Registrations and Championships of Terrier Breeds
Click here to read the complete article
by Dr. Gerry Meisels
Last month’s CC includes an overview of registration changes of individual dog breeds over a period of 20 years, from 1993 to 2013. Some of the results were startling to me: the substantial growth in registrations of some breeds, and the dramatic decline by a factor of 2 for a few others. If we want to understand why that may be, the place to begin is to get more data. But instead of attacking the overwhelming number of data points that would have to be entered manually, hopefully looking at different kinds of information will be more instructive. One additional piece of information that may be useful is the number of Championships and Grand Championships earned and their relationship to the number of registrations. These data are available on the AKC website.
Please bear with me in what may seem to be a bit academic, but we need to lay a foundation for what comes later. Ideally one would probably want to compare registrations with entries in each breed, but that is not possible because entry data by breed are not available. Championships are not a good proxy for entries because point schedules for championships are set by AKC on the basis of the preceding year (recently) or years (previously) entries. For example, it sets the next year’s requirement for each breed and region such that only 20% of shows would have had majors in the preceding period. Requirements for other point levels are set similarly. Since the championships are not broken down by region, it is not possible to make the connection between championships and entries.
What a comparison of championships awarded and registrations does show, however, is the extent to which a breed is involved in conformation shows. That in turn is a crude indicator of where puppies are produced: by breeders of high quality stock, or by breeders motivated by other considerations such as producing companion or performance dogs, or any other good or not-so-good reason. One could also argue that these data may shed a little light on the extent to which a show presence enhances a breed’s visibility and attractiveness to potential puppy buyers.
This is a Terrier issue. After providing some general overview of where Terriers stand compared to other groups, we will go into a little more detail on the Terrier breeds.
We used the number of championships awarded in 2014 as a base parameter. This is the most recent year for which this information is available. The choice of what to use for registrations is not as straightforward. Of course dogs registered in 2014 were registered mostly as puppies and aren’t very likely to have finished that same year. Assuming that on the average most dogs earned their championships when they were two or three years old, registrations in 2012 seem to be a reasonable choice for the comparison. The results of the comparisons are not sensitive to the choice of the year of registrations because the registrations in 2011 and 2012 do not differ greatly. The rest of the article will express the relationship between registrations in 2012 and championships awarded in 2014 as a percent of registrations that earned championships.
Of all dogs registered with AKC in 2012, 3.8% earned their championships in 2014. Table 1 shows these percentages separately for each group.
The Sporting Group (Group 1) shows the lowest percentage (2.2%) of dogs that were registered in 2012 and were awarded Championships in 2014. This is not surprising since Sporting dogs are the most popular group/ i.e. have the highest number of dogs registered. The Terrier group (Group 4) showed the highest percentage (6.7%). This is more than 3 times that of the Sporting group, suggesting that breeders of Terriers are more likely to have an eye towards conformation competition. We can speculate what this means in terms of how many dogs are actually shown. Assuming that only one in three or four dogs earn a championship, 22 to 28% of Terriers get into the ring, compared to an average of 11 to 15% of all other breeds, suggesting that the terrier breeds are more likely to be bred by breeders toward conformation dogs or conversely less likely to become companions i.e. pets.
The percentage of champions going on to become grand champions is virtually the same in all groups. That probably reflects that the commitment to showing is pretty uniform and that exhibitors of all breeds have similar ambitions once their dogs have finished. This uniformity is also the case within the Terrier breeds (Table 2).
Table 2 provides the breed-by-breed details of each Terrier breed in conformation competition. There are again no significant differences in the ratio of GCH to CH awards. There are specific examples where noticeable differences can be explained. Some breeds such as Cesky, Glen of Imaal, Rat, and Russell Terriers were recognized by AKC only recently. All of them show remarkably low championship percentages. The number of Grand Champions in 2014 is so small that the relative advancement to GCH status is meaningless as they can be affected substantially by one or two dogs. These breeds include Cesky, Dandie Dinmont, Fox Terriers (Smooth), Glen of Imaal, Irish, Lakeland, Sealyham, Skye, and Welsh Terriers. Similarly, correlation for breeds that have earned 20 or fewer championships must be viewed with great caution.
A few things stand out in Table 2. For example, breeds with low registration numbers generally have a much larger fraction of registered dogs that become champions. These include Dandie Dinmont, Fox Terriers (Smooth), Sealyham, and Skye Terriers. It seems pretty safe to say that a large majority of their breeders produce registered puppies that are intended for the conformation ring, we can term them as “primarily show breeds.” Conversely and more safely, these are breeds that the general public does not see as desirable pets. (Usually ignorance rather than fact.) At the other extreme are breeds where the fraction of registered dogs that become champions is much below the average of 6.7%. The most notable are Miniature Schnauzers, Rat, and Russell Terriers. A parallel to “show breeds” might be calling them “Pet Breeds.” When these breeds are removed from the count, 11% of the remainder of the Terrier breeds become champions, suggesting that up to one half of breeding is intended for the show ring.
For good measure, now let’s also look at the decline in registrations of each Terrier breed (Table 3). We examined registration changes by breed in the hope that this might lead to better understanding of the factors under our own control that led to the large, overall decline.
The most remarkable aspect is that several Terrier breeds gained registrations in those 20 years: Border, Bull, Miniature Bull, Norwich, and Staffordshire Bull Terriers. Soft Coated Wheatens were about even. Why these breeds? Are there some factors common between them and with other breeds that have gained, which include Bulldogs, French Bulldogs, Mastiffs, Rhodesian Ridgebacks, and Bloodhounds? Every time I think of a correlation, there is another in the opposite direction. With the exception of Frenchies, all the other non-Terriers are large dogs, but that can hardly be said about Border, Mini Bull, and Norwich Terriers. The reasons for the differences are still a puzzle. We will continue to ask more questions and look at other parameters but so far we have not been able to see any general correlations or causes. Please share with me any ideas you have on what leads to these large differences in growth or decline of registrations!
You can email me at:
ggmeisels@gmail.com
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=85029
Posted by ralbee
on Aug 15 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
