is not quite correct. The AKC does not assign a number to the first one.
Open the Dog Name Check [1]. Pick a breed, enter a unique dog name, and the page will report it is available. Now pick a semi-unique combination ("Shih Tzu" + "King") and the page will say "The name chosen has been used previously, but may be used with the following change: King XXXVII." This implies the first person to pick "King" got "King" and the second person got "King II."
One dog per breed can have the name Spot/King/etc. But the AKC is a rent-seeking monopoly and 6 Roman numerals is short enough to still appear somewhat exclusive.
I don't really have a... dog in this hunt... but anyone could start up their own dog registry with whatever rules they want. I don't believe the AKC has preempted competition via regulatory capture, for example.
For what it’s worth, there are a lot of other dog registries. Unfortunately, many of them seem to be associated with backyard breeders who look for registries with more lax rules to legitimize their stock.
I think it's more like how it's Pope Francis and not Pope Francis I, since he's the first Pope Francis, you don't add the number. We will only do that after the fact, i.e. when another pope chooses the name Francis.
So grandparent's point isn't that it's off by one, but that the first name is inaccurate for the time it was rewarded. Although, considering we are viewing it _after the fact_, i.e. now that more dogs are called the same, I think it's fair to add the "I" at the end.
No, they only allow 6 characters for the number of the dog. To write 38 in Roman numerals requires 7 characters. So that's why they only allow 37 of the same name.
Kind of a weird, deceiving title choice. There's no rule or law anywhere requiring this ... you can name your dog whatever you want. Apparently there is an organization called the AKC (never heard of it) which allows you to register your dog. Their record-keeping system can only hold 37 dogs of each name / breed combination because of old technological requirement.
So if you have a dog you want to register with this specific organization for whatever reason, there might be limitations on what you can name it. That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests. Does everyone register their dog with this organization for some reason? I'm not sure why you'd want to do that.
I think "deceiving title choice" is a bit strong. Of course you can name your dog whatever you want. I highly doubt that anyone read this and actually thought that there was some sort of global law requiring this.
> That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests.
I'm having a hard time imagining some more interesting, plausible thing that you thought the title suggested.
Fair enough, I suppose I should have worded my complaint the other way around. A better title would have been "Why only 37 dogs of each breed can have the same name registered at the American Kennel Club".
Self-diagnosing a little, I think my skeptical attitude towards institutions is acting up here. It's weird to me when people use "name" when what they really mean is "name registered with institution X". I don't see why anyone should care what the AKC thinks of their dog's name, in kind of the same way that registering a name for a star in a star registry is similarly stupid.
Because the name is the brand, and cames with many benefits attached for both the breeder and the buyer.
For breeders, having your 'product' validated by a third part is a guarantee that is faithful to the breed, and increases its value. Having an unique name avoids scams also (Dishonest breeders can't enter in a competition with a dog named like your famous winner for example). More respectable breeders are supported by a third part and can sell their pups for more money.
For buyers, you are allowed to participate in official dog competitions and win prizes; and, much more important, you have a guarantee that your dog will have a happy life free from pain and suffering.
There is a public, transparent register showing absence or presence of main congenital diseases in the family of your pet. Will be your pet free from hip dysplasia in a few years? Will have a high probability of becoming deaf?. The breeder can't hide this important information to you. Having this info is a must for some dog breeds
So German cities have employees /systems whose job it is to register dog names not totally sure that's the best use of taxpayers money - better bike lanes and electric charging infrastructure or even GASP better support for homeless people.
Yep. My initial guess was some kind of proof that it's extremely improbable to have more than 37 of the same name and breed for whatever reason. My second guess was that (in some country) it was legally required for breeders to name and register their dogs with some central agency. Both seemed somewhat plausible and more interesting than what it turned out to be.
> I highly doubt that anyone read this and actually thought that there was some sort of global law requiring this.
Sure, but it's exactly the desire to reduce the tension between what you know to be true and the title that makes clickbait effective. This could have also been a law from 1700 that was never enforced, or whatever.
If you want to compete in the highest tier dog shows (with the largest cash prizes) or use your dog to breed other purebreds, in the US at least, you must be registered with the American Kennel Club. It's probably the most important organization in the country if you are involved with that world.
What problems would arise if they skipped numbers that exceed the 6 characters? Like, go from 37 to 39 (XXXIX). Then you have a solid run until you run into 78.
The Dog Name Check Tool is very clear on that matter:
"Roman numerals must not be included at the end of the dog's name. The AKC reserves the right to assign roman numerals for identification purposes."
"The name you have chosen contains the restricted word 'XXXIX' which cannot be used."
However...
"King XXXX has been verified for use for this breed."
So numbers from 40 onwards are not rejected by the automatic check. I don't know whether an application would be handled by a human who might notice this, though.
Ok, it seems like they only recognize subtractive notation. Nonetheless, numbers from L onward seem to work, so if you want that distinct "roman numeral" look, you could choose "King LXVII".
They don't check for them, they just forcibly convert them into ASCII by taking the lowest byte of the Unicode code point, turning "ⅠⅡⅢⅣⅤⅥⅦⅧⅨⅩⅪⅫⅬⅭⅮⅯⅰⅱⅲⅳⅴⅵⅶⅷⅸⅹⅺⅻⅼⅽⅾⅿ" into "`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~\x7f". A few of these characters get rejected, though curiously not the last one, which is nonprintable.
Most AKC-registered dogs belong to a breeder's kennel or bloodline. You never really register "Max" to the AKC. You generally register Hilly Billy's Max The Beau. Even if at home you just use Max, and Hilly Billy is the kennel affix.
It is a little like horses, and their insane official names.
Maybe so, but your comment was plainly abusive. Bad comments elsewhere are no reason to vandalize this site and make it even worse. Would you mind reviewing the site guidelines and taking their spirit more to heart? Note that they ask you to "Be kind." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> rampant psychopathy
That does sound terrible. If you see egregious comments that haven't been moderated, it would be helpful to give us links. We do what we can where we can, but it's impossible for us to read everything that gets posted here. We rely on users. I took a quick look at your account's flagging history, and didn't see rampant psychopathy. I did see some egregious comments that you rightly flagged, but they had all been heavily flagged and downvoted and moderated, and in some cases banned.
I do have a shelter dog. She’s 11, and was rescued by a great organization in upstate New York that had her shipped from Tennessee when she was weeks old to save her from being put down. I got her at 6 weeks (way too early, but she was already separated from her mother way too early).
Meghan, my AKC registered dog, is a Labrador specifically being trained for retrieving work, and as a therapy dog. Her kennel is an incredible family run facility in South Carolina, which specializes in hunting dogs (although Meghan isn’t used for bird retrieving specifically). She’s not from a puppy mill, has never been locked in cages to be sold, and her parents were bred specifically based on health screens, accomplishments (champion retrieving work), and disposition.
If the AKC is an association of animal abusers, I guess I’m one of the lucky ones.
At first I thought "if people can come up with unique WiFi hotspot names how hard could it be to come up with a unique horse name" but then I remembered I've basically seen the same five wifi hotspot jokes repeated ad nauseum over the years.
Similar in the UK. My old dogs were registered as something like "Amyandas Golden Hind" and "Amyandas Golden Blend", which are obviously not their 'actual' names.
Roman numerals remind me of that adage that obsolete technologies never really go away. There might be more people alive today that use Roman numerals than at the Roman empire's peak.
In my day, you didn't have any tape, so you got frantic, working out the numeral before the memory faded. This was really the way I learned whatever meagre roman numerical skills I possess.
I recall reading something aeons ago to the effect that the subtractive notation was not common when the numbering system was first invented, but was added (ha) much later. I've had a quick search for something definitive now, but no joy, so the story may be apocryphal.
In any case, if true it would change the record for 'longest (roman numeral) date so far' to 1999 I think (MDCCCCLXXXXVIIII)
We still see subtractive notation eschewed in various places, most notably roman numerals on clocks, though that may be more for aesthetic balance, as the 4 opposes the 8.
In almost* every variant you have to write 8 as "VIII", and because IV doesn't balance so well, you usually see IIII on clocks.
* There are cases where irregular subtractive forms are in use - so 8 could be written as IIX.
You know it is late or your mind is in a sad state when you picture the exact tables you would need to make this work in a relational database. It is amazing the amount of real versions of the apocryphal railroad width stories out in the world.
That analogy is broken; it's traditional to use Roman numerals to indicate that people hold the nth instance of the same name in a line of patrilineal descent (or, even more traditionally, a line of rulership). Roger White's son could be Roger White II; Roger White IV's son is definitely Roger White V.
But two Roger Whites from separate families won't use numbers at all; both of them are just Roger White. The AKC is numbering unrelated dogs.
No descent is implied when numbers are used for monarchs and popes. John XXIII was the 23rd pope named John (20th century), a long time after John XXII in the 14th century. Queen Elizabeth II of England (current) is not a direct descendant from Queen Elizabeth I (16th century).
Descent is implied, just not genealogical descent. John XXIII is the 23rd Pope John in the same line of papacy. Pope Benedict XIII (17th century) is the 13th Pope Benedict in that line, but Pope Benedict XIII (14th-15th century) was the 13th Pope Benedict in the line of Popes in Avignon. Henry IV of England was the fourth King Henry of England; Henry IV of France was the fourth King Henry of France; like the Popes, they are two different people tracked in two different lines of descent.
The problem here is not the storage but the presentation. 6 is the maximum allowed width of the column which shows the number associated with the dog’s name.
There's a lot of very cur-mudgeonly comments on this post. It's just a little quirk of someone's sort of database, and a little lesson in designing in flexibility.
Shelters are full of dogs that breeders surrender because the offspring weren't to their liking or diseased or imbred. It's quite sad and we shouldn't be supporting purebred breeders anymore. They are trading other creatures' pain for their own gain and profit :-/
Shelters are full of dogs for different reasons. I fully support adopting shelter dogs, but it is a pipe dream to think that folks are going to stop buying breeds. Not only that, but there are good reasons to choose a particular breed since they do have different temperments and so on.
Not all breeders are equal, and part of the blame is on lack of animal welfare laws, enforcement of such laws, and overly strict breed measures in some areas. Believe it or not, some of the breed regulations are different in different countries [1]. Not only that, but you can't really tell if a puppy is going to be a champion show dog. Most folks don't actually care and only want the breed. Barring physical or tempermental issues, it isn't as likely that the breeder puts them in a home.
Puppy mills are a real problem in the US - again, laws and enforcement should help. I have little hope for these laws being passed in all states since we do poorly enforcing this stuff with farm animals.
[1] Source: I've worked at the local international dog show in Norway the past couple of years. So far, worked with one judge from England and one from Canada.
Shelters are also full of dogs with severe behavioral disorders which can't be treated or managed effectively. How confident are you in selecting a shelter dog which might live with you for another 10, 12 years, versus a dog from a breeder that you know the genealogy of (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?
There's a difference between buying from a backyard breeder who doesn't care about the quality of dogs they're producing, and a quality breeder who vets buyers, parental lines, and has offspring contracts to prevent future unwanted litters.
> How confident are you in selecting a shelter dog which might live with you for another 10, 12 years, versus a dog from a breeder that you know the genealogy of (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?
Very. They put down the dogs with severe behavioral issues (e.g. biting). My local shelter is very good about providing adoption/surrender notes as well as behavioral notes. I decided against adopting a BC mix as they were clear exactly about the time/effort needed - he had been adopted out and resurrendered by a family who was exercising him 3 hours a day and they still couldn't calm his extreme (even for such herding breeds) leash reactivity. The volunteer explicitly recommended against adopting him.
Additionally, I've developed a relationship with a rescue by fostering for them over the years. They exclusively foster-to-adopt, so everyone gets several weeks (more, if they prefer) with their dog before signing papers. Most rescues at least allow you do do that, and I think people should take advantage of it.
I get what you're trying to say. I'll be the first to admit I'm a bleeding heart, and I feel awful for all the surrendered dogs in shelters - especially the ones who've endured abuse by their owners. But I place more stock in being able to live with a dog directly, instead of relying on their genetics. Sites like Petfinder mean you get a selection of dogs across the whole country. Additionally, casual pet owners aren't going to know the difference between a quality breeder and a backyard one. It's genuinely hard to tell unless you know what to look for.
My personal advice for shelters vs breeders is just "don't." People who do need to buy from breeders already know they do, and I'm not at all objecting to that. Everyone else is usually looking for a companion dog, and can find one at a local rescue/shelter.
> People who do need to buy from breeders already know they do
I'm really not a fan of this line of thinking. How do they know? What if they're just starting to get into "dogs" as a more serious hobby, e.g. IPO or rally?
Discussion around "should you buy from a breeder" isn't something that should be stamped out just because you think it's bad for informational hygiene or something. It should be thoughtful and honest.
Okay, lets suppose that suddenly nobody buys from a professional breeder, What we would have instead?
1) Less healthy dogs on average
Zero selection against genetical disorders. Zero surgical procedures by a licensed vet to fix bone problems at birth, why to care if "any dog is beatiful as is"?
Is a myth that mixed-breeds are free from diseases. Any health problem suffered by a pure breed, can appear in a mutt. Dogs are wolves (with a hint of other canines from all around the world, but bassically the same species as gray wolf) and anything that deviates sensibly from a wild gray wolf will have huge health problems by comparison.
2) Randomization of behavioural problems
Owners would just play lottery with this trait. A recipe for disaster when your dog must be trustable in society, specially when children or smaller pets are around. I know at least two cases of very good dogs, equilibrated, well feeded and with loving owners that suddenly go berserker and killed other pets at sight, in front of the owners of both pets. I know also a case of dogs escaping, attacking and tearing-off both arms from a old man
The solution of "just adopt because any dog can be a good dog with love" is delusional because not any dog owner is a good owner, a wrong idea of love will spoil your dog, and many breeds are notoriously difficult to manage.
Would be a big mistake to think that pure breeds "are evil by default", therefore mixed breeds "are good by default". They can combine the best of its parents, but also the worst of both. A mixed breed is unpredictable in many senses. For example, if your mutton has blood of akita inu hidden under a furry poddle facade you must be aware of this. Akita are solitary and monogamous, whereas gray wolves are more tolerant to the idea of a group.
So in the end is clearly a lose-lose situation. Bad for dogs and bad for humans. Maybe we would alleviate a little the situation of irresponsible shelters taking more animals that they can manage, but we would create several bigger and potentially serious problems in the process.
You're using the ad infinitum fallacy. At no point did anyone mention that no one should not use professional breeders. The point is, "most people don't know how to find a professional breeder". It's exceedingly easy to let 2 dogs of the same breed have puppies. It's a lot harder to screen for personality and physical issues. Additionally, there will always be people buying from professional breeders. So many fields need working dogs for protection, scentwork, hunting, servicework, farmwork, and I'm sure many other fields I'm missing. Additionally, there will always be a demand for show and sport dogs (agility, herding trials, schutzhund, dock jumping). This argument of "let's suppose there is never a purebred dog again" is very confusing for that reason.
Additionally, you would be shocked at the number of people who buy a cute puppy and then are surprised because they didn't realize their adolescent goldendoodle needs more exercise then a 20 minute walk everyday, or that their once friendly cattledog puppy is grown up and barking and lunging at every dog that walks by. Again, that's when the onus is on good breeders to ensure that the new owners know what they're getting into. Usually the facebook/craigslist breeders are not good about explaining or requiring this - they'll give away a puppy to anyone who pays. If those same people go through a rescue, they're usually informed by the rescue the amount of work involved, and can do things like foster-to-adopt to ensure the dog fits their lifestyle.
I love good breeders! They're absolutely fantastic about keeping their puppies healthy, and frequently have clauses about how the dogs must go back to them if the new owners want to give them up. They have careful screening processes and are good about making sure the owners will do the requisite work and training for the dog to be well-behaved and for everyone to be happy. Bad breeders do none of these things, and make the likelihood of genetic disorders higher, not lower. These breeders don't get their puppies checked for the 'bone issues that can be fixed at birth' as you say, and let the unaware owners deal with the fallout.
I'm also confused about your point about irresponsible shelters. Where do you think the animals would be if the shelters didn't take them? They'd be running around on the street, unvaccinated and untrained. Do you really think that's better?
That's totally fair, and I don't disagree. If someone's interested enough in the sport to purchase a dog specially bred for it, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect them do the right research and reference checks. They're probably already going to meets/trials to watch, and can ask handlers there for reputable breeders. That said, both of those sports have mixed breeds competing and thriving. I personally do agility with my mutt, although I recognize that I'd need a different dog and a lot more time/money to do really well. My point was, most dog owners aren't trying to compete at that level - in any dog sport.
Breeders, even if ethical, are part of the problem. Just because they try and reduce the chance of genetic defects by avoiding direct inbreeding, it's still a minor statistical manipulation.
> (and therefore the parents, grandparents behavioral traits)?
Behavioural traits (with very few exceptions) vary more widely in between individuals within a breed than from breed to breed.
I know people can get very defensive about their best friends, but purebreds will have genetic deficiencies. That's no reason to love your current pooch any less, but do give cross-breeds some consideration for your next member of the pack.
As silly as "labradoodle" sounds, these people have the right idea.
> There is nothing to suggest this, and overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I'm willing to read a good citation here if you have one, but the "overwhelming evidence" lies on the other side where docile and submissive specimens of fighting breeds and aggressive and dominant specimens of family-friendly breeds can be easily observed. There is plenty to suggest this.
> No, some subset of purebreds will have genetic defects. Just as some subset of mutts will.
These subsets are not equal. I'll clarify in a bit.
> Why? They are doing the same thing you are complaining about, just using a specific cross of two breeds rather than a specific single breed.
That's not how genetics work. Inbreeding increases the number of recessive genes floating around in the gene pool, increasing the number of carriers.
Say, for simplicity's sake, hip dysplasia is bound to a single recessive gene. If you cross a breed that is prone to hip dysplasia with one that isn't, none of the offspring will suffer from hip dysplasia, and it will halve the number of carriers of the recessive gene in the genetic lineup.
Do that a couple of generations with different breeds, and it starts becoming very unlikely that two recessive genes for dysplasia will match up.
Now understand that a lot of genetic diseases are the result of the interactions of many genes of which the exact mechanism is unclear, and it should become clear there is no solid way to prevent a disease from expressing itself through careful monitoring.
For now, the best way to guarantee a healthy dog is to mix in new genes and keep the gene pool healthy, which is very much the opposite of breeding for conformity.
> There's a difference between buying from a backyard breeder who doesn't care about the quality of dogs they're producing, and a quality breeder who vets buyers, parental lines, and has offspring contracts to prevent future unwanted litters.
I know it's the Telegraph. And I know it says that Crufts and the Kennel Club were being criticised. But I've seen a few German Shepherds like the one in the video walking around in Sydney. It's pretty sad. Their hind quarters visibly tremble and at a walking pace you can clearly see they have difficulty walking. So I'm not sure what good 'quality breeders' are.
A single example of a poorly bred German Shepherd (one of the breeds most hit by low quality breeders flooding a market with no regard for the dogs health) is not evidence that good breeders don’t exist.
Good breeders limit or don’t line breed, they import and export stock to maintain diversity, they maintain health records on all litters and their prodigy, they have breeding contracts to prevent future litters unvetted litters.
Meanwhile, I get a "you have been rate limited"... Which I don't understand, opening a Twitter link for first time in the last 4 days (been traveling)... Wasn't expecting this.
Open the Dog Name Check [1]. Pick a breed, enter a unique dog name, and the page will report it is available. Now pick a semi-unique combination ("Shih Tzu" + "King") and the page will say "The name chosen has been used previously, but may be used with the following change: King XXXVII." This implies the first person to pick "King" got "King" and the second person got "King II."
One dog per breed can have the name Spot/King/etc. But the AKC is a rent-seeking monopoly and 6 Roman numerals is short enough to still appear somewhat exclusive.
[1] https://www.apps.akc.org/apps/reg/namecheck/index.cfm