Dogged Disparity

Let’s begin with the basics.

Simply stated, the premise of AKC conformation judging is:

• The evaluation of dogs against their individual written standards as handed down from the breed parent clubs and approved by AKC.

• The evaluation of dogs for their anatomical soundness, breed type and suitability to do the intended job for that breed as set forth in the standard.

• The evaluation of breed specimens for the purpose of improving breeding stock and future progeny, highlighting what is positive and discouraging what misses the mark.

So is there a disparity between the winning outcomes of professionally handled exhibits as compared to owner-handled ones? If a statistical study were to be done, the scales would indeed tip largely in favor of those exhibits with professional handlers.

The “Great George Alston” used to profess in his handling clinics of yesteryear that professional handlers (and I paraphrase) win over owner-handlers because they pursue handling and conditioning as a profession as opposed to a weekend hobby. That information, coming from him, I took it as gospel as a newcomer.

But knowing what I know now, and having witnessed the dedication and accomplishments of so many successful owner-handlers, I no longer agree with Mr. Alston’s sentiment.

There is absolutely no intent to disparage the beautiful job most professional handlers do — not by any means — but now, after 30-plus years of studying, breeding, learning, and trying to perfect a single breed, that generalization about the professional knowing and doing better is just that: a generalization. 

The disparity in judging outcomes was apparent enough to owner-handlers and to AKC itself that it was decided to counter it with a separate “National Owner-Handled Series.” NOHS was created to satisfy the discouraged owner-handler exhibitors. The formation of an “Owner-Handled Series” is in and of itself an admission on the part of AKC that the playing field was not level. Are these dedicated advocates of their breeds not deserving of equal consideration by the judging panels with the dogs they bring to exhibit, or are they the “red-headed stepchild” of the sport before they even walk into the ring?

Judges need to think again before they make their selections based on the hand controlling the lead. Those same owner-handlers were probably the people these judges went to for education and familiarization of the breed’s type, structure, anatomy, make, shape and nuances when they were applying to judge.

How can an owner-handler be awarded double-digit NOHS Bests in Show, double-digit NOHS Reserve Bests in Show with 148 NOHS Group 1sts and then stand in the regular Best in Show ring more than 30 times after winning the regular group, never to win a single regular Best in Show or Reserve Best in Show? This is an actual scenario based on published records. It can leave you scratching your head … or maybe signaling a bias.

Perhaps instead of addressing the judging disparity with two judging divisions, just perhaps, the judges should go back to the basics of … just judging the dogs.

This sport is certainly strong in its love for the dogs and its passion for improving the breeds, but it still could aspire to more. Judges choosing their placements purely on the quality of the exhibits in front of them should not only be an aspiration — it should be the realty.
 

(For additional reader comments on the AKC National Owner-Handled Series, see the Question of the Week in this issue.)