It was interesting to read the reactions of Jerry Schwartz and Andrew Brace to the concept of taking breeds away from judges. While they both disliked the idea, their reasons were as different as could be. Jerry's disapproval was seemingly based on how can one question “subjective opinion” versus a reaction to someone else's subjective opinion, mixed in with fear of potential lawsuits. Andrew's was perhaps a bit more basic, and one with which I have considerable empathy. He stated, and rightly so, “I would never wish to have my judging of a breed evaluated by someone who is not themselves a qualified and approved judge of a breed.” That's a bit too broad for me, however, as I think the word “qualified” is correct but hardly think that because they are an “approved judge” it entitles them to that kind of authority.
While both writers make decent arguments to sustain their positions, both truly are missing the point. Insofar as the American judging approval processes are concerned, the face of judging in America has changed radically in the last 30 years. New approaches had to be created in light of the permissive nature of the judging approval processes, which has developed in that timeframe. The large growth in the number of shows held weekly created a need for people to fill assignments at these shows. There are today over 3,000 approved conformation judges in the AKC Judges Directory. Not only did the number of shows increase, but the type of shows also changed radically. No longer were or are shows held on weekends only, but clusters of shows are held in five and six consecutive day numbers.Indeed, some judges are known to judge 9 shows in 11 days. This requires multi-group judges to be hired in order for some clusters to be economically feasible. Faced with the needs and demands of the show-giving clubs and the Fancy itself, the Board's tact was to be lenient and permissive in handing out both initial and additional approvals for new breeds. The generic-type judge was and still seems to be encouraged over the breed-expert-type judge. The nuances of a breed are sacrificed today in the need to fill assignments. And I won't even go into the monies being paid to the judge to do these assignments. That's another matter altogether.
So in the year 2006, we have ended up with an overextended judging approval situation. Too many people judging breeds with which they are truly unfamiliar. It's a technique of pointing rather than evaluating, and some people are quite good at fooling many exhibitors and their peers as well. The problem seems to arise in the case of the greedy arbitrators who want more and more breeds and groups without becoming seasoned in the breeds they already have. No doubt, the impact of the new program will fall on the back of this type of judge. There are a large number of people who come to mind, and hopefully they will be successfully delayed and/or weeded out.
The problem, of course, is in determining who is to do the weeding out. Leaving this job in the hands of only the field rep AND the field rep alone is, in my opinion, a giant mistake. I think existing and retired judges who are breed experts should be pressed into service, and I also believe qualified breeders should be considered. Let's face it, most field reps are limited in their knowledge to a minimum number of breeds. How can they be all-breed evaluators? Candidly, I am delighted that the Board has, with Staff input and direction, made the decision they have with regard to taking breeds away, and with further refinement, I think this is an affirming moment in the development of our sport. •