I don’t think it’s really a stretch to say that dog show culture brings out the worst in people. Notions of racial supremacy, blood purity, twisted eugenics, incest, form over function, and unattainable (and strangely changing… I mean, how can perfect change so often?) platonic ideals are de rigueur in the Fancy. Heck, the whole institution is set up to make people compete to out-do each other in these dubious qualities.
There is little consistency between the values the Fancy upholds for dogs and the values we now treat as normative for human behavior. Dog culture isn’t just a century out of date in this respect, they’ve enshrined extreme positions that were never palatable in any mainstream culture. They’ve taken cultural ideas that we have since discarded to the trash heap of history and distilled them, concentrating the malignancy and boldly declaring it perfection.
That’s why I laugh when show types get mad when people stereotype them for being too much person in too little polyester waddling around in hideous shoes (you know, because trotting around in a ring is so strenuous that it requires special–hideous–footwear). Or for getting offended when people point out that they’re working out their own procreation issues through overzealous micromanaging of their dogs’ sex lives. You can’t prove the stereotype and then have a pro forma tantrum that it’s unfair. Your entire hobby involves the stereotyping of dogs based upon the most shallow of criteria and then using the most crude of breeding methods to supposedly improve upon some strange ideal, and there’s no denying that this activity draws a very particular crowd of people that share a number of social hangups. Either embrace it because it’s true or change if you can’t stomach the consequences. I think it’s either an incoherent double standard, severe mental compartmentalization, or rather blatant hypocrisy.
That’s why I’m not going to stand up and salute the recent AKC publicity stunt where they sent an “open letter” to FCI President asking to punish Russia for their anti-gay rhetoric and legislation by moving the location of the 2016 World Dog Show:
AKC publicity stunt letter regarding gay rights.
July 26, 2012
Mr. Rafael de Santiago
President F.C.I.
c/o Federacion Canofila de Puerto Rico
P.O. Box 13968
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00908-3968Dear Rafael,
One of the most compelling aspects of the human-canine bond – cherished internationally more than ever before – is the fact that our dogs love us unconditionally. Dogs do not discriminate. Gender, race, sexual orientation and other status do not enter the equation of responsible pet ownership. That is why the American Kennel Club and our constituency are puzzled and disappointed by the decision to allow Russia to host the 2016 World Dog Show. The proliferation of anti-gay and lesbian laws in Russia today is both disturbing and shocking to our community. The choice of this country as a venue for such a prestigious dog show flies in the face of the ideals of the human-canine bond.
On behalf of the American Kennel Club, our member clubs, and the American purebred dog fancy, we urge you to move the 2016 World Dog Show from Russia to a nation that respects and upholds human rights for all its citizens. The international dog community deserves to enjoy the World Dog Show in a place that stands for freedom and equal rights for all. AKC cannot and will not support participation in the 2016 World Dog Show if it is held in Russia.
As exhibitors, breeders, handlers and trainers, we teach our dogs many things. But there is no denying, they teach us too. Our bond with dogs is not defined by the type of person who holds the leash. We cannot support competition in an environment where tolerance does not exist.
Yours respectfully,
Alan T. Kalter
Chairman of the BoardDennis B. Sprung
President and CEO
Let’s get one thing straight, this open letter is nothing more than a publicity stunt by a diminished organization looking for any good press it can engender by hopping on the recent attention paid to other groups calling for the boycott of Russia over their anti-gay policies (such as gay bars no longer serving Russian vodkas and calls for the US to withdraw from the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia).
Think about it. What pull does the AKC or the FCI have in any matters regarding gay rights? NONE. Especially in RUSSIA! They aren’t even on the radar and they never will be. Their open letter will accomplish nothing regarding gay marriage or any homosexual legislative or cultural agenda and Kalter and Sprung know this. This is pandering to a significant portion of their membership (there are plenty of gays involved in the dog fancy) and a painfully obvious ploy to grub a little good will from outside their membership (pro-gay issues are significantly supported by the younger generation, the AKC’s customers of tomorrow).
You should be disgusted at how pathetic this stunt is, not supportive of the manipulation, no matter how much you might agree with the message. The message was designed to be agreeable, but the AKC’s actual policies are anything but and they’re certainly NOT changing their actions just spouting out pretty words.
Let’s look at how well the supposed values the AKC Chairman and President/CEO espouse in the letter match with the fundamental tenants of their organization.
One of the most compelling aspects of the human-canine bond – cherished internationally more than ever before – is the fact that our dogs love us unconditionally.
The AKC does not love dogs unconditionally, nor do they support their membership in this. The AKC only loves purebreds, especially the ones that are trotted around rings being given love based upon the most shallow of attributes. Now that they’re hemorrhaging membership they’ve let some mongrels in the building but only if they’re desexed so as to not spread their filth.
Dogs do not discriminate.
The central purpose of the AKC is to discriminate.
Gender, race, sexual orientation and other status do not enter the equation of responsible pet ownership.
Gender, breed, and sexual reproduction are THE ENTIRE equation of responsible pet breeding. And the AKC is really about breeding, not ownership, no?
flies in the face of the ideals of the human-canine bond.
And what ideals are these? Breed purity. Generations of incestuous breeding. Placing skin deep beauty over temperament, health, and ability. Glorification of dysfunction and freakish abnormalities. There is very little IDEAL about the human-canine bond promoted by the AKC.
respects and upholds human rights for all its citizens
What about dog rights? Heck, what about respecting BASIC standards of care? The AKC doesn’t promote any of this at its core, rather it heavily supports the opposite. Not only do they fight against the Animal Rights movement (which you’ll find little support from me) but they also undeniably promote a culture and behavior that produces highly immoral and unjustifiable treatment of animals that provokes the wrath of the AR movement. While I will likely never agree with the AR agenda, that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the evils they think their draconian laws will fix. The AKC won’t even stand up for very simple moral guidelines that would vastly improve the actual health and well being of purebred dogs.
freedom and equal rights for all
Wait, freedom and equal rights? WTF. The AKC thinks that two men can mate all they want but the second you mate a Pug to a Beagle you need to get the fuck out of our registry? Lesbians are great! Labradoodles are an ABOMINATION. How can an organization have any credibility saying that it’s perfectly moral for an interracial couple to raise an adopted child but they won’t ever condone two dogs of different breeds forming a family for any reason at all and we won’t even acknowledge that you exist until you cut out your sex organs, and even then you can be in your own special class over there in the corner as long as you pay your entry fees. This drinking fountain is for purebreds only.
Our bond with dogs is not defined by the type of person who holds the leash. We cannot support competition in an environment where tolerance does not exist.
No, it’s defined by the type of dog at the other end and there’s no tolerance for inferior mud blood dogs. The value of that dog to the AKC is as corrupt, decadent, racist, classist, and biologically elitist as anything we saw come out of the segregated South, Nazi Germany, Indian castes, Aboriginal policy in Australia, sterilizations in Canada, Branqueamento in Brazil, any of several xenophobic institutions in Japan’s history, or the ongoing racial genocides in Africa.
Open letters are a sure sign of slacktivism and attention whoring and you shouldn’t fall for the AKC’s attempt to garner good-will with this recent attempt. It’s all words and NO ACTIONS, thus no consequences and no real change. It’s advertising and branding instead of research and development of a better product. If you applaud the AKC for this letter you’re saying that they have enlightened views on this subject. Well how can they when their actions and treatment of dogs is so antithetical to their apparent beliefs about gays. The AKC’s thoughts about gays matter almost nothing whereas their thoughts and actions towards dogs matter a great deal.
Don’t be fooled. They are hypocrites and we should not salute such blatant and manipulative hypocrisy.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
Well said, Christopher.
I don’t think it’s anything that sophisticated.
There are a lot of gay, lesbian, transgender people in the world of dogs, and I’d say that some in the AKC’s leadership actually are and are doing nothing more than that.
retrieverman recently posted..Ducks foraging on the bank
I didn’t outline anything very sophisticated regarding the AKC. AKC pandering to gays because of their high gay membership, aping other organizations who thought of the whole boycott Russia meme first. Since they are following a trend it’s logical to conclude they knew about it and are following others lead instead.
The only sophistication is my analysis of their hypocrisy. And that’s spot on. They are pandering to their gay base instead of aligning their values with them. If you think about it the AKC is basically performing the same function the Church used to perform, recording marriages and births and keeping genealogical records. And they aren’t simply a passive observer, you have to marry the right people and name your children the right things and perform these certain rituals with them if you are to get the Church’s/AKC’s blessing.
If they aligned their policies with those of their gay membership they’d realize that they are an anachronism representing repressive mores of the past and they’d modernize and be relevant to modernity.
i have a breed where very few of the exhibitors are “gay” . In the UK most are men.. real dog men.. in the USA many married couples.
No one cares of people cross breed out cross or stay within their own breed.. I cold care less ab out mixed breed dogs and have no problem with anyone doing what every type of breeding they feel like doing. Want to cross you border with a poodle.. who cares.. certainly not the AKC.
“The AKC won’t even stand up for very simple moral guidelines that would vastly improve the actual health and well being of purebred dogs.”
The AKC funds the Canine Health Foundation with millions of dollars every year. you can find their information here:
http://www.akcchf.org/about-us/
They do research research that benefits ALL dogs, create podcasts every week, right now they researching zinc deficiency in Bull Terriers and some other breeds.. this deficiency also occurs in cross breeds.. so the idea that the AKC does not care about dogs health is ludicrous. Meanwhile I don;t when you last attended Westminster ( my guess is never) but the “outfits’ that the exhibitors wear are usually lovely.. suits for the men,, or even a tux.. fitted suits and dresses for the ladies ( thank goodness for lycra and stretch because rounding that ring with a Saluki at full run takes some stretching out.. I will admit the shoes are usually flat but not always ugly as in many things times change,,
as for the open letter.. who cares. mountain.. meet molehill
That’s like saying that tobacco companies care about our health because they have a lung cancer foundation.
See my point? They have a foundation to deal with problems that they have caused in first place, you know, because of the breeding practices they promote.
And the whole “no one cares if you crossbred” is nonsense and you know it. Until breeders can make use of this breeding tool without having their dogs excluded from the gene pool of their chosen breed, you cannot make such claims.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean. It sounds like “no one cares if you’re gay, but you can’t attend our church or get married or date our children. You know, we don’t care… it’s just can’t you go do that somewhere where I don’t have to see it and would you stop talking about it too, k thanks!”
You clearly don’t understand the concept of “outcross” if you think that the appropriate dichotomy is “you folks go and outcross” and the rest of us will “stay within [our] own breed.” The issue is not the mere right to breed mutts, the issue is if people can outcross within the registration system and have the offspring of those plans be registered and worked back into the population and eventually declared pure and part of the breed.
This isn’t “it’s ok to be gay.” It’s a declaration that it’s ok to be gay, date our sons, get married in our church, and be part of the family.
I don’t think your claimed magnanimity extends to that level with outcrossing.
Agree this position of Gays by the AKC seems more about such “think tank” recommendations to control problems of matador (popular sire champion breeding).
I have been following progress on solutions of our Dog Fancier friends on adoption of New Breeding protocols to issues due to lack of genetic diversity and bottlenecks within pure breed dogs worldwide The solutions and changes do not just involve merle to merle breeding and registry. It is caused by breeding to common studs.
Recommendations such as this one surely would free up many pure breed dog pedigrees from inbreeding.
The FCI has issued a recommendation to breeders that no dog should have more offspring (presumably in its lifetime) than equivalent to 5% of the number of puppies registered in the breed during a five-year period, and a number of ..
Well, we who are aware know that HSUS are just PETA in suits. However, who really protects Dog Ownership? http://endangeredowner.wordpress.com/
No one (should) show a Saluki, or any large sighthound, at ‘full run.’ I am 5′ 2″ and when I showed my bitch, who was not small at nearly 27″, I did not run. I am certainly not an athlete and I was never out of breath after gaiting my bitch.
That zooming around the ring at top speed you see with Afghans and some Salukis is simply to create a bunch of fast, confusing movement to distract the eye from dogs which are poorly constructed.
“The AKC funds the Canine Health Foundation with millions of dollars every year. you can find their information here:”
Don’t be fucking stupid. Most people who understand the concepts of genetics and ethics know that closed registries are unsustainable. Most people who understand the concepts of genetics and ethics know that failing to penalize close inbreeding and breedings that will produce defects like merle x merle and harl x harl is simply pandering to a small percentage of very vocal idiots who don’t want to grow up and change with the times.
The reason why so much outside funding occurs in dog studies is that dogs have many diseases that parallel those in humans, but dog breeds are genetically impoverished, so it is easier to connect the genetic dots.
The fancy needs to stop kidding themselves and patting themselves on the back with their self-congratulatory spouting of ‘we fund studies.’ If dogs and humans did not share diseases, the scientific community would be showing you their back.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
I said: “The AKC won’t even stand up for very simple moral guidelines that would vastly improve the actual health and well being of purebred dogs.”
You said: “The AKC funds the Canine Health Foundation with millions of dollars every year.”
Throwing money at other people doing research is not standing up for simple moral guidelines. You’re mistaken if you think the largest problems in purebred dogs is that we don’t know enough about what causes disease and that a DNA test is going to fix it. No, the biggest problem in purebred dogs is the antiquated and counter-productive breeding culture that didn’t learn from other breeding registries about maintaining health and genetic diversity with practices that promote long term viability of breeds.
These aren’t concepts we need to find scientists to help us answer. In fact I’d say that many breeders do more harm than good with new disease tests. They cut out the cancer but kill the patient.
Funding research is nice, but the primary goal and power of the AKC is not to give other people money to do research. The Nazis funded plenty of medical research, it doesn’t make their philosophy and the reasons behind that funding moral or worthy of praise.
The AKC is fundamentally an organization that deals with which dogs get bred with which other dogs. They have the ability to make a moral stand for modern, compassionate breeding ethics but they don’t. It doesn’t matter that you want to play the same old boring card that it’s not the AKC, it’s the BREEEEEEED CLUBS. Psh. You can’t have it both ways. The AKC can’t cash checks registering dogs but then claim that they are but a poor and powerless middleman between breed clubs and puppy buyers. Breed clubs don’t get to set their own prices? No. Breed clubs don’t get to have their own appendix registries? No. Breed clubs don’t get to revoke the registration of dogs or breeders that violate their code of ethics? No.
So your shell game distraction has no power here. The buck stops with the AKC.
“Breed clubs don’t get to have their own appendix registries? No.”
Actually, they do. The breed club can vote to open the studbook. The Basenji club has done it twice, and the SCOA voted to accept the Society for the Perpetuation of the Desert Bred Saluki as a domestic registry. Neither of these function as a true appendix registry, the dogs have to have some kind of provenance, you can’t just take an apparently purebred dog and register it, but the clubs actually have the power to have a true appendix registry, if the membership wants it.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
Almost forgot: the Dal club BOD initially voted to allow registration of two of the backcross Dals, then voted to deregister them after some of the membership threw a shit fit. Stocklore Stipples had three points towards a championship.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
Hi Chris: As always your article hits directly on changing social mores of our society. The AKC seems to have it’s tail between their legs with current pending Federal dogs laws which seems to be like trying to figure our Ombuma Care on its implementation from State to State. If one keeps up the Senate is schedule likewise to pass another Employer Federal Law requiring Employer’s to hire so many Gay Employees. Seems in my opinion of AKC communication is more to do with Political Issues in American Government and stress of their inability or denial of being Pro Active in changes and catching up with them.
I agree Chris that AKC is representing not only repressive mores of the past and if they’d modernize “Pure Breed Dog breeding protocols within their Parent structure corporation –all would be ahead of the game.
“The World Dog Show since 1971, sanctioned by Federation Cynologique International sanctioned, four-to-six-day long. .It includes agility, obedience, junior handlers, conformation, other events and demonstrations. Any dog winning in any category is awarded the title “World Champion”.
It seems one of the largest dog shows in the world, with shows bringing in somewhere of 10,000 entries. It is held in a different country each year.”
Growing numbers of people feel that a win at the World Dog Show is worth more, reputation-wise, than the same win at the Westminister Kennel Club dog show. Is this the real rub?
I agree with Retrieverman; and suspect the AKC have been rather less calculating than you give them credit for. I also find the use of the phrase ‘gay hairstylists’ pejoratively doesn’t sit easily with me, especially when you then follow it with a long (and justifiable) attack on a letter that condemns homophobia.
Having said that, I think the rest of what you’ve said is pretty much spot on. The cognitive dissonance in the fancy at times is breathtaking.
I’m not sure where you think I’ve given them a great deal of credit for calculation at all. They’re pandering to their gay base because they have bad PR. Open letters, closed stud books. Words not deeds. I’d say my analysis is rather clever, but I don’t think the AKC is very clever.
As for the humor, how did you miss out on the pejorative nature of “barren” and “fat”? ALL of those traits are manifest in the dog fancy (i.e. they’re true), they are well known stereotypes (i.e. I’m not the first person to point them out, why are you so shocked), and they are full of ironic potential and hypocrisy given the core beliefs and actions of the fancy (i.e. people abusing dogs to work out their own issues with self esteem). That’s a perfect milieu for comedy as social commentary. You can’t have a strong comedic reaction if you have no emotional potential in the material in the first place.
And before you play the bigot card, if you haven’t already, I don’t believe in protected classes that we have to baby like societal infants. I respect gays, the obese, women and childless intellectuals enough to treat them like everyone else, and that includes criticizing their culture like everyone else. You don’t get license to perpetuate a generational cycle of violence simply because you feel aggrieved by how society treated you. All things racial are not racist and likewise criticizing the manipulation of the gay base in the fancy as well as the hypocrisy of that gay base is not homophobia. There’s actual fact, thought, and reason going on here, this is not blind hatred and baseless criticism for some other agenda.
I wouldn’t say the analysis is clever, as it’s a rather straightforward point you make. But it is certainly fair and well-argued, even if I think you’re reading a little too much into it.
I didn’t miss you using ‘fat’ and ‘barren’ pejoratively. That was clear. What caused me to pause was you using ‘gay hairdressers’ pejoratively. I’m not sure which part is intended to be pejorative. Nor am I clear how you can think using a phrase like ‘gay hairdressers’ equates to any sort of valid criticism of ‘gay culture’. To me is just sounds like a cheap slur, akin to Bernard Manning talking about ‘the paki in the corner shop’ and thinking its humour.
I gave some though to the ‘fancy’ culture over the weekend, pondering this article. While it’s true that a lot of gay men and straight women are involved in the fancy, I think mocking them for seeking an outlet for what’s obviously a desire to care for another sentient creature in lieu of children isn’t entirely helpful. Because the defining feature of many people involved in the fancy is that they’re a bit thick. Which perhaps goes some way to explaining the closed thinking and unwillingness to consider new approaches to breeding dogs.
You’re missing the point. That the Fancy is criticised for being filled with childless monied professionals, fatties, gays, and groomers is an extant fact. This comic is dealing with the hypocrisy of the Fancy being sensitive to that stereotype while committing the abuses they complain about.
This comic neither supports nor detracts from the merit of being a lawyer, childless, gay, obese, or a hairdresser. Nor do I support the view that we need to treat these categories or any other with kid gloves.
It’s going right at the hypocrisy of bitching about how society treats you while you continue the cycle of abuse on to dogs.
Not your taste in humor or argument? Whatever.
I think it’s helpful because sarcasm, humor, and exposing hypocrisy is an effective means of snapping people out of their comfort zones of bias and blindness to the results of their dogma.
Especially because these people think they should be praised and lauded for what they do.
Would it be so wrong to ask the AKC to stick to dogs? To paraphrase Voltaire: clean up your own garden first.
But yeah, there are a lot of bglt people in the dog fancy, so it was probably bound to happen.
That’s quite a statement of hypocrisy when a club that judges dogs solely by their looks makes a statement about judging people and encourages breeding dogs just for looks.
You know gay people call straight people ‘breeders’. I find the very funny that now the AKC is standing up for ‘non-breeders’. just sayin’
For what it’s worth, you do not have to include a vet’s note or prove anything when you register a dog with the Canine Partners program–nor do you have to when you PAL a dog, although you used to have to when you ILP’d one (for reference, Canine Partners=mixed breed registration, PAL=purebred alternative listing for dogs that appear to be purebred but for which you have no documentation, ILP=indefinite listing privilege, what PAL used to be called).
ALSO for what it’s worth, in companion events mixed breeds compete with the purebreds. Initially they did want to segregate them, but there was quite an outcry from the Agility people. A mixed breed won the 24″ division at AKC Nationals this past year.
My point being that nobody has to prove a dog is altered to compete, although if you happened to make it to the finals with a male Kelpie someone will likely notice. Though I guess you could claim neuticles.
I’ll be a bit more impressed when they allow mixed breed dogs into the herding program. I have to ask though, in what country will the FCI find “a place that stands for freedom and equal rights for all.” Good luck with that.
That rules out the United States.
Sweden.
They are so open-minded, they are starting to have problems with Muslims refusing to give up their old way of living.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
My opinion is that even if you vehemently agree with an organization’s policies doesn’t mean that you can’t acknowledge it when it does something you support. If the AKC chose to support the show in Russia you and several other sites (including mine) would have roundly criticized it.
I don’t support slacktivism nor boycott stunts. I think Carter’s boycott of the Olympics was cowardly and ineffective. And I won’t be salute a clearly calculated move no matter how much the message sounds just. False friends are more dangerous than enemies.
The AKC said it would not participate in the show if it stays in Russia, so it’s not just a publicity stunt. It has an action attached to it. And I think comparing the AKC to “segregated South, Nazi Germany, Indian castes, Aboriginal policy in Australia, sterilizations in Canada, Branqueamento in Brazil, any of several xenophobic institutions in Japan’s history, or the ongoing racial genocides in Africa” is a colossal insult to the people who were killed in them by trivializing the magnitude of those crimes. I don’t support many of the AKC’s policies but If you equate them with the systematic killing of Jews then you are minimizing those terrible actions against humanity to promote your own campaign against the AKC. I consider that as much of a “stunt” as you consider the letter. And Dave, the show-dog world has many more women than men, so saying that the AKC is doing the boycott to appease the minority of its members is silly. I’d also love to see the data supporting that 90% number.
What, too soon? Please. You nor anyone else has a right to get pissy about the poor widdle feeewings of people dead for 60 years. The comparison is valid and if you can’t comprehend metaphors and alignments of philosophy, then you should probably find reading material more suitable to your grade level.
Dog breeding culture is authoritarian, racial elitist, eugenics and more dogs have been gas chambered over their perceived genetic inferiority than anyone did during the Holocaust.
It serves no one’s memory to condone the exact same mentality and behaviors that the world suffered from in the first decades of the 20th century by declaring that our treatment of dogs is justified because they are inferior lifeforms to humans.
I have every right to make the comparisons I do because history was real, it happened, and it was driven by ideology. You want to elevate genocide to some protected class? Make it more myth than fact? Screw that. It happened and it was banal. It was routine. And unless you appreciate that, you’re still probably naive enough to think it can’t happen again.
There is a bit of a “cold war” mentality going on. The American Kennel Club is deeply hurt they can never hold a World Dog Show since the AKC is not a member of the Fédération Cynologique Internationale.
It just seems odd the world has largely ignored Russia’s military invasions and discrimination against various religious and ethnic minorities; yet it took anti-gay measures to capture everyone’s attention. Now the world’s spot-light is on Russia, it just seems to be too perfect opportunity for America to be envious of the World Dog Show without directly coming out of the closet about it.
Whether or not the AKC or CKC participate won’t affect the outcome. No one really give a shit about American or Canadian fanciers on the grander scaleof dog-breeding. What will affect the outcome of the boycotts is whether or not the FCI fall in line with with the boycott since they are the one who sanctioned the event.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
It is really just a publicity stunt from the organization to retain the dog-fanciers from revolting against the system. A significant proportion of the dog-fancy are either homosexual or transgender. It seems like at least 90% of the men in the show-world are gay.
The open letter is not really about boycotting Russia based on moral grounds. It’s about appealing to their own members.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Dave I wouldn’t say a significant proportion of the dog fancy is “either homosexual or transgender” (considering that transgender is a tiny, tiny minority compared even to LGB people, I’ve never met a single transgender person involved in dog showing in any capacity, though I have certainly met transgender people). That most of the people involved in dog showing in the US are white people is undeniable, but politically I have met people across the spectrum from rabid red Christian to wildly liberal. That the rabid red Christians are more tolerant of gay people to their faces at dog shows than the average Christian Conservative is undeniable, but that doesn’t mean they “agree with” being gay. So clearly AKC made a calculation here. It is certainly possible that they could alienate some of their constituency.
Transgenders are rarely open since even homosexuals and bisexuals don’t really display strong support for them. There are no shortages of hate-crimes toward transgenders and transexuals committed by homosexuals and bisexuals. However, many transgenders feel more comfortable in the gay culture than they do in the mainstream. However, for their own survival, they won’t admit it.
So, just because you never met a transgender in the show-ring doesn’t mean there are none. Most of them are hiding their identity to save their own hides since they face discrimination from their closest allies as well.
If we were to look at the polls from Gallup, 54% of Americans support same-sex marriage. Washington Post reported 53% and USA Today reported 55%. If one looks at Pew, 60% of the American respondents said society should accept homosexuality; 80% of Canadians said the same thing.
Now, we know men tend to disapprove of homosexuality more frequently than women do. We know from research, American women are twice as likely to accept homosexuality than their male counterparts. We also know the number of women to report to be ambiguous on the stance is twice as likely while men tend to gravitate toward disapproving.
I am well aware of religious fundamentalism.. The only Christian women I know of who either disapprove of homosexuality or remains ambiguous about the issue tend to be born-again types from the southern States; particularly those who follow the Southern Baptist Convention. Most of the Christian women usually declare public support for gay marriage; whileas men tend to be quiet or very argumentative against the topic.
I would contend since women are more likely to show their dogs than men within the American Kennel Club, the dog-show circle is more gay-friendly and gay-supportive than what you try to lead on.
Face it, the disapproval of someone’s same-sex sexuality amongst women is in a very small minority; just like how Christian fundamentalism is in a small minority.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
I don’t think I ever argued that it wasn’t generally more acceptable. Just that AKC made a calculation here and decided that this side of the issue would likely fall in their favor. Which doesn’t mean that their general inclination isn’t liberal in this regard–AKC has long had a program that cares for the dogs of AIDS-infect handlers/breeders. WRT transgender, like I said, they are a minority of a minority and generally IME either they tell you or you CAN tell. Was just odd to me that you included them specifically in your comment.
If a man identify himself as a woman, but is still attracted to men: what does that make him? If he didn’t want to be discriminated against in the Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual community, it behooves him to pretend to be a homosexual. And vice versa for women who identify themselves as a male, but still attracted to other women.
I know several people in the LGBT who are this way and would only reveal their true sexual identity only to a handful of homosexuals who are open-minded.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Or bisexuals; very seldom straight ones, but it does happen.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Actually, AKC does have some prejudices about the person holding the leash, they just happen to be gay-friendly prejudices. I doubt anyone has ever won a title wearing work boots, crocs, or overalls. And I’ll bet most female competitors have seen a hair dresser recently. Dog show dress may not be high fashion, but it does require a cosmetic finish that us determined sloppy, comfort-centric dressers have no interest in wearing.
i know a handler that liked to pop buttons on her tight suit and…or..magically rip her skirt up the side crotch high every time i was in the ring with her . fun stuff
Ha Jen, you are so right! Watching Westminster I was thinking how awful some of those outfits were and how the handlers couldn’t MOVE well enough to show their dogs’ movement. I would love to put on a conformation show where all the handlers were required to wear either black, white, or tan scrubs, baggy enough to allow movement. No makeup and hair pulled back if long. Would LOVE to see the handlers fade into the background.
(p.s. I have done conformation exactly once. My dog was not dumped, but he was too happy to be there and too natural to win. Not saying he was the best dog there either, just that he was the one having the most fun and it showed.)
Conformation shows in Europe and other areas of the globe have a considerably looser dress code.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
Yes, most of the people there wear their every-day clothes.
Those who show “working breeds”, as in legitimate working breeds which are still being used instead of becoming a pet, some of the outfits are rather… red-necky.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
I actually enjoy seeing photos of working dog shows in other countries, the handlers stand every which way, wearing whatever, the dogs wear whatever in regards to collars and leads, and there’s no real fussing and stacking and whatnot going on. It’s refreshing to see a show that’s actually about the dogs.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
You know, I’d actually find it helpful to be able to take my dog to someone who could look at its structure and gain and provide an evaluation and analysis of how those qualities relate to performance and stamina and speed and agility. But putting on the dog and winning or not winning ribbons doesn’t accomplish any of that for me and I seriously doubt there are more than a few people in the entire building of thousands at a dog show who would actually be learned enough to perform that task!
These people do exist and are helpful (I deliberately pulled out my horribly-structured dog at the last seminar I attended that did this, and was amused to see her eye keep going towards him until FINALLY she could use him as an example!) I would have to look up names, but there are people who have a good general idea of structure WRT at least performance dogs and can tell you how to maximize their potential. At the very least, I was able to show how his structural limitations limit him in dog sports after I attended the seminar, but certain exercises and work with him are useful.
OTOH, he is the best “hanging out” dog EVER. He could move in to our local bars/carryouts as he is really striking, is friendly without being pushy, and never needs to be leashed because he is so well-behaved. Seriously, they want him as the “bar dog.” Go figure.
UKC shows seem to have a pretty relaxed dress code, too. For that matter, so do most of the performance sports and the smaller AKC shows. I mean, if I’m wearing a polo shirt and clean sneakers that’s pretty much dressed up.
Westminster is described as the “World Series of Dogdom”, and it is in the sense that it has very little in common with the small, non-televised shows that make up the bulk of the sport. The small shows are more like the company softball team. Sure, you want to win, but it’s fun just to participate.
dog shows are to judge conformation i realize alot of back stabbing and dealing goes on i started showing dogs 2 years ago and am not to crazy for it BUT it’s the AKC and some non responsible breeders that breed for double merles, overly excessive attributes and inbreed to that extent …the way i look at it…there are a lot of apples in the basket…a few nasty rotten ones sadly make the good ones smell and they get tossed out in the same trash bucket…perhaps an article is in order describing WHAT is a responsible breeder and not making everyone that shows look like rotten apples? i have read several of your articles and i see what you are saying but it can also easily be misconstrued .. i know plenty of people in conformation that go out of their way to back up their animals and their owners be they show, work or pet. They are highly active in rescue and would LOVE to have the stud books open to have new blood let in. i am a fan of Work and show in various breeds.
“Perhaps an article is in order describing WHAT is a responsible breeder and not making everyone that shows look like rotten apples?”
As if there aren’t already hundreds of such articles available. Just try Googling it and counting them all. The last thing the world needs is yet another useless subjective ‘what is a good breeder?’ blog post floating around the web.
If you don’t like the hard hitting critiques written here feel free to go elsewhere instead of demanding the author make some empty feel-good posts to tickle your ear.
gee be an asshat its not a feel good post. do you show? do you know ANYTHING about it or the people involved? or are you just one of the work anti show? be an asshat elsewhere i have heard BOTH sides in posts here and think this would be a decent article it was not a “DEMAND” i was asking if we could hear BOTH sides more openly . go kiss your mother with your bad attitude .
because i know PLENTY of good people in show and work events and do not believe they should be judged in the same light as those that breed double merles or care more for form than health and temperament.
Warn, if an article isn’t about ‘good breeders’ than why are good breeders feeling the need to get defensive. If you’re not part of the problem, don’t take criticism of people who ARE as if it’s in any way about you. The fact is, there is a ton of ugly crap tolerating in the show dog world that doesn’t get talked about enough, with a million fluff-piece feel-good topics get rehashed every damn day. So claiming there is ‘imbalance’ in topic coverage is disingenuous.
Complaining about how ‘negative’ posts are and saying this blog needs to balance it out with pro-show breeder posts is lazy and demanding; like I said, if you bothered to Google you’ll find tons of feel-good show breeder blogs already exist. Chris doesn’t need to waste time writing more stuff about topics like ‘good breeders exist!’ which are common as dirt and not interesting in the least.
I know a few Europeans who contacted me about Christopher’s blog being too narrow-minded and too Americanized.
However, most of Christopher’s blog-posts deal with the American Kennel Club. He doesn’t really touch on Fédération Cynologique Internationale. Mostly because FCI doesn’t really affect him. The policy-makers at United Kennel Club and AKC affects him more as a breeder of sport-dogs.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
A few Europeans or one in particular? 🙂
retrieverman recently posted..Ducks foraging on the bank
Europeans who are either insulting or suck at idioms.
A few.
Try looking around Facebook groups: German Shepherd Dog breeders, Dalmatian breeders, Toller breeders. They complain he focuses too much on America and not enough on the world-wide population which gives the breed a bad name.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Or Russians who complained the international reputation of Collies was ruined because there was no distinction between FCI Collies and AKC Collies in the posts about double-merles.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
Well if those are the examples, I don’t think they provide any evidence that I’m narrow-minded — or even too highly focused on American populations of dogs. ALL Tollers come from a highly bottle-necked population. Exporting a few of them to Australia doesn’t magically change their genetics to be more diverse. In fact it does the opposite, it creates an export bottleneck on top of the extant founding population being way too small.
The problems in Dalmatians are not fixed by crossing the International Date Line either, they are genetic and universal because the coat color is genetic and universal.
As for GSDs, there’s some interesting differences between the local populations globally but none of them came out of WWII in better shape than they went in and most of them have succumbed to both bottlenecks and distortions of form. We can parse the US/UK vs. German dogs, and heck we can parse the German dogs into East and West factions as well. Doesn’t change a thing about the criticisms I have about the crippled up dogs.
What you’re seeing is people who are in denial about the extant state of their breed, so they try and distance themselves in any way possible from the exposed populations so they can carry on doing what they are doing and feel good about it. You can see this avoidance strategy between two people talking about the same dog (he’s not like that with ME! It must be something you’re doing!!), two people with puppies from the very same litter (my dog won’t be susceptible to that problem, their dog was probably dropped on its head, or they fed it crappy food or over-vaccinated it!!), to the idiocy I have documented from people who don’t realize that their stock goes back to the same stock in another country (Australian Tollers aren’t inbred!).
The last paragraph there is my favorite on this post:
…people who are in denial about the existant state of their breed…
I believe that sums up the subculture being discussed even better than gays, barrens, and fatties.
But i still find so many comments, posts, and whole blogs explaining a whole made-up belief structure centered around dogs. It is like reading blogs and websites where adults discuss fairy tales as if they were real – Which is bigger an ogre or a troll?, or why Vulcans have green blood and are they related to elves?
And real life ringside isn’t much better. Anyone who has listened to explanations as to why GSDs ‘need’ grasshopper hind legs, or why their breed ‘needs’ piles of loose skin or a curly tail … the stupidity boggles the mind.
But it can’t be stupidity. Most of these people are NOT stupid. And they can see the reality in front of them. So since they Can see it, why DON’T the see it?
It is like brainwashing or something. The dog breeders are the ones closest to the problem yet they are the last to notice it. “The last to discover water would be a fish”.
And the We Fight For Gays letter? Given the history and positions and all, I doubt the sincerity.
I figured warmhound was a Weimaraner breeder or of another hunting breed who believe in the mantra “hunters only sell to other hunters”.
Dave recently posted..From Which He Flushed
so what you are saying is it is better to sensationalize because the real deal is boring? no i am not a breeder but i have shown and it is insulting and again it was not a demand and i said i ENJOY his articles and agree with many of them i am not asking for “fluff” i am asking for the truth the whole truth and not slanted subjects meant to give you a little sensation of vindication” “hah they are all assholes i would however like to hear something that doesnt brand everyone that participates in a dog show as a monster because i know this is NOT true. i agree most judges are NOT qualified yes i agree there are shady as fuck handlers and breeders but there ARE some good people in there and they do not need to be thrown out with the rubbish. NOR was i complaining was stating that I WOULD LIKE “perhaps” is neither a demand nor a complaint it is asking which is in no way either.
“so what you are saying is it is better to sensationalize because the real deal is boring?”
I don’t see where Pai said that at all. I have shown dogs in the past and I co-breed my Salukis with a breeder who loves to show.
You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth. As evidenced by your comments here.
The dog fancy is a social cesspool. It’s a social cesspool because *while it acknowledges that there are ‘bad apples’ it does next to nothing to discourage bad actors.* Whispering, gossiping, and rumor spreading do not discourage evil; outing people, calling them out, shaming them does. You don’t see much of that in the so-called fancy.
I know PLENTY of very nice, intelligent people in dogs. Unfortunately, like many institutions, most of these people will never speak out beyond the typical gossipy rumor-mongering for fear of being ostracized in one way or another. I have seen this in action with others and been a victim of it myself.
Truth to power is absent in dogs.
Because my views do not align with the order of the day, breeders who have sold me dogs have been attacked. Breeders considering selling me dogs have been blackmailed into not completing the sale. My breeding program is fucked without the ability to add new blood; I freely admit that this type of crap is an effective way of controlling MY behavior, because I will NEVER attempt to buy another puppy. Anyone willing to sell to me would be subject to harassment and being ostracized. I won’t subject someone to that, I won’t be responsible for it, even with a willing seller.
Eventually you will figure out what a nasty bunch of high school mean girls some fanciers are. You’re two years in? Come back at twenty, you will be just as cynical and disgusted as the rest of us.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
I have the same issue Dessert Wind but I have 1 wonderful breeder who sells me pups & tells the rest where to go. All because I choose to not keep paying a kennel club thats so corrupted.
I think it should be pretty obvious by now what at least a DECENT breeder is, and frankly, anyone who does not know this is not doing their homework. I got my first Sheltie when I was 13 years old back in 1979 and *I* knew what questions to ask (this was all me, my parents didn’t help me at all–I even made all the phone calls–and I was not an unusually brilliant child).
If the dog comes from a pet store, this is not a good or decent breeder. Current ASPCA ads act like this is a revelation. C’mon… Buying dog from the Amish? Bad idea. Buying a dog bred for one reason and one reason only? Bad idea. (i.e. HERDING ABILITY ONLY does not make a good pet and may not make a healthy dog either).
These are things I knew when I was 13 years old: you should know the inheritable diseases that are common in the breed. You should be able to see where the dogs are housed, and be able to see the bitch if not the stud (who may not be resident). The puppies should be well socialized and the breeder should have cared enough to worm them (first shots are optional depending on philosophy, but most should have shots by 10 weeks). If you are buying a conformation dog you had better have some kind of guarantee or money back. If you are buying a pet, you should at least know what’s been tested, what is known in the line, what are serious issues (i.e. threaten quality of life) and what are not.
You shouldn’t buy a car just on looks and the recommendation of the salesman. You shouldn’t buy a dog this way either. With any luck, the dog will outlast the car (I bought my first dog at 13 years old and my brother bought his first “adult” bicycle–I told him my dog would outlast his bike, and I was right, although his bike got stolen and my dog was basically unstealable–she would not go with strangers). 30-odd years later, although the things we can know are significantly greater, we are still rolling the dice no matter WHERE we get our dogs–but we can skew the odds in our favor significantly without too much effort.
What is a good breeder??????? OMG so over it & so do not agree with the main stream it seems as for me a decent breeder takes back ANY dog they breed WHEN needed no matter the REASON. Is a breeder who refuses to put type or coat type/colour above breeding sound of mind & body dogs capable of preforming the task they where originally breed for. For me thats what makes a good breeder & the rest is pure background noise.
Showing dose not make a good breeder if anything it dose the opposite.
Honestly, I’m not sure if any of those things would necessarily ensure the person was a good breeder.
Health certification is nice, but just because the parents passed may not mean their pups will (especially if the parents are closely inbred : they might not be showing issues but that could be because they got lucky, their pups may not).
As for living conditions, again nice, but just because breeder A is a millionaire and their place makes for a pretty picture, and breeder B is of more modest means and their house is shall we say, a bit bumpkinified…does not mean breeder A’s stock is superior.
For show titles the same thing.
I might go for looking at the sire and the dam (I think it’s best to know both and hopefully know something of their lines — but don’t fall for a trip to the groomers sort of hype, which I’ve seen people do too), but even that can not tell the whole story — there are ways to show the parents in a better light than what they really are, conversely you can have two dogs that aren’t the most awe inspiring but together they produce great pups. (it’s rare, but it does happen, some dogs when put together produce offspring far better than what they are, some great individuals make vastly inferior offspring — it was a bad cross).
As for worming/shots — some people do it themselves, so it’s hard to have an accurate record there too. Count me as one of those: I give my own shots — dogs go in for their mandatory rabies and heartworm script reorder and I do the rest; vets are expensive, why not do the routine stuff here? (granted, a person shouldn’t do it unless they know how…but I’ve been in animal husbandry since I was quite young… Grandfolks were farmers and horse trainer/breeders; Dad was a dog trainer and his own small kennel of gundogs and hounds; you learn to give basic vet care to multiple species early on)
I’d have to say about the best way to determine who is a good breeder is to actually talk to the people and not fall for marketing bs…the take the dogs back policy is probably a good indicator as any; at least you know they are willing to, which says a lot (and sometimes the people who are willing may surprise…sometimes it’s the dude/dudette in the bumpkinified place).
The main point which you missed is if a breeder has a always return contract so that any dog they breed will be sent back to them if needing rehomed the breeder is much more likely to be diligent in their breeding & homing practises otherwise they would have an endless stream of returns.
When looking at parentage I make sure to study the grandparents plenty as find they often get more say than the direct parent anyways genetically speaking.
Show breeder breed for looks & after generation of generation being breed for looks above all else many breeds are left lacking I am afraid.
Uh, that’s pretty much what I got from it — sorry if there was some misunderstanding there.
And yes, people should look beyond the parents — breeders should be able to tell you something about the grandparents, at least.
I think living space and the condition of the other dogs in the house (including how friendly or unfriendly they are) actually tells you quite a lot about how the puppies have been raised. There are certainly breeders out there who have nice kennels, nice conditions, but overbreed (IMO). However, if you are looking for a pet, whether it’s a purebred or mix, I’d say basically healthy conditions, good temperament of parents if both are there and of the other dogs in the house, first shots (if old enough), knowing what conditions are found in the lines or in the breed (whether they can be tested for or not) and getting a look at the pedigree (before you make a decision) if purebred or a first generation mix are all good things. We got a pedigree with our male IG that automatically shows COI of each ancestor–the breeder said that her software just happens to do that, and I liked being able to see it.
I have no objection to breeders who do their own shots. They can do exactly what the vet does–take the little sticker off the bottle and place it on a shot record. Shelters do that too (when I used to volunteer at a local shelter, I gave plenty of kittens and puppies their first shots). Although that said, the only litter I have personally bred two of the puppies were going out of the country (and needed health certs signed by a vet because they were flying), so I took them all in for health check and first shots. Cost $150 and I considered it money well spent–but I don’t intend to breed much, if EVER again.
Testing isn’t a guarantee of anything, but it is a guarantee that people care. Nonetheless, people need to do their homework. I see even experienced Agility people in my area getting Border Collies from breeders who ALWAYS have a litter on the ground, and are seeing a lot of not-good stuff that can’t be tested for (ETS, seizures, just plain weird-ass things that seem to have an autoimmune component) and when they do, I want to yell “have you SEEN any of other dogs RUN? Did you NOTICE the stuttering? Did you WONDER why was put down at 4 years old?”
Oops–that should read “have you SEEN any of (said breeder’s) other dogs RUN? Did you NOTICE the stuttering? Did you WONDER why (so-and-so’s dog from said breeder) was put down at 4 years old?”
Overall, I’d agree with you, but…
People have to consider that “fancy” doesn’t always equal good or nice, which is kind of back to the topic here. A lot of people don’t.
That includes temperment — an experienced eye is harder to fool, but through good training you can make a dog with a substandard temperment show well (at least show better than what it really is on the inside — which is often enough to fool prospective buyers, who aren’t perhaps super experienced and are not going to see that dog over a long course of time anyway), and a superior dog that’s gotten a rotten start won’t show as good as it is…which dog is the better one to breed? Which one is going to produce the better pups?
I knew somebody who raised Malinois who really had to put some work into their dogs to make them decent public citizens; they were really sharp but that isn’t really a good thing for the average dog buyer (this was a very good, talented handler by the way), would go take the sire and dam out and work them pretty good before prospective buyers came over and showed them under fairly controlled circumstances (and after all, the buyers only saw those dogs for a short period of time, and man were these some well behaved appearing dogs). None of the trainers or experienced handlers at the local dog club would have touched the pups with a ten foot pole though, and for that matter neither would have I, because they saw the parents under less controlled circumstances…but the buyers didn’t.
Getting a dog is a crap shoot — there are a lot of ways what can seem on the surface as good, isn’t really.
Sam is right; whoever will stand behind their dogs is likely somebody who really has nothing to hide (and that’s about the best guarantee a person can get).
And yeah, I get where you’re coming from — actually seeing the dogs out is a much better indication — and to a large extent I’d say you were spot on in your remarks.
But a lot of potential buyers are not that experienced and can get taken for a ride by good packaging (plus the whole question of what that does to the population of breeding dogs).
Btw, great cartoon!
Though, as a fat woman who wears ugly shoes, I’m deeply offended :). We’re you angling for spike heels? Do you think the guy’s trainers are prettier than the woman’s Mary Janes.
Actually I think her shoes are quite nice and very appropriate. The “Suit by Armani, Shoes by New Balance” guy who tucks those cuffs in could use a style make-over.
Unfortunate there is a lot of snobbish behavior,elitism and inbreeding in the world of sporting dogs as well.
I’ve only visited small dog shows,where the people really act no differently then the regular people I meet on the streets. The conformations of the dogs range a bit more,some people have working/sporting dogs they show as well.
In my mine,even without dog shows people would still be breeding for extreme appearances and what makes easy going pets. Sure some dogs like GSD’s would be better off physically,although there are still a ton of giant pet gsds I see around. but not dogs like Am Bullies,and Rottweilers. If they kept to a working conformations it would discourage people from breeding even worse looking dogs. That’s why AKC Staffordshire terriers have it so much better then Am Bullies or Johnson bred American Bulldogs.
Also AKC does allow mutts in their programs,I see them all the time in Agility. While some dog sports will look down on you if you don’t have a specific breed or its too large or small. Regular day people will even look down on you because of your dog or how their built.
I’ve seen even plenty of people now days that will disprove of you even having a purebred,even crying out that mutts are superior.
AKC is far from perfect,but cant make it out to be purely the fault of dog breeds.
I support better breeding,and even thoughtful out crossing,none of my dogs have papers even. Yet still can’t actually hate the AKC,perhaps because pretty much the only dog events I get to watch and enjoy are AKC.
It would be nice if both conformation and working ability (and pet suitability) could all be factored in.
I see nothing wrong with conformation evaluation — but would like to see it stay sane instead of getting trend crazy.
I would like to see dogs with perhaps not the best conformation but working ability or inner qualities be given as much attention as possible breeding prospects. Just because the dog has won big in the conformation show ring may not make it a superior breeding animal, for that matter just because a dog has won big in the working classes may not make it superior. It might cause less bottleneck. (and yes, sometimes it would be nice if the registries would allow at least some outcrossing).
The sport horse world has that system, where they judge and license breeding stock according to conformation, movement, athletic ability, and for the stallions “inner qualities”, which means their natural temperments, trainability, etc. (I wish they would do it for the mares, but it gets into the realm of time/money making it impossible). Even there show ring fads have damaged the breeding end of things, but it does temper some of the issues — the judges(inspectors) even give out recommendations as to what sort of cross the horses will likely be better suited for.
Also many of the sporthorse registries do allow outcrosses, at least to approved breeds and/or approved individuals (and you get full registration, outcrosses to nonapproved breeds can get you restricted or appendix registration in some…which means females produced will be allowed breeding privledges to approved stallions).
It isn’t perfect; there are complaints, and I’ve seen for myself where show ring induced fancies have been a big problem…but it’s still better than what I see going on with the dogs (and horse breeds that don’t do this).
The ‘fancy’ is diverse. Eg, the tradition of honoring dual champions (field and bench) is long-standing in some gun dog breeds, and you can still find breeders whose dogs, by in large, are sound, good workers, low COI(12), and easy dogs to live with. But show circles have healthy, and in many breeds, dominant, populations of cosmetic-focussed eugenicists who either don’t get it or don’t care about issues of genetics, body mechanics, function, and health. And the AKC, with high level alliance to pet-industry and the commercial side of the dog world (see, eg. http://www.thedogpress.com/PuppyMill/INDEX.asp), consistently sides with the money, rather than with responsible dog breeding. Their refusal, in contrast to the UK kennel club, to partake of breed standard changes is a disgrace. If AKC is siding with the GLBT community, you can bet there’s a commercial interest. That doesn’t mean all AKC breeders hypocrites…but it would be good if more of us did more to reform the KC . . . or moved to other registries.
the AKC does NOT own breed standards ( thank God)..the standards are set by the breed clubs themselves..what that has to do with gays mystifies me
It could be argued that the breed clubs make up the AKC — kind like a federalist state — but they are completely dominated by the AKC due to membership rules and the dominance of an AKC culture — kind of like a totalitarian state.
But yes, what this SHOULD have to do with gays is beyond me — I guess it’s better than addressing some of the actual problems within the AKC (including the breed clubs) or even the dog world at large.
And those problems are the reason why a lot of people (including myself) have just quit — there’s just too much insanity, pettiness, clique-y-ness, and over-emotionalism, even at the local level. I become a member to something for just long enough to do something with a particular dog for a while (because I have to be a member of club xyz to do anything), and then get the heck out…it’s just not worth the hits to the sanity to stay in and forget actually trying to do something constructive — if you aren’t a member of the cool kids club, well, “shut up!” they said.
Who wants to deal with that? Who wants to pay money to get the “privilege” of dealing with that?
Eh, kind of a miss
Eh, kind of a pointless comment.
Wow — I read your blog as someone passionate about dogs and I think your commentary is often well-written, informative, and something to learn from even on occasions when I don’t fully agree with you, but as a gay person I’m more than a little bothered by being compared to dogs, or the insinuation that dog breeding is comparable to LGBT(etc., etc.) rights issues. I usually like your blog because I think it skips the anthropomorphism and cheap emotional jabs in favor of sound, logical, and scientific content addressing the actual issues at hand. I’m surprised and kind of disappointed to see that fly out the window here. Hoping that better posts are in the future.
What, do you believe that gays should be a protected class and that the same rules of logic and commentary should not apply to them? I compare just about anything to anything else that seems valid to me and this seems pretty valid.
Don’t you think it’s hypocritical that gays fight for access to the same institutions as “traditional” families, like religious marriage and access to official recognition by the state, a record of their unions, benefits and protections based upon who they want to have sex with and form families with and raise children with… but then when it comes to dogs, the gays within the AKC don’t see any problem upholding tradition in the face of health, safety, well being, and freedom. Sexual tradition. Who can breed with who and have it recognized and supported and protected within the system.
Humans are not special flowers so comparing anyone to a dog is going to happen here, especially when human culture so greatly influences dog culture. THUS, since dog culture is decidedly supportive and centered around eugenics, expect plenty of references to past and modern eugenic ideas in humans being compared to dogs.
As for gays in general, I hope you don’t believe that common libtard refrain that Blacks can’t be racist, women can’t be sexist, and gays can’t be bigots, too. It’s a rather easy case to make that gays, who bark against “labels” and other being prejudiced against the details of their sexuality have gone right ahead and applied more judgment and labels against their own big tent, right along with a huge amount of stereotyping and elitism, and that in some instances this inter-community bigotry is so profound that it leads to decidedly unethical and dangerous behavior. Should we not criticize this simply because some think that we should treat gays as special and immune to criticism because other people are bigots against them?
I don’t think so, I think it’s better to call shit as I see it no matter what.
The AKC doesn’t own breed standards. But they sure haven’t lifted a finger to promote pugs and pekingese that can breathe, and bulldogs that can walk, or to promote genetic diversity in all breeds.
The AKC is in a position, technically, to restrict inbreeding and over-use of popular sires, but has no appetite for doing so. The official position “there is no rule that prohibits inbreeding and line breeding; this is left to the discretion of individual breeders”. http://www.akc.org/about/faq.cfm?page=10
The only links I can see to gay issues is have to do with money and power (as Christopher indicates). The AKC has been suffering loss of membership and prestige in recent years. Rallying the gay (I suspect think the LBT contingent is small) component of the dog fancy is one way to try and bolster the AKC position.
You don’t see this parallel with Gays?
Gays are a minority group within a larger traditional culture who are ostracized and not treated as equals because of their breeding choices.
Pro-outcrossers are a minority group within a larger traditional culture who are ostracized and not treated as equals because of their breeding choices.
Arguments against gays often revolve around appeals to tradition and unfair stigmas against the dangers of allowing gays to associate in the same community.
Arguments against outcrossing often revolve around appeals to tradition and unfair stigmas against the dangers of allowing outcrossers to associate in the same community.
We can’t allow gays to associate with us, they’ll fuck up our wonderful culture and it might even be dangerous!
We can’t allow outcrossing in our KC, they’ll fuck up our wonderful culture and it might even be dangerous!
We don’t allow outcrossing because breeds have existed for (100 years) SO LONG without it and they are pure and wonderful. Outcrossing is unnatural!
We can’t allow gays because man has only existed for 3k years by men having sex with women and they are unnatural!
Gays should be hyper-sensitive about prejudice against others based upon their breeding choices. They should be aware that tradition and rigidity in applying moral values to that tradition can be dangerous and counter productive. The attacks against gays and inter-race couples is very similar to the attacks against mutts and hybrids and outcrossing.
H has a point. If you insist on a single standard for humans and dogs, you’ll be advocating free love for dogs, outlawing castration, and requiring a bitch’s consent to be mounted (presuming you agree with equal rights for women). Or requiring humans to have hip Xrays before they breed. A double standard vis a vis dogs and humans is the norm in our society. Once you agree a double standard is appropriate, it’s illogical to call the AKC hypocritical because the way they draw up their double standard doesn’t match the way you draw your double standard.
The reasons that inbreeding and promotion of extreme and unfit traits are wrong rest on genetics, biophysics, etc., not on cultural norms.
I think that anyone objecting to Christopher’s parallels to the dog breeding world and things such as gay rights and holocausts are demonstrating a kind of speciesism based on the assumption that humans are somehow a superior species to others, including canines, on the planet.
Personally, I don’t believe that Homo sapiens is such a superior species that it’s OK for humans to manipulate other species to the point of creating such malignant maladaptations as to render them unfit for normal, healthy lives.
http://akcdoglovers.com/2013/08/14/new-therapy-for-dogs-with-bone-cancer/
damn there they go again not caring a thing about dogs health to the tune of 100K …to make it relevant I bet even some gay hairdressers and ugly old lesbian women with nasty shoes gave some of that money.. oh wait sorry that was fat women in ugly shoes.. whatever..
If they really wanted to combat the cancer problem that’s rampant in some breeds, they’d be pushing for opening the studbooks!
There appears to be a genetic factor in dogs — it certainly could be the case of suppressed immune systems due to over inbreeding.
Instead of a therapy, why not swallow the ego/pride/whatever complex, admit that too much “purity” isn’t a good thing, and go for a cure?
The real kicker is in breeds where a disease that causes quality of life issues is at saturation levels. Nowhere to go there, unless you open the studbooks.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
You’re rebutting a point I didn’t make.
You just proved my earlier point:
“This bone cancer research has the possibility of not just helping dogs, but humans too.”
If humans did not get bone cancer, no one would be asking for funding for this type of study.
There are several dog breeds that are virtually guaranteed to develop bone cancer, giving you a never-ending supply of subjects. You do understand that animal models for new therapies are standard in research, don’t you?
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
The point I wanted to make was my own. I considered the strawman of “but the dog world is helping humans, so therefore”, well, a strawman. And yes, I realize the point made about animal testing subjects: but I’d probably use lab mice/rats, even rabbits, rather than dogs….easier to get a super inbred population more quickly, which would give more accurate results due to the ability to produce a far more homogenous population more quickly, and also be more cost effective.
And if I wanted a more close to human genetic model I’d go with monkeys.
Which leads me back to the topic of “is the AKC tending its own garden, or is it deflecting criticism away from itself?” I’d prefer they just tended their own garden at this point — it’s getting out of hand.
What *you* would probably use is irrelevant 🙂
There is a LOT of literature out there regarding using dogs as models for humans in research. In fact, the very reason that you see so much genetic research into dog conditions is because of the similarities and parallels with humans and the limited gene pools. Purebred dogs also provide a model of ‘naturally’ occurring disease. I suggest you start with:
Dogs really are man’s best friend — Canine genomics has applications in veterinary and human medicine!
Dog Star RISING: The Canine Genetic System
Canine genetics comes of age
Primate research is being actively reduced right now due to difficulties in procuring and shipping the primates; this is due to pressure from animal rights activists.
DesertWindHounds recently posted..Another Afghan Napkin, 1955
Yeah, given the advantages of mice Dogs aren’t used randomly… they’re used because they and NOT rats have a disease that parallels humans. There are a handful of highly inbred rat strains and yes they have some particular genetic issues, but they are not really being used because their diseases are so close to humans, they are often INFECTED with cancer, etc. and having other outside things like drugs tested on them versus natural disease paths.
Dogs, however, have an entire menus of diseases that are highly concentrated in breeds and thus easy to do differentials on when searching for the genes. This is important because it’s much more efficient in that search when you can weed out a ton of common but mundane genes and focus right in on what genes are highly expressed in one breed and not at all in another.
Like Narcolepsy. When it was found that a few breeds had it, they brought those dogs to Stanford and now have colony of Dobes and others that are narcoleptic. It’s a lot cheaper if they could find narcoleptic mice, but that too has limitations as it’s easier to interact with dogs to stimulate more diverse behaviors and see what precipitates a narcoleptic episode.
I don’t think “strawman” as a logical fallacy applies to the “dog world helping humans” argument. A straw man is an informal logical fallacy where you use hearsay to re-phrase your opponents argument into something they didn’t actually claim. In this comment thread Bestuvall has actually made this logical fallacy when they claim “damn there they go again not caring a thing about dogs health” and before when they said “so the idea that the AKC does not care about dogs health is ludicrous.”
This was my statement: “The AKC won’t even stand up for very simple moral guidelines that would vastly improve the actual health and well being of purebred dogs.”
See how Bestuvall used a strawman fallacy to attack a much easier argument that I didn’t say (The AKC doesn’t care about health at all and they do nothing to support health in dogs) to avoid the actual statement I made (The AKC won’t even stand up for very simple moral guidelines that would vastly improve the actual health and well being of purebred dogs.) The answer to my argument would need to be something like this:
The AKC issues these moral guidelines: They refuse to register any dog that is the product of first degree relatives. They refuse to register more than 50 offspring of any one sire. The AKC runs an appendix registry that will allow anyone to cross breed and backcross and re-enter the main registry after X generations and/or an evaluation by a panel of N judges or X performance standard. The AKC prohibits merle to merle and harlequin to harlequin breeding and will not register the offspring of two merle or harlequin parents. ET CETERA.
The AKC giving money to science papers in no way answers my call for “simple moral guidelines.” GUIDELINES FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP. GUIDELINES THAT APPLY TO THE DOGS WHO HAVE AKC REGISTRATION. Throwing money at research is great, but it’s not the AKC’s purpose. It’s charity, it is not ethical standards, it is not their JOB their reason to exist. Their mission.
That was what I was getting at (by way of a strawman), but perhaps deflection would have worked better?
Either way, it was an attempt to counter that didn’t address the issue — so I brought up an issue of my own.
As for using dogs as models…didn’t say they didn’t and that there might be something there…but there are other species now that are being used (the dog genome got mapped more quickly, but other’s are catching up).
The pigs might actually hold the most promise.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/genetics/4336648
$100k of a 6000k+ budget is a token. A nice token. But hardly a serious commitment. The real test will come if the genes for cancer are found. Will they take a strong stand against using dogs who carry a heavy genetic burden? or will they allow outcrossing to bring in unaffected genes if the genes are very widespread (eg. for BMD or flat coat)? I know how I’d place my bets on that one.
This isn’t really my fight.. but just wanted to say how much I’m enjoying the debate – intelligent and challenging.
Jemima
Great Article, and rest assured! A lot of us pro-gay rights, youngins aren’t falling for the AKC’s publicity tricks 😉