And More
REQUIRED READING, CANCELLED SHOWS...
P
at Trotter raises the critical question in this week’s issue asking when did judging of dogs become more important than the breeding of them! She is absolutely right, of course, in raising this question and while her thoughts and answers may not be on the same level as mine I believe a partial answer to her question is that this occurred when AKC permitted judges to make all of their income or supplement their incomes through judging assignments. Judging became and has become a business rather than a hobby follow through for all too many people. I strongly believe that when a judge is overheard saying, “I’ve got to go back to work,” they are justifying their existence as paid employees at dog shows. And I have no problem whatsoever with the professional handler turned judge who adopts this kind of attitude and philosophy. This person has been making his or her money from dogs usually the greater part of their adult life. They are merely continuing their earning capabilities by turning from being a professional handler to a professional judge! It’s the breeder/exhibitor or just plain exhibitor turned judge who I believe should be limited in the amount of fees they may charge show-giving clubs. The status of the delegate/ judge is somewhat defined in that he or she may only charge legitimate expenses. No fees although certain people indicate a sum for a charity, which of course is a debatable move. The question of how much judges may or should charge in the way of fees is a major question to discuss. In England most judges are paid set-upon fees PLUS an honorarium of say 50 pounds. Judging is an extension of a hobby and as such major fees are neither
expected nor usually required at shows in the UK--except by some Americans, of course. As for FCI this too is the case although of course with the FCI at its major events the judges are so repetitive as to be labeled ridiculous, which unfortunately is becoming a problem with the World Challenge event at the Invitational. Same people being paid huge expenses--fees unknown! Yet the philosophy remains the same--should there be a limit on fees paid as well as expenses paid or is the sky the limit and whatever the market can bear the payment to be made? Furthermore the art of breeding has become secondary to the profession of judging as AKC persists in continuing a show philosophy established in the ‘30’s and ‘40’s, which is outdated today. The need to fill group assignments for the extraordinary number of allbreeds held every weekend has corrupted the basic necessity of requiring judges to be breed proficient individuals. Unless and until a total analysis is made of the existing show scene and how it applies to modern day life in America I fear that the decline in show relevance will continue at a disheartening rate. Realism must replace convenience and the hard facts faced that today’s show scene in America needs a major revamp. Do you ever remember as many shows being cancelled due to weather problems as has been happening of late? Last week two shows in Virginia never took place due to the freak snowstorm in the Northeast while the impenetrable Springfield Show on Sunday at Eastern States had to be cancelled as well due to the lack of electric power. The Saturday show was held. Of course some say this is the Queensboro jinx. Queensboro being a show granted a hardship for a year or two by the Board to find a new site in New York City where it was formed, which hardship seems to have been extended in perpetuity to Springfield,
Mass. Of course the shows forced to cancel due to Hurricane Irene are still waiting to be heard from insofar as whether or not any refunds will be made to the exhibitors. The most recent cancellations were in fact more immediate Acts of God, if in fact that sort of distinction can be made, and probably have less reason to refund monies than the Irene affected shows. Nonetheless certainly in both cases the finances should be made public if only to keep people aware of what the show expenditures had been. I thought Ronnie Irving’s article last week about Term Limits was on all fours! His experience and background and input may have persuaded some to vote against term limits had it been presented prior to the last vote. Although I must say that just off the top I find the freshness of the three names of the candidates nominated by the Nominating Committee to be most welcomed. I really only know one of the three people--that being Tom Powers but right now am tending to think that the other two people read as being on a par with him. I understand Larry Sorenson, a really nice guy, has submitted petitions and will be running from the floorhis I believe is the first set of petitions to be sent in. Larry is a former employee-indeed I believe a discharged former employee who as I say is a very nice guy. What qualifies him to be elected as a Board Member to guide and run the corporation is unclear to me but I presume we can expect a bunch full more of wannabes. Let’s hope their qualifications as business people extend to movers and shakers and not people with little or no real business activities and successes.
BY MATTHEW H. STANDER / Middleburg KC Photos by Charlie & Liz Muthard 54 Dog News