klink

Reading all the various comments re this post it is not rocket science to work out that regional people do it a lot tougher in many areas compared to the metro people , not just in dog shows. If the judges put up less than quality dogs just to get a return invite ,shame on them. If the judge puts an exhibit up and as per the regulations sign off on the Challenge acknowledging the quality in his eyes so be it. I myself have been to shows with my breed being the only member of his/her breed in attendance, what am I supposed to do go home ? As has been mentioned, at most country shows there are always plenty of city slickers... so what. We arent' playing for sheep stations, just enjoy your dogs' and the day out. A lot of judges in country shows play payback , you know it ,and I know it just peruse through the journals each month.The Canine bodies sponsor this blatant behaviour by their inaction to address it , heads in the sand stuff.

Reading through the remarks re this topic is appears that most of us are firstly ,dog lovers' purebred or other and this is how it should be. Unfortunately we are our own worst enemies, starting with our respective organisations whose expertise in many aspects of our so called dog society,leave a lot to be desired with the administration of our fraternity, and generally seem only to be interested in self gratification and personal gain. I have said in previous posts that until as breeders/ exhibitors we support each other for the interests of the dog scene overall instead of only our own interests we will be doomed in this current society.We have ,supposedley a national body to represent us, a body with absolutely no influence at all over anybody ,except their own members. Why would we want to be controlled by a toothless tiger that continues to milk us all dry and give us very little support in the war against purebred dogs. I have said before it is time for some type on national campaign to have our case taken seriously ,both by Govts and the ANKC.

Someone's watching Don for signs of Alzheimer's...right? :rofl: DON who??????

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.

I would have hoped that you reported the person involved in that disgraceful behaviour to the show mananger. I am sick and tired of so called dog people at shows behaving in this manner and the quicker all fellow show people jump on them the better.....get rid of them.

Would the current members' of the present dog councils support a new dog organisation ? If it were national, with all the titles etc and shows. An organisation managed (finacially by a business people) with suitable controls and transperances. This is possible. There need not be only one dog organisation in Australia. Just have a quiet think about it .In a recent survey 78% of those canvassed at shows said yes.

Sorry, I forgot that here in NSW we dont own our own ground, the management would rather waste our monies on a lease arrangement than invest in their own asset. It is a disgrace.

I personnally have spoken to the local council which covers that area, they passed me on to the Govt. dept of Planing who in turn informed me of the then details of the arrangement. At that time they had approx. 15years to run,AND they had no option to renew. I was told that so far the dept had no plans for the site ,but said that could change. As mentioned previously I wouldnt' want them controlling my super fund BAD BUSINESS.

For many years all the NSW members of Dogs' NSW have been contributing via entry levies, fees etc. to maintain a ground complex which we as members will never own. For myself, i cannot understand WHY we dont' have after, all these years our own complex as other states do.Year after year many many dollars of our monies get wasted on a venue that can be taken off us anytime. Development in the Western Sydney is growing at an enourmous rate and in my opinion only a matter of time before the axe falls. WHY? does' our management continue to spend our monies on Erskine Park ? We now have a herd of sheep located at the ground for trials etc, horses, Myself living in regional NSW object very strongly to fees being raked off regional areas' who always do it tough re their existence to support a continuation of expenditure on a ground with no asset value to us at all.Regional clubs get stuff-all support from Dogs' NSW and I think that the whole system needs a good inquiry. I would like to seek from other exhibitors and interested people as to what your thoughts on this subject are.I believe the current lease has about 15years to run with no option to renew.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but arent' most shows held on public/council controlled land ?

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition. Why do we have to accept it? The only way I know of to get rid of bad judges is to not enter under them. I figure if they keep getting low entires show secs will realise using them is not doing their club any favours money wise. By taking away my right to not enter judges, I am losing my form of protesting against them!! Note- this may not mean they are a face judge, but a judge that handles exhibits roughly for example. IMO bad judging is bad judging. It doesnt motivate me, it makes me avoid the judge!! If you do not know who is judging, dont ' you think that may go some way to prevent "those faces " following judges? all over the country.By simply not showing again under a bad judge does' nothing to halt 'face judging ' simply neither the club or the judge would know that you were displeased, because another exhibitor simply takes your place, and so it goes' on.

When I posted this idea it was to generate discussion and it has,it has never been my aim to disadvantage any clubs and I am aware that some areas' are already disadvantaged to some degree ,purely by their location. We have all had our fair share of judges that we would not wish to revisit and I understand the problem and as you commented, bad judging can also give you the personal motivation to further achieve.Grooming certain breeds can be a very hard and long process and finally to arrive and be badly judged is sadly all part of the process that we have to accept.I agree with your comment re the quality of the consistent winning dogs' and the idea was born from the regular results in our journal showing a lot of these quality dogs' being carted about the countryside blatantly following a particular judge. If the dog is so good and some are. why not show against the best competition.

There seems to be quite a few members coming up with all the usual reasons for not liking the idea of the non naming of judges in the show notices, and i understand some of the objections,however if we all go along the same path as we are the show scene will continue to lose numbers.As mentioned previously, clubs can if they wish name the panel of judges attending their show ,BUT no allocation of groups will be done until the introduction at the opening of the show ,at which time all would be apparent (to both exhibitors and judges at the same time ) In answer to one comment whether I am a judge or not has no bearing whatsoever on this subject.

You appear to sometimes encounter the same problems as I have also experienced myself ,with nervous or tentative judges with my dogs. I think that quite often the judges have a breed phobia with certain large breeds e.g. GSD< Dobermans , rottweilers etc. As I have stated,regardless of the breed it is far more hygienic to mouth your own dog. IMO anyone who has trouble with their dogs doing this need to train their dogs to allow this to be done, it isnt' very hard.Exhibitors need to remember, a confident handler makes a confident dog.

This question we have all asked ourselves many times. Can I mouth my own dog in the show ring. answer...yes. However, do the members feel as i do that it should be mandatory that exhibitors mouth their own dog. If you think about it ,very, very rarely does a judge wash his hands after each dog. Of course this would be very time consuming and really is not feasible. The health risks to our dogs' is enourmous and I am sure you would not want your doctor placing his hands in your mouth after a previous patient. I know plenty of judges would be quite happy for this to happen ,providing the exhibitor knows the correct way to do this,I would like to hear you comments re this.

In response to your mail, The idea of judges having to perhaps being asked to explain and or justify their selections can only be beneficial to the show scene overall. It will never stop disgruntled or illinformed exhibitors from seeking other reasons for their lack of sucess, this will go on forever as it does in all other sports.As you have pondered even a worthy dog winning will still gather complaints' from these people. The whole basis of this proposal was to enable members generally feel that they are at least gaining some amount of apparent fairness. This is not a guarantee of a pure and perfect scene free from corruption (perceived or not ), but hopefully it will help to reign in the unabated face judging.

Following on from the numerous opinions re this discussion it is apparent that like myself we all have experienced judges' that we would never enter under again for a multitude of reasons, however, that said if we all collectively are prepared to look past our own initial interests and look towards improving the showing experience for all i think that as well as the non naming of judges in show schedules, there needs to be some kind of critique placed upon the judges performance on any given day. I believe that in the u.s. judges are quite often asked to justify their selections to an independant assessor contracted by the AKC. If this is correct as I am lead to believe BRING IT ON. Judges have no checks' and balances placed on them and it is,I think time they have. Remember INDEPENDANT assessors. Even with these measures it will still take some time to filter through the benefits of this plan, but it will work.

Over the past few years there has been a tremendous amount of unhappiness with the Dog controlling bodies in the various states,and I would like to put it to the members of these organisations if you feel that it may be worth looking at the following suggestion. The canine bodies process quite a lot of our monies during any one year ,and quite often get bogged down with legal problems and management bickering amongst themselves over mostly unimportant ego trips and the pushing of their own agendas Do you think, like I do that because of these problems that continually surface from within maybe the time has come for our canine bodies to be run by full time business people doing the everyday admin . When it is all said and done there is always conflicts of interests when " dog " people are running the "dog " business. A business is exactly what it is ! Obviously there would need to be a source of consultation in regard to special matters ,but these could be handled by a professional panel ,Not involved in everyday show business. I know you are all likely to be surprised by these remarks and I would point to the results of a survey conducted last year that showed that 88% of members indicated they were unhappy with the management of Dogs' NSW.This is only intended to create some discussion and perhaps lead to some changes.

I think like most of the comments so far we are all aware that the so called face judging syndrome is well and alive and we either live with it or do the other thing. My previous comments are particularly aimed and judges ,judging ,judges. most do the right thing ,we all know the ones' that repay and repay etc, their fellow judges. In certain areas' this is quite blatant. I appreciate that a judge comes under a fair amount of pressure when he encounters another judge exhibitor in his ring, whether he/she puts it on themselves i dont' know, but i liken it to a professional footballer playing one day and the next day refereeing his own team, would the fans like that ? I think not.

If all our judges are honest and non-corruptable, why do we need to withold their names in show schedules? You do realise that if you show under good friends and they put your dogs up, the perception from many will mean they are "face judging"? The comments made on my last post was my answer to a comment made with the reference to turning up at a show and finding a friend etc judging period. In reply to your second comment as long as I know that the judging by whoever is an honest opinion of that judge I really dont' care what anyone else thinks. I really find the dog scene very strange at times, ringside everybody moans and groans about obvious oddities and yet merrily week after week turn up for more of the same, never daring to perhaps think that there may be a better way. The comment re all our judges being honest and non-corruptable was a subtle attempt at sarcasm which was obviously missed.

It may come as a surprise to you, but after showing for almost 30years I have managed to get to know quite a few judges/breeders as I am sure you have, and of the judges that I mix with at various events socially I would have no reservations about turning up to a show and finding them judging. This is simply because our relationships are such that I would not be put up if my dog was not the best on the day. I have had this experience on different outings and I have no objections. Surely if all our judges are honest and non corruptable this wont' be a problem. From my experience the only people that this would worry are perhaps the ones' that expect more than they should .

In a dog owners survey conducted by myself and a friend of mine several questions were canvassed at dog shows. The results were published by dog News. and briefly the question re "face judging asked, Do you think that "face " judging at many shows is influencing your choice to stay or leave the dog scene ? The yes vote received 95% of the vote. I realise that it would be hard to keep the judging panel secret but they would not know until show day which group was being done by who under my suggestion. Surely with the results of the above survey something needs to be tried. Clubs now experience poor entries with some of their panels , so I dont' see that arguement holding water.

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.

Of course people are concerned with their own success. Why wouldn't they be? Its a hobby, not a learning program. What do you see as wrong with current judging methods, that could be improved by people not knowing who the judges are? If you browse through the canine journal each month and check results you may see some results that regularly support the claims that many peaple make on a week to week basis re judging. I would like to say at this point that i admire good dogs' whoever owns them but like many i often wonder if the same dog would win if you or I showed it. I know that many great dogs' get carted all around the country side and i often ask if they are always so good ,and i know that maybe some are, why arent' they showing against the top dogs in the larger cities/ towns...and then i check the canine journal results and it all becomes clear.I would also like to say that even after nearly 30years of showing/breeding I am still learning, arent' you.

When I started this subject it was with the intention of achieving exactly what it has , discussion. It is fairly obvious from these comments that all of us are only concerned with our own success and not my overall goal of the possible improvement to the judging that we encounter every week-end at shows. If you are one of the many at shows who regularly comment re the predictable results at these shows, are you not contributing to this continuance by acceptance of the current arrangements. I have attended many shows where a new exhibitor after possibly two or three outings makes the comment " what a con " etc. and in many cases fade from view never to return. Dog showing generally speaking is a personal and self satisfying sport/ hobby for most and thus the attitude that we all seem to gain. Everthing is alright....until it affects you and then things change. Many of us see some terrible things happen in the show ring re the judging of our dogs and I for one would like to see some changes to this process so that everybody has an equal chance with their dog not the sometimes foregone conclusion that we often see. It is a fact that show entries are not what they used to be and I know there are many reasons for this , but i would wager one of the main reasons is the judging. To again strive for a more transparent system I think the time has come to either be a dog judge or an exhibitor not both. I know all the fores and against this statement but it not only has to be fair BUT it also has to look fair.