|
It never thrills me to read about dogs being considered surrogate children by pet owners, but realistically it does not surprise in the extreme either. After all, how many breeders really breed for a dog's true and original function, and how many show dogs ever, even on a limited basis, have been used for that which they were originally bred? Times have changed, and society's needs and goals with them have altered considerably, and as a result, to many people dogs can become their “kids.” How to face these problems and maintain the traditions of the past, presuming they should be continued at all, is one of the major problems facing not only AKC but all animal organizations—welfare, rightists or just the poor old dog lover. New and different approaches to old and new problems not only must be devised, they must be acceptable and accepted when positive. Rejecting out of hand new ideas must be discouraged. This is difficult to do with anyone steeped in past traditions and formed philosophies. That's a thought as we enter the new year.
I was personally delighted to learn that the Board has accepted the Staff proposal to make an exemption and permit certain, albeit limited individuals applying for the first time to get an entire group. Do I think what was proposed was too restrictive? Absolutely. But have I gladly settled for what has been done? Absolutely! It's at least a move in the right direction. Of the five Board members who objected, the one that surprised me the most was the person who was denied a full group on his first shot, went to review and then got his entire group!
Here are the qualifications for the exceptional applicant to be awarded a full group, as I understand it: 1.) They must be in conformation as a breeder or exhibitor for 50 years; 2.) The person must have awarded championship points in two foreign countries whose registry is recognized by AKC; 3.) The applicant must have finished six different breed exhibits in 75 percent of the group and at least two other exhibits in the remainder of the group, and 4.) Managed a breeding program in their name or as kennel manager for five generations. How many people do you know who fall into that category.
While not a major concern, don't you really think the time has come to once again re-examine the various Group Classifications? In our canine world the classifications of breeds into Groups has basically been based on a perceived function of the exhibit. Initially there was a broad category of two Groups: Sporting, those breeds which helped man in pursuit of traditional sports, and Non-Sporting, which had clear working functions, such as herding or guarding. From time to time, we all have heard arguments that different breeds as different group concepts were developed had been put in the wrong group. The FCI's arbitrary use of 10 Groups as opposed to our now 7 groups reinforces the arbitrary nature of these classifications. Hounds are put into Scent and Sight hound Groups, Gundogs into Spaniel and Retrievers on the one hand, and Pointers and Setters on the other. Despite all this classification, a full complement of a group under FCI can be as high as 50 and as low as 20!
The fact that so many breeds are no longer used for their original functions and have been bred for the show ring instead of for work cannot be denied. Indeed, it will be interesting to see if the developments in DNA might in the future enable a distinction not just between breeds but between show and working strains of breeds. Basically, the entire reason for these breakdowns was to provide classifications in competitions when the Groups became de rigeur. Let us not forget that as recently as the late '30s not all shows had any group competition, and as recently as the '50s and '60s you never hired a judge for group evaluation only.
In any event, I wish you all a very happy and healthy holiday season, and know that come the first week in January, we'll all be “out and at 'em” with renewed enthusiasm. Happy Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and a Happy and Healthy New Year—in 2006! • |
