To note, the USASCA is the group of people that split from the ASCA back in the late 80's/early 90's when AKC reg. was brought to the table. The ASCA people were *vehemently* against the idea, because they had eyes and a brain and saw what it did to other breeds. Thus, the USASCA was born to give a parent club to sponsor AKC registration through and in 1994, the AKC got their hands on the Aussie and immediately began turning it into a docked, multi-colored Golden Retriever.
It's certainly not news that many breeds, upon recognition by the AKC, change. Often there is a loss of working ability, and that leads to claims that the AKC "ruined" the Northern Spotted Snipehound, or whatever. At the same time, I've seen examples where a breed has improved, usually to a sounder conformation. Fronts and rears balance out, get more angulation, shoulder layback especially seems to improve. In breeds where there is a strong working/show split, often the show dogs are just better made. Hocks aren't three feet long, knees don't stick out, elbows are held close to the body. And many breeds have managed to resist a split: Brittanys, GSP, Tollers (I am most familiar with sporting dogs, but I am sure there are other examples)
And while I will freely admit that I feel the AKC has an agenda and that agenda is not always in the best interests of true working dogs (I do believe that the AKC does what it thinks is in the best interest of dogs, but they can be kind of stupid and money grubbing on that point), they don't write standards and they don't breed dogs. They're a filing cabinet that holds shows. A filing cabinet can't ruin dogs.
So what does ruin dogs once they get accepted by the AKC? Does the same happen when breeds are accepted by the UKC? What about other kennel clubs around the world?