it, the AKC runs alot of the show in the dog showing world. (no pun intended) At least for the moment.
*
If I decide to try for the tracking title with Jenny I need to first get her registered with the AKC though the PAL program. From the AKC website: Purebred Alternative Listing/Indefinite Listing Privilege (PAL/ILP): The program that provides purebred dogs a second chance.There are various reasons why a purebred dog might not be eligible for registration. The dog may be the product of an unregistered litter, or have unregistered parents. The dog's papers may have been withheld by its breeder or lost by its owner. Sometimes, it is the dog itself that was "lost." There are many dogs enrolled in the PAL/ILP program after they have been surrendered or abandoned, then adopted by new owners from animal shelters or purebred rescue groups. The PAL/ILP program allows the dog and owner a second chance at discovering the rewards of participating in AKC events.
*
Again another $35 to the AKC. (not counting the cost of trialing of course) With the economy the way it is the AKC is bound to see some decreases in show entries. While I understand the mission of the AKC is to promote the purebred dog, I think in some cases they are not doing the best for some of the breeds. Alot more on this subject can be seen over at the Terrierman's blog: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/ While I don't agree with everything he says, or how he says it, he definitely has some good points when it comes to the dog fancy and breeding for health.
*
I wish we had alter classes at shows for people to be able to show dogs without the burden of having an intact dog. Not everyone interested in showing wants to breed after all. They say the point of the show is to prove breeding stock but I would argue that showing dogs from a line, even though altered, would help show the results of what a good breeding program can produce.
*
Another thing I would like to see is obedience classes for mixed breeds included as well. Yes it may not promote purebreeds but it promotes responsible dog ownership by promoting training to the average person. How can that not be good in the long run? Besides, it seems like they need to consider the revenue from every entry fee possible. Of course when you have commercial breeders pumping out registered puppies, even of questionable health and temperament, perhaps clean money doesn't have the same appeal. (not that I am bitter or anything)
*
I just heard that the AKC won't be allowing the S.T.A.R program for special groups anymore. (think prison programs) I guess their reasoning is that the dog needs to be taken through the program by a long term owner. While I understand the intent of the program, I am saddened that they can't see the big picture in this case. I used to be a CGC evaluator but gave up the title when they added fees for evaluators and because I didn't want to give out the award just because people could get their dog to pass with dogs that didn't deserve it. My standards on what I consider a Canine Good Citizen and what others are were just to extreme for my liking. It's like the dog with a CD title that is not well behaved outside the ring. It's not supposed to be just about that moment in time, but for the lifetime of behavior as far as I am concerned.
*
I am also dismayed that breeders seem to have changed. I am not sure why it happened but no longer can you count on show breeders being reputable by virtue of being involved in showing. Not all of them are doing health testing or breeding for better temperaments. One has to wonder why that is. Is it because chasing ribbons and wins has become more important? From what I have heard about UKC showing, with their written evaluations and no professional handler rules, it seems they may be on a better track. Perhaps the AKC needs to stop thinking they are the only option. They may want to do it before they hemorrhage the few responsible breeders they have left in their show rings. Just a thought.