The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.  –Maya Angelou

This morning, the Supreme Court of Texas heard oral arguments in a case that may decide how much dogs and cats in Texas are worth.  In the lawsuit, a Texas animal shelter killed a dog despite knowing who its owners were and that they wanted it back.  The shelter called its conduct accidental euthanasia.  But killing a dog by putting poison in its veins is no accident.  And killing a healthy dog is no euthanasia.

In any event, the legal question presented in the case is this:  when someone negligently or intentionally kills a pet (which is considered personal property in Texas), how much should the wrongdoer have to pay to reimburse the pet’s owner for his or her loss?

Under current Texas Supreme Court precedent regarding the destruction or loss of personal property, that answer may be a sum of money that is more than the mere replacement cost of the animal:  under some circumstances, it may include the owner’s sentimental attachment to the animal.

In the 1997 City of Tyler v. Likes case, this is what the Texas Supreme Court said when discussing what damages might be recoverable for the destruction of personal items:

In some cases . . . the damaged property [has  a]  small market value [and its] primary value [is] in sentiment.  Such property can only be adequately valued subjectively; yet, the owner should still be compensated. . . . The owner’s feelings thus help determine the value of the destroyed item to the owner. . . .

So, putting aside whether Texas is right or wrong to consider companion animals personal property (the No Kill Advocacy Center believes it’s wrong to do so), the issue in the case boils down to whether dogs are worth the same as items of property for which the primary value is in sentiment (like photos or personal memorabilia) or whether dogs are worth less than other property.

I think it’s fair to say that most reasonably objective people—and all pet lovers—would agree that it would be absurd to argue that pets are worth less than other items of property.  I think it’s fair to say that most reasonably objective people—and again, all pet lovers—would agree that pets are worth considerably more to them than other items of personal property.  So however animals should be valued by the law, however much pet owners should reasonably be able to recover, there should be no circumstances in which a person should be able to recover less for someone intentionally killing their pet than, say, someone accidentally losing a photo of their pet.

And then there’s the AKC (the American Kennel Club).  The AKC is, primarily, a dog-breeding organization.  It says on its own website that its primary mission is to “uphold . . . the integrity of its Registry,” and that it aims to “[a]dvance the study, breeding, exhibiting, running and maintenance of purebred dogs.

The AKC is not a party to the Texas case.  It is not being sued and no purebred dog is involved.  But the AKC nonetheless got involved, not only filing an amicus curaie brief on behalf of the shelter manager that killed the owner’s dog, but also sent its high-powered Washington, D.C. lawyer to Austin to present oral argument in the case.

And what did that high-powered lawyer argue?  Surely he argued that dogs have special, inherent value because of the very real bond they have with their owners and the integral role pets play in modern lives, right?  The AKC couldn’t possibly have paid to send a D.C. power player to Texas to argue that most people’s pets are absolutely worthless, right?

Wrong.  Asked directly by a Texas Supreme Court Justice what the value of an “old, blind dog” is, the AKC’s lawyer answered “you have to draw the line.”  He didn’t finish his sentence because he didn’t have to and didn’t want to see his quote in the paper. What he communicated was that the Texas Supreme Court should value purebred dogs based on their market value as purebreds, but when a non-registered pet becomes just an old, blind dog, to the AKC at least, it is worthless.

The first time someone shows you who they are, believe them.

The AKC thinks shelter dogs are worthless.  They think rescue dogs are worthless. They think the dog or cat that likely sleeps with you at night has no value, and if your neighbor intentionally poisons your pet and kills it, well, it’s just your own tough luck.

Here’s the line I draw, AKC:  you don’t love dogs and you know it.  You love money. You love being paid to register purebreds.  You love to think about how special your dog is compared to everyone else’s.  You love pageants and competitions and ribbons.

But you don’t love dogs.

39 Responses

  1. Deborah Ullrich January 10, 2013

    I personally spoke with a representative of the AKC about filthy and unsafe housing of a local breeder who advertised AKC registered dogs. The only thing I could do was send in a letter, I was told there really wasn’t anything they could or would, they are just a registration. They give poorly bred dogs AKC registration, even double Merle breeders. Back yard breeders and puppy mills dogs that come from poor blood line, inline breeding, etc. get registered and passed on to ignorant purchasers. Some pass on the poor breeding lines and call them pure bred. Pure bred is not well bred and should have no more value than any dog.

  2. Nicki B January 10, 2013

    Do you have a copy of their brief? I just watched the argument. Sickening.

  3. Jacque Avant January 10, 2013

    This is reprehensible. Our pets are worth more to our family than money. They are part of our family. I am so sorry that AKC saw fit to say that their purebreds are valuable but not our family pets. Has the court rendered its decision yet. Pet owners need to march outside AKC headquarters and the courthouse. How can you put a price on something you love and that loves you unconditionally.

    • Ryan Clinton January 10, 2013

      Jacque: The Court has not yet reached a decision. It will most likely issue its decision some time over the next several months.

  4. Saving Pets Australia January 10, 2013

    Thanks for sharing this – I’m appalled that the position the AKC has chosen to take is to devalue the love and family connection most people feel towards their pets – regardless of breed.

    SHAME AKC SHAME!

  5. Carole Weaver January 10, 2013

    Shame! Shame! Shame! Mom might have written this letter for me, but the sentiment is all Jake! She saved me from going to a pound. Pay’s my vet bills like I’m a pedigree, feeds me dog food every day – but I forgive her, she thinks it’s best; and because she gives me nightly belly rubs just because I love it and she loves me.
    I’m priceless in Mom’s eyes.

  6. Donna Watkins January 10, 2013

    I apologize if I missed it , but I didn’t see where AKC’s position said anything about purebred dogs, or about their relative merits vs mixed breed dogs. It states that if professionals who work with dogs (no mention of purebred vs mixed breed) are able to be sued for huge amounts of money, then people won’t be able to afford to care for their dogs and therefore all dogs will lose out. They asked a rhetorical question about how to value a dog but made no value judgement on the particular dogs mentioned. The AKC allows mixed breed dogs in performance events and while their focus is being a registry for purebred dogs, they are not anti-mixed breed.

  7. Juliebee January 10, 2013

    I am happy to see that more people are learning the truth about the AKC. They are a vile organization and have done much toward creating the millions of dogs killed every year. They encourage breeding which produces millions more than there are homes for them. When they start registering dogs for free, or start donating all registration fees toward rescue operations, and begin inspecting every single litter and their environment, then maybe I will not despise them so vehemently.

    • Chris January 29, 2013

      Actually, they do a lot of the stuff you are proposing. The AKC doesn’t just register dogs, they actually have a lot of other programs that they fund.

  8. Lori January 10, 2013

    Wonder how they feel about the registered dogs who are surrendered to shelters and then adopted or rehomed on Craigslist? Do they believe that the dogs cease to be worth anything if their original owner dies or loses interest or has their home foreclosed on, etc?

  9. Annony January 10, 2013

    You are ALL just realizing this? Circus, Dog shows, cat prancing…..this stuns you all?

  10. Helen Zamba January 10, 2013

    Seven years ago my daughter and I purchased two Golden Retriever puppies from a backyard breeder. We would not give up these wonderful dogs for anything in the world. However, despite being told by the breeder that none of his dogs had hip problems, both puppies were found to have hip dysplasia at 4 months, and my daughter’s had a hip replacement at a year. When we contacted the breeder to let him know, he told us where to go and what to do to ourselves when we got there. By this time this breeder had moved and had LOTS of dogs stuck in small areas of the yard, including puppies with zero shelter. We got a news station to investigate, and they were going to do a story on how he was running a puppy mill, and they flew a helicopter over his home and took video of all the dogs and the deplorable conditions, including feces all over the yard. When AC finally responded (to the news channel, not us) and left a notice on his door, he responded by the next morning loading up dogs and puppies in his car and dropping them off all over town, in Las Vegas in August with heat well over 100 degrees. We found out later three dogs he dumped were pregnant, and he dumped puppies that were as young as 8 weeks. We ended up with a puppy (given to us by the police who reluctantly went to his door upon our begging them to find out what areas he had dumped the dogs in, which he told them and gave them what he said was his last puppy) who went on to have three hip surgeries before he was a year, a TPO on one and then a total hip on the other and then a re-do of the total hip. I tried calling the AKC to report him and asked that he not be allowed to register dogs anymore, telling her the story. I was told by the lady I spoke to, aghast at my suggestion, that they are just a registry and that they will not stop him from registering dogs. Last I heard he was breeding English Bulldogs. He’s a disgusting excuse for a human being, and yet the AKC is happy to allow him to keep breeding dogs as long as he keeps paying the money.

  11. Sandra Wood January 10, 2013

    It is very sad to think that a reputable organiztation as the AKC thinks nothing of a dog if it is not pure bred. Dogs were made by God with very real emotions, feelings, able to feel physical pain as well as joy. If you look into a vet’s operating room much of the machinery they use on dogs and cats is the same that they use on humans. To kill a helpless animal such as this story tells is extremely cruel and inhumaine. Unfortunately our society today is getting farther and farther away from God.

  12. Bee, The Pet Advocate January 11, 2013

    I’ve been in the veterinary industry for 13 yrs now. I started in the kennels and worked my way up to a practice manager so I’ve seen and heard a lot things that pertain to this matter. Unfortunately this is so very sad AND true. Texas recently (the last few years) passed legislation that pet owners couldn’t sue for “EMOTION;” be it pain and suffering or the general woe of loosing a pet regardless of the nature of loss, ie: wrongful death/euthanasia or malpractice.

    I too am the prideful OWNER of a 2 yr old mutt adopted from the pound after loosing my last dog 4 yrs ago to severe arthritis. I also HAVE 2 stray cats that I took in as kittens that are now 6 and 8 yrs old, as well as a tarantula found on a dirt road here in Texas. — 90+% of pet owners have an informal, emotional attachment with their pets as being members of their family (pack). I am 1 of that 90+%, however, we loose that in the use of the word “OWNER.” Allow me to explain….

    The word “OWNER” implies a form of ownership and by state and federal law, that rabies certificate you get from your vet every 1-3 yrs says just that; that you are the rightful OWNER of “Muffin” and/or “Max” and you’re in compliance of the law; your “Muffin” and/or “Max” was inoculated against Rabies. In 2006, I personally witnessed my former veterinary employer get sued for $100k, although the board only awarded the client $70k via malpractice insurance. What did the client sue for, you ask??? An accident that could have happened to ANYONE, ANY PRACTICE, ANYTIME.

    The client was a Savanna Cat Breeder, exotic cats if you will. We’re talking about a 40+# wild animal that she bred and sold it’s cubs. The cat was ill and hospitalized at our clinic overnight. That same day a client brought in another pet that had a dangerously low body temp that was also hospitalized overnight in the cage above the cat. The pet above the cat required a heating element of sorts for overnight and was placed on a low heat heating pad. Poor design of the practice to ensure the safety of pets that may be exposed to electrical dangers is CERTAINLY a valid cry of opposition from the owner of the exotic cat, however, what happened was by far more dramatic. Late in the night, the cat pawed around in its cage as most cats do even if they’re not 40# and it got a hold of the cord to the heating pad. Just like cats at home, one can only speculate that it batted it around and mouthed on it a bit, and with one nibble too deep it electrocuted itself to death.

    Distress not only hit the owner, but everyone in our hospital as this cat was beautiful, intelligent, and due to the breed’s specifications and exotic regulations it was a “frequent flyer” at the clinic. We knew it and its owners well and enjoyed its visits to our practice. EVERYONE was devastated! What happened next threw us all for a loop! The owner filed a malpractice suet for $100k to cover the following: Medical Malpractice/Negligence (warranted), the cost of the Queen (also warranted), the cost of the 2 alleged cub that she COULD have had that following year as it was claimed as a source of income for the owner, as well as pain and suffering to the client.

    Do I condone the accident that happened or dispute that it could have been 100% prevented??? ABSOLUTELY NOT, but it was gut wrenching to not only feel for the lost pet and its OWNERS, but it was also so very upsetting to watch his practice go down in flames with the public slander and defamation that surrounded the event, and top top it all off, he was sued for something so very subjective. I say subjective because no one can say to what status that cat was held by that family. On paper they are the OWNER and one may deduce that because they sued for loss of potential income that may be ALL that the late cat was to the client.

    One might say that I’m just MY pet’s OWNER and they may “JUST” be that family dog or cat. My pets are extensions of family to me. My dog goes to work with me EVERYDAY and my cats often eat better than I do. They each have little quirks, idiosyncrasies, routines, sounds, gestures, personality…; hell, I even hold funny little conversations with them about how he’s my buddy or she’s the bestest (insert species here). BUT, does any of that hold the same invaluable meaning to my vet as it does to me? Does any of that mean the same to the TVMA if my pet died on the surgery table for something that was seemingly routine while under the supervision of my vet? The answer will always be no.

    When we sign up on home owner’s or renter’s insurance as I did, it asks you to estimate the value of items that are irreplaceable. That stumped me for days… How on earth do I value my pets, the photos of my kids and their first EVERYTHING, my baby book, the antique cranberry glass bowl from my grandmother, the quilt hand stitched by my great grandmother, the lock of hair from my mother that was cut for me before we buried her this last May? After 3 days of tossing the thought around and trying desperately to place a “$” in front of those items I was finally forced to GUESS an overall value just to take out the policy and be compliant with my property management rules.

    At the end of the day (KNOCK ON WOOD), if my apartment were to burn to the ground, State Farm will tell me that “they understand,” but I know they don’t. I know that to them, I was JUST THE OWNER of those items. Bottom line, until we can humanize our pets and personal effects, the perception will always be that we are owners and our lost sentimental pets and/or treasures will be treated as possessions. I stand on the fence for this matter; I stand alongside that 90+% of pet COMPANIONS, yet I also stand on the side of my vet. I work with them everyday, communicate my concerns and voice my love for my critters, but Heaven forbid something happens to my pet in their care, I’d never sue them. If animal control picked my dog up and he was killed by mistake I wouldn’t even attempt to sue a civil service organization…. They’re poorly funded that’s why they’re high kill and always run out of room. “YOU JUST CAN’T GET BLOOD FROM A TURNIP!!!”

    Perhaps we can start by displaying the above mentioned pet humanization just by donating or volunteering to help and/or foster shelter pets… They don’t have owners, but we can save they’re lives. We could hold that cage open longer for the “Muffin” and/or “Max” that got lost to be reunited with their people… We could start with that. Something so small, yet could make such a huge impact in the lives of the family like the one in today’s Supreme Court hearing. The shelter is not to blame,. The AKC had an opinion so they voiced it, so I ask, ” and???” Opinions are like “!@#holes,” everybody has one.

    If we start with something small as I mentioned above; if we cradle the “value” of a pet’s life by how we treat them when they’re not even OURS, imagine the possibilities to sway EVEN the Supreme Court in the future.

    I’m not sayin’……….. I’m just sayin’. -Bee

  13. stephanie neimiller January 11, 2013

    The all mighty dollar is at it again. Dogs are NOT throw away items AKC. They are living, breathing beings that have been by man’s side for thousands of years. Who are YOU a select few AKC to determine who’s important to live and who’s not. You sit in your high and mighty thrones at your kennel clubs and dog shows and get people to pay for “quality, pure bred dogs” who most likely come from puppy mills. You set no kenneling standards, you don’t police your own members and breeders you just sit and collect money and discriminate. I hate to tell you, but look in the mirror… are YOU a pure bred? Or are you part German or Italian or Asian or Afro-American or the list can go on… if so, then check yourself directly into a shelter and line for the juice. Ridiculous you say? EXACTLY! Stop closing down shelters and bullying rescues just because it’s impacting your wallet. We are talking lives here AKC and family members, NOT just a mutt dog.

  14. Amanda January 11, 2013

    This is deplorable. This is what is wrong with our country. When we belittle the value of life in a court room and try to put a price on it, there is something seriously backwards. I am hoping for justice for this family, for their beloved dog, and justice for the precious lives of shelter pets all over the country.

  15. Gina Spadafori January 11, 2013

    It’s actually a little more complicated that the “breeders are bad” dynamic rescuers often default to in discussing the AKC. I have purebreds, I have bred a litter and I have also run a breed rescue, taking in, treating/training and placing more than 100 dogs a year. I have also shown dogs and competed with my dogs in other AKC sanctioned dog sports.

    The AKC (through its foundation) supports health research that helps all dogs. It runs scads of “non-beauty” competitions that dogs and people love, enhancing the human-animal bond. But yeah, what it mostly does is make money from puppy mills. Truth is, they don’t value purebreds any more than they do other dogs. If they did, they’d change a lot of things about the way they do business.

    Christie Keith has an excellent take on how those of us who (though we love all dogs) choose to spend our lives with a certain kind of dog (in my case, a fairly obscure breed of retriever) and how we struggle to deal with the hot mess that is the American Kennel Club: http://www.doggedblog.com/doggedblog/2007/10/oh-akc-i-wish-i-knew-how-to-quit-you.html

    And be cheered: The AKC is in freefall. The wheels have come off its “business model”: http://terriermandotcom.blogspot.com/2010/03/akc-to-go-out-of-business-by-2025.html

  16. Robyn January 11, 2013

    I agree that the AKC’s stance on this is reprehensible, but saying they don’t value mutts isn’t entirely accurate. They opened up certain performance events to mutts some time ago and I’m sure they generate a lot of revenue from it. And: expecting the AKC to be anything but a registering body (like the DMV) is fruitless.

  17. Dr Betty Schueler January 11, 2013

    I fell out with the AKC many years ago over their refusal to let breeders mark registration papers to indicate a dog wasn’t to be bred. They eventually let us use non-breeding agreements but I don’t know how well they worked as I became ill and had to shut down my kennel. I think they have missed a huge opportunity in not supporting “household pets,” the way the cat associations do. I’m not surprised that their lawyer indicated that a cross-bred dog has no value. It does seem to be a core belief of the AKC.

  18. Gail January 11, 2013

    I found out a few years ago that the AKC collects $25 from puppy mill owners to get the AKC paperwork. This then implies it is a certified dog and gives it more value though it is actually bred in a puppy mill. So that might help you understand why the American Kennel Club is not interested in closing down puppy mills. Also did you know the Agriculture dept. encouraged the Amish to raise pupies to suppliment their income and the Amish don’t treat the animals well. Some have been fined or closed. This is all fact.

  19. Ana Hamilton January 11, 2013

    AKC is an entity for the betterment of the BREED. People that believe in this, love and adore their dogs, the only difference is that they do their research on the best lines out there that will produce the best possible dogs “possibly” free of defects, health problems, diseases as cancer, OCD, hip dysplasia and many others. If people would take the time to get educated, we will not have such high percentage of unwanted dogs in this world. It is true that not everyone buys a dog for show but those ones that do, should never be condemned because they want the best of the breed and continue to enhance the breed for the betterment of the breed and not their benefit. We ALL have the right to choose our “path”. Please, don’t place the blame of uneducated and heartless people on the devotion of people trying to do what is best for their breed of dogs. I love show people because the love they give to their dogs is unbelievable. I love rescues and fosters because they adore dogs that are not or ever will be their own but yet they treat them as their own. We need to come together as a “Love for Dogs” group rather than separate our love in groups that “SOCIETY” mandates. When we all come together for the benefit of the “DOG”, this is when unwanted dogs will be a thing of the past. We need to educate the world about the work that “show people” so lovingly do to enhance the breed for the BETTERMENT of the breed.

    • Ryan Clinton January 11, 2013

      The AKC made its position quite clear.

    • Susan Jaeger January 11, 2013

      “AKC is an entity for the betterment of the BREED.” I beg to differ. The fact they give their endorsement to any/all puppy mills, despite the clear evidence those mills are producing defective, weak, ill, etc., puppies who are often mistreated, completely contradicts that statement.

      • wyr January 15, 2013

        Jesus crap on a cracker. Calm down. The AKC is a registration. That’s it. How would you feel if the DMV refused to give you your license because you don’t drive a BMW.

        It is the responsibility of the owner to do their research. Trainers and dog lovers do their best to educate those around us, but often, by the time they come to me, they already have their puppy, and the only thing I can do is educate them towards the future. I show both pure bred and mixed bred dogs with the AKC, and I will continue to do so. Should they have gotten involved? Probably not – but I feel there is more to this story than the one-sided, ‘outrage inducing’ half details included here.

        Context, people

      • JenniferT January 15, 2013

        You are completely WRONG about the “puppy mill” thing. The AKC has actually lost significant income because they have implemented programs that exclude practices commonly held by profit-oriented breeders, what you call ‘puppy mills’. The AKC has created the Frequently Used Sire program, and that pretty much sent the ‘puppy mills’ scattering from the AKC to crap registries like the ACA, the CONtinental Kennel Club, which likes to confuse people by using the same initials as the reputable Canadian Kennel Club, the CKC, the APRI, and other supposed registries that give papers for money. The AKC’s FUS requires any dog bred more than a certain few times be DNA tested for accuracy of pedigrees and to keep track of who many litters are being produced. That meant cutting into ‘puppy mill’ profits. If the AKC was interested only in the making of money, and being it is a NON-PROFIT agency, it isn’t, they’d never have implemented that program.

        They also have the CHIC now. CHIC, the Canine Health Initiative Challenge gives special recognition to breeders who do all the recommended genetic health testing on their breeding dogs. The goal is to identify quality breeders and to improve the overall health of dogs, so they can live longer, healthier lives.

        The AKC also offers programs like the Humane Fund and the Companion Animal Recovery program that has done WAY more than the disreputable Humane $society of the United $tates for disaster relief for animals. http://www.akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=3554

        The AKC may not be perfect, but they ARE trying. They aren’t evil and they do a lot more good than some groups that parade around pretending they help animals. No organization can do it all, but the AKC is certainly moving in the right direction.

  20. Mark Walker January 11, 2013

    Attorney Ryan Clinton, I just wanted to say a big THANK YOU for giving your time to advance the welfare of our companion animals. I’m a retired paralegal due to health issues and have been out of the legal environment for several years but now that I’m doing better I’m trying to devote more time to learning more about Animal Law. I have had the pleasure of sharing my life with some beautiful animals and cannot & will not place a value on their lives, they are priceless. I don’t call them pets and I don’t own them. They are my kids and I’m their provider. I’m just learning of this case but I’m very aware of the laws and how they consider animals to be property as if they were a couch or stereo which a dollar amount can be placed. I will be reading the briefs and arguments filed in this case to learn the opinions of the various organizations involved so that I can align myself with the ones that see these animals as I do. I’m not here to argue the points at this time. Just wanted to say thank you.

  21. Nancy Smith, JD January 12, 2013

    Please don’t forget the limitations of our legal system. In a civil action, the only damages that can be awarded are monetary. Is the loving 40-year-old husband and father of three worth more than a 10-year-old victim of a school shooting? Placing a dollar value on relationships of any kind is a task some may find reprehensible, but it is a necessary evil. Even when hearts are broken, monetary damages are assessed. Yes, the working father with dependants and a 25-year work life expectancy is “worth more” dollars than the child with mere potential. This does not speak to the true value of the person, any more than the money awarded heals the hearts of those left behind.
    The extent of the wrong causing the death will determine whether the courts will award punitive damages, and even compensatory damages have a deterrent effect on negligent conduct. However, we all know that while the system can only award money, it cannot heal those effected by loss. For that, we must look to whatever spiritual guides help us through this life.
    I am a retired lawyer, a dog lover and a people lover. Cherish all your relationships and when seeking justice, please remember it is not revenge.

  22. Holly Shaw January 15, 2013

    Unfortunately the AKC is a money-driven business, as are the breeders themselves. Until people stop BUYING dogs and cats, these businesses will continue to prosper, and pets will continue to be considered property. It is up to US to STOP the cycle. It is up to US to stop coveting the status that we think comes with having a designer pet. It is up to US to stop feeding the gas chambers an endless supply of unwanted dogs and cats. WE domesticated these animals and WE have turned our backs on them in record numbers. WE are deplorable.

  23. Laura Kaelin February 8, 2013

    I think that this is a really interesting perspective on this organization. Previously, I thought that the AKC was a very reputable organization with the best interest of animals taken into account. Thank you for the wake up call.

  24. Jeff Bland April 6, 2013

    As the person of two rescue Bichons I find the AKC’s position callous, but not surprising. What really knocks me down are the organizations that purport to be on the side of animal welfare not taking up the cause.
    I’ve always held the same belief as Holly Shaw (see previous comments) that we are responsible for the existence of companion animals, and are therefor responsible for their well being. I always thought that the Humane Society et al were of a similar mind, but apparently was mislead.

  25. Stefani olsen April 6, 2013

    Why don’t you say the same thing to the AVMA. They held the same position — and it’s clear, organized veterinary medicine doesn’t love pets either.

  26. Iva Kimmelman July 28, 2013

    If all of this is true, it begs the words: AKC, why have you forsaken me?

  27. Kent Bless October 10, 2013

    Ryan, what was the outcome of this case? Just now reading it…

  28. Tracie December 27, 2013

    If the AKC doesn’t like shelter dogs or rescue dogs or “mutts” then why are they trying to say any dog is a “purebred”? All dogs where mixed in the beginning with other types of dogs and if they feel that way about dogs does the attitude trickle down to people? Do they believe only those that can afford their fees should have
    “purebred” dogs. Sounds like its not only animal bias it probable has its roots in human bias also.

Leave a Reply