# Porposed AKC Group Realignment



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

*Proposed AKC Group Realignment*

This is the proposed Group Realignments as to be presented to the AKC. Note 1 new Group - Northern, and the splitting of the Sporting Group into Pointers and Setters, and Retrievers and Spaniels, as well as splitting the Hound Group by Scenting and Sight, for a total of 3 new Groups.


*AKC Group Realignment Committee — Proposed Breeds & Groups*
(7/31/08)
From a presentation to the Delegates on September 8, 2008 by the AKC Group Realignment Committee 
*Group 1: Sporting — Pointers and Setters (11)* (12)
Brittany
Pointer
Pointer (German Shorthaired)
Pointer (German Wirehaired)
Setter (English)
Setter (Gordon)
Setter (Irish
_Setter (Irish Red & White) Miscellaneous 6/27/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09_
Spinone Italiano
Vizsla
Weimaraner
Wirehaired Pointing Griffon
*Group 2: Sporting - Retrievers and Spaniels (17)* (18)
Retriever (Chesapeake Bay)
Retriever (Curly-Coated)
Retriever (Flat-Coated)
Retriever (Golden)
Retriever (Labrador)
Retriever (Nova Scotia Duck Tolling)
Spaniel (American Water)
_Spaniel (Boykin) — Miscellaneous 1/1/08_
Spaniel (Clumber)
Spaniel (Cocker) ASCOB
Spaniel (Cocker) Black
Spaniel (Cocker) Parti-color
Spaniel (English Cocker)
Spaniel (English Springer)
Spaniel (Field)
Spaniel (Irish Water)
Spaniel (Sussex)
Spaniel (Welsh Springer) 
*Group 3: Scent Hounds (14)* (17)
Basset Hound
Beagle (13")
Beagle (15")
Black and Tan Coonhound
Bloodhound
_Bluetick Coonhound - Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Dachshund (Longhaired)
Dachshund (Smooth)
Dachshund (Wirehaired)
English Foxhound
Foxhound (American)
Harrier
Otterhound
Petit Basset Griffon Vendeen
Plott
_Redbone Coonhound — Miscellaneous 9/1/08_
_Treeing Walker Coonhound — Miscellaneous 1/1/09_ 
*Group 4: Sight Hounds (12)*
Afghan Hound
Basenji
Borzoi
Greyhound
Ibizan Hound
Irish Wolfhound
Italian Greyhound
Pharaoh Hound
Rhodesian Ridgeback
Saluki
Scottish Deerhound
Whippet
*Group 5: Working (23)* (25)
Anatolian Shepherd
Bernese Mountain Dog
Black Russian Terrier
Boxer
Bullmastiff
_Cane Corso — Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Dalmatian
Doberman Pinscher
Dogue de Bordeaux
German Pinscher
Giant Schnauzer
Great Dane
Great Pyrenees
Greater Swiss Mountain Dog
Komondor
Kuvasz
_Leonberger — Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Mastiff
Neapolitan Mastiff
Newfoundland
Portuguese Water Dog
Rottweiler
Saint Bernard
Standard Schnauzer
Tibetan Mastiff 
*Group 6: Terriers (28)* (29)
Airedale Terrier
Australian Terrier
American Staffordshire Terrier
Bedlington Terrier
Border Terrier
Bull Terrier (Colored)
Bull Terrier (White)
Cairn Terrier
_Cesky Terrier — Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Dandie Dinmont Terrier
Fox Terrier (Smooth)
Fox Terrier (Wire)
Glen of Imaal Terrier
Irish Terrier
Kerry Blue Terrier
Lakeland Terrier
Manchester Terrier (Standard)
Miniature Bull Terrier
Miniature Schnauzer
Norfolk Terrier
Norwich Terrier
Parson Russell Terrier
Scottish Terrier
Sealyham Terrier
Skye Terrier
Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier
Staffordshire Bull Terrier
Welsh Terrier
West Highland White Terrier 
*Group 7: Toys (21)*
Affenpinscher
Brussells Griffon
Cavalier King Charles Spaniel
Chihuahua (Long Coat)
Chihuahua (Smooth Coat)
English Toy Spaniel (Blenheim & Prince Charles)
English Toy Spaniel (King Charles & Ruby)
Havanese
Japanese Chin
Maltese
Manchester Terrier (Toy)
Miniature Pinscher
Papillon
Pekingese
Pomeranian
Poodle (Toy)
Pug
Shih Tzu
Silky Terrier
Toy Fox Terrier
Yorkshire Terrier 
*Group 8: Companion (11)* (12)
Bichon Frise
Boston Terrier
Bulldog
Chinese Crested
French Bulldog
Lhasa Apso
Lowchen
Poodle (Miniature)
Poodle (Standard)
Tibetan Spaniel
Tibetan Terrier
_Xoloitzcuintli — Miscellaneous 1/10/09_ 
*Group 9: Herding (20)* (21)
Australian Cattle Dog
Australian Shepherd
Bearded Collie
Beauceron
Belgian Malinois
Belgian Tervuren
Belgian Sheepdog
Border Collie
Bouvier des Flandres
Briard
Canaan Dog
Cardigan Welsh Corgi
Collie (Rough)
Collie (Smooth)
German Shepherd
Old English Sheepdog
Pembroke Welsh Corgi
Polish Lowland Sheepdog
Puli
_Pyrenean Shepherd — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09_
Shetland Sheepdog 
*Group 10: Northern (13)* (16)
Akita
Alaskan Malamute
American Eskimo Dog
Chinese Shar-Pei
Chow Chow
Finnish Spitz
_Icelandic Sheepdog — Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Keeshond
_Norwegian Buhund — Miscellaneous 1/1/07; Full Recognition 1/1/09_
_Norwegian Lundehund — Miscellaneous 7/1/08_
Norwegian Elkhound
Samoyed
Siberian Husky
Schipperke
Shiba Inu
Swedish Vallhund


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Interesting... so what do you think? Good move? Fair breakdown? More complication for nothing? Major influence on group wins/points? Do they tend to just do this every so often, maybe as more breeds are recognized and the groups become too large to be manageable? 

Don't mean to bombard you PG, it's more directed to anyone with any Conformation knowledge who would like to share. Conformation is one of those areas that I just know next to nothing about.

Julie and Jersey


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jersey's Mom said:


> Interesting... so what do you think? Good move? Fair breakdown? More complication for nothing? Major influence on group wins/points? Do they tend to just do this every so often, maybe as more breeds are recognized and the groups become too large to be manageable?
> 
> Don't mean to bombard you PG, it's more directed to anyone with any Conformation knowledge who would like to share. Conformation is one of those areas that I just know next to nothing about.
> 
> Julie and Jersey


 
No, that's okay. Also, I forgot to point out the "Companion" Gorup as new/replacing Non-Sporting.

I'm somewhat confilicted. I don't particularly like the division of the Sporting Group. I do agree with dividing the Hound Group, as Sight and Scent Hounds _are _vastly different. 
I think "Companion" Group is odd, as was Non-Sporting, and I really feel that the Standard Poodle should be in the Sporting Group. I think that other than dividing the Hound Group, and maybe moving a breed or two into different groups, I might have left well enough alone. It will be interesting to see how it affects standings. There will be less dogs defeated for Group rankings, you're going to HATE it if you've won the breed and your Group is TENTH! And it will be interesting to watch a BIS lineup with 3 more dogs in it. I dunno. I'm not overly excited about it.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

Pointgold said:


> I think "Companion" Group is odd, as was Non-Sporting, and I really feel that the Standard Poodle should be in the Sporting Group.


I was going to make a comment about that but didn't want to take the thread off topic on you. I've seen Poodles work in the field and while they're style is very different, they can be incredible to watch. One of the first things I looked at on your list was whether they made it to the retriever category.

Are these changes definite or just being debated? You're right, 10 groups definitely makes for a long day.

Julie and Jersey

Edit: Oops, just remembered the title is "*Proposed* AKC Group Realignment." Guess that answers my question.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I am greatly opposed to the name "companion" group. "Companion dog" is an obedience title. It annoys me to see it as a group name.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

regarding the poodles, evidently their parent club did not want to be moved to the sporting (retrieving) group. It was supposedly offered to them.


----------



## Jersey's Mom (Nov 25, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> regarding the poodles, evidently their parent club did not want to be moved to the sporting (retrieving) group. It was supposedly offered to them.


That really surprises me. If I were involved in the the breed, I think I'd want it's function/abilities to be recognized. Especially with the "foo foo" reputation it's gained over the years (fueled by those silly, yet functional, haircuts).

Julie and Jersey


----------



## vrocco1 (Feb 25, 2006)

The only thing that matters to me is the group with the retrievers in it (Labs and Goldens). The rest of them might as well be cats as far as I am concerned. :curtain:

Ok, so I am a big Spaniel fan as well. They're all real dogs for real men and their playthings (guns!) Teach them all to fish, and I'm as good as gold.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Jersey's Mom said:


> I was going to make a comment about that but didn't want to take the thread off topic on you. I've seen Poodles work in the field and while they're style is very different, they can be incredible to watch. One of the first things I looked at on your list was whether they made it to the retriever category.
> 
> Are these changes definite or just being debated? You're right, 10 groups definitely makes for a long day.
> 
> ...


 
From the February 2009 Board minutes:

The Board approved the recommendation of the Group Realignment Committee. An amendment to the rules to provide for Ten Groups will be read at the June 2009 Delegate Meeting for a vote in September 2009, with a proposed 2012 effective date. 


As for Poodles, there is a divisiveness with the breed club (surprise) as to working / showing. I think that it is a shame. There are 2 women with excellent Standards who take my Handling Class, and they are also doing field work. If being true to the breed, they would be in Sporting. Look at Cocker Spaniels - they remain in the Sporting group, even though their coat and grooming for show is completely impractical for the field. I don't see why Poodles would not be the same - I know of CH's who are just shaved down after retiring from the ring and field work is then done. It seems silly that the PCA did not accept the offer - perhaps they felt that there might be fewer Group I's going to the Standards...


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> As for Poodles, there is a divisiveness with the breed club (surprise) as to working / showing. I think that it is a shame. There are 2 women with excellent Standards who take my Handling Class, and they are also doing field work. If being true to the breed, they would be in Sporting. Look at Cocker Spaniels - they remain in the Sporting group, even though their coat and grooming for show is completely impractical for the field. I don't see why Poodles would not be the same - I know of CH's who are just shaved down after retiring from the ring and field work is then done. It seems silly that the PCA did not accept the offer - perhaps they felt that there might be fewer Group I's going to the Standards...


I, too, have often wondered why Poodles weren't in the sporting group... I mean, their breed was developed for that purpose. Good to know. But I do wonder if that's the case that they think there would be fewer Group I's... it seems out here, there always seems to be a standard in the BIS lineup. I cant speak for other areas of course, but you'd think that if its "easy" (relative, I know) to win the group, it doesn't mean as much. Give them some real competition and watch the breed raise to the challenge. I'm not saying there isn't competition or the competition isnt real, but if that's what their line of thinking is, wouldn't it be better for the breed? JMO though. BJ


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

Kohanagold said:


> I, too, have often wondered why Poodles weren't in the sporting group... I mean, their breed was developed for that purpose. Good to know. But I do wonder if that's the case that they think there would be fewer Group I's... it seems out here, there always seems to be a standard in the BIS lineup. I cant speak for other areas of course, but you'd think that if its "easy" (relative, I know) to win the group, it doesn't mean as much. Give them some real competition and watch the breed raise to the challenge. I'm not saying there isn't competition or the competition isnt real, but if that's what their line of thinking is, wouldn't it be better for the breed? JMO though. BJ


There has been a faction of GR fanciers who are touting lessening the number required to earn a major, and who also believe that Reserves to a major should also earn points. (I can see a Reserve at a National, where classes are often large enought to be major entries in most divisions...) "Cheap champions" mean less, IMO, and I say buck up and keep working hard. I prefer to know that ANY points that my dogs have earned have been in tough competition. This is one reason why I do not advocate traveling to Puerto Rico, Iowa, etc, where the point schedule is extrememly low for majors. Building a major in PR to earn championships means little to me, particularly when the competition might be my own dogs, ungroomed, and shown poorly simply to allow the dog that I want to finish to win.


----------



## GoldenSail (Dec 30, 2008)

It is interesting that the herding dog group and the working group would be left with a lot more breeds in them than the others. I wonder if this matters? Would it make it harder for some breeds to get to that level, whereas another group has much less breeds?


----------



## goldengirls550 (Jun 12, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> No, that's okay. Also, I forgot to point out the "Companion" Gorup as new/replacing Non-Sporting.
> 
> I'm somewhat confilicted. I don't particularly like the division of the Sporting Group. I do agree with dividing the Hound Group, as Sight and Scent Hounds _are _vastly different.
> I think "Companion" Group is odd, as was Non-Sporting, and I really feel that the Standard Poodle should be in the Sporting Group. I think that other than dividing the Hound Group, and maybe moving a breed or two into different groups, I might have left well enough alone. It will be interesting to see how it affects standings. There will be less dogs defeated for Group rankings, you're going to HATE it if you've won the breed and your Group is TENTH! And it will be interesting to watch a BIS lineup with 3 more dogs in it. I dunno. I'm not overly excited about it.


PG. I was about to say that. The Standard Poodle is a water RETRIEVER, not a companion dog. It should be moved to the Retrievers. But, do you think that would force it to be shown in a less "showy" clip and more simple retriever clip?

There are some breeds in the Sight hound group, such as the basenji, that are hard to place because Basenjis are both sight and scent hounds. I also disagree with keeping the toys. And notice that the terriers, the presently largest AKC group was not split.

Apparently this won't make the shows any longer, but I can see people showing multiple breeds having even more ring conflicts.


----------



## goldengirls550 (Jun 12, 2008)

Pointgold said:


> From the February 2009 Board minutes:
> 
> The Board approved the recommendation of the Group Realignment Committee. An amendment to the rules to provide for Ten Groups will be read at the June 2009 Delegate Meeting for a vote in September 2009, with a proposed 2012 effective date.
> 
> ...


Poodles can compete in hunting tests, right?


----------



## goldengirls550 (Jun 12, 2008)

Quite honestly, I just want things left the way they were. For a couple of us dog show "newbies" who have finally memorized all of the breeds in all of the groups, we will have to start all over again..... :curtain:


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I can see your point (pardon the pun) about Puerto Rico, but I'm curious why you would say that about Division 6, which includes Iowa. 
Here are the divisions and dogs required for a 3 point major:
Looks to me like I need to travel to Hawaii for an extended period of time in order to finish my dog 

Division 1: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont 15 dogs 
Division 2: Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania 15 dogs
Division 3: District of Columbia, Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia 17 dogs
Division 4: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina 24 dogs
Division 5: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio 20 dogs
Division 6: Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Wisconsin 17 dogs
Division 7: Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 22 dogs
Division 8: Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming 23 dogs
Division 9: California 20 dogs
Division 10: Alaska 9 dogs 
Division 11: Hawaii 7 dogs
Division 12: Puerto Rico 6 dogs 
Division 13: Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota 19 dogs





Pointgold said:


> There has been a faction of GR fanciers who are touting lessening the number required to earn a major, and who also believe that Reserves to a major should also earn points. (I can see a Reserve at a National, where classes are often large enought to be major entries in most divisions...) "Cheap champions" mean less, IMO, and I say buck up and keep working hard. I prefer to know that ANY points that my dogs have earned have been in tough competition. This is one reason why I do not advocate traveling to Puerto Rico, Iowa, etc, where the point schedule is extrememly low for majors. Building a major in PR to earn championships means little to me, particularly when the competition might be my own dogs, ungroomed, and shown poorly simply to allow the dog that I want to finish to win.


----------



## Pointgold (Jun 6, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> I can see your point (pardon the pun) about Puerto Rico, but I'm curious why you would say that about Division 6, which includes Iowa.
> Here are the divisions and dogs required for a 3 point major:
> Looks to me like I need to travel to Hawaii for an extended period of time in order to finish my dog
> 
> ...


Iowa used to be *the *place to go to finish dogs (a bit more centrally located than Hawaii or Alaska ). Points in that division have come up. 
It also used to be the place to go wit Specials - lots of Bests were earned there without many of the top group dogs being entered.


----------



## Debles (Sep 6, 2007)

Even though I'm not involved in conformation, I think the new Companion dog group is a misleading name. ALL dogs can be companion dogs and as someone pointed out , it's used in Obedience.

No one mentioned the Northern group. Since I'm not in conformation, were these dogs in the Working category before? It would make sense that Northern dogs are definitely working dogs.

And what's with Poodles? Are they having an idenity crisis? Sporting or frou frou?
Or maybe they are trying to present the image like the commercial from the 70's..".they can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan and never let you forget you're a man?Cause they're a POODLE!" Or whatever LOL!


----------



## dannyra (Aug 5, 2008)

I would hope that if the poodle were to change groups that the grooming requirements would also change to reflect the functionality of the breed.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Sep 29, 2008)

I get it now!




Pointgold said:


> Iowa used to be *the *place to go to finish dogs (a bit more centrally located than Hawaii or Alaska ). Points in that division have come up.
> It also used to be the place to go wit Specials - lots of Bests were earned there without many of the top group dogs being entered.


----------



## MillysMom (Nov 5, 2008)

dannyra said:


> I would hope that if the poodle were to change groups that the grooming requirements would also change to reflect the functionality of the breed.


I'm still new to all of this, but it was my understanding the origin for the poodle grooming style was to keep it warm retrieving in water? Is this not correct? 

I just always assumed it was similar to why show horses are braided today, because in the hunt field they were traditionally braided to keep brambles, sticks, branches, etc. from getting caught in their manes and tails.


----------



## AquaClaraCanines (Mar 5, 2006)

Works for me- been wishing forever they'd split the hounds up


----------



## Kohanagold (Nov 5, 2008)

MillysMom said:


> I'm still new to all of this, but it was my understanding the origin for the poodle grooming style was to keep it warm retrieving in water? Is this not correct?
> 
> I just always assumed it was similar to why show horses are braided today, because in the hunt field they were traditionally braided to keep brambles, sticks, branches, etc. from getting caught in their manes and tails.


I agree. The "clip" was meant to be functional and not simply pleasing to the eye. Granted, all the hair spray and goop they put in there makes it a bit more dramatic, but yeah.... They didn't want a dog weighed down with a lot of hair so they cut what they didn't deem necessary off. I'm sure at one time it looked more like the dogs had mange than what we see today (though dont know that for sure), but things evolve. Protect the joints but dont weigh the dog down. BJ


----------

