Another Year, Another Wrap-Up
by Gretchen Bernardi
Annual, end-of-the-year wrap-ups have become de ri-gueur for every person who regularly puts pen to paper, or finger to keyboard. I am no exception, especially since I am at my very best at seeing things clearly after the fact when I can pass judgment on what should have been done after seeing things in perspective. I’m joking, OK?
One year ago, in the same looking back mode, I asked several questions about AKC and our sport in 2010. The first was about Reserve Best in Show and we can mark that one off our list. It’s a done deal, like it or not. There hasn’t been much discussion one way or another on that issue, unlike the proposed six group placements, which has not been resolved. Frankly, I don’t know where that issues stands, but I presume that the subject will reappear when the group realignment proposal is again presented.
The conversation about increasing the number of group placements continues. Those in favor of six group placements feel that more dogs (that is more people owning/handling those dogs) will be thrilled with a group placement and will be encouraged to keep showing. Those opposed say such a plan dilutes the honor of a group placement and good dogs will have their day, regardless of the number of ribbons. Additionally, those in favor say that many worthy dogs go unrewarded, while the opposition maintains there really aren’t all that many great dogs in most groups. Personally, I think all of this discussion on group wins gives that level of competition more status than it has and should have. If we really want the emphasis to return to competition at the breed level, then that’s where our emphasis should be: how to improve the competition and the judging in the breed ring. Regardless of how the Grand Championship program may have increased entries at the breed level, it most certainly has not increased the quality. It is far easier to become a Grand Champion than a plain old “ordinary” Champion, especially in breeds with low entries, actually making the original title “ordinary.”
A year ago I asked if the American Kennel Club had clearly defined itself and the answer was no. The answer is still no. I applaud the aggressive new public relations campaign, except for the assertion that if we register more dogs we can have more inspections. This repeated use of the number of kennel inspections conducted to improve the conditions in which AKC dogs are bred and housed is going to come back to bite us if those inspections do not become meaningful. Many of the recent kennel raids, particularly in Texas and North Carolina, have included AKC-registered dogs. This is a disgrace and gives lie to our assertion that we are conducting inspections on conditions as opposed to paperwork with due diligence.
“Will the Dalmatian issue be resolved,” I asked last year? The answer is yes. Finally, after the membership of the Dalmatian Club of America voted in favor of registering the low uric acid Dalmatians. In July, the AKC board “authorized AKC Staff to develop procedures for the registration of these dogs.” It seems strange that after all of these months of dissent among the directors, the vote was unanimous. The worrisome aspect is that the “procedures will be developed in consultation with the Board of the DCA,” the very group that opposed this program from the beginning.
At its October meeting, the AKC board approved the procedures to be used for registering the Dalmatians. The written procedure is over 500 words long and complex, laid out in ten points. These dogs will come in under Open Registration, designated as descendants of the “Stocklore Stipples,” the same dogs that have been called the LUA Dalmatians.
As I understood the published policy, these low uric acid dogs must prove they carry the normal gene in order to be registered, but other Dalmatians throughout the country, and the world, can be registered and are being registered without any knowledge of whether or not they carry the mutation.
I asked a longtime advocate of LUA registration if I had this right. His reply: “Yes, for the initial open registration, we can register only those dogs that have their Hyperuricosuria Report on file with OFA. The dog needs to be heterozygous or homozygous for the normal SLC2A9 gene. Those littermates not having at least one copy of the normal gene cannot be registered. You are also correct that all other Dalmatians within AKC (and throughout the world) are lacking the normal SLC2A9 gene and can therefore develop urate stone disease.
“The provision does allow that once the dog is registered through the open registry, any of their get (either with or without the normal SLC2A9 gene) can be registered with a litter registration and will receive the NY designation. What that means is that some NY registered dogs will be normal and others affected. The only thing this will accomplish is to identify those Dalmatians whose ancestry goes back to Stocklore Stipples. A NY will then not guarantee that the dog has normal canine uric acid (LUA).” Nothing is ever simple.
Two of the most discussed issues of 2011 involved judging. There has been discussion for some time, especially after soliciting assignments was deemed acceptable, of the need for judges to list their fees. Staff in Judging Operations sent letters to all judges, inquiring if they thought this was a good idea and if doing so would be beneficial to judges. At the board’s request, that department provided a summary of the letters and the responses. As of September 26, 2011, 792 judges had responded. Of those judges, 99 indicated they would include their fee and that will be done in the online Judges Directory only.
Of more interest was the “Smith” committee report, which, after a little political give-and-take and slight changes to the policy, the report was unanimously approved. The major negotiated change, according to the October board minutes, was in the composition of the Judges Review Committee, which will now include three senior judges (those with at least 20 years judging experience and approval for three groups) appointed by the AKC board annually, the AKC vice-president of Judging Operations and one additional member of AKC senior staff appointed by the AKC president.
Then the composition of the committee was changed again at the November board meeting: “The Judges Review Committee as referenced within this policy is defined as a committee of five members to be comprised of the COO of the American Kennel Club, the Vice President of Dog Show Judges whom shall be Chair, one AKC Executive Field Representative appointed by the CEO for a two year term, with a four year limit, one Senior Judge (at least 20 years judging experience and having at least three groups), and one designated person both of whom will be recommended by the CEO and confirmed by the Board of Directors. The last two appointees shall not serve more than two terms and shall not be a member of AKC staff or Board of Directors and are subject to Board of Directors confirmation if recommended by the CEO for a second term.”
That the make-up of the committee has been altered several times is, I think, admirable, and shows that this policy is not static, but fluid, changing when necessary or when deemed desirable. Of course, there have been some complaints but, frankly, I think that either the majority of the judges agree it is a good policy or, at the very least, better than it has been. They might also think that complaining yet again is nonproductive. Again, they may all be exhausted from fighting the judges fee. The document that explains the policy is very dense and full of specifics, representing a great deal of work in both the planning stage and the actual writing of the document. The board expressed its gratitude to the committee and so should all of us who exhibit dogs, even those who have serious doubts that it will improve the overall quality of judging. The great strength of this new policy is that it gives greater weight to judges who excel in their task than to those who just stick it out.
And why do the simplest and best ideas end up being so complicated? The idea of the baby puppy classes, now called Sanctioned Four-to-Six Month (Beginner Puppy) Competition, was applauded by virtually everyone a year ago. Not requiring a separate venue but held at our all-breed shows, it gave exhibitors an opportunity to train and socialize their youngsters. But these classes must be judged by already-approved judges, although not necessarily in the breeds assigned here, eliminating those who most need experience in procedure, evaluation and decision-making. But this is a good program and I hope our clubs, breeders and exhibitors support it fully.
One announcement that is especially striking is the approval of Open Shows, beginning in July, 2012, the purpose of which claims to be venues at which “clubs, judges, stewards and exhibitors and their dogs gain experience needed for licensed events.” Is it possible that staff simply doesn’t understand that clubs have stopped sponsoring matches, which these open shows are, only held under stricter and more complex rules? For example, in order to judge at an Open show, the judge must again have a judge’s number, immediately eliminating those people, especially breeders, who are just beginning their quest for more knowledge and experience.
Clubs have stopped having matches, at least in my part of the country, because there are simply no weekends free from all-breed shows during the part of the year that shows can be held outdoors, making the venues affordable. Virtually everyone involved in the sport of dogs knows that there are simply too many dog shows. Earth to AKC: the solution to the problem of too many shows is not to have more shows!
It is remarkable that there has been little if any real grumbling about the increase in registration fees and other registration issues as found in the minutes for the October board meeting. Surely everyone agrees that an increase is undoubtedly necessary in this age of decreasing registrations and higher costs. But I found it most interesting that the fees went up only for individual dog registration and not for litter registration. Am I slightly too cynical in thinking that this avoids upsetting the commercial breeder, who doesn’t register the individual dogs, only the litters?
My cynicism increased even more when I read that staff conducted a co-ownership analysis and found that changes in co-ownership policies would not affect the fancy, since, according to the minutes, “non-fanciers represent 80% of all dog co-ownerships, indicating that the Fancy will not be burdened by this fee.” Everyone would like to eliminate the co-ownership disputes and, as a result, the cost of the AKC to try to help resolve those disputes. And I don’t even oppose this co-ownership fee, if it is necessary to offset the time staff spends resolving the issues. But I have a hard time swallowing that it won’t affect us, since careful reading of any show catalog or magazine with advertisements rarely turns up a dog with a single owner.
I think I am correct in interpreting the new policy to mean that a spouse becomes a co-owner and must pay the additional fee unless that spouse is also a co-owner of the dam; in other words, a co-breeder.
The last registration issue discussed at the busy October board meeting concerned signature requirements on litter registrations: “There was a discussion on possibly amending the current Board policy which requires the signature of all dam owners to register a litter,” which staff feels may be in conflict with Chapter 3, Section 6 of The Rules Applying to Registration. That policy has always been a troublesome one, since it says that if a dog is acceptable in all other ways to be registered it will be registered unless the person refusing to sign the papers can “furnish a reason therefore satisfactory to the American Kennel Club, such as the fact that at the time of service an agreement in writing was made….”
This debate goes to the heart of the co-ownership issue and begs a clear definition of co-ownership—how is it defined, what are its rights and privileges, what are its drawbacks? Most of us believed that co-ownership meant something tangible, such as a say in breeding and registration decisions, such as full vs. limited, and showing strategies. Most of us have learned that it isn’t necessarily so and therefore it needs to be made clear just what co-ownership means, besides bragging rights and part of the bill. I have long advocated for requiring signatures of all owners of the stud dog in registration matters and would oppose the elimination of all dam owners from the requirement. There are surely better, though certainly more complex, ways to address the complaint issue here without compromising the legitimacy of the registration itself, but it will require more dialogue and thinking to achieve it. Can that be a bad thing?
We should remember that all owners of a stud dog and of the dam are required to keep detailed records of the breeding activity of those dogs that are registered in their names. If a dispute arises that requires the owner(s) to produce those records, that requirement will come into play. Requiring a signature of all parties for registration insures, at the very least, that everyone knows who was bred to whom and how many pups were whelped and sold. If there is another way to guarantee that, it would be sufficient, but I can’t think of one.
All in all, 2011 has been a year in which most movements within the AKC have been forward…and positive. The decision to register the LUA Dalmatians and the policy under which this will be done, though flawed in some respects, is the biggest decision of the year in many, wider respects, illustrating in deed and not just words, that we care about the health of our dogs and are willing to take steps confirmed by science to prove it. Bravo to everyone involved.
Gretchen Bernardi · berwyck@ezl.com
Short URL: https://caninechronicle.com/?p=2146
Posted by Comments are closed
