manchesters - in my opinion the fact that the AKC only recognizes so few breeds is the joke. there are breeds out there that have been around longer than the AKC itself and have been recognized for years in other parts of the world. to me, the AKC isn't the "be all and end all" when it comes to dogs, unlike to so many americans. i put more stock into the FCI and their work. to be honest, i find it an even bigger joke that the US still isn't a member of the FCI. it's like most of the rest of the world has the ability to agree on a common goal and work towards it, but a small group of people think they have to do their own thing. it's completely untrue that UKC "registers anything that has 4 legs and a tail", in fact, their criteria for registerability (is that a word? lol) are stricter than those of the AKC. the FCI currently recognizes 335 breeds, of those, the UKC recognizes 308. again, manchesters - please do elaborate why UKC championship is "a joke"? just because the registry is not quite as big as the AKC? or because it happens to be "the other team" for you? it doesn't make sense to me to divide breeds into "show lines" and "field/working" lines, as happens so frequently. either the dog meets the breed standard or it doesn't - how can there be two ways about it? i freely admit i'm not "into" the conformation side of the dog world here in the US, but as much as you would like it to be that way, just because i have had my mentors (and made my experiences) in a different country doesn't mean i am entirely clueless. i've done my homework and if i ever get into purebred dogs again, the UKC would be my registry of choice, simply due to their philosophy on a balanced dog and what i consider to be better breeding ethics. showpug, i'm also aware of the performance events in AKC, but in my opinion in many areas they just don't measure up and we are coming back to the division between show and working lines, which i just think is ridiculous. when it comes to the ethics in breeding, sorry, but i don't agree that there should be no responsibility with the registry - on the contrary, that's the first place to start. if you take away that last bit of desirable "legitimacy" that puppy millers and other mass producers get with an AKC registration, you take away much of their incentive to commercially exploit dogs. richie, you said "but really, I've heard that AKC worries more about the looks of a dog and now the original reason why they were bred." i'm not sure what was a typo and what wasn't - but i do think you see it the way i do.