What do you think of the present system of selection and approval? Is it fair? What would replace it? Do you have any experiences good/bad? Is the KC fair? Are breed clubs fair? Are criteria's fair? What about the present judges?

Suppose the answer to that is it depends on you experience, your breed, your breed club, your dog(s), your ability and your attitude to life.

You can't be unhappy with every thing and every one, can you? Thought it was only teenagers who thought everything was unfair. ;) Be a bit more detailed, let us know what it is that concerns you in particular. All systems have their drawbacks and nothing is perfect, so what is it that offends you most?

Jackie,
If you read it again, I did not say anything was unfair. I hear lots of grumbles on all sorts of issues, this being the main one and asked a series of questions in that regard. I find you 'teenager' analogy a bit juvenile in itself and maybe this sort of jumping to conclusions is part of the problem, if problem it is. I am sure there are many people out there with something to say on these issues, whether that be positive, negative or both. It would be interesting to hear some of those views and/or experiences.

its all fair KC rules are only there as a guidline!

some clubs are just easier then others but its all ok and it depends on the club.

as for the judges at the moment, some i will enter under and others i wont! its that simple! i can understand if some judges dont like my dogs because proberly i dont like theirs!!!!

Not entirely true - some KC rules are fixed - eg before giving CCs in any breed I think all judges must have owned or bred at least 3 dogs with stud book numbers, must have stewarded 12 times over at least 3 years, must have at least 7 years judging - there may be others can't remember. I can see the importance of the last two in terms of experience and ring management but the first of these is one that I think can be problematic in some breeds. In my own, I know of someone who is a good judge, has support of breed folk, knows the breed but has only ever owned two show dogs - one of which had a SB number - the other hadn't. The number of dogs owned is so dependent on people's circumstance so maybe this shouldn't be a requirement - or perhaps it should be proportional. I know a few people who churn out so many pups that it is highly unlikely that a few wouldn't get a SB number - but as a percentage of the numbers who don't it is neglible. Others who have bred 2 champions out of 6 puppies! Whether someone is qualified to award CCs isn't dependent on whether they have owned/bred quality dogs but whether they can recognise quality. Janet

Janet,
Thanks for your comments which are sensible and balanced. The fact that I wouldn't entirely agree with you is neither here nor there, we all have opinions. For what it's worth I believe that everyone passed to award CC's should have either bred or made up a Champion (preferably both) in their main breed themselves (not bought in and employed a handler). It is oft the case that people show rubbish or at least second raters and have never had anything of great quality or won anything, that being the case if they can't see it in their own, why would they sudenly be able to see it in others. The stewarding requirement is only for new judges under the present system and is not a necessity for those previously qualified.

dont agree with one of the things you said--that if someone shows second rate dogs how will they see qualities in others, ------the dogs you show, if you dont breed, are only as good as your able to buy in, however that doesnt say that when looking around the ring they cant pick out the best dogs in it-some people have a natural eye for a dog, -but its not always so easy getting your hands on a top notch one, it can also work the other way too-ive seen folk hit on a good dog and do some serious winning-but couldnt tell you what a pastern -stop-croup etc where, or why they fit together the way they do etc,
exams and assesments i feel are eye openers, and will give you a good idea wether someone understands the breed or not,

Absolutely. Also there are other reasons why people show a dog than to win. I know one person who shows a "poor quality" dog simply because it is all she has and she enjoys showing. She knows exactly what is wrong with her dog and would be horrified if it was put up!
I would far rather have her opinion of my dogs than someone who has been lucky to buy in a few good dogs but doesn't know one end of one from the other!

Janet

Let me give you a scenario - based on a real one as it happens - what would be your view here? Chap is in a minority breed - but a large one - one where it is not possible to keep large numbers at a time without facilities. Lives in a normal house on a normal estate - can keep two dogs maximum and cannot breed. He buys a pup - shows it for a while - realises it is not good. Buys another - it does well. In the mean time he is attending seminars, getting experience judging etc. etc. Given that he is (quite rightly in my view) committed to his dogs for their entire life he keeps his poor quality dog - knowing full well what its faults are - as a pet. He has no space for another dog. He builds up his knowledge, shows his good quality dog to its championship but has no room for anymore. The breed lives on average 14 years. The breed is desperate for judges qualified to award CCs. He more than qualifies in all respects except he has not owned/bred 3 stud book winners. I really don't see how the dogs he is able to own/breed make any difference his ability to recognise a good dog.

Completely different I agree to the situation where people continually show and breed rubbish - hence I suggested it should be a proportional thing rather than a specific number. In his case 50% of the dogs he owned had a SB number! Janet

Janet

Janet,
I quite agree that there is an anomaly here. However, it would be difficult to have a system that covered every eventuality. The person could have put his name on another two dogs that were going to get their SB numbers and bucked the system.

Well he could but surely we shouldn't need to encourage "fixes" like that?
A "normally" in the rules would be all that is needed, with "exceptions" having to be approved and justified by a breed club.

But Ice Queen says that the KC have said they are guidelines not rules anyway so maybe we should just put him forward and see what happens! :)

Thanks
Janet

i dont think bucking the system is going to help get us better judges--im shocked at some of the things i hear people willing to do to try and further themselves---i myself was asked to do something well dodgey, to help someone to judge---i obviously refused. and was shocked to be asked or involved in anyones iffy goings on, -----i really dont think you need to talk to someone for very long to work out if they have any idea what theyre talking about---so again it brings you back to put your money where your mouth is, if you understand dogs conformation-breeds etc, then you should manage to pass your breed assesments no bother at all,

To: Dizzy & Janet

As the system is flawed and doesn't allow this person to judge although well experienced and thought of by the breed, I think to buck the system would be just that, the KC would pass him and you would get a valued judge, that is quite different from someone getting through by bucking the system without the necessary knowledge and experience.

I also believe that if the breed clubs back him and send in a letter explaining the circumstances along with the questionnaire, the KC would probably pass him anyway.

On the question of right and wrong I have a story of my own (a true one): We all think and are lead to believe that if we fulfill all the criteria; numbers of dogs, classes, pass the breed assessment, are on an A3 list and have the support of the breed club, that a candidate would be passed. After all how could the KC possibly turn them down? Well they can and they do, without explanation. I know of a case where exactly that happened and to make matters worse the candidate had another questionnaire with exactly the same qualifications and approvals and that one was passed by the KC. So sometimes even when you pass you fail.

Have to agree Dizzy. All judges should have to demonstrate their *knowledge* of a breed - not what dogs they have owned. Theoretically there could be excellent judges who don't own, show or breed dogs at all!
Janet

hiya janet,

i dont want an arguement about this BUT KC rules are only guidlines! that is what was stated to a breed club secretary by a member high in the KC about their judging list. iw ill not name any names but i can asure you that is what was written.

Rox

No argument - our breed club was told the opposite a few years ago that is all. I am very happy to hear we were misinformed!

Janet

Myself and 3 friends imported my breed, but I suppose that as I've never judged at CC level in other breeds and really don't want to that I'll never really be able to judge my breed. It annoys me that I can't even go abroad and judge the breed that I fell in love with and worked hard to develop in this country.

Some people judge just to get up the ladder and not really because they care about the breed. I just love my breed and would some day when they are classed as a "proper" breed would love to be able to judge them but I suppose with the rules as they are I wouldn't really be able to do this! But someone can come into a breed for a year or so and think they know everything and judge because they judge other breeds at a higher level.