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 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.

Getting Started

A couple of years ago, as a purely coincidental consequence of purchasing a purebred dog, my wife and I were drawn into the world of AKC breed conformation. It has been an interesting journey of heights and depths. We have met and been privileged to work with some of the most wonderful people we have ever known, but have also seen examples of what can happen when people become obsessed to achieve personal goals at the expense of the infrastructure supporting their participation. It has not taken very long to understand that breed conformation as it exists today is losing ground to the efforts of the latter, at the expense of very dedicated breeders, handlers, and kennel clubs, but especially to the detriment of the breeds themselves. In short, conformation is in desperate need of reformation.

Hence this blog. I have no illusions about it; I created it to speak my mind on these matters, but as you can see I have done everything I can to obfuscate my identity. We still show dogs and intend to continue to do so, but the state of AKC conformation today is such that we do not dare speak on the subject as ourselves, as this would almost certainly negatively impact our dogs' show careers. This irony is, in fact, the crux of the matter. AKC conformation judging is so intensely subjective that even an offhand remark made carelessly in the presence of some acquaintance of an AKC judge can impact a dog's show career.

To see the intense bickering that is a side effect of this subjectivity, one need only perform a Google search of breed discussion / news groups to see owners, breeders, and handlers pouring lemon juice into each other's cuts. I have no desire to step into that fray either. But I do believe that it is time to make some observations that are perhaps more obvious to us as newcomers than to those who are long-time veterans.

It has been my impression that those who work hard to maintain professional integrity in this intensely political environment have chosen to accept its considerable shortcomings and have, surprisingly, achieved some level of success, making in many cases significant contributions in spite of the self-serving efforts of their peers. This is even more surprising when one realizes that the goal of breed conformation is to establish consensus on a pool of breeding stock that most closely reflects the breed standard as established by the breed club and approved by the AKC. Those who enter this world seeking names for themselves or their kennels will always thwart this goal by putting other interests before the simple goal of ensuring that "Best of Breed" is exactly that. In just the two short years of our involvement, we've seen dozens of inferior, sub-standard animals win their class/sex/breed competition. We would never claim in so short a time to have apprehended all the nuances affecting these decisions. But we can question the fact that the system as designed allows for such extreme, subjective variances, and that is what this blog is all about.

If in fact those who feel strongly about this issue ever find this blog, I hope they will have things to say in response to my posts. But I do ask that those with vested interests refrain from pushing their personal or organizational agendas and respect my request for honest discussion. Reform is all about organizational and personal introspection; there is no room here for chips on shoulders, protectionist drivel, or comparisons of the relative merits of alternative kennel clubs. If AKC breed conformation is to become a legitimate endeavor, it must turn a bright light on itself and accept dispassionate discussion about the innate subjectivity of its current infrastructure. Hopefully this blog can contribute to that. Should it become a breeding ground for more useless bickering, I will not hesitate to take corrective action. It is my blog, I have a goal that I have stated, and I will keep things on track.

Let's get started.