New Fee for Judges

[RKCM]

Some of your may know there will be a new conformation judges fee. All judges will be required to pay a $50 annual fee and $5 a breed which will be increased to $10 a breed the following year. There is already a $25 per breed application fee. AKC is concerned with rising costs of shows.

While this maybe a way to raise funds for the AKC, it could reduce the number of judges available for the shows. Many of our old times that have spent a lifetime in the sport and are now on fixed incomes will be hit will up to 1500 or more a year fee. It seems that the icons of the sport will be hit the worse. Many of these icons elect to judge selectively and may be forced out. Others judge many shows and will have their income reduced. A big deal for those that have little retirement. Those on fixed incomes have threatened to turn in their license. Many of the smaller clubs are having financial problems and these fees can not be just passed on all the clubs. Other judges that be more inclined to not ask for additional breeds because later down the road they will increase fees. It is predicted that Group judges will be fewer, as will BIS judges and only those that have the money to continue in the sport. These concerns are being voiced by judges and due to this AKC is meeting to review the propose fees.

The current schedule will not affect new judges as much or judges that don't have a group, but it will mean they could be hired less because of the shortage of group and BIS judges. It maybe that clubs will be limited in who they hire. Those that have several breeds may not apply for more, as retirement is in the future. I am not sure how they will handle those that judge in the USA from other countries.

Thought some of you would like to know the information I had on this. It is concerning to me. We will see how it works out for the future. AKC is currently meeting with the judge community to work out a better fee schedule that will not force some judges to resign. We'll see how that works out but there will be more fees.

[magtie]

seems odd that the judge has to pay anything. You would think that they would get paid

odd system

[RKCM]

seems odd that the judge has to pay anything. You would think that they would get paid

odd system

All judges pay for many things, like seminars, expenses to seminars, and a $25 a breed application fee. They have never been charged to be listed in the judges book or to keep their license which they earned by having bred champions, passing tests, and showing participation in the sport. I agree judges should not have to pay to be a judge but it looks like there will now be some fee. A good thing is that AKC is now reconsidering the fee and how fair it is to the judges. We will have input but think there will be a fee.

Group judges usually charge a flat fee plus expenses. Many of these are retired and can't afford a big annual fee. Others keep their name in the book and are retired and too old to judge now. Judges with a one or more breeds or provisional judges, usually charge by the dog and are not always paid expenses. They usually do but not all clubs do this for provisional judges or for a few breeds. It is not cost effective for the clubs. Recently, I know of several that reduced fees due to the club's financial issues. Few make money when everything is said and done.

Others may judge free to help the club. Not all breeds are like the DPCA. They are larger and aren't having as many financial problems as the smaller breed clubs and smaller all breed clubs. There will be fewer judges if this flies....1,000 have vowed to turn in their license and AKC was sent a letter. They are reconsidering it and we will hear soon. These fees are not a good thing and any fee will risk a loss of judges. Some the icons of the sport.

[Rhiannon]

I think this is something that definitely needs to be fixed. The sport is already taking serious hits as well as the breed clubs locally and nationally. The economy has hit many very hard. I don't know what AKC thinks sometimes. It should be more than just about the money. :(

[Dobs4ever]

Why would a judge who is not judging and retired want to keep their name on a book where people go to look up judges and then waste the time calling them only to find out that they are retired???? I know finding good judges for clubs is hard enough without wasting precious time. I see being listed in the book as advertising, so understand why they would charge a fee for that. I don't understand all the insides of why they would charge per breed, however - perhaps per group but not individual breeds.

[RKCM]

Why would a judge who is not judging and retired want to keep their name on a book where people go to look up judges and then waste the time calling them only to find out that they are retired???? I know finding good judges for clubs is hard enough without wasting precious time. I see being listed in the book as advertising, so understand why they would charge a fee for that. I don't understand all the insides of why they would charge per breed, however - perhaps per group but not individual breeds.

I am just relating what I was told and don't want to name names of judges. There are some judges that are very elderly and have spent a lifetime dedicated to the sport in showing dogs, running clubs, and judging. Many choose to judge only one show a year or less and want to remain on the list without paying thousands to be a judge. Point is they can't afford thousands of dollars in fees when they are retired. AKC is working with the judges group to review fairness in fees and have cancelled the fees for now.

New judges usually charge per breed to the clubs. When Dr. Bendt was with us, he always hired the provisional judges and I think he was in Missouri. In fact, I judged there at one time. He always paid judges per dog entered and no expenses. It helps offset some of the expenses. And is the lifeline of breeder judges. Some charge a flat fee but that's rare. It is really up to the judge to decide their fee and the club to consider if they will pay it. It costs originally to be a judge so they are paying and don't want more. They are active in clubs, donating trophies, reducing their fees for failing clubs, some still showing their own dogs, paying to go to seminars, paying expenses for AKC required mentoring, and few are making money at judging, many it costs them.

The list is not advertisement. Most of the judges do not judge for a living. It is service to the sport and are licensed by the AKC. They are not allowed to solict assignments or advertise. Our judges are an aging group and unless they attract new interest, our dog shows with be in trouble. Judges help make money for the clubs by attracting entries. No one wants the same opinion over and over......it's a subjective sport and having choices in judges is a big part of club business.

When I hired judges at one of our kennel clubs and for the specialty clubs, it was not hard to find judges. The membership usually suggested or nominates judges, so the list is merely a way to contact them.

From my perspective, I understand that AKC needs to stay afloat but charging judging will not create more entries and since many will just resign, it will make it harder to harder to find judges for the groups and to put on shows. Seems silly to try to create income on the backs of the judges when their offices are in NY City in one of the most expensives areas of our country and wonder why they pay nonprofit executives six figures. I guess, because they can. LOL. I do think it is a good thing they are working with the judges to find suggestions. Just wondered why they didnt do that before they passed it....and now have taken the fees back. Who know what will happen on this?

[RKCM]

Also, passing fees on to the clubs will only increase entry fees. Most clubs are barely staying alive and exhibitors are paying enough. The judges are suggesting to reduce their overhead in offices, salaries, and administration costs. Who knows....?

[RKCM]

AKC has also said it costs them to observe judges. Provisional judges in new breeds are observed on assignments and evaluated. Funny thing is that the observation is on ring procedure for the most part. I wonder if this is needed when a judge has been judging for many years. Most know procedure. Some say this is unnecessary. I'm unsure but believe that few are getting information or better, as procedure it kinna basic stuff.

I can tell you that AKC does not usually argue about the quality of the dog selected unless it is clearly a problem they need to address. They may question you on why you made the selection, but it is subjective and really they are looking for problems in procedure etc.

I see that the UKC has immediately honored their judges on their website and invited judges to apply there. I was told it came out exactly at the same time AKC sent out the fee announcement. Timing, huh?

[RKCM]

I think this is something that definitely needs to be fixed. The sport is already taking serious hits as well as the breed clubs locally and nationally. The economy has hit many very hard. I don't know what AKC thinks sometimes. It should be more than just about the money. :(

I agree Rhiannon. The horse magazines look like flyers these day. It is a time that encouraging those that are showing maybe a lifeline for dog shows. AKC has to get more income somehow but unless there is more participate as there was back in the day, we may not have them in the future. It is important that the fancy share information and find common ground to improve the sport. And did I mention sportmanship?

Sometimes the fancy spends way too much time blasting or pointing to differences amoung us. With PETA, dog legislation, and the economy, we need to find common ground, without tolerating wrong for the dogs. We fail if we aren't united and things are working against the sport right now.

[Dobs4ever]

OK - here is my thought - First a judge who only judges once a year IMHO is very rusty and out of touch. If it is OK for judges to only judge once a year and still be considered knowledgeable then why do they have to take addl seminars???

Then should a breeder only produce one champion and then they should skate on the rest since they know what a CH is. I want a top judge who is active in the breed and judging just as I would want a breeder to be active- up on what is out there, trends and KNOWS the standard. Any tool not used gets rusty.

Maybe AKC is trying to weed out judges who are not truly judging and contributing to the sport and trim the dead weight. I have certainly seen some judges that I wondered if they had ever really judged before.

AKC seems to be following the way everything is done. They punish the good to eliminate the bad. Just some of my muddled thoughts.

[Dobs4ever]

RKCM "I can tell you that AKC does not usually argue about the quality of the dog selected unless it is clearly a problem they need to address. They may question you on why you made the selection, but it is subjective and really they are looking for problems in procedure etc.

I see that the UKC has immediately honored their judges on their website and invited judges to apply there. I was told it came out exactly at the same time AKC sent out the fee announcement. Timing, huh?"

The same thing happened with AKC tried to stop judges from judging at other clubs. UKC stepped up and encouraged more to come to their venue. I see that as a positive for all concerned. A judges who judges more events become popular based on their ability and the ones who are not good do not get invited to judge. It is a way to weed out those who are not good at what they do.
__________________

[RKCM]

It is true that the number of entries that are shown under a judge indicates his popularity with the exhibitors. I've been very fortunate in that regard. Most judges turn down many more assignments and the reasons vary. You also need to have shown documentation in the sport and bred a number of champions, not one.

In your state, Suzan, I believe there are only 4 group judges and one toy judge....I could be wrong but I believe this is the case. There is very few specialist in your state or judges that only do a few breeds. A judge that doesn't have the group would have to fly in, get a room, and it is costly because the entries are usually low. Dr. Bendt was always hiring provisional judge for I believe $3 a dog to help provisional judges. It costs the judge to come basically. So to me, it makes more sense to judge a judge by the number of entries, not the # of assignments and ya have to look at the prior shows. This is not a job to most of us and merely, for the sport. Sometimes there are more pressing things than judging in their life and not always that they aren't offered assignments.

As far as being rusty, I guess that can happen but I really think the ring is not a place to clean up. LOL. There are much better things to do and better places to keep current like seminars, visiting breeders, other judges, mentors, etc. I have put on some of those seminars in most of the dogs I currently judge. Once you understand and know a good dog, it doesn't just disappear, anymore than someone could sell you a pet to show, Suzan. It works kinna like that. LOL

[RKCM]

But you are right all judges should have experience in the breed they judge. AKC has a pretty tough way of ruling people out currently and fewer are being approved.

Over the years, some prefer breeder judges because they say they know the breed better. Some say they fault judge and don't evaluate the whole dog. Others have said they breed and show or have too many friends and can't give an unbias opinion.

Then, some prefer to show to all rounders that have picked up several breed through testing and experience with the breed and may never had bred that breed. Others say they don't know enough.

It's all in what you want to pay your money for........personally, I think there are good and bad judges just like anything else. But for the most part, you get what you pay for: Their opinion. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't......the good thing is, we still go home with our favorite dog, our own.

Did I tell ya I'm not happy about these fees? LOL

[Dobs4ever]

I can definitely tell you are not a happy camper. I know AKC backed down on their tough stand on not allowing AKC judges to judge other venues so who knows. It will be the judges who change it though not a group of non judges.

And as I said I am not so sure it is not a good thing. I would not hire a judge who only judged one or two shows a year. Almost everything I know of requires some kind of recertification and I think that for a judge to remain a judge that they should be required to judge so many shows a year or drop out and have to recertify.

Why should it be different for judges??? IF they are working then they are making money. I have never in all the years I have been with a kennel club know a judge to not make money. They charge so much per day plus expenses. How does this not compensate them? The more they work the more they make so they can pay the fees.
If each judge took one extra assignment (show) a year it would pay their fees and still leave money in their pocket for the most part. I personally don't see it as a big set back to judges who are working. To judges who are not working it would be an expense.

[RKCM]

I can definitely tell you are not a happy camper. I know AKC backed down on their tough stand on not allowing AKC judges to judge other venues so who knows. It will be the judges who change it though not a group of non judges.

And as I said I am not so sure it is not a good thing. I would not hire a judge who only judged one or two shows a year. Almost everything I know of requires some kind of recertification and I think that for a judge to remain a judge that they should be required to judge so many shows a year or drop out and have to recertify.

Why should it be different for judges??? IF they are working then they are making money. I have never in all the years I have been with a kennel club know a judge to not make money. They charge so much per day plus expenses. How does this not compensate them? The more they work the more they make so they can pay the fees.
If each judge took one extra assignment (show) a year it would pay their fees and still leave money in their pocket for the most part. I personally don't see it as a big set back to judges who are working. To judges who are not working it would be an expense.

Provisional judges ARE NOT normally paid expenses. If you are lucky, like I have been with large entries, it pays your expense of traveling to the show by charging so much a dog. Maybe you are referring to those judges that are already licensed. Professional judges rarely break even and this is where you start judging. Most judges, like me, are licensed in some breeds and provisional in others. It's an ongoing process and costly.

Orginally, under the now tabled fee, new group judges would pay a total of $3500for the honor of judging your dog. That won't fly with most and don't forget the 1500-2000 fee a year. For free won't happen and thank god they are discussing it with the judges because it will surely be passed down to the clubs and then, to the exhibitors. I support the judges on this, not because my fee is a big deal, but because it's wrong to ask judges to pay to make AKC money and passed down to the clubs, then the exhibitors. AKC needs to cut some spending but not by charging us to make them money.

The decision to accept assignments and how often to judge is a judges choice and your right to not to show to them if you think they are rusty. Lol.
Just can't imagion telling someone they are rusty after a lifetime in dogs....

[Panama]

Won't these new imposed fees cause judges to back out? Limited # of judges mean limited shows. That or those that do pay these ridiculous fees will be judging several more breeds therefore charging clubs even more.... which would mean clubs would have to raise entry fees. Am I looking at this wrong?

[RKCM]

Won't these new imposed fees cause judges to back out? Limited # of judges mean limited shows. That or those that do pay these ridiculous fees will be judging several more breeds therefore charging clubs even more.... which would mean clubs would have to raise entry fees. Am I looking at this wrong?

AKC has agreed to meet with the judging community and talk about the fee. It was taken back so for now there is only the $25 per breed fee. I understand some meetings will take place in July in Houston, Texas.

You could be right, especially if the 1,000 judges resign and since many of them are group judges, you will have a lot of problem hiring group judges. If judges charge the clubs, some say that the entry fees will go up. Sounds logical to me.

To prevent this, the judging community are suggesting ways to raise money by cutting AKC's overhead and not charging the judges or anyone with more fees. To raise prices or fees is not good in this economy and they need to look within to balance the judge......not more fees.

[Dobs4ever]

According to what has been discussed we evidently only have a limited # of judges anyway. If 1,000 lets say are arm chair judges sitting on the sidelines they are not available and when they decide to come out of moth balls what do you get??? When I walk in any ring I want a judge that is sharp and up on their game. When I walk into a ring I want a dog that is sharp and up on his game - he gets there by practice and working not observing. Heck at judge at home is not even observing. This has been a real eye opener to me.

[Panama]

Not all judges judge for a living. Some do have full time jobs also. I guess my point was ... if AKC imposes these fees on the judges, and we lose a great # of them... not only will the shows be limited, but so won't the opinions that we pay for... therefore, the same dogs will likely be put up... then there will be a decline in entries..... JMO

[RKCM]

Not all judges judge for a living. Some do have full time jobs also. I guess my point was ... if AKC imposes these fees on the judges, and we lose a great # of them... not only will the shows be limited, but so won't the opinions that we pay for... therefore, the same dogs will likely be put up... then there will be a decline in entries..... JMO

Thanks Panama for making that point. I do think AKC is reviewing the impact and will come up with a solution that will benefit the sport. It is to everyones best interest.

4ever, everyone has a right to show to whatever judge they choose. AKC does have guidelines for judges so that they are current. You can review the rules and see if you agree. If not, just don't show to them. It is your right.

[Dobs4ever]

"Judges help make money for the clubs by attracting entries. No one wants the same opinion over and over....." RKCM this is from your earlier post and this is how I read it - If a judge only judges one or two shows and year and does the same shows then the people are not getting a different opinion and the judge is not growing and continuing to learn. It is like any skill if one does not use it they are not as sharp as the one who is in the ring most of the time.

As you state a judge should be active in the sport which shows their support of the sport. To be sitting on a roster but doing nothing is taking up space. I have never heard of any business that supports dead weight.

So let's say we loose the 1,000 judges because they don't judge enough to justify the cost - have we really lost anything? Seems to me if they are not judging then they will not be missed as they are already absent. Doesn't this contribute to the shortage of judges???

[Dobs4ever]

Didn't Onofrio just raise entry fees in the last couple years inspite of the economy? I know we had a big discussion last year about fees for the UDC Nationals and wanting to raise fees to help cover cost because they were afraid entries would be down which they were.

[RKCM]

"Judges help make money for the clubs by attracting entries. No one wants the same opinion over and over....." RKCM this is from your earlier post and this is how I read it - If a judge only judges one or two shows and year and does the same shows then the people are not getting a different opinion and the judge is not growing and continuing to learn. It is like any skill if one does not use it they are not as sharp as the one who is in the ring most of the time.

As you state a judge should be active in the sport which shows their support of the sport. To be sitting on a roster but doing nothing is taking up space. I have never heard of any business that supports dead weight.

So let's say we loose the 1,000 judges because they don't judge enough to justify the cost - have we really lost anything? Seems to me if they are not judging then they will not be missed as they are already absent. Doesn't this contribute to the shortage of judges???


Considering the 250 miles rule, how do you figure reducing the number of judges will make AKC money? Or help clubs? What costs will this save? I really don't understand your point. A judge that is retired and doesn't judge costs AKC nothing.

I do know that AKC is meeting with exhibitors, judges, and staff to find a solutions and that's a good thing. They want your suggestions. If you are interested I will gladly send you a link.

[RKCM]

Didn't Onofrio just raise entry fees in the last couple years inspite of the economy? I know we had a big discussion last year about fees for the UDC Nationals and wanting to raise fees to help cover cost because they were afraid entries would be down which they were.

The clubs set the entry fee for their own shows. Onofrio charges a fee to put on the show. Fees for shows trickel down to the exhibitors, who are declining in number for many reasons.

The shows are not what they use to be in participation. I do think that as exhibitors, we have a big responsibility to welcome new people in the breed, share information, and encourage participation in the sport.

Sure hope AKC's meetings will find better ways than raising fees at this time and I think they are listening to proactive suggestions. It will take more than just AKC to revive this sport when we have so many things working against our breed, and all dogs. I don't think that will happen unless we find resolution, not differences or fighting amoung ourselves. United we stand, divided we fall. It applies to AKC, the clubs, judges, and exhibitors. Just don't think raising fees to make money will help the decline.

[RKCM]

This was the SCJA response to one of the judges associations. I think the message is clear. This is their response quoted from the website:

This analysis was days in the making to include input from calls from over 50 members, Delegates, AKC Board members, all-breed show chair and others. We believe it essential that it be sent to all of our members and Delegates. As a few of our members were quick to point out this afternoon, the subject of a judges fee is still wide open. Only now, the AKC Board has agreed to their years old commitment to coordinate with the national judges groups (unfortunately some representatives from the other judges groups sitting around the table some years ago are no longer with us) to include the experience of doctors, lawyers, professors, a few military officers with command and staff experience and business owners, all of whom have years and years of judging experience all this
experience - at no cost to the American Kennel Club. We are happy that the AKC Board has taken a second look and opened the issue for further consideration. For the record, however, we must point out that the Senior Conformation Judges Association never supported an annual fee for judges. What we do think should be considered are the many other ways that money can be saved from high paid salaries and the number of field reps, and especially the tasks that they perform a move out of New York City? Under no circumstance would we contemplate any annual fee for the poor provisional judges who, in addition to all of their other expenses, don't even make travel expenses for a show.

We strongly believe at any meeting all three national judges groups should have two representatives present and hopefully two Delegate judges (lots of coordination can be effective with emails and conference calls prior to any meeting). A thanks to Ron and the AKC Board for reconsidering this issue. We are wide open for any suggestions or input.

[RKCM]

I haven't heard what has been decided on how to charge judges yet but read an interesting suggestion and wonder what you thought.

In Europe, I understand they have a Jr. Puppy class. I'm not sure how it works but makes sense to me to have one here since we see so many traveling to shows anyway. Especially since there are fewer matches.
Interesting idea. What do you think?

[Dobs4ever]

RKCM - they just opened up to mutts being able to show in obedience events, and that is a whole new discussion. In the Jr puppy class how old for the puppies??? Would they be able to get points??? Would need to know more about it. Should there be a new thread on this or are you saying this is tied in with the judges fees???

[RKCM]

With AKC tabling the judges fee for now, the question is how can we generate income without putting undo hardship on people in the sport, meaning judges, exhibitors, or the clubs.

The puppy class was suggested (not formally) but as one idea to generate needed funds. Maybe the question should be what suggestions do you have to off set the decline in the sport? Cuts? New classes? What suggestions do you have?

Although, the judges will in all likelyhood have a fee. It will in all likelyhood not cover the decline in the sport. It is being discussed and how to raise money without making it out of range for those that do participate?

[Dobs4ever]

Has anyone up there ever run a business??? Had to manage money??? Everyone is cutting back. You mentioned moving out of NY and the high rent district - did anyone have any comments on that one???? Do they own their building or renting???? These are things they should look at first. Not sure it is feasible, but they should take a look at it. Freeze salaries??? UGH - it is happening in the real world -

What kind of income honestly do they project from the new Mutt entries???? IMHO that was not a wise move for a pure bred club to open up to this. I personally do not want to compete against mutts. It is demeaning to our sport in that it was all set up to show off purebred dogs. There are registries available for unreg dogs. CKC, NRC, APRI, APR etc. so I don't see this helping at all.

I am not against mutts - just stating that that was never the purpose from the inception of AKC it was all about the purebred dog. IMHO this is a conflict of interest.

I do agree that judges need to pay something - it makes it more valuable and hopefully weed out some judges that are not good. That is just my opinion - I don't think they can honestly think for one minute that they can make judges make up for the entire lack of competitors. If there are not people showing they won't need any judges.

That is where they need to be looking to bring the sport back.

What about the "Grand CH"??? Wasn't that to increase people showing and campaigning????

They need to lead the pack, cut expenses, eliminate the excess first - I don't see adding a puppy class as a plus for the sport. I don't think any dog should be able to finish from the puppy class. I think at least half their points should have to come form the 18 month or open classes.

[RKCM]

Has anyone up there ever run a business??? Had to manage money??? Everyone is cutting back. You mentioned moving out of NY and the high rent district - did anyone have any comments on that one???? Do they own their building or renting???? These are things they should look at first. Not sure it is feasible, but they should take a look at it. Freeze salaries??? UGH - it is happening in the real world -

What kind of income honestly do they project from the new Mutt entries???? IMHO that was not a wise move for a pure bred club to open up to this. I personally do not want to compete against mutts. It is demeaning to our sport in that it was all set up to show off purebred dogs. There are registries available for unreg dogs. CKC, NRC, APRI, APR etc. so I don't see this helping at all.

I am not against mutts - just stating that that was never the purpose from the inception of AKC it was all about the purebred dog. IMHO this is a conflict of interest.

I do agree that judges need to pay something - it makes it more valuable and hopefully weed out some judges that are not good. That is just my opinion - I don't think they can honestly think for one minute that they can make judges make up for the entire lack of competitors. If there are not people showing they won't need any judges.

That is where they need to be looking to bring the sport back.

What about the "Grand CH"??? Wasn't that to increase people showing and campaigning????

They need to lead the pack, cut expenses, eliminate the excess first - I don't see adding a puppy class as a plus for the sport. I don't think any dog should be able to finish from the puppy class. I think at least half their points should have to come form the 18 month or open classes.

I think they are looking at cutting back from the top. Hard to pay for six figures salaries in a nonprofit organization. I heard that the AKC has a lease on the NY City offices but heard they could sublease it. But cutting back from the top is certainly something that will have to happen.

I hear ya on the Mutt thing but that's income and they won't cut what is more money for them.

I don't think the idea was to finish from the Jr. Puppies, but to give them experience in the ring, like they use to have in fun matches. Fewer and fewer fun matches around the country and many of these pups are traveling to the shows anyway. Not sure how that would work, even if it was an option. It was well received by some of the toy people as something they would participate in. It was said that they have them in Europe but not sure how that works either. Just passing on suggestions.

Judges already pay something and some are willing to pay more but just know this will result in higher entry fees for exhibitors eventually. I think you can't ask a provisional judge to pay more fees and then, judge the shows for $3 or $4 a dog without expenses. I agree with you that AKC needs to cut costs from the top. With a declining economy, declining entries, you just can increase fees so much before only a few can show their dogs. How much more are you willing to pay maybe the question?

[Dobs4ever]

I have participated in one fun match that was held prior to the show starting. Since I traveled from out of town I was there anyway. Have some of the very experienced club members do the judging. We don't need to pay a judge to do a fun match. Hold CGC's I also participated in their CGC just to support the club. A CGC evaluator usually charges somewhere in the range of $12.00 per entry -the club could charge $15.00 and $3.00 going back to the club.

CGC's are open to any dog so if the club got the word out they should have a good entry with some dogs from the community. PUBLICITY!!! Get on the radio and explain the CGC program to the community - this should be FREE. I just don't see clubs doing too much in that direction.

I know UDC held CGC's the two years I was show chair and we had 2 full classes of dogs entered. I am pretty sure it was a first for Natls. I do think clubs tend to sit back and say we did that once and it did not work. I heard that when I proposed we do a WAC at UDC Natls, but we got it passed and we had 25 dogs the first year and I think 21 the second. All new money to the club and the more you offer participants the more they tend to come. With todays traveling expenses you have to make it worth it to people.

[RKCM]

Our obedience club and several locally have a group of members that can certify the CGC tests. The most I've ever paid is $10. Many of them do it twice a year so I don't know how much more would participate. It is certainly a worthwhile test to present dogs in a good light to the public though. I know several of the clubs have matches before the shows. All good ideas.

Some have suggested they reduce the requirements to be a judge and that the observations on judges that already have several breeds or groups could be cut with savings on personal. Ring procedure is usually the objective since the breed tests and breed pacific have already been mastered. Others suggested that they stop making the papercopy of the judgesbook and have clubs use the on line version to save in printing. Just have a feeling AKC is going to have to cut more of their operating expense and maybe not ask more from the exhibitors, clubs, or judges. I'm not sure but I do think that the AKC, the clubs, and those that love the sport need to find ways to keep this sport alive by making it more fun for exhibitors and an interest to the public.

[RKCM]

Suggestions on the judges lists included a 3-6 puppy class or 4-6 class, an altered class, and reducing their donatations to the art museum.

The altered class kinna threw me but I guess, they have it in horse shows etc.

I do think whatever that AKC decides that it can't be in the way of ever raising fees because our economy just won't support that. Provisional judges making $3-4 a breed and no expenses can't be expected to give more, nor can those retired judges that may not judge that much. Judges in the sport should be respected and not be asked to pay ever raising fees for the honor to judge. There will be a fee but it needs to be fair and glad AKC is meeting with the groups to look at this.

I do think that whatever is decided that the exhibitors have a great responsibility to promote sportmanship and reduce elitism. It is our responsibility to welcome new people to show and do our best to make this sport fun for everyone. I think there are still quite a few that still see dogs shows as a sport, competitive, a hobby, and something to contribute to each breed. When it becomes all about ME....all about what my dogs produced....only about winning.......we lose entries and the sport suffers. I do think that we need to think about the decline in the sport and if value it's survival we need to find answers from the top down. It is something we all need to think about if we value dog shows.

[Dobs4ever]

They need to focus on how to get folks back and new ones participating - that is their real challenge.

[Panama]

The main thing that kept me from getting started was... going to shows as a spectator, a lot of the handlers would not give me the time of day. There were a few decent handlers/owners that were pleasant, but for the most part, the rest were quite rude. It makes people wonder, 'do I really want to be associated with people like that?' So, yes, I agree those that have been doing this for quite some time do need to be a little more welcoming to newcomers.... they were the newcomer at one point!

[RKCM]

When I handled toys years ago, you have a tight schedule. I would think showing dobermans and other large breed that a lot of the handlers are on a time schedule. Don't take that too personal. Most of them would love to show your dog. Maybe just asked them when they would have time to chat. Most will give you time. Unlike a lot of things, many of the top handler will not ask for your dog, especially not knowing you etc.......not sure.

[Dobs4ever]

kAt shows handlers are very focused on the dogs they are showing as they usually have a bunch to show. You just have to catch them in an off time. I hate it when someone comes up and a handler is trying to get one dog out of the ring and take another back in and someone want to ask them a question. As far as the handlers go if you catch follow them back to their area usually after they are done with Dobermans they are very open and friendly. Now some of the others I can't say much for.

It really helps if you have a friend to go with. That way you don't feel so out there.
I usually go by myself and just do my own thing. It is easy to get enwrapped in your dog and kinda loose the world around you.

[Panama]

I finally said "what the heck, why not" and went for it. What's the worst they can do, point & whisper? Nothing against professional handlers, I know they put alot of work into what they do, but I was there for the same reason they were (minus the pay check). I was there with MY dog to have fun with him and meet those with similar interests.

Exhibiting was a whole different ball game than ring side spectator! The two I figured would NOT be happy to see little 'ol me out there with my Dobe (for our 1st time) were very nice and very helpful!

I know handlers are very busy at the shows but if someone shows interest in their dog or breed, they should at least be cordial and tell them something to the affect of "I'm swamped right now, but if you catch me afterwards & I'll be more than happy to talk with you or answer your questions", not "I don't have time right now".

[RKCM]

I know handlers are very busy at the shows but if someone shows interest in their dog or breed, they should at least be cordial and tell them something to the affect of "I'm swamped right now, but if you catch me afterwards & I'll be more than happy to talk with you or answer your questions", not "I don't have time right now".

You have a good point! Sorry our friend was treated like that. There will always be people without manners, or a laps of them. :cool: