A small, Washington, DC-based news organization published an article yesterday that parroted claims by animal rights organizations that the American Kennel Club puts profits over the care and well-being of animals.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The AKC is a private not-for-profit organization. We are a club of clubs, the world’s largest all-breed dog registry. We love dogs and we’re proud of the great things we, our affiliates, our 4,900 volunteer clubs and responsible breeders do every day to preserve the unique diversity of canine breeds and the well-being of all dogs—regardless of breed or mix.
For example:
- The AKC Canine Health Foundation is the world’s largest funder of canine health research, providing more than $75 million in grants to scientific research on all aspects of the physical, mental and social well-being of dogs.
- AKC Reunite has reunited more than 700,000 lost pets with their owners, donates microchips and microchip scanners to shelters, and has donated more than 117 disaster relief trailers to local communities to set up temporary animal shelters during and immediately after a natural disaster, representing donations of more than $6 million to local communities.
- AKC’s Breeder Education and Canine College programs provide more than 400 online courses and webinars, as well as in-person courses to breeders and any member of the general public covering both cutting-edge scientific advances and all aspects of canine health and well-being.
- AKC is the only registry with a significant inspections program. That’s right, AKC actually inspects—and has demonstrated willingness—to fire our own clients! Our inspections provide educational opportunities, ensure proper care and conditions and accurate record keeping for AKC registered dogs. If we see evidence of negligence or cruelty AKC immediately reports it to the authorities and suspends them of AKC privileges. We do this because it’s the right thing to do. Since 2000, AKC has conducted 83,000 inspections of clients who use our registration services. No other private organization comes near this level of on-the-ground commitment, experience or expertise that informs policy approaches.
At the heart of the complaints by the animal rights groups cited in the article is AKC’s opposition to the so-called “Better Care for Animals Act,” “Goldie’s Act,” and “Puppy Protection Act” as introduced. Each of these flawed bills seeks to establish new statutory requirements for USDA licensees, including dog breeders. However, none of these organizations have significant experience or expertise in responsible breeding, or animal husbandry. Sadly, many of these groups don’t support the science, dedication and expertise used by responsible dog breeders. Many oppose dog breeding generally and use the pejorative and inaccurate term “puppy mill” to describe anyone who breeds dogs.
Calling responsible breeders “puppy mills” to advance an anti-breeder legislative agenda belies a shocking and unconscionable lack of knowledge and understanding about responsible breeders. Responsible breeders care about their dogs and puppies, thoughtfully consider health and pedigree of potential parents, and produce wonderful family pets and working dogs that enrich our lives, while also preserving historic bloodlines and breeds with predictable characteristics that help future owners choose the right dog for their lifestyle.
The article notes that AKC spends under $250,000 annually on lobbying and less than $67,000 on candidates, because we prioritize programs that directly benefit dogs and communities. What it leaves out is that OpenSecrets also reports that the groups criticizing AKC spent nearly $1.8 million on lobbying, contributed $850,000 more in political spending, and employed 48 lobbyists compared to AKC’s one.
The groups pushing these anti-breeder measures treat issues caused by bad actors—whom we all agree should be banned from breeding—as a norm, not the outlier it is. They would have you believe that there are few federal, state, or local laws and regulations governing dog breeders and that all dogs come from large, commercial-sized kennels that need new laws. In fact, a person who keeps more than four small mammals (hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, cats, dogs etc. combined) and breeds even a single animal that they transfer without physically meeting the new owner is subject to USDA licensing requirements designed for large scale commercial breeders. When HSUS /HWA publicize alleged care violations, they are typically just repeating issues already documented by regulators. AKC believes the solution lies in stronger enforcement of existing laws—not creating new ones.
Although fewer than 10 percent of breeders who register with AKC breed more than six litters a year, AKC gives careful thought to our positions on canine legislation that are inclusive of all responsible breeders regardless of size. AKC seeks to ensure that canine legislation is reasonable, enforceable and non-discriminatory, and protects the rights of responsible breeders, while ensuring that negligence and cruelty laws are fully enforced—whether in a case of one dog or 100.
A shortened version of our legislative positions:
- Animal rights groups claim AKC opposes faster reporting of animal neglect. This is false. AKC has consistently urged Congress to fully fund USDA enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and supports Farm Bill language requiring inspectors to alert state authorities when a dog is in unrelieved suffering, with immediate confiscation considered. Far from opposing accountability, AKC advocates for stronger enforcement and education to ensure compliance.
- The Puppy Protection Act imposes rigid, one-size-fits-all mandates better suited to commercial kennels than small home breeders. Provisions include arbitrary limits on breeding by age and size, unsafe “unfettered access” to exercise areas, and blanket temperature rules that ignore breed differences and acclimatization. Without flexibility, such standards can compromise animal care rather than improve it.
- Goldie’s Act blurs the line between serious welfare violations and minor paperwork issues, undermining focus on animal care. While zero violations should be the goal, AKC believes animal well-being must remain the priority. The bill also requires inspectors to remove or destroy animals for undefined “psychological harm,” without clarity on how or by whom that would be determined.
- The Better Care for Animals Act would hand enforcement power to the Department of Justice, bypassing USDA’s veterinary expertise—even though USDA and DOJ already collaborate under a 2024 Memorandum of Understanding. AKC opposes these measures because they replace expertise with overreach, risking outcomes that do not prioritize the true welfare of animals.