|Tiller- (Skansen's- Ira in the M|
I DO Exist...To- Drive You Batty
|Barked: Sun Feb 19, '12 1:00pm PST |
|Mulder....read the below for any further info/clarification. But to answer your question (which implies something I never stated, nor never would, by the by) directly....I don't need to absolve anyone from anything that was not their responsibility. Westminster exists as a gala event for the top specials in the country. No less and no more. That is their "job" and anything more would be taking liberties that are not theirs to take....to scrutinize the pedigree and background of every entrant. Individual entrants are not to be scrutinized as to their backgrounds, connections, etc. It is the dog on the day to be judged, which is how dog shows work. Now on the CONTRARY, I do not absolve the breed club for condoning the practice. That lays at their doorstep. Where it belongs. It is their responsibility to define what is a correct and acceptable example of their breed. That was one of the top flight Collies in this country, his double merle sire one of the top sires of his generation, who has sired many champion offspring. He is a dog the BREED embraces. Totally unacceptable, but it is the breed who is promoting him, and it is right on their doorstep that this problem rests. That there has been such success with him will only encourage continued double merle breedings in the future.
In terms of the double merle breedings and what responsibility for this is on the AKCs shoulder, this can be talked about pointlessly or intelligently. It has long been a debate in the dog world, the principle issue around which something like that circles.
Can something akin to the AKC prohibit the registration of a dog? I am of the camp that believes the answer to that lies with a provision that breed clubs submit the required health testing for their breed, and that submission of such records is required for registration. It's a frustration that we are so far from that. But certainly if the breed clubs feel health testing should be done (which it does), they need the character to insist upon it. Which would lend greater value to the "AKC registered" moniker, whereby the consumer and the world can know your dog is "quality" because it comes from health cleared parents. This would of course, too, cause a problem to BYBs, making their dogs only registerable by an inferior registry. Seems to solve many problems, all at once. Healthier dogs, a far easier manner to "certify" breeders, a big problem for the BYBs, who now have dogs unregisterable by the "quality" organization.
Certainly the sport could still continue under that premise. The bugger to solve would be money, for of course registrations would be down and the organizational might that is the AKC would suffer, and all the health grants and legislative lobbying that goes with it.
The AKC does matter for those reasons, and then the bigger one still....hopefully explaining by example may help educate people as to the "whys." This is not to say the system is not flawed, but to example instead why the system is pursued.
An acquaintance of mine is one of the top Tibetan Mastiff breeders in the country and started with the breed back in the early 80's, when there were very few available. She did not originally want AKC recognition, but now she appreciates it, because things had gone as far as they could. A benefit of the AKC venue is that is a very fun, festive, showy occasion, and tends to draw average people on the street in. Far moreso than other show organizations. That is the primary reason where there is a vitalness to it, as the breeds themselves need newcomers to continue to strengthen the breed. It is very hard to gain diversity with just a small group of the same regulars. That is the fundamental benefit. The AKC, of course, benefits from new breeds coming in. Historically, they are very nervous to have too many restrictions tied in with being recognized for fear it would steer breed heads away. It's more that they are chicken than unconcerned by extremes.
A really great example is that the AKC has willingly welcomed changes in standards that allow uncropped dogs from cropped breeds to show and that phrase a responsibility to the judge to not differentiate the two. All hell would break loose, however, if they DEMANDED of cropped breeds this inclusion. Some breeds seek to preserve the cropped-ness of their dogs. Whether or not you agree with this, those who involve themselves have passionate opinions and would not take kindly to some big brother upending what they believe is historical and correct for their breed. The AKC, in the meantime, will try to keep everyone happy, not blocking anyone from allowing uncropped dogs in their standards, nor demanding it of anyone else.
That's the basic way the system works. Understanding it and seeing how changes can be worked into the system, how basic characters and charters need to change without losing what is good and right about the system, is an age old debate and one continued worth having.
If the AKC were to see two merle parents on a registration submission, could they ban it? Sure. Would the fancy want them to? No. Does this mean they are evil? Again, no. It is not that non Collie people are not horrified, but rather frown highly upon this practice in the breed. They want the breed club to change its position. What they do NOT want is the AKC deciding to ban all Dobermans registered with vWd. Or heavy linebreeding. The pepper & salt Giant Schnauzer was completly dying off until the emergence in Belgium of Adonis and Faust von der Havenstad, father and son who both doubled in the World Show. The breed knew they had to use these dogs heavily to generate interest the far more oft behind the bar pepper & salt, a very historical color that had low support due to poor type and soft temperament. Faust and Adonis had neither. Faust was a precious best friend to van der Havenstad's owner, but he released him to the U.S., where it is permissible to cross with blacks. So that diversity came in, and then there was heavy linebreeding back. Faust linebred very well, and the pepper & salt of today is very healthy. And in a renaissance. Won the national speciality, many breeders are picking them up. But of course none of this would have happened if the AKC had a policy of denying pedigrees. It was the responsibility of BREEDERS to know that such tight linebreeding was producing healthy dogs and to continue with it. Such action pulled the p&s out from the wreckage. It is examples like this as to why no breeders would want the AKC to scrutinize such matters. It would prefer to leave the breed's welfare reliant on those who dedicate their lives to it. Mostly, right decisions are made. Sometimes, alas, not. But those in the dog fancy would not want their ability to better their breeds thwarted by too strongarm a registration practice....to in effect be blocked and penalized due to a few bad actors (breed club wise), who are FAR from the majority in the dog fancy generally. The DPCA and its stand against white Dobermans is a great example of how liberal AKC policies or not, the breed club DOES have the power to suppress damaging trend. It comes down to the people.
So if it gets you that hot and bothered, why not write something to the national Collie club? THAT is doing something and letting your voice be heard where it truly matters. Going right to the source of the problem.
|my posts | my page | msg me | my family's posts | gift me | become pals|| [notify]|