Search

In his January 24 Dog News column entitled "We’ll Do Until the Real Thing Comes Along," judge Gerald Schwartz, in response to what he saw as a recent proliferation of "judge bashing" articles in the dog press, defended his fellow judges by saying that in his opinion, exhibitors at AKC shows receive, overall, the best evaluations by the best and most honest judges in the world. Speaking as an exhibitor who has spent a lot of time and money in the show ring lately, I’d like to explain why we chroniclers of the show scene so often dip our pens in acid when writing about judges and judging.

First, a couple of caveats: Mr. Schwartz is right on the money when he says that judges are the whipping boys of the fancy. When my husband received a provisional license for boxers eleven years ago, we were BOTH treated to the rudest, nastiest and most unsportsmanlike behavior imaginable – from pro handlers, owner-handlers, our fellow exhibitors, and several dear, old "friends." Apparently, many exhibitors believe that the rules of civility and the laws against slander and libel just do not apply to dog show judges. And the AKC, in my experience, does not give its judges even moral support.

Another aspect of the dog game that serves to keep even the most expert and honest judge in the hot seat is the tremendous turnover in breeders and exhibitors. We all know, because we’ve all been there, that the first ten years of a novice fancier’s life in the show ring is spent devoutly believing and loudly proclaiming that any judge who puts his dog up is obviously a breed expert and a paragon of virtue…while any judge who doesn’t put his dog up is just as obviously an ignoramus and a crook. And some fanciers never get beyond the novice stage, even if they stay in their breed for thirty years!

The AKC system that leaves most judges dependent on "a little help from their friends" to get assignments, at least until they’ve acquired a group or two, doesn’t exactly promote integrity and independent thinking, either. It does promote quid pro quo and the desire to acquire as many breeds as possible A.S.A.P., regardless of the judge’s knowledge of or appreciation for those additional breeds.

There are many stumbling blocks on the path to excellent judging, and those, plus the law of averages that says that in any field of human endeavor, most of the participants will not be outstanding, make for, overall, a lot of mediocre-to-awful judging. And though it is sometimes very difficult to tell whether the judging was crooked or merely clueless, the knowledgeable exhibitors and handlers can always spot a bad job of judging – even when they win! Ironically, I’ll bet there isn’t a single exhibitor, even the ones who should know better, who hasn’t gone back a second time to a judge who once put up his dog, even though that judge did an otherwise dreadful job on that day.

So my hat is off to the judges who have innate talent to begin with, who take the time and make the effort to acquire in depth knowledge about additional breeds before they apply to judge them, and who have the courage to resist being intimidated or influenced by pushy handlers, lavish advertising, the promise of future assignments, and "all of the above." It does take brains, guts, and personal integrity to be a good judge – i.e., the real thing. And you good judges keep us coming back for more in the face of the many, many frustrating disappointments we suffer at the hands of your less competent and less objective brethren…because there is no substitute for the real thing!