The Hypocrisy of the New Judges Approval Process
Click here to read the complete article
By Charlie Olvis · AKC Judge
By now, I am sure most of you have seen at least one episode of America’s Got Talent. I love watching this show, but for the life of me I can’t figure out why the AKC Board of Directors has not been invited to audition! They are, in my opinion, among the best magicians I have ever seen….talk about sleight of hand, smoking mirrors, hocus pocus….what you think you see is not what you get. The new judging approval system has turned into a magic act that we are supposed to believe.
The policies that were recently passed by the Board regarding approval for judging bear very little resemblance to the proposal given to the Fancy for comment several months ago. It looks more like the Affordable Care Act that was passed by Congress without anyone knowing what it said and with its hidden agendas buried deep in its pages.
While I am in agreement that more experienced judges should be advanced a bit faster than newer judges, and I could agree with the policies if that were the real intent; however, in just skimming this new system, a few things jump out as making no sense to me at all.
For one, why is there a point system that grants more credit for one foreign judging assignment than multiple assignments in the US? Why should a judge get more credit for judging a small breed entry (4, if I read correctly) on foreign soil, answering to no one, perhaps judging to a different standard, than someone who judges a major breed entry in the US (whatever is needed for the major entry, not just 4), according to the AKC standard? What kind of magic trick is that???
And, why should breeding one litter of any breed give you a credit toward every other breed for which you wish to apply?? What does breeding a litter of Basset Hounds, for example, have to do with judging Chihuahuas??
Regarding some of the board members’ wish to take the AKC Field Reps out of any evaluation of a judge’s ability to judge a breed correctly, is to me is like walking into a bank, going into the vault, taking out money and not being held accountable for what you took.
It is most frustrating to have been given a proposal that really wasn’t going to be considered in the end. In my opinion, the invitation for comments was just an exercise to quiet the masses into acceptance of what the Board really wanted to institute.
I could go on and on but I think that everybody in the sport today can see what this really is… another self-serving action by the Board for them and their loved ones.
I’ve said it before and will say it again here, you complain that some judges judge all the time; the Board could have changed the requirements and made them different such as three hundred miles, sixty days; but this is not what it is really about, again it is self-serving.
There are those who feel that every individual is qualified to judge every breed, without any forethought, education, or knowledge of the breeds. “Let the cream rise to the top” is what we hear, yet that is what already takes place. The judges that are popular get more assignments. Simply giving a judge more breeds/groups to judge is not going to magically give that judge more assignments. Clubs DO use judges with only a few breeds; clubs DO use permit judges; and yes, clubs DO use all-rounders. The right mix makes for a great panel, and smart club officials know how to blend the combination that works best for their event. Some judges with only a few breeds DO judge often; some judges with a lot of breeds don’t…that’s life, and clubs should be free to hire whoever they wish.
Simply diluting the numbers isn’t going to change that fact. Some will get more assignments, some will not. If exhibitors don’t ask for a judge who does, say, one group; they probably won’t ask for that judge when he/she does four groups, either. Likewise, the popular one or two breed judge will likely continue to get assignments whether or not he/she chooses to move forward in the judging system.
We are told that the AKC Executive Field Staff’s responsibility, as far as judges are concerned, will be to see that proper procedures are followed in the ring, and they will no longer have an opinion on a judge’s ability to evaluate the dogs before them. In some countries, and even in judging specialties here, one is expected to give a critique stating the reasons for class placements, so what’s the big deal of explaining why you put dog “c” over dog “a”?
While some will welcome this change, there is also a downside… there’s a wealth of knowledge out there to be shared, and eliminating conversations about judging choices hinder sharing that knowledge, both for the judge AND the AKC Rep.
And, what is the long range plan hidden in the Board’s agenda for the AKC Executive Field Staff? Did the Board simply grow tired of judges who complained when they got a less than shining review of their judging? Or is there a bigger plan in place that we have yet to see? We hear of “crooked” judging and favoritism… take away the Rep’s responsibility and, with no one “watching”, this type of criticism will skyrocket, and in some cases, rightfully so.
My belief is that removing the AKC Executive Field Staff’s responsibility to weigh on the ability of a judge is just the first step toward the ultimate goal of at least some of the Board to eliminate the AKC Executive Field Rep position entirely, and that would be a grave mistake. The AKC Field Reps ARE the presence of the American Kennel Club at AKC events. They are there to see that the rules of the AKC are followed throughout the event. Having them there lends credence and order to the event, a presence that is respected by all. Without them, the shows will become a free-for-all.
Judging approval has always been a “touchy” subject. Not everyone has the same ability, nor the same passion for judging, nor the same desire to proceed at the same pace. It is difficult, indeed, to develop a system that is right for all because there are so many variables in the judging body itself. However, to design a system that is so transparent in its attempt to satisfy a few is just plain wrong!
One positive aspect of the new approval system, though, is that nothing lasts forever; and hopefully as soon as the Board’s objectives are met and we have a number of new ‘all-rounders’, the system will change again.
The system needed some change, I agree, but the Board asked for input from the fancy and then took none of it and basically passed the policies they had planned all along. The American Kennel Club is taking the same turn as society today. There is no accountability but a whole lot of entitlement. What ever happened to hard work reaping rewards? I am friends with members of the Board and I would gladly go to dinner or have a drink with them, but I cannot sit by quietly and watch them destroy our sport as we know it.
The Board seems more concerned about fast-forwarding the judging careers of certain individuals through foreign assignments than with addressing the falling numbers of entries at AKC shows. If things continue along their current path, we really won’t need more judges, because the number of shows is already declining. We have all heard the dismal news recently of some longstanding clubs having to make the decision to forego shows due to reduced entries and ever increasing costs of venues, particulary in large cities. There is an inability to find suitable venues, and shome shows lack of enough interested parties to put on an event. We do have some Juniors, mostly from families already involved in the sport, but what is the AKC doing to entice outsiders to acquire AKC registered dogs AND compete in any one of the arenas? The American Kennel Club and its Board of Directors have much bigger concerns if purebred dogs and our much loved AKC competitions are going to survive.
Some may say that I only complain because of fear that the changes will impact my judging assignments, but that is not true. There is no guarantee I will be on this earth tomorrow or the next day, or able to judge; but I cannot sit by idly and do nothing to try to protect the sport that has been so good to me. I have been afforded opportunities that wouldn’t exist outside of the sport, and made friendships that will last a lifetime.
I would like to see these opportunities passed on, but as I see it there will be no dog shows soon if we do not get our heads out of the sand and address the real problems in our declining sport. This is not the dog show scene of 30 years ago, or 20, or even 10. Those days are gone forever. Family activities today are centered around what the kids want to do. The AKC needs to reach out to 4-H clubs and veterinary schools; they need to develop school projects, offer incentives and provide initiative to involve the younger generations in AKC conformation and performance events. The resources exist but need to be tapped. For instance, how many breeders, exhibitors and handlers have known someone famous who has an AKC dog. Why not get some of these people together to promote our sport? PETA does a great job of using celebrities to further their cause…why haven’t WE taken that step to promote AKC dogs; I’m sure some of them would donate the time to promote purebred dogs and dog shows. Why don’t we see advertisements about the Canine Health Foundation’s work to eliminate genetic problems and wipe out the notion that mixed breeds are healthier?
The judging approval process won’t matter at all soon, in my opinion. We better wake up or we won’t need more judges because there won’t be dog shows to judge if we continue to pretend everything is okay. Our sport is dying a slow death people, please wake up and help keep it alive!
Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=86171
Posted by ralbee
on Aug 25 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
