> That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests.
I'm having a hard time imagining some more interesting, plausible thing that you thought the title suggested.
> That's much less interesting to me than the title suggests.
I'm having a hard time imagining some more interesting, plausible thing that you thought the title suggested.
Self-diagnosing a little, I think my skeptical attitude towards institutions is acting up here. It's weird to me when people use "name" when what they really mean is "name registered with institution X". I don't see why anyone should care what the AKC thinks of their dog's name, in kind of the same way that registering a name for a star in a star registry is similarly stupid.
For breeders, having your 'product' validated by a third part is a guarantee that is faithful to the breed, and increases its value. Having an unique name avoids scams also (Dishonest breeders can't enter in a competition with a dog named like your famous winner for example). More respectable breeders are supported by a third part and can sell their pups for more money.
For buyers, you are allowed to participate in official dog competitions and win prizes; and, much more important, you have a guarantee that your dog will have a happy life free from pain and suffering.
There is a public, transparent register showing absence or presence of main congenital diseases in the family of your pet. Will be your pet free from hip dysplasia in a few years? Will have a high probability of becoming deaf?. The breeder can't hide this important information to you. Having this info is a must for some dog breeds
https://data.stadt-zuerich.ch/dataset/pd-stapo-hundenamen
The CSV should be clear enough:
https://data.stadt-zuerich.ch/dataset/pd-stapo-hundenamen/re...
Sure, but it's exactly the desire to reduce the tension between what you know to be true and the title that makes clickbait effective. This could have also been a law from 1700 that was never enforced, or whatever.
I did! or at least US wide law.