Who Needs to Reform?

One of the questions it's probably important to ask in this whole area of AKC conformation reform is the quandary over what behaviors need to be changed, and by whom, in order to make things better. I've been saying a lot about AKC judge behavior and the shortcomings of the current judging process, but it should be fairly obvious that the shortcomings really affect the behavior of all of us some degree. This is quite obvious in the face judging area; my description of the breeder / handler who only shows when she believes she has developed some sort of advantage with a judge is just one example. So with this in mind, some readers may be wondering why I don't address personal integrity as the real issue.

The answer is simple. I do believe that we as exhibitors have a personal obligation to conduct ourselves in a professional manner. Certainly if we all did so, most of the issues I've addressed here would go away. But this is not a reasonable expectation. If we could get away with a reliance on personal responsibility, we'd never have recognized a need to govern ourselves. Human beings find it impossible to be consistently altruistic. We have found it a necessary foundation of civilization to put systems of checks and balances in place. This is no different. Any system of evaluation must have in place a set of controls to protect those availing themselves of it from abuse and injustice. In the case of AKC conformation, these must protect judges, clubs, and exhibitors from those who would bend the system to serve their own goals.

So, while I would agree that there is plenty of room for more consistently professional and ethical behavior from everyone involved, I have to question those who would suggest such as the one and only solution here. To free ourselves, we have to adequately govern ourselves; this is the counterintuitive and uncomfortable truth. Do we need to reform our own behavior? Absolutely. But we need to put objective, clear controls in place to reform the process before personal reform can be expected to deliver any lasting benefit.

Perspective

I'm always looking for other perspectives on the issues I'm discussing here. Yesterday I came across an article in The Dog Press that caught my attention. Written by Louis Fallon, the article is the second installment of a two-part discussion of the civil defamation suit brought against breeder Sandra Teague by AKC judge Philip Martin for remarks made by the former on a public forum. The articles are highly recommended reading for anyone interested in AKC judging ethics.

After reading the articles, I emailed Mr. Fallon to invite him to read this blog. He was kind enough to reply and give me his permission to publish his message. I am reproducing in full the text of his insightful and informed response here. Thank you, Mr. Fallon, for your willingness to contribute your valuable insights to this discussion.

Hello Reform Conform:

Thank you for your email. I enjoyed reading it and also the words in your blog. It is good that there are concerned people, newcomers or 'old timers', that take their time and effort to look into and seek to improve dog show judging in the sport of pure-bred dogs. Every person is entitled to their opinion, about dog show judging, the interpretation of a breed standard and all other facets of the sport of pure-bred dogs. That being said, just as in a real Court room with a real Judge, the crime of 'contempt of court' with incarceration and/or a monetary fine awaits anyone foolish enough to dispute a real Judge's opinion in a real Court. The AKC rules and regulations allow a suspension and/or a fine to a person's activities defaming or disputing a dog show judge's actions while the dog show is on or even ,gasp, before or after the dog show. People have also been brought upon charges for writing or talking about specific dog show judges after the dog show.

In 1973 I judged at two all-breed match shows, for working breeds and the working group also. After the show I thought about it and decided that I did not want to be a dog show judge. It was not my cup of tea. I enjoy being a dog show volunteer, a member of the show committee, the show chair, a steward, even one of the traffic people in the parking lot. I know dog show judges and take pride in assisting people in obtaining assignments, watching them go up the ladder from one breed to many breeds, group judging and BIS. One lady of my acquaintance is a group judge who has judged "our breed" at the Westminster KC, and I am as proud of her as of my own daughters. The world needs good dedicated dog show judges.

If one visits the Library of the AKC you can read the old dog newspapers and magazines with people bemoaning the sad state of affairs with incompetent, uneducated, ethically-challenged dog show judges in the 1890's, the 1900's, the 1910s and every decade since that time to today. Sour grapes say I. If dirty old man dog show judge Mr. so-and-so likes having women rub their breasts against him in the ring, if dowager woman judge Ms. such-and-such favors smiling young men one learns to identify and overcome such situations or one exhibits their dogs before other dog show judges.

The world is not perfect. There were and are dog show judges that favor professional dog handlers. There are dog show judges that appear to assign placing in catalog or numeric sequence, first into the ring is first place, etc. There were and are bad dog show judges. The wise exhibitor maintains a record of the 3,300 dog show judges they exhibit before or watch their behavior in a ring. Some dog show judges place the breed standard over a well trained dog, other dog show judges favor a structurally sound animal over a picture perfect breed specimen. The best dog show judges combine all of the above and select the best dogs before them – withholding an award depending upon the circumstance – all within the time constraint of 150 seconds for each dog and 175 dogs in a day's judging. Faster than a Municipal Small Claims Court Judge or Traffic Court Judge with a full docket of anxious litigants and a 2 p.m. golf tee-off.

If you visit the Westminster Kennel Club website at www.westminsterkennelclub.org or the MB-F dog show superintendent's website at www.infodog.com you can read the 32-page premium list for the 2008 Westminster show. At page 13, the BIS trophies include "The James Mortimer Memorial Sterling Silver Trophy for Best in Show if American-bred, for permanent possession to be won five times by the same owner. A Sterling Silver Trophy will be given to commemorate each win." The late James Mortimer was an outstanding dog fancier, a dog breeder, one of the first dog show superintendents and a popular dog show judge who provided a written opinion of the dogs he judged upon request. He always selected the best dog in the dog show ring. He was hired as an employee of the Westminster club with duties as kennel master, breeder, show superintendent in addition to his private employment as a show superintendent and dog show judge. He did such an outstanding work of employment for the Westminster kennel club that the club offers a BIS trophy for permanent possession to be won five times by the same owner. The closest any one person has gone is Mr. Winthrop Rutherford's dogs that won 3 times, while several people / kennels have won twice. Interestingly since 1907 several of the BIS dogs were owned by members of the Westminster club.

The outstanding award-winning book "Dog Shows Then and Now : An Annotated Anthology" (1999) by author Mrs. Anne M. Hier traces the development of dog show judging in America, with 1 dog show judge, 3 judges, even 10 judges. It is recommended reading for any serious student of dog show judging and the sport of pure-bred dogs.

Louis A. Fallon in New Jersey

Please feel free to add my words to your blog.

The State of AKC Judging – Some Possible Solutions – Part I

The first time I ever watched a dog show – I believe it was a Westminster Show on TV – I remember thinking it odd that the judge was all alone and that she made her pronouncements with no attempt to explain her decision. It seemed, well, amazing to me that one person would be given such a level of influence with no accountability. Now that my wife and I are somewhat actively involved in conformation, I’ve lost some of the amazement, but still have to shake my head at the general acceptance of it. The majority of people who exhibit dogs at AKC shows seem, at best, resigned to the state of the sport. Veterans appear to have found that, over time, they can finish the dogs they really want to finish, either by working the system or patiently working through its shortcomings.

Perhaps that’s the tack I should take. By profession, though, I solve complex problems, so it is difficult for me to be passive in the presence of such obvious and rampant malfeasance and opportunism. It’s “just a sport” – true enough – but a very public one in a country where $38.4 billion was spent on pets in 2006. The AKC, two of whose stated core values are "We are committed to advancing the sport of the purebred dog" and "We uphold high standards for the administration and operation of the AKC" places its organizational integrity in question by adhering to this subjective, single-judge system in the face of such widespread misuse by both judges and those who take advantage of the system's shortcomings.

Other sports with judging systems, recognizing the serious consequences of a system without accountability and objectivity controls, have taken many steps over the years to address the problem. None of them is perfect. The ISU's new judging system for figure skating, for example, goes to extremes to remove the human factor from judging, but does so at the possible price of practicality. I don't believe anything so extreme is needed to bring AKC judging to an acceptably professional level. I see three solutions that in combination would go a long way towards thwarting the kinds of misuse I've discussed in previous posts. I'll throw them out for consideration here, and discuss them in more detail in subsequent posts:

1. I've mentioned this one already: Require judges to write a brief review of each dog judged. In European shows this amounts to no more than two or three sentences or sentence fragments. Time consuming? Somewhat. Helpful? Definitely. Knowing that we will be required to explain ourselves always makes us more conscientious and self-aware.
2. Introduce a point system. Assign a point value between 1 and 10 to each of a set of criteria by which the breed is to be judged. This may be a more objective alternative in lieu of or as an addition to item one. The judge assigns the values and they are tallied for each dog by the ring steward. The judge then awards the win to the dog with the highest score..
3. Introduce use of a multi-judge panel. This is used in combination with the point system to award the win to the dog with the highest combined score. This approach serves to cancel out judging biases - indeed this was the reason for its introduction into Olympic judging.

A combination of all these approaches would, I believe, remove most opportunity for ethical infractions from AKC conformation. Next time I'll talk about what this would do to the sport, and address some of the things I'm sure you're already thinking having read them.

The Problems of AKC Judging - Part III

The last (major) issue I want to note (at least for now) is the problem of judge accountability. While some kennel clubs in other countries require judges to provide at least a brief assessment of each animal judged, AKC judges are in no way required to explain their decisions or provide any feedback on animals they evaluate. This puts exhibitors and breeders in an interesting predicament, because they are left to guess why their dogs were or weren't put up under a given judge. There is even a discussion group on Yahoo in which members attempt to surmise what specific judges do or don't like and share this information with each other.

Early on, it was explained to us by an experienced handler that exhibitors may politely ask judges once proceedings are over ("for educational purposes") what their thoughts were on a particular dog, but in practice this isn't often done. I can understand this reluctance, as no one wants to give the impression that they are calling a judge's decision into question. As we've noted before, any such perception can negatively impact future show results for dogs bred, shown, or owned by the person asking such questions. I have no idea how often this has happened or how one might go about determining its frequency, but the fear is certainly there and is widespread.

This is probably a good place to go ahead and address what many reading these posts might be thinking: Any solution to this problem would certainly wreak havoc on the conformation world because of the time that would be required to allow judges to make written commentary on each dog judged. While I agree this is a valid concern, I also think that the speed with which dogs are evaluated in the show ring today calls into serious question the validity of the evaluations. While the requirement to account for decisions for or against a dog doesn't alone solve that problem, it gets us closer to the level of accountability we should be expecting from AKC judges.

Consider this: In the current system, no one has any insight into the thought processes and rationale of judges' decisions. This single fact is what enables the behavior I spotlighted in the first two "Problems of AKC Judging" installments. With a system of accountability in place that externalizes a judge's assessment of each dog, both face judging and judging on personal preference become much more difficult to hide. (They can still happen, however, so next time I'll begin to address some additional ideas for reform that more completely address these and other problems.) But I believe there would be tremendous educational value in externalized assessments, with a long-term additional benefit of more consistently conforming entries.

In closing, I do want to make a statement against those who might pass this whole blog off as one person's sour grapes. In fact, I have little reason for sour grapes, as our dogs have done quite well in the ring. My goal is not to complain; there is more than enough of that already, and I am painfully aware that the issues I'm addressing are not new to many of you. (In fact, there's probably been more than a little eye rolling from readers who have been participating in conformation for a long time.) I intend to suggest solutions. Some of them may result in even bigger rolls of the eyes from some - they will not be simple solutions, nor would they come without cost - but they will be offered sincerely and in the hope of making things better.

I have two requests of you as readers: First, if you agree with anything that I am saying, respond with even better suggestions for solutions. I believe that these problems are endemic but solvable. Second, if you do not agree or see that I am in error on some point or perception, please correct me. I believe I have an understanding of some core issues, but I have to admit that I am only two years into this - I could be misperceiving something along the way.

The Problems of AKC Judging - Part II

Not long after my wife and I began exhibiting our dogs, we were introduced to something that conformation veterans have fondly dubbed face judging. Put simply, some AKC judges for various reasons find it difficult to focus on the dog end of the lead. Needless to say, this is a boon for exhibitors who choose to take advantage of it.

Ethical issues aside, it is entertaining to watch, especially when one knows who to watch. One breeder / handler in particular was pointed out to us early on, and she has not disappointed – we rate her at five stars for entertainment value. She reportedly scans the premium lists watching for judges with whom she has established relationships (or who she has trained as an instructor in her breed’s judge education program). It is great fun to watch her appear out of nowhere at the last minute, rushing into the ring. There, with a big smile on her ruddy face, she shows an animal – usually a sub-standard one – gets her point(s) from the judge, and rushes back out, disappearing as quickly as she appeared.

This is not automatic, of course – she doesn’t always win. She is smart enough not to be quite that direct in her leveraging of the relationship, but I have heard her very strong and irate comments when things don’t go her way. She is careful to let the judge and other influential people know in no uncertain terms that she was displeased with the result. This is an essential component of her strategy, as that emotional pressure helps increase her chances the next time she shows for the same judge. Because she is well-known in inner circles and has spent many years cultivating relationships with judges, breeders, and various AKC and breed officials, this approach works quite well for her, and only she knows to what extent she is aware of the ethical lines she crosses. We are all vulnerable to self-deception, and I sometimes get the impression that she feels she is entitled to such treatment – that in her world view there is nothing wrong with being respected and having judges assume that her handling of a dog is an implicit endorsement of its quality (realities to the contrary notwithstanding).

This is only one variant of face judging among many. Some judges are notorious for putting up dogs handled by attractive, alluringly dressed handlers, while others gravitate toward dogs shown by well-known professionals. Some are rumored to select dogs by virtue of prior stud service or similar verbal agreements with the handler or breeder of a dog being shown. Many are swayed by the millions of dollars each year that go into campaigning dogs – the canine equivalent of product marketing that is a distant cousin of face judging. But putting aside for the moment the undeniable entertainment value of such a dysfunctional system, I’d like to address the underlying ethical issue, which hardly requires stating: Judges are ethically bound by the AKC to evaluate dogs without consideration of what is at the other end of the lead, but this is not always the case. After some shows, I find myself wondering if it is ever the case.

While it is certainly true that a handler can affect a dog’s performance in the ring for better or worse, it is the dog alone that the judge must evaluate. Whether it is professional handler Kelly Fitzgerald at the other end of the lead or an owner new to the show ring, the judge must make placement decisions based solely on the merits of the dog being handled. To do otherwise is to pollute candidate breeding stock and render moot the whole point of conformation. But the sad truth is that this happens on a regular basis; everyone who has spent more than a few months showing dogs knows it.

Now, it is important to say at this point that inferior dogs are “put up” (selected as winners) all the time in small shows simply because a judge’s options may be limited. But this is why the AKC’s point accumulation system requires that championship points include at least three “major” wins – shows in which regionally-assigned minimum numbers of entries have been reached. In theory, this helps to reduce the number of sub-standard dogs who are able to finish their championships by ensuring that they go up against reasonable competition to get a portion of their points. But face judging very neatly sidesteps this safeguard, enabling handlers who know how to play the game to win major shows being judged by those likely to give them wins.

I should also mention that all savvy breeders do pre-show analysis of judging rosters. This, to me, is a different matter. These breeders are looking at judging histories to see how many of their dogs (or dogs with characteristics similar to theirs) have been put up by the judges presiding over upcoming shows. While this is also gamesmanship to a certain extent, I see no serious ethical issue with it.

Next time around I’ll look at some final problem areas, then I’ll throw out some ideas I’ve had regarding possible solutions. As an advance warning, I’ll say that I don’t think any simple solutions exist, and that’s why I’ve called this blog “Conformation Reformation.” Nothing short of extensive reform is going to raise conformation to a status that can be considered professional.

The Problems of AKC Judging - Part I

Let me preface this by making very clear that I hold AKC judges in high regard. Many judges are very conscientious and work very hard to fairly and accurately do their jobs. But there are problems inherent in the system and it is these I want to address. All of the issues I plan to discuss are linked to the fundamental problem of subjectivity. In fact, subjectivity is so much a part of the AKC conformation world view that many judges appear to have embraced it as acceptable practice.

At the core, the goal of an AKC judge at any event is simple: Find the animal that most closely matches the breed standard as described. This sounds straightforward, but is actually a monumental task. The published standard for the English Springer Spaniel, for example, is about a four-page, 2000-word document, and is made up primarily of beautifully worded but intensely subjective descriptions like this:

"The eyes are of medium size and oval in shape, set rather well-apart and fairly deep in their sockets."

It is left to the judge to determine exactly what constitutes "medium size," "well-apart," and "fairly deep in their sockets." On the other hand, some descriptions in the standards are pretty unequivocal:

"The muzzle is approximately the same length as the skull and one half the width of the skull. Viewed in profile, the toplines of the skull and muzzle lie in approximately parallel planes."

Without examples this would likely be an impossible task. Fortunately, AKC judges are trained by example. Animals with both conforming and non-conforming characteristics are brought in and the judge trainees shown the differences. (Unfortunately, this is often done by volunteers who have vested interests themselves or are victims of their own subjective biases, but this is a topic for another posting....) Overall, this is pretty much a suboptimal solution to a suboptimal situation, but is the current state of things and is something most of us could probably live with were it not for one thing: Judges augment the standards with their own personal preferences.

I"ll never forget the first time I ever heard a judge explain why he gave one bitch (who by the way showed several significant and obvious faults against the breed standard) a win over another more closely conforming animal: "I prefer a smaller bitch," he said. I was incredulous. Both of these animals were clearly within the stated height limits for the breed, and the larger one was a much closer match to the standard. I would think it should be clear to everyone that a standards-based system becomes useless the minute those judging against the standard can make personal preferences a deciding factor over and above the standard itself.

Since that first encounter, I have heard many such remarks from judges: "I just really enjoy the chocolates more than the other colors." "I know that markings aren't part of the standard, but I have a really hard time putting up an animal with markings that aren't symmetrical. They just aren't 'typey.'" And on it goes. I don't think it is unreasonable to consider this "personalization of standards" quite unprofessional and frankly inexcusable. Standards exist so that breeders have an agreed-upon set of benchmarks against which to evaluate their litters and plan their breeding programs. There is plenty of room within most breed standards for breeder specialization, but there is no room for personal bias on the part of judges.

So this is my challenge to all AKC judges: I know you have a difficult job and I deeply appreciate what you do. But get yourselves out of the equation and judge by the standard. To do otherwise is to risk awarding superior status to inferior animals to satisfy personal preference. If you want to be widely recognized as professionals, govern yourselves professionally and stop rewriting standards to suit yourselves.

But that's just the first problem. Next time I'll address the judge / handler relationship.

The Basics

If you happen to have stumbled across this blog and are trying to figure out what I'm talking about, here are the basics of American Kennel Club breed conformation. Yes, dog shows really do have a serious purpose.

Each AKC registerable dog breed has a "parent club" that establishes the breed standard. This is basically a description of the ideal for that breed in terms of characteristics such as size, coloring, body proportions, correct movement, and temperament. The AKC acts as a supervisory club approving these standards. You can read much more about how this came about on the AKC Web site's History page. The bottom line is that an elaborate system of points awarded by AKC-certified breed judges at regional shows results in the declaration of "champion" animals - dogs and bitches that have accumulated 15 points according to the rules of the point scheme. Champions represent preferred breeding stock and go on to establish higher levels of status by competing in breed "specialty" shows and ultimately national shows like the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show.

In a typical AKC dog show, entrants are divided into classes by age, sex, and a few other distinctions such having been bred by the person(s) exhibiting them. A single judge stands in the ring and examines each animal as it stands and moves around the show ring. The judge compares each animal to the breed standard, finally choosing a winner in each class who most closely conforms to the standard (hence the term conformation). The same-sex winners from each class then compete, resulting in a Winners, Dog (WD) and a Winners, Bitch (WB). These winners are judged to determine a Best of Winners which then competes again for Best of Breed with any current champions who may have entered the competition. (There's slightly more detail involved - and there are certainly more layers of complexity - but this is the basic idea.)

If this is a breed specialty show (a competition for a single breed) the competition is now over. In an "All Breeds" competition, however, the Best of Breed winner of each breed is then judged along with the winner of each of the other breeds in the breed group to which that breed belongs. Every AKC-recognized breed is assigned to a group according to its traditional function. Vizslas, for example, are in the Sporting group, while the Silky Terrier is classified in the Toy group. In group competition, the judge must determine a winner by deciding which animal is the closest match to its own breed's standard - a very difficult task indeed. The winner of each group then competes at the close of the show for Best in Show, an even more difficult task for a single judge.

As I mentioned in the previous post, the original goal of conformation was to improve breeds by publicly recognizing the best examples of breed standards to promote sound breeding stock. To quote the AKC Web site: "Dog shows, or 'conformation' events, are the signature events of the AKC. They concentrate on the distinctive features of purebred dogs and help to preserve these characteristics by providing a forum at which to evaluate breeding stock."

The AKC is the governing body for purebred dog registration and championship status, and they carefully monitor the conformation point system to help ensure against fraud and errors. By all indications, they are largely successful in their governance of actual points awarded, though I have heard a few horror stories. My concerns do not lie here; I believe the AKC is to be commended for the diligence with which they maintain championship records. I believe the majority of problems lie in the judging process itself. I'll address that next time, so stay tuned.