Reader Tells Why Some Breeders Don’t Like Me
To the reader who wrote recently about my flop as a matchmaker: Thank you.
“On the chance that you really are naive instead of enormously egotistical,” you began, “I’m going to try to give you my perspective on why you haven’t been particularly enthusiastically embraced by dog breeders, ethical or otherwise.”
My “Canine Underground Directory” idea for helping dog buyers link up with conscientious breeders was half lemon - lots of dog buyers looking for a good breeder, but the breeders proving a shy lot, none stepping forward. This, you said, is because “Many of the dog people I talk to feel really ambivalent about you.” Because:
I “constantly portray AKC as the Great Satan of healthy dogdom.”
I “have repeatedly portrayed genetic health problems in dogs as something strictly related to their being purebred and registered.”
I give “the impression that anybody connected with AKC events need not apply to your self-righteous club of respectable dog people.”
I assert that such previously non-AKC breeds as the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, the border collie, and the Anatolian shepherd are “perfect,” and “that these perfect breeds are on the brink of ruination” if they become AKC breeds.
As to your charge that I’m either naive or enormously egotistical - I don’t exactly know how to plead. Partly guilty on both counts, I suppose, clayfoot that I am. (Thank you for not asking if I have stopped beating my dogs.) But you have arraigned me on trumped-up charges, your honor, and I do have an explanation if you’re interested.
First, I don’t say AKC is a “Great Satan.” That’s silly. But I do think it has become a self-serving bureaucracy that pays lip service to the health of dogs and the welfare of dog owners. Why do I say that? Because AKC’s electorate tomorrow could do what the Canadian Kennel Club is in the process of doing, and what the Swedish Kennel Club did a long time ago. Namely, adopt policies that provide for screening of genetic disease as part of the purebred registration process.
Until that happens, AKC status is literally meaningless to anyone looking for a good dog. The best use of AKC papers is housebreaking your puppy, according to Dr. Michael Fox of the U.S. Humane Society. I agree. My view is that the health of dogs is strictly related to the way they’re bred, not whether they have AKC in front of their names. A purebred can be healthier than a mutt, and a mutt can be healthier than a purebred. Depends on their breeding. But a lot of people who breed AKC dogs don’t want you to know that. So when you see dogs advertised as “AKC Rottweilers,” “AKC elephant hounds,” AKC whatever, do this: Put your hand over your wallet. Don’t remove it until you determine that the breeder can offer veterinary certification that vigorous screening for genetic disease is an integral part of his or her breeding program.
If you’re looking for a dog and you’re not willing to go to that much trouble, heaven help you because AKC papers can’t.
Regarding connection with AKC events and membership in my “self-righteous club,” you are simply confused. I am connected with AKC events (I’ve been an officer of a club that puts on AKC field trials), I own two dogs registered with AKC, and while I’m a sucker for all dogs (ask my saintly wife), I generally prefer purebreds to mutts. And I’m not about to kick myself out of my club. As an egotist, naturally I consider myself a member in good standing. Excellent standing. So there.
Finally, you must have not had your first cup of coffee when you read my columns about the breeds you mentioned. I never said they were perfect. They all have problems, which is exactly why their national breed organizations are emphatically opposed to AKC recognition. They’re scared to death that the heartless breeding practices that are an integral part of AKC’s culture will, as you say, mean “ruination” of the health and temperament of their breeds.
Maybe you think their anxiety is something to sneer at, your honor, but I don’t. So on that count I guess I’m guilty as charged.