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.