The American Kennel Club made a very wise and popular decision when it began adding numerous performance-based events to allow many dog enthusiasts the opportunity to compete and earn titles on their dogs outside the AKC’s bedrock competition, the Conformation arena. These new areas of competition are growing in popularity and success, and the numbers prove they are succeeding nationwide.
On the other hand, the world of Conformation continues to struggle in numerous areas. Ever since the founding of the American Kennel Club, the Conformation world of dog shows has defined the club’s mission.
Through the years, the number of both members and licensed clubs has continued to grow. Entries at dog shows during the heydays of the 1970s and ‘80s were rarely fewer than 1,000 per show, and the sport experienced an incredible period of growth and success.
As we all know, in those days, shows were single-day events held twice a year in the show-giving club’s territory. Eventually, the costs of putting on shows were rising, and the AKC allowed clubs to hold back-to-back shows on the same weekend to help keep clubs solvent and reduce the travel costs for average exhibitors.
During the 1980s and ‘90s, the AKC decided to expand the ability of clubs to cluster at one site. Again, this was done to reduce clubs’ costs by allowing the sharing of the expenses for judges and facilities. The caveat was that, at the time, the site was supposed to be exceptional. At first, the plan worked. However, the AKC began allowing four- and five-day clusters at many less-than-ideal sites. The significant result of these decisions was that the average exhibitor who held regular five-day-a-week jobs was no longer attending or supporting these events. Back in the days of two-day events, many exhibitors were owner-handlers. The show scene began to see a rise in “professional handlers” as these folks made a living by showing dogs for clients who could not attend the four- and five-day clusters.
Whereas at one time showgrounds were filled with cars, vans, station wagons, box trucks, and the occasional motor home or small trailers and RVs, the shows started to see a rise in these RVs to the point where show-giving clubs needed the space to accommodate what is now over 100 RVs and other vehicles. Finding these sites, which were now expected to be indoors with climate control, electricity, and numerous other amenities, became complex and very expensive. These changes forced more and more clubs to partner, to share costs and stay solvent.
These decisions have now come back to bite the sport and the AKC. While the number of events has increased, the size of the entries has decreased to an average of 500-600 dogs per show.
Clubs today only need between three and five judges for shows this size. But therein lies the problem. Clubs seek judges who can judge all four days of the circuit and cover all Groups as well as Best in Show, the Owner-Handled Groups, and Bests.
With only a handful of “all-rounders” available, finding judges to fill the need has created a problem for the clubs. One of the AKC’s answers to this problem was to allow clubs to hire “all-rounders” from foreign countries to fill the need, and to enable them to officiate at up to 16 AKC shows per year. As someone who has had the opportunity to judge in numerous countries, the process to become an all-breed judge in most countries is much simpler than here in the US.
For years, AKC judges were recognized as some of the best in the world. Starting and growing in the acquisition of new breeds was a long and challenging process. It took most people 5-7 years to complete their first Group. For many years, it was the old one-for-one system, and you could never gain more than eight breeds at any one time. The number of provisional assignments required was higher, and judges could not solicit assignments.
The system, although slow, produced many excellent judges who were well-versed in breed type. Today, the AKC system is hurting our sport. The AKC says it now realizes it needs more multiple-Group judges, but the advancement system they use is doing more harm than good.
While we have many deserving and qualified individuals applying for their original breed, it is the future application process that presents the problems. Every judge truly wants to think they are doing a good job and are prepared to advance. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case. Every breed has its own unique characteristics and hallmarks; learning what they are and how to assess them is the problem for new judges.
AKC allows a judge with one breed to now apply for up to 12 breeds on their second application. The evaluation of those 12 additional breeds is now being officiated by someone who has only judged their initial breed three times. Is it fair to believe these people are truly capable of understanding and making decisions on all of these new breeds?
The AKC has also implemented an accelerated advancement policy for some newer judges. If you check the records, we now have judges with only 5-7 years of experience judging five or more Groups. Remember, it took many of the older, more experienced judges 5-7 years to achieve their first Group.
If the AKC truly wants to help the sport and the clubs, it should be recruiting the older, more experienced judges for advancement. After all, many have been judging for 10-40 years and have proven themselves. Many of them stopped trying to advance for various reasons, but lacking the ability to do a good job is not one of them.
Over the years, many of us who judge got tired of the changing rules and requirements, the high costs of traveling to attend seminars and check all the boxes, as well as the bias that existed in the judges department.
Everyone has not been treated equally for years, and that is why many good judges stopped the process. I can speak for myself when I waited 17 years to apply for additional breeds after dealing with bias from the office. While I was working through the Working Group, on two separate occasions, the AKC, under the leadership of Peter Gaeta and Darrell Hayes, withheld Neapolitan Mastiffs and Komondorok so that I would have to do an additional application to complete the Group. I know it wasn’t very objective because while serving as the Chairman of the St. Jude Showcase of Dogs in Memphis, Tennessee, we had Mr. Gaeta as our Field Representative, and his behavior at the event was not, in my opinion, in keeping with the AKC Code of Sportsmanship and Civility. I felt it my duty to ask Mr. Cheaure, the head of the AKC at the time, why “conduct prejudicial to the sport of purebred dogs did not apply to their own employees.” I was later told by sources in the organization that I should accept what I had because, as long as those two were in charge, I would not advance.
I am not the only judge who decided that, although I love judging and the sport, it simply was not worth battling the establishment.
Many experienced judges have a lot to offer, but the AKC has lost sight of a simple fix to its shortage of multiple-Group judges. The simple question is: Would you rather have a judge with a decade or more of experience being rapidly advanced, or the new “rookie” with just one breed? The “Catch-22” of lower entries, more shows, and the need for more Group judges can be addressed faster by advancing proven judges to fill the need.
With the new leadership, someone at AKC may finally use some common sense and start to level the playing field. There have been far too many years when people who were “connected” in one way or another were advanced, while deserving people were ignored and left behind.
It’s not too late to fix some of the problems. Clubs want more multiple-Group judges so that they don’t have to rely on the small pool of judges currently available to fill their needs. The fix is in the hands of the AKC leadership; only time will tell if they will see the light.
