Page 222 - ShowSight - July 2019

Survey Says: How Would You Re-Write The Points System To Be Fair? continued
THERE ARE JUDGES WHO WITHHOLD RIBBONS AND DO IT WITH COMPASSION, WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE THEM.
No one wins when dogs that lack quality attain the title of champion.
get a break for expenses from the facility, judges, AKC. The Super gives breaks on 4-6 and sweeps but they are in the same boat with us. Facility and judge costs are through the roof too.
THE POINT SCALE
There should be more zones to refine point scales. It is ridiculous to have other states in with Texas or California. Perhaps a point scale could be developed by state? Take all specialties out of the mix—they often have the ability to pull in enough fillers to have a major but it’s only those shows. Maybe have a point scale based on the total all-breed entry Example: <500, 501-1000, etc.? Also take into consideration that “big” all breed shows pull enough entry to make the point scale for small shows so high they can’t make it. We have a two day all-breed—one of only two in Oklahoma. All the rest are 4-5 day weekends with specialties. The five-day shows offer specialties a really good deal -$5/dog with judges total. We take advantage of it. We also realize that the handlers are generally going to be the winners at those shows. Quite a few owner/breeder/han- dlers won’t enter or only come/enter one day. (Judges run $1000/day or more w/o fees). None of this is cheap for exhibitors or clubs. No cheap champions here. I am glad to see that AKC has finally figured out that one+one=two and gotten past their “sex discrimination” on points. —Suzie Cambpell
A dog would need to obtain one of the majors by legitimately defeating enough dogs to earn it, other than going best of winners each time and not defeat any dogs. —Anonymous
I’m not so sure the point system is the culprit. Instead, I believe we should examine the “Best of Winners” and the virtually auto- matic awarding of Best of Breed to the special in the ring. If there are sufficient dogs to award a point, and there are sufficient bitches to award five points, the “crossover” should not be automatic. If the judge is confident in the ability to judge the breed, they should be confident to justify the awarding or not awarding of the cross over. The point system reflects the number of animals of that breed being shown in a geographic area, somewhat tainted by the ability move across state lines and get a greater number of points. Looking for judges who are less than capable is a tenuous practice, but I’ve encountered it and lost because the judge put up the wrong end of the lead. I have seen specimens of my breed become champions when I wouldn’t want them for other than a companion. Still, the system is designed so that, showing the inferior specimen enough times, and to enough judges willing to point at it, there will be a new champion. —Anonymous
Look at the UK method of attaining a championship. You have to defeat champions to become a champion. So in addition to majors require two champion defeats at different shows under different judges. Long term the real solution is to draw more young people into the sport not as handlers but as preservation breeders. —Susan Shephard
I wouldn’t re-write the points system. Based on breed registra- tions, it is fair. However, to be hard-earned and proudly worn, all champion titles should be attained by owner handlers. Once cham- pions, owners may choose to hire professionals to special them. Changing the point system is never going to level the playing field between breeds with small entries and the most popular breeds with mega entries where the majority are professionally handled. There are many Champion Popular Breed dogs that did not deserve the titles professional handlers put on them. I wouldn’t call them hard- earned and proudly worn. If the concern is poor quality dogs get- ting Champion titles, the focus should turn to breeding better dogs and sportsmanship, not the point system. —Anonymous
Get rid of one dog/one bitch BOW equals one point. Cheap points! Only exception truly rare breeds. Best Of Winners should only be an awarded major—if there was a major in both sexes! Peri- od! —Maura C. Ptacek
A few weeks ago, I saw an exhibitor in a breed that doesn’t lack competition, go to a show that never pulls an entry for that breed in order to build majors to finish a dog. This dog had been shown by a professional handler and had been measured out (height) one prior time. Try as they might, they were not able to win with the dog in most competition. The dog was able to finish that weekend against kennel mates, although he was measured out again. One more mea- surement and he would not be a champion. —Anonymous
It is perfectly legit to build your own majors. I completely under- stand that in some breeds the only competition that a dog may face is from kennel mates. The quality of the dogs getting their champi- onship may be first rate It also may not be. —Anonymous
There are judges who withhold ribbons and do it with compas- sion, we should encourage them. No one wins when dogs that lack quality attain the title of champion. Maybe one way to help matters would be to have wickets at ringside for breeds with height disquali- fications and to encourage judges to use them. Fellow exhibitors in most breeds rarely call a wicket on a dog for fear of backlash. —Anonymous
It’s sad to say that some champion certificates are worth more than others but it’s true! —Karen Hanson
One idea is that AKC break up the divisions not by total state but by regions within each state-especially the large ones. Do this according to the number of entries per breed each year vs. the total in the whole state. In a large state like Pennsylvania, there are pock- ets of several breeders and many pockets with very few. You get the idea. A major won with only four dogs total in a breed is not much to brag about! —Anonymous
216 • ShowSight Magazine, July 2019