 |
 |
| March 2006 On LetsDiscussJudging a topic came up that has caused much thought on my part. One of our list members was concerned because she heard a handler say to a judge, after winning apparently, �I knew you�d like this dog.� And it was said at ring side within the hearing of a number of exhibitors. This exchange caused her to question the ethics of the judge (and I would suspect she questioned the handler�s ethics as well). No report was made as to the judge�s response, if any, to the handler. After the member�s comment and several responses which were received, I began to wonder, as I put in my response if perhaps we aren�t looking for the goblins hiding under the bed in way too many cases? Have we reached the point where questionable ethics are attributed to the judge, the professional handler, owner/breeder/handlers, and whoever else may be within sight to hide our own inadequacies or those of our dogs? Are there politics involved in the judging of dogs? Of course there are � and one would be a fool to deny it. Are the politics as embedded in our AKC [or CKC, FCI, or KC] shows as the comments of exhibitors appear to indicate? I find it hard to believe that the show scene is so permeated with political/ethical problems that one cannot find honest judging. From 1948 to 1996, I was active as a breeder/exhibitor. It was not uncommon for me to be at shows for 20+ weekends per year. Did I encounter political judging situations? Of course! Did I feel that most of the wins fell into the �political� category? Absolutely not. Did I attribute some of my losses to political judging and the influence of others on the judge? Of course I did � what other reason could there have been that I lost? That the winner was a better dog than my exhibit certainly couldn�t have been the reason. That the professional handler had a string of x dogs but only entered one surely meant that the �fix� was in, right? Or perhaps it meant that the handler had done his/her homework and knew exactly what the judge required in a specific breed and took that to the judge! I remember watching one of my favorite judges, now deceased, as he judged a class of 27 Irish Setter Specials at a large all breed show. This all-breed judge had originally been a Collie breeder/exhibitor (and a good one!). As he later described it to me, he looked up and down the line of the 29 exhibits (including WD and WB) and watched the handlers ��popping up and down�� except for one. The single exception was a young lady standing in the front of the line, holding a loose lead, one finger held in the air and the Irish Setter watching adoringly as the young lady spoke to gently to the dog. The total picture was there. Now whether or not this was actually the best Setter in the ring, I have absolutely no idea. I do know that 30 years later I can still picture that dog and the young lady! So picture the scene, people shifting their dogs� legs, down on their knees, standing up, back down on their knees; holding the tail; letting go of the tail to position the dog�s head; back down on their knees to shuffle the feet. All the while, here stood one young lady with her one finger in front of her chest and the dog standing there exhibiting his outline (including tail straight out) and with a look that says, �I would do anything for you.� Didn�t take me long to zero in on the young lady and her exhibit! It also didn�t take the judge too long to be drawn to the picture in the final minutes of competition. I was so enchanted by this dog; I stayed to watch photos being taken. She set up the dog as most Setter folk do. Pictures were taken and she thanked the judge but in the course of the conversation, the judge asked, �What was your original breed, young lady.� She smiled nicely and said, �Collies, Sir, the same as yours!� Within minutes, the Irish Setter grooming areas were abuzz with the fact that the judge knew her original breed and that�s the only reason she was given Breed. Horse feathers! She was given breed because she effectively showed her dog and made the judge look at her exhibit. Later in the day I was talking to her and asked if she exhibited the Setter in that manner under all judges. She looked at me as though I was a total idiot. �Of course not, some of the Sporting Group judges would think I had lost my mind; some of the Working Group judges think it is the way all dogs should be shown. You have to know what the judge is looking for and that�s what you give them.� While to my mind, she did a superb job of handling, the grooming area continued to buzz with the fact that she won her BOB because judge knew she was a �Collie breeder.� In the Group she took a Group I � under a Sporting Judge and used the free stack only at the final competitive moments. She went BIS under a Working Breed Judge (from a herding breed background) who later remarked, �Who could deny that outline? I�ve never seen a Setter that looked so beautiful.� And back in the grooming area the buzz was that she won BIS because, �You know those herding group judges stick together. Breed judge probably told the BIS judge to put her up � you know how powerful he is in judging circles.� And there sat the goblins, smiling from ear to ear. Lots of buzz about a political win, lots of buzz about one judge instructing another judge, lots of complaints about �what went on in the ring that day� but nobody looking at the situation and saying, �She gave the judge what he wanted!� I wish each of you continued good fortune in the ring. And may you keep the goblins at bay! The Curmudgeon |
| March 2007 Our list, LetsDiscussJudging, thrives not on controversy but on controversial subjects�..and we get our share of them! Early in the week, the topic to generate much discussion was the exhibiting of dogs that had full tails when the standard calls for �docked or naturally bobbed tails�. And it was not just our list that has tackled this subject for a couple of weeks ago the same subject was rampant on the Judge-L list, a list restricted to approved or licensed judges from around the world. And this is a topic of which we will no doubt hear more as countries around the world fall to the Animal Right-ists and prohibit the docking of tails and/or the cropping of ears on dogs. Last night the topic of food allergens arose with some declaring that grains such as corn and wheat were the villains; others pointing out that beef and chicken were high on the list of villains. [We extend our appreciation to the member who said she would not introduce the subject of the raw feeding plan into this discus-sion!] Over the six years of this list, raw feed vs. non-raw feed has always managed to fan the flames of passion, sometimes leading to informed discussion while at other times leading to plain, less than civil, controversy! And, of course, we have the regular, �run of the mill� topics as controversial sub-jects. High on that list is AKC. Does AKC truly represent the core of their clien-tele, the show breeder, who produces many of the companion dogs that are fi-nally registered with AKC as well as the show dogs that find their way to the AKC licensed shows and from which AKC receives their fees. Other AKC topics have included the PAWS legislation; the so-called �conflict of interest� policy for judges; the attitude towards �volume breeders� and almost any other action that AKC undertakes. Local/State governments are not left out, either. Jefferson County, Kentucky along with their Director of Animals Services, Dr. Somebody or other [his name has never been important enough for me to bother to remember] and the local legislation of dogs was a prime topic. Almost every aspect of the �dog world� at one time or another seems to make its way to the list for discussion�..often reappearing after a passage of time to en-gender a new discussion. And so they should. The failure of a list to encourage and generate the discussion of controversial topics will lead the list into lethargy; from there is but a short move to comatose; and from there but a short slide into death. I implore the membership of LetsDiscussJudging to continue to bring forth con-troversial subjects but to avoid controversy. For six years, we have shown that adults [and some of our juniors are more than adult in their behavior] are compe-tent in undertaking discussions within the �rule of civility�. I know of no subject that cannot be discussed on this list that involves our beloved canines�..and I know of no list more apt to invoke the rule of civility when approaching such sub-jects. Greg Ancora Imparo |
| May 2007 Good Folks, Normally, I check the postings to the list several times a day. Yesterday, Monday (May 14th), I only checked in mid-morning. It is now 2:00 a.m. on Tuesday and I just went through 50+ e-mails. I was more than just a bit concerned! And so, from atop the Curmudgeon�s� soap box comes the following. One of the beauties of this list is that everyone can state an opinion. That opinion may or may not coincide with the opinions of others. Opinions are neither right nor wrong, they are opinions. Please note that I did not say �simply opinions� for seldom is an opinion simple. They are, in fact, built upon one�s experiences, one�s learning, and one�s emotions. A major problem on this list, or any other list, is that we deal only with the printed word. We do not see facial expressions, we do not hear the inflection is one�s voice, we do not see hand gestures that accompany that printed word [perhaps the lack of visible hand or finger gestures is a blessing!]. We deal only with the printed word and as such react to that printed word based on our own backgrounds and experiences and not those of the writer. A major problem can often occur when we use our personal settings for the interpretation of what another has said. In a face to face conversation, such difficulties can be solved immediately. With use of the printed word, the difficulties often grow as we respond based on our experiences and thus post a response as foreign to the other party as his/her response was to us. It is for this reason that we must be very careful not to take a response personally. We cannot, or at least should not, feel insulted that there was not unanimous acceptance of the point we were attempting to make. One�s opinion is unique to that individual; a re-sponse that appears to refute such an opinion is unique to he/she who offers the re-sponse. One must note that it is a response, not a rebuke. That much having been said I move on to the point of individual breeds. It is my opin-ion, and such an opinion has lasted for a number of decades, that perhaps the single best thing that can happen to a breed is to have it pass out of the top 10 or 20 in popu-larity. When it no longer is a �favorite as a pet�, the quality seems to rise within the breed not on a straight line graph but quality increases geometrically as popularity de-clines. I have been around long enough to recall the euphoria of the serious breeders when the Collie dropped from the list of the most popular breed. With the departure of the Collie from the �most popular breed� list there occurred the departure of a great many of the �cash crop� breeders [ a term, by the way I prefer to �puppy mills� or �back yard� breeders� for the �cash crop breeder� is not a term yet dis-covered by the AR folks!] The numbers in the show ring remained high for a short while and then began a year by year retreat for the Rough Collie. The Smooth Collie num-bers were never equal to those of the Rough Collie for they never held the appeal of the flowing coat described in the Standard as ��the crowning glory of the rough variety of Collie.� But in recent years, we have seen the increased popularity of the Smooth Collie because lacking the �crowning glory� they are easier to maintain. With the smooth, as many smooth breeders will tell you, �You get all of the love and intelligence of a Collie with little of the maintenance!� But as the sheer numbers of registered Collies decreased, I saw an increase in the quality of the dogs presented in the show ring. Of course, there remain some very poor examples as well as superior examples, but the middle ground, the vast majority of those who are exhibited, are well above the level that one found in the 1960s or the 1970s. For much of the 1940s and the 1950, Cocker Spaniels were a top breed. With their fall from the �top spot� an increase of quality began to exhibit itself. When Boxers were a top breed, there was only one Bang Away but there were hundreds, if not thousands, of mediocre Boxers in the ring. The point schedule of The American Kennel Club is based on competition with the un-defeated class dog/class bitch receiving points. The points are based on a three year average to prevent the weighing too heavily of a single show. For example, this year the Collie National held in North Carolina had over 1200 Collies entered. If a single year basis was used can you imagine the impact that would have on the point scale for the Carolina exhibitors next year? Such a system has worked well. If the system was based on registrations, rather than the actual show entrants, a disproportionate impact would be forced on the �show dog� as a result of the number of companion dogs registered with AKC and which have no direct impact on the show ring. When you have a system where such breeds as the Skye Terrier can produce the qual-ity necessary to compete effectively at Montgomery; when you have a Border Terrier that accomplishes multiple group placements including a group one; when you have a Harrier that can take back to back Best In Shows, you have a system that rewards the quality of the dog, not the number of dogs produced within a certain breed. The Challenge Certificate System works well in the UK and under The Kennel Club (London) with the reduced number of shows and the reduced entries (excluding, of course, Cruft�s and Windsor). But I doubt seriously if it would work will in the US with our large number of shows and the size of many of our shows. In recent discussions, a point was raised that �specialty shows� should not be included in the calculations for the point schedules. Frankly, I didn�t understand the basis for that statement and such a failing is probably mine rather than the person�s who put such an idea forward. But in many breeds there are exhibitors who show only at specialties. I was often teased when I was active in showing because I preferred all breed shows to specialties. Most of my friends, avoided all breed shows to exhibit at the Specialties because they thought there was a higher quality at the specialties. [And there may have been an overall higher quality in head pieces, but I also preferred a Collie with four good legs and we saw more of these during that period at the all breed shows �. And the head pieces of the winners were often equal or superior to those of the specialty show entrants!] To eliminate from the point schedule formula those dogs shown at Specialties would skew the schedules dramatically. No, Good Folks, I do not agree that the quality of the �rare breeds� is less than that of the more popular breeds �. In fact, it is my opinion that just the opposite is true. For with the �rare breeds� you have a smaller number of dedicated breeders, working with more restrictive gene pools that must be more careful in the matings they attempt. John Q. Public may well buy a German Shepherd or a Labrador or a Collie that won�t make it in the show ring, but a poor Skye Terrier or a poor Border Terrier or a poor Harrier has a limited number of homes in which they can be placed. If you�re a West Highland White Terrier breeder and some one comes to you ask them if they would consider an Affenpinscher in place of a Westie. I can almost guarantee you that the look on their face will be priceless! Ask the Belgian Sheepdog buyer if he/she would consider a Lakenois and you�ll probably be greeted with a �Huh?� Good Folks, if you are able to produce a single show quality puppy in a litter you are do-ing well. And it matters little what breed is involved. The odds of producing a show quality puppy are not greater because it is a popular breed rather than a rarer breed. I believe the more popular a breed the less likely it is that a quality puppy will be available for the gene pool is so broad, so open if you wish, that the likelihood of finding that truly outstanding male with the virtues need to match those of a bitch is decreased. In the smaller numbered breeds, such as the Clumber Spaniel, there are a limited number of breeders who are fiercely protecting the limited gene pool; they know the other breed-ers; they know who has what virtue and how it would tie to their particular bitch. In Skye Terriers there are perhaps a half dozen breeders in the United States. I can assure that each of them know the pedigrees of their competitors� dogs as well as they know the pedigrees of their own�..and can probably give you a pretty good run down as to what is available in Canada and the U.K. as well! And so having made several more points than intended [I should never sit at a keyboard with a fresh pack of cigarettes and a highball!], your Curmudgeon�s will now step down from his soapbox which is beginning to show the strain of bearing his overindulged weight and wish each of you �Happy Showing�. The Curmudgeon |