Question of the Week

Tina McGuigan

Hampton, Virginia

Yes, please ... Sporting and Hound have gotten insane in their numbers. In the group ring there's hardly enough space to move the dogs due to the number in the ring.

Avis Prior

Rehoboth, Massachusetts

Please, please, divide the Sporting Group. It is HUGE!  While you are at it, how about a Northern breeds group?

Marjorie Martorella

Millstone Township, New Jersey

It is hard to believe that anyone in the sport in 2025 would think this is a good idea! Our entries in conformation are down all over the country. It is so bad that AKC is going to raise the service fee to cover the deficit. Clubs are struggling to stay afloat while AKC approves more and more shows, hurting the clubs on the same weekend. Many clubs have offered FastCAT as a means of subsidizing the loss in conformation revenues.

There is a five-day cluster in New Jersey on Memorial Day weekend. The entry on Thursday was 487; Friday, 585; Saturday, 820; Sunday, 798, and Monday, 477. On the same weekend were two cluster over two weeks in New Castle, Pennsylvania; in Doswell, Virginia, there were five group shows, with each club having shows on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. This is the problem that needs to be addressed — not splitting the groups!

Alice Lawrence

Stafford Springs, Connecticut

Let’s talk about the Herding Group. When the Working Group was divided into the Working AND Herding groups, we celebrated. And then, as the years ticked on, the Herding Group swelled in numbers. Just about every country in the world (approximately 195) raises some kind of livestock, and each country has dogs bred to tend those flocks, suitable to climate and terrain of that country. Some countries have more than one breed doing the job. So, the Herding Group is receiving breeds at breakneck speed. Right now, the group has 34 breeds and varieties, with no end in sight. That’s the problem. When is enough enough? Herders vs. drovers? Groups need to be restructured, with new ones created. Let’s think outside the box. 

Dr. Kathryn Baxter

Tucson, Arizona 

Yes! Separating the Scenthounds from Sighthounds is long overdue.

The Scenthounds have always been the "stepchildren" of AKC, and that needs to stop now.

This division should have been achieved 20 years ago and probably would have been successful if the power-hungry judges and handlers had not interfered. 

Holly Webb

Oakhurst, California

Instead of dividing or reorganizing the groups, we should keep them as is, but award six placements. It will go faster than dividing them, is a simpler solution, and still provides the additional recognition that is needed as the groups get bigger and bigger. Clubs would have to purchase 14 more rosettes per day, but as a show chair of a small club, I feel comfortable saying it’s not too expensive to consider.

Molly Martin

Pike Road, Alabama

From a judge's point of view, absolutely not! In addition to judging up to 175 dogs per day, we are now expected to judge numerous regular and owner-handled groups at almost every show, which adds considerably to the time spent judging. I now cap my group judging to no more than four per day in my contracts, and that is still a lot. The day I judged 175 dogs and still had five groups to go was the straw that broke the camel's back. Can you imagine if we had an eighth group needing judges for regular and owner-handled groups? Perhaps it's not so much of a problem at the big shows that have numerous judges, but at the smaller shows experiencing declining entries that hire very few judges, it's a killer.

Alexia Rodriguez 

Smartsville, California

Yes! It’s been a long time of needing to separate the groups. With so many new breeds that have been added over the years, it would make sense to separate the groups, especially in Hounds, Sporting and Working. It could give an opportunity for a great example of some of the rarer breeds to be showcased. 

Tom Bradley

Watertown, New York

OMG! Absolutely not! NO! Never!

Let’s examine this carefully. What would this accomplish? Longer days! More expenses for the clubs that are already struggling financially! More expenses for judges! Longer days for everyone involved — judges, club members, exhibitors, spectators, vendors, stewards, concessionaires, and the list goes on and on! This is the old “everybody gets a ribbon” mentality. Long considered. Long discussed. Always rejected!

If you have any experience as a judge, you have to admit that on the first walk around you know who you are considering and who is getting a courtesy glance. Rather than split the groups, let’s try having the judge make a walk about, then cut the finalists to 10 or 50 percent or some figure that is agreeable to AKC. Then a group placement, once again, will have some meaning of quality. And everyone gets a good night’s sleep!

Pat Rock

Providence Forge, Virginia

Yes, I believe it is time, for one main reason: judge's education.   

I truly believe the ultimate purpose of dog-show judging must be first and foremost bound up in applied population genetics. If this is not the guiding principle, my cynical, but realistic friend (a handler for many decades) is correct in her summation of judges as "people who point fingers and cash checks.” The avowed purpose of conformation judging is to select the animals that most closely match each breed's standard of perfection. That is good as far as it goes, but the really outstanding judges continually study the population of the breeds they are approved to judge and learn which desired traits are rare, which faults are common, and which qualities are most difficult to breed.  

Dividing Hounds into Sight and Scent categories makes perfect sense.  Separating Retriever and Spaniels from Pointing breeds makes sense. NOT dividing the Terrier Group as was proposed the last time making more groups was brought up should not be an option; yes, there are fewer entries in the Terrier Group, but the competition is fierce and breeds like the AmStaff, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, Rat Terrier, American Hairless Terrier and Manchester often get short shrift. However it is done, the goal should NOT be to get the show over sooner by doing several groups at a time. (Although that would make the competition more interesting, wouldn't it? Because a handler could not be in two rings at the same time ...) 

Dividing the groups would help with judges' education because most of the groups would then be made up of dogs with either similar body types or comparable purposes. Some excellent people do not pursue approval for an entire group because they have no interest in nor experience with some of the breeds. And it is far from rare to look up an unfamiliar judge on the AKC site and note that they have never actually judged my breed, or only had their hands on one or two specials.

Diane Bilak 

Kenosha, Wisconsin

Absolutely divide Sighthounds and Scenthounds. They are two separate types of dogs. UKC has been doing this forever. 

They have different hunting methods, characteristics, speed and endurance. 

Mary Anne Brocious

Milford, Michigan

From a show-chair perspective, division of the groups will add additional expenses to shows. When the last suggestion of divided groups was presented, I prepared a mock panel with the base judges and their approved breeds. We found six additional judges to be needed. The potential of several additional judges adds expense to already struggling clubs. Many of AKC’s suggestions are already costing clubs additional money. Getting a judging panel with people approved to judge the combination of breeds in the newly aligned groups would require much more planning. In addition, the Judging Operations department will have to catch up with judges who have the necessary combination of breeds to cover the divided groups. Careful management of the judging schedule will also have to be done to keep the show from running beyond a reasonable hour. What benefits would the AKC see in implementing these group divisions? I apologize for answering a question with a question!

Beverly Vics

High Point, North Carolina

It might not be a bad idea. The groups are getting huge.

Sighthounds/Scenthounds

Nordic/Spitz breeds out of Working and Non-Sporting

Pointing breeds/retrieving-flushing breeds?

Just a couple of ideas.

Christine Gourley

Belleview, Florida

I do not think clubs can afford to hire more judges, and the shows would be longer than they already are unless you have more judges. Entries have been down for some time. More important to get entries up than to divide groups, or the only ones showing will be professionals, and not everyone can afford to hire a handler. So my answer is no. 

Nancy Winton 

Tucson, Arizona 

Dividing the Hound Group is long overdue, especially when every other registry has hounds divided into their hunting functions.  

With new breeds being added every year, especially to the Hound Group, it is important to divide the hounds into sight and scent groups. Yes, it may add some cost to clubs, but as an exhibitor it would be great to be seen in a group of dogs bred for the same purpose: hunting by sight or by scent.

AKC needs to address this division … the sooner the better. 

Dr. Daniel W. Dowling 

Hope, Maine

Absolutely NOT! Leave the groups alone and concentrate on much more important issues currently present in our sport. For example, the decreasing pride and joy of owning a purebred dog, lack of young people interested in our sport, and lack of and expense of veterinary expertise required for breeders.  

Christie Martinez

Gig Harbor, Washington

I have always been in support of dividing the groups. They are too large and in many cases safety is an issue. At a recent show when two groups were won by breeds that often take the group, a judge said, "If groups were divided, maybe some of the lesser-appreciated breeds would have a chance at winning the groups and making it into the Best line-up." Interesting thought.

Sherry Mayo

Clarendon, Vermont

Yes, I have long advocated that it makes sense to divide the Sighthounds from the Scenthounds. Both groups are large enough on their own to support a separate class. Additionally, the differences in stature and build supports the promotion of a separation of the Hound Group into both Sight and Scent. 

This is so apparent when competing in group. I remember my first class win with an eight-month-old male and then going into the ring for best hound. As a novice, I had no idea that it was permissible for me and my Wolfhound to go ahead of the smaller, slower scenthounds. So, I had to hold my hound back so we did not overrun the Beagles and Dachshunds (shown by professional handlers) ahead of us. After I came out of the ring, several Sighthound owners explained that it was OK to go out in front and that the judge and other handlers understood. So that is yet another reason the separation of the two under the umbrella "hound" makes sense.

Richard Miller

La Harpe, Illinois

I have no issues with such a division. I would simply like to have a way to do this without lots of testing for breeds not already approved to judge. Sighthounds/Scenthounds would be no problem for me. It seems to me that Sporting and Working are the groups that take longest now. I have no clue how such a division would work in the Working Group. Sporting would be easier to divide. There are more definite groups withing the Sporting Group of dogs. 

Jay Phinizy

Acworth, New Hampshire

No. Simply put. I used to enjoy watching the larger groups — Working readily comes to mind — and learned much from sitting by ringside about the need for all the different types of dogs in the ring and their specialties. It did not matter whether or not it was a utility breed such as the Doberman or a herding dog such as an Old English Sheepdog. Sadly, not many now even bother to sit by ringside and learn, but that’s another story in its own right.

The push years back to reformat the standards and drop references to other breeds in order to judge more efficiently is an equally bad policy, promulgated by past boards of directors. I bet nobody remembers that, in the previous standard, an Old English should not have a Deerhound head. Made me read that standard as well. It’s called learning!

Clarence Gelwicks

Chambersburg, Pennsylvania

Sighthounds and Scenthounds should absolutely be split up and referred to by those two names.

UKC does a great job of their Breed Group Designation criteria explaining the traits in a sensible way that makes much more sense than AKC.

Diana Smiley

Santa Rosa, California

I always thought there should be a Spitz group like in other countries. If they removed all the spitz-type breeds from Non-Sporting, like the Malamute, the Siberian and whatever qualifies from the other groups, it would make a difference. I think if they would have gone with that in the first place and just had the eight groups, instead of trying for 10, it would have worked the first time.

Irene Senedak

Hamden, Connecticut

Count me in for a vote to divide groups into smaller subcategories — Sighthound and Scenthound, yes. Divide Working and Herding groups, too. Sporting, yes — way too big currently. Maybe by function, geographic areas/zones, make a separate group for all Nordic/Spitz breeds — whatever — long overdue for more groups!