Years ago, I wrote an “And More” in which I suggested it may be a good idea for AKC to consider geographic boundaries in which dogs were shown, similar to that used in determining the earning of points or the way the old Quaker Oats Awards were distributed. My thinking then, and I believe it even more strongly today, was to introduce a system that would not only reduce the flying of dogs outside their geographic area on a weekly or monthly basis, but to de-emphasize the point accumulation hysteria and to assure some sort of concern for the health and welfare of the dog being exhibited. As I recall, I would have divided the country into six or eight sections. A dog's primary section would have been his owner or handler's place of residence. The dog could be exhibited an unlimited number of times in this area. Thereafter, pending the proximity of the geographic sections it lived in, it could be exhibited in other sections (excluding from this scheme independent specialties and all Nationals) a specific number of times per year. If the owner or handler decided to go over the limit of times the dog was exhibited in outside areas, the win would count but NO points from these wins would be considered in the standings. What I had hoped would happen would be the very object stated earlier on in this paragraph.
Needless to say, this idea went nowhere, as do any proposals that seem to interfere with the permissive attitude of letting the sport run freely without any overrule. Now, then, I don't believe any one proposal is a cure-all for what is going on in our sport today. But isn't it time to face up to our existing problems and attempt to solve them? Perhaps this is where one of those myriad of Delegate Committees could prove their worth and enter the fray. Certainly, it would be nice to hear that Staff was in on this sort of thing, but whether the Board would be willing to permit them to get so involved is another matter.
I must say, some of my friend John Mandeville's writing perplexes me. I remember only too well when John, a very valued member of the AKC establishment, headed the Judges Department. So much of what he writes today contradicts his positions of yesteryear. In talking to John about this, he admitted that there is a giant difference in working for AKC and writing about them. One of the best things about John is his willingness to talk frankly about disagreements we have about some of his writings. Certainly, I was at odds with him about what he wrote about the positive nature of the Gladstone-Merriam votes in the new judges' approval processes. I thought they were both being obstructionist rather than positive inputs, as they usually are. I did agree with him, however, about the role of the field rep in this new process. It should have been limited rather than expanded. Similarly, I was astounded by his failure in his column this week to even consider the impact of Article 10, Section 9 in the Board's role in determining who may or may not judge. His use of Rule Chapter 7, Section 1, as the sole basis in determining who may judge was surprising at best. True, the Rule spells out specific definitions insofar as who may apply to judge on an occupational level. But the Board is then empowered under 10-9 to set additional standards as it sees fit. Such a narrow interpretation on his part may have fit his argument, but in my opinion was totally incorrect.
I could not have been happier (that’s sarcastically written, in case you missed it) to learn that the Board went so far as to grant themselves the one additional breed passed onto new approvals in the latest judging approval changes. I was and remain totally against their change in policy with regard to getting new breeds for sitting Board members. Had they done this for Boards to come, it would have been more palatable to me, but I considered that vote to be a case of immediate enrichment and self-aggrandizement. This new move is just over-the-top. It's hard enough to imagine field reps evaluating their bosses’ judging talents—talk about conflicts of interest! Why in the world would a Board endorse the rush for new breeds in this manner? I had hoped they would have morally taken a position that would have distinguished themselves from the rush for new breed approvals, which is a major philosophic and practical problem in the sport today. •