Some Thoughts to Start the Year

As I write this, our season is edging toward year’s end, and at the bequest of friends, there are a few topics I would like to have you consider.

One of the prickly topics within many show-giving clubs is that of selecting judges for their shows. Even in clubs where members can submit names of judges for consideration, there are many reasons the membership may become frustrated.

Consider this situation as presented by a friend:

 A club member submits the name of Judge X to his club’s judging-selection committee and then never hears another word about his suggestion. After a long wait, he concludes (and tells his friends) that the selection committee is political, or stupid, or hates him and his dogs, or does only what the show chair wants.

Sound familiar? Maybe the committee — or individual — did try to get that judge, but there were legitimate reasons that the judge could/would not accept the assignment. Perhaps the judge had previous commitments; many assignments are done years in advance for “popular” judges. Many clubs impose restrictions on judges as to geographical areas and time limits in which the judge cannot judge before their show — and some of these assignments may be secret for certain prestigious shows. Perhaps the judge in question is getting on in years and is cutting down on assignments that require travel. Finally, and we hope not, the club may have earned negative comments from other judges due to the grounds, hospitality, accommodations, etc. This is clearly a problem in communication.

Whenever judges are chosen by an individual, there are those in the club who believe that judges are chosen to get wins or to trade wins or assignments. Has this thought ever crossed your mind? I will not be naive enough to say this never happens, but it is not done nearly as often as some seem to think.

I was a member of a club where many members thought that an individual chose judges that would award his dog Best in Show. In fact, I was in a position to know that individual — who was a very hard worker for the club — had nothing to do with choosing judges. And, by the way, his dog won Bests in Show all over the country, and was one of the top dogs. Certainly, he did not pick judges at all these shows.

As an example of the perception held by many club members about choosing judges, here is a reply to this question by a breeder-owner-handler: “Every club I have or currently belong to, a long-time member who is also a judge picks all the judges. They always ask for member input, but they never really take them into consideration. It’s all about reciprocation.”

There are many factors to consider when choosing someone to judge at your show. First and foremost should be how the judge treats exhibitors and the dogs shown to him. Let me say at the outset that there are serious — and valuable — advantages in having a long-time AKC-approved judge as one of the people making a decision on who to hire for your shows. An AKC judge may know from the experience of being on panels with a judge you are considering, and with discussions with other judges, which judges are welcomed by exhibitors because of their demeanor and how they interact with exhibitors and dogs.

Certainly, knowledge and integrity should also be high on the list of your judge selections. A judge would also be in a better position to know this (of course, I am assuming that the judge who is a member of your club has your club’s best interests at heart). No, just because a judge has put up your dog is not proof of that judge’s knowledge!

Too often clubs believe that they must limit themselves to those with many groups in order to save money on judge transportation. The other side of this coin is that there are many judges of one group or less who would be willing to work with the club on their fee in order to have the opportunity to judge. Maybe your exhibitors would like to enter and show to a judge who is not seen that often. It might be worth a shot.

It should also be understood that assignments for some judges fill their calendar quickly, so clubs should realize you may have to hire judges two, three or more years out. Some judges will not judge for clubs that have two shows a day. Some will not come in for one day — as for a group show. The AKC also has time and distance limitations on judges that are designed to help entries at your show, and these need to be considered when hiring a judge. There are also clubs that have their own limitations on judges for their shows, and, honestly, some of these are unfair and border on the ridiculous, and many judges will not accept assignments because of these limitations.

Many specialty breed clubs and group clubs feel that they must use a judge from that week’s all-breed show in order to save money. Certainly, finances play a part in properly running a club, but using a “breed specialist” or permit judge every other year or once in three years should not break a club. And, by the way, most of these clubs are formed as “non-profit” clubs. All I am suggesting is that specialty or group clubs at least consider “specialist judges.”

* * *

Recently, a few parent clubs have made changes to their standards — notably to allow for docked or undocked tails. One breeder was concerned that “these clubs are playing into the arms of animal rights by giving them a 'win' by changing their standards. Give them a win, and eventually there will be legislation to outlaw it.” Hmm, maybe, but I think there will be more concern about cropping than docking as we move into the future. But for now, that is not an issue.

A multi-group judge says, “I'm OK with standard changes clarifying what is allowed in tails. European rules and that it is not a genetic issue make this a non-issue for me. For breeds that want to enforce docking (Miniature Schnauzers, Dobes), they should make that clear in their standards.”

As a multi-group judge who judges the breeds in question, this really was a non-issue for me also since I considered it a man-made “fault,” and as such, it was less concerning to me than poor shoulders or a faulty topline. However, I am glad that they made the clarification. Breeders will now have to pay more attention to this, as the shape and carriage of the tail will be a lot more obvious. For the breeds that want docking of tails enforced, that is their prerogative, and judges should follow the standard.

A breeder-judge states, “Many cite the risk of injury in [hunting breeds with full tails]. I don’t buy that reason, as many dogs in the Sporting Group have natural tails. There are many more important issues to address for the health of our breeds.”

For me, tail set is much more important than is tail carriage. Many dogs — most notably males — carry their tails higher when they are excited or are around females. I remember many years ago showing my Irish Setter (a very good one, even I say so myself), and after winning the breed, I showed him in the group. The group judge — one whom I truly respect — told me that when he first saw my Irish entering the group ring, he figured he already had his group winner selected. However, when I moved my dog, he did carry his tail higher than I would have preferred. He did not even place in the group, and the judge later told me he had dropped him from winning the group to not placing because of his tail. We then had a (friendly) discussion about tail set versus tail carriage. Anyway, that is why we have more than one show a year.

 * * *

I have talked about this before, but this comes from a breeder-owner-handler:

“We see dogs flying from one coast to another, one week here, one week there. At what point is it still about presenting ‘breeding stock’ or is it just about the rankings? I have seen dogs shown the first day on a circuit, not do what was expected, and the handler and dog hop on a plane and bounce to another set of shows across the country. What about the dog? There has to come a time when the mental and physical well-being of the dog should be your first priority. Our dogs depend on us for everything, and it is our responsibility to provide them the very best that we can offer.”

This same person wrote to me about something I see at shows, and it really bothers me.

“I recently saw something very disturbing at a show. This poor Scottie was left on those blocks, on top of a table, unattended, and all she wanted to do was to sit down. She kept lowering her back, looking for the ground to rest upon. Good Lord, who does this! So, the next time an animal-rights group vilifies dog shows and the people who show dogs, they probably saw this Scottie on that table. Think about that: If you came to a dog show having never been to one before, loving dogs, excited to see beautiful dogs, and you saw that Scottie forced to stand on two-inch square blocks in a grooming noose all by herself, what would you think? To me, this is animal abuse, pure and simple.”

I understand how she feels. I know that some breeds are kept on the table so that the coat stays groomed, but when there is no one there to watch and protect the dog, it really bothers me. I also don’t like it when dogs are left in a crate alone and you can hear them whimpering, crying or barking, and nobody pays attention to them. Is that really what we want for our dogs?

Finally, I like this quote from Koos Hassing, founder of Tiekerhook Kennels in the Netherlands:

Breeders with great minds talk about ideas.

Breeders with normal minds talk about results.

Breeders with small minds talk about other breeders and handlers.

What do you think?