Miscellaneous Breeds – Getting Attention They Deserve
Click here to read the complete article
Finally Getting the Attention They Deserve?
by Amy Fernandez
It’s impossible to overlook AKC’s recent determination to spruce up the Miscellaneous segment. They reinstated breed competition complete with class placements, Breed and Opposite awards, and Certificate of Merit titles. They also eased up eligibility requirements for both Miscellaneous and FSS breeds in companion and performance events. Their success has put them at the forefront in obedience, agility, rally, and tracking. Nothing confirms this growing momentum better than the AENC where these breeds consistently comprise a major portion of the entries. All these developments stem from major AKC policy changes following the introduction of the Foundation Stock Service in 1995.
However, exhibitors who were around before then may recall a very different energy at the Miscellaneous ring, more akin to unpopular kids at a high school dance awkwardly clustered at the back of the gym wondering if they belonged there at all. This amazing paradigm shift might be best explained as AKC opportunism.
The 1979 Complete Dog Book succinctly captured the traditional corporate sentiment. “The AKC does not, per se, encourage the admittance of ‘new’ breeds to the Studbook. However, it does provide for a regular method of development which may result in such registration.” All eight breeds mentioned in that edition were later admitted. However, contrary to that article, the process was neither orderly nor logical. Eventual recognition hung on two factors – who was asking and, most importantly, the mood of the board.
AKC most likely would have opted to skip the whole thing. Their attitude towards Miscellaneous was comparable to dealing with crazy Aunt Mabel in the attic. No one really wanted her around, but after all, she was family. Actually, they didn’t have much choice because the precedent for this type of a loosely structured class was firmly established long before the formation of AKC in 1884.
By then, multiple registries and clubs existed. Like AKC, their rise was prompted by the need to regulate the expanding dog world. Clubs offered classes to lure exhibitors and paying spectators, and that generally meant multiple classes for some breeds, none for others, as Watson noted in his 1905 Dog Book. “Where there is poor prospect of entries for certain breeds, either put one or two affiliated breeds together or drop them and let the miscellaneous class suffice.” This situation had two takeaway points:
• There were no actual “Miscellaneous Breeds” class.
• And the bottom line was maximizing profit. Basically, anyone willing to pony up an entry fee was welcome at the party.
Over time, many variations of Miscellaneous became designated as legitimate venues to exhibit newly introduced breeds, those with consistent but low entries, along with a ubiquitous assortment with debatable claims to actual purebred status. Breeds were frequently shifted in and out of Miscellaneous based on entries at different events, but most wound up there occasionally.
AKC coalesced around Gundogs in the beginning years of the organization, specifically Pointers and English Setters. To its founders, most other breeds fell into that third category of Miscellaneous. From that perspective, those classes simply encouraged more unwanted purebred mayhem.
However, AKC walked a fine line, which they acknowledged in their initial 1885 description: “In miscellaneous classes judges will award prizes only to dogs of a recognized breed that have no regular classes assigned. Dogs that have a regular class provided for them will not be allowed to compete in the Miscellaneous Class.” These were considered breeds listed in a studbook, which clarified nothing since many breeds were known by multiple names in multiple private and public studbooks.
Gundogs previously recorded in the National American Kennel Club studbook comprised the first wave of AKC breeds. Subsequent additions didn’t remotely represent an actual sampling of known breeds at that time. Nor did it suggest that these particular lucky recruits possessed any outstanding qualifications now associated with purebred status such as uniform type, documented lineage, breed standards, or parent clubs.
In most cases, all those things came after the fact, as illustrated by this excerpt from AKC’s Executive Committee meeting May 19, 1885. Minutes show that the secretary was instructed to enlist prominent breeders and exhibitors to write standards for Mastiffs, St. Bernards, Newfoundlands, Greyhounds, English, Irish, Gordon, and Black and Tan Setters, Pointers, Irish Water Spaniels, Irish Terriers, Yorkshires, Japanese dogs, Italian Greyhounds, Pugs, Poodles, and Dachshunds.
That slapdash approach characterized AKC’s recognition process for the following century. That made it somewhat difficult to offer plausible explanations as the door was slammed on one breed after another. Essentially, they felt the less said the better because there was no actual recognition process. AKC had its own thoughts regarding breeds deserving inclusion in their exclusive club. That was their business.
AKC’s predecessor and role model, The Kennel Club, dealt with this by creating the Foreign Dog Class. Its ambiguous title matched its fuzzy parameters. Technically not limited to foreign dogs, Our Dogs editor Theo Marples attempted to explain its structure in his book Show Dogs. “The Kennel Club group under this heading several breeds of Foreign Dogs other than those which by long sojourn in England and the extensive breeding and propagation to which they have been subjected in this country have become nationalized, as it were, and recognized as British. The breeds relegated to the Foreign Dog group, however, by no means exhaust the number of Foreign Dogs, whose names are legion, nor even those familiar to the English show bench.” Possibly because of its proximity to the Continent, Britain’s approach to breed recognition remained comparably more progressive than America’s. However, like all aspects of Kennel Club structure, it was a completely autocratic process. Although it was designed to be far more democratic, AKC followed suit, admitting breeds on a case by case basis.
By 1886 the AKC empire totaled 26 breeds and 18 all breed shows. And their dream of a perfectly ordered canine universe was nowhere in sight. Initial revisions to Miscellaneous occurred within the context of tinkering with championships requirements, then based on class wins. Technically, that included Miscellaneous wins, something AKC realized after the fact. In 1887 the rules were tightened up to state, “A dog to compete in a Champion Class must have won three first prizes, exclusive of Puppy Classes and Miscellaneous Classes, at Shows recognized by the American Kennel Club, a list of which must be published in the Premium List of each Show.” A few months later it was again amended to say “provided that such prizes have been won in classes confined to one recognized breed.”
Ironically, Miscellaneous remained one of the few anchor points within AKC’s continually shifting ground of classes, rules, and breeds. For instance, the 1888 rollout revamped the entire competitive field. “Bench show committees may provide for the following classes:
• Miscellaneous classes
• Selling classes
• Novice classes
• Puppy classes
• Open classes
• Challenge classes
The Open class shall be for all dogs of any age, which have not qualified for the Challenge class and for which no challenge class has been provided. The Challenge class shall be for all dogs having won four first prizes in the open classes. A dog having won three first prizes in this class shall have the privilege of the title of Champion without further competition.”
It didn’t close the loophole. Miscellaneous winners could still compete in Open which remained a route to championship status. That triggered another amendment in 1892: “The Miscellaneous class shall be understood to comprise all pure breeds of Dogs for which no regular class has been provided for in the premium list. Entries in this class must specify the breed of the exhibit and it must be published in the catalogue.”
This filtered out crossbreeds and entries designated as ‘breed unknown’, but that open ended description, “all pure breeds of dogs” left plenty of unguarded territory for enterprising exhibitors. In 1898 AKC took another stab at it: “The Miscellaneous Class shall be open to all dogs of established breeds for which no regular class has been provided in the premium list. Entries in this class must specify the breed of the exhibit.” The rest of the amendment offset that amplification, “Dog show committees may provide such classes for dogs of recognized breeds as they choose”. The Open class also got tweaked. “The winners’ class shall be open only to the winners of first prizes at any show, giving at least three of the before-mentioned classes, one of which must be the open class, and the winner of three first prizes in this class will thereby become a champion of record, be so registered by the American Kennel Club, and will be entitled to an American Kennel Club champion medal.”
This revisit also introduced the Free For All class, effectively defeating the intended purpose of this exercise. It was open to “all dogs over six months of age. No prize winner shall be debarred from competing.” The route got a little more convoluted, but unregistered representatives of breeds outside the studbook could and did gain AKC status.
In hindsight, AKC could have preempted most of this ongoing chaos by clearly defining “recognized breeds”. At that stage, their primary focus was unifying the increasingly lucrative revenue streams from entries and registration fees. Most of this ongoing bureaucratic song and dance was simply to avoid confronting that monster in the closet. Like it or not, a degree of AKC status was implicit in those fees they collected.
Theoretically, undocumented dogs from unrecognized breeds could become champions because regulations allowed Americanbred dogs to qualify for full registration status based on wins. That possibility got a little too close for comfort in 1902, prompting another Miscellaneous review at the December 16 Quarterly Meeting.
At that point, AKC was forced to formulate a working definition of purebred, a task they considered comparable to dismantling a bomb in the boardroom, as this exchange between board members Muss-Arnolt and Viti suggests.
MR. MUSS-ARNOLT: “I think it is beyond the scope of this office – that it is a revolutionary proceeding on the part of this office when it undertakes to define breeds.”
MR. VITI: “It seems to me that the matter narrows down to a definition of the miscellaneous class. It seems to me that it is a question of how breeds are established; whether the writing of the name of any breed at all on the records of the American Kennel Club is an establishment of a breed.”
That watershed moment in AKC history marked a turning point in their approach to the Miscellaneous class.
A couple of months later at their annual Westminster board meeting February 9th, the committee recommended, “hereafter no winnings shall be recorded excepting of such breeds as are now or may hereafter become eligible for registration in the Stud Book.” Viti brought it right back to that dreadful subject. He said, “We ought to consider the matter of determining what breeds are eligible for registration in the Stud Book. It seems to me that some committee should prepare a list of dogs that are eligible for registration in our Stud Book, and that a copy of that list should be sent to the Secretaries of Shows with the rules of the Kennel Club.”
Dodging and procrastination characterized every painful step of this process. At the September 4 quarterly meeting, the rules committee was instructed to formulate a definition of the Miscellaneous Class. Two months later on November 21st, AKC created a separate section of the studbook for foreign dogs, essentially those with three generation pedigrees issued by other national kennel clubs. Those were the least controversial potential inductees into AKC’s hallowed halls. The measure was approved at the executive board meeting on December 15, 1903. The Rules Committee kicked it around again at the February 6, 1904 meeting.
Mr. Viti said, “The Committee seems to have overlooked the many difficulties which are constantly arising in regard to the definition of the term ‘established breeds’. Very peculiar animals are continually creeping into the Miscellaneous class. I would therefore move, as an amendment, we add after the word “breeds” “established breeds shall be such breeds as are now eligible to registration in the Stud Book, and such breeds as may hereafter be made eligible for such registration.” He recommended that the board come up with a list of breeds, “And furthermore, that a must appear in every prize list”, so that the exhibitor will have a guide, and he can turn to his prize list, and if he sees the name of that breed is not there he need not enter upon it. I do not think that American Kennel Club shows should degenerate into menageries, and I would add, “that no dog whose breed does not appear upon the list of recognized breeds should be entitled to recognition in the American Kennel Club shows.”
Essentially, nothing was nailed down during the ensuing discussions but after 1904 AKC began formally admitting breeds to the new Foreign Dog section of the studbook, thus conferring eligibility for Miscellaneous competition. Ultimately, there was no objectivity, transparency, or logic incorporated into any aspect of this process. For decades thereafter it appeared that AKC focused on concealing rather than fixing this unworkable system.
For instance, the Mexican Hairless, admitted as a recognized breed in 1887, was reclassified as a foreign dog along with two varieties of White English Terrier – a breed nearing extinction with no record of activity in AKC. Boxers were added, but immediately repositioned in Non-Sporting. The admission of German Pinscher dogs marked the Doberman’s first step towards recognition. For the next four years its cellmates included the Esquimaux, (Husky, Mailimuth), Owtchar or Russian Sheep-dog, Chinese Crested, and Labrador Retriever.
In some cases breeds were exempted from the process or subjected to it only as a formality before vaulting to full recognition. Those lucky candidates didn’t invariably benefit from AKC’s favoritism since there was no process to evaluate their readiness before throwing them in at the deep end. More frequently, breeds with legitimate claims to recognition were stonewalled. Essentially, AKC’s big problem seemed to be an unjustified reluctance to admit variations of breeds already in their studbook, as illustrated by their illogical resistance towards the Bearded Collie and German Shepherd.
In the face of ongoing discouragement, Bearded Collie proponents avoided AKC for the next 50 years. Probably because of the breed’s surging popularity, the German Shepherd lobby persisted despite a recognition process that bordered on the absurd.
The German Shepherd was eventually recognized in 1908, but the board consistently refused the Club’s petition to revise the breed’s name from German Sheepdog, claiming that the change would cause undue confusion. Unexplainably, they didn’t see any confusion arising from their decision to classify it as a variety of Belgian Sheepdog. Although Germany and Belgium had national registries by then, AKC insisted on bundling German Shepherds and all varieties of Belgian Sheepdog under a single heading, consistently ignoring petitions to separate them. Those weren’t the only breeds subjected to studbook mixups that required decades to untangle.
At the September 19, 1916 delegates quarterly meeting, Secretary Vredenburgh announced the Labrador Retriever’s admission to the Sporting Group, thus concluding that 20 year song-and-dance to convince the board that it might possibly accommodate one more Retriever without compromising its credibility. Vredenburgh explained, “As all varieties of sheep dogs are known by the American Kennel Club as Sheep Dogs, the request to change to Shepherd Dogs was acted upon by the Stud Book Committee and their refusal to call them Shepherd Dogs was sustained by the American Kennel Club. Notwithstanding the fact that the club known as the German Shepherd Dog Club calls them Shepherd Dogs, the Committee and the American Kennel Club decided on their protest that they would not change the name and they should be known as all other sheep dogs as Sheep Dogs.”
As WWI approached, the studbook committee unilaterally decided to delete the word German from the name, leaving it the barebones moniker of “ Sheepdog”. The German Shepherd’s skyrocketing popularity soon broke every existing AKC record. But that potential was irrelevant to those calling the shots upstairs in corporate.
Occasionally, the studbook committee considered additional breeds but their primary objective was exclusivity, as shown in this excerpt from the Executive Committee Meeting held on December 17, 1912. “We find that during the year 1911 there were 58 Champion Certificates issued, and up to November 1, 1912, 203 Championship Certificates were issued. Under the present system, the title of Champion fails to convey what such a title is intended to mean, and measures should be taken promptly to enhance the value if the title of Champion.” The report went on to suggest that the AKC License Committee designate breeds entitled to Winners classes, similar to the Kennel Club system of bestowing challenge certificates. “Such breeds shall not be entitled to any Winners Classes, until such time as the number of dogs exhibited shall demonstrate that they shall be logically entitled to the same.” Despite the obvious fact that removing this incentive would negatively impact a breed’s prospective entries, the board adopted this amendment January 8, 1913.
The next Miscellaneous shakeup came in 1924 within AKC’s radical restructuring of registration and show procedures. Terriers were separated from Sporting breeds. Toy and Working breeds were lifted out of Non-Sporting. Everything was neatly defined according to a logical process of elimination that minimized interbreed judging. Of course, selecting an ultimate winner necessitated it at some point in the process. But there would be no more of the beloved jumbled jousting that previously characterized many prize classes – including BIS. Clubs were no longer permitted to provide creatively contrived solutions for odd lots of entries via combined classes.
AKC would have probably preferred to axe Miscellaneous during this renovation project, but they were still struggling for stability and support, which necessitated balancing their competing goals of viability and exclusivity. Clubs retained the right to provide breed classes as they chose, thus relegating other breeds to Miscellaneous, which became a dead end, as Dog World editor Will Judy explained in his 1938 summary of the game Dog Shows and Rules. “Until recently, a mongrel dog could be shown, entered in the Miscellaneous Class. Now however, only a recognized pure breed of dog can be entered, if classes have not been provided regularly for it.” His tone unmistakably conveyed the prevailing perception that Miscellaneous was not a respectable part of town.
The gloves came off after World War II. The number of all breed shows doubled as record numbers of AKC registered dogs began competing. In 1950, AKC registered 251,812 dogs, 190,188 of which competed that year. This phenomenal growth continued for over a decade. In 1960, AKC registered 442,875 dogs with 322,390 of them in competition.
The sport’s surging popularity catapulted AKC into the catbird seat. Even though a good portion of this bull market came courtesy of breeds they had recently considered unwelcome intruders, its corporate philosophy remained unchanged. The result was an almost incomprehensible passive/aggressive approach to Miscellaneous, gradually piling restrictions onto eligibility requirements and stripping away any potential for competitive fun. After 1949, AKC permitted only division by sex. Although Miscellaneous entries required breed designations, that detail was frequently omitted from show results. In 1955, AKC restricted Miscellaneous to specifically approved breeds purported to be actively seeking recognition. However, the precise meaning of that phrase remained a mystery. At that point, Miscellaneous was pared down to a single enticing option of paying full entry fees for interbreed competition pitting Akitas, Portuguese Water Dogs, Silky Terriers, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, Shih Tzu, Soft-Coated Wheaten Terriers, and Australian Cattle Dogs against each other. It became a meaningless exercise in pursuit of a nonregular class ribbon.
Officially, it was labeled a transitional step for breeds approaching full recognition. In reality, it worked like that old rusty car in the garage. If and when it started, there was no guarantee it wouldn’t conk out halfway to its destination. AKC’s attitude towards Miscellaneous during that era was evident in the fact that The Complete Dog Book didn’t even mention it. The number of breeds admitted from 1940-60 was less than half the number admitted in the previous two decades.
AKC didn’t add another breed until the Shih Tzu in 1969 after a protracted 14 year stint in Miscellaneous. Just seven others joined the ranks during that decade.
Recognition slowed to a trickle by 1980 when AKC started revising its approach, a change prompted more by avarice than altruism in my opinion. Rare breeds were becoming big business in the mid-1980s. In contrast to the 1950s, the sport’s growth touched every breed this time around. Within that era’s decadent social context, anything rare or different merited special cachet.
The burgeoning rare breed world was borne equally of frustration. After decades of futilely seeking AKC acceptance, rare breed fanciers refocused their energy into creating alternative venues. AKC judges also began utilizing them as an educational resource, since Miscellaneous had ceased to function in that capacity. Theoretically, while serving time there, fanciers were expected to prepare their breeds and themselves for AKC. Judges were expected to familiarize themselves with these breeds. In reality, everyone was pretty much cut loose to accomplish this stuff at their own pace. In contrast, rare breed shows offered opportunities to see and often judge large entries of breeds that were destined to enter AKC.
By 1985, rare breed clubs like Hudson Valley and ARBA attracted big entries, mainstream attention, and impressive profits and AKC wanted a piece of the action. In 1988, they reintroduced separate breed judging, signaling the commencement of its corporate reversal. Of course, a century of avoidance and procrastination made for rather slow going.
By then, there was a well-founded perception of Miscellaneous as a permanent status. For some breeds, an AKC Indefinite Listing Privilegen (ILP) was the ideal solution to maintain control of their club policies and studbook while earning AKC performance titles, a situation epitomized by the Australian Kelpie. It hung out in Miscellaneous from 1941 until AKC evicted it in 1997. However, during those years, AKC certainly fostered the impression that the arrangement was mutually acceptable. Likewise, the Spinone Italiano and Border Collie entered Miscellaneous in 1955, lingering there until 2000 and 2005 respectively.
AKC implemented a very structured and frankly revolutionary infrastructure that has efficiently moved 38 breeds to recognition since 2000. For the first time, the process became guided by clearly defined, objective criteria. However, numbers remain the primary consideration, but they don’t tell the whole story. Some breeds are ready for recognition despite low numbers. Driving up membership and registration to meet artificial goals often proves counterproductive and ultimately damaging.
Some fanciers don’t want recognition, although their breeds meet or exceed AKC requirements. And here’s the thing… it can be initiated by clubs or factions within a breed, which has resulted in a messy, contentious process more comparable to a corporate raid. Unqualified individuals have landed in the drivers seat without understanding the power and responsibility that comes with parent club status.
Splintered breeds with multiple registries, parent clubs, and standards have also resulted from AKC’s determined recruitment efforts that sometimes seem more like a mad dash to recoup losses. They mount exponentially as pirate registries and alternate competitive venues spring up in the wake of these hostile takeovers. AKC is finally realizing the need to fine tune the parameters of the process. They may yet pull it out of the fire.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=82843
Posted by ralbee
on Jul 20 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
