A Sad Week
This past week three unusually prominent people in the dog world passed away. All of them affected different areas of our ‘dog world life.’ Nonetheless they shared the same common denominator as do the rest of us. A care and concern for the dog – all dogs. Each were major successful contributors; each in his or her own way. All started out, as have most of us, as reasonably successful breeders. Jim Holt in Engies, Beverly Lehnig in Silkies and Jean Witt in Bulldogs. Each branched out in different directions in the sport. Jim toward AKC, both as a Board member and as a legislative representative for AKC throughout the country. Beverly toward judging and show development. She was the inspiration for the creation and success of the original Louisville Cluster. And Jean was one of the most prominent and sought after show supers of her day. All three had their ‘ups and downs’ with the people with whom they had the most interactions. They always fought back and landed feet first as good dog people do. None ever lost their cool and always acted like the ladies and gentleman those close to them knew them to be! All three were beloved by those with whom they had contact. They will be missed by all and by these pages, which had a close relationship with all three during at least the last 24 years.

And So It Begins
The great majority of the Board at the April meeting approved Staff’s recommendation to permit crossed or mixed breeds to participate in certain AKC events, specifically Agility, Obedience and Rally. The specifics of the program have not been totally decided, nor approved. It is, of course, interesting to note that The Kennel Club in the UK adopted these type provisions years ago. Those in the U.S. so opposed to the attempt of AKC to be progressive and to move the organization into the 21st century must admit The Kennel Club has lost not one ounce of its original tradition, nor been overcome by designer dogs as a result of these policy changes. Indeed, the fact of the matter is that The Kennel Club has had a separate registry for crossbreds for over 50 years now and still remains as independent and critical of designer dogs as does anyone connected with AKC. And as far as tradition is concerned, TKC has hardly lost any of that, nor has it violated its original mission, that’s for sure. The articulated negative positions taken by certain opponents to Staff’s proposals are, quite candidly, beneath them. The fact, of course, is that finances are not the motivating factors for those who support this program. The so-called “clout” factor in the political world and infighting anti-dog legislation are, in the opinion of these pages, the major considerations for supporting this program. In addition, of course, is the attempt to present to the American public an image of AKC’s constituency as being concerned for all dogs not just pedigree dogs. More to come on the topic for sure but don’t be fooled by David Merriam’s argument that this should be a Delegate decision and not one for the Board to make. He is taking this stance for one reason only – to see the proposal defeated. In his long and distinguished career on the Board, this is the first time, philosophically, he has taken this kind of a stance. There’s an attempt to prevent the modernization of the AKC and to encourage the elitist boutique type of thinking, which the naysayers within AKC’s constituency thrive upon. This minority must not be permitted to prevail.

The Ramp Issue
In May 2004 judges were permitted, presumably at the request of the Parent Club to judge seven breeds on a ramp. With the proviso that “in emergency situations” ramps may be used for any breed. What those emergency situations are, are left undefined in the guidelines. Since then five more breeds have been designated ‘ramp breeds’ by AKC, presumably again at the Parent Club requests. The question now arises as to whether these ramps have been put into use as a benefit for a judges’ physical ability or as a means to better examine the exhibits. Indeed there are some within the judging community who claim that the judging of some of the newly added breeds on a ramp is contrary to the original purposes of the breed. Really, a Guard dog or Herding dog on a ramp? AKC’s attitude in the matter seems to be to grant ramp approval merely on Parent Club request. They fail to find out the reason for the request. That makes no sense whatsoever lest in the future suddenly a majority of breeds all become “ramp breeds.” And whilst on the subject taken to its proper conclusion, why aren’t those ramp breeds judged on the ramp in the group, too?!

Thought For The Week
Received in the mail was the show schedule for the International All Breed Canine Association of America and Alle Rasse Gruppe in Association with the Union Cynologie International e.V. (Germany) – UCI! They list over 30 shows using both Canadian and AKC judges. Some of these shows geographically are in direct conflict with AKC shows; others indirectly compete geographically. This raises once again the issue of AKC judges using their ‘talents’ at competing organizations. The Board dropped the stipulation forbidding this at the request of certain judges’ organizations and for fear of possibly being in violation of fair trade practices. However, perhaps this idea should be reconsidered. In these days with the alleged dropping of entries at shows, should AKC judges adjudicate at non-AKC shows within 200 miles of AKC shows? There are four all-breed shows being held on May 17 and 18 by this organization, which directly conflict with AKC shows which are having problems keeping their entries up. Should AKC judges be judging at these shows? These pages think not.