I think you're being pessimistic, at least that's my hope! I do agree that it would be "a major disaster for the North American dog world if it should come to pass".
The two organizations are so different. In UKC only the owner can handle the dog in conformation - no professional handlers allowed. That's part of the philsophy of building the relationship between owner and dog, and for the focus to be on the dog. Very different from AKC, where I hear complaints that "the face" handling the dog won. In performance events, UKC has an excellent tiered level of titles. There's always something attainable to shoot for as you progress. From my experience with them, none of the snootiness associated with AKC events is present. They also have Total Dog titles - combination of conformation and performance events. I've seen folks from weight pulls get into conformation because of that (people in a million years I'd never thought would do conformation), and vice versa.
I do know that many people would be unhappy at the prospect of such a merger. UKC is needed. The events are not pressure cookers, but fun, educational, encouraging as well as competitive. That need exists to include more people who may not work with their dogs if the only options available were just highly competitive events.
I don't have statistics, but there are many people whose dogs have dual registration AKC/UKC just to be able to enjoy the events. So, if there were a merger, there's nothing gained for AKC with those people. As the "fun" started to go out of events, AKC would then lose revenue from "fun" event attending people going away. In business, I've been part of a fun, entrepreneurial company that was purchased by a procedural driven company. In 2-3 years, the procedural driven company lost everything they bought because the fun/entrepreneurial people left. They lost alot of money. I would say the same would happen here if that type of merger were to occur.
If you go to the UKC's about us page, they have a long page detailing their philosophy (which I read after I formed my opinion of them and was pleased to find that the philosophy from the top is evident at the events) and talks about dog events and building the relationship between owner/dog.
If you go to AKC's about us page, you find links to organization charts, board minutes, etc. When I drill down to their "mission" (not that easy to find) we finally get "The American Kennel Club is dedicated to upholding the integrity of its Registry, promoting the sport of purebred dogs and breeding for type and function. Founded in 1884, the AKC and its affiliated organizations advocate for the purebred dog as a family companion, advance canine health and well-being, work to protect the rights of all dog owners and promote responsible dog ownership. ". The link to their history is all about the corporation and conformation.
Definitely an innovative company versus a procedural company - not a match!
Of course, that doesn't mean logic will prevail as procedural driven companies still buy entrepreneurial companies and much of the time don't incorporate philosopy into the merger and end up losing.
Each serves it's own base and I hope it stays that way!
AKC - reworking groups
15 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Re: AKC - reworking groups
by ditkoofseppala on 31 Jul 2008, 01:37
Thanks for an interesting and enlightening analysis of the UKC philosophy, Sheryl. I now know more about them than I did before I read your post. I was already aware that their following was strong.
Of course, as you say, logic does not necessarily prevail in these matters. Over and over again in the business world small, successful, innovative enterprises have been bought out by large corporations with rigid procedural philosophies, often deliberately kicking out the successful existing management -- only to have the whole thing go down the tubes in short order. Which seldom causes the big corporation much concern, they just write it off; the right kind of accountancy can fix these things. My concern lies in the fact that AKC might undertake such a buyout, not with a view to genuine expansion or the continued success of the purchased concern, but simply to eliminate a dangerous competitor who makes them look bad.
I do know that a few years ago the AKC Board solemnly decided to put most of the "alternative" or "dissident" registries in the USA out of business. It was apparently recorded in the minutes. UKC was certainly high on the list if not at the very top.
Of course, as you say, logic does not necessarily prevail in these matters. Over and over again in the business world small, successful, innovative enterprises have been bought out by large corporations with rigid procedural philosophies, often deliberately kicking out the successful existing management -- only to have the whole thing go down the tubes in short order. Which seldom causes the big corporation much concern, they just write it off; the right kind of accountancy can fix these things. My concern lies in the fact that AKC might undertake such a buyout, not with a view to genuine expansion or the continued success of the purchased concern, but simply to eliminate a dangerous competitor who makes them look bad.
I do know that a few years ago the AKC Board solemnly decided to put most of the "alternative" or "dissident" registries in the USA out of business. It was apparently recorded in the minutes. UKC was certainly high on the list if not at the very top.
J. Jeffrey Bragg
The Seppala Siberian Sleddog Project
http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/
The Seppala Siberian Sleddog Project
http://www.seppalasleddogs.com/
-
ditkoofseppala - Site Admin
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 29 May 2008, 01:34
- Location: Rossburn, MB, Canada
Re: AKC - reworking groups
by Sheryl on 31 Jul 2008, 11:29
I know they'd love to put ConKC out of business. Unfortunately for AKC one of the good things they did was institute DNA testing for popular sires. It opened a floodgate of desertion to ConKC from many big puppy producers. Lots of revenue lost for doing the right thing. I know they work with state governments to offer themselves as a supplement for kennel inspections, something for which they're already setup, to go after those big puppy producers. Regardless of their motivation, I think it's a good thing. I'm just a couple counties over from Lancaster County PA aka puppymill county, and I know PA has a problem with the quantity and timeliness of inspections (recently highlighted on an excellent Oprah show). Unfortunately it's leading to the possibility of really bad legislation being passed which will adversely affect law abiding dog owners more than those that skate outside the law. If they'd enforce the laws on the books, the problems would diminish (I know, an age old refrain). AKC could help them do that and build back some of the revenue they lost for doing the right thing.
As to UKC, I'm hoping they continue in operation for years to come and that AKC puts their concentration on putting the less than desirable alternative registries out of business and leaves UKC alone.
As to UKC, I'm hoping they continue in operation for years to come and that AKC puts their concentration on putting the less than desirable alternative registries out of business and leaves UKC alone.
Sheryl
-
Sheryl - Posts: 13
- Joined: 25 Jun 2008, 18:31
- Location: PA
Re: AKC - reworking groups
by Sheryl on 17 Sep 2008, 11:07
Here's an update from AKC on reworking the groups:
GROUP REALIGNMENT � AN OVERVIEW
By Marieann Gladstone
AKC Realignment Committee, Secretary
(As Published in Perspectives, the Delegates Newsletter, Sept 2008)
Dog shows had their early beginnings in England in the mid 1850�s.
Fanciers were hunters and primarily exhibited Pointers and Setters.
County fairs held competitions for Foxhounds. Toy and terrier breeds
competed at the local pubs and taverns. Eventually, classifications of
Sporting and Non-Sporting were decided. Often a dog was entered in
Sporting in one show, and then Non-Sporting at a different show.
Time brought on other changes. In the early 1900�s in the US,
divisions were made into: Large Dogs, Medium-Size Dogs, Small-Size
Dogs, and Cage Dogs. This system was certainly helpful for the
bench-show system. By 1925, five groups were organized: Sporting,
Working, Terrier, Toy, and Non-Sporting Group. In December 1930, the
Sporting Group=2
0was divided into Sporting Group and Sporting Group
(Hounds). Hounds basically hunted non-feathered prey. In 1937, the
Sporting Group (Hounds) became the Hound Group.
In October 1982, the Board of Directors appointed a study committee to
review and make recommendations regarding the alignment of breeds into
the Group. That committee (consisting of delegates and non-delegate
judges, and a Board member) made various recommendations to the then
seated Board; one of which was the splitting of the Working Group and
in 1983, a seventh group, the Herding Group was official.
Since that time, more breeds have continually been added to AKC
registry and gradually accepted into one of the seven groups. New
breeds are still being added and it is projected that, in a few years,
the size of our current Groups will be unmanageable. As of this
writing, about two dozen FSS breeds are actively involved with the
process of recognition for either a Group or Miscellaneous group
status, with more constantly starting the process. This has caused the
topic of realignment to be of gradually heightening concern for the
past half dozen years.
Recently, a �special attraction� competition of the Northern Breeds
Group held in the Pacific Northwest met with great success and positive
feedback. This is indicative of how, managed correctly, change in
Group makeup can be both helpful and accepted.0D
The AKC Board of Directors, at its October 2007 meeting, appointed an
exploratory Group Realignment Committee �To evaluate the current
alignment of breeds within the seven variety groups to determine if a
different alignment would better serve the Sport now and in the future
as new breeds become registrable.�
This committee consists of: Tom Davies, Chairman;
Marieann Gladstone, Secretary; Karen Burgess, Robert Fisher, Tim
James, Dr. Alvin Krause, Dr. William Newman, John Nielson, Dr. Robert
Smith, Robin Stansell, and R. William Taylor.
If you look at the make-up of this committee, you
should notice that the membership of 11 is made up of not only 6 AKC
Delegates and two Board members, but also a Canadian
breeder/exhibitor/judge, two AKC Staff, all-round judges and a
Superintendent. Committee members have backgrounds in judging,
professional handling, and show chairing. Obviously all have been
involved in the process of breeding and exhibiting for many, many
years. Its members live in the East, West, North, and South and across
the border and collectively they represent centuries of sport
involvement. The fancy was well represented on this committee, such
that they can be reasonably assured that valid and helpful conclusions
will be achieved about the realignment of our Groups.
20 There is a great deal of misinformation being
discussed
among the fancy as to just what the Realignment Committee is doing and
what its powers are. We (like the 1983 Realignment Committee) are an
AKC Board appointed committee and as such, are mandated to report our
conclusions to the Board.
We have suggested an increase in the number of Groups
from seven to ten. We will not mandate the division of breeds within
the Groups. We have made several recommendations thus far, and have
queried the Parent clubs of those breeds that may be affected. We will
be relying on those Parent Clubs to give us their input on our initial
recommendations. Our final recommendation will, for the most part,
consider that input.
Groups are generally organized by similar function,
size
or structure. We have suggested the formation of a "Northern" Group
which will consist primarily of the Spitz type dogs, along with a few
closely related breeds. This Group is not entirely based on function
(some pull - Siberian & Samoyed and others hunt - Elkhound & Finnish
Spitz, for example), but perhaps a bit more on form.
One of our other suggestions will be the split of two
groups, one of which is the Hound Group. The logical split will be into
sight and scent hounds. The second is the S
porting group. Again, a
logical split is into Pointers & Setters, and the other being the
Retrievers & Spaniels. In each case, which breed goes where is obvious
in most cases, not so obvious in others.
Additionally, we have dropped the Non-Sporting group
designation, and replaced it with a Companion Group. It will consist of
primarily medium sized breeds whose principle function is as a
companion. Remember, in the beginning, �Non-Sporting� referred to a
dog that was not a gun (or hunting) dog. Today, it carries an entirely
different connotation.
Our discussions were not always in agreement, there has
been different viewpoints, but we are working together to come up with
something that will make sense to the realignment. Whatever the
result, it is obvious that everyone cannot possibly be completely
satisfied. We believe those with an open mind and with a strong
concern for the welfare and strength of our sport will see that our
proposals will succeed. This will be especially true if we can all
manage to keep the �what�s good for ME� personal agenda out of the
discussion. How one breed in a Group affects another breed in the
Group is not one of our issues, nor is it a consideration of this
committee.
Of course, a major change of this20nature has a domino
effect to other issues and those issues will need to be addressed. For
example, we have been assured that the Superintendents expect to have
only relatively simple software issues to handle.
The time factor of judging Groups was discussed and it
was felt that this could be handled with proper scheduling of breeds
and judging groups earlier in the day. Some have commented, �10
GROUPS! We will be here till dark doing Groups!� Yes, there would be
more groups, but there will be fewer dogs in each group. Scheduling
breed judging will be critical and being able to start a Group a half
hour after the judging of those breeds will keep the show moving along.
What about judges? The committee will address
recommendations to the Judges
Department, including judges being tested to be approved for breeds in
a newly formed Group. This is already done with adjunct breeds. Hound
Group Judges now will suddenly be approved for two Groups, as would
Sporting Group judges!
Certain breeds have already shared their questions and
concerns with the committee. The opinions of these parent clubs and
club members are very welcomed. Among the questions the committee
discussed are:
Italian Greyhound: It is a true sighthound? Does=2
0it belong in that
Group? Should they be standing with the Greyhound, Whippet, etc?
Basenji: Is it a sighthound? Does it belong in another group? Which one?
Bulldog: Some have suggested that it belongs in the Working Group.
Dalmatian: Some have suggested that it belongs in the Working Group.
Stand the Dalmatian, the Rhodesian Ridgeback and the Pointer in a row �
do they belong together?
Rhodesian Ridgeback: Is it a hound? Does it belong in the Working
Group? Or even the Sporting Group next to the Pointer?
Pembroke Welsh Corgi: It is from Spitz background, so Northern Group
or Herding?
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel: Companion or Toy?
Miniature Schnauzer: Does it belong with the other two Schnauzers?
They are distinctly different breeds, yet are similar in appearance and
phenotype.
Shih Tzu: Companion or Toy?
Poodle: Does the Standard belong in the Sporting Group?
And WHAT DO WE DO WITH VARIETIES???
In the early years of dog show competition, some breeds were divided
into varieties for competition. Today, AKX does not permit breed
separation into varieties. There were so many Cocker Spaniels being
exhibited that they were divided into varieties based on color. Should
so many Cocker Spaniels compete in the same Group against other
Sporting Dogs, based merely on their=2
0color?
The 1983 Realignment Committee suggested that the various Varieties
compete amongst themselves to select a single Best of Breed and that
dog would go to its particular group. For example, if the 3 Poodle
Variety winners were judged to select one Best of Breed, only that one
BOB Poodle would go to the Group. The Fox Terriers went the route of
becoming separate breeds � a Wire Fox Terrier and a Smooth Fox Terrier
are both represented in the Terrier Group. We have the two Collie
varieties, the Manchesters, the Dachshunds, etc etc. All this is for
consideration, but each as a separate issue.
These are all questions that this Committee is asking you to
consider and give input! We hope that you will share your questions
and ideas with us while the committee�s work is still ongoing.
One additional point to mention: When the Herding
Group was formed, the record indicates that certain breeds that may
have been slighted in the larger, and very competitive Working Group
finally gained recognition with awards in their new Group. The Belgian
breeds, the Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Australian Cattle Dog, and other
Herding breeds now earned quality recognition. This will happen again
with the Realignment of the Groups. More of the lesser-known breeds
will gain their rightful recognition.
With ten Group winners competing, there will be more
ribbons and rewards and more people happy at the end of the day. Why
give out only 7 Group Winner when 10 Group Winners can result as well?
If 10 Groups are competing for Best in Show, should we also reward a
Reserve Best in Show?
The Committee has and will continue to welcome input
from those most affected breeds and indeed from the entire fancy
before
our final recommendation is brought to the Board of Directors and any
final report will be brought to the Delegate body for a vote. We all
survived the formation of the Herding Group rather well and we will
survive another realignment, which should also freshen and revitalize
the sport.
It is evident that our history that our sport is
ever-changing, and keeps up with the time. Will you be part of it?
Will you cast your vote to improve the sport we love and to which we
devote so much of our time?
The committee welcomes your input, which can be
directed to Jim Crowley (jax@...) or to any of the members of the
committee.
Marieann Gladstone, Sec�y
mzg@...
PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO CROSS POST
GROUP REALIGNMENT � AN OVERVIEW
By Marieann Gladstone
AKC Realignment Committee, Secretary
(As Published in Perspectives, the Delegates Newsletter, Sept 2008)
Dog shows had their early beginnings in England in the mid 1850�s.
Fanciers were hunters and primarily exhibited Pointers and Setters.
County fairs held competitions for Foxhounds. Toy and terrier breeds
competed at the local pubs and taverns. Eventually, classifications of
Sporting and Non-Sporting were decided. Often a dog was entered in
Sporting in one show, and then Non-Sporting at a different show.
Time brought on other changes. In the early 1900�s in the US,
divisions were made into: Large Dogs, Medium-Size Dogs, Small-Size
Dogs, and Cage Dogs. This system was certainly helpful for the
bench-show system. By 1925, five groups were organized: Sporting,
Working, Terrier, Toy, and Non-Sporting Group. In December 1930, the
Sporting Group=2
0was divided into Sporting Group and Sporting Group
(Hounds). Hounds basically hunted non-feathered prey. In 1937, the
Sporting Group (Hounds) became the Hound Group.
In October 1982, the Board of Directors appointed a study committee to
review and make recommendations regarding the alignment of breeds into
the Group. That committee (consisting of delegates and non-delegate
judges, and a Board member) made various recommendations to the then
seated Board; one of which was the splitting of the Working Group and
in 1983, a seventh group, the Herding Group was official.
Since that time, more breeds have continually been added to AKC
registry and gradually accepted into one of the seven groups. New
breeds are still being added and it is projected that, in a few years,
the size of our current Groups will be unmanageable. As of this
writing, about two dozen FSS breeds are actively involved with the
process of recognition for either a Group or Miscellaneous group
status, with more constantly starting the process. This has caused the
topic of realignment to be of gradually heightening concern for the
past half dozen years.
Recently, a �special attraction� competition of the Northern Breeds
Group held in the Pacific Northwest met with great success and positive
feedback. This is indicative of how, managed correctly, change in
Group makeup can be both helpful and accepted.0D
The AKC Board of Directors, at its October 2007 meeting, appointed an
exploratory Group Realignment Committee �To evaluate the current
alignment of breeds within the seven variety groups to determine if a
different alignment would better serve the Sport now and in the future
as new breeds become registrable.�
This committee consists of: Tom Davies, Chairman;
Marieann Gladstone, Secretary; Karen Burgess, Robert Fisher, Tim
James, Dr. Alvin Krause, Dr. William Newman, John Nielson, Dr. Robert
Smith, Robin Stansell, and R. William Taylor.
If you look at the make-up of this committee, you
should notice that the membership of 11 is made up of not only 6 AKC
Delegates and two Board members, but also a Canadian
breeder/exhibitor/judge, two AKC Staff, all-round judges and a
Superintendent. Committee members have backgrounds in judging,
professional handling, and show chairing. Obviously all have been
involved in the process of breeding and exhibiting for many, many
years. Its members live in the East, West, North, and South and across
the border and collectively they represent centuries of sport
involvement. The fancy was well represented on this committee, such
that they can be reasonably assured that valid and helpful conclusions
will be achieved about the realignment of our Groups.
20 There is a great deal of misinformation being
discussed
among the fancy as to just what the Realignment Committee is doing and
what its powers are. We (like the 1983 Realignment Committee) are an
AKC Board appointed committee and as such, are mandated to report our
conclusions to the Board.
We have suggested an increase in the number of Groups
from seven to ten. We will not mandate the division of breeds within
the Groups. We have made several recommendations thus far, and have
queried the Parent clubs of those breeds that may be affected. We will
be relying on those Parent Clubs to give us their input on our initial
recommendations. Our final recommendation will, for the most part,
consider that input.
Groups are generally organized by similar function,
size
or structure. We have suggested the formation of a "Northern" Group
which will consist primarily of the Spitz type dogs, along with a few
closely related breeds. This Group is not entirely based on function
(some pull - Siberian & Samoyed and others hunt - Elkhound & Finnish
Spitz, for example), but perhaps a bit more on form.
One of our other suggestions will be the split of two
groups, one of which is the Hound Group. The logical split will be into
sight and scent hounds. The second is the S
porting group. Again, a
logical split is into Pointers & Setters, and the other being the
Retrievers & Spaniels. In each case, which breed goes where is obvious
in most cases, not so obvious in others.
Additionally, we have dropped the Non-Sporting group
designation, and replaced it with a Companion Group. It will consist of
primarily medium sized breeds whose principle function is as a
companion. Remember, in the beginning, �Non-Sporting� referred to a
dog that was not a gun (or hunting) dog. Today, it carries an entirely
different connotation.
Our discussions were not always in agreement, there has
been different viewpoints, but we are working together to come up with
something that will make sense to the realignment. Whatever the
result, it is obvious that everyone cannot possibly be completely
satisfied. We believe those with an open mind and with a strong
concern for the welfare and strength of our sport will see that our
proposals will succeed. This will be especially true if we can all
manage to keep the �what�s good for ME� personal agenda out of the
discussion. How one breed in a Group affects another breed in the
Group is not one of our issues, nor is it a consideration of this
committee.
Of course, a major change of this20nature has a domino
effect to other issues and those issues will need to be addressed. For
example, we have been assured that the Superintendents expect to have
only relatively simple software issues to handle.
The time factor of judging Groups was discussed and it
was felt that this could be handled with proper scheduling of breeds
and judging groups earlier in the day. Some have commented, �10
GROUPS! We will be here till dark doing Groups!� Yes, there would be
more groups, but there will be fewer dogs in each group. Scheduling
breed judging will be critical and being able to start a Group a half
hour after the judging of those breeds will keep the show moving along.
What about judges? The committee will address
recommendations to the Judges
Department, including judges being tested to be approved for breeds in
a newly formed Group. This is already done with adjunct breeds. Hound
Group Judges now will suddenly be approved for two Groups, as would
Sporting Group judges!
Certain breeds have already shared their questions and
concerns with the committee. The opinions of these parent clubs and
club members are very welcomed. Among the questions the committee
discussed are:
Italian Greyhound: It is a true sighthound? Does=2
0it belong in that
Group? Should they be standing with the Greyhound, Whippet, etc?
Basenji: Is it a sighthound? Does it belong in another group? Which one?
Bulldog: Some have suggested that it belongs in the Working Group.
Dalmatian: Some have suggested that it belongs in the Working Group.
Stand the Dalmatian, the Rhodesian Ridgeback and the Pointer in a row �
do they belong together?
Rhodesian Ridgeback: Is it a hound? Does it belong in the Working
Group? Or even the Sporting Group next to the Pointer?
Pembroke Welsh Corgi: It is from Spitz background, so Northern Group
or Herding?
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel: Companion or Toy?
Miniature Schnauzer: Does it belong with the other two Schnauzers?
They are distinctly different breeds, yet are similar in appearance and
phenotype.
Shih Tzu: Companion or Toy?
Poodle: Does the Standard belong in the Sporting Group?
And WHAT DO WE DO WITH VARIETIES???
In the early years of dog show competition, some breeds were divided
into varieties for competition. Today, AKX does not permit breed
separation into varieties. There were so many Cocker Spaniels being
exhibited that they were divided into varieties based on color. Should
so many Cocker Spaniels compete in the same Group against other
Sporting Dogs, based merely on their=2
0color?
The 1983 Realignment Committee suggested that the various Varieties
compete amongst themselves to select a single Best of Breed and that
dog would go to its particular group. For example, if the 3 Poodle
Variety winners were judged to select one Best of Breed, only that one
BOB Poodle would go to the Group. The Fox Terriers went the route of
becoming separate breeds � a Wire Fox Terrier and a Smooth Fox Terrier
are both represented in the Terrier Group. We have the two Collie
varieties, the Manchesters, the Dachshunds, etc etc. All this is for
consideration, but each as a separate issue.
These are all questions that this Committee is asking you to
consider and give input! We hope that you will share your questions
and ideas with us while the committee�s work is still ongoing.
One additional point to mention: When the Herding
Group was formed, the record indicates that certain breeds that may
have been slighted in the larger, and very competitive Working Group
finally gained recognition with awards in their new Group. The Belgian
breeds, the Cardigan Welsh Corgi, Australian Cattle Dog, and other
Herding breeds now earned quality recognition. This will happen again
with the Realignment of the Groups. More of the lesser-known breeds
will gain their rightful recognition.
With ten Group winners competing, there will be more
ribbons and rewards and more people happy at the end of the day. Why
give out only 7 Group Winner when 10 Group Winners can result as well?
If 10 Groups are competing for Best in Show, should we also reward a
Reserve Best in Show?
The Committee has and will continue to welcome input
from those most affected breeds and indeed from the entire fancy
before
our final recommendation is brought to the Board of Directors and any
final report will be brought to the Delegate body for a vote. We all
survived the formation of the Herding Group rather well and we will
survive another realignment, which should also freshen and revitalize
the sport.
It is evident that our history that our sport is
ever-changing, and keeps up with the time. Will you be part of it?
Will you cast your vote to improve the sport we love and to which we
devote so much of our time?
The committee welcomes your input, which can be
directed to Jim Crowley (jax@...) or to any of the members of the
committee.
Marieann Gladstone, Sec�y
mzg@...
PERMISSION IS GIVEN TO CROSS POST
Sheryl
-
Sheryl - Posts: 13
- Joined: 25 Jun 2008, 18:31
- Location: PA
Re: AKC - reworking groups
by Sheryl on 31 Oct 2008, 10:22
The latest on this....
http://www.akc.org/events/conformation/ ... gnment.cfm
The first few months of the committee’s existence was taken up by a thorough study of the Group system and a more detailed understanding of the history, form and function of the various breeds within the current group structure. Additionally, the makeup of groups around the world was reviewed.
After careful examination of the groups and the breeds that make them up, the committee decided that two of the current groups, which in a short time span could approach 40 breeds, can easily and logically be divided into two similar components. The Sporting Group can be divided into Sporting — Pointers and Setters, and Sporting — Retrievers and Spaniels. Functionally, this split made sense to the committee. Secondly, a logical division of the Hound Group would be Scent Hounds and Sight Hounds.
The third major change would be the creation of a new group, consisting of the Northern or Spitz type breeds. To populate this new group, we took the Norwegian Elkhound (from the Hound Group); the Akita, Alaskan Malamute, the Siberian Husky and the Samoyed (from the Working Group); the American Eskimo, Chinese Shar-Pei, Chow Chow, Finnish Spitz, Keeshond, Schipperke and Shiba Inu (from the Non-Sporting Group); and the Swedish Vallhund (from the Herding Group). The Parent clubs of these breeds were contacted and asked for their input.
From a presentation to the Delegates on September 8, 2008 by the AKC Group Realignment Committee
Group 1: Sporting — Pointers and Setters (11) (12)
Brittany
Pointer
Pointer (German Shorthaired)
Pointer (German Wirehaired)
Setter (English)
Setter (Gordon)
Setter (Irish
Setter (Irish Red & White) Miscellaneous 6/27/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Spinone Italiano
Vizsla
Weimaraner
Wirehaired Pointing Griffon
Group 2: Sporting - Retrievers and Spaniels (17) (18)
Retriever (Chesapeake Bay)
Retriever (Curly-Coated)
Retriever (Flat-Coated)
Retriever (Golden)
Retriever (Labrador)
Retriever (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling)
Spaniel (American Water)
Spaniel (Boykin) — Miscellaneous 1/1/08
Spaniel (Clumber)
Spaniel (Cocker) ASCOB
Spaniel (Cocker) Black
Spaniel (Cocker) Parti-color
Spaniel (English Cocker)
Spaniel (English Springer)
Spaniel (Field)
Spaniel (Irish Water)
Spaniel (Sussex)
Spaniel (Welsh Springer)
Group 3: Scent Hounds (14) (17)
Basset Hound
Beagle (13")
Beagle (15")
Black and Tan Coonhound
Bloodhound
Bluetick Coonhound - Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dachshund (Longhaired)
Dachshund (Smooth)
Dachshund (Wirehaired)
English Foxhound
Foxhound (American)
Harrier
Otterhound
Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen
Plott
Redbone Coonhound — Miscellaneous 9/1/08
Treeing Walker Coonhound — Miscellaneous 1/1/09
Group 4: Sight Hounds (11)
Afghan Hound
Basenji
Borzoi
Greyhound
Ibizan Hound
Irish Wolfhound
Italian Greyhound
Pharaoh Hound
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Saluki
Scottish Deerhound
Whippet
Group 5: Working (23) (25)
Anatolian Shepherd
Bernese Mountain Dog
Black Russian Terrier
Boxer
Bullmastiff
Cane Corso — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dalmatian
Doberman Pinscher
Dogue de Bordeaux
German Pinscher
Giant Schnauzer
Great Dane
Great Pyrenees
Greater Swiss Mountain Dog
Komondor
Kuvasz
Leonberger — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Mastiff
Neapolitan Mastiff
Newfoundland
Portuguese Water Dog
Rottweiler
Saint Bernard
Standard Schnauzer
Tibetan Mastiff
Group 6: Terriers (28) (29)
Airedale Terrier
Australian Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bedlington Terrier
Border Terrier
Bull Terrier (Colored)
Bull Terrier (White)
Cairn Terrier
Cesky Terrier — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dandie Dinmont Terrier
Fox Terrier (Smooth)
Fox Terrier (Wire)
Glen of Imaal Terrier
Irish Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Lakeland Terrier
Manchester Terrier (Standard)
Miniature Bull Terrier
Miniature Schnauzer
Norfolk Terrier
Norwich Terrier
Parson Russell Terrier
Scottish Terrier
Sealyham Terrier
Skye Terrier
Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Welsh Terrier
West Highland White Terrier
Group 7: Toys (21)
Affenpinscher
Brussells Griffon
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Chihuahua (Long Coat)
Chihuahua (Smooth Coat)
English Toy Spaniel (Blenheim & Prince Charles)
English Toy Spaniel (King Charles & Ruby)
Havanese
Japanese Chin
Maltese
Manchester Terrier (Toy)
Miniature Pinscher
Papillon
Pekingese
Pomeranian
Poodle (Toy)
Pug
Shih Tzu
Silky Terrier
Toy Fox Terrier
Yorkshire Terrier
Group 8: Companion (11) (12)
Bichon Frise
Boston Terrier
Bulldog
Chinese Crested
French Bulldog
Lhasa Apso
Lowchen
Poodle (Miniature)
Poodle (Standard)
Tibetan Spaniel
Tibetan Terrier
Xoloitzcuintli — Miscellaneous 1/10/09
Group 9: Herding (20) (21)
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Beauceron
Belgian Malinois
Belgian Tervuren
Belgian Sheepdog
Border Collie
Bouvier des Flandres
Briard
Canaan Dog
Cardigan Welsh Corgi
Collie (Rough)
Collie (Smooth)
German Shepherd
Old English Sheepdog
Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Polish Lowland Sheepdog
Puli
Pyrenean Shepherd — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Shetland Sheepdog
Group 10: Northern (13) (16)
Akita
Alaskan Malamute
American Eskimo Dog
Chinese Shar-Pei
Chow Chow
Finnish Spitz
Icelandic Sheepdog — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Keeshond
Norwegian Buhund — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Norwegian Lundehund — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Norwegian Elkhound
Samoyed
Siberian Husky
Schipperke
Shiba Inu
Swedish Vallhund
http://www.akc.org/events/conformation/ ... gnment.cfm
The first few months of the committee’s existence was taken up by a thorough study of the Group system and a more detailed understanding of the history, form and function of the various breeds within the current group structure. Additionally, the makeup of groups around the world was reviewed.
After careful examination of the groups and the breeds that make them up, the committee decided that two of the current groups, which in a short time span could approach 40 breeds, can easily and logically be divided into two similar components. The Sporting Group can be divided into Sporting — Pointers and Setters, and Sporting — Retrievers and Spaniels. Functionally, this split made sense to the committee. Secondly, a logical division of the Hound Group would be Scent Hounds and Sight Hounds.
The third major change would be the creation of a new group, consisting of the Northern or Spitz type breeds. To populate this new group, we took the Norwegian Elkhound (from the Hound Group); the Akita, Alaskan Malamute, the Siberian Husky and the Samoyed (from the Working Group); the American Eskimo, Chinese Shar-Pei, Chow Chow, Finnish Spitz, Keeshond, Schipperke and Shiba Inu (from the Non-Sporting Group); and the Swedish Vallhund (from the Herding Group). The Parent clubs of these breeds were contacted and asked for their input.
From a presentation to the Delegates on September 8, 2008 by the AKC Group Realignment Committee
Group 1: Sporting — Pointers and Setters (11) (12)
Brittany
Pointer
Pointer (German Shorthaired)
Pointer (German Wirehaired)
Setter (English)
Setter (Gordon)
Setter (Irish
Setter (Irish Red & White) Miscellaneous 6/27/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Spinone Italiano
Vizsla
Weimaraner
Wirehaired Pointing Griffon
Group 2: Sporting - Retrievers and Spaniels (17) (18)
Retriever (Chesapeake Bay)
Retriever (Curly-Coated)
Retriever (Flat-Coated)
Retriever (Golden)
Retriever (Labrador)
Retriever (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling)
Spaniel (American Water)
Spaniel (Boykin) — Miscellaneous 1/1/08
Spaniel (Clumber)
Spaniel (Cocker) ASCOB
Spaniel (Cocker) Black
Spaniel (Cocker) Parti-color
Spaniel (English Cocker)
Spaniel (English Springer)
Spaniel (Field)
Spaniel (Irish Water)
Spaniel (Sussex)
Spaniel (Welsh Springer)
Group 3: Scent Hounds (14) (17)
Basset Hound
Beagle (13")
Beagle (15")
Black and Tan Coonhound
Bloodhound
Bluetick Coonhound - Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dachshund (Longhaired)
Dachshund (Smooth)
Dachshund (Wirehaired)
English Foxhound
Foxhound (American)
Harrier
Otterhound
Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen
Plott
Redbone Coonhound — Miscellaneous 9/1/08
Treeing Walker Coonhound — Miscellaneous 1/1/09
Group 4: Sight Hounds (11)
Afghan Hound
Basenji
Borzoi
Greyhound
Ibizan Hound
Irish Wolfhound
Italian Greyhound
Pharaoh Hound
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Saluki
Scottish Deerhound
Whippet
Group 5: Working (23) (25)
Anatolian Shepherd
Bernese Mountain Dog
Black Russian Terrier
Boxer
Bullmastiff
Cane Corso — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dalmatian
Doberman Pinscher
Dogue de Bordeaux
German Pinscher
Giant Schnauzer
Great Dane
Great Pyrenees
Greater Swiss Mountain Dog
Komondor
Kuvasz
Leonberger — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Mastiff
Neapolitan Mastiff
Newfoundland
Portuguese Water Dog
Rottweiler
Saint Bernard
Standard Schnauzer
Tibetan Mastiff
Group 6: Terriers (28) (29)
Airedale Terrier
Australian Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bedlington Terrier
Border Terrier
Bull Terrier (Colored)
Bull Terrier (White)
Cairn Terrier
Cesky Terrier — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Dandie Dinmont Terrier
Fox Terrier (Smooth)
Fox Terrier (Wire)
Glen of Imaal Terrier
Irish Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Lakeland Terrier
Manchester Terrier (Standard)
Miniature Bull Terrier
Miniature Schnauzer
Norfolk Terrier
Norwich Terrier
Parson Russell Terrier
Scottish Terrier
Sealyham Terrier
Skye Terrier
Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Welsh Terrier
West Highland White Terrier
Group 7: Toys (21)
Affenpinscher
Brussells Griffon
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Chihuahua (Long Coat)
Chihuahua (Smooth Coat)
English Toy Spaniel (Blenheim & Prince Charles)
English Toy Spaniel (King Charles & Ruby)
Havanese
Japanese Chin
Maltese
Manchester Terrier (Toy)
Miniature Pinscher
Papillon
Pekingese
Pomeranian
Poodle (Toy)
Pug
Shih Tzu
Silky Terrier
Toy Fox Terrier
Yorkshire Terrier
Group 8: Companion (11) (12)
Bichon Frise
Boston Terrier
Bulldog
Chinese Crested
French Bulldog
Lhasa Apso
Lowchen
Poodle (Miniature)
Poodle (Standard)
Tibetan Spaniel
Tibetan Terrier
Xoloitzcuintli — Miscellaneous 1/10/09
Group 9: Herding (20) (21)
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Beauceron
Belgian Malinois
Belgian Tervuren
Belgian Sheepdog
Border Collie
Bouvier des Flandres
Briard
Canaan Dog
Cardigan Welsh Corgi
Collie (Rough)
Collie (Smooth)
German Shepherd
Old English Sheepdog
Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Polish Lowland Sheepdog
Puli
Pyrenean Shepherd — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Shetland Sheepdog
Group 10: Northern (13) (16)
Akita
Alaskan Malamute
American Eskimo Dog
Chinese Shar-Pei
Chow Chow
Finnish Spitz
Icelandic Sheepdog — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Keeshond
Norwegian Buhund — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09
Norwegian Lundehund — Miscellaneous 7/1/08
Norwegian Elkhound
Samoyed
Siberian Husky
Schipperke
Shiba Inu
Swedish Vallhund
Sheryl
-
Sheryl - Posts: 13
- Joined: 25 Jun 2008, 18:31
- Location: PA
15 posts • Page 2 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest