Views From A Delegate Continued FROM page 58
should not be necessary unless that judge has received numerous complaints from exhibitors or others that are documented in the judge’s file. Some other suggestions were to have someone that the AKC recognizes as a good judge or an expert on that breed be at that show to observe the judge when an executive field representative is not present at a show. Suggestions were also to have an AKC institute on low entry breeds that a judge could attend before applying for that breed. Maybe parent clubs could write a short synopsis of the most important characteristics in their breed or the essence of the breed. That could also have a suggestion for the judge of how to go over the dog and how to approach that breed. This is a project that is being worked on by Board and staff. At the Parent Club committee Chair Pat Laurens stated that there are now 126 clubs that have contributed to AKC Reunite to purchase trailers and stock emergency supplies to be used in a disaster. They have received $334,441 and $250,000 going to AKC Reunite. There are 7 trailers that will be delivered in the next few months. AKC Reunite Trailer Project is a great idea and one that each club should contribute to. Your donations will help those people with animals to get necessary emergency items during times of disaster by having a trailer on hand to deliver emergency supplies. Those clubs and individuals that wish to donate can go to www.akcreunite.org/ relief. There are lots of clubs
JUNE DELEGATE MEETING that do not have Delegates and a study is being done to find out why. If there are event plans problems please contact Dennis Sprung. Alan Slay also spoke at the Delegate meeting the following day on the progress of improving the Event Plans and approving the events and the judges’ panel in a timely manner. Lots of the employees in that department have worked overtime and the work flow has been modified. It should not take more than 8 days for processing of the applications. This is the lowest turnaround since 2011. Please let Alan Slay know if there are still any problems you may have. The Dog Show Rules Committee also had a very busy session. The AKC Board is working on Chapter 2, Section 3 regarding territory issues-Facility vs. Territory. Board Liaison, Harvey Wooding, previously had stated that the Board had discussed this issue at length in the February meeting. A sub-committee of the DSRC headed by Duane Butherus and Harry Miller had done lots of work on this issue of territories. These suggestions were submitted to the Board. Harvey submitted a recap to the committee of the very massive project that included the four-step process to the territoriality issue. Those four steps consisted of understand customer behaviors, define objectives, collect and analyze data and draw conclusion and submit proposals. Under the Collect and Analyze section there were very interesting statistics. In 2013, there were a
total of 4,048 conformation shows and over 1.5 million conformation show entries. Specialty clubs host 51% of the shows, but the total entries for specialties account for only 102,000 or 7% of total entries, with an average of 49 entries per show. The majority (88%) of total 2013 entries came from all breed shows, with an average of 937 entries per show.
T
here are a total of 830 unique show sites being utilized to host the 4,048 conformation shows in 2013. I think that this will be a very involved project and one that is needed to help address the issue that is facing lots of clubs. The policy of videotaping at shows for commercial use was discussed. This is a result of the HBO Real Sports presentation that did not allow the AKC to give its side of the issues with the health of purebred dogs vs. the mixed breeds. When clubs apply for a show they must indicate that they are familiar with AKC policy regarding videotaping. The policy can be found on the AKC website. No more action will be taken by the DSRC on this topic at the moment. The sub-committee on Chapter 7, Section 1, 3, 10 and Chapter 11, Section 13 consisting of Sue Goldberg and myself presented to the committee our suggestions. Previously our committee had sent our proposal to the Board who sent it to staff. Tim Thomas head of Judges
Department and Bri Tresarz Programs Manger, Event Operations were very helpful in presenting to the subcommittee their suggestions on these various changes to Chapter 7 and Chapter 11. Sue and I reviewed the suggestions and came back to the committee with our suggestions. The first paragraph of Chapter 7, Section 1 would remain the same. In the second paragraph a reference to the Judging Conflict of Interest-Occupational Eligibility Addendum was suggested to be included. That along with other suggestions and changes were sent back to the Board for the final approval. Tim and Bri were very helpful and Sue and I appreciated their effort to help on this proposal. Cindy Stansell and Sue Goldberg presented their proposal of the idea to add to the Junior Showmanship Regulations and Guidelines a Reserve Best Junior. MariBeth O’Neill, who is a huge supporter of the Juniors, reviewed it with staff and offered their suggestions. The original amendment was to Section 5, Classes and Divisions. That section would add Reserve Best Junior Handler and also that each club that offers Junior Showmanship classes must offer Best Junior. The committee had constructed the procedure to judge Reserve Best Junior the same as the Best in Show and Reserve Best in Show is judged. The Reserve Best Junior would be selected by the judge from the remaining Juniors in the ring. MariBeth and staff suggested that after the judge has awarded Continued on page 66
62 Dog News