Looking Back With Lee
Click here to read the complete article
If it’s September…it must be Raleigh!
By Lee Canalizo
I wrestled long and hard before I entered the fray to discuss the newly announced Judging Application Procedure (effective September 1, 2015)….or whatever the official name of it is. Let’s be real here, I’m not losing any sleep over a new and improved, a new bigger and better scheme….or just another one of the many iterations of the same attempts to make the judging process… (God forbid) better! My days of judging are few to none until there is some miracle cure for this fading old body! I still remain an active judge: taking all the new breed tests: just in case. I also have over 40 years “in” on a number of new and improved judging systems giving me the qualification to comment on this subject.
Yes, I read it all. Damn, I wish some of the new aspects of it were available to me back in the day. I wonder how many readers knew there was a time when you had to start with a single breed, then maybe get a few more with each subsequent application and that usually meant a positive nod from one of the well-seated men in dark suits at “51”! And if you have to ask what “51” is, you might as well stop reading…this will all be lost on you.
When I tossed my hat in the ring, one could apply for their initial breed, then had to judge them three times and “wait” until they were approved and published before you could even accept a future assignment. Score one point for the new(est) system on that front! There was a time when breed tests were required, BUT they were NOT ‘open book” and you took them in front of an AKC Rep and/or Staff member. Talk about being “under the gun”! I don’t recall an anatomy test, and I guess it’s a good thing to expect one to pass a basic quiz on structure and AKC procedure. However, it might surprise you that I’ve been told a really large percentage of new applicants fail one or both of these tests; which are also open book! To be fair, even the open book tests can catch one up. There have been many questions I would label “Under Dispute”, due to lack of a single clear answer or one with reasonable objection as per the standard. Most times the staff reviewing these tests would reexamine those disputed questions.
And then there was the dreaded “Hands-On Testing”. I had mixed emotions about this one! I expected the concept to work, but I was also proof positive that it might not have worked at all. That is water long “under the bridge” for me, but I think I proved one could (and did) recover from the stigma of failing one of those tests.
As a multi group (5) judge, I can understand requiring less of the basic requirements for those at that level. It became a “Catch-22” for those of us who were kept busy in the ring, sometime literally every weekend…to be able to meet the requirements of (now) attending Seminars, Nationals, or doing Sweepstakes. Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say my generation were slackers! We took time; the old-fashioned way. We knew how to seek out the most valuable opinions about the breeds we held an interest in…and those who didn’t and still got “blessed” were easily exposed once they got in the ring. As Mrs. Clark would say, there was nothing wrong with practicing on the “customer” as long as you were open-minded enough to receive constructive criticism from those customers with the background to make comment.
I was one of those “invited to apply” for an entire group along with some of my peers and idols at the time. I can unabashedly say none of them, once advanced, would disappoint for what they felt comfortable in accepting. To that point: I had great respect for the “Smith/Bivin” model that unfortunately didn’t have too long a shelf life.
I have no problem with allowing one’s breeding history to be counted, regardless of which flag hung over the whelping box. A good breeder is a good breeder no matter what, first and foremost.
Do I have concerns of being approved when one has not even had a live dog “once” in their ring? Yes, I do; but I also understand that between the rate new breeds are being accepted and the rate our show numbers are coming down, there are some breeds that just aren’t being shown and there comes a time that we have to be understanding of the hardship it can cause.
Glad to see the AKC reps still have a presence and if AKC sanitizes their position any further, they could create a huge hole in the education process. Most reps have great value, BUT I firmly believe that, now more than ever, one should also have been a judge or a breeder of note before becoming a rep. The fancy at large understands the rationale behind this premise and I’m not sure why sometimes it seems those making the decision don’t.
As much as I hated some of the logistics of having an “observer” in my ring, I like the new protocol of requiring the breed test to be passed first. Oh, how exasperated I would get when someone asked to come in the ring and didn’t even have a standard in their head or in their hand. Don’t get me started on this point. I think it opens up a line of communication with breeders and exhibitors who see one in the ring apprenticing…and we all know our “eve-ready” breeders, owners and handlers are not shy in giving any advice to someone they could potentially be showing under in a few short months. I actually thought the ‘observer’ process was a nice little “refresher” for me personally because it also made me sharpen my eye in order to be as articulate and positive with my comments in hope to instill the visitor’s perception of the breed being conferred.
I know there is more I’m forgetting and this new protocol does contain so much information. I guess I will sit back and see how it palys out, and how long it is until the next ‘new and improved’ version hits the street. Look for an update next September. That should be just about enough time for something to write about I’m sure!
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=87772
Posted by ralbee
on Sep 18 2015. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
