• What I'd like to know is where your antipathy to "going akc" originated?

    I was not anti-A.K.C. for the Neo until I read and digested Sherilyn's book on judging the Neo wherein she states:
    "AKC judges routinely pick these light-boned, tall dogs as winners in a show, because they are looking for 'perfect conformation' , not breed type. "

    The more I attended A.K.C. judged breed shows the more strongly I agreed. Even the rare breed shows that use A.K.C. judges are not immune. They frequently pick the worst example in the ring. Again from the writings of chairman allen:
    "Do not expect it [the Neo] to trot like a German Shepherd or a Husky or a Doberman. To ask it to trot like these breeds, as is so desired in the AKC show rings, would necessitate the cutting down of its mass. We would end up with a light boned, Weimaraner or wolf-type dog, that could beautifully prance around the ring- we would no longer have a Neapolitan Mastiff."

    Arguing with an A.K.C. judge is of little use - they show little-to no ability to learn about an oddity in the dog world. I have watched an "objection" be ignored at the rare breed ring so as not to offend an A.K.C. judge. Remember when Peg Wolfe and friends tried to educate some A.K.C. judges? what was the A.K.C.'s VERY OWN assessment of the effort? May I quote from an A.K.C. publication:
    " There are probably at least 250 judges living within 50 miles of Gurnee, Illinois where a workshop is held once a month... At the October meeting, the seminar presentation was on Neapolitan Mastiffs, a fast growing, allegedly soon to be recognized breed. ... There were less (sic) than the usual 35 in attendance. The "Neo" group brought a video of the Italian National Specialty. The attendees were almost unanimous in their choice of the best dogs. But those dogs were not the choice of the "Neo"phytes or the Italian judge. ....one can draw the following conclusions:
    1. Most area judges belong merely to say that they do on judging applications.
    2. Most area judges are not motivated to learn about new breeds.
    3. Either the proposed, and allegedly AKC approved standard for the breed, lost something in the translation from Italian, or the standard is being written to fit the dog.
    4. The breed, as currently constituted, will fair very poorly in the working group to which it is supposedly being assigned.
    5. And last, but no means least, something is radically wrong.
    Why are judges not stimulated to learn more? Why do new enthusiastic, eager breeders seemingly want to try to breed to a standard that seemingly will only create losers? And why is AKC in such a rush to recognize a breed about which most of us know as little as we seemingly do....."

    Well folks- these are their words, the A.K.C.'s- not mine.However, let me repeat "something is radically wrong". Instead of putting a 10 year moratorium on A.K.C. recognition, and slowly educating the judges, the various Neo clubs are pushing ahead.... damn the breed! The apologists say we are trying to educate the judges. I say that's just not good enough. What is motivating this frenetic push? Is it financial? are there too many pups being born and not enough promotional opportunities? You be the judge.

    p.s. Why doesn't the U.S.N.M.C. turn over its registry to the A.K.C. now and await future recognition? Don't they trust the A.K.C. to do "the right thing"? I smell dog doo in Denmark.

  • Question #1 -Who published the following statement?:
    "A judge ..... must take the time to study the FCI Italian Breed Standard of the Neapolitan Mastiff. It does no good for other countries to make up their own standards for the Neapolitan Mastiff, in an attempt to make the standard conform to their idea of what a Neapolitan should be, so that it will better blend in with other dogs at the shows. ... The standard of the Italian Neapolitan Mastiff was written for the dog from Italy. Its appearance and type was meticulously set down in a very detailed standard. To change that standard is to change the appearance of this breed of dog. This very thing is being done in many countries in the Americas, primarily so that their very different specimens can win in shows..."

    hint #1: this person, in submission to the A.K.C., then published a changed "A.K.C." Neo standard.

  • Question #2- Who knows (since we're only rewording the standard) why Dr. Allen's A.K.C. standard moves the length of body from the original 10% to an acceptable 10-15%? We are, after all, not trying to describe the dog in the backyard, but the "ideal"- as the A.K.C. says.

  • Question #3- Why was the description of the topline changed, in Dr. Allen's A.K.C. standard, from the original "the topline of the back is straight" to a "strong topline" (whatever that means). Is the standard to represent an ideal or the old nag in the backyard?

  • Question #4- If the U.S.N.M.C. holds open and honest elections, why - in their vote upon the revised standard, were members of the opposition prevented from being present at the ballot opening and counting? Why did one individual sequester the ballots and count them, in private, with her employees? Is this an A.K.C. approved method?