Public Attitudes Toward Purebred Dogs
Click here to read the complete article
By Dr. Gerry Meisels
Conformation shows and clubs are struggling with declining entries. Exhibitors and club members seem to be older now than they used to be, purebred registrations are a third of what they were 20 years ago, and there are few newcomers to the scene. These are all clear indicators that our culture has changed. Prevailing cultures and societal values generally drift slowly, but sometimes single events or factors at the right time lead to a more sudden paradigm shift. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book on this phenomenon, The Tipping Point. Was there some single event that turned the tide of change in the public’s attitudes towards purebred dogs?
There are many examples of dramatic shifts. In 1852, Harriett Beecher Stowe’s book Uncle Tom’s Cabin helped dramatically to lay the foundation for a major shift in the attitude towards slavery. In 1962, Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring focused us on the harm unbridled use of technology can cause, and catalyzed our nation to take seriously the protection of our environment. In 1998, the hockey stick graph of global warming and the subsequent documentary An Inconvenient Truth brought forth world-wide concern with climate change.
Underlying the attitudes towards purebred dogs is a change in the way we see animals, especially dogs. Jack London’s Call of the Wild (1902) and numerous stories and movies, such as Walt Disney’s Bambi (1942), 101 Dalmatians, Benji, Lassie, Seven Below, and Lady and the Tramp, persuasively presented animals and especially dogs, as feeling, thinking, and caring beings. They are no longer seen as something for man to use.
Organizations oriented to end animal abuse in slaughterhouses, research facilities, etc. had their beginnings in 1954 with the founding of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Relatively obscure, HSUS took on new dimensions and directions with an aggressive executive director added in 1994. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) was founded in 1980 and began to hit its stride not long thereafter. If you visit their websites, you see immediately why their message appeals to animal lovers. It is not surprising that these AR groups found fertile soil to take the love for animals to the extreme in their objectives. If there was a tipping point, it would have been in the 1990s when these organizations began to flourish and achieved considerable visibility.
The politically savvy actions of the AR movement and their appeal to our heartstrings are seductive and effective. That appeal helped turn compassionate people into generous supporters. The donations filled large war chests which enabled wide publicity, systematic strategies, and substantial resources for political and public relations actions: PETA had revenues of $42,935,132 in 2014, and HSUS had revenues of $125,763,492 in 2013. (Source: National Center for Charitable Statistics). Attempts to counteract these aggressive groups are limited by resources: NAIA (National Animal Interest Alliance) whose purpose is to protect the rights of animal owners collected $214,679 in 2013 (IRS990). AKC (American Kennel Club) provides an annual report and neither that report nor the IRS990 form provides a clear picture of what AKC takes in as donations, and how much it expends on promoting the value of purebred dogs from other sources such as registrations. AKC’s 2014 annual report lists expenditures of $1,520,000 for Public Education, but expenses for this purpose in other budget categories could increase this number significantly. The advocates of purebred dogs are outspent by an order of magnitude. It is a little like playing football in which one team fields 50+ players and the other plays with two. Guess who is going to score more points!
Not only are our advocates outspent, they just cannot muster the emotional appeal of the AR movement. NAIA’s mission of protecting the rights of animal owners is not a cause that will generate much emotional appeal. AKC principally provides service as a registry and as a canine sports manager. Its leadership talks about it as “the company” (see a recent announcement of staffing changes.) The good things AKC does are overshadowed by the service functions that provide its operating capital. I don’t know anyone who makes donations to a company. So we fail on resources and on the message.
There is, of course, also plenty of anecdotal evidence that we are in a period of cultural change with respect to our nation’s attitude toward purebred dogs. Many of our non-doggie friends seem to expect us to apologize because our dogs did not come from a shelter or a rescue program. Breeders are portrayed either as people who profiteer or have no compassion for helpless animals. The show ring is accused of giving priority to superficial even unhealthy appearances. We are adjudged as proliferating an overabundance of unwanted dogs, or whatever HSUS’ or PETA’s current slogan may be. It does not matter whether these claims are true, and of course most are not.
What can we do about this? Almost everything I can think of requires people and money. Public opinion is largely shaped by what we see in the media, whether this is about politicians seeking election or someone advancing some product or a special cause. What we see is ad after ad, and ads cost money. How could we generate such resources, and how would they be deployed most effectively?
A few years ago AKC started two programs to fund political action committees (PACs), asking for voluntary contributions from clubs and individuals. While some funds were raised, the amount was paltry in comparison to the need. Unless you have wealthy donors, larger amounts of money can be raised by getting a little money from a lot of people, but relying on voluntary contributions is not realistic. There needs to be some form of fee structure. Just for the sake of argument, let us assume that $10 of every entry fee were earmarked for “public relations.” For the typical four-show weekend that would probably raise about $50,000 and for all shows nationally close to $15,000,000. Of course it would require an increase in entry fees of $10. I don’t think entry fees are any higher in constant dollars today than they were half a century ago. The Consumer Price Index rose by a factor of 7.4 from 1960 to 2010 (source: US Census 2012 Abstract). The $6/dog entry fee in 1960 would be $44 in 2010. Who should collect this fee and how should it be spent? It could be handled exactly the way it is done now, and stay with the show-giving clubs or cluster management. Something like $50,000 would allow some fairly significant local advertising, likely to be more effective than the public service announcements mostly used now. There might even be enough left for a donation or two to campaign funds.
There are other things we could do. We could develop an aggressive approach to change the anti-purebred dog attitude of our veterinary schools. That would do a lot more than a few scholarships. We could work harder to keep show grounds and adjacent areas meticulously clean. Many clubs have show committee members monitoring grooming and exercise areas, as well as parking lots and walkways to the grooming areas and rings. Clubs that do not have such a practice or are lax about its enforcement could be reprimanded by AKC. It would also be helpful if judging schedules were provided along with admission fees (if any); this would parallel what is done for other events. It wouldn’t hurt either to institute a program that leads to better sportsmanship beyond printing it on the judging schedule. We could begin by stopping all the indiscriminate complaining about the quality and politics of judging ringside, after the show, and at home. We have to stop knocking our own sport, including the managing partner, AKC. It is not true that “all AKC cares about is money,” but this commonly heard phrase is reinforced by AKC’s leadership thinking of and repeatedly speaking about AKC as “the company.” Another idea would be to develop strong mentoring programs both at the shows and at home. We have the manpower of over 100,000 club members and many more that show their dogs. Finally, doing a bit more policing of how dogs are treated in the grooming area, especially before and after judging would be useful. I recall with horror the day when I saw a young handler’s assistant hurriedly strip a standard schnauzer puppy to the bare skin. The puppy’s fire red skin, pain, and suffering were very obvious and yet he stood still and did not turn on his torturer. This was not an isolated incident, I have seen similar incidents at other times. It does not take many events like this to give credibility to the AR criticism that dogs are abused at shows.
I think it is one of Murphy’s Laws that things left to themselves will go from bad to worse. Turning things around is a major challenge and the discussion here only suggests some possible steps. It will take courageous and risk-taking initiatives, and going beyond voluntary efforts. No one other than AKC can institute appropriate programs. Maybe the issue of judge approval could be laid to rest for a few years and AKC’s energy focused on strategies to battle the misrepresentations of the AR movement, and to save the future of conformation shows and purebred dogs.
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=87780
Posted by ralbee
on Sep 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
