By Eric Aldrich
There’s nothing quite like it anywhere else in the world: a system that keeps wildlife as a public and sustainable resource, scientifically managed by professionals – thanks to hunters and hunting.
Hunting, as some folks tend to forget, has been a human activity for a long, long time…as long as there have been humans.
But something happened to hunting around the late 1800s and early 1900s that changed it forever. It became regulated. The relatively new profession of wildlife biology supported those regulations with science. License fees and excise taxes—paid for by hunters themselves – supported the enforcement and the science. Money was also set aside to protect habitat, conduct research and teach hunters to be safe and ethical. At the time, those visionary moves were essential because of the pathetic status of North America’s wildlife population. In Delaware, white-tailed deer, beavers, wild turkeys and many waterfowl species were few in number at the beginning of the 20th century. Now, throughout the continent, many species are back for all to enjoy, not just hunters.
Why Do We Mention This?
Because sometimes we forget. Sometimes, we get so accustomed to the way things are that we forget how they used to be…and what it’s like elsewhere in the world.
There’s a fellow in Canada’s Alberta Province who wants to remind us that hunting is THE reason for conservations’ success in North America. He’s Valerius Geist, a German native who immigrated to Canada as a young teenager in 1953 and began hunting two years later.
Geist studied wildlife biology, earned a doctorate in animal behavior and wrote several books on big game mammals of North America. By the 1980’s he could see that his own co0llegues (wildlife biologists for the most part) had forgotten what their predecessors had built: a phenomenal environmental success story, the restoration of wildlife in North America.
“When I came over here from Germany, it was a real eye-opener,” Geist said. “Hunting is different. Conservation is different. The whole model here that ties hunting and conservation together is unique and very successful.”
It’s called the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation. There’s nothing like it elsewhere in the world. And hunters – whether they’re in Delaware, Alberta or Oregon – are the system’s backbone of success.
To remind biologists (and anyone else) about why this model is unique and successful, Geist and two colleagues presented a paper at a recent North American Wildlife Management and Research conference. The other co-authors are Shane P. Mahoney of the Newfoundland and Labrador Wildlife Division, and John F. Organ, with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Hadley, Mass.
“We wrote this for the simple reason that what is so obvious has been forgotten by many people,” Geist said. “Even our own colleagues had forgotten the history of the wildlife conservation movement here.”
What is the North American Model?
The North American model has endured despite widespread changes in society, technology and in the landscape of the continent. It has become a “system of sustainable development of a renewable natural resource that is without parallel in the world,” Geist said. Furthermore, it has benefited not only huntable wildlife, countless species of songbirds and shorebirds are protected, becoming specifically designated as nongame species. Seven features make the North American model distinct.
1. Wildlife is a public resource. This is a notion that dates back to the Bible, in legal codes of ancient Rome. A wild animal was owned by no one until it was physically possessed. The concept was solidified in the Unites States to the extent that wildlife was held in common ownership by the state for the benefit of all people. And it has withstood tests in the U.S. courts.
2. Markets for trade in wildlife were eliminated. Making it illegal to buy and sell meat and parts of game and nongame species removed a huge threat to sustaining those species. At the same time, however, allowing markets for furbearers has helped managed them as a sustainable resource, in conjunction with restrictive regulations, and advocacy of trappers for land stewardship.
3. Allocation of wildlife by law. States allocate surplus wildlife by law, not by market pressures, land ownership or special privilege. The public gets a say in how wildlife resources are allocated; the process fosters public involvement in managing wildlife
4. Wildlife can only be killed for a legitimate purpose. The law prohibits killing wildlife for frivolous reasons. Under the “Code of the Sportsman,” hunters use as much as they can. The harvest of wild animals must serve a practical purpose if society is going to accept it.
5. Wildlife species are considered an international resource. Some species, such as migratory birds, transcend boundaries and one country’s management can easily affect a species in another country.
6. Science is the proper tool for discharge of wildlife policy. This is a key concept of wildlife management. It has its roots in the Prussian Forestry System, arising in this country as the basis of wildlife management by the convincing forcefulness of Theodore Roosevelt and Aldo Leopold. By spawning the profession of wildlife management, North Americans were decades ahead of their global neighbors.
In the United States, the concept of science-based, professional wildlife management really took off with passage of the 1937 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program. In this phenomenally successful program, excise taxes on hunting equipment are returned to states for wildlife management, restoration and research, along with hunter education.
According to Greg Moore, a lifelong hunter and now Delaware’s acting wildlife administrator, those dollars go a long way. “Because of sport hunting and the Federal Aid dollars that it provides to the Division of Fish and Wildlife, we can conduct scientific, professional management that benefits all species, not just game or nongame,” he said.
7. The democracy of hunting. In the European model, wildlife was allocated by
land ownership and privilege. In North America, anyone in good standing can
participate.
Hunting is the Glue
“In much of Europe, hunting is landowner-based,” Geist said. “Areas are essentially leased for hunting, and hunters are responsible for the management of species on that piece of land. It’s an elitist system.”
What developed in North America is what Geist calls a populous system. “It appeals to everyone, blue-collar and white-collar alike” and was championed by the likes of Theodore Roosevelt.
In Africa today, efforts to stop poaching have led to programs that direct economic returns on hunting fees to rural indigenous people. Now, they have a reason to stop poachers.
According to Geist, the glue that holds this unique North American model of wildlife conservation together is hunting.
Wildlife should be a publicly-owned resource not only as a food source but also to help foster the American “pioneer spirit,” he said. “The ability for all North Americans to be able to cultivate these pioneer skills through sport hunting meant that there could be no private ownership outside of the public trust.”
Threatening that public trust were the markets for wildlife that were driving some species toward extinction. The strongest proponents for eliminating market hunting were the organized sportsmen and sporting publications. The Boone and Crockett Club and Forest and Stream magazine rallied against market hunting, resulting in many state and federal laws ending the practice.
Without the markets, there were game surpluses which became allocated by law. Those allocations should not jeopardize the sustainability of wildlife for future generations. Sportsmen became the biggest advocates of maintaining sustainable numbers of wildlife.
As ranching increased as a way of getting meat to the table, hunting strictly for food became less important. Thus grew hunting’s emphasis on the chase, not the kill, while still retaining the need to use as much of the wildlife killed as possible.
Would Wildlife Survive Without Hunting?
One of the biggest threats to North America’s model of wildlife conservation is efforts to commercialize wildlife. Those efforts take many forms, notably game ranching and fee hunting, according to Geist.
Since the days when North America’s approach to wildlife conservation was developed, populations of many wildlife species (mostly game species) have gone from seriously in trouble to abundant. Now some species, such as white-tailed deer, are seriously in trouble of becoming too abundant in places. Deer are eating up farm crops and suburban gardens and shrubs all over the Eastern seaboard.
“As certain species become common enough to cause conflict with humans, will humans value them less?” wonders Geist.
Actually, hunters could play a key role in alleviating such conflicts. They can help keep wild animals wild. As fish and wildlife agencies figure out what to do about local over-abundances of deer, they can look to the public – hunters – as part of the solution.
“This may have to be combined with other management alternatives,” says Geist, “but hunting and its advocates can again be the force that ensures sustainable wildlife resources are a priority for society.”
Formerly with the New Hampshire Department of Fish and Game, Eric Aldrich is now Communications Director for the N.H. Chapter of the Nature Conservancy.
Contributions of Hunters by the Numbers
? Total U.S. retail purchases by hunters in one year (1996) on hunting equipment, travel, license fees, etc.: $1.725 billion. Total economic impact to U.S. of $60.9 billion and 704,601 jobs.
? Total retail purchases by Delaware hunters in one year (1996) on hunting equipment, travel, license fees, etc.: $28 million. Total economic impact to Delaware of $148.7 million and 1,607 jobs.
? Total U.S. hunters’ annual dues to conservation and related organizations, such as Ducks Unlimited: $296 million.
? Total in resident and nonresident hunting license fees and permits to the Division of Fish and Wildlife in fiscal year 2002: $569,000
? Total amount of Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration to the Division in fiscal year 2002 (from excise taxes paid by hunters/manufacturers on hunting equipment and distributed to states: $1.24 million
? Division of Fish and Wildlife management areas permanently protected for wildlife and recreation by Federal Aid dollars and hunting license revenues: 15 areas and 56,000 acres.
? Partial list of species restored to Delaware, thanks to license fees, Federal Aid dollars and good management: wild turkey, white-tailed deer, many waterfowl species. Many nongame species also have benefited from habitat protected by hunters’ dollars.
Hunting Ethics
In 1994, just 106 years after Theodore Roosevelt and George Bird Grinnell created the idea of fair chase, helping to change free-for-all market and subsistence hunting into a regular sport, “Teddy Roosevelt and the Hunting Heritage” author Jim Posewitz, published Beyond Fair Chase.
The former wildlife biologist and one of the founders of Orion, The Hunter’s Institute, a Montana organization devoted to fostering ethical hunting, reiterated what many had said before – stalk close, shoot well, make every effort to track wounded game – but also added a new dimension to the notion of respect for wildlife. Posewitz said trophy scoring and big-game contests sometimes crossed the line of proper ethical practice. “Trying to take a trophy to get your name in a record book,” he wrote, “is taking a fine animal for the wrong reason.” Downplaying the idea of competition in hunting, whether for money or ego. Beyond Fair Chase is now used across North America in hunter-education classes.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
North America’s WILDLIFE Conservation Model
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Unleaded Please - California Condor Crazyness
The lead-free ammunition regs in the CA condor zone may be a bad joke poorly told...
But it is the law of the land. And because it has plenty of confusing conditions and exceptions, good and well intentioned folks are bound to get hurt by it. As they say,
It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be the law...
Finding a better example of this cliche put into practice would difficult. From both the conservation and enforcement perspectives, this law doesn't make any sense. But as such I thought I should post these videos which help to explain compliance in plain English.
Part Two
But it is the law of the land. And because it has plenty of confusing conditions and exceptions, good and well intentioned folks are bound to get hurt by it. As they say,
It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to be the law...
Finding a better example of this cliche put into practice would difficult. From both the conservation and enforcement perspectives, this law doesn't make any sense. But as such I thought I should post these videos which help to explain compliance in plain English.
Part One
Part Two
Friday, December 12, 2008
Catahoula or Leopard, Cur Dog or Hound
For those not clear on the what the Catahoula is, and what the Leopard is, the ambiguity stops here.
Few things cause more confusion to the lay person then trying to understand if these are the same dog or two different dogs, and either way, what exactly is/are it/they?
A quick look to your right and you might notice that Catahoulas are in the "Wagon Hound" category, while the American Leopard is in the "Treeing Hound" Category. This is because in real 'every-day' 'on-the-ground-use', Catahoulas are spending more time in pursuit of big game then they are droving cattle. They are, in my opinion, much more accurately described (both historically and in modern use) as Wagon Hounds, then true pastoral dogs.
To understand the distinctions, one needs to understand the UKC group structure. As it relates to these breeds, you need to understand the following:
UKC HERDING GROUP - No sub-groups
UKC SCENTHOUND GROUP - Two sub-groups
-TREE HOUNDS - Two sub-groups
---COONHOUNDS
---CUR DOGS
-TRAILING HOUNDS
As of the 1994 revision the LOUISIANA CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG was recognized by the United Kennel Club (the most recognizable -working- dog registry in the US) in the HERDING group.
The LEOPARD CUR was recognized by UKC on November 1, 1998. In recognition that the breed was becoming less of a Cur Dog and had essentially become a open trailing Treeing Hound... in no small part because Leopard Cur owners wanted to compete with the Coon Hounds (and not the Curs Dogs) at UKC night hunts, the name was changed to AMERICAN LEOPARD HOUND on May 1, 2008. When this happened, Leopards were moved from the Cur Dogs to the Coonhounds.
So as it stands as of today's date - Dec 12 2008 - these are two very distinct, very different breeds. Catahoulas are UKC Herding dogs, and the Leopards are UKC Coonhounds.
See http://www.catahoularescue.com/ to get one of your own!
Few things cause more confusion to the lay person then trying to understand if these are the same dog or two different dogs, and either way, what exactly is/are it/they?
A quick look to your right and you might notice that Catahoulas are in the "Wagon Hound" category, while the American Leopard is in the "Treeing Hound" Category. This is because in real 'every-day' 'on-the-ground-use', Catahoulas are spending more time in pursuit of big game then they are droving cattle. They are, in my opinion, much more accurately described (both historically and in modern use) as Wagon Hounds, then true pastoral dogs.
To understand the distinctions, one needs to understand the UKC group structure. As it relates to these breeds, you need to understand the following:
UKC HERDING GROUP - No sub-groups
UKC SCENTHOUND GROUP - Two sub-groups
-TREE HOUNDS - Two sub-groups
---COONHOUNDS
---CUR DOGS
-TRAILING HOUNDS
As of the 1994 revision the LOUISIANA CATAHOULA LEOPARD DOG was recognized by the United Kennel Club (the most recognizable -working- dog registry in the US) in the HERDING group.
The LEOPARD CUR was recognized by UKC on November 1, 1998. In recognition that the breed was becoming less of a Cur Dog and had essentially become a open trailing Treeing Hound... in no small part because Leopard Cur owners wanted to compete with the Coon Hounds (and not the Curs Dogs) at UKC night hunts, the name was changed to AMERICAN LEOPARD HOUND on May 1, 2008. When this happened, Leopards were moved from the Cur Dogs to the Coonhounds.
So as it stands as of today's date - Dec 12 2008 - these are two very distinct, very different breeds. Catahoulas are UKC Herding dogs, and the Leopards are UKC Coonhounds.
See http://www.catahoularescue.com/ to get one of your own!
Choose your master AKC
This is a reprint from THE DOG PRESS, An Open Letter to The AKC Board Chairman. BOTTOM LINE questions On Moral Integrity, Financial Future, by David Arthur Dec 08
I don't agree with everything Mr Arthur writes to Mr Menaker here (ex. the admitance of unregistered dogs - I think there is a time and place and the AKC should expand it) but I agree with the vast majority of it. The letter is very long, but worth the read.
Dear Mr. Menaker,
In the September 2008 Chairman's Report, you expressed concern about losing revenue to the “retail sector”. I understand the American Kennel Club (AKC), like any organization, can not sustain itself while hemorrhaging red ink. But your anxiety and resulting philosophy concerns me greatly. I can’t imagine you are unaware that responsible breeders never sell to retail outlets, even though they know well that the returns on any given litter will never exceed the expenditures to produce it. Yet they continue out of pure devotion to their breeds. The AKC, however, has seemingly reduced the fancy to little more than figures on a balance sheet.
I’m sure you realize that producing quality puppies and chasing the marketplace are not parallel directions, but rather, are diametrically opposed concepts; one based on increasing quality, the other on revenues from greater volumes of inferior goods.
We all recognize fuel costs have soared, food prices have all but leapt off of the countertop, and the whole economy is sluggish at best. But increasing revenue is not the only option, as most financial challenges are best met by cutting expenditures and offering a better product. Sadly, you seem to be seeking the former with no reliance on the latter.
As you say, “The declining registrations and associated core revenues, if allowed to continue, will fundamentally change our organization going forward. Make no mistake, the very future of the AKC and our sport is at risk.” Loss of income and core revenues means only one thing; your customers are finding a better product elsewhere. You state that the AKC was a premiere brand. Courting the commercial market does nothing to restore your brand’s value. Walmart has an enormous market share but you’ll never find Rolex watches at their jewelry counter. If you want to restore the AKC’s reputation, you must
support superlative breeders instead of chasing the industrial market. Quality breeders will never risk associating their reputation with the likes of Petland.
At one point, you state, “there are at least 30 All-Breed registries in addition to the AKC, whose combined registration numbers exceed that of the AKC.”
The truth is, there is only one other credible all-breed “registry” in the U.S., the United Kennel Club (UKC). The others are pseudo-registries, with nothing to
offer reputable breeders. Becoming like them only cheapens the AKC’s value. (See “The Problem With Papers”.)
Yet you persist, “If this trend is allowed to continue, if we do not stop the hemorrhaging of declining registrations, we will no longer be the premier registry in the world, let alone in our country.” I’m afraid you have misunderstood the public’s desire for the quality superior breeders produce. If by “premiere” you mean being the biggest registry in the world, then “hemorrhaging” is a problem. If however “premiere registry” means being the world’s best, then the obvious conclusion is that you can never also be the biggest. It’s a matter of quantity or quality. In this market, you’re either the biggest or the best. That, sir, is your true dilemma.
You said “Management has been directed by the Board to aggressively pursue all dogs eligible for AKC registration. We intend to reach out, communicate, and educate those in the retail sector as to why an AKC puppy is the gold standard and why they should be registered with American Kennel Club. In achieving this objective we intend to continue to ‘raise the bar’ by vigorously enforcing our
policies. This action is essential to protect and preserve our leadership.”
This is in fact, a complete oxymoron! The “retail sector” is the puppy mill industry, noted for the least quality possible. You intend to educate THEM? I believe you have tried ever since you became CEO but they have no interest in
AKC’s “gold standard”, which is bronze at best because of your unfettered efforts to cater to them. They will never replace quantity with quality, and in the meantime you have denigrated the work done by reputable breeders. As you seek to enfold the pet production market, it signals the public and the dedicated breeder that the AKC is not the Neiman Marcus of our sport, but rather the canine version of K-Mart.
You can’t “raise the bar” by lowering it! AKC tried to woo back the industrial pet market with special inducements not offered to show breeders. That too backfired. The millers didn’t need AKC but your actions so soured premier breeders that many left the sport. I know it is a quandary for AKC. If you enforce policy and uphold commitment to the original AKC mission statement,
registrations would reduce even more as many retail breeders would not be able or willing to meet your requirements. But that also identifies the heart of the
issue. Will AKC be the biggest or the best?
You assert “As the pre-eminent and only not-for-profit registry, we live our values everyday with our commitment to the integrity of our registry and the excellence of our inspections program.” It appears that you intend to
register any dog that the owner states has an unbroken line to registered ancestors. Where is the assurance of integrity in that? Can you not see that once pups are placed, even reputable breeders have little to no control over their future propagation? More than just a few of us have experienced situations where someone has violated a contract, took their AKC registered dog(s) – including those with limited registration – and bred them in a corrupt manner or registered them with a puppy mill registry. Some even switch sires or add ghost puppies to litter paperwork. I know DNA profiling was meant to prevent that, but it occurs regardless. And once you open the door to puppies from unregistered litters, then both Limited Registration and DNA profiling become meaningless, along with the AKC stud books.
The new registration service offers absolutely nothing to your core breeders. Instead, it drives us away from AKC. Do you then plan to replace us with the people who bought pet puppies with no papers? You will undermine the only thing that makes an AKC registration worthwhile, the purity if your studbooks, and that is the unmitigated surrender of your integrity, and ours.
As to requiring adherence to your “compliance and inspection programs”, again, you speak of elevating the quality of AKC puppies. You do realize if you truly held to a strict quality assurance program, you would lessen the number of registrations? Again, it’s either quantity or quality. You can not escape this principle. Your largest producers will deem AKC too restrictive and be unwilling
to submit to your inspections. You are an astute businessman. So let me ask you. Will they loose money by lessening output or spend money to raise the level of
care?
I doubt you will be able to suddenly turn the commercial market into a front from which happy and healthy show quality puppies spring forth. The commercial market that you seek doesn’t care about puppy socialization, genetic health screening, exercise requirements, grooming, and least of all, adherence to breed standards. It cares only about hard, cold cash, which is alarmingly close to the
core value that seems to fuel your most recent efforts.
Then you assert, “The American Kennel Club provides what no other registry provides" I’m not sure what the AKC is able to give us that the UKC can’t provide. You speak as if the AKC is the only venue exhibitors have. Granted, an
AKC championship still outshines nearly all other titles. But in most breeds it is also less difficult to obtain than a UKC Grand Championship, and the UKC shows are more fun to attend. They are far less stressful, wonderfully informal,
have no professional handlers, and use many of the same judges as does the AKC. UKC also offers something your registry does not, the Total Dog title, which requires qualification in both performance and conformation on the same day. UKC dogs are required to do much more than just look the part; they must also be able to perform. So as exhibitors, we are already experiencing, “the same
joys and passions we have so fortunately enjoyed for more than a century,” and are doing so at considerably less cost.
(blogger's note - I added the bold italics in this paragraph)
When you talk about a “staggering 53% decline” in registrations, this has little to do with other registries. Are you oblivious to the fact that those of us in the show fancy often have multiple registrations on our dogs? My own are AKC and UKC registered, with conformation and performance titles from both. When the UKC invited the nation’s most respected single-breed and all-breed registries to a summit, it was the AKC who declined to attend. By acting as a separatist, AKC cut off potential allies and breeders who would have benefited through dual registration. And let’s not forget the firestorm that arose over your decision, now reversed, regarding judges holding dual approvals.
All of this leads me to wonder if you are seeing this situation correctly. Maybe the reason AKC registrations are falling is because of brand value. The AKC must become something more than just an advertizing tool in the local classifieds. You will never be able to hold sway over the likes of the American Pet Registry, the National Kennel Club, the Universal Kennel Club Inc., or any of the paper
mills. They will always be the darling of the commercial market, and in the eyes of many – if not most of us within the sport – they are spouses within a marriage made in Hades.
The unscrupulous will always take the track of less effort. So compromising your standards for the sake of increasing revenues should work. For example, AKC’s deal with
Petland would have clearly padded your bottom line. But as we made abundantly clear, it would have sold out we who hold our reputations in the highest regard. You surely would have increased your commercial share, but the AKC brand would have been trashed.
So maybe this isn’t about the sport. You say that, “as we lose registrations, we also lose our core revenues, our ability to generate alternative revenues and our legislative influence.” Is it really all about “core revenues”? You say
you want to, “get back on track growing our influence as the premier registry in the world.” I grant you, the AKC was the premiere pride of our sport. But the reason you have lost standing is because you sold out chasing those “core
revenues”. You should be striving to ensure that the buyer of an AKC puppy owns something above those bought in pet stores, flea markets, and back alley parking lots. By your present policy, the next door neighbor’s sex education project for their children is suddenly placed on the same level with our highest show champions. To have an AKC registered dog means little, if anything, these days. And this is all because of your focus on fiscal returns over the quality of our Best In Show specials.
You say, “AKC puppies and our breeders are the best”; that, “they are the ‘Gold Standard’ in the marketplace.” Reading this makes me wonder if you have been out in the trenches as of late. The average person sees no difference
between AKC and the Continental Kennel Club. In the near twenty years I’ve been a breeder, an AKC registration only meant the dog was purebred, not that it had any inherent quality. And the reason the other “registries” are weakening your position is because you are seeking to emulate their practices. You are not bringing the sport up to a higher standard, but rather, you are sinking the AKC’s reputation to a much lower one.
Then, when you say, “No one is suggesting we lose sight of our rich heritage and traditions,” sir, it has never been part of our rich heritage or traditions to supply fodder to the pet market! Have we not always been dedicated to producing only the highest quality and most healthy specimens our kennels can generate? “Pets” come from sorting out the exceptional, and then placing the rest into the homes of average pet buyers who should have a puppy that is, in
nearly every aspect, the equal to our champions. Again, you have contradicted the very direction you now propose.
I also beg to differ that the millions of registration dollars you collected from AKC pet owners, “overwhelmingly subsidized our sport.” Other than sanctioning events, and the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF), what services do you really provide? Ironically, when we send information to help identify puppy mills, we are told that you are just a registry and that it is not your function to police the breeding community.
When I was on the board of a breed club, AKC never once sent us a check to cover any of our expenses. We expended our own club’s resources for our events. The
judges pay for their required seminars and other education. The clubs pay the judges, pay for the facility, the superintendant (if one is used), the equipment, food, advertizing, printing, postage, and in the end, when all of the entries fees are collected, we send a check to you!
You say, “let me make it clear to all, that the AKC will continue to enthusiastically support the Parent Clubs' Codes of Ethics including, as it relates to their members' sale of puppies through commercial entities.” But
wait, isn’t that the very market you intend to pursue? Or are you looking to make headway with the backyard breeders, who are equally as abhorrent to your AKC member clubs? I’m not sure how you can reconcile your concept, as even local breed clubs have stipulations that members can never sell puppies to brokers or commercial outlets.
In the end, I guess the most telling aspect of your report is as follows:
Either way, you lose market share. And the question begs an answer as to why you have such high expenses. Yes, you reduced the number of employees but AKC still resides in some of the country’s most expensive real estate. Shouldn’t you have moved your entire operation to North Carolina where the cost of living is so much lower? AKC may well have a revenue crisis, but you also have a serious expenditure problem.
I do believe our sport faces great risk, but I dare say it is not from lost revenue to any single registry. We are in far greater danger from Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) than from the fiscal trials facing the AKC. By fostering commercial breeders, you actually feed into the pet overpopulation hysteria. Your desire to increase funding is the very attitude that puts the sport in greater peril! Embracing the commercial market ushers in the likes of Petland, Jack’s Pets, and the whole of the Midwestern milling industry. They flood the country with countless hoards of substandard pups – complete with genetic and
health problems – lending credence to PETA, the Humane Society of the U.S., and even such fanatical groups as the Animal Liberation Front. If you succeed in this unholy alliance, these organizations will gladly push us over the edge to destruction.
My advice is to simplify your operation and cater to those who will bring you the most honors. Our future should never include legitimizing industrial puppy breeding! It should remain as the home-spun sport we, the reputable breeding community and the astute puppy buyer, have supported for ages. Our sport should not be professionalized to the point where it turns off the average
breeder-exhibitor. AKC must address the puppy mill problem, not contribute to it. And most of all, it should protect us against the ravages of BSL by uniting with other organizations dedicated to our cause. Do this, and we will gladly bring our registrations to AKC.
If you truly want to regain being the “Gold Standard” of our sport, then give us a registry whose aim is to follow your own mission statement. If you continue to chase after market share in place of strengthening your bond with us, AKC will shrink to nothing more than a top-dollar pet registry, with little support or respect from anyone. Backing the mills means abandoning us, along with your own
parent clubs. My hope is that you will listen to us, lest you find in the end that the AKC has traded its status for money without value, such as is exemplified by the collapsing banking and insurance industry. As the CEO of AKC and someone formerly in the banking business, you should know this principle better than anyone. You should
also recognize the greatest treasure of all is the ability to validate our fine and noble breeds.
I guess the Bible says it best, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (John 2:13-16) In the end Sir, whom will you serve?
Sincerely,
David J. Arthur
Aircastle Standard Poodles
I don't agree with everything Mr Arthur writes to Mr Menaker here (ex. the admitance of unregistered dogs - I think there is a time and place and the AKC should expand it) but I agree with the vast majority of it. The letter is very long, but worth the read.
_________________
Dear Mr. Menaker,
In the September 2008 Chairman's Report, you expressed concern about losing revenue to the “retail sector”. I understand the American Kennel Club (AKC), like any organization, can not sustain itself while hemorrhaging red ink. But your anxiety and resulting philosophy concerns me greatly. I can’t imagine you are unaware that responsible breeders never sell to retail outlets, even though they know well that the returns on any given litter will never exceed the expenditures to produce it. Yet they continue out of pure devotion to their breeds. The AKC, however, has seemingly reduced the fancy to little more than figures on a balance sheet.
I’m sure you realize that producing quality puppies and chasing the marketplace are not parallel directions, but rather, are diametrically opposed concepts; one based on increasing quality, the other on revenues from greater volumes of inferior goods.
We all recognize fuel costs have soared, food prices have all but leapt off of the countertop, and the whole economy is sluggish at best. But increasing revenue is not the only option, as most financial challenges are best met by cutting expenditures and offering a better product. Sadly, you seem to be seeking the former with no reliance on the latter.
As you say, “The declining registrations and associated core revenues, if allowed to continue, will fundamentally change our organization going forward. Make no mistake, the very future of the AKC and our sport is at risk.” Loss of income and core revenues means only one thing; your customers are finding a better product elsewhere. You state that the AKC was a premiere brand. Courting the commercial market does nothing to restore your brand’s value. Walmart has an enormous market share but you’ll never find Rolex watches at their jewelry counter. If you want to restore the AKC’s reputation, you mustsupport superlative breeders instead of chasing the industrial market. Quality breeders will never risk associating their reputation with the likes of Petland.
At one point, you state, “there are at least 30 All-Breed registries in addition to the AKC, whose combined registration numbers exceed that of the AKC.”
The truth is, there is only one other credible all-breed “registry” in the U.S., the United Kennel Club (UKC). The others are pseudo-registries, with nothing to
offer reputable breeders. Becoming like them only cheapens the AKC’s value. (See “The Problem With Papers”.)
Yet you persist, “If this trend is allowed to continue, if we do not stop the hemorrhaging of declining registrations, we will no longer be the premier registry in the world, let alone in our country.” I’m afraid you have misunderstood the public’s desire for the quality superior breeders produce. If by “premiere” you mean being the biggest registry in the world, then “hemorrhaging” is a problem. If however “premiere registry” means being the world’s best, then the obvious conclusion is that you can never also be the biggest. It’s a matter of quantity or quality. In this market, you’re either the biggest or the best. That, sir, is your true dilemma.
You said “Management has been directed by the Board to aggressively pursue all dogs eligible for AKC registration. We intend to reach out, communicate, and educate those in the retail sector as to why an AKC puppy is the gold standard and why they should be registered with American Kennel Club. In achieving this objective we intend to continue to ‘raise the bar’ by vigorously enforcing our
policies. This action is essential to protect and preserve our leadership.”
This is in fact, a complete oxymoron! The “retail sector” is the puppy mill industry, noted for the least quality possible. You intend to educate THEM? I believe you have tried ever since you became CEO but they have no interest in
AKC’s “gold standard”, which is bronze at best because of your unfettered efforts to cater to them. They will never replace quantity with quality, and in the meantime you have denigrated the work done by reputable breeders. As you seek to enfold the pet production market, it signals the public and the dedicated breeder that the AKC is not the Neiman Marcus of our sport, but rather the canine version of K-Mart.
You can’t “raise the bar” by lowering it! AKC tried to woo back the industrial pet market with special inducements not offered to show breeders. That too backfired. The millers didn’t need AKC but your actions so soured premier breeders that many left the sport. I know it is a quandary for AKC. If you enforce policy and uphold commitment to the original AKC mission statement,
registrations would reduce even more as many retail breeders would not be able or willing to meet your requirements. But that also identifies the heart of the
issue. Will AKC be the biggest or the best?
You assert “As the pre-eminent and only not-for-profit registry, we live our values everyday with our commitment to the integrity of our registry and the excellence of our inspections program.” It appears that you intend to
register any dog that the owner states has an unbroken line to registered ancestors. Where is the assurance of integrity in that? Can you not see that once pups are placed, even reputable breeders have little to no control over their future propagation? More than just a few of us have experienced situations where someone has violated a contract, took their AKC registered dog(s) – including those with limited registration – and bred them in a corrupt manner or registered them with a puppy mill registry. Some even switch sires or add ghost puppies to litter paperwork. I know DNA profiling was meant to prevent that, but it occurs regardless. And once you open the door to puppies from unregistered litters, then both Limited Registration and DNA profiling become meaningless, along with the AKC stud books.
The new registration service offers absolutely nothing to your core breeders. Instead, it drives us away from AKC. Do you then plan to replace us with the people who bought pet puppies with no papers? You will undermine the only thing that makes an AKC registration worthwhile, the purity if your studbooks, and that is the unmitigated surrender of your integrity, and ours.
As to requiring adherence to your “compliance and inspection programs”, again, you speak of elevating the quality of AKC puppies. You do realize if you truly held to a strict quality assurance program, you would lessen the number of registrations? Again, it’s either quantity or quality. You can not escape this principle. Your largest producers will deem AKC too restrictive and be unwilling
to submit to your inspections. You are an astute businessman. So let me ask you. Will they loose money by lessening output or spend money to raise the level of
care?
I doubt you will be able to suddenly turn the commercial market into a front from which happy and healthy show quality puppies spring forth. The commercial market that you seek doesn’t care about puppy socialization, genetic health screening, exercise requirements, grooming, and least of all, adherence to breed standards. It cares only about hard, cold cash, which is alarmingly close to the
core value that seems to fuel your most recent efforts.
Then you assert, “The American Kennel Club provides what no other registry provides" I’m not sure what the AKC is able to give us that the UKC can’t provide. You speak as if the AKC is the only venue exhibitors have. Granted, an
AKC championship still outshines nearly all other titles. But in most breeds it is also less difficult to obtain than a UKC Grand Championship, and the UKC shows are more fun to attend. They are far less stressful, wonderfully informal,
have no professional handlers, and use many of the same judges as does the AKC. UKC also offers something your registry does not, the Total Dog title, which requires qualification in both performance and conformation on the same day. UKC dogs are required to do much more than just look the part; they must also be able to perform. So as exhibitors, we are already experiencing, “the same
joys and passions we have so fortunately enjoyed for more than a century,” and are doing so at considerably less cost.
(blogger's note - I added the bold italics in this paragraph)
When you talk about a “staggering 53% decline” in registrations, this has little to do with other registries. Are you oblivious to the fact that those of us in the show fancy often have multiple registrations on our dogs? My own are AKC and UKC registered, with conformation and performance titles from both. When the UKC invited the nation’s most respected single-breed and all-breed registries to a summit, it was the AKC who declined to attend. By acting as a separatist, AKC cut off potential allies and breeders who would have benefited through dual registration. And let’s not forget the firestorm that arose over your decision, now reversed, regarding judges holding dual approvals.
All of this leads me to wonder if you are seeing this situation correctly. Maybe the reason AKC registrations are falling is because of brand value. The AKC must become something more than just an advertizing tool in the local classifieds. You will never be able to hold sway over the likes of the American Pet Registry, the National Kennel Club, the Universal Kennel Club Inc., or any of the paper
mills. They will always be the darling of the commercial market, and in the eyes of many – if not most of us within the sport – they are spouses within a marriage made in Hades.
The unscrupulous will always take the track of less effort. So compromising your standards for the sake of increasing revenues should work. For example, AKC’s deal with Petland would have clearly padded your bottom line. But as we made abundantly clear, it would have sold out we who hold our reputations in the highest regard. You surely would have increased your commercial share, but the AKC brand would have been trashed.
So maybe this isn’t about the sport. You say that, “as we lose registrations, we also lose our core revenues, our ability to generate alternative revenues and our legislative influence.” Is it really all about “core revenues”? You say
you want to, “get back on track growing our influence as the premier registry in the world.” I grant you, the AKC was the premiere pride of our sport. But the reason you have lost standing is because you sold out chasing those “core
revenues”. You should be striving to ensure that the buyer of an AKC puppy owns something above those bought in pet stores, flea markets, and back alley parking lots. By your present policy, the next door neighbor’s sex education project for their children is suddenly placed on the same level with our highest show champions. To have an AKC registered dog means little, if anything, these days. And this is all because of your focus on fiscal returns over the quality of our Best In Show specials.
You say, “AKC puppies and our breeders are the best”; that, “they are the ‘Gold Standard’ in the marketplace.” Reading this makes me wonder if you have been out in the trenches as of late. The average person sees no difference
between AKC and the Continental Kennel Club. In the near twenty years I’ve been a breeder, an AKC registration only meant the dog was purebred, not that it had any inherent quality. And the reason the other “registries” are weakening your position is because you are seeking to emulate their practices. You are not bringing the sport up to a higher standard, but rather, you are sinking the AKC’s reputation to a much lower one.
Then, when you say, “No one is suggesting we lose sight of our rich heritage and traditions,” sir, it has never been part of our rich heritage or traditions to supply fodder to the pet market! Have we not always been dedicated to producing only the highest quality and most healthy specimens our kennels can generate? “Pets” come from sorting out the exceptional, and then placing the rest into the homes of average pet buyers who should have a puppy that is, in
nearly every aspect, the equal to our champions. Again, you have contradicted the very direction you now propose.
I also beg to differ that the millions of registration dollars you collected from AKC pet owners, “overwhelmingly subsidized our sport.” Other than sanctioning events, and the AKC Canine Health Foundation (CHF), what services do you really provide? Ironically, when we send information to help identify puppy mills, we are told that you are just a registry and that it is not your function to police the breeding community.
When I was on the board of a breed club, AKC never once sent us a check to cover any of our expenses. We expended our own club’s resources for our events. The
judges pay for their required seminars and other education. The clubs pay the judges, pay for the facility, the superintendant (if one is used), the equipment, food, advertizing, printing, postage, and in the end, when all of the entries fees are collected, we send a check to you!
You say, “let me make it clear to all, that the AKC will continue to enthusiastically support the Parent Clubs' Codes of Ethics including, as it relates to their members' sale of puppies through commercial entities.” But
wait, isn’t that the very market you intend to pursue? Or are you looking to make headway with the backyard breeders, who are equally as abhorrent to your AKC member clubs? I’m not sure how you can reconcile your concept, as even local breed clubs have stipulations that members can never sell puppies to brokers or commercial outlets.
In the end, I guess the most telling aspect of your report is as follows:
“If the current trend continues and dog registrations decline to 250,000 over the next several years,AKC will face an annual revenue shortfall of $40 million. To put this in perspective, if this scenario occurred, and we relied solely on raising the event service fees to make up for this revenue shortfall, the fee would be a staggering $20 per entry. Our preference would be to grow our registrations to the point that we could lower, not increase event fees. Some would say the obvious solution is a significant reduction in expenses.However, a $40 million revenue shortfall would necessitate a reduction of our expenses by two-thirds. This is totally unrealistic.”
Either way, you lose market share. And the question begs an answer as to why you have such high expenses. Yes, you reduced the number of employees but AKC still resides in some of the country’s most expensive real estate. Shouldn’t you have moved your entire operation to North Carolina where the cost of living is so much lower? AKC may well have a revenue crisis, but you also have a serious expenditure problem.
I do believe our sport faces great risk, but I dare say it is not from lost revenue to any single registry. We are in far greater danger from Breed Specific Legislation (BSL) than from the fiscal trials facing the AKC. By fostering commercial breeders, you actually feed into the pet overpopulation hysteria. Your desire to increase funding is the very attitude that puts the sport in greater peril! Embracing the commercial market ushers in the likes of Petland, Jack’s Pets, and the whole of the Midwestern milling industry. They flood the country with countless hoards of substandard pups – complete with genetic and
health problems – lending credence to PETA, the Humane Society of the U.S., and even such fanatical groups as the Animal Liberation Front. If you succeed in this unholy alliance, these organizations will gladly push us over the edge to destruction.
My advice is to simplify your operation and cater to those who will bring you the most honors. Our future should never include legitimizing industrial puppy breeding! It should remain as the home-spun sport we, the reputable breeding community and the astute puppy buyer, have supported for ages. Our sport should not be professionalized to the point where it turns off the average
breeder-exhibitor. AKC must address the puppy mill problem, not contribute to it. And most of all, it should protect us against the ravages of BSL by uniting with other organizations dedicated to our cause. Do this, and we will gladly bring our registrations to AKC.
If you truly want to regain being the “Gold Standard” of our sport, then give us a registry whose aim is to follow your own mission statement. If you continue to chase after market share in place of strengthening your bond with us, AKC will shrink to nothing more than a top-dollar pet registry, with little support or respect from anyone. Backing the mills means abandoning us, along with your own
parent clubs. My hope is that you will listen to us, lest you find in the end that the AKC has traded its status for money without value, such as is exemplified by the collapsing banking and insurance industry. As the CEO of AKC and someone formerly in the banking business, you should know this principle better than anyone. You should
also recognize the greatest treasure of all is the ability to validate our fine and noble breeds.
I guess the Bible says it best, "No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.” (John 2:13-16) In the end Sir, whom will you serve?
Sincerely,
David J. Arthur
Aircastle Standard Poodles
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A charmed life
Normally, I have limited patience for eccentric dog owners like this.
But even I have to admit, this dog leads a charmed life.
She managed to get the dog celebrity (in-cabin) flight status, and here is this Weim's schedule every week:
Monday - Obedience
Tuesday - Hunting
Wednesday - Stage Practice
Thursday - Agility
Friday - Hunting
Weekends - Competing/Performing
Anyone else notice that this dog is hunted twice a week? Even my dogs aren't hunted twice a week!
But even I have to admit, this dog leads a charmed life.
She managed to get the dog celebrity (in-cabin) flight status, and here is this Weim's schedule every week:
Monday - Obedience
Tuesday - Hunting
Wednesday - Stage Practice
Thursday - Agility
Friday - Hunting
Weekends - Competing/Performing
Anyone else notice that this dog is hunted twice a week? Even my dogs aren't hunted twice a week!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)