Page 220 - ShowSight - July 2019
P. 220

                Survey Says: How Would You Re-Write The Points System To Be Fair? continued
 a hopefully special puppy. Thousands in the Norwich breed so cheap is the wrong phrase. Forget the majors in many breeds they are impossible to find unless you have unlimited funds to travel. And even then you may be unable to find that major. Or at least make the major the same number everywhere in breeds that have low numbers.
AKC only has to see the numbers in shows are dropping. Many times no class animals only specials have entered. Or seriously look at the Canadian system. —Anonymous
Personally it is how the judging is done that should be re-writ- ten. It is far too subjective with some very good dogs from breeds that are not known never getting recognized. Lazy judging but lets face it even an all breed judge cannot keep up with all the finer points of each individual breed anymore. There are just too many breeds. —Anonymous
I would like to see all dogs judged on a score system from breed class up. Judges would then have to be accountable for why the dog was put up. We will never see this happen which is why our sport is dying. —Chenoka Lowchen
As an exhibitor for over 50 years, I say it can’t be done. Better judging is what is needed and the best way to achieve that is to require written critiques to point winners at least. Each parent club could come up with a 7-10 item list of traits (based on what’s most important in the breed standard and the current state of the gene pool). A simple line could follow the listed trait with a mark in the middle representing average quality for a dog earning champion status, and the judge could mark an x along that continuum for that trait, or group of traits). Examples of groupings: head, ears, expres- sion; topline and tailset; coat texture; etc. Similar but tailored for the needs of each breed. Some extra time, and cost for paper and printing, but totally worth it.
The big problem in my breed and others like it (hard-coated terrier) is the emphasis placed on grooming. When only profession- ally handled dogs are in consideration you don’t get owners at the shows, so they don’t have the opportunity of talking with other breeders and learning. Critiques would help all breeds (and could be limited to Winners and Reserve for all but Specialties or Supported shows. Think about it: A novice exhibitor usually ends up breeding that first show dog. If they show the dog 10 times and don’t get a championship, but receive ten critiques and nine of the ten indicate the exhibit is deficient in topline, they have valuable information for selecting a mate for that animal. And they have valuable informa- tion about that tenth judge. —Anonymous
I would establish a minimum number of dogs/bitches needed for Majors (more than three or four!). Majors do not have to be available at every show. I also would not be granting a point for one dog-one bitch BOW, as was recently established. In many cases a Bronze, Silver or Gold Grand Championship is harder to earn (and not very hard at all!) than a straight Championship. —JoAnne M. Buehler
I think calling any championship “cheap” smacks of bad sports- manship. Low entry breeds have to work HARD to find majors, and often have to travel long distances to find them—hardly cheap! This kind of attitude really irks me. It’s not a competition about whose championship is more “worthy” than another. Can’t we all just be happy that there are people still out there who love the sport enough to try and achieve championships on their dog in the first place? —Jan Hare
I’d get rid of the current point system entirely. What I would do is give every judge the freedom to award a WD or WB zero to five points based on merit alone, regardless of class size or amount of competition. WD and WB get the points.
That would put the judges in complete control of the situation and do away with “building a major” by entering extra “meh” dogs to get the required number of points for the hoped-for major wins. Twenty dogs in competition might only bag a mediocre dog one or two points. On the other hand, a really spectacular dog being the only dog in competition might bag a five point major from a judge if the judge feels the dog is superstar quality.
The points would be for quality, not quantity. It would, in fact, be a “grading system” for want of a better description.
So, the number of points at any given show would be deter- mined by the judge, not the number of dogs entered. That would also mean if a “cheap champion” is made, all you have to do is look up who awarded the dog the required majors to finish and there would be names of judges who made up the cheap champion. —Pam Guevara
The title of Champion no longer means anything to me as a more than 20 year breeder. The opposite happens as well: friends of judges rewarded instead of worthy dogs. I will not be participating in AKC conformation any longer and am choosing UKC instead. —Anonymous
I don’t think there are cheap champions. The GCH program, veterinary costs and the cost to put on shows have all combined to reduce the number of dogs being produced and shown. AKC is responsible for part of this.
The GCH program means instead of finishing a dog and breed- ing another one to show they keep showing the new champion to gain more titles, thus robbing the classes of dogs. The point scale has fallen to the point it only takes 1/3rd the number of dogs for a major as it did 20-30 years ago. In many breeds it only takes four dogs for three points last I looked.
Veterinarians are pricing themselves out of the market. In the last two weeks I have taken two sets of two puppies each to the vet with diarrhea. They give excellent care, testing, etc. It cost $250 each time and they still have major problems. I know vets have many expenses. I am lucky to have the ability to go. I am stocking my “breeder” cabinet for future use.
AKC takes $3.50 of every entry fee from our club. This doesn’t seem like much but it is (>10%). Exhibitors demand breaks to bring puppies, bbx, vets, sweeps, etc. (I don’t blame them) but we don’t
 The points would be for quality, not quantity.
IT WOULD, IN FACT, BE A ‘GRADING SYSTEM’ FOR WANT OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION.
 214 • ShowSight Magazine, July 2019














































































   218   219   220   221   222