"60 Breeds That Might Become A Memory"

Background

For more than a century, breeding and showing dogs has been a popular American pastime. During this time owning an American Kennel Club registered purebred dog was the gold standard. In most neighborhoods, dog ownership increased, but as America became more industrialized many of the popular pastimes began to change. The technological marvels of the telephone, washing machine, microwave, TV, and personal computer all gained widespread acceptance at a lightning-fast pace. Family life also changed. Both parents became wage earners. This shifted around their use of leisure time and discretionary income. During the 1990's, another change began to occur which was the long and slow steady decline in litter and dog registrations that quietly began to affect the conformation sport. Today we know that many of the problems affecting dog shows can now be traced back to four factors: declining litter and dog registrations, conversation rates, status as a Low Entry breed and use of the breeder's tool called Limited Registrations. When taken together these four factors are known to produce a downward pressure on the sport while sending mixed messages to the exhibitors. This article is the first in a series that will focus on the four factors affecting the sport.

The Conformation Sport

The decline in show entries has become one of the most noticeable changes talked about at dog shows. Catalogs often show single entries for a breed, which sadly has now become a common occurrence. In the early 2000’s, exhibitors began to notice what would become the beginning of an eight-year decline in show entries and the lack of competition. Most exhibitors are unaware of the slow downward trend in entries from year to year. However, the calculations in Table 1 show that for eight consecutive years’ entries have steadily declined.

Table 1. Avg. Conformation Entry 2010 - 2017

Year	Avg. Show Entry	Difference from 2016	Percentage
2010	996
2011	985	-11	- 1.1 %
2012	970	-16	- 1.5 %
2013	936	-33	- 3.4 %
2014	922	-14	- 1.5 %
2015	913	-9	- 0.9 %
2016	893	-20	- 2.1 %
2017	858	-35	- 4.0 %

 

By 2010 the young breeders of the 1950’s had become the seniors in the sport. This led to a greying effect that has hindered many clubs from attracting and retaining new members. The trickle-down effect from the loss of the dog and litter registrations also was seen in the number of breeders and exhibitors. What has puzzled the casual observer was the mathematics. While millions of Americans continue to own purebred dogs, only a fraction remained involved in breeding them to a standard or entering them at a dog show.

Litter Registrations

The concern about declining litter and dog registrations are subjects often ignored when studying problems related to the conformation sport. Recent data about the few small increases in registrations have not translated into new club members, new breeders, exhibitors or entries. To better understand the factors that are impacting the sport and the 60 breeds predicted to become extinct in the show ring, a study was conducted that ranked, and then divided, all the breeds in the stud book. The 188 recognized breeds were ranked based on their number of registered litters and then further subdivided into three subgroups (top, middle, bottom) with approximately 60 breeds in each subgroup. When all breeds were ranked by the number of litters registered in descending order, largest to smallest based on the number of registered litters, those with the fewest number of litters were found to have other problems. For example, the breeds in the bottom subgroup were found to represent more than 30% of the stud book. Tables 2-5 show more than just breed and litter differences - they also reflect a decline in gene pool size, club membership and interest in the sport. Dramatic similarities and differences were also found between breeds in each subgroup. These differences are significant because they reflect the seriousness of the impact brought on by declining registrations. Table 2 shows the Labrador Retriever and German Shepherd Dog breeds. These two breeds are in the top group and are ranked 1^st and 2^nd by the AKC.

Table 2. Labrador and German Shepherd Dog breeds

Breed	Litters	# Pups	# Regestered	CR	# Limited	% Limited	# Actually Bred	% Actually Bred	# Entered	% Actually Entered
Retrievers (Labrador)	25,536	179,827	68,476	38.1%	12,895	18.8%	7,366	10.8%	3,328	4.9%
German Shepherd Dogs	15,601	96,426	39,588	41.1%	6,024	15.2%	5,531	14.0%	955	2.4%

Data for Labrador Retrievers show they average 25,536 litters a year which produced 179,827 pups but only 68,476 or 38% are registered. Data for the German Shepherd Dog breed show they register 15,601 litters per year which produced 96,426 pups but only 39,588 or 41% are registered. A further review of the data for the Labrador Retriever and German Shepherd Dog breeds shows a disturbing pattern of low registration rates which can also be found throughout the stud book. For example, in the middle sub-group (Table 3), the Italian Greyhound and Chow Chows breeds registered 467 and 466 litters respectively. The number of Greyhound puppies produced from these litters were 1,825 and for the Chow Chows 1,970 puppies. The same trend occurred in this subgroup. While the IG breeders registered 467 litters which produced 1,825 puppies only 794 puppies or 43% were registered. The Chow Chows breeders registered 466 litters which produced 1,970 puppies but only 836 or 42% were registered.

Table 3. Italian Greyhound and Chow Chows

Breed	Litters	# Pups	# Registered	CR	# Limited	% Limited	# Actually Bred	% Actually Bred	# Entered	% Actually Entered
Italian Greyhounds	467	1,825	794	43.5	99	12.4	101	12.6	223	28.0
Chow Chows	466	1,970	836	42.3	118	14.3	136	15.9	129	15.2

The same pattern occurred in the bottom subgroup as seen in Table 4. Two breeds from this subgroup also illustrate this problem. The Australian Terriers, ranked 120th, and the Lakeland Terriers, ranked 121th, average 72 and 68 litters respectively. The number of pups produced and registered from their litters show the same trend. For the Australian Terriers, only 182 of 330 pups were registered or 55%. For the Lakeland Terriers, only 128 of 246 pups were registered or 51.9%.

Table 4 Australian and Lakeland Terriers

	Breed	Litters	# Pups	CR	# Limited	% Limited	LR %	# Actually Bred	% Actually Bred	# Entered	% Actually Entered
120	Australian Terriers	72	330	182	55.0%	54	29.6%	17	9.0%	70	38.5%
121	Lakeland Terriers	68	246	128	51.9%	35	27.7%	22	16.7%	34	26.3%

The more troubling statistic that transcends the AKC stud book is the average registration rate for all breeds is only 40%. This means that 60% of all purebred pups born are lost to their breed and the stud book each year. This same trend in declining registrations can also be found in the number of breeders, exhibitors, club members and entries in the conformation sport. Unfortunately, these trends are now becoming widespread and are affecting many other aspects of the sport. They tend to go unnoticed because most breeders and their clubs are unaware of the decline in their own breeds registrations. No one questions that a decline in the number of dogs being registered will eventually affect the number of dogs exhibited. The average exhibitor only sees entries in decline. Some believe that these problems can be solved by importing more dogs. This argument is shallow and not supported by the data. For example, in 2016, AKC statistics show that only 9,000 foreign dogs were imported and only a small number of these dogs earned their championship. Of the 9,000 imports only 0.7% produced an AKC puppy. In 2017, the total number of imports represented only 1.6% of all dogs registered. At the breed level a similar trend occurred. For example, the 151 imported Chihuahuas represented only 3% of the total number of Chihuahuas registered. In 2016 the German Shepherd Dog breed and French Bulldogs combined accounted for 25% of all AKC's foreign-born registrations. The remaining 75% were comprised of 180 breeds distributed similarly across the AKC breed popularity list (Table 5). This list of 21 countries account for 80% of all other imported dogs.

Table 5. Countries Ranked by Number of Registrations

Canada Serbia Germany Russia Hungary Czech Republic Ukraine

Mexico Poland United Kingdom Italy France Netherlands Slovak Republic

Spain Romania Rep of China (Mainland) Sweden Brazil Croatia Taiwan

Thus, based on the small number of imported dogs and the number being bred each year there is no reason to assume that breeders will import enough foreign dogs to influence the size of a breed population, genetic diversity or the number of dogs being exhibited. The data further suggests that 60 breeds continue on a path to becoming extinct in the show ring. Some may soon become a memory in the show ring unless there is an intervention by the AKC, the delegate body, the parent clubs, and their breeders. The breeds at greatest risk are listed in Table 6. These breeds also show a low percentage of dogs being bred and exhibited. See columns 9 (# Actually Bred) and 10 (% Actually Bred).

Table 6. Bottom 60 Breeds based on Litter Registrations

Rank	Breed	Litters	# Pups	# CR	CR %	# LR	LR %	# Actually Bred	% Actually Bred	# Entered	% Actually Entered
1	English Foxhounds	2	10	10	97.6	1	6.7	0	3.3	5	48.8
2	American Hairless Terriers	2	14	4	78.6	0	9.1	3	27.3	7	63.6
3	Bergamasco	4	26	11	43.0	3	64.5	2	54.8	2	3.2
4	Harriers	4	18	14	69.1	1	4.5	1	3.0	7	45.0
5	American Foxhounds	5	23	15	67.5		0.0	1	10.0	12	84.3
6	Cesky Terriers	5	18	13	75.2	3	24.6	4	28.3	7	54.0
7	Otterhounds	6	30	30	99.1	0	1.3	1	3.8	19	60.7
8	Norwegian Lundehunds	6	17	10	55.4		0.0	1	5.8	3	39.0
9	Spanish Water Dogs	7	41	16	59.6	8	47.4	3	34.8	4	36.0
10	Skye Terriers	7	32	29	93.0	1	3.2	2	7.9	18	61.1
11	Cirnechi dell'Etna	8	45	14	95.6	2	14.0	1	0.0	21	48.8
12	Chinooks	9	56	46	80.0	2	3.0	3	7.3	7	14.2
13	Finnish Lapphunds	11	48	42	87.2	15	37.5	3	7.2	20	46.1
14	American English Coonhounds	11	86	30	35.0		0.0	5	15.2	9	33.4
15	Pyrenean Shepherds	12	40	36	90.6	1	5.0	3	6.7	26	70.3
16	Pharaoh Hounds	13	69	52	73.7	13	29.2	3	4.2	26	46.9
17	Berger Picards	13	51	11	66.7	3	29.4	2	5.9	17	50.0
18	Glen of Imaal Terriers	13	67	58	85.5	22	34.5	1	1.7	22	39.8
19	Spaniels (Sussex)	13	51	44	86.0	1	3.1	4	9.9	27	61.5
20	Wirehaired Vizslas	14	81	40	77.2	14	34.3	5	7.5	15	24.6
21	Retrievers (Curly-Coated)	14	83	67	81.0	10	15.3	3	5.5	25	39.0
22	Norwegian Buhunds	15	72	53	74.5	8	14.4	2	3.6	22	41.4
23	Canaan Dogs	16	61	48	78.8	9	17.8	2	4.1	17	36.2
24	Ibizan Hounds	16	85	77	90.2	4	5.1	4	5.1	58	75.8
25	Setters (Irish Red and White)	16	121	102	85.4	26	25.4	5	5.0	39	38.1
26	Scottish Deerhounds	17	95	78	82.2	4	4.9	4	5.7	50	63.7
27	Spaniels (Irish Water)	19	132	114	86.3	16	14.3	4	3.2	41	35.8
28	Finnish Spitz	20	74	41	56.2	10	23.3	6	13.8	16	37.8
29	Greyhounds	21	122	87	73.0	2	2.2	4	4.4	50	57.9
30	Spaniels (American Water)	21	141	99	70.0	13	12.5	4	3.8	13	13.1
31	Dandie Dinmont Terriers	22	66	51	76.9	10	19.8	5	9.9	25	50.0
32	Kuvaszok	23	111	82	74.7	5	6.4	5	6.1	21	25.5
33	Sealyham Terriers	23	83	67	81.1	4	6.2	8	13.6	29	43.0
34	Boerboels	24	164	51	52.4	12	11.9	18	32.7	10	68.0
35	Komondorok	24	121	56	46.3	3	6.5	9	15.3	12	20.1
36	Entlebucher Mountain Dogs	25	135	77	58.9	32	39.9	9	11.0	15	18.8
37	Polish Lowland Sheepdogs	25	96	53	55.9	33	62.1	5	8.9	12	22.3
38	Swedish Vallhunds	25	114	85	74.9	25	29.4	5	5.9	34	40.0
39	Beaucerons	28	185	110	58.5	42	38.3	6	7.4	38	33.5
40	Icelandic Sheepdogs	31	136	120	88.0	18	14.3	9	8.4	43	36.3
41	Portuguese Podengo Pequenos	31	76	66	87.2	2	3.5	15	22.8	41	61.0
42	Lowchen	32	88	73	84.1	23	30.7	7	9.1	41	55.3
43	Plotts	33	204	67	32.7	0	0.5	15	21.5	12	19.4
44	Pulik	33	149	90	60.2	10	11.2	7	7.8	22	23.7
45	German Pinschers	33	189	150	79.1	67	44.9	9	5.9	47	31.2
46	Spaniels (Field)	34	166	135	81.5	46	34.0	10	7.3	58	43.1
47	Lagotti Romagnoli	35	201	42	62.7	21	50.8	24	9.5	22	17.5
48	Redbone Coonhounds	37	254	89	36.3	10	10.9	16	18.2	28	31.4
49	Salukis	39	195	179	91.6	5	2.8	5	2.6	127	70.9
50	Petits Bassets Griffons Vendeens	39	169	107	63.3	37	34.4	12	11.0	44	41.8
51	Treeing Walker Coonhounds	39	241	91	36.2	0	0.3	9	10.1	38	42.3
52	Bedlington Terriers	40	189	130	69.0	25	18.9	11	8.6	52	39.7
53	Briards	41	268	169	63.1	44	26.1	10	6.0	75	44.7
54	Spaniels (Clumber)	43	196	141	71.4	26	18.6	13	9.9	79	56.9
55	Spaniels (Welsh Springer)	43	252	187	74.2	86	45.7	11	5.7	63	33.5
56	Tibetan Mastiffs	44	268	168	62.5	32	19.0	14	8.5	55	32.8
57	Belgian Sheepdogs	47	277	224	80.7	51	23.0	6	2.5	91	40.1
58	Pointers	48	289	215	74.2	15	6.9	20	10.3	132	60.7
59	Bluetick Coonhounds	52	439	133	29.9	17	12.1	33	26.6	29	22.5
60	Affenpinschers	54	144	116	80.1	9	8.0	22	20.2	53	46.1

As this article has shown, the decline in litter and dog registrations is a subject of great importance because these declines are now impacting AKC shows, clubs, breeders and exhibitors.

Conclusion

The data and information presented about the decline in litter and dog registrations shows that these declines are producing many other problems throughout the sport. As one might suspect, several solutions will be needed. In order to address some of the more important problems, two proposals were offered in the original in-depth paper on this subject (Battaglia) which are repeated here. The original report is posted at Article.

Proposal #1. Out Reach to the Stakeholders -Breed Clubs and Breeders

Finding new ways to attract new exhibits and breeders is a challenge for AKC. Given the significant differences between the 60 breeds found in the bottom group of the stud book and those in the top and middle groups, the downward trend cannot be ignored. Those classified as a low entry breed (LE) and those with a high use of limited registration (LR) need attention and study. It seems reasonable to assume that, at the very least, the stakeholders for these breeds should be made aware of the consequences for doing nothing. Therefore, it is recommended that this data and information, coupled with ideas and recommendations, be offered to the officers, breeders and exhibitors of parent clubs, their regional affiliates and All-Breed clubs. For example, consideration might be given to the use of team meetings and webinars with parent clubs. Other efforts might be considered for those who purchase a LR pup.

Based on conversations with three parent clubs (Samoyed, Giant Schnauzer, German Shepherd Dog clubs), many club members were unaware of this data regarding their breed. Thus, the first step in such an effort would be to share pertinent information and the consequences for doing nothing. Such an effort would be the first step in stabilizing the decline in show entries, breeders, exhibitors and breed size. An organized public relation, marketing and education effort is warranted.

Proposal #2. National Sweepstakes

This proposal is aimed at increasing the number of registered litters, dog registrations and entries using three known elements that drive the sport and keep it alive. They are: titles, awards and recognitions. This proposal creates an AKC National Sweepstake and AKC National Maturity program for every breed.

Currently most novice breeders and exhibitors do not believe they can successfully compete and win against the professional handlers, experienced breeders and seasoned competitors. When costs and their lack of success are considered, many become frustrated and quit. Others just age out. An AKC National Sweepstakes would change this belief because it is not based on winning or defeating the professional handler, experienced breeder or seasoned exhibitor. Emphasis shifts to breeding and puppy placements at shows. The key features of the AKC National Sweepstake (S) are:

1. All breeds are included by definition.
2. Each year AKC designates several regional All-breed shows spread across the US (east, central, west)
3. No championship points are awarded for class placements.
4. Competition involves the 6-9 and 9-12 class at designated all-breed shows. Puppies that place 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th earn Sweepstake points toward the rank of their sire and dam in their breed. (See Table 7)
5. Puppies entered in the 6-9 and 9-12 classes at these designated shows would be the eligible competitors.
6. Sweepstakes points accumulate toward the ranking of sires, dams, breeders and owners in each breed.
7. At the end of each year, AKC ranks and publishes the top 25 sires, dams, breeders and owners in each breed.
8. The first place class winners from the 6-9 and 9-12 classes at the designated regional shows would be invited to Orlando to compete for the title, "AKC National Sweepstakes Winner" Breed Name.
9. 9. Puppies entered in the Sweepstakes would be eligible for the Maturity competition the occurs in the following year. The same point totals (Table 7) would be used and final competition would take place in Orlando for the maturity dogs. Maturity winners at Orlando would be called the AKC National Sweepstakes Maturity Winner Breed name.

The top 25 sires and dams with the highest point totals in each breed would be ranked and published by AKC along with their breeders and owners.

Table 7. Sweepstakes Points Awarded Sire and Dam

Blue Ribbon	Red Ribbon	Yellow Ribbon	White Ribbon
4 points	3 Points	2 Points	1 Point

This Sweepstakes program gives every breeder and owner the opportunity to experience success and be recognized for their sire and dam’s ranking without requiring them to defeat the professional handlers, experienced breeders or seasoned exhibitors. The national Sweepstakes makes success believable, achievable and within reach of all breeders and owners in every breed.

The next article will focus on the second factor impacting dog shows and the sport which is an AKC statistic used to measure the effectiveness of a breed’s ability to register its puppies. AKC calls this statistic the Conversion Rate (CR) which will be the topic of my next article. Data about the CR for the six breeds discussed in this paper can be found in Table 2 and Table 4, in column 5.