Stats on AKC Registrations -- Now and Then

Not too long ago I read an article authored by Bo Bengtson titled "Best in Show Winners" in which he cited statistics for dog registrations after World War II. His thorough research revealed that by the end of 1949, or more to the point that decade, there were more than 240,000 AKC registered dogs in the United States. Upon reading this, I thought back to my earlier Canine Chronicle articles in which I too had performed extensive research on dog registrations as well as AKC dog event statistics from year to year.

This number of 240,000 struck me as intriguing, and I immediately started looking back through my older articles. And there I found what I needed. In my 2013 article "Metamorphosis", I had published an extrapolation from data issued by the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in the AKC Annual Reports as well as in the 2013 Canine Chronicle Annual Issue, "The Big Picture."

In 2010, there were 563,611 purebred dog registrations. This number represented a staggering 63% decrease in annual dog registrations from the pinnacle of AKC registrations during 1992 with approximately 1.5 million dogs recorded. Now, because AKC did not publish dog registrations in 2011 nor going forward, we are left only to extrapolate. While using the last known AKC registration data released, the CFO cited that, in 2011, registration revenue was $2 million or 8% less than 2010. Reported revenue is for both dog and litter registrations combined. Venturing forward, if the going rate was $30.00, per a single dog registration, then theoretically, registrations were down in 2011 by approximately 66,666 dogs or about 496,945 registered. Even if one does not use the single dog registration fees and decides to use litter registration fees -- the revenue numbers are close because each litter is $25.00 plus $2.00 per puppy.

From there, the CFO reported that 2012 registration revenue was down 10.6% from 2011. This way, using the same logic and approximations only, there may have been approximately 444,269 purebred dogs registered in 2012. Now, in 2013, AKC reported that there was an upward tick of 5% in registration revenue which is always welcome but worrisome as to where exactly this came from -- remember the high volume breeders fiasco -- so, we can estimate that there were 466,482 dogs registered in 2013.

2014 registration revenue was nearly identical to 2013 with $15,000 in revenue shortage from the year prior, or I estimate about 500 fewer dogs. What I do love about these reports is that the 2015 Annual Report stated that dog registration revenue was up 2% than the year prior but, this number is still less than 2009 which the AKC fails to mention. Going by AKC's revenue reports of the 2% increase over the prior year, I can only approximate that this means there were 18,500 more dogs or about 484,482 dogs registered in 2015.

If any of these numbers are to be believed, then the American Kennel Club purebred dog registrations are only twice what they were in 1949. Certainly, not a place that I think the AKC envisaged themselves to be in 67 years later.

View fullsize

Purebred Dog Breeding Practices

A friend of mine sent me a recent article from the Albany Times Union Newspaper titled, "Regulate Breeding Practices." For convenience sake, I scanned and included the article below. Presumably, this article is just one of the thousands that appear on a regular basis throughout the country damning purebred dogs. Most likely many dog fanciers dismissed it accordingly, as it is by yet another misinformed animal rights lackey bloviating about purebred dogs.

However, still, this journalist took it a step further by hopscotching amongst and weaving her various claims inducing Readers to believe that purebred dog genetic homogeneity is to blame for both the increase in the population of animal shelters and the euthanasia rates rising in her region. Wow, what a stretch of the imagination! So, why am I dignifying this particular column with commentary? Well, this article does touch upon several topics I have written about and published in the Canine Chronicle over these past years. One of which is a mighty issue, genetic isolationism, and was the theme of my article, "Stud Books," published October 2013.

First, though, I am not bestowing any plausibility on this columnist's piece as her manufactured claims include demands for more government oversight via legislation to regulate a purebred dog's appearance. In brief, she does not know what she is talking about, and clearly lacks credibility in this arena as her declarations are absurd. It also amazes me that the Editor cleared this piece for print. The article casts wildly from one impeachment to another, such as Westminster is merchandising purebred dogs, and asserting that a lack of legislative oversight is responsible for purebred dogs physical and behavioral health conditions. These samples are interwoven with her claim that animal shelters cannot keep up with the flow of dogs because "they are not backed by sensible rules." It is a mystery as to what rules she is alluding to but this plea reveals that she is likely uneducated that animal shelters are shipping dogs cross-country to fill vacancies in other regional animal shelters across the nation. Indeed, I have written on animal shelter statistics and the urban legends related to such in an article published in 2013, titled "Reducing Animal Overpopulation."

However, let's get back to the meatier topic, genetic isolationism, that I addressed at length in my previously mentioned article, "Stud Books." Go ahead and read the article again as it tackles a subject that may be unimaginable to many purebred dog hobbyists-- opening a breed stud book to incorporate cross breeding to a nearest relative(s) to save high-risk breeds. I wrote:

Our society is advancing through the early twenty-first century, making remarkable progress in innumerable fields of research and development, innovations, and technologies. We, as a society embrace these changes. We most certainly look forward to, even expect and demand the newest inventions, intelligence and capabilities.

As a paradox, though, dog fanciers convictions about canine husbandry, the mating, and production of offspring appear, on the whole, not to have evolved. Instead, over the years, dog fanciers way of thinking has, in certain cases, retrogressed. Our formed judgments, many of which are not necessarily based on facts, lack maturity and growth. Conventionally, we doggedly hold on to old beliefs that a closed stud book is the only guarantee to maintain purity and perpetuation of our breeds as they document parentage and pedigrees. The sanctity of the stud book is likened to that of a Bible. The truth that so many refuse to accept or admit is that a Stud Book is simply genetic isolationism, warts and all. Suggestions of crossbreeding or backcrossing go against everything we ‘know’ about purebred dogs and selective breeding. This is because the process of line and inbreeding to inherit genes, fix qualities and characteristics of a breed’s progenitors or foundation stock has been a consecrated practice for more than several centuries now. Modern breeding procedures and recording the descent of domesticated animals that were linked to a public registry developed during the eighteenth century, in the early parts of Britain’s Industrial Revolution. Once ingrained in canine societal doctrine, it has become nearly impossible to pry such tenet loose.

Someone needs to ask the big question so, here I go. If we do not consider opening stud books, now, for high-risk breeds suffering genetic problems as a result of very limited gene pool diversity, then when will we? Do we just kick the can down the road making it someone else's problem? Will it have to wait another twenty-five years when most of us are no longer around? What about in fifty years? Most likely, those breeds most affected now will be extinct by then. What about AKC's role in this controversy? As I have already detailed in "Stud Books," AKC has the final word on opening a breed stud book. Hypothetically, if a Parent Club application is denied, do we continue to permit a small, elite group of AKC elderly statesmen to determine the sanctity and justification of the Parent Club's petition to open their Stud Book to improve its breed welfare by limiting or even eliminating the expression of deadly health issues?  

For the record, I am not advocating opening every breed’s Stud Book, but there are compelling arguments for some breeds who are liable to suffer greatly from the Founder Effect, Population Bottleneck, and Inbreeding Depression and the increase and expression of deadly health issues. From "Stud Books":

Let us face facts. Human beings by nature are reluctant to change, preferring to stay with the familiar. This truth never ceases to amaze me and in my opinion, there are few areas of society where it is more prominent than in our dog world, particularly canine husbandry. Even while faced with terminal health issues affecting 15%, 20%, possibly 30% of the breed population, fanciers object to the mere notion of opening a Stud Book to incorporate genetic material from nearest relatives. It is both fascinating and sad, all at the same time.

We should examine and weigh the reality and span of most breed's closed gene pools today. Irish Wolfhounds, for example, having been resuscitated in the late 1800s have already experienced, to date, several genetic bottlenecks. Read my article "COI: Dog Genes Decoded." Moreover, the wolfhound population has grown exponentially since about 1965, which hides this breed’s actual inbreeding. The hound's actual Coefficient of Inbreeding (COI) calculation is not complete unless it is reviewed all the way back to Captain Graham, considered the Patriarch of our breed. Above all, according to the rigorous research of Dr. Silvan Urfer, he has yet to find an Irish Wolfhound with a complete pedigree whose inbreeding coefficient is below 30%, nor does he believe this is possible. A baseline of 30 percent and higher in just a blip of time -- you do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this COI percentage is increasing, especially if you knew that this hound breed is undergoing a modern population bottleneck placing the breed at even higher risk.

The evolution of our mindset is both necessary and practical to assure the future for our breeds. It may very well be that those who refuse to consider or accept alternatives are guilty of enriching themselves while risking the preservation of our breed(s).

View fullsize

View fullsize

Re-posting my blog post "Happy Holidays & Westminster Musings"

As I was performing chores this morning my thoughts turned to the upcoming Westminster Kennel Club dog show on February 15-16, 2016. For me, it is disappointing that another year has rolled past without what I feel are necessary changes to the membership roles of the Westminster Kennel Club. If you are unaware, this venerable club is Men Only -- NO WOMEN ALLOWED AS MEMBERS. Yes, you read that correctly. This dog club is not the only holdover in the United States, but certainly is one of the most prestigious. Here is an excerpt from my article I penned in March 2015, titled "Musings".

This august organization’s ranks do not include women. Females are not allowed to be members, yet this kennel club maintains that it is “America’s Dog Show.” How ironic that this revered institution claims such lofty, patriotic status while simultaneously denying our sports gender majority — women — membership in their club. Consider these profound statistics from the 2002 Delegates Meeting Minutes revealing that 75 percent of AKC breeders and 72 percent of puppy buyers are women. Long ago, the American Kennel Club established that breeders, ergo women, are the backbone of the sport, but women are not welcome as members of several kennel clubs — only their hard earned cash...

That the majority of AKC dog show participants are of the female gender and are, still, taking a backseat role in the governance of this sport in the year 2016 should be alarming. That in the year of 2016, while humanity is pursuing deep space exploration and a colonization of Mars in the advent of a successful, historic landing of reusable rockets back on Earth, the Westminster Kennel Club still clings to its antediluvian traditions of banning women from membership. 

How can such an affront towards women, our sport’s nucleus group, continue unchallenged and be celebrated annually? WKC professes to crown “America’s Dog” just so long as women who comprise 50.8 percent of the American population “know their place”. The Westminster Kennel Club is a gilded cage enclosing their male membership within the comfortable confines of antiquated conventions. Purposefully an Old Boys Club, they celebrate and preserve their gender bias practices. Insofar as women, well, women are only necessary and welcome when the club needs exhibitor participation.   

While we celebrate the holidays and give thanks for all that we have in our lives -- ponder on this contradiction and dismissal of women's equality and our rights. Consider that if women took a stand against such blatant gender discrimination, we can make an enormous difference. We did so with the women's suffrage movement resulting in the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution ratification in 1920 guaranteeing all American women the right to vote. In the sport of purebred dogs, it is unjust that women have been continuously denied administerial duties of the American Kennel Club Board of Directors. An excerpt from my investigative article "Women in Leadership Roles at the AKC" follows:

Let us consider first the little known historic, consequential and stunning fact that AKC did not admit women to serve in the Delegate body until the 1970s. On March 12, 1974, a motion to allow women to serve as delegates was seconded and carried by a vote of 180 to 7.

Furthermore, that the administrative part of the AKC has just one female President over its entire lifespan since its formation in 1884, and to date, there has never been a female Chairwoman of the Board of Directors is simply a travesty of equality. 

Before I sign off from this post, I also would like to remind people of what had transpired during the 2015 WKC dog show. Another excerpt from my "Musings" article. 

Yet, unfairness or bias was not limited to the organization’s constituency roll. A particular incident took place during breed judging that reinforces the dog show community’s prevailing, cynical state of mind. No wonder fanciers are disgusted, throwing their hands up in exasperation. Actions that did not merely give an impression of but created a dense cloud of impropriety.

The ethical transgression transpired when a Judge presided over a Best of Breed assignment which included a dog this judge very recently used at stud. The litter sired by this entry reportedly was whelped already. Destroying any sense of impartiality, the judge proceeded to award this stud dog Best of Breed over the competition and also awarded Select Dog to yet another dog they previously used at stud as well! The basis of sportsmanlike competition is to adjudicate with neutrality, imputing ethics, honesty, and common sense. Instead, this incident exposes a lack of common decency and an illiteracy for the Rules, Policies and Guidelines for dog show judges.

This is an unambiguous example of Conflict of Interest. AKC dog show judges are responsible for situations such as this that require the judge to excuse an exhibitor for causes even known only to them and they were obligated to recognize that a conflict of interest existed. As for the exhibitor(s) who intentionally exhibited their stud dog under this particular judge? The responsibility for entering dogs that are ineligible or create a conflict of interest lies with the exhibitors, so says the AKC Rules & Policies Handbook for Conformation Judges. In fact, the Handbook states that awards won may be canceled, and exhibitors with repeat violations may receive reprimands or fines. Further exacerbating the situation, this competition was video streamed live throughout the world! A great many breed fanciers watched in disgust as the judging unraveled. It most likely has not nor perhaps ever will dawn on the judge that they would have gained a great deal of respect, if, in fact, they had exercised their right and performed their duty by excusing the violating exhibitors from the show ring. However, it is too late as now their repute is justifiably and seriously challenged.

As for the other exhibitor(s) competing in the show ring, in my opinion, they should have filed a complaint without delay with the AKC Executive Field Representative who was visibly in attendance. Until our sport participants slip their binds of submissiveness and possess the courage of one's convictions, violator's such as these described will continue to bully, unhindered. Here are links to both of my articles discussed above.

Women in Leadership Roles at AKC      Musings