To Be or Not to Be?

88 – The Annual, 2010-11

By Gay Dunlap
Photos by Lisa Croft-Elliott

Tenure as a delegate, representing my breed’s parent club, could well go down in history as the shortest lived ever. I lasted but a year.  In retrospect, I probably never should have accepted the position.  However, I was flattered to be appointed and felt it would be an opportunity to give back to the sport that had been my passion for 40 years.  I looked forward to the job of liaison between AKC and my club, and getting a more comprehensive handle on significant issues that affect the fancy. What I failed to consider was the financial hardship it would create.  My club does not reimburse its delegate for expenses, as many don’t, and I accepted this when I took on the job.  No problem.  What I failed to factor into the equation however was that, as a delegate, I could no longer charge a fee for my services as a judge.

Obviously, for many, this does not create a hardship. I hear stories of judges padding their expenses to make up at least a portion of the deficit and in cases where couples are hired and one is a delegate, the other charges double. In my case, as an owner of multiple dogs and a widow, I must either board my dogs or hire a house sitter every time I am called out of town. There is no way that padding my bill can possibly cover this expense and, besides, I am not comfortable resorting to such subterfuge. This is not about eking out a living as a dog show judge…I doubt this is possible though some may come close depending upon the number of groups they judge and how often they are hired. Many of us, however, are retired and on a fixed income. We may only judge a couple of groups. Our respective life-styles are not dependent on income derived from judging, but, at the same time, few are in a position to lose money as we pursue our passion.

I won’t delve into the subject, pro or con, of why the delegate body consistently votes down proposals to allow delegate judges the same opportunity afforded non-delegate judges, other than to point out that many who stand as opposed cannot be counted among those who accuse delegate judges of soliciting assignments and trading them. Now that solicitation is no longer a bug-a-boo, it remains to be seen what affect this might have on delegate judges vis-a-vis fees. It just might put a different slant on it, however.

Segueing briefly into the matter of solicitation, the reaction to John Wade’s proclamation that, “Effective immediately members of the judging community may solicit assignments and advertise their services including approved breeds,” was greeted with varied reactions. A few tended toward the obsequious, e.g., “both exciting and scary” suspicious, “waiting for the other shoe to drop when we are charged a judging fee”. Some voiced anger as in “OUTRAGEOUS.” Others voiced underlying disappointment. One respected judge wrote, “In my very humble opinion it is all EXTREMELY ‘tacky’ for judges to ever be involved in soliciting for any assignments whatever and I find it incomprehensible that a club, dedicated to a breed and that breed’s future should offer a blank solicitation for whomever to offer to judge their Specialty! Isn’t it supposed to be an HONOR extended by the particular club based upon a judge’s known knowledge of a breed that gets them invited to judge that breed at a Specialty??????? I have been involved in this sport for longer than 50 years and I have been judging for the last 32 and I have NEVER found it necessary to solicit and I would shun any club which goes to an open forum to take whomever might answer to judge their shows. I sincerely believe that I am witnessing the death of this sport and it is happening faster than light. Thank God I can remember when ladies and gentleman, knowledgeable within breeds, were sought and hired based upon their talents as honest and fair judges. The goings-on of the day leave me disgusted.” Several used humor to drive a point home; e.g., a judge said she expected to see ads similar to those of doctors and lawyers, “Act Now! Dates are Filling Up Fast! I will not be underbid! Home of the $99 Judging Fee!” Still others, sounding a bit paranoid, voiced relief that they would no longer have to worry about statements emanating from their mouths being misconstrued as solicitation. For most of us, the fact that AKC was driven by the fear of lawsuits does not make this pill any easier to swallow. Had a vote on the subject been required of the judging body I feel maintaining the status quo would have won. Water over the dam.

Returning to the inequities that exist which divide the delegate body in two with delegate judges denied the right afforded other delegates, I recently had the pleasure of sitting among some highly regarded judges as we chatted over a bottle of wine following our respective judging assignments and before being whisked off by the show chairman to dinner. Some great ideas were kicked around and I was struck by the fact that these people could make valuable contributions to the fancy as delegates save for the fact that none were willing to give up their judge’s fee. The number of judges unwilling to sacrifice in this manner is legion. What an enormous waste of talent!

One of the ideas that surfaced that evening dealt with judge’s education and ways in which the AKC judge’s approval system might be improved upon. All of us had judged in other countries and, as a result, were familiar with the insistence upon written critiques for not only the winners but for all entries, in every class. Why not require US judges to critique each of their approved breeds in a somewhat similar manner to that done elsewhere, every few years? Might this effectively separate the wheat from the chaff? Unless a judge has adjudicated at a specialty and been asked to write a critique, chances are he/she has never had to explain the rationale for his/her decisions. And often, even when one has judged a specialty and written the requisite critique, the choice of words is “full of sound…signifying nothing.” Phrases such as “lovely head,” “good on the go around,” “four good legs,” “nice make and shape,” “proper coat,” lack substance. Simple descriptive adjectives like “good,” “nice,” and “lovely” say nothing about the judge’s knowledge of the noun they are modifying. If for example, instead of “lovely head,” we say that skull and foreface were equal in length and on the same plane, we are giving voice to our understanding of what at least a portion of the correct head should be.

Since we are not required to do so, how many of us really think about and fully identify the reasons behind our placements? I find it to be a valuable exercise for increased mental acuity. Recently I read that some view the title, “judge” as a misnomer, since it implies a wisdom that many fail to display. And furthermore, that people should understand what is being offered is simply an opinion, an opinion that has no lasting effect. So, who among us set our sights on the wisdom required to make intelligent choices and thus are worthy of such canonization? Conversely, which of us are merely “pointers” or followers of the opinions of others? Who among us would like the chance to prove our worth from time to time by formally critiquing a sizeable entry of our approved breeds? I know I would be grateful for the opportunity. I honestly feel many of us would welcome the chance to be tested in this manner. Wouldn’t we all be well served if the idea came to fruition? So have at it AKC…or is the idea too daunting?

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=1760

Posted by admin on Jul 10 2011. Filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.