Go to the InfoDog Home Page    Newsletters

Newsletter
Archive


Sept2000
Aug2000
Jul2000
Jun2000
May2000
April 2000
Mar 2000
Feb 2000
Jan 2000
Dec 99
Nov 99
Oct 99
Sept 99
Aug 99
July 99
June 99
May 99
April 99
Mar 99
Feb 99
Jan 99
Dec 98
Nov 98
Oct 98
Sept 98
Aug 98
July 98
June 98
May 98
April 98
Mar 98
Feb 98
Jan 98
Dec 97
Nov 97
Oct 97
May 93
Oct 92

 

November 1999 Newsletter - Volume 2. Issue 27

Table of Contents

1999 MB-F, Inc.

You may use this paragraph as permission to reprint any article in the MB-F Newsletter providing 6rticles are printed in their entirety, proper credit is given to the author and to the MB-F Newsletter, and a copy of the publication in which it was reprinted is sent to the MB-F Newsletter, P.O. Box 22107, Greensboro, NC 27420. Opinions expressed by authors in this publication are their own and are not necessarily endorsed by the publisher. Publisher reserves the right to edit.

From Where I Sit
by John S. Ward

At the quarterly meeting of the AKC Delegates in September there were a number of proposed amendments to the Constitution and Bylaws of a so-called “housekeeping” nature. These included such things as making the Constitution gender neutral, that is substituting him or her in place of the single word him wherever it occurred; using the acronym AKC universally throughout the Constitution whenever there is reference to the Club, and using the collective term “dog events” wherever there were references to Dog Shows, Obedience Trials or Field Trials. The amendments all passed without opposition, except the motion dealing with the term “dog events”. During the discussion of this particular amendment it became apparent that eliminating the distinction among Dog Shows, Obedience Trials, Field Trials and other forms of competition would lead to an inadvertent change in the Constitution and Bylaws that would have a serious policy effect.

Let us backtrack for a moment. The conduct of Dog Shows and Field Trials is governed by what is known as “Rules,” changes to which must be voted on by the Delegates. On the other hand, Obedience Trials and all other performance events are governed by “Regulations” which are promulgated by the Board of Directors without being voted upon by the Delegates. Using the term “dog events” universally throughout the Constitution and Bylaws would change this policy and would result in requiring all changes to the Regulations governing performance events to be voted on by the Delegates. After considerable discussion of the impact of this change the Delegates voted not to use the term “dog events” in certain articles of the Constitution pertaining to Rules and Regulations. While this seems to retain the status quo of Rules vs Regulations, I believe this concept will probably be re-examined by the Delegate body in the near future.

In theory it would appear to be more democratic for the Delegates to examine and approve or disapprove all changes to either Rules or Regulations. I believe a good case can be made for keeping the Board solely responsible for the Regulations governing performance events. Each performance event has its own relatively small group of dedicated participants who deserve to have their sport regulated in a manner acceptable to that group. In my opinion this can only be achieved by utilizing the services of small groups of experts in the activity under consideration who would prepare and review all recommended changes to the Regulations governing a particular performance event.

Let me detail for you the process currently used for modifying the Obedience Trial Regulations. Every three or four years or so the AKC Obedience Staff forms an Obedience Advisory Committee and publicly requests recommendations from the Obedience Fancy for possible changes to the Regulations. These changes are collated and sent out to the Advisory Committee for its review and study. The Advisory Committee consists of a number of experts in the Obedience field, including judges, exhibitors, and representatives of Obedience Trial-giving clubs. The Committee then meets in Raleigh over a two- or three-day weekend and usually comes up with a series of possible changes to the Regulations. These proposed changes are then published and disseminated to the Obedience Fancy with a request for comments. After a suitable period the AKC Staff takes those changes which seem to have universal acceptance and converts them into the language necessary for incorporation into the Regulations. These proposed changes to the Regulations are then again circulated to the Fancy for any final comments, after which they are presented to the Board of Directors for their review and acceptance.

I believe the above outlined procedure is truly democratic and is applicable to all performance events. The Committees should be Ad Hoc in nature rather than standing Committees and should only be convened as necessary on a periodic basis. What to do about it? If this question is revisited by the Delegate body I would hope that serious consideration be given to the concept of Ad Hoc Advisory Committees for the revision of Regulations governing performance events and that the present method of Board responsibility for these Regulations be retained.

Top of Page

Results Of Our Survey On Approving Judges
by Dorie Crowe

As some of you know, we recently conducted a survey on our InfoDog web site asking some questions regarding judges, approving judges and the present perception of the quality of judging. This was the first in a planned series of surveys seeking opinions on various aspects of the sport. This particular survey and the next are geared to conformation shows. The next couple will be geared to performance events.

It’s a well-known fact within the sport that wherever dog show people congregate the talk eventually turns to judging or judges. We asked 21 questions and 1426 individuals responded. Every Variety Group is represented; we did not have any responses from exhibitors of Irish Water, Sussex and Welsh Springer Spaniels; Harriers, Ibizans and Otterhounds; Anatolian Shepherds;Irish Terriers; English Toy Spaniels and Japanese Chin; Lowchen; Belgian Malinois in the regular Variety Groups. We also had responses from a Miscellaneous breed exhibitor and some rare breed exhibitors. We are pleased to present the results here as we received them. We’re not lobbying for any changes; we’re not skewing the data; we’re just presenting the information we gathered. We were surprised by some of the percentages, not surprised by others. We believe the survey results bring out some interesting points for discussion.

The first thing we wanted to know was the length of time (in years) the respondents had been in the sport.

Time in the Sport Number %
Number less than 1 yr. 76 5.33%
Number between 1 and 5 yrs. 248 17.39%
Number between 6 and 10 yrs. 301 21.11%
Number between 11 and 15 yrs. 239 16.76%
Number between 15 and 20 yrs. 192  13.46%
Number greater than 20 yrs. 370 25.95%
Total  1426 100.00%

Q. 1 Should judges be required to attend educational and breed seminars in order to be approved to judge your breed?

Yes..........1358 ..........95.23%
No.............. 68 ............4.77%
                1426

Q. 2 Should judges be required to pass a test on your breed before being approved to judge it?

Yes..........1366 ............95.79%
No.............. 60 ..............4.21%
                1426

Q. 3 Should judges be interviewed on your breed before being approved to judge it?

Yes...........1290 ............90.46%
No............. 136 ..............9.54%
                 1426

Q. 4 Should judges be automatically approved to judge your breed when they apply without having done any educational/breed seminars, testing, or interviews?

Yes...............12 ...............0.84%
No.............1414 ..............99.16%
                 1426

Q. 5 How important is it to you that a prospective judge of your breed has judged them at match shows?

Not Important...........212 ......14.87%
Somewhat Important.521 ........6.54%
Very Important..........658 .....46.14%
No Answer.................35 .......2.45%
                              1426

Q. 6 How important is it to you for a judge of your breed to have attended your National Specialty Show?

Not Important...........148 ......10.38%
Somewhat Important.510......35.76%
Very Important..........727......50.98%
No Answer..................41........2.88%
                                1426

Q. 7 How important is it for a judge to have bred dogs during their career?

Not Important ..........174........12.20%
Somewhat Important..362.......25.39%
Very Important...........851.......59.68%
No Answer..................39..........2.73%
                                1426

Q. 8 If a person has been an all-breed professional handler for the greater part of their career in dogs, should they be given any special consideration for this experience?

Yes............................486.........34.08%
No.............................940..........65.92%
                                1426

Q. 9 Should judges automatically be approved for any breed for a probationary period of time (for example, one year) and then be approved based on the # of entries judged during that period, ring observations, correspondence received, etc.?

Yes............................436............30.58%
No.............................990.............69.42%
                                1426

Q. 10 Should approvals be renewed each year?

Yes.............................830..............58.20%
No..............................596..............41.80%
                                 1426

Q. 11 Should breeds be taken away based upon # of entries judged during a year, ring observations, correspondence received, etc.?

Yes..............................848 .............59.47%
No...............................578 .............40.53%
                                  1426

Q. 12 Should prospective judges of your breed be observers in the ring?

Yes.............................1267 ..............88.85%
No................................159 ..............11.15%
                                   1426

Q. 13 Should there be a list of acceptable judges under which prospective judges may observe?

Yes..............................1248 ..............87.52%
No.................................178 ..............12.48%
                                    1426

Q. 14 If yes, who should provide that list?

Parent Club....................294.................23.28%
AKC...............................65....................5.15%
Combination...................904..................71.58%
                                    1263

Q. 15 Should judges be required to produce evidence of having passed a yearly physical examination?

Yes.................................505...................35.41%
No..................................921...................64.59%
                                     1426

Q. 16 Should judges be required to produce evidence of having passed a yearly eye examination?

Yes..................................901....................63.18%
No...................................525....................36.82%
                                      1426

Q. 17 Should judges be required to stop breeding once they begin judging?

Yes..................................254....................17.81%
No.................................1172....................82.19%
                                      1426

Q. 18 Should judges be required to stop exhibiting once they begin judging?

Yes...................................612....................42.92%
No....................................814....................57.08%
                                       1426

Q. 19 Should the 30 day/200 mile restriction on judging be increased?

Yes....................................404...................28.33%
No...................................1022...................71.67%
                                        1426

Q. 20 Which would you prefer to exhibit your dog under?

Breeder Judge.....................756...................53.02%
Judge with at least 1 Group..292...................20.48%
All-breed judge....................319...................22.37%
No Answer............................59.....................4.14%
                                          1426

Q. 21 On the whole, in your experience, would you say that the competence of judging in your breed at this time is

Excellent...................................6.....................0.42%
Very Good.............................75......................5.26%
Good....................................455.....................31.91%
Fair.......................................643....................45.09%
Poor......................................210...................14.73%
No Answer..............................37.....................2.59%
                                            1426

To sum up the results: Exhibitors feel strongly that judges should be required to perform educational tasks and pass a test and be interviewed on the breeds for which they are seeking approval. Exhibitors overwhelmingly agree that judges should not be automatically approved without performing these tasks. Exhibitors feel strongly that prospective judges should have judged that breed at matches. They feel judges should have attended the national specialty of the breed they want to judge. They feel it’s important for a judge to have bred dogs.

The majority of those responding did not feel that professional handlers who have spent the greater part of their careers in dogs should be given any special consideration when applying to judge. The majority felt automatic approvals for any breed should not be granted.

A total of 58.20% thought approvals should be renewed each year; 41.80% thought not. Nearly 60% of those responding thought breeds should be taken away based upon the number of entries judged during a year, observations, correspondence, etc.

The observer program is a big hit, with 88.85% responding that judges of their breeds should observe, but 87.52% thought there should be a list of acceptable judges under whom prospective judges could observe. A total of 71.58% thought a combination of the AKC and the Parent Club should provide that list.

The majority of respondents did not think a judge should be required to pass a yearly physical exam, however, nearly the same percentage thought judges should be required to produce evidence of having passed a yearly eye exam.

A wide majority (82,19%) thought judges should not be required to stop breeding once they begin judging; the percentage was closer when asked whether judges should stop exhibiting once they begin judging (57.08%, no; 42.92%, yes).

There were 71.67% who thought the 30-day/200 mile restriction was enough and did not need to be increased.

More than half of the respondents prefer to exhibit under a Breeder judge.

Nearly 60% of the respondents think the competency of judging is at the Fair to Poor level with the largest percentage (45.09%) assessing judging to be at the Fair level vs 37.17% who felt judging was at the Good (31.91%) to Very Good (5.26%) level.

What do you think? Based upon the results of this survey would you make changes to the present system of approving judges?

Top of Page

Morris & Essex

We have received several “blasts from the past”
in the form of old articles.
They were submitted to us by Howard Nygood for publication in the MB-F Newsletter.

This article first appeared in the AKC GAZETTE July, 1930.
Reprinted here with permission of Neil Singer.

    THE fourth annual show of the Morris and Essex Kennel Club, held recently on the polo field of the beautiful estate of Mrs. M. Hartley Dodge at Madison, New Jersey, proved to be the most brilliant exhibition of dogs ever put on by that organization and, in fact, should take rank as one of the finest events of its kind ever held in the United States. It was the largest outdoor show ever held in the East, and probably anywhere in this country, drawing an actual benching of close to 1,500 dogs.
    Those who have gone to this Madison classic have formed a splendid idea of the dog game, for every detail is carried through in such excellent fashion that there is practically nothing to be desired. It was this efficiency of management and attractiveness of physical arrangements that this year drew a crowd that has been estimated at 10,000 to watch the game’s most celebrated authorities make their choices from the high quality array of canines.
    The competition in all breeds and groups was extremely keen this year, with outstanding specimens maintaining their places against a background of many other exceptionally good ones only by exhibiting all their good points. Yet there was a small minority of near-perfect dogs that could not be denied as winners. And of this select lot of super-dogs, Ch. Weltona Frizette of Wildoaks, that indisputably good wire foxterrier bitch owned by Mr. and Mrs. Richard C. Bondy of Goldens Bridge, New York, was the leader. She was chosen first by Irving C. Ackerman of San Francisco to lead the wire foxterriers. He placed her as winners, bitches, over Pendley Calling of Blarney, the excellent one with which John G. Bates took best in show, all breeds, at the 1930 Westminster show. Frizette then went on to best of breed, defeating Tbet Timber of Earlsmoor, owned by Dr. and Mrs. Samuel Milbank. The wire continued her march by taking first place in the terrier group. In this she defeated the good Sealyham, Rannersdale Eloquence, owned by the Pinegrade Kennels. Possibly never has this wire been shown in better condition.
     It remained for Dr. John E. de Mund, president of the American Kennel Club, who judged the class for best in show, to put the final stamp of approval on the practically faultless wire, and this he did without the slightest hesitation. Despite the excellence of the English setter, Ch. Inglehurst Reward, owned by Charles T. Inglee, the beagle, Ch. Meadow Lark Watchman II, owned by Louis Batjer, the shepherd, Ch. Utz von Haus Schutting, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Dexter Hewitt, the Pomeranian Ch. Little Emir, owned by Mrs. Vincent Matta, and the Boston, Painted Lady, owned by Mrs. Frank Flegel, the signal honor of best in show was given to Ch. Weltona Frizette of Wildoaks.
     Among the contenders, it seemed as if the shepherd was the most serious opponent of the wire. Indeed, Dr. de Mund gave the shepherd careful scrutiny before he made known his decision. Earlier in the day, Dr. de Mund’s judging had been paid a high tribute by the record entry of Russian wolfhounds. There were forty-eight dogs entered, and only seven absentees.
     This is the largest turnout of the breed that has been seen in many a day. The shepherd entry was a large and worthy collection of this breed, the fanciers having made every effort to give Captain Max von Stephanitz, the German authority, plenty of quality from which to make his awards. The celebrated German judge-regarded all over the world as an undoubted expert on the breed-came to America especially to set the ribbons at the Morris and Essex show. Although very old, Captain von Stephanitz was on his feet practically all day. He went over each of the 270 dogs in the closest manner.
     On the eve of the show, Mr. and Mrs. M. Hartley Dodge had as their guests at a dance and a supper several hundred exhibitors, judges, other officials and dog enthusiasts.-Diog. - July 1930

Top of Page

wpe9.jpg (1939 bytes)    The Shaggy Dog Stories

En Route

Sitting on the side of the highway waiting to catch speeding drivers, a State Police Officer sees a car puttering along at 22 MPH. He thinks to himself, “This driver is just as dangerous as a speeder!” So he turns on his lights and pulls the driver over.

Approaching the car, he notices that there are five little old ladies—two in the front seat and three in the back who are wide-eyed and white as ghosts. The driver, obviously confused, says to him, “Officer, I don’t understand. I was doing exactly the speed limit! What seems to be the problem?”

“Ma’am,” the officer replies, “You weren’t speeding, but you should know that driving slower than the speed limit can also be a danger to other drivers.”

“Slower than the speed limit? No sir, I was doing the speed limit exactly. Twenty-two miles an hour!” the old woman says a bit proudly.

The State Police officer, trying to contain a chuckle, explains to her that “22” was the route number, not the speed limit.

A bit embarrassed, the woman grinned and thanked the officer for pointing out her error. “But before I let you go, Ma’am, I have to ask... Is everyone in this car okay? These women seem awfully shaken and they haven’t muttered a single peep this whole time,” the officer asks.

“Oh, they’ll be all right in a minute officer. We just got off Route 119.”

(submitted by Bob Carlough via the Internet)

Three Blonde Men

Three blonde men are stranded on one side of a wide river and don’t know how to get across. The first blonde man prays to God to make him smart enough to figure out how to cross the river, so God turns him into a brown-haired man and he swims across.

The second blonde man prays to God to make him even smarter, so God turns him into a dark-haired man and he builds a boat and rows across.

Then the third blonde man prays to God to make him the smartest of all, so God turns him into a woman and she walks across the bridge.

(Submitted by Jan Stephens via the Internet)

Humor is a good thing.

If you have a favorite doggy laff
-- particularly a true story --
please send it in and share a good laff with fellow dog enthusiasts.

Send to:

MB-F, Inc.
c/o The Shaggy Dog
P.O. Box 22107
Greensboro, NC 27420

e-mail: mbf@infodog.com



Show Information | Winners and Bragging Rights
Enter any AKC Show | Search Panels | Discussion Forum
  Dog Fancier Products & Services | Classified Ads | Rescue Organizations
Newsletters | Advertise Today! | Main Menu | Help

Questions or Comments?
Contact Us!
E-mail InfoDog

Copyright 2001 InfoDog. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this site may be reproduced without permission.