AKC Standard Reform: Why Change Is Difficult and What Might Work
The American Kennel Club's approach to breed standards has produced predictable results: working breeds that increasingly cannot work, health problems that concentrate in show populations, and a widening gap between American and international dogs. Reformers have proposed changes for decades. Almost nothing has changed.
Understanding why reform fails helps assess what reform approaches might succeed. The barriers to change are structural, economic, and cultural. They're also surmountable—under the right conditions.
How AKC Standards Work
AKC breed standards originate with parent clubs—the breed-specific organizations that AKC recognizes as guardians of each breed. The German Shepherd Dog Club of America writes the German Shepherd standard. The Labrador Retriever Club writes the Labrador standard. AKC coordinates but doesn't dictate.
This structure gives breed communities autonomy. Changes require parent club approval. AKC staff cannot impose revisions over parent club objections. The breeds belong to their clubs.
Parent club governance varies but typically involves member voting. Board members propose changes. Committees debate language. Members vote on revisions. The democratic process ensures broad support for any changes adopted.
The process is conservative by design. Standards should not change casually. Sudden revisions would invalidate breeding programs and destabilize breed populations. Deliberate pace protects against hasty mistakes.
But the same conservatism that protects against hasty mistakes prevents necessary corrections. Problems embedded in standards persist because changing them requires convincing membership that current practice is wrong. Breeders invested in current type resist any change that would devalue their dogs.
The Political Economy of Standards
Economic interests shape standards politics more than breeding philosophy. Understanding these interests explains why reform proposals fail.
Show breeding is a business. Champion dogs command stud fees. Champion-sired puppies sell at premiums. Show wins translate to revenue. Breeders have financial stakes in the system that produces wins.
Standards define winning. Dogs that match standards win shows. Standards therefore define which dogs generate revenue. Changing standards changes who profits.
Established breeders have invested in current standards. Their breeding programs, over decades, have produced dogs that win under current rules. Standard revisions that would make their dogs less competitive threaten their investments. Self-interest dictates opposition.
Reform coalitions face collective action problems. Reformers are typically dispersed across many kennels, each individually small. Defenders of current standards are often concentrated in established breeding programs with resources to mobilize politically. Intensity of interest favors status quo defenders.
"I proposed adding working requirements to our breed standard fifteen years ago. The opposition was immediate and overwhelming. Breeders whose dogs couldn't pass working tests—which was most of the membership—weren't going to vote for requirements that would disqualify their dogs. The proposal died in committee."
Structural Barriers to Reform
Beyond political economy, structural features of AKC governance impede reform.
Parent club membership is self-selecting. People who join breed clubs typically show dogs or breed for shows. Working enthusiasts often participate in alternative venues—herding trials, protection sports, hunt tests—rather than breed club activities. Parent club membership skews toward show-oriented breeders.
Voting rules favor incumbents. Many parent clubs require sponsorship for membership, service requirements for voting rights, or super-majorities for standard changes. These rules, whatever their original purpose, function to protect established interests.
AKC itself has limited incentive for reform. AKC generates revenue from registrations and show entries. Reforms that would reduce show participation—by disqualifying dogs from competition or discouraging casual show breeding—would reduce revenue. AKC's financial interests align with maintaining systems that maximize participation, not systems that maximize breed quality.
Judge education reinforces current standards. Judges learn to evaluate dogs by studying current champions. Their visual templates derive from successful dogs under current standards. Even if standards change, judges' internalized expectations may lag for years.
What UK Reforms Demonstrate
The UK Kennel Club's post-2008 reforms demonstrate that change is possible under sufficient external pressure. Understanding how those reforms happened illuminates potential pathways.
The 2008 BBC documentary "Pedigree Dogs Exposed" revealed health problems in show-bred dogs to mass audiences. Footage of suffering animals generated public outrage. Media attention intensified. Sponsors withdrew from Crufts. The Kennel Club faced genuine crisis.
Facing public relations disaster, the Kennel Club acted. It revised standards for breeds with documented health problems. It banned closely related matings. It required health testing for certain breeds. It commissioned an independent review of breeding practices.
These reforms happened not because breed clubs voted for them but because external pressure made inaction impossible. The Kennel Club overrode parent club objections when public pressure demanded action. Autonomy yielded to necessity.
The lesson is clear: internal reform processes produced nothing for decades. External pressure produced significant reform within months. The system changes when it must, not when it should.
Health-Focused Reform
Health requirements represent the most promising reform vector because they can be justified on welfare grounds rather than aesthetic preferences.
Mandatory health testing for breeding eligibility would exclude dogs with documented health problems. Dogs with hip dysplasia, cardiac conditions, or genetic diseases would be ineligible regardless of conformation quality. This requirement would shift selection pressure toward health.
Health testing is already common in responsible breeding programs. Many breeders voluntarily test dogs and publish results. Mandatory requirements would merely universalize existing best practices. Resistance comes from breeders who don't test—exactly those whose dogs need to be excluded.
AKC already maintains infrastructure for health databases. The Orthopedic Foundation for Animals coordinates with AKC on health registries. Connecting these databases to breeding eligibility is technically straightforward. The barriers are political, not practical.
Some parent clubs have implemented health requirements for specific titles or programs. The Canine Health Information Center (CHIC) recognizes dogs that complete breed-specific health testing protocols. Converting CHIC requirements to breeding prerequisites would be a logical extension.
Health-focused reform sidesteps some aesthetic controversies. Breeders cannot easily argue that their dogs should be bred despite health problems. The welfare argument carries moral weight that purely structural arguments about angulation or coat length do not.
Working Title Requirements
Requiring working demonstrations for breeding eligibility would transform selection pressure in working breeds. This reform is more controversial than health requirements but more directly addresses working capacity.
Working titles exist for most working breeds. IGP for protection breeds. Herding trials for herding breeds. Hunt tests for sporting breeds. The testing infrastructure exists. Requiring titles would utilize existing programs.
The objection is that most AKC show dogs cannot pass working tests. Requiring what most dogs cannot achieve would dramatically shrink breeding populations. Breeders whose dogs would be excluded object strenuously.
Phased implementation might address this objection. A first phase might require working instinct testing—simple evaluations of whether dogs have breed-appropriate drives. A second phase might require basic working titles. A third phase might require advanced titles. Gradual tightening gives breeding programs time to adjust. The FCI breeding certification system provides models for how such requirements could be structured.
Alternatively, working titles could be required for certain championship designations without being required for all breeding. A "Working Champion" title might require demonstration of both conformation and working ability. Breeders could choose which path to pursue while buyers could choose what titles to require.
Standard Language Reform
Even without new requirements, clarifying standard language could shift selection pressure. Standards that explicitly prohibit extremes, if enforced, would favor moderate dogs.
Many standards include language warning against exaggeration, but judges inconsistently enforce these provisions. Strengthening language, adding disqualifying faults, and training judges to enforce prohibitions could matter without requiring new testing programs.
The FCI model provides templates. FCI standards typically include detailed descriptions of faults at various severity levels. Severe faults disqualify. This graduated system provides clear guidance for judges and breeders. AKC standards could adopt similar structure.
Enforcement mechanisms matter as much as language. Standards saying extremes should be faulted accomplish nothing if judges don't fault extremes. Judge education, licensing requirements, and feedback systems would need to reinforce standard language. Words without implementation are just words.
"Our standard says to avoid exaggeration. It says moderate angulation. It says the dog should be capable of working all day. Then judges reward the most extreme, most angulated dog in the ring, and that dog wins. The standard says one thing. Judging says another."
External Pressure Points
If internal reform is unlikely, external pressure might be necessary. Several pressure points could potentially force change.
Media attention to breed health problems generates public pressure. The UK experience shows that sustained coverage can create crisis conditions. American media has covered breed problems sporadically but not with the sustained intensity that produced UK reforms.
Veterinary professional organizations could apply pressure. Official statements from veterinary associations condemning breeding practices that cause suffering would carry credibility. Veterinary refusal to endorse or participate in shows featuring extreme breeds would have practical impact.
Insurance considerations might force change. If insurance companies began charging higher premiums for breeds with documented health problems, or excluding certain breeds from coverage, economic pressure would incentivize healthier breeding.
Legislative action represents the most dramatic pressure point. Several European countries have banned breeding of extreme types or required health certifications for breeding. Similar legislation in American states would force compliance or exit from those markets.
Consumer pressure matters increasingly. Social media enables dissemination of information about breed problems. Buyers who research before purchasing increasingly encounter warnings about show-bred health problems. Market pressure from informed consumers could shift breeder incentives.
What Individual Breeders Can Do
Reform at organizational levels is difficult. Individual breeders can act without waiting for organizational change.
Breed for health and function regardless of show success. Accept that dogs bred for working ability may not win shows under current judging. Value working capacity over show points. The dogs will be better even if they're less decorated.
Health test rigorously and publish results. Make testing standard practice in your program and make results public. Transparency pressures others toward similar practice. The market rewards breeders with documented healthy dogs.
Require working demonstrations in your program. Even if AKC doesn't require titles, you can require them for your breeding stock. Breed only from dogs that demonstrate working capacity, not just appearance. Our guide to understanding Schutzhund and IPO titles explains what these demonstrations actually measure.
Educate buyers about what matters. Help buyers understand why health testing, working titles, and moderate structure matter. Informed buyers become advocates for better breeding. Market education shifts market demand.
Support working venues. Participate in herding trials, hunt tests, protection sports, or other working evaluations appropriate to your breed. Support organizations that maintain working tests. These venues preserve the selection pressure that maintains working capacity.
Parallel Systems
Some working communities have essentially abandoned AKC and built parallel systems. This approach preserves working ability at the cost of engagement with mainstream breeding.
The American Border Collie Association registers Border Collies based on working ability, not appearance. Dogs earn registration by demonstrating herding. The ABCA explicitly exists to preserve working capacity that AKC recognition threatened. Our analysis of the Border Collie standards controversy details how this parallel system emerged and what it has preserved.
Working German Shepherd breeders increasingly register through SV rather than AKC. The SV system requires what AKC does not: health testing, breed surveys, and working titles. Dogs bred under SV requirements differ from AKC show dogs.
Working Malinois breeders often operate entirely outside kennel club systems. Dogs are evaluated on performance in police work, military service, or sport competition. Registry papers matter less than demonstrated capability.
Parallel systems preserve working ability but fragment breeds. Dogs bred in one system rarely cross into others. Gene pools become isolated. The breeds nominally united under single names become effectively different breeds bred by different communities for different purposes.
Whether fragmentation is acceptable depends on priorities. If preserving working ability matters most, parallel systems achieve that goal. If breed unity matters, parallel systems represent failure. The values at stake determine which outcome is better.
Realistic Expectations
Assessing reform prospects requires realistic expectations about what's achievable.
Comprehensive reform of AKC standards is unlikely in the near term. The structural and economic barriers are substantial. Internal reform processes have produced minimal change over decades. There's no reason to expect dramatic acceleration.
Incremental improvements are possible. Individual parent clubs occasionally adopt health requirements or strengthen standard language. These improvements matter for specific breeds even if system-wide reform stalls.
External pressure could accelerate change. A high-profile media event, legislative action, or market shift could create conditions for rapid reform. These events are unpredictable but historically have produced more change than internal advocacy.
Working communities will continue preserving functional dogs regardless of what happens in show systems. The dogs that can actually work will continue being bred by people who value work. This parallel track ensures that working capacity survives even if show populations continue degrading.
Buyer behavior can shift faster than organizational change. As information about breed problems spreads and buyers become more sophisticated, market demand may shift toward healthier, more functional dogs. Market pressure doesn't require organizational reform—it rewards breeders who produce what buyers want.
Conclusion
AKC standard reform faces substantial barriers. Economic interests, structural features, and cultural factors all favor status quo. Internal reform processes have proven ineffective.
Change is nonetheless possible. External pressure can overcome internal resistance. Health-focused reforms may prove more achievable than aesthetic reforms. Individual breeders can act without waiting for organizational change. Parallel systems preserve working ability outside show breeding.
The dogs suffering under current standards cannot wait for perfect reform. Buyers can choose better breeders now. Breeders can improve their practices now. Working communities can continue their preservation work now. Organizational reform would help, but its absence doesn't prevent individual action.
The question isn't whether AKC will reform—that remains uncertain. The question is what each of us will do regardless. The dogs don't care about organizational politics. They just need someone to breed them well.