Members
Clear guidance on AKC Rules and the Code of Sportsmanship, helping exhibitors handle conflicts, eligibility, and ethics in the show ring.
The Weekly Brief
The best of SHOWSIGHT editorials, weekly wins, and breeder commentary — delivered to your inbox every Sunday morning.
Owner handlers write to me with the same knot in their stomach: Where is the line? When can you show to a judge who once sold you a puppy? In rare breeds, where everyone knows everyone, how do we honor both the letter and the spirit of the rules? My response is always, know the Rules and follow them. Here are some helpful tips on which Rules are non-negotiable and those which have more fluid lines.
Two documents guide us: the AKC Rules Applying to Dog Shows, which set the bright-line eligibility standards, and the AKC Code of Sportsmanship and Civility, which asks us to protect confidence in the ring. Read together, they give us a practical, ethical path forward, especially when emotions and opinions collide. Additionally, the “Occupation and Household Eligibility” section sets specific guidelines on what disqualifies an exhibitor from showing to a judge.
The Rules are the non-negotiables. They tell us when an entry is ineligible—full stop. The Code tells us how to behave when the Rules allow discretion, but perception may still be a problem, and usually is. A good north star: comply with the Rules; then apply the Code. The Code provides support for the Rules, and yet still has a vague context around how precisely impartiality is defined:
“The sportsman exhibitor declines to enter or exhibit under a judge where it might reasonably appear that placements could be based on something other than the merits of the dogs, and refuses to compromise the impartiality of a judge.” (AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
When I read this, I think, “Oh, what other ways would a judge base their placements on something other than the dogs?” I begin to ruminate on the complexities of this Code provision. It takes my mind to places where people have less integrity, not more. No one can compromise another’s integrity; one can only compromise one’s own.
You may not enter under a judge any dog that the judge, or the judge’s immediate household or immediate family, has owned, sold, held under lease, boarded, or handled in the ring more than twice within the preceding 12 months. This is the central, objective test, and it is dog-specific (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13; see also Ch. 7 Sect. 1).
This is a hard stop, and a date that you should have entered in your calendar. I have heard people complain that a fellow exhibitor has shown to a judge under these circumstances, but AKC is clear on this, and in my opinion, no Code overrides this Rule. Twelve months is twelve months.
The members of an immediate family are “one’s spouse, domestic partner, parents, grandparents, children, grandchildren, siblings, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, daughters-in-law, and sons-in-law; adopted, half, and step members are also included in immediate family (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13). This is a clear definition of family. Previously, it was not as definitive; now we know.
“Judges should not accept assignments where an actual conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one exists.” The Rules explicitly point judges/exhibitors to Board policies for additional eligibility details (AKC Rules: Ch. 7 Sect. 1). The question arises, what does this actually mean in terms of “accepting assignments” as a judge? I don’t know what a conflict would be in this case. How can I avoid it if I have no idea what the AKC is referring to here? What if a judge has a son or daughter who is a handler but doesn’t live with them? If that handler is going to New Jersey to show, accepting an assignment at those shows (even without showing to the parent) may cross an ethical boundary. It is not against the Rule, so it points to the Household Rule and the Code for clarification.
The Occupational & Household Eligibility Addendum is Board policy—not the dog-specific Rule. It governs approval to judge as well as exhibiting eligibility tied to certain occupations/relationships. Among other things, it provides that a person may not judge and offer their services at the same show, weekend, or cluster. It sets certain one-year exhibiting restrictions for clients of judges who are veterinarians, grooming shop owners/employees, or kennel owners/employees (AKC Rules: Ch. 7 Sect. 1, Occupational & Household Eligibility Addendum; also in Rules, Policies, and Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges, January 1, 2025).
“Judges Who Use the Services of an Agent: If you use the services of an agent, instruct the agent that he/she, any member of the agent’s household, or any handling associate of the agent may not exhibit dogs under you or any member of your household while in your employ and for at least six months after working for you.
“In addition, you or a member of your household must not knowingly use the services of an agent, any member of the agent’s household, or any handling associate of the agent to handle your dog(s) for at least four months after the agent has exhibited under you. This policy applies to all levels of competition.” The operative word may be “knowingly” because the judge may not know.
It’s easy to over-read the Rules. Some relationships feel like conflicts but aren’t, per se, disqualifying unless they touch the entry dog in the specific ways noted above (owned/sold/leased/boarded/handled greater than two times in the last year).
A judge being breeder-of-record (without being an owner/seller/lessor/boarder of the entry dog in the last year) is not automatically a Rule violation. The Code may still suggest caution depending on circumstances (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13; AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
An entry that is a descendant of a judge’s dog (e.g., the judge owns the sire or a relative) is not barred by the Rule unless the judge’s qualifying involvement is with the entered dog within the last year. In today’s world, a “descendant” is likely to be in conflict with many breeder-judges. Does descendant mean sired by—or six generations back? The operative word is unclear and confusing (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13; AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
Don’t be that person who assumes a relationship exists when there is little supporting evidence to that effect. There are so many assumptions that are made up in our community of dog shows that have the capacity to divide us if we let them.
If the judge (or their immediate household/immediate family) owned or sold that previous dog, the one-year bar only applied then and has now long expired. Provided there’s been no qualifying involvement with your current entry dog in the past year, the Rule permits entry. The Code supports transparency and courtesy if asked about the history, though it is really no one’s business as long as everyone is following the Rules (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13; AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
Note: Event committees retain limited authority to decline/remove entries “for cause.” Often, this is because the exhibitor owes the club entry fees, or because there was an unpleasant incident involving that exhibitor.
Declining or removing entries is an event committee power, not a broad “reason known only to the judge” discretion (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 15).
Being a co-breeder alone is not listed in the dog-specific bar. If the judge did not own the entry dog, did not sell/lease/board the entry dog, and did not handle the entry dog more than twice in the past year, the Rule permits entry (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13). Then ask the Code question: Would a reasonable observer perceive an undue tie? If so, consider stepping back to protect confidence in the ring (AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility). However, as in many low-entry breeds, it may not be reasonable to withhold an entry from any judge, as long as the Rules are adhered to correctly.
This is just as in any professional relationship we’ve already discussed. The one-year window would apply. Beyond this window, the Code still asks us to avoid any appearance of favoritism. Follow the Rule; consider the Code (AKC Rules: Ch. 7 Sect. 1, Occupational Addendum; AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
In a rare breed, it can feel impossible to avoid every historic connection. Here’s the workable standard:
Not eligible to enter (Rule controls): Any entered dog the judge (or their immediate household/immediate family) currently owns or has, within the last 12 months, owned, sold, held under lease, boarded, or handled in the ring more than twice. That’s the hard stop (AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13). Exhibitors need to trust the judge they voted for or hired to judge the dogs, and let go of anything else. The more you focus on the fear that you won’t win because the judge is somehow going to favor an old friend or another breeder, the more likely it is to happen. You have to focus on your own dog and let go of your fears because, when you don’t do that, you won’t be showing your dog to his best.
Eligible (Rule permits) but think twice (Code): Distant breeder-of-record ties, or a pedigree connection to a dog the judge owns, without any of the rule-triggering involvement with the entered dog in the last year. In these scenarios, civility and impartiality considerations should guide you (AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility; AKC Rules: Ch. 11 Sect. 13 – Immediate Family).
It is also fair to note that much ringside speculation is ill-informed. Apply the Rule first, then apply the Code with a reasonableness lens; avoid making assumptions about private relationships not covered by the Rule (AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
Our sport runs on trust. As exhibitors, breeders, and judges, we are custodians of that trust every time we step into the ring. The Rules give us clarity; the Code asks us to go a step further so that vigorous competition and civility can coexist. Sometimes the right answer is easy—the Rule says “not eligible.” Sometimes the right answer is to be gracious. Even though you can, you don’t.
The inevitable issue is that we all think and feel differently. What one might think is a conflict, another might not even consider a problem. We each need to abide by our own true north and respect that someone else’s may be different. That’s how we protect the integrity of our sport and the value of our fellow exhibitors (AKC Code of Sportsmanship & Civility).
Do Not Enter (Rule/Policy Hard Stop):
All About Judging
