Question of the Week

Bonnie Threlfall

Cary, North Carolina

Although I have used the term myself, there is no such thing as a “cheap champion.” It is very expensive to participate in a dog show. I think “meaningless champion” is a better descriptor. If a dog doesn’t run scared around the ring or bite the judge, it will eventually finish. Everything and anything that is shown long enough finishes here in the States.

The class competition at U.S. shows is weak at best, so how does adding more ways to get points or reducing the numbers of the point scale improve the quality of our breeds? If and until the number of shows is reduced (pipe dream, I know) — forcing more competition at the same location and eliminating the need to rapidly advance more and more judges, who realistically should only be judging their own breed or limited to their own group, if that — the American championship title is absolutely no proof of quality. Indeed, it does currently border on meaningless.

Mary Aggers

Vermilion, Ohio

In many breeds often the entry is one, and if you're lucky two. In the Terrier Group as a whole, VERY often the breed entry is small or zero. 

With the cost of entries, plus travel, exhibitors do not want to enter for no points. The entire system needs a major rethinking. When showing in the late ’80's/early ’90s, it took 34 to 35 bitches for three points in Rotties. Now it’s four, and often there are not enough for a major.

Now with my Norfolks, it's almost a lost cause to show the breed. I am sure this is not the only breed like this: Something’s got to change!

Maria Arechaederra

Silverado, California

In a perfect world, every breed would have majors every weekend and consistently face deep, meaningful competition within its own ranks to earn championships. But that’s simply not the reality we live in. With declining entries and registrations across many breeds, especially the rarer ones, there is nothing “cheap” or easy about earning a group placement from the classes to accrue points. In fact, for low-entry breeds, these placements can be hard fought and well deserved.

There’s also a broader — and often overlooked — consideration. In the past, exhibitors of rare breeds would often choose not to attend shows if they were the only entry, resulting in missed opportunities for public education. I can’t count how many times spectators have approached me saying, “I was so disappointed — there was a Kuvasz entered last weekend, but it didn’t show up.” These moments matter. The presence of a rare breed in the ring, even as a single entry, provides visibility and sparks curiosity, helping preserve and promote these breeds for future generations

Heather Humphrey 

Naples, Florida

Regarding the point schedule, I think we do need various ways. I have a rare breed. It's almost impossible to get a large enough entry for a five-point major unless we are at Royal Canin. The entry is higher for more popular/common breeds, and the numbers increase accordingly.

Pam Mandeville

Somerset, New Jersey

First, any judge who answers "Yes, we have too many ‘cheap champions’” and doesn't also say how many times they've withheld Winners or BOB in the last year should be ignored. Walk the walk. 

Next, suggesting the reduced numbers are making it "easier" to get a major misunderstands the point schedule. Unless AKC made some significant change in the algorithm, the target is that approximately 18 percent of entries be majors, a percentage that has existed for years. Whether that number is six or 16, it's just as hard. What the lowered number DOES reflect is a drop-off in entries and registrations, something that should be a bigger concern than whether or not Fido is "worthy." (Why is it that long-timers look at the past through rose-colored glasses and today through a microscope?)

This debate has the whiff of clutching at pearls while ignoring what's happening to dog shows throughout the country. I started more than 35 years ago, also in Region 2, when it took 10 bitches for a three-point major. (Today it's five.) ... But at that time, two or three breeders with one or two additional bitches could make up that major. At that time, 1,040 were registered in my breed; last year it was 584.  A "small" show was anything 1,000 dogs or less; today some of the clubs that regularly had shows larger than that no longer exist. At a time when the future of dog shows is at risk, is this really the message to send to people still eager to compete: Your dogs are no good?

John used to say that the best thing that could happen to purebred dogs would be for there to be a champion in every neighborhood. Why? It would tell the general public that a good dog is a family dog that they, too, could have. Just think if that was the opinion of the general public. Just imagine if every televised dog show highlighted the first-time owners showing their family pet. Without showing disrespect to Monty and his hard-working, talented team, the story that resonated with the public was Archer and Antoinelle. National Dog Show, take note: You reach more than 22 million people. Don't you think a few highlights showing moms and dads taking the family pet to compete at the dog show might not resonate with some of those families tuning in before the turkey is served? What if just one-hundredth of 1 percent of those people got interested? Sounds small, but it's 2,220 people who might just think getting a show dog is a good thing.

The reality is we now have a tiered system of titles in conformation, which I think is terrific. The Grand Championship keeps people involved, and as the levels increase, there's more of a challenge. Great. Find greater quality there.

Hey, if you want to go all elitist when it comes to conformation, fine by me; I once outlined an essay titled "Embrace Your Inner Elitist." But you'd also better be prepared for what that means: $100 entries, fewer shows, smaller shows, fewer clubs, more participation in companion and performance events ... and more Doodles and Poos.

Lori Sternola

Charlotte, North Carolina

Getting points as a class animal by earning a group placement is anything BUT a “cheap” way to finish. I do, however, think that at least half of your 15 points and one major should have to come in competition within your own breed. It’s not OK for a dog to be a champion and not have won over a reasonable number of its own breed. 

Joan Beck

Cottage Grove, Minnesota

It’s not possible in this day and age with the cost of everything going up. Yes, I understand the term is supposed to relate to the dearth of competition out there. But as costs to show continue to escalate and fewer people are willing to spend in the neighborhood of $5,000 to $7,000 to finish a dog, AKC will drive more people away by raising the bar higher for a championship title. All you will accomplish is shrinking the gene pools further because fewer people will show, and there will be fewer champions to breed to. Alternatively, breeders will just give up on the value of an AKC championship and use other, cheaper and easier registries for their conformation titles. There are still a few people addicted to dog shows who will continue to spend their money on AKC shows, but the trends show that people are reaching their limit.  

In addition, priorities are changing. There are so many alternative and more fun venues for people to earn titles with their dogs. Where once conformations shows were the preferred way to spend a weekend with your dogs, these days people would rather compete in agility, rally, barn hunt, etc. 

Shelley Hennessy

Toledo, Ohio

There may be “cheap champions” in some breeds, but certainly not all!

Definitely Best of Winners should get a point. If you beat another of your breed, you should get a point, whether it’s the same sex or not.

I personally do not think that group placements warrant any points.

A few months ago, I gave a dog a Group 4th, and the handler actually complained that a Group 3rd would have given the dog a major!

Julianne McCoy

Columbia, South Carolina

Yes, we need other ways to accrue points because the fees continue to rise. Encourages handlers who are also breeders and owners to strive to breed the best. If there were no other ways to gain points, owner-handlers showing dogs to gain points to finish a dog will become more competitive. Also it will become more political than it is today, forcing owner-handlers out of the ring and forcing those who want to continue to hire professional handlers and not be able to enjoy what it means to show their own dogs. It is already becoming an unfair playing field due to judges catering to handlers, but not in all cases. We still have many judges who judge with honesty. It is already difficult to bring new people into the sport. So many unanswered questions of what conformation competition will look like in the future.

Eric Liebes

Peyton, Colorado

As far as champion points from group placements and Best of Winners points, I think those are just fine. It is hard to get group placements, and group placers always beat quality dogs of other breeds. A complaint I heard when this was proposed — that in a small group the Group 4th dog may not have beaten anything of quality — is not a problem: There are probably no points to win there anyway.  If a Winners entry is really the better of the one who got a major or points by defeating others and therefore goes BOW, those points are deserved. 

I think "cheap champions" are a different problem. Judges must be willing to withhold on a class entry that is not deserving, and an automatic BOW just to split the points is a bad choice. Judges must ask themselves, "Is this dog good enough that I'm proud to help it become a champion?" before awarding BOW points.  

The newer "magic point" (the point that comes from nowhere) for single entries in both sexes presents a different problem for the judge. They award an undeserving single entry WD by simple politeness and then are faced with a not-very-deserving single-entry class bitch; if they award WB, someone is getting a BOW point ... not a desirable result. The only way out at that point is to withhold WB, and that may not be fair. Judges need to remember this when they are considering an undeserving dog entry before giving WD. Either that, or the rule that the judge must give BOW when WD and WB are awarded could be relaxed.

Deborah Reed

Holly Hill, South Carolina

I think you have to consider that with low-entry breeds, exhibitors are paying $30 or more for an entry. If the number of dogs/bitches competing for points is consistently lower than the points awarded, it is nearly impossible to finish a champion. The cost would be prohibitive, too. We may lose exhibitors. So instead of basing points toward a championship on the number of dogs competing, maybe we should look at the quality of the dogs competing and make awards accordingly.

Yes, maybe throw out points altogether and judge only on quality. This might also mean that more than one dog qualifies for title points/ certificates.

Marcie Dobkin

Poway, California

You’re kidding, right? First it was single class dog/single class bitch BOW. Now it’s points for group placements under Group 1st. So a dog can finish without even defeating ONE of its OWN BREED!  

Too many shows …  In Division 9, more than 85 percent of each group requires only four class dogs for a major.  And in the Terrier Group they’re ALL only four dogs for a major. With social media, it should be way too easy to build majors. Just the further dumbing down of our sport. Entrants have turned into “ribbon collectors” instead of trying to improve breeding stock. Pretty soon we’ll be like other “registries” — you pay a fee, you get a ribbon and a title … Sad …..

Richard F. Sedlack

Middlefield, Ohio

The point schedule is the only thing these days that is cheap about showing dogs. That and the mediocre quality of dogs being shown and judges’ lack of knowledge of the details of any given breed. In 1970 in my original breed, the German Shepherd Dog, it took 76 dogs and 78 bitches for five points, which was rarely found anywhere but specialties. A fraction of that is needed now.

This dilemma has its roots in the gas crisis of decades ago, when clusters were allowed to help that situation but were never abandoned. Hence on "any given Sunday," you have several choices on where to go, making a drive you wouldn't do for a two-day weekend absolutely feasible. Instead of two weekends a month, you are able to attend three or four or more dogs shows every week. This and cost dilute the entry everywhere, hence the cheap-champion issue. 

Sue Bauman 

Allentown, Pennsylvania

Yes, as people who do multiple entries for several shows pick the one that they like best. This then reduces the points for the entries that do show up!

Sandra L. Bridges 

Lakeside, Arizona 

We absolutely do NOT need more ways to create champions! Conversely, it would be better for almost all our breeds and the sport in general if AKC required that the number of shows in general be REDUCED. This is from my perspective of being involved in dog shows as first an exhibitor, then as a breeder/owner/exhibitor, and eventually as an AKC-approved judge for 37 of my total 51 years of involvement. 

The increase in the total number of shows over these years has resulted in lower entries and the need for more judges, which produces less truly well-grounded and knowledgeable judges. More judges just "tripped on through the boxes," and expect judging to become their sole source of income.

LESS shows might encourage show chairs to be more discriminating in their choices of judging panels. Perhaps we could have those larger shows with higher-quality entries and a BETTER QUALITY of champion, rather than just MORE MEDIOCRE champions finished by handlers taking them all over the country to lesser-quality judges.

Leslie Simis

Temple City, California

Well, unfortunately, the numbers in my breed have certainly dropped off considerably. While I don’t think that this makes a “cheap champion,” I do find it troubling to see a dog not worthy of BOW receive the award more often than not. As far as a dog being able to get a major with a group placement, I think it’s about time! There are so many breeds that never have enough competition to earn a major; if they are really worthy, a group placement is a good thing. It is sadly a sign of the times, as fewer and fewer people are getting involved in dog shows, so it was inevitable that we end up here. But honestly, not only have numbers dropped dramatically; the quality of the dogs has also suffered significantly. I still love this sport endlessly, but I am also quite worried where we may be headed, as I see many dogs get titled that aren’t worthy. 

Sylvia Arrowwood

Charleston, South Carolina

It depends on who is paying the entry fees, costs of attending shows and perhaps even a professional handler.

"Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder, and "cheap" is in the eye of the person fronting the funds.

Anita Brown 

Hazel Green, Alabama

There is a reason why we have alternative goals with rare breeds. Try being the exhibitors who are wasting money time after time to even find a point. We already have to form a coalition to make majors. If it is practically impossible to finish a breed, they will not find favor with exhibitors and contribute to the death of the breed.

Steven Herman

Wesley Chapel, Florida 

It is too easy to obtain a championship. I understand entries are down, but the point system compensates for that. The only real way to make getting the title significant is to decrease the number of shows, which will raise competition at the remaining events. The point system would rise with it. We certainly do not need all these new paths to a championship. I believe the policies are wrong and are in place to garner more fees.

Kate McMillan

Delisle, Saskatchewan, Canada

Instead of fretting about points earned at the group level, we should be addressing the root problem: How did entire regions of America become points wastelands, even in what were once popular breeds?

Are new breed approvals producing a net gain — or are they breaking a shrinking exhibitor base into smaller and smaller fragments?

Is there an unintended consequence to the long list of niche (vs. breed function) performance titles being offered? Is it redirecting newcomers away from AKC's core mission — the BREEDING of purebred dogs — toward racing them instead?