Hello all,

I got asked this question yesterday and I don't know the answer, hoping someone here does.
As I understand it one is not allowed to wear anything identifying a dog or a kennel etc when in the ring - I assume in order to prevent "unfair influence" I don't have a red book to quote the rule - if it indeed exists. However often people are seen in the ring wearing their KC badges - why does this not constitute "unfair influence" ?

A KC badge (or breed club badge) doesn't identify the individual or the dog, I suppose.

imo its one of those " one rule for us and another for everyone else !!!!!!! "

That was my first thought JG but that then lead me onto the "unfair influence". I don't have a red book so can't even confirm what the rule about identifying items says.
Jeff.

I can remember this one being discussed before....my opinion is it is just a badge, like any other club membership badge..I have quite a few breed club badges, would that mean I wouldnt be allowed to wear one, to any show that is not that club???
It would not & has not influenced me in my judging!!!

Not found the specific rule but I know your not allowed to wear clothing, which has your affix on, in the ring.

It may not have influenced you but are you the majority or minority? This was not my question.
The person who asked me wanted to know why KC badges were allowed but not kennel names. They were unsure as to whether it influenced judges as they are new to showing and wanted to know more. I on the other hand am quite convinced it does influence some judges - but that is not my question!
Jeff.

I may have digressed a little but there is no rule against wearing club badges & that's all it is, a badge to say you are a member of a club...the same as any other membership badge.

As I said, kennel names identify an individual. KC or breed club badges don't.

Lexy,

Thanks and I agree with you re club badges. We will have to agree to disagree about KC badges as I am certain they are an influence.
Jeff.

> We will have to agree to disagree about KC badges as I am certain they are an influence.
>

I think there may be.  Just about anyone can join their breed club with, perhaps, their first dog but a KC membership only comes by invitation and, as far as I can see, always following a significant career in dogs in way one or another so possibly, yes, a judge may be somewhat influenced.
I don't know if there is any rule against it.
Unless it is an affliates badge of course.  Any old Tom, Dick or Harry can buy those can't they?

Would not think many judges would spend time searching the handlers lapels for club badges and if there are a few how do we know that the disadvantage of a KC badge would just about be equal to the advantages. Thing is only enter under judges you trust to give a fair assessment of your exhibit and spend their time looking at the dogs or stop worrying about others who may just get an advantage from sporting a club badge.

> how do we know that the disadvantage of a KC badge would just about be equal to the advantages.

Quite possibly :)  True, judges should not be swayed by these things and most would have the integrity not to deliberately but they are human and some things can influence us subliminally.  If no badges are worn all things are equal.

There was a gentleman exhibitor, whom I think has passed away now, who exhibited Spaniels(ESS, I think) & his hat was covered in club badges...

Colin Woodward isn't dead. He is a Judge and  ESS exhibitor and he often wears a hat covered in badges.

Dawn R.

Many apologies but I may also be thinking of another man & getting the 2 mixed up??

Surely an honest judge wouldn't be studying the handler's hat ...?

Surely an honest judge wouldn't be studying the handler's hat ...?

May be I am incompetent but I could not break my concentration to look at the handler to see if they are wearing a badge, if I saw one I don't think it would register - when judging your whole concentration is on the dog you are comparing with the standard and trying to remember those who you have already assessed.

May be others can do both and may be some just judge the handlers but they are easy to spot so if you are not happy your judge is honestly judging the dogs don't enter under them again. I always say you can disagree with my choice of award winners but please never suggest it was not honestly arrived at, I don't care if the handler is wearing a crown I am sure I would not notice.

To be honest if people believe judges are so influenced by identity and the standing of the handler then perhaps dogs should be shown without a handler, maybe standing in their crates and the steward take each dog individually round the ring.  LOL

As far as I can see the only difference a handler makes is their handling ability/rapport showing of a dog to better advantage.

I attended a show on Saturday where the owners were handling their Male 10 month old, but it was quite obvious they went down several placings due to lack of handling ability. 

On the stand they had the dog standing nicely but not when the judge was looking, often with it's rear to the judge, couldn't get the dog in a show pose on individual assessment (handler flustered dog confused or bored) and moved the dog too slowly to show off it's good ground covering gait, as moved off too close to dog in front.

The very nice judge spoke to them later, and they understand they just have to become a team and practise will eventually get them performing better.  Many newcomers can't see that they are down the line as the judge had not been able to see the dogs good points properly, so think bent judging.

> To be honest if people believe judges are so influenced by identity

I wonder why we having any rules around identification then.

There is a difference between a small badge and using your body as an advertising board,we have all seen them with 90% of a sweat shirt carrying the kennel name, no one wants that in the ring, would not bother the judge but why should the ring be used for the purpose of advertising bit like this board really a small avatar is allowed a full post advert is not.

> There is a difference between a small badge and using your body as an advertising board

Yes, but you are not allowed to wear even a small badge that identifies your kennel or your dog so there must be some recognision that influence is possible.

I think it is more generalised, no personal advertisement or the wearing of rosettes in the ring but a club badge or the use of a BOB bag etc. a round the ring can be seen at any show and because of that it will be largely ignored except by the few who are always on the look out for someone else's misdemeanour's, sad really.

>but you are not allowed to wear even a small badge that identifies your kennel or your dog

That's akin to the judge not being allowed to see the catalogue to identify entrants before judging them - it's an attempt to lessen the chances of foul play being suspected - or actually happening. Personal identification is therefore rightly banned - but club membership is more anonymous.

> but a club badge or the use of a BOB bag etc. a round the ring can be seen at any show and because of that it will be largely ignored except by the few who are always on the look out for someone else's misdemeanour's

Yes, but Jeff is not talking about breed club he is talking about KC membership which for many will mean a little more that breed club membership.  The point is, either these things can turn a judges head or not in which case why do we have the rule about kennels and individual dogs?  Just seems rather odd.

Probably more wouldn't give a hoot that someone's wearing a KC badge,if they even noticed it or recognised it. As has been said, it doesn't identify an individual.

> As has been said, it doesn't identify an individual

So, why is that seen as an influence if the other is not?

It's clearly not as obvious to you as it is to me. :-) How many members of there KC are there? Compare that to the number of people with a particular affix and you'll soon see where the difference lies! One is vague and therefore not an influence, one is specific and therefore is.

> Compare that to the number of people with a particular affix and you'll soon see where the difference lies!

Yes, thousands of us have affixes, anyone willing to pay for one, the KC membership is much more exclusive and is awarded on merit,  ergo means a little more.
Looks like it is just me and you, Jeff :)

Do wonder why it is there are a few in the hobby of dog showing that seem determined to prove they would do much better if only the rules were changed as they wanted. Do those in agility come up with the same sort of nonsense and how about obedience competition or is it only those in the showing group who see advantage to everyone else but themselves.

What next a limit to the amount you spend on what you wear in the ring just in case you look too well off or perhaps a rule to say you can't wear the same thing twice in case you are recognised. LOL perhaps we should all wear black plastic sacks and a mask, or perhaps it is the judge that should be blindfold.

So I give a CC to an exhibitor who happens to be a member of the KC - what advantage would that be to me. There must be one else why be worried about it, I am unable to think what.

I can see why some people may feel that some have a advantage, there is some handlers that you get the impression could take a teddy in a would get BOB + group + BIS but its really probably a case of they are very good at what they do so get chosen by lots of kennels to handle for them.

Perhaps you might be interested in nomination to the Kennel Club?  Or merely to be well regarded by members for other reasons like getting through a sticky assured breeder evaluation for example.  I'm sure people could have a few reasons if they were that way inclined.

>Yes, thousands of us have affixes, anyone willing to pay for one, the KC membership is much more exclusive and is awarded on merit,  ergo means a little more.

But we all have different, individual affixes. We can be identified by them. Mere club membership - of whatever club - doesn't give that.

Perhaps you might be interested in nomination to the Kennel Club?  Or merely to be well regarded by members for other reasons like getting through a sticky assured breeder evaluation for example.

LOL you really can't mean that, what would the nomination to the Kennel Club do for me apart from cost me money I do not have. Just how much clout do you think ordinary members of the KC have, I can imagine the scene at the next AGM, half a dozen members putting in an amendment that I should be given an easy time when I applied for AB status or some other favour, as the AGM is made public the mind boggles.

Well, something makes them pay for it :-D

Well, something makes them pay it :-D

Do you not belong to any clubs at all?

If you do ask yourself why, and no doubt that is why people are members of the KC.

I don't believe you have ever joined a club to advantage you, or have you, if so what was the advantage.

> If you do ask yourself why, and no doubt that is why people are members of the KC.
>

It was you that said

>what would the nomination to the Kennel Club do for me apart from cost me money I do not have.

That is what I was responding to.

What next a limit to the amount you spend on what you wear in the ring just in case you look too well off or perhaps a rule to say you can't wear the same thing twice in case you are recognised. LOL perhaps we should all wear black plastic sacks and a mask, or perhaps it is the judge that should be blindfold.

Not to mention there are those that say that certain wellknown handlers make sure to keep their HAIR the same and win because they can be told apart from that!! (I can name 3 successful exhibitors I've heard that said of!) I think some people would be better off not showing at all.......it's all starting to sound like conspiracy theories! Maybe the bent judges and bent exhibitors also were in on the murder of JFK, and have covered up alien landings??! :D

> Maybe the bent judges and bent exhibitors also were in on the murder of JFK, and have covered up alien landings??! :D

Marianne, you know I am not of the all judges are bent persuasion.  I would happily see the rule about dog or kennel identification dropped as I don't think it does have an influence over the the vast majority of judges.  I just don't see the difference between one and the other.

Hi Nova,

This seems to have grown it's own legs whilst I was out! :-) We are some way from the question I was asked and then asked here.
To clarify, my personal view is that I do agree generally speaking that what ID or badge a person has makes little or no difference and I firmly believe that eventually a good dog will win regardless of ownership and this is the case in the vast majority of classes/awards. However I am equally certain that there are those who can be and are influenced by things/people that they should not be - as is the case in all walks of life - these are in the minority by a long chalk. I am sure we could all find/cite an example of both extremes to prove or disprove this but I would like to say as someone who has had the luxury of mainly being a spectator at shows for the last year either it is happening or we have some judges (a minority as I say) that simply should not take to the centre of the ring.
Anything that involves competition brings out the best and the worst in people and unfortunately we all know what is remembered first! :-)
Jeff.   

I don't see how you can say that any particular club badge can't be worn so it would have to be anything that identified you as a member of a group - would that include crosses and other religious symbols. Very unwelcome path to tread just because one person in half a century may have their badge noted and acted upon, as I said just what would be the advantage.

I don't think you are replying to me are you?
Jeff.

In direct reply to you Jeff I personally feel it unfair when someone wears their KC Committee badge in the ring and as such I did think that a KC committee badge is against the rules.

I don't think you are replying to me are you?

Yes I was, can see no way how the KC badge can be separated from any other badge and if all items showing allegiance to a group are to be banned where do you stop.

No I don't think it gives an advantage, well, no more than a cleavage.

No I don't think it should be banned along with all other badges and insignia of clubs or groups as I think for a hobby we have enough rules already.

Do I think that if more rules are brought in people will think they are being treated fairly, I don't so there is no point in banning anything more although I would expect it to happen at some stage.

I did think that a KC committee badge is against the rules.

So did I, think a committee badge of any club associated with dogs would not be allowed but that is different from a membership badge or tie.

> can see no way how the KC badge can be separated from any other badge

Exactly!  Kennel badges are banned so why not these :) or alternatively unban them all.

What do you mean by Kennel badges? We are talking clubs not private kennels.

> What do you mean by Kennel badges? We are talking clubs not private kennels.

Read first post :)

Nova,

Thank you for clarifying.
"no more than a cleavage" - made me chuckle!
I would suggest that all most people want is consistency - I don't feel it is being achieved - do I think I have suffered as a result? No I don't but that does not change the fact that, imho, it does happen.

Jeff.

I would suggest that all most people want is consistency

Wouldn't we all - but as it seems impossible to achieve in any human activity I can't believe the KC would or will do any better. One only has to look at the sentences handed down by our courts is you want an example of inconsistency at work.

People just don't think alike or act with the same moral codes, we don't like it but we all like to be free to act as we wish and the two things are not compatible.

So we either accept the status quo or we accept we are banging our heads to no avail.