Looking Beyond: The History We Inherit and the Stewardship Ahead

Looking Beyond-It could be white-tailed ptarmigan in the Rockies

I didn't set out to write this article. I set out to write a brief history of the Small Munsterlander in North America.

And somewhere along the way, the history of the dogs became inseparable from the history of the people and organizations entrusted with them.

For a short time I have written articles under the heading "Looking Beyond." Looking Beyond the Pedigree examined what a pedigree cannot tell us by itself. Looking Beyond the Record went further: the existence of a record does not necessarily mean the record contains everything we need to make an informed breeding decision.

The same principle applies to organizations.

As the Small Munsterlander Club of America continues it's push toward full American Kennel Club recognition, members will face another consequential decision. Before that happens, I think we need to look beyond the presentation—beyond the history we remember, the promises made when this journey began, the database and bylaws, and the AKC ribbon wrapped around the package.

I opposed the move toward AKC in 2019, although nearly seven years later I cannot honestly remember whether I ultimately voted No or abstained. My Stewardship voting privileges were removed by the Board in 2026, and I have decided that when my membership expires at the end of this year, I will be hard pressed to renew it. I probably won't be there when the final AKC recognition question reaches the membership.

This article isn't an argument that members should vote for or against AKC. It is an argument that they should transparently understand what they are voting for.

In 2019 we were offered promises and expectations. In 2026 we have something we didn't have then: nearly six years of experience as the AKC-designated parent club. We should look deeply at this and governance under the updated bylaws since then.

Before There Was an SMCNA

The North American Small Münsterländer did not begin with SMCNA, and it certainly did not begin with AKC.

Tom McDonald imported Elko from Germany in 1971. Paul and Vibeke Jensen followed with Bliss from Denmark in 1974, and Paul had registered the Jaegerbakken kennel name with NAVHDA the year before. In 1978, Paul ran Bliss and Peto's Alpha in the first NAVHDA Natural Ability tests involving Small Münsterländers.(1)

But something else was developing alongside the dogs.

In a retrospective history published in Versatile Hunting Dog in November of 2021, pages 8-10, Paul Jensen recalled that he and Vibeke had established a Small Münsterländer registry in 1977—sixteen years before SMCNA was formed. This was long before today's electronic pedigree databases. Vibeke was typing pedigrees individually, and by the mid-1980s Paul was already publicly discussing breeding requirements involving hip dysplasia screening, hunting ability and responsible breeding practices.(24)

That history matters because the performance-based breeding philosophy later associated with SMCNA did not suddenly appear when the club was created. The registry, the emphasis on health and hunting performance, and the effort to preserve the breed according to its working heritage were already taking shape.

Then, in March 1993, Paul and Vibeke Jensen proposed formation of the Small Munsterlander Club of North America.(24)

Paul's later firsthand account identifies the original slate of officers:(24)

Ray DeJong — President

Gordon Bashaw — Vice President

Barbara Krieger — Treasurer

Paul Jensen — Breed Warden

Vibeke Jensen — Secretary

According to Paul, that slate was reconfirmed in May 1994, and all five remained in those positions until January 1998.(24)

There is an interesting discrepancy in the surviving history. SMCA's current account says SMCNA was established with 23 charter members. A history published by the German Verband für Kleine Münsterländer describes Paul Jensen organizing the March 1993 founding meeting with 37 Kleine Münsterländer members. Both could be true—37 people may have participated while 23 ultimately became charter members—but without the original meeting minutes or membership roll, I don't think the historical record allows us to say exactly how those numbers relate.(1)(25)

What is much clearer is what those early breeders were trying to preserve.

Paul recalled that during SMCNA's first year the club was already advocating breeding requirements involving age and frequency of breeding, OFA hip evaluation and demonstrated hunting ability through NAVHDA testing. He traced some of those ideas even farther back, to breeding requirements discussed publicly during the 1980s.

The organization they built was performance based.(1)(24) Participation in its breeding program required dogs to satisfy standards involving hunting ability, health, temperament and conformation.

But that history needs to be described accurately.

SMCNA never possessed universal authority to prevent two privately owned Small Münsterländers from being bred. What it controlled was participation in its own breeding and registration system.

If you wanted to breed within that system and receive its approval and pedigree, you followed its rules.

That distinction becomes important later.

There is also a larger point here that I think is easy to miss when we tell the history beginning with the organization rather than the people who preceded it.

SMCNA inherited a philosophy. It did not create one from nothing.

The registry work, emphasis on hunting performance, concern for health and relationship to the breed's European heritage were already developing before SMCNA existed. The organization became a steward of that inheritance.

And that raises a question that reaches well beyond 1993:

When an organization changes, what exactly are its members being asked to preserve—the organization itself, or the principles the organization was created to protect?

The Other Road: Germany

AKC wasn't the first path SMCNA explored toward greater international integration.

German Kleine Münsterländer records from 2010–2014 document serious discussions about SMCNA becoming a North American Landesgruppe of the German Verband für Kleine Münsterländer. By 2012, an agreement in principle had been approved. That relationship would have connected North American dogs more directly with the German/FCI structure, but also carried obligations involving the JGHV testing system. (2)

The relationship eventually broke down. SMCNA's KlM-International membership ended effective December 31, 2014, while another North American organization, KlM-GNA, was admitted in March 2015 as the seventeenth German Landesgruppe and the first outside Germany.(2)(3)

The breed essentially followed two North American paths: one through the SMCNA/NAVHDA tradition and eventually AKC, the other through the German/FCI/JGHV structure.

That history matters because access to European genetics would later become one of the strongest proposed arguments for AKC.

Tom McDonald's Warning

In January 2014, while discussing Breed Council procedures and information management, Tom McDonald warned about something that seems remarkably current twelve years later. Information was scattered, processes were cumbersome, errors occurred and the club needed better centralized systems. As the organization doubled or tripled, he warned, the workload could become unbearable. (4)

The organization repeatedly tried to solve those problems. Databases changed. Websites changed. Membership systems changed. Administrative help was added. Yet late in 2025 and early 2026 the Board continues discussing simplifying breeder and puppy reporting and improving health tracking. (5)

Tom wasn't predicting failure. He was predicting the cost of growth.

The question twelve years later is whether we have built not only better systems, but enough people to operate them.

Looking Beyond the Record

That brings me back to something closer to home: pedigree and health information.

In February 2018, SMCNA produced a working progeny report organized by sire. The accompanying explanation said dogs shown in red had produced one or more puppies reported with seizures or epilepsy. That did not mean the red sires themselves had epilepsy, nor did it diagnose them as carriers. It meant potentially important reproductive-family information existed. (6)

One of those red dogs was VC Cody vom Apfelbaumbach. Cody's current SMCA pedigree record contains another unfavorable finding—Butt Bite—which demonstrates that the database is capable of preserving worthy breed/family information. Yet the older progeny seizure information isn't apparent to someone looking at Cody's current individual record.(6)(8)

I found another example of missing information by comparing NAVHDA records with the SMCA database. Two January 6, 2022 littermates, C.M. Hunt Alabama Drexl (SM-006211) and C.M. Hunt Argos Red Hills Ryder (SM-006207), were identified in NAVHDA records as monorchid. Their current SMCA pedigree records have blank Health sections. Below is one of them.(7)

These examples don't prove the database is bad. They demonstrate something more useful: the information existed, but it did not necessarily follow the dog into the record a breeder would most likely consult.

A breeder looking only at the pedigree database records may never know to ask the next question. That is particularly important because a dog doesn't have to reproduce for information about that dog to have reproductive value. A monorchid dog that is never bred still tells us something about its family. So does a bad bite, seizure history, temperament problem or other relevant phenotype.

The phenotype belongs to the individual dog. While other specific information belongs to the family. Breed Warden Bud Ivanoff made much the same argument from the institutional side in the most current Spring of 2026 Munster Tails, asking breeders for puppy health and genetic-fault information along with parent, owner, identification and registry information because those records form the foundation of future breeding decisions.(9)

I agree.

Asking breeders to report information, however, solves only half of the problem. The other half is ensuring that information remains connected to the dogs and families for which it has meaning.

Records preserve information. They do not automatically preserve understanding.

Then Came AKC

By 2019, SMCNA faced a fundamentally different question: Should it become the AKC-designated parent club for the Small Münsterländer? The underpinning of why is critically important.

European genetics were central to the SMCNA argument. The Board maintained that SMCNA's position outside the internationally recognized structure had impaired access to European breeding stock and that AKC offered a path toward improving that situation.

Tom McDonald agreed that European genetic access mattered. What he questioned was whether AKC necessarily solved it. In contemporaneous correspondence he called the assumption that AKC pedigrees would provide the desired access “not a sure thing.” (10)

The disagreement wasn't about whether European genetics mattered.

The disagreement was about whether AKC was the answer.

Read the 2019 SMCNA Survey Membership Received

The November 2, 2019 AKC survey is worth revisiting because it shows how the proposition for SMCNA to become the AKC-designated parent club for the Small Münsterländer was presented to the membership.

Members were told that SMCNA's status as what German and international KlM leadership called a “Black Breed Club” significantly affected genetic diversity. They were told AKC pedigrees were internationally accepted. Questions asked whether recognized pedigrees mattered, whether proposed governance protections could preserve the breed's hunting heritage and whether restricted voting could keep control with members committed to hunting, testing, training and international standards.(11)

Question 6 was particularly important. It explicitly stated:

“The current SMCNA breed council will change, as the club does not have the legal authority to prevent the breeding of two AKC registered dogs.”

A proposed Breed Standard Integrity Committee would instead monitor compliance with club policies and the Code of Ethics. Sixty-eight percent of those participating in the survey found that satisfactory. Interestingly, the 2020 bylaws ultimately retained a Breed Council, whose role remained significant within SMCA's breeding program.(11) (14)

Question 10 still makes me uncomfortable because the choice wasn't framed simply as whether SMCNA should become the AKC parent club or remain independent.

Remaining as we were came bundled with consequences: continue being regarded as a “Black Breed Club” and risk another organization becoming the AKC parent club. Only 19 of 135 respondents chose that option.(11)

Fear is powerful currency in public discourse: If we don't do this, something worse may happen. That doesn't invalidate the answer, and it doesn't make the survey dishonest. But it matters when trying to understand what members were being asked to consider.

I don't need to call the survey rigged. I also don't think it should be remembered as a neutral measurement that simply asked, “Do you want AKC?”

Tom raised the same concern contemporaneously, questioning whether the survey was sufficiently balanced and neutral.(10)

Then something equally important happened.

The membership voted.

The Membership Said Yes

The formal vote wasn't close.

The official results reported 335 ballots distributed, 11 opt-outs and 233 ballots received. The same notice reported 184 Yes ballots, two additional Yes votes by email and 49 No votes. Those figures contain a small arithmetic discrepancy—186 plus 49 equals 235, not 233—but the result itself is unmistakable.(12)

Members overwhelmingly chose the AKC path.

AKC was not imposed upon an unwilling membership.

The more useful question today is: What did members believe they were buying?

The Package

Looking back, AKC was presented as a package containing several attractive promises and safeguards: internationally recognized pedigrees, improved access to European genetics, protection of the versatile hunting dog, continued breeding standards, protection against a conformation-oriented takeover, voting restricted to people committed to the breed's working heritage, and protection against another organization becoming the AKC parent club.

The membership bought the package decisively.

But fairness requires acknowledging something important: we still haven't completely unwrapped the package.

SMCA became the AKC Parent Club on February 7, 2020, and the Small Münsterländer entered Miscellaneous Class January 1, 2021. As of October 2026, full recognition has not occurred.(15)

It would therefore be premature to declare the AKC experiment a failure because every anticipated benefit has not materialized. Some of the package may depend upon full recognition. Before removing the remaining wrapping, members should know what they expect to find underneath it.

Start with European genetics.

How many European breeding dogs have SMCA breeders imported since 2020? From which countries and registries? How many came from German or KlM-International programs that were previously difficult to access? How much additional access to European studs or semen resulted from SMCA becoming the AKC parent club?

If the principal benefit awaits full recognition, what specifically changes at full recognition that will cause European breeders or breed organizations to respond differently?

There may be excellent answers. Put them before the membership.

I have not found a published SMCA accounting comparing European genetic access before and after 2020. That doesn't prove the benefit hasn't occurred. It means a major benefit offered in support of the transition should now be demonstrated rather than assumed.

In 2019 we had a hypothesis.

Now we have six years of results.

Look at them transparently.

The Safeguard Called Stewardship

The 2019 Board also reassured members that breeding requirements would remain and that the Small Münsterländer would remain “first and foremost a versatile hunting dog.” Importantly, it acknowledged that more than 30 percent of puppies were already being produced by unaffiliated breeders and that NAVHDA was an independent registry through which people could breed purebred dogs without belonging to SMCNA.(13)

AKC didn't create outside breeding. It already existed.

One proposed safeguard was governance. Only Stewardship and Life Stewardship members would vote, keeping organizational control with people invested in the versatile hunting dog, testing, training and international standards.(11)(13)

Today, only those membership classes retain election voting privileges. A Regular member seeking Stewardship must satisfy tenure and testing requirements, obtain sponsorship, pass Regional review and ultimately receive two-thirds favorable Board approval. Both the Regional committee and Board retain discretion not to advance an applicant.(16)

That means Stewardship isn't merely recognition.

It determines the electorate.

This makes Steward Membership administration extraordinarily important.

Bill Tomlin's Question to the Current Board

Bill Tomlin made his experience with Steward Membership application public in July 2026. After roughly five years as a Regular member, he applied for Stewardship and was not approved. Bill described a life with the breed that included working as a full-time trainer and wild-bird guide, breeding, hunting his dogs more than 70 days annually, testing in two organizations, referring prospective owners to breeders, volunteering at the SMCA Annual Meeting and investing his own time and money showing a dog in AKC to help advance the breed toward recognition. He also wrote a SHOWSIGHT article explaining function behind form to AKC judges.

After the denial, Bill publicly said he sought an explanation from the Board and, more than three weeks later, had not received one.(17)

His question was simple: What more could he do to be a good steward of the breed and productive member of its breed club?

I cannot tell you why his application was denied. The public information doesn't establish the Board's motive.

But the consequence is known.

In a separate September 2026 post, Bill said he would have voted in the club election but could not because he had not attained Stewardship.(17)

That raises a governance question independent of personalities: If Stewardship determines who may vote, according to what objective, transparent and consistently applied standards is Stewardship granted or denied?

Who Gets to Carry the Baton?

Bill's September post contained another important piece of history: his account of remarks Paul Jensen made at the 2026 Annual Meeting. Bill recalled Paul acknowledging the contributions of current leadership while saying, in substance, that it was time for leadership change and for others to carry the organization forward.(17)

I was not at that Annual Meeting. After reading Bill's account and speaking with Wendy Jordan, however, I spoke directly with Paul for more than two hours. Paul substantiated the substance of what Bill had reported. Because neither Bill's recollection nor my later conversation with Paul is a transcript of the Annual Meeting, I won't manufacture a quotation.

But place Paul's message beside Tom McDonald's 2014 warning.

Tom warned that growth would eventually make the workload unbearable. Twelve years later, Paul was talking about the need for leadership succession.

That raises a question I cannot answer from the organizational record I reviewed: Where is the deliberate process for identifying, developing, trusting and preparing the people who will carry the organization next?

I can find discussion of workload. I can find discussion of succession. I can find people willing to serve.

What I haven't found is a clear process connecting those things.

A baton isn't passed by protecting it. It's passed by putting it into someone else's hand.

I Kept Raising My Hand

This is where my own history becomes relevant, not because I think my experience proves everyone's experience, but because it illustrates the same institutional question.

My first volunteer role with SMCNA was editing Munster Tails in 2018. The Board itself had committed to four issues annually and recognized the need for more timely contributions.(23) I established deadlines for all four issues and suggested moving beyond the static Microsoft Publisher PDF format to a publishing platform that could tell us what members actually opened, read and spent time with. That idea never really got a chance. By the deadline for the final 2018 issue I was expected to produce, nothing had been submitted, including Board reports. I explained to Mark Schnubel that I couldn't produce what I hadn't received and later completed the final issue. In my subsequent email exchange with Mark, he told me it wasn't working. I replied with only two letters: “OK.” That was the end of it.

In February 2025, before I ever decided to run for office, I contacted then-Treasurer Sande Mustain about a scholarship application for a professional workshop I planned to attend. During the same conversation I mentioned club forms carrying outdated addresses and logos. As I remember the conversation, she essentially challenged me to stop pointing out problems and help fix them. I did. Using an open-source PDF editor, I corrected the forms and sent editable versions back to her in less than an hour.

During that conversation Sande also expressed that she wanted someone else to run for Treasurer so she could bow out. It was shortly thereafter I decided to run.

The official 2025 election notice later reported Sande Mustain would be running against me. The official results reported Sande Mustain at 55 percent and me at 40 percent. Mark Schnubel later told me the difference amounted to seven votes. One difficulty I encountered while campaigning was that I could not obtain a list of the Stewardship members who were actually eligible to vote. After the election, Mark Schnubel called to tell me I had not won and to see whether there might be another place for me to contribute, including Regional Representative or website work. I declined both after realizing how little autonomy either would provide.(19)

The voting-list issue surfaced again in 2026. In my conversations with Scott Snell and Wendy Jordan, both challengers told me they did not have the national list of Stewardship voters. Scott, as a Regional Representative, knew Stewardship members in his own region, but neither challenger had access to the national electorate.

I don't need to claim that an incumbent used that information for campaigning to see the structural problem. If voting is restricted to a specially qualified electorate, candidates seeking office should have an equitable way to communicate with that electorate.

Otherwise a challenger is running nationally without knowing who can vote.

Is the governance structure that was proposed under AKC what we expected?

Then Came 2026

Early in 2026 I again tried to contribute through a Breed Intelligence concept intended to bring together pedigree, health and performance information. I requested a small amount of time at a breeders meeting to demonstrate it. That presentation never was afforded.

Around the same period, my Cooperating Breeder status was temporarily removed because required health histories and information for my dogs and puppies were considered outstanding. Within hours I supplied the requested information and my status was restored. I had previously discussed that information with the registrar by phone. The experience reinforced the same concern that had emerged from my database research: collecting information and preserving it in the institutional record are not necessarily the same thing.(18)(21)

I eventually decided not to continue in the Cooperating Breeder program over these issues.

Then came the "J" Litter pairing decision between Glitzy × Vulkan and their eventual breeding.

On November 16, 2025, I emailed Breed Warden Kris Hill the breeding paperwork for Cedars Point Glitzy Spitz. The email specifically identified Vulkan Eben-Ezer, “Bandit,” as the proposed sire, stated that the Letter of Intent to Breed was attached and said I expected Glitzy to come into heat within four to six weeks. I asked Kris to confirm receipt. I have not located a reply confirming receipt. The Letter of Intent specifically disclosed Vulkan's preliminary OFA as "Good" with evaluation at 15 months.

Glitzy was bred December 31, 2025 and January 2–3, 2026.

Months later, when the Board acted against my Stewardship status, its notice stated that Kris had notified me by email on March 19, 2026 that the breeding violated SMCA requirements because Vulkan exceeded the applicable height standard and lacked qualifying final hip certification.

I have searched my email specifically for correspondence from Kris on March 19. I have no such email.

I cannot prove from its absence in my inbox that an email was never sent. The Board's notice says it was. I dispute receiving it. The underlying March 19 email has not been produced in the records I have.(18)

But there is another problem with that date even if we assume the email existed.

By March 19, the breeding had occurred more than two months earlier.

The relevant opportunity to question the proposed pairing was before December 31, not three weeks before the litter was born. I had sent the proposed sire and his preliminary hip information on November 16, 2025.(18)

That leaves a straightforward historical question: What happened between November 16, when the proposed pairing and Vulkan's preliminary hip evaluation were disclosed to the Breed Warden, and December 31, when the breeding began?

I don't hide my own decision. I knowingly relied upon Vulkan's preliminary OFA Good evaluation rather than a qualifying final OFA or PennHIP certification. His age, soundness, progeny and family information also factored into my decision. I also believed the height question was affected by the FCI tolerance framework. Vulkan was listed on my breeding application at 57.5 centimeters, approximately 22.64 inches. Under the FCI standard, that height falls within its permitted tolerance for a male. The AKC standard, however, treats height differently: males from 20.5 to 22 inches are within the standard range; greater than 22 through 22.5 inches is a severe fault; and greater than 22.5 inches is a disqualification. At 57.5 centimeters, Vulkan was approximately 0.14 inch above the AKC disqualification threshold. Because the club applies the AKC standard, I should have recognized that distinction when I submitted the breeding application. That was my oversight.

The Board ultimately revoked my Stewardship voting privileges immediately while allowing me to remain a nonvoting member. I was then offered an opportunity to explain my position. In my written response to the revocation I asked for the complaint or referral, the evidence relied upon, the specific governing authority, the procedure followed, information concerning the Board action and clarification of whether the action was discipline, suspension of privileges or membership reclassification.(18)

The current bylaws contain procedures involving notice, charges, an opportunity to respond and hearing/appeal mechanisms for certain disciplinary actions. The precise authority for reclassifying a Stewardship member into a nonvoting class as an alternative to suspension or expulsion is a separate bylaw question; I am not presenting my interpretation of that issue as a legal conclusion.

The practical consequence, however, is uncomplicated.

I could no longer vote.

And I could no longer run for office.

I had become immediately, for purposes of organizational governance, an informed observer after 10 years of involvement with the breed.

Again, is the governance structure that was proposed under AKC what we expected?

People Are Infrastructure

My experience does not prove that SMCA treats everyone this way. Bill's experience doesn't establish why his Stewardship application was denied. Scott's and Wendy's experience with the electorate doesn't establish anyone's motive.

But put those experiences beside Tom's 2014 workload warning and Paul's 2026 succession message and a broader question emerges.

Organizations don't run on bylaws and databases alone. They run on people: breeders, trainers, veterinarians, programmers, accountants, judges, regional organizers, writers, historians, puppy buyers and volunteers.

Losing one member may therefore mean much more than losing one's dues. It can mean losing health information, litter records, puppy-owner relationships, institutional memory, technical ability and future leadership under appropriate governance.

The solution to unbearable workload isn't asking fewer people to work harder. It's building an organization capable of finding, developing and trusting more people to share the work.

That is why the Stewardship gate deserves examination from both directions. The original concern was legitimate: What if people primarily interested in conformation eventually gained enough influence to redirect a versatile hunting breed?

But there is an opposite risk.

What if the greater danger isn't letting the wrong people in? What if it's driving the capable people out?

Relationships Become Infrastructure

SMCA currently describes its pedigree database as the “only" complete North American Small Munsterlander Registry.”(21)

Think about what complete requires.

Information.

When a breeder produces a litter, those puppies become pedigree records, health histories, owner relationships, NAVHDA results and potentially future breeding dogs, breeders and club members.

If that breeder leaves SMCA but continues breeding, the dogs don't disappear. The genetics don't disappear. NAVHDA doesn't disappear. The puppy owners don't disappear.

The club's connection to them can.

That matters because SMCNA itself acknowledged in 2019 that more than 30 percent of puppies in North America were already being produced outside its affiliated breeder structure. What's that number today?

The larger the breed becomes, the less realistic it is to imagine preserving information through control alone. People need reasons to report the good information and the uncomfortable information, even when they don't belong to the club.

Relationships become infrastructure.

What Full Recognition Changes

AKC's progression requirements help explain why the club has invested so much time in conformation events, Certificates of Merit, AKC Judges Education, registration and organizational development. But more importantly current requirements include bylaw review, Board and Annual Meeting records, membership development, at least 300 dogs with three-generation pedigrees, litter requirements, Judges Education and other milestones.(15)

But full recognition does not transfer every governance decision to AKC.

AKC reviews governing documents and requires clubs to operate according to them, but questions such as who qualifies for Stewardship, how regional representation works, how much discretion belongs to the Board and what protections members receive remain largely decisions of the club itself within the applicable governing framework.(14)(15)(16)

Nor does a Code of Ethics recreate the old registration leverage SMCNA once possessed. SMCA can maintain standards, operate its Cooperating Breeder program, recommend testing, collect health information, educate buyers and discipline members under its rules. Those are meaningful powers.

But club consequences and AKC registration eligibility are not the same thing.

Responsibility is not the same thing as control.

As that distinction grows, breeder decisions involving contracts, registration status and co-ownership become more important, while the club becomes increasingly dependent upon persuasion, credibility and voluntary cooperation.

That makes relationships more important after recognition, not less.

Follow the Money—and the People

The Spring 2026 Treasurer's report offers another useful snapshot. From January 1 through June 14, SMCA reported $25,460.22 in income and $22,550.85 in expenses. Membership contributed $7,775; conference registration $7,950; auction/Derby/Fetch activities $8,845; and the AKC conformation show $850. Major expenses included $14,490.27 for the Annual Conference and $3,434.40 for Wild Apricot. (20)

Those numbers aren't evidence that AKC is good or bad financially. They illustrate something more basic: this organization depends heavily upon membership, participation, events and human labor.

As full recognition approaches, members deserve to understand what additional recurring obligations it creates, what they cost, what revenue supports them and how much volunteer labor is required to keep the system functioning.

Human capital doesn't appear on a balance sheet.

It is still one of the organization's most valuable assets.

Records Are Organizational Memory

Researching this history also taught me how difficult institutional history can be to reconstruct.

The online Board-minute collection I reviewed contained roughly 70 substantive files covering portions of 2014 through 2026. I found gaps, including no online minutes for 2015 or 2024 and no May 2026 Annual Meeting minutes in the archive I reviewed. That does not prove those minutes were never created or available elsewhere. (22)

But from the historian's perspective, the result is the same: portions of the story cannot be reconstructed from the presently available archive.

Ironically, some of the clearest evidence I found explaining the SMCNA/German split came from German records.

Transparency isn't only about catching somebody doing something wrong.

It is how an organization remembers.

People leave. Memories fade. Computers die. Websites change. Facebook posts disappear. Eventually someone asks, Why did we do this?

Our record should be able to answer question and be our institutional memory, not NAVHDA, not an email or conversation, and certainly not the German Club.

Before the Final Vote, Read the Bylaws

The remaining AKC decision isn't only about whether members want full recognition.

It is also about what kind of organization will accompany it.

AKC requires club business, elections and annual meetings to follow the governing documents and requires review of those documents as part of progression toward full recognition.(15) All AKC clubs must also submit future bylaw revisions to AKC. If SMCA becomes an AKC Member Club, those amendments would not become effective until approved by the AKC Board of Directors.(15)

So don't treat the bylaws as housekeeping. They define governance.

They determine who votes, who can become a voting member, how people can lose privileges, what due process exists, how leadership turns over, how regional representation functions and how authority is divided between the Board and membership.

Ask whether someone denied Stewardship deserves an explanation. Ask what process governs removal of voting privileges. Ask how candidates for national office gain equitable access to the voting electorate. Ask what authority the Breed Council will actually possess after full recognition. Ask how health information from breeders outside the Cooperating Breeder program will enter a registry that aspires to completeness.

And ask where the next generation of leadership is being developed.

Do not spend all of your attention deciding whether to enter the door and none deciding what the organization will look like once you are through it.

Don't Vote for the Wrapping Paper

I know where I have landed personally.

When my membership expires at the end of this year, I will be hard pressed to renew it. This blog will have to be my platform now.

I'm out.

I'm not walking away from the Small Münsterländer. Nine of these dogs have changed my life. I'll continue hunting them, training them, breeding and trying to contribute useful information to all interested in this magnificent breed.

I'm walking away from an organization I no longer believe is the right place for me.

That decision doesn't have to be anyone else's.

Nor am I telling members that they should reject full AKC recognition. We don't yet know everything full recognition will produce because we aren't there yet. The package hasn't been completely unwrapped.

That is exactly why these questions and more should be asked before the remaining wrapping comes off.

If European genetic access has improved because of AKC, document it. If the primary benefit comes only after full recognition, explain how. If the evolved governance structure protects the hunting heritage of the breed, demonstrate how. If Stewardship protects the organization, make its administration transparent enough that qualified members understand how to attain it and why they are denied. If the pedigree database is the institutional memory of the breed, feed it uncomfortable information as faithfully as accomplishments. If full recognition brings new financial and administrative obligations, put those numbers before the membership before the vote.

And if this organization needs another generation of people to carry the work forward, build a deliberate process for finding them, developing them, trusting and empowering them and eventually letting them lead.

The Small Münsterländer existed before SMCA and before AKC. It will exist after every person currently sitting on the Board, serving on Breed Council, breeding litters or writing articles like this is gone.

None of us owns stewardship of this breed. We hold a piece of it for a while. Our obligation is to leave the next generation enough information, enough freedom, enough trust and enough institutional memory to do something useful with it.

So if you remain in the SMCA, get involved. Read the minutes and the bylaws. Better yet, understand their implications. Ask uncomfortable questions. Volunteer. Run for office. Nominate capable people. Demand explanations when explanations are warranted, and protect due process even when you agree with the decision being made, because someday you may not.

Don't confuse preservation of an institution with preservation of the breed, and don't assume somebody else will represent the breed.

I no longer have that vote.

It belongs to you.

Know what you're voting for. Look beyond the wrapping paper. Take your piece of the breed's stewardship personally and represent yourselves and the dogs you love. And when the baton is offered, make damn sure somebody is there to take it.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which model SMCNA, SMCA/AKC, KLM or independent breeder places responsibility for preserving the breed in the right hands?

There is no perfect model. KlM places substantial responsibility with the breed organization, the traditional SMCNA model shared it between the club and breeder, SMCA/AKC or acting model shifts more responsibility toward breeders and buyers, and finally independent breeding places most of it with the breeder. Each depends ultimately on the people entrusted with the responsibility.

---

If AKC does not enforce SMCA breeding requirements, what does AKC add to the club's original mission?

AKC provides registration, recognition, conformation and performance opportunities, and greater national visibility to the breed. What is less clear is how those benefits directly strengthen the original mission of preserving a healthy, capable versatile hunting dog.

---

If the club no longer controls registration under AKC, who protects the breeding standard?

Increasingly, breeders will or should. Stud owners, puppy buyers, co-owners, contracts, health testing and performance testing can provide additional safeguards, but much more responsibility rests with individuals under AKC, not the SMCA.

---

Can a breeder leave the organization without leaving its principles?

Yes. An independent breeder can still follow the same—or higher—standards for health, hunting ability, temperament and conformation. What disappears is that organization's ability to require the breeder to do so within its program.

---

Who should own the breed's information?

No single breeder or organization should own the history of a family of dogs. Health, performance and breeding information should follow those dogs across generations regardless of organizational affiliation.

---

Can independent breeders preserve a breed without a institutional gatekeeper?

Possibly, but only if enough breeders remain committed to testing, transparency and responsible breeding decisions. That may be the independent model's greatest strength and its greatest weakness: it depends on people doing the right thing when nobody can force them to or is watching. It also requires an accessible pedigree recording system that everyone participates in keeping up to date, honesty and earnestly.

Sources and Documentation

1. SMCA — Breed History, Roots & Origins, About SMCA.

2. Verband für Kleine Münsterländer / KlM-International records, 2010–2014.

3. KlM-GNA historical records.

4. SMCNA Board Minutes, January 28, 2014.

5. SMCA Board Minutes, December 3, 2025; January 7 and February 4, 2026.

6. SMCNA Progeny Report — Working Copy by Sire, February 2018, and accompanying explanatory correspondence.

7. NAVHDA Natural Ability records for C.M. Hunt Alabama Drexl and C.M. Hunt Argos Red Hills Ryder; corresponding SMCA pedigree records.

8. Current SMCA pedigree record, VC Cody vom Apfelbaumbach.

9. Bud Ivanoff, Spring 2026 Munster Tails.

10. Tom McDonald, 2019 contemporaneous member correspondence concerning AKC and the SMCNA survey.

11. SMCNA AKC Member Survey, November 2, 2019.

12. SMCNA formal AKC parent-club vote results, 2019.

13. SMCNA Board communication to members, November 17, 2019.

14. SMCA Constitution and Bylaws, approved November 2020.

15. AKC Foundation Stock Service records and progression-to-full-recognition requirements.

16. SMCA Membership and Stewardship requirements.

17. Bill Tomlin public posts, July and September 2026.

18. Jeffery Mizenko–SMCA correspondence, 2025–2026, including November 16, 2025 Glitzy/Vulkan breeding submission and 2026 Stewardship correspondence.

19. SMCA 2025 election results and telcon with Mark Schnubel.

20. Spring 2026 Munster Tails, Treasurer's Report.

21. SMCA Cooperating Breeder materials and current pedigree-database materials.

22. SMCA Board/minutes archive reviewed through October 2026.

23. SMCNA, Munster Tails, Summer 2018, including February 7, 2018 Board minutes.

24. Paul Jensen, “The Small Munsterlander in North America,” Versatile Hunting Dog, November 2021.

25. Verband für Kleine Münsterländer e.V., historical account of SMCNA/North American Kleine Münsterländer development, 2011.

About the Author

Jeffery Mizenko is the owner of Cedars Point Kennel in South Dakota, where he breeds, trains and hunts Small Münsterländers. His involvement with the breed includes NAVHDA testing, breeding and pedigree and health research, as well as years of involvement with the Small Munsterlander Club of America. Through his Looking Beyond series, he examines the information, decisions and assumptions that shape breeding programs and the future of the breed.