What I can’t understand is why. Why is the AKC feeling that it must cater to those other groups to the point they will advertise? Are they truly so unprofitable? Maybe they shouldn’t worry about fighting all the legislation for states? I know that our agility trials are still getting plenty of entries and thus fees. Maybe some of the things AKC sponsors and is so keen on funding should be scaled back? Those initial registrations are a one time thing. People like me not only register but we pay those fees over and over for our entries.
Just for the record, AKC wasn’t the only organization fighting the Texas bill and other AR sponsored legisilation. There were many individual breed and kennel clubs fighting it. SAOVA was fighting it. The Texas Responsible Dog Owners group was fighting it. And they werent’ doing it because AKC told them to.
[QUOTE=wireweiners;5872691]
Just for the record, AKC wasn’t the only organization fighting the Texas bill and other AR sponsored legisilation. There were many individual breed and kennel clubs fighting it. SAOVA was fighting it. The Texas Responsible Dog Owners group was fighting it. And they werent’ doing it because AKC told them to.[/QUOTE]
I can only speak for our local breed club, but yes, they fought it because AKC told them it was bad. I could not find anyone else in the club that had read the bill, but they were convinced that it was bad because AKC said so…
A couple of them even went to the “open hearing” in Austin to express their opposition to the bill without reading it and armed only with AKC’s suggested “talking points”.
[QUOTE=Sonesta;5872792]
I can only speak for our local breed club, but yes, they fought it because AKC told them it was bad. I could not find anyone else in the club that had read the bill, but they were convinced that it was bad because AKC said so…[/QUOTE]
Well, that is quite a dumb thing to do for those individuals who run your club…Trust but verify!! :no:
AKC is a big organization and like many other large organizations, they cannot please everyone! I do not agree with them supporting the likes of the Hunte Corp, but I DO support AKC inspecting and turning in the bad conditions of puppy breeders they inspect…
I too am a AKC Breeder of Merit, an AKC approved judge, Chairman of my Parent Club Health Committee and also Show Chairman for one of the largest dog shows in my state. I can tell you that I do NOT agree with everything AKC does, but for me as a breeder, they are the only game in town. An AKC championship is still more important than any other title, IMO. I participate in AKC Rally, but also register my dogs and do APDT Rally as well… I participate in Earthdog trials and was a member of AWTA and the North American Teckel Club.
In spite of some of the questionable AKC positions over the years, I understand they still need to make money (as if that is a bad thing?), but they do more good than bad for the dog community over all.
BTW, did you know that only 1% of ALL the dogs in the US are AKC registered? Yet, AKC does more for all dogs than any other organization?
Safe to say; any self respecting dog could get along quite happily without the AKC.
You could say the same about horses and the USEF, or any breed registry, for that matter. For the owners who want to show, however, it’s another story.
You could and should. The reason why humanity has this overwhelming urge to “organize” animals and parade/compete them is another story entirely. Needless to say all the animals could exist quite happily without any of those august bodies.
Along those lines, why should people own animals at all. When it comes right down to it, why do we impose our will on any animal at all, whether it be for competition, companionship, or food?
In regards to at least the first two respects, a lot of animals are better off for it. After all, nature is harsh.
Such is life. To each his own.
[QUOTE=Barnfairy;5874776]
Along those lines, why should people own animals at all. When it comes right down to it, why do we impose our will on any animal at all, whether it be for competition, companionship, or food?
In regards to at least the first two respects, a lot of animals are better off for it. After all, nature is harsh.
Such is life. To each his own.[/QUOTE]
Yep. Most domestic animals wouldn’t exist without breed registries. If they aren’t selectively bred for special purposes, they have absolutely no reason to exist and if anything it would be immoral to keep them around without making use of them. (Which is exactly what the RARAs want, total extinction of domestic/livestock breeds.) They’re not equipped to live in the wild and those that are are very good at damaging/destroying natural species.
[QUOTE=danceronice;5874836]
Yep. Most domestic animals wouldn’t exist without breed registries. If they aren’t selectively bred for special purposes, they have absolutely no reason to exist and if anything it would be immoral to keep them around without making use of them. (Which is exactly what the RARAs want, total extinction of domestic/livestock breeds.) They’re not equipped to live in the wild and those that are are very good at damaging/destroying natural species.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah. Domestic animals would not be around unless we had domesticated them. Morals really do not come in to the argument, if you have bred these animals to serve your purpose (ie domesticated them). If you stopped selective breeding and animal husbandry they probably would cease to exist. However we need most dometicated species for food. So - why do we insist on organizing and showing animals that really have no purpose other than to amuse the human race ? Is that moral ?
[QUOTE=Equibrit;5875001]
Well yeah. Domestic animals would not be around unless we had domesticated them. Morals really do not come in to the argument, if you have bred these animals to serve your purpose (ie domesticated them). If you stopped selective breeding and animal husbandry they probably would cease to exist. However we need most dometicated species for food. So - why do we insist on organizing and showing animals that really have no purpose other than to amuse the human race ? Is that moral ?[/QUOTE]
First, you may want to learn the distiction between moral and ethical.
Second, some anthropologists call humans the laughing animal, although a sense of play really applies to many other animal species, as it is a good way to learn.
Humans have evolved to do what they do because it serves a purpose, doing more than eating our domestic animals helps us get our work done with some, get pleasure and play with others, much of it in a more sophisticated way than basic pure play would be, because we are more evolved in that regard than other animals.
Playing games, some ritualistic for the species, is very common, humans are not the only animals that do that.
Those games may include anything in our environment, our domestic animals also.
Ever watch a couple of grown foxes play with a mouse?
Guess they have not heard you are not supposed to play, or play with your food, especially when it is alive.:eek:
At least humans have now evolved to have some rules, to try to protect all in the games.
We don’t generally throw enemies and/or criminals into a lion pit any more to watch them fight it out for our entertainment.
You might want to refer your instruction to the originator of said comment.
We don’t ?
http://www.community4pets.com/SitePortal/data/__petspace_write/item_ini__18609a82eb.jpg
[QUOTE=Equibrit;5875336]
You might want to refer your instruction to the originator of said comment.
We don’t ?
http://www.community4pets.com/SitePortal/data/__petspace_write/item_ini__18609a82eb.jpg[/QUOTE]
Well, not legally, not here.:no:
Yeah right - and pigs fly.
The majority of our society thinks it is. I happen to agree.
Life would not be worth living without pets.
