Riverhead KC photos by Eugene Zaphiris and Matthew Stander
The Riverhead Kennel Club in Suffolk is a nice show held on the grounds of a Suffolk country college. It is small—600 or so entries—and is a two-day affair, Friday and Saturday. Friday there were maybe 400 or 500 entries. Obviously, things are laid back. Quality in certain groups and breeds was surprisingly high, but group choices were rather limited. I think only six terrier breeds were represented and there was a similar number in Non-Sporting groups. Almost a match show in effect, except for Working and Sporting, which were very well represented. Ellen Charles' Weimaraner bitch captured both Bests.
Overall, discrepancies in both breed and group judging are usually attributed to differences in opinion among judges. Which of course is a mainstay in explaining differences in results for our sport. That and showmanship on given days supposedly go a long way in accounting for differences in results. But as for the reports about what was going on in other parts of the country this past weekend, which kept filtering to us back on Eastern Long Island, I could not help but react in amazement to what I was hearing. One top dog getting two Group 3's and a Group 4, and then three Group 1's and a Best; at least one top dog being left out of group after group—what was going on? Sure, past performances should not count; sure, different dogs on different days. Or was it just bad or questionable judging? And it’s not that I’m questioning past winners losing, but winning and losing on the same weekend. Who is right and who is wrong, or is no one right or wrong? When these kinds of disparities occur nationwide, do the people who run the shows ever sit down and wonder what is going on with the judges they are approving? Certainly, one must neither ask nor expect total consistency in opinions—nor want it even—but when does the competency of the adjudicator enter the picture? It seems under the present set-up that the answer is never. How long must this go on?
Of course, along with the rest of you, I was thrilled about the outcome of AB 1634. I was not overly surprised the bill did not come out of Committee. I had some good inside info I can't divulge. This doesn't mean we should back off—we must remain more alert than ever. I strongly support the idea of AKC forming a PAC. I attended the PETPAC meeting in Ventura and asked the principles what salary they were getting out of the funds collected. Never did get an answer. I'm savvy enough to realize that professionals have the right to earn an income, but what percentage of what they took in went for salaries and other expenses is a fair question to ask and to get an answer for. After the meeting I was told there is some doubt as to whether in fact PETPAC is a PAC in the traditional understanding of the letters. I mean, they did an outstanding job along with all the other groups and individuals, but a little accounting on their part is in order, too, or so I think anyway. •
