Quote:
Originally Posted by livingdustmops  Why do you consider it an extra burden if the dogs are registered through AKC...This is one of their requirements and should not be considered a burden. AKC made big bucks ($64/8 million last year) and can afford to do inspections. |
I don't think they inspect ever breeder's facilities every year, and why should the government quit checking just because someone is registered with the AKC? You would probably decide frequency of inspection based on some criteria such as number of litters and past marks. Since the AKC can't regulate kennel conditions any more than state law allows, it would seems certain kennels would need more frequent inspections than others, and this in my opinion puts an unfair burden on them. I'm always reading how much they take in, but how much do they spend, that's the real question, and maybe they need to take in more, so that they can afford to do yearly inspections.
It's easy to criticize any multimillion dollar company, of course there are things wrong with the AKC, that why I always encourage pet owners to register with them and become involved. Pet owners should have a a voice in breeding legislation, and what the AKC decides to back, because right now much of it doesn't seem to protect the small breeder, but the commercial breeder. Also, pet owners would have more clout to get the AKC to do more frequent inspections. While it may not be perfect, it's the best thing we have going, just saying that it's lousy too, leaves the other registries with much more power, after all, do you think APRI does any inspections? Do they ever suspend any breeders? If you have an suggestions on how we can help fix what is wrong with the AKC, I'd love to hear about it.