There’s a saying that goes something like: If you want to know where you’re going, you have to know where you’ve been. Another way of putting it would be to say that in order to achieve success in the future, learning from past successes (and past failures) is essential. Equally important is avoiding the tendency to “live” in the past in ways that can prevent an objective evaluation of current circumstances.
With these thoughts in mind, how is the sport of dogs doing today and how did we get here?
In 2026, we all find ourselves participating in a sport that is constantly changing despite its firmly rooted traditions. Breeders and exhibitors of previous generations would likely be astounded by the number and variety of events that are now on offer and the speed with which breeds have more recently received full AKC recognition. Just as surprising would be an awareness that the public generally perceives mixed-breed dogs as having greater value than recognized breeds with proven track records. That particular shift has been decades in the making, and it didn’t happen by accident.
The precipitous decline in registrations and the general decrease in show entries (despite the proliferation of individual shows) was prompted in part by several notorious articles published by respectable news outlets. In December 1994, a cover story in TIME on “The Shame of Overbreeding” stated, “The best use of pedigree papers is for housebreaking your dog.” That sensational claim was made just a few years after the AKC Gazette had published the “Special Issue: Responsible Breeding” in May 1990, which included articles on planning a litter, stud dog fertility, care of the mother-to-be, whelping box essentials, puppy survival, and raising healthy canine companions. The two magazines could not have been more different in their coverage of dog breeding—nor could their target readers have been less connected. While the Gazette reached America’s most dedicated breeders and exhibitors, TIME appealed to the masses. In retrospect, the issues of both magazines can be viewed along a continuum of purebred popularity; one was published as growth was nearing its peak, the other was published to encourage a decline. Not coincidentally, AKC registrations reached their highest levels in 1992.
Magazines, however, don’t tell the whole story. In 1991, the World Wide Web transformed everything, including how people find puppies and how those dogs are registered—or not. Google made searching even easier when it was launched in 1998, making puppy buying (and selling) as easy as typing on a keyboard. The fancy protested, quietly and proudly, even as registrations continued to fall. Yet, as many preservation breeders produced a litter only when they wanted another dog to show, doodlers and retail rescuers aggressively filled the void, creating a source that did not (and could not) exist without a digital market.
Cable television, too, has played a role in shifting public preferences. On August 19, 2008, “Pedigree Dogs Exposed,” a documentary critical of Breed Standards, breeding practices, and judging procedures, aired on BBC One in the UK. Though largely dismissed by American fanciers at the time, the dog-loving public in both countries embraced the exposé. To some degree, so too have preservation breeders in the years that have followed. Nearly two decades on, health testing (and reporting the results) is the norm among those who are seriously committed to the health and welfare of the puppies they produce. It is therefore curious why so many people today purchase puppies sight unseen from sellers whose dogs are not held to any standard whatsoever and are not typically screened for inheritable diseases. It is this contradiction that distinguishes today’s unscrupulous puppy sellers and thoughtless puppy buyers—and animal rights extremists—from those who genuinely care about the welfare of animals.
Changing attitudes about dogs in society are inevitable, of course, but there’s always a choice to be made. Is the fancy going to lead the conversation and initiate changes that support its interests, or will it simply respond to circumstances only when they’ve become critical? Just as the AKC Gazette became a digital-only publication in 2011 (TIME was already producing a digital edition when “Overbreeding” was published in 1994), breeders and exhibitors must change with the times, or else retire and concede defeat. Effective change is possible. It is even proven to be preferable to the status quo, since most exhibitors now enter dog shows online, and a growing majority of breeders does the same with litter and puppy registrations. However, to introduce any recognized breed to the people who are likely to support it for a lifetime, a stronger effort must be made to make it easier to connect buyers with breeders. And truthfully, it has never been easier to make those connections. If “whatchamadoodle” breeders can do it with little commitment on their part, why can’t breeders of health-tested, performance-proven purebreds achieve even greater success?
Everyone who participates in the sport of dogs will eventually arrive at a future changed by today’s outside pressures and inside influences. But when that day comes, will we know how we got there?
