conztruct

Anyone can show at a speciality - the dogs that WIN are the ones that are being discussed Agree - anyone can - but my comments were mainly around LuvMyGSD's statement that "Petrol Ch is one who travels long distance to avoid competition where there may be Speciality dogs/bitches attending." where they only referred to specialty dogs/bitches attending - that's what I was referring to as the fixation - why the distinction? I agree it would make more sense to fear the ones who win, but I'd also be concerned about the ones who do well at all breeds too Under what judges though - to me THAT is the crunch question. A dog which wins multiple groups and in shows under all rounders SHOULD be a good enough example of the breed to win at the speciality shows, but how many of these awesome dogs you admire so much do this? No, not saying all dogs that win at all breeds shows can't win under a specialist nor am I saying dogs that win under specialists can't win under the all rounder, but when you have a dog which can be highly awarded under an all rounder but never under a specialist, or vice versa - who is "wrong" Judges who are licenced as competent to judge that breed. I can only comment on my own breed where a lot of the ones who do well in all breeds also achieve at specialty level, however, given the distance and expense of travelling to a specialty from my area some aren't always shown at specialties. I don't think anyone is actually wrong in the scenario you spoke about - it's a different interpretation or it may be the same - we can't really say. Again, what are the creditials of the judges that are putting up these dogs. IF (and I am not saying this is the case, just IF) the dogs that are beating these major winners are doing so under judges who actually don't know much about the breed, then are these wins that can be considered valid or is this just another example of the generic show dog putting in an appearance? The same - a judge who is licenced as competent to judge the breed. Of course the wins are valid, it is official competition and the judges decision stands (whether we agree with it or not). A dog is a good dog whether it wins or not, a hundred Best In Show ribbons make no difference to the actual quality of the dog! Agree with you!! A dog can have any number or titles or ribbons but when I (or anyone else) look at it they make up their own mind what they think about it. I don't think you can discount or overrate performance in the specialty or all breed rings. The bottom line is that no matter what the type of show, the judge is licenced as a competent judge for that breed so they have at least met the minimum requirements to do so. If there is a question on that competence then the whole system needs an overhaul. Hi Sandra - I hope I've answered all your valid questions - these are my perspective only so I'm not saying I'm right or wrong but it's just how I feel about it.

I totally agree with your reply - I just didn't want to get ticked off for that comment.......LOL. I don't understand the fixation with dogs that have been shown at specialty. I've taken my dogs to show against many dogs who are really good examples of the breed (and have been group and show winners at all breeds) but haven't darkened the entry of a specialty ring - they're still awesome dogs, and awesome examples of the breed. Some of dogs that do well at specialties I would fear far less as opposition. LuvMyGSD, do you really think that dogs that are shown at specialty shows or "city" shows are better examples of the breed than those who don't do specialties or show in the "country". In my experience after going to several larger shows in metropolitan areas, I've found that quantity doesn't always equal quality. I certainly know in my country area there are many dogs who hold their own or more than do so at larger city shows and specialty shows - there are also many dogs who beat these dogs at the country shows without having ever been to a metropolitan show or a specialty show - obviously they have plenty of merit and quality.

What's this Specialty dogs/bitches business?! A quality, well bred, sound dog competes successfully in BOTH the Specialty and All Breeds ring. Whilst I understand there can be a tendency for division amongst GSD's (Specialty v's All Breeds) I also know that a good dog WILL win in both rings. You should be more concerned about the GENERIC show dogs winning that are neither here no there!!! I didn't say "to avoid specialty dogs/bitches" - they were not my words - I said "to avoid competition". My words on the subject are that there are no such things a specialty or all breeds dogs, although I've heard the term used - I thought we were all just meant to be judged by one standard? I'd much rather have a dog that can do well in both because it is a good representation of the breed by the standard. No, you said "avoid competition where there may be Speciality dogs/bitches attending" so therefore, avoiding dog shows where there might be Specialty dogs/bitches. If you just meant "competition" in general then you'd not have mentioned Specialty dogs?! I didn't mention specialty dogs - if you want to check my post this is what I wrote: "I might have got it wrong but my impression of a "petrol" champion was not so much that travel had to be done to attend shows/trials but that exhibitors would travel long distances to avoid competition in order try and get challenges - that's certainly my impression." LuvMyGST unfortunately took a little (ok a lot of) poetic licence which certainly took my comment way out of context - I don't mind direct quoting as long as that's what it is and you don't change the end of the sentence to suit what you're saying........ As I said, one standard being judged, so a good dog is a good dog - not a specialty or an all breeds dog. I'm certainly not going to argue this point with you Aziah, because I think we're on the same side. I don't have a lot of experience in specialty shows, I mainly show at all breeds because I've got at least 700k to travel for a specialty - I'm not adverse to either, it's just a logistical thing....although I've got to say that the only time I've heard the term "specialty quality dog" used was in a phrase after someone lost at an all breeds show saying that the judge didn't know anything and their dog who lost would beat the winner easy in a specialty show because theirs was a specialty quality dog - this may or may not be true but I think it was more a bad loser talking. ETA: Thanks Allerzeit, I'll will have to try and use my manly typing voice in future though..... :p

What's this Specialty dogs/bitches business?! A quality, well bred, sound dog competes successfully in BOTH the Specialty and All Breeds ring. Whilst I understand there can be a tendency for division amongst GSD's (Specialty v's All Breeds) I also know that a good dog WILL win in both rings. You should be more concerned about the GENERIC show dogs winning that are neither here no there!!! I didn't say "to avoid specialty dogs/bitches" - they were not my words - I said "to avoid competition". My words on the subject are that there are no such things a specialty or all breeds dogs, although I've heard the term used - I thought we were all just meant to be judged by one standard? I'd much rather have a dog that can do well in both because it is a good representation of the breed by the standard.

I might have got it wrong but my impression of a "petrol" champion was not so much that travel had to be done to attend shows/trials but that exhibitors would travel long distances to avoid competition in order try and get challenges - that's certainly my impression. Apart from my local shows (within and hours drive), I have to travel at least 3 hours to go to a show. Gayle is so right about eligibility to show and the accountability being on judges - they make the decisions and the exhibitor can't be responsible for that decision. I think some of the "cronyism" is sorted out naturally - exhibitors and organising committees usually suss this out pretty quickly and expose it. I've been to show weekends where the entry was less than half for one judge as it was for the other judge - sometimes words aren't necessary to give you an indication of what is going on.....LOL

Does the awarding of challenge certificates or CH actually have that much weight and influence though on what peoples' perception of a good example of the breed is? There are some dogs that have CH titles etc which I can see major problems in and I don't think they're a good example of the breed, so I think that while a title may be an indicator, if it's the sole factor that people view as denoting a quality example, I would suggest to them that they need to research their breed a little better.

I think it depends what you mean by dedication though. I know people who only do All Breed Shows and other who only do Specialties. Over 4 or so years of showing, I have been to a lot of all breed shows and only one specialty show. Am I less dedicated to my chosen sport if I go to 20 all breeds shows in a year, than a person who goes to 2 specialty shows, given that the judges at these shows are both licenced to judge the breed and these shows are open to the same competitors?

No it doesn't. I agree with this.....as a relative newbie viewing breeders in my breed who have some very interesting ideas about what a good specimen on the breed is, I often wonder if they are the best people to judging as a specialist. It's an interesting (and off-topic) conumdrum - is a breeder of a particular breed who may have some pre-defined preferences, the best person to objectively judge at specialty level or would it be better to have a judge involved in a very far removed breed judging at a specialty, using the standard as their guide and perhaps not having the pre-defined bias? I'm not saying I'm right or that either option is the best resolution but it's something that's crossed my mind - I'd be interested to see what others (especially the more experienced campaigners or the judges themselves) think?

I don't agree with this. At all. I stay away from fence dog park and it's because my worst experience with dogs and people are at those parks. I don't believe that there is a good dog fence park either. Been to quite a few that I truly believe there is no such thing. There is always one idiot owner or one uncontrollable dog at those park. If I want my 2 to play in a fence area, it will be in my backyard or at a friend's backyard where I know the dogs and their owners. I agree with the bolded bit - your expectations are reasonable because they reflect what the rules generally around having a dog in a dog park. BUT, sorry to be direct, to expect that your reasonable expectations are a reality is misguided - one basic rule to remember is that when you're dealing with people (and their dogs) is to expect the unexpected - it happens in many situations, not just dog parks. We should reasonably expect that people have respect for our property and don't steal from us - yet, we lock our houses up with appropriate security because the reaonsably expected is not a reality, and the list goes on and on. These are two different issues - it's fine to have a reasonable expectation and if there was any action or legals over an issue you'd be in the right, but are you happy to blindly face the consequences of a possible incident, injury or death of a dog because of the unexpected when it is pretty simple to take a few steps to account for this? I'm not knocking you - you're right - you should be able to expect what you have said but it's just not realistic, and being in the right is not more important than preventing a potential incident.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think you did anything particularly wrong at all. But right or wrong aside, in those areas you need to expect the unexpected so anything you can do to avoid an issue is probably a good thing. In answer to your original question, I don't think her behaviour was reasonable but the content of what she said may be useful for you.

I agree with the point of view that titles are too easy to get but it's hard to find a system that measures worthiness in a balanced way that provides a level playing field for all participants. The thing I keep coming back to (and many others have identified it) is that the judge is the one who provides the points that contribute to the championship title so if there are unworthy exhibits being titled then this would indicate a problem with the decision-maker, rather than the system. Maybe there needs to be more accountability put by the judges decisions, more monitoring of judging and greater education to ensure that judges are equipped with the knowledge to make a good decision. I'll qualify this by saying that judging is an incredibly difficult job, there is so much to remember and it's very subjective - I think there will always be questions raised about the quality of animals - look at what breeders are breeding - there are some really profound variations within breeds yet all parties may think they are doing the right thing.

Doesn't sound like a very nice lady, a bit of a mini-hitler - I would have completely avoided any discussion with her because you're never going to be right no matter how logical, justified or right you are. Having said that though - I've never taken my dogs to a dog park because while my intentions may be fine and I have control over my dogs, and while others should have control over theirs, I have no confidence in relying on what people should be doing. Unfortunately, even if you are completely in the right, it's cold comfort if there's an incident. Looking at what was said, some of it is at least good sense (removing the what "should" happen with everyone controlling their dogs) to avoid issues with unpredictable dogs and owners. I'd try and strip away the "attitude" and unpleasantness of this lady and consider the content of what was said and if any of it may be of benefit to you in the future. If not, file it away where it belongs but in some aspects she may have a point, no matter how poorly or offensively communicated. I guess what I'm saying (as an example) is while you probably shouldn't have to ask if it's ok to enter an area, it might be good to do it, if it prevents an ugly incident.

Hmmm... even the term "pet friendly" is apparently different to what I think of as friendly, though. I have just gone through the process of trying to book a place for a few days, and one real estate agent was most offended when I commented that I did not think that a property which didn't allow dogs inside at all, even crated, and had only wire stock fencing should be advertised as dog friendly. When I asked for a listing of other dog-friendly properties on their books only one of about 15 allowed dogs inside, and a lot of them where in built-up areas. Just what I'd want as a neighbor - a visiting dog barking overnight because it doesn't understand why it's outside! I do agree on that point... I always contact them to find out their conditions and fencing. Sure you have to look around, but we have stayed at heaps of places that have let the dogs inside (just counting them... probably around 8 different places now). Some have bent their rules to let our dogs be crated inside, or not in the bedrooms, or if we vacuum afterwards, etc Totally agree. I find most properties in the fine print say "small dog only" or "outside dog only". This is not pet friendly!!! If you want your dog inside it means they are house trained. Wouldn't there be just as much chance of a child doing damage to the property that there would a dog!! I have been lucky to find a person who had 2 holiday houses close to a dog friendly beach and his houses are actually dog friendly. Dogs are allowed inside, in the pool and he has not rules about the size or number of dogs. This is pet friendly!!! I think it goes both ways. In general a lot of dog owners in Australia are not very responsible with their pets. I have a friend who works at a motel that is pet friendly, but they have a lot of problems with poorly behaved, aggressive, not house-trained dogs and owners who think that pet friendly means that they can lock their dog in the room all day while they go out or worse, that the motel staff are there to look after the dog for them........ Fortunately, this motel will always be pet friendly despite some bad experiences - they manage the exceptions (through an extra cleaning charge) rather than just make a blanket assumption that all pets are going to make a mess and as a result have had some lovely people with lovely dogs stay at the motel. My friend has always told me though that he'd much rather a dog in the motel any day than children, who do far more damage and make far more mess......LOL.

The committee of the Callide Valley Canine Club would like to extend our thanks to all exhibitors and helpers for their support of these shows, and we trust you had an enjoyable weekend. We would like to specifically thank our two judges Ms Yanina Smith (TAS)and Mr Wayne Burton (NSW) for making the shows an enjoyable experience for exhibitors, our show manager Maxeen Hobson for her organisation of our helpers and ensuring the shows ran smoothly, all the stewards and table writers who kindly gave up their time to help, our management committee and anyone who helped with the set up of the showrings, etc or in any way, and last but not least, Mr Jim and Mrs Sue Cook (our Show Secretary) who worked tirelessly to make the shows happen. Congratulations to the winners and all participants for your contribution to a very enjoyable weekend.

This - a long time in the breed,judging or whatever doesn't necessarily equate to aptitude for a council role. In fact, it can sometimes cloud judgement. I'm not sure if these exist but it would probably be helpful if official positions had descriptions outlining the requirements - being fair, if people don't know what their role is, they either make it up or are hesitant and do nothing. It's one of the puzzling things I find in the judging program requirements - having to breed litters. There are many breeders I have observed who could breed 1000 litters and yet know less about their breed than someone who has bred none (sorry OT).

Agree with the above. I think consistency in rules and the application of them is the key issue. But there are many other benefits, including a reduction in the bureaucracy and associated cost of maintaining this as well as maybe some more sophisticated software and record-keeping methods. I'm not sure about the other states but I know here that things are very very manual (and therefore quite onerous and cumbersome) and it would not be difficult to automate things a little more. EG online forms, etc.

I would need more information in relation to this before making a decision. If the improvements or aspects of the "new" organisation were of value to the dog world and not yet present in the current organisations, why not improve the current organisations instead of creating a whole new one in addition. I think it would add another layer of complexity which I would not be in favour of. I agree with your ideas' re improving our current organisations , a comment that I have heard for many years and to date not a great deal has happened.It is nigh impossible to get the dog fraternity to unite for each other on any issue unless it affects them, thus no changes. Changes that are meaningful to us all will come with some pain, but if the goal is to improve a faltering system this is pain we must wear. The main problem as I see it is that the members' etc of the various councils shuffle about but it is the system that stays. What we need in all of these organisations is DOG people , not just SHOW people. Absolutely klink. If a system isn't working as well as it could or should, the solution to the problem is to improve the system....while it might seem easier just to create another organisation to achieve the desired result it's just going to fragment the operations, create confusion and more bureaucracy and cost...and in the end it actually doesn't do anything to fix the original problem. No system is perfect and in my experience I've found canine councils to be a bit change resistant but you have to just keep chipping away. ETA: I'm guilty of it myself - if I have a whinge about the way something happens or is done, that's usually the end of it. But if I don't bother to provide the feedback and suggestion backed up by the merits to the canine councils - how are they supposed to get their crystal ball out and guess. If you provide suggestions and they don't listen, that's a different story and I'd bet money that it's happened. A very wise person once gave me a few pieces of advice "what's your 50% - meaning what can I do about this" and "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem". It goes back to what I said about chipping away - if you've got a point of view and some suggestions we need to communicate them and "sell" it to the councils so they are at least considering them and required to provide some commentary or make a decision. It won't always go our way but unfortunately, that's life.

I would need more information in relation to this before making a decision. If the improvements or aspects of the "new" organisation were of value to the dog world and not yet present in the current organisations, why not improve the current organisations instead of creating a whole new one in addition. I think it would add another layer of complexity which I would not be in favour of.

Hi guys, Since she is not coming back, we may need all you guys to step up and take the place.....?? Interested in that other book - I already did buy one of hers and found it so interesting and educational. I haven't bred a litter yet but it really makes me take notice of other puppies and older dogs for that matter - I think there is a lot of sense and merit in what she says.

Hmmm, it is a tough question. The way I look at it, if it is a purebred dog show - those are the only dogs that should be around the show ring area. Outside of that area, I can't see that other dogs are a problem providing they are appropriately controlled and vaccinated against diseases. I feel far more strongly about banning some people from dog shows than actual dogs.

Sorry to hear that you've lost a bit of your enthusiasm. I'm not going to say that it doesn't happen because I'm sure it does but I'd like to pick up one point that you made about being new and inexperienced. While you can't control a situation where a judge is making a decision politically and it's bl00dy annoying, you can control things like increasing your experience and handling skills which will hopefully make your dog really stand out. As a relative newbie myself, I'm still learning all the time and I've done a lot of hard work and talked to some really good people about how to improve and the advice has been great. I still don't win a lot but I know that when I take my dogs out now, I give them a shot by showing them at their best. I think a lot of times the handling can make a difference - there've been times I though I should have won when I didn't but also times when I didn't think I would and I did. The other thing is that most of the "faces" who get put up are very good handlers who can sometimes make an average dog look very good and a very good dog look stunning. I know it can be disheartening when you get dumped but I always try to look at what I can do to improve my chances and try to ignore things I can't control.

If you want to improve the standard of judging then I'd suggest you ask for ideas on how to do that. Withholding a judges name doesn't make them a better judge. It just makes who the judge is a lottery. I can't think of a faster way to reduce entries than to make people drive hours to find they're being judged by someone who's opinion they don't respect. Besides, some folk will know who the judges are anyway. There is no way you can ensure that every handler has an equal chance at winning. We don't all have the same standard of dog, of grooming or of handling. I keep hearing that show entries are not what they used to be but I've yet to see evidence that it's judging that's to blame. In reply to your comments, I would like to say ,that if you read my posts re this matter you will see that i have said that there are many reasons for the drop in show entries not just the judging. This original forum was started primarily to address the concern that many exhibitors have regarding the blatant face judging that regularly occurs at many shows, particularly regional shows where quite often club officials also show.I know the clubs work hard to have their shows and would be upset, rightly so if they could show at their own clubs events. The point in addressing this concern was to suggest the non naming of judges etc. to help exhibitors in their own minds get a fair go. It has nothing to do with the quality of a persons dog , grooming ability, and their appearance..I myself over the years have shown under my preferred judges as we all have and everybody is the same ,but in the overall interest of the experience for all the present is quite often corrupted by certain judges, you know this and so does' everyone else unless that all have their eyes closed or live on the moon. I understand what you mean but I don't think what you're suggesting (ie not naming judges in the schedules) is going to solve the problem. If a judge makes decisions based on factors other than the merit of the dog they are judging, they will continue to do so whether they're named in the schedule or not. And there are plenty more ways of finding out who is judging where without seeing it in a schedule. Club officials will continue to have to appoint judges and will know who they are. I think it all comes back to the judges - if they're all above board it won't matter who knows or what's publicised. If not, you learn quickly by experience and you don't give them another entry. I think it's good you've made the suggestion and we need to talk about ways that we can improve participation at shows so all ideas are worth considering. I just don't think this one will achieve the result you are looking for.

If it wins enough I'd say most folk will think its good enough. I agree with both of you. I think Conztruct is describing the ideal, I think PF is in touch with the reality. Yeah - fair point PF. Could I breed with her - yes. But it's more of a personal choice and she doesn't fit in with the direction in which I want to go in terms of breeding. I guess my point is that just because a judge awards a dog a challenge or whatever at a show (especially when there's limited competition), it shouldn't be the basis upon which a breeder makes a decision on whether their dog is good for a breeding program. I've seen many dogs in my own breed who have some quite serious construction problems winning in the ring and this being used as a justification for using them for breeding. I think a good breeder will know their dog and it's faults regardless of performance in the ring.

Personally I cant' think of a faster way to send a breeder's lines down the toilet than to put up anything they enter. People probably think they're doing friends a favour - they aren't. Put up shite and it gets bred... there goes the kennel. Food for thought on this. It is the BREEDERS responsibility to choose the stock they breed from, any Breeder worth their salt will not breed from an animal simply because it wins. It is not the fault of Judges when crap animals are bred from, it is the fault of the Breeder. Absolutely agree - just because a dog wins, a good breeder will still know whether it's good enough to breed with. From personal experience, I know it can be easy enough to get the points for a CH title on one of my dogs but I know they're not one I would ever consider breeding with myself or letting someone else breed with her. There's not anything particularly wrong, I just don't think there's enough there.

I'm so sorry for what has happened Goofy. I think that SSM has provided you with some excellent advice. You need to consider what is an appropriate resolution from your viewpoint and then discuss with the breeder, and then take it from there. I know you posted on here to ask for advice about perhaps what the expectations of the breeder should be, but I really think that it's more important to talk to the breeder about it as soon as possible, as responsibility is unclear, subjective and can vary based on the context - I think the second opinion is also very important. A responsible breeder will want to know if there's issues in their stock.