Alternative(s) to AKC test/trials?

[Trekmoor]

Please clear something up for me. As I read this thread the A.K.C. or elements of it are trying to ban e-collar use ? Why would this matter in a trial or test situation where I assume the dogs are not allowed to work with e-collars on anyway ? Isn't it always the case that most dogs are trained while wearing an e-collar but do not wear them during competition ?

I do not like the idea of a total e-collar ban but if it only applies to competition use what is the problem ? Do you feel it is the thin edge of the wedge ?

Bill T.

[Nutmeg247]

Please clear something up for me. As I read this thread the A.K.C. or elements of it are trying to ban e-collar use ? Why would this matter in a trial or test situation where I assume the dogs are not allowed to work with e-collars on anyway ? Isn't it always the case that most dogs are trained while wearing an e-collar but do not wear them during competition ?

I do not like the idea of a total e-collar ban but if it only applies to competition use what is the problem ? Do you feel it is the thin edge of the wedge ?

Bill T.

A v.p. for the AKC gave a t.v. interview where she articulated, on behalf of the AKC, a position that did not support the use of e-collars (nor, by extension, other aversives) in training. The language used was broad enough to imply that solely "positive" training approaches were actually clearly better in terms of building reliable performance, and that if people couldn't use these positive techniques to control their dog, perhaps they shouldn't have a dog.

Push-back from numerous parties forced the A.K.C. to collectively do damage control, with a statement issued that I'd paraphrase as saying 1) they respect their performance event trainers' judgment, and right to use e-collars among others, and 2) their v.p. "meant" to limit her comments to their canine good citizen program aimed at normal pet owners.

In my view, a further problem is that the A.K.C. v.p. was impolite, and talked over the guy on the t.v. show who was there to articulate a pro e-collar position. That is a broader cultural issue: there are lots of people in the northeast in particular who in the 80s would have been called yuppies who actually value and respect rude and intellectually bullying and distortive behavior. If the A.K.C. hires from this pool of people without having a clear internal culture emphasizing that schoolyard aggression is not their practice, the A.K.C. will become defined by those people.

As for firing her, I personally am not a fan. I don't think she intentionally violated or misarticulated anything. She probably was high-fived when she went back to the office, and no doubt was bewildered by what followed. Unless she has a long record of similar screw-ups, just give her a chance to educate herself. Just as her being rude is in part a broader cultural issue, it's quite likely that she's never hunted, probable she's never competed in obedience, probable she's never fired a gun, and even probable that she has no idea of the difference between a show setter or lab and the hunting versions of those dogs. But, the AKC hired her, so imo give her a chance to educate herself. Personally, I'd recommend sending her to some field trials and obedience competitions at very least.

The AKC's actual position, now, seems like it could be more forcefully and clearly articulated, but makes some sense. I don't really think the average Cavalier King Charles Spaniel owner should be messing with an e-collar on their dog. The problem on the horizon is that states like NY and Massachusetts will probably start banning e-collars overall, imo within a decade, unless an organization like the AKC does forcefully articulate that these are legitimate and reasonable tools.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Ray is right, and the Brittany folks seem satisfied with the AKC's weak response.

+1 I am not satisfied with AKC. Is their any formal petition or response being prepared to be served to the AKC to represent the Performance Dog Fancy?

[Neil]

Nutmeg,

That is the most accurate, fair, articulate, reasonable, intelligent, and comprehensive response I have ever read on this forum. Thank you.

Neil

Oh, I do think she should be fired, reeducation will not be successful. Like giving aspirin to treat cancer.

[AZ Brittany Guy]

Ray is right, and the Brittany folks seem satisfied with the AKC's weak response.

+1 I am not satisfied with AKC. Is their any formal petition or response being prepared to be served to the AKC to represent the Performance Dog Fancy?

I emailed AKC with my opinion of their VP interview with FOX. If I get a response, I will share it with you on the Forum.

[fuzznut]

Some facts, but Nutmeg hit it pretty well!

Fox contacted AKC to give them the opportunity to discuss the recent ECollar study that was done and made public. They also contacted the CA trainer to give his point of view.

The Marketing Department of AKC was handed the assignment to cover the interview. They thought this would be a good opportunity to showcase their CGC events. However, they contacted the person in charge of the CGC program who directed them to contact the head of the Performance Department to get talking points and to get educated.

Marketing decided not to touch base with Performance and went ahead with their own agenda- push the CGC program to "pet owners". Whomever directed Ms DiNardo didn't know the published AKC position on use of ECollars and didn't bother to find out! I honestly don't know if Ms DiNardo just went off the handle and began spouting her own beliefs or not, she is a Dobe owner and breeder.

The head of Performance found out about the interview right after it aired when the proverbial you know what began to hit the fan! Marketing was flooded with emails and phone calls and they tried to back pedal to appease us. Didn't work and they continued to get calls and angry letters. We were heard!!!!!

Apparently Marketing never considered the possibilities of their statements when it came to AR groups and those pushing to ban collars, but they do now!

The good that came from this fiasco..... Marketing (and other departments) has finally figured out they MUST get their facts and figures from those who know what they are talking about. They have figured out they have to stay neutral on this discussion as their are as many pro collar users as there are anti collar users. And it's not their place to side with one or the other!

I doubt DiNardo will be fired and not sure she should be. But both she and head of Marketing have been taken behind the proverbial woodshed for a little discussion. Our letters and input showed the Big Boys in NY that we do matter and will not be tossed to the wolves without a fight.

[shags]

Fuzz, thank you for taking the time to fill us in on what happened and what happened next.

Soon after the interview, I was going back and forth with emails with Chris Walker and he was at the office fairly late...it was way past 9PM and he was still responding. So we must have kept them pretty busy

[fuzznut]

Chris got his head handed to him on this one! He really did not understand the severity of what they did, or why any of us didn't get the message they thought they were trying to get out.

Hopefully he has learned a valuable lesson here, but we all have to stay diligent and let them know when they screw up! Sitting back and saying nothing does not help. Not entering events isn't going to make much difference either.

The Performance department works hard for us, or at least tries to. Performance is low man on the AKC totem pole, but that doesn't mean we don't count. Support that department best you can and let them know we appreciate their efforts on our part.

[Neil]

Fuzz,

Would you please give a source for your information, I don't mean names neccassarily, just how you know. You claim to be privy to a lot of inside information.

Personally, I don't think much of anything happened. AKC got a couple hundred e-mails and phone calls, then an equal number of pros and cons on Facebook, and the matter has been forgotten.

No poop hit a fan, no one went to the woodshed, no public statement of apology.

Think about it, they reach millions with an anti- e collar interview, then tell a few hundred of us the Performance Department is on our side. That does not balance the scales.

[fuzznut]

Sometimes it's good to have friends.

No heads rolled, but lesson learned.

[Neil]

I remain skeptical.

I know for a fact that millions heard an AKC representative proclaim the evils of e-collar use and an executive worked until 7:00 pm. That does not balance.

The rest is conjecture.

[Brazosvalleyvizslas]

I doubt that any head will roll since the AKC represents the average dog owner and the performance dept. is a small component. The average dog owner believes in positive re-enforcement only.

[Mills51]

To the original questions here would be some potential alternatives, UKC for field trials and NAVHDA for testing.

[chrokeva]

Here is some interesting reading for the spaniel owner regarding NAHRA and HRC.
http://www.spanieljournal.com/cschleider.html
http://www.spanieljournal.com/2cschleider.html

[chrokeva]

Here is part three of this article.
http://www.spanieljournal.com/3cschleider.html

[Neil]

If AKC makes one more anti-hunting proclamation I am going to join you all in alternatives in addition to FDSB. It is very easy to register with UKC.

[gundogguy]

Here is part three of this article.
http://www.spanieljournal.com/3cschleider.html

As the breeder of the 1st Springer to ever title in the HRC testing program back many years ago, HRC is an excellent venue of activities for the aspiring Spaniel trainer
Incidentally I do not believe there has been an English Cocker title in the program. There you go Chrokeva you could be the first!

[gundogguy]

To the original questions here would be some potential alternatives, UKC for field trials and NAVHDA for testing.

Correction UKC conducts TESTS not trials. AKC conducts both retriever tests and trials. It is an easy mistake with all the letters that get thrown around

[shags]

If AKC makes one more anti-hunting proclamation I am going to join you all in alternatives in addition to FDSB. It is very easy to register with UKC.

Better read how UKC conducts their field events. It is not field trialing as you know it.

And excactly where have you found any anti-hunting proclamations by AKC?

[Neil]

If AKC makes one more anti-hunting proclamation I am going to join you all in alternatives in addition to FDSB. It is very easy to register with UKC.

Better read how UKC conducts their field events. It is not field trialing as you know it.

And excactly where have you found any anti-hunting proclamations by AKC?

I am bluffing, I have difficulty walking across the parking lot, plus the horses like to play, too.

Anti-hunting is an underlying message in all AKC does and say. I have yet to meet an AKC employee that hunts, not one. Well Lyle Johnson was with them for a few years and he hunted the poo out of his field trial dogs, so one out of a thousand. Do you know any that hunt?

I think the no e-collar, dogs are little people in fur coats, we are dog parents, animals deserve respect and protection, humane treatment are all anti-hunting.

About humane, I do not treat animals as human, do you? Think about it.

[deseeker]

Neil---
AKC field rep Tom Maneely hunts. I know Tom has taken his boss prairie chicken hunting, so there are at least 2 that hunt.

[shags]

If you mean treating my animals like humans...as in do my setters wear little pink tutus around the house and do I try to bring the horse to the hair salon with me...uh, NO!

But the dogs live in the house and have free access to the sofa, they get the best care I can afford, I agonize over that final vet appointment, and I wish they could be five years old for at least 15 years.

Here's the thing Neil. Whenever state or local legislatures attempt to impose draconian regulations on dog owners, AKC stands up for us. In the fight for field trial grounds in my state, AKC tried to help. When hunting with dogs is threatened, thye speak up. For canine health research, AKC donates lots of money. And where the heck is Bernie during all this? Where is AFTCA?

[Neil]

If you mean treating my animals like humans...as in do my setters wear little pink tutus around the house and do I try to bring the horse to the hair salon with me...uh, NO!

But the dogs live in the house and have free access to the sofa, they get the best care I can afford, I agonize over that final vet appointment, and I wish they could be five years old for at least 15 years.

Here's the thing Neil. Whenever state or local legislatures attempt to impose draconian regulations on dog owners, AKC stands up for us. In the fight for field trial grounds in my state, AKC tried to help. When hunting with dogs is threatened, thye speak up. For canine health research, AKC donates lots of money. And where the heck is Bernie during all this? Where is AFTCA?

You are misinformed about AKC and the fight to save trial grounds, they did nothing, some of the breed clubs did try. But Tom Honeker lead the effort with support from Bernie and the AFTCA, I know I was there. AKC flat turned us down.

You are correct about all they do for canine health and overall dog interests, they are great, and I am a supporter and thankful.

But all their efforts are for pet companion dogs, they do not support hunting. I have never read anything on their web site even remotely pro hunting. In fact most of their promotion of field trials and hunting tests are as a replacement for hunting.

[shags]

I attended every single association meeting concerning the loss of our grounds, sorry to have missed you. Tom definitely was our spokesman to DNR and state officials, as well as some on the federal level.
AKC did not attend meetings but was willing to contact said officials.
No help from Chicago; AFTCA 20th century funds went to improve previous grounds and the new ones, but that's it.

[Neil]

I attended every single association meeting concerning the loss of our grounds, sorry to have missed you. Tom definitely was our spokesman to DNR and state officials, as well as some on the federal level.
AKC did not attend meetings but was willing to contact said officials.
No help from Chicago; AFTCA 20th century funds went to improve previous grounds and the new ones, but that's it.

The true fight was not just with Indiana, Illinois and Ohio DNR, it was with US Fish and Wildlfe, and I was there and AKC was not. But tell me again what you think AKC did specifically? They contacted people? But even were you right, that is not supporting hunting.