When the Rules Change

On occasion, the American Kennel Club makes changes that affect our dog-show community for better or worse. These may be changes to policies, rules or regulations that determine how a dog show will be run, addition of classes or the addition of new programs or breeds.

Sometimes, parent clubs make changes to the breed standard, which is then approved and accepted by the AKC Board of Directors. Recently, judges of Sporting breeds were notified of changes to the standards of both the English Springer Spaniel and English Cocker Spaniel allowing for a docked or undocked tail, and how the latter should be carried.

This is not meant to be a discussion of whether judges should have accepted undocked tails before on these breeds — and just considered an undocked tail as a fault — but rather what happens (historically) when a change like this occurs.

Were there dogs of quality in these breeds who were denied championship points — or even the champion title — because some judges would not reward dogs with undocked tails? Were there dogs that were not even shown because their owners did not feel their dogs should be shown because of their tails — or concerned that they would not get a fair shake (no pun intended)? Certainly, these dogs could be used for breeding, but how many of those considering a pedigree would not consider a dog without the championship designation? Yes, I agree, these people don’t know their breed and probably should not be breeding anyway. Should something be considered a serious fault — for some so serious as to eliminate from competition – that is a manmade trait? 

Many of these dogs who were not docked because they are from overseas or were going to be shipped overseas after getting their championship here. At a previous national, an undocked dog from another country kept getting awarded last in its class, and yet its quality was so superior to everything there that breeders kept going over to the setup to examine the dog, and many were so impressed that they bought puppies to be sired by this dog. The true breeders knew, but would they have ever known anything about this dog if it had not been sent here to be seen? The owner and handler of this dog said that if they knew that being undocked would be so seriously held against the dog, they never would have come to show here. And the breed would have lost the chance to get puppies from this dog, because many people never would have known about him.

* * *

Next, consider the Grand Championship program: The Grand Champion title was developed and approved by the Delegate Body at the December 2009 meeting. This new title is an effort to provide our exhibitors with an additional venue to participate in with dogs that have obtained their Championships while assisting AKC Clubs with increasing their entries. It will continue exhibitor participation and camaraderie in our sport while emphasizing breed judging by recognizing quality and breed type.

Recently, a judge made the decision to not award Select Dog or Bitch. Of course, this quickly led to all the social-media experts condemning her for having the audacity not to make these awards. Does it make a difference that this was at a specialty show? I think not. I was not there, but I will assume there were other champions entered in Best of Breed that had done some winning before this.

Was the judge wrong and did she deserve to be spoken about negatively? Absolutely not! If this judge did not think there was another dog or bitch in the ring of quality enough to be awarded Grand Championship points, it was her duty to withhold. It does not make a difference that these were champions and other judges had rewarded them as such. There is no such thing as an AUTOMATIC PLACEMENT in any class. Although Select is usually awarded, it does not have to be — any more than a judge should automatically “cross over the points C’mon, people — do you just want your judges to be like Pez dispensers in the middle of the ring? You get a ribbon, and you get a ribbon, and … on and on. I am not saying this judge’s decision was right or wrong, but she stood by her principles, and I commend her for her integrity. We need more of that.

My biggest disagreement with this program was — and continues to be — its title: Grand Champion. In order to earn the AKC Grand Championship title, a dog must earn 25 points, and never has to win Best of Breed. Consider that a Grand Championship title in Australia requires 1,000 points. We now have multiple levels of AKC Grand Champions: Silver, Gold, Platinum, etc. I absolutely do not intend to demean those quality dogs that have attained these lofty levels, and certainly the program has fulfilled its goal of increasing entries, but what of those great historical dogs who never had the opportunity to earn this title? 

Is there any doubt that some of my historical favorites could have attained the highest Grand Champion level? I am talking about dogs like Ch. Rancho Dobe’s Storm (Doberman), Ch. Shirkhan of Grandeur (Afghan Hound), Ch. Arriba’s Prima Donna (Boxer), Ch. Tryst of Grandeur (Afghan Hound), Ch. Chinoe's Adamant James (English Springer Spaniel), Ch. William Muldoon (Irish Setter), and Ch. Clussexx Three D Grinchy Glee (Sussex Spaniel). In my mind, those dogs — plus others — were true Grand Champions — with or without the official title.

* * *

In October 2010, AKC removed the prohibition on advertising and solicitation by judges. Although the increase in the number of shows may, in part, have necessitated this move, I wonder if it has — in combination with the increased social-media activity — contributed to the perceived reduction in the level of respect afforded to today’s judges.

* * *

Some of the relatively recent changes are positive ones. These include the awarding of major points at designated national specialties to Reserve Winners provided that the number of dogs competing in the regular classes of the Reserve Winner’s sex totals at least twice the number required for a five-point major in the region in which the event is held. This makes sense since Reserve Winners at Nationals of this size certainly will have defeated significantly more dogs/bitches than at any show that has the normal entry required for a major.

Another change provides for the earning of championship points by those dogs and bitches who are awarded Winners and go on to place in the group. For some low-entry breeds this — and perhaps going Winners at national specialties — is the only way a dog can attain its championship.

Another “recent” change allows for a dog or bitch to earn a point if there is only one of each sex exhibited. If neither sex had sufficient competitors to qualify for a point and the sum total of the sexes meets or exceeds the number required for a point in its sex, Best of Winners will receive 1 point.

However, the other side of this idea of helping low-entry breeds earn championship points is the idea that a dog or bitch can earn its championship title without ever defeating an entry of its own sex. Unfortunately, there are too many judges who apparently think that it is AKC policy to “cross-over” points between sexes. Not only is it not policy, but to do so without consideration as to whether the cross-over is deserved simply adds to more and more cheap champions, and questions the judges’ integrity.

* * *

I have been told by an AKC conformation representative that when judging Junior Showmanship, a judge should remove the ramp and table when moving the class around the ring. First of all, I think this may be AKC policy and not a rule or regulation. Secondly, assuming the ramp and table are properly positioned, shouldn’t the Juniors be able to properly navigate the ring since they are expected to be judged as in breed judging? Finally, has anyone noticed that both the judges and stewards are — to put it gently — part of the graying generation and certainly not getting younger? Do you really expect the judge and/or steward to lift the ramp in and out of the ring a number of times? I will pass on that. 

* * *

Are there changes I would like to see made to improve our community? Yes. Consider that it only took 93 years for the AKC delegate body to approve “professional judges” as members. Simply put, that means a delegate-judge may now charge a fee in excess of expenses — just like every other judge. How many quality judges — with many years of experience — have chosen not to become a delegate because they simply could not afford to do so? The next step should be the acceptance of professional handlers to the AKC delegate body.

How can you claim to be representative of our dog community when a significant portion of that community is barred from participating? When I was a delegate, I heard some others concerned that the “professionals” would take over the delegate body. Really? Don’t the clubs have the right to have whomever they want to represent them — as long as they are in good standing with the AKC? Would having professionals participate and share ideas be worse than having delegates who have served for years, and have never disagreed or even questioned anything suggested by AKC “staff”? Do you want to take a guess how many delegates actually speak up at meetings or question things? I am not saying that staff suggestions — or those of the board — are necessarily bad for us, but shouldn’t more delegates be serious about questioning them?

Besides, how many professional handlers will give up paydays at shows to attend delegate meetings “en mass” to “take over” the meetings? We now have “professional judges” allowed as delegates. Shouldn’t we have representation of all aspects of our community?

What do you think?