Daily News for the Showing Fancy

Club News

TDP Interviews Mrs. Patti Strand,

High Volume Breeders Committee Chairperson

Committee Members:  Gretchen Bernardi, secretary, Mississippi Valley Kennel Club, Steven Gladstone, Reno Kennel Club, Dr. Sophia Kaluzniacki, Akita Club of America, Lynne Myall, Seattle Kennel Club, Susan LaCroix Hamil, Shoreline Dog Fanciers of Orange County, AKC staff liaison, Robert Slay, vice president, Compliance, Carol Williamson, Houston Kennel Club, Dr. Asa Mays, Hutchinson Kennel Club, Robert Kelly, Land O' Lakes Kennel Club and Patti Strand, chairman, Dog Fanciers Association of Oregon.

TDP: Mrs. Strand, the High Volume Breeders Committee has caused a notable range of reaction within the fancy, from enthusiasm to concern. Could you provide some context or clarification of exactly what the committee is trying to do?

PS: The purpose of our committee is to have an open discussion about what AKC’s relationship should be to the large scale breeders that register dogs with AKC and to make recommendations about AKC’s current and future policies relative to them. The committee is made up of AKC board members and delegates and each brings a unique perspective and expertise to the table. In order to have that discussion, we need to engage in fact finding. This is necessary because aside from what we read, none of us has personal knowledge of what goes on in the commercial world. In order to reach good policy decisions, we need to make sure we are dealing with facts.

The name High Volume Breeders Committee was chosen because it describes the category of breeders that our inspection division oversees and thus the category our inspection policies and regulations affect. Anyone, regardless of “motive,” hobbyist-exhibitor, back yard breeder or commercial breeder is inspected if they have 7 litters or more in a year.

It is not our goal to legitimize commercial breeders as some in the fancy apparently fear. Instead we are hoping to raise the image of the entire AKC registry by assuring that we have appropriate policies and solid quality control programs in place for our entire registry. All of the members of the committee are hobby breeders who are well-entrenched in values of the hobby breeder community regarding breeding, raising and placing puppies.

Having said that, large-scale commercial breeders will exist regardless of whether AKC registers their dogs or whether they go to other registries. The demand for purebred dogs is what drives supply, not AKC’s wishes. That is to say, all the problems associated with irresponsible breeding that are currently laid at the feet of commercial breeders will still occur whether or not AKC is involved. We will still get commercially bred dogs in rescue, whether they register them with us or with one of the many new registries. The likelihood is that the number of dogs in rescue would go up, not down, if AKC was not involved. Therefore, the committee believes that AKC has a positive regulatory and educational role to play in that sector. If commercial breeders go to other registries, we lose the ability to influence them through our requirements. In that scenario, purebred dogs and puppy purchasers would be the losers because no other registry can approach the level of service, oversight or studbook accuracy that AKC provides.

The novelty of this committee is that it’s the first time in AKC’s history that we’ve attempted to deal with a controversial subject like this one in an open and public way. We won’t all hear what we expect to hear or maybe what we want to hear, but we will learn from this process and as a committee, it’s our commitment to improve AKC, not to harm it or those we consider to be our core constituents.

TDP: In looking at the issue of “high volume breeders”, we see that your committee has taken a hands-on approach, even going into the field with AKC inspectors in order to observe large scale breeding operations first hand. Your committee’s recent press release said that those visits have made it clear that the committee's recommendations will reaffirm the value of AKC papers. We would like to provide our subscribers with the Committee’s Consensus Statement:  "The High Volume Breeders' Committee believes that the leadership of the American Kennel Club serves the best interests of purebred dogs. Accordingly, in defining relationships with its registrants, the goal of the American Kennel Club is to adopt rules and standards in the best interest of purebred dogs, ensuring their well being and lineage and applying those rules and standards uniformly. This is in keeping with AKC's charter to do everything possible to advance the study, breeding, exhibiting, running and maintenance of purebred dogs."

TDP: That statement tells us a lot but what makes the work of this committee so unique and so sensitive?

AKC’s Charter, our rules, our ethics and our culture – nearly everything we do at AKC is anchored in our founding traditions and aimed at supporting the responsible hobby breeders in our registry who carry these traditions forward. That is how it should be, but because of that, we tend to forget that breed enthusiasts represent only 8-10% of the registry. The fact is, whether we want to talk about it or not, breeders who do not participate in the sport make up the overwhelming majority of our registry, which includes commercial breeders. What should our relationship be to the other 90% in terms of service, education and support? Commercial breeders have been part of our registry since the pet trade first exploded onto the scene in the 1950’s. Back then, AKC was the only game in town and it was natural that anyone breeding dogs would register with AKC.

I suppose that until problems associated with inhumane and irresponsible breeding practices became social issues, AKC didn’t pay much attention to the commercial pet industry. But when issues such as puppy mills, overpopulation, bogus registration papers and genetic diseases started making headlines, AKC recognized the need to engage these issues. From the late 1980’s forward the AKC began passing new policies and instituting new procedures to deal with them.

Before we started sending personnel into the field to inspect records, the AKC was somewhat insulated from the practices and conditions in the worst breeding facilities. AKC didn’t come in contact with them. Historically, we defined our charter pretty narrowly. Basically we saw ourselves as a dog show sanctioning body with a studbook. With that self-image, it made sense to limit our inspections to verifying registration records and to leave abuse cases to duly constituted animal control agencies, humane societies and the USDA; the organizations that had jurisdiction for enforcing local cruelty statutes and the Federal Animal Welfare Act. The AKC didn’t consider itself empowered to make official judgements about animal abuse and hesitated to take action against perceived abuse situations until a person was convicted. In theory this made total sense. The practical problem with this approach, however, was that it didn’t work. Typically, the agencies charged with enforcement didn’t follow up on our complaints. Agencies had their own priorities. Our inspectors would inspect, file complaints with enforcement authorities, and then inspect these same kennels a year or two later, only to find that they were still in business and still deplorable.

One example of this Catch 22 in action was a “puppy mill” expose in the early 1990’s featuring what had to be one of the worst kennels in history. The crowning blow came when the TV commentator pointed out that this breeder had just passed an AKC inspection a week or two before. It had been inspected but because we only checked records back then and because they were in order, AKC couldn’t take action until the owner was formally tagged with cruelty. The bottom line is that AKC record inspection procedures put AKC inspectors in the field where they could clearly observe serious cases of animal abuse, but did not empower them to do anything about it until an outside agency took action. Commonly, not just in this case, it wasn’t until after the TV shows aired that the agencies moved in and prosecuted. Oftentimes, the same agencies that failed to respond in the first place laid the blame at AKC’s feet.

AKC still has no police powers, but we can remove registration privileges, which gets bad actors out of the AKC registry and lowers the value conveyed by AKC registration papers to their puppies. We also use the inspection process as an opportunity to educate breeders about what they need to do to improve. We still call local authorities about abusive conditions so that they can help the animals, but if they don’t follow through at least we have removed the imprimatur of AKC and taken our stand against registering dogs that come from such kennels.

TDP: Could it be that the "Care and Condition Policy" established in 1996 has been responsible for a lot of the puppy mills leaving the AKC system and forming their own registries?

PS: “It is true that we have suspended a fair number of breeders because they failed to come up to our standards. But no, most of the large commercial breeders left voluntarily because they believed that AKC wanted nothing to do with them except their money. When we passed the Frequently Used Sire DNA policy, some of them wrote to us saying that they were in favor of the program but wanted an opportunity to discuss it with AKC. They wanted assurances that our objective was to protect the registry, that it was not just a good riddance policy aimed at them. I’m not sure we ever responded to them. I’m not sure we had the answer. With some members of our constituency so rabidly opposed to even talking to the commercial breeders in our registry, it has been impossible to converse with them in a professional way without causing an uproar. So to answer your question more specifically, many of them left because at the same time that we were adding significant new regulations to their world, we didn’t communicate with them.

But the big picture result of AKC’s inspection programs, suspensions and voluntary departures is that the large scale breeders remaining in AKC’s registry have a vastly improved profile over the ones who were there 5-10 years ago. According to our inspectors, there is no comparison between the commercial breeders we have today and the ones we had in the early 90’s. Many of the breeders who remained with AKC worked hard to comply with our programs every step of the way. And because of that, it is an honest statement to say that AKC has been a major force for positive change in the entire commercial dog-breeding world. Where animal abuse was the issue, the breeders we drove away didn't belong in the AKC system in the first place. No one regrets their departure. If breeders cannot or choose not to meet the standards of care we require, their activities are not consistent with AKC’s charter and they shouldn’t be in our system. How AKC should relate to people who’ve jumped through every hoop and vastly improved their care of purebred dogs in the process is a little harder question to answer. It’s the question this committee is considering.