by Dr. Gerry G. Meisels

The number of breeds recognized by AKC keeps growing. Just this year (by January 1, 2009) eleven breeds will have been admitted to the miscellaneous class and three advanced to full recognition. That’s an increase of over six percent in the number of recognized breeds, and if this pace continues there will be 200 by 2010, and 250 in 2013. Given our current seven groups, that would mean that the average number of breeds in each group would be 35. Of course, there will be some variation so it is not too risky to speculate that the largest group might include 50 or more breeds by then. Such a large group could only be judged by splitting it as is commonly done in the breed when a particular class has a very large entry. The number of groups has not changed since 1983, when the Herding Group was split off from the Working Group.

AKC’s Board requested a staff study of group realignment and reviewed the staff’s report at its July, 2007 meeting. On October 8, 2007, the Board named the following committee to study and make recommendations on potential group alignment: Dr. Tom Davies (chair), Mrs. Marieann Gladstone, Mr. John Nielsen, Ms. Karen Burgess, Dr. Robert Smith, Dr. William Newman, Mr. Robert Fisher, Mr. R. William Taylor, Dr. Alvin Krause, and Mr. Robin Stansell, with Stansell serving as AKC staff liaison, and a representative of the Superintendent’s Association to be named by that organization. Mrs. Gladstone is a member of the Delegates’ Dog Show Rules Committee. Mr. Nielsen is a member of the Delegates’ Parent Clubs Committee.Mr. Tim James of Onofrio Dog Shows is President of the superintendents’ organization and was selected to represent the association. This is a diverse group of people representing many aspects of the sport as well as an AKC all breed judge from Canada.

The committee can actually do very little beyond analyzing options and making recommendations. The number of groups is explicitly listed in Chapter 3 of the Rules Applying to Dog Shows. Any change in the number of groups must therefore be voted on by the delegates. As of late September, the Committee was still collecting input and had not filed a final report with the Board. The Board must receive a report and then approve it for presentation to the delegates. Delegates receive a proposal at one meeting, and at the next meeting they can amend it if they so choose before it is voted on. While a reading of the proposal at the December, 2008 delegates’ meeting is conceivable, it is very unlikely. Therefore the proposal will probably be read no sooner than the March meeting, with a vote of the delegates in June, 2009 at the earliest.

It is VERY IMPORTANT to remember that this is a work in progress, that no final decisions have been made, and that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. The Committee seeks comments and suggestions. Everyone who has constructive suggestions should communicate with the committee chair, Dr. Davies (e-mail: dunwich@samnet.net) .

After extensive deliberations the committee proposed 10 groups; an increase of 3 groups. These include a new group, Northern Breeds, and division of the sporting and hound breeds. The Committee re-named the Non-Sporting Group as the Companion Group. It contacted each of the parent clubs of the 16 current breeds (i.e. fully approved breeds) moved to another group. Four have not responded as of late September; 3 were undecided or have questions, and 9 agreed to the listed reassignment. The table at the end of this article displays the outcome, while the next few paragraphs summarize the major moves.

The Sporting Group was divided into two groups: 1. Pointers and Setters, and 2. Retrievers and Spaniels. This change seems pretty straightforward and without great surprises.

The Hound Group was divided into Scent Hounds and Sight Hounds. The Norwegian Elkhound was moved into the Northern Breeds group and the Italian Greyhound was moved to Sight Hounds from the Toy Group.

In the Working Group, breeds moved to Northern group are Akitas, Alaskan Malamutes, Samoyeds, and Siberian Huskies, while Dalmatians are transferred in from the Non-Sporting group.

The Terrier Group is untouched.

In Toys, Chinese Crested are moved to the Companion Group and the Italian Greyhound to Scent Hounds.

The former Non-Sporting Group is renamed Companion and 7 breeds (American Eskimo, Chinese Char-Pei, Chow-Chow, Finnish Spitz, Keeshonden, Schipperkes and Shiba Inu) are moved to the new Northern breeds, while the Dalmatian is moved to Working.

The Herding Group loses Swedish Vallhunds to the Northern Breed Group, and the Norwegian Buhunds. (This is a “miscellaneous” breed at this point).

The new Northern Breeds Group is comprised of 13 current and 4 future breeds; the currently approved breeds are drawn from the Hound Group (1), the Working Group (4), the former Non-Sporting Group (7), and the Herding Group (1)

Projected average group size is 18, and ranges from a low of 11 (Sight Hounds) to a high of 29 (Terriers). The proposed alignment is shown in the table at the end of this article.

There is certainly much discussion in our showing community, ranging from sensible questions to knee-jerk reactions and criticisms without constructive or thought-through recommendations. I urge you again to communicate your reaction to Tom Davies.

Some concerns are fairly obvious. While the average of 18 breeds per group seems reasonable, the wide variation from 11 to 29 is not. The current Non-Sporting group is already one of the smallest with 18 breeds, and the re-named Companion Group will have only 12 breeds in the new scheme. The reasons to reduce this group probably include that the Working Group will be reduced by 4 breeds, and that it allows grouping of all the new Northern Breeds group, which draws mostly from Non-Sporting and Working breeds. While it has been advanced that many of the Terrier breeds are not represented at most shows and that therefore the Terrier group would, in practice, be smaller than 29 at larger clusters and at prestigious shows such as Montgomery County, Great Western Terrier Club, Westminster KC, and the AKC Invitational most or all these breeds are present. Of course, that same argument can be applied to all other groups as well. One rarely sees some of the Northern Breeds at some of the mid-sized and smaller shows, so that just being there provides a high probability of placing in the group!

Renaming the Non-Sporting Group poses an interesting dilemma. “Non-Sporting” is a bad name, something like “all non-green houses.” All breeds that are not in the Sporting group are by definition Non-Sporting. Historically, it meant dogs that were not hunting dogs. The choice of “Companion” is not much better, because especially these days most breeds also serve as companions. For example, most toy dogs are companions. Could the entire group be eliminated by moving the breeds listed to other groups (such as Bulldogs to Working, Poodles to Sporting 2 and Tibetan Spaniels to Toys)?

On the policy level, should parent clubs be allowed to determine the group in which they will compete? Or should their opinion be taken as advisory?

Finally, there will be numerous implementation issues. More groups mean more time for judging the groups. While the number of breeds may remain the same, the placements and the procession of dogs into the next group take a few minutes and are not dependent on the number of breeds. Suggestions that group judging could begin earlier are largely impractical when most group judges carry full or nearly full loads as is the case in most shows. The only other option would be judging groups in parallel. This would, of course, be difficult for professional handlers who have dogs in those parallel groups. There are a number of transition problems that will work themselves out within a year or two. These include realignment of group shows, and approval of judges who may lose group judging privileges in new groups that include breeds for which they are not currently licensed.

There has been considerable discussion on how the change would re-shape rankings on Group and All-Breed systems. There would be 12 additional group placements, so more dogs would receive such recognition. Rating systems should not influence this realignment because they not the purpose of dog shows. Rankings at the breed level will not be affected, while Group points will be compared in a new Group, and breeds from one Group will not be compared with breeds in another Group. There would be some effect on all-breed points because wins in a small group would produce fewer points than winning a large-entry group. Has the Committee looked at the number of dogs competing in the breeds in each group? Most importantly, dog shows should be about dog quality, not about arbitrary and manipulated statistics that provide bragging rights for the owner. Every experienced exhibitor knows that “dogs defeated” ratings are influenced as much or more by the pocketbook of the owner than the quality of the dog. So the less attention we pay to such rankings, the better off the sport will be!

The way this issue has been handled is exemplary and a compliment to the committee and especially its chair, Tom Davies. The wide discussion, sharing of information, and deliberative process that now provides ample opportunity for input from all segments of the fancy before recommendations are finalized and brought before the Board and then the Delegates for final action is a good model that sets a new standard. This effort will be wasted if we do not take advantage of the opportunity to share our thoughts.

So once again, I urge you to get behind your computer and tell Tom Davies (dunwich@samnet.net) what you think!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR - He and his family have owned, bred and shown (primarily in conformation) West Highland White Terriers since 1959, have finished over 50 home-bred Westies and a number of dogs in other breeds, notably Norwich Terriers and Lhasa Apso. He is a judge licensed for all Terriers, Delegate to the AKC for the St. Petersburg Dog Fanciers Association, President of the Lakeland-Winter Haven KC, and chair of the West Highland White Terrier Club of America’s Judges’ Education Committee. The Meisels’ live in the Tampa, Florida area.