Question of the Week
Jo Lynn
McDonald, Pennsylvania
I don't think this is a good or practical idea. Clubs need the freedom to choose their own panels without further regulation, as many things are involved in those decisions.
Steve Sorenson
Oviedo, Florida
How many judges are delegates who do not want their assignments limited? There would be a class-action lawsuit by judges who are limited. Clubs need judges who can daily judge full assignments on multi-show weekends, limiting the clubs’ exposure to travel and hotel costs.
Suzanne Orban-Stagle
Hurlock, Maryland
I think there should be a limit, allowing different faces to stand in ring center, thus allowing for different opinions!
Richard J. Lewis
Selah, Washington
Yes, we do have a relatively small group of judges repeatedly showing up on panels across the country. Putting a limit on how many shows they can judge a year is not the solution to this problem. A limit would only reduce the supply of judges clubs needed to fill out a panel. We are already leaning heavily on Canada to cover the breeds on our panels because of the shortage of American judges who do five groups or more. With so many three-day clusters being put on by single clubs, it makes economic sense to seek out judges who do four groups or more. The percentage of American judges who are approved for four or more groups is a very small percentage of the total American conformation-judge population. The fact that the AKC board of directors doubled the number of days foreign judges could serve in America is an admission that there is a supply problem.
The problem lies with the current judging-approval process combined with the advent of three-, four- and even five-day clusters. In America, the overwhelming majority of judges never become all-rounders. Therein lies the problem. We simply don’t have enough home-grown all-rounders and five-plus-group judges to handle three to four days of dog shows. The late Steve Gladstone had an answer to the supply problem. Some readers familiar with the system he championed might have had issues with that system. However, had the “Gladstone system" been left intact after 2017, judges would have been moving through groups much faster that the current system allows. The result is that we would now have many more judges approved to do five to seven groups and the problem of the same judges appearing frequently in a region would probably not exist.
Bonnie Linnell Clarke
Holly Springs, North Carolina
No, the number of assignments per year should not be limited. But I do believe the mileage and number of days between assignments should be increased.
Desi Murphy
Monroe, New York
There should not be a limit on how many assignments a judge can accept in a year. It would be more work and create more expense for the AKC. It also would see the better judges judging less and the poorer judges judging more often.
Linda Whitney
Wesley Chapel, Florida
Yes, including a limit in a particular state.
Sherry Rodarmor
San Antonio, Texas
Yes, they should be limited considering the same ones always seem to judge groups, which makes them handler judges.
Brianna Bischoff
Houston, Texas
Until the AKC revamps the judges’ licensing process (as we all hope they will do, post haste), we cannot limit the amount of times a judge can be hired. Some clubs are quite small and have to hire couples who share hotels and rental-car costs in order to offset expenses … as well as all-rounder judges who save clubs money.
Janice Mcclary
La Habra Heights, California
No ... Show chairmen should do their research and see the judging history of each person they are considering. The judges themselves should limit themselves to how many shows they judge in a given area.
Jan Leonard
Denver, Colorado
No! It is hard enough for some clubs to fill their panel of judges within their budget as it is. To hire more judges in order to cover all the assignment needs without having many of the multiple-group judges available by the last half of the year will cause a burden to many clubs.
Marcia Yeager
Ocala, Florida
I don't think that we need to limit the number of times that they can judge in a year's time, but I do think we should limit the number of times they can judge in a particular state or within a certain mileage of where they have judged previously in the year.
Polly Smith
St Stephens Church, Virginia
An absolute no. At no time should judges have a limit on the number of shows they can take. A kennel club should have no interference in who they hired to judge.
Kathy Schwabe
Chadbourn, North Carolina
As a newer judge, I have mixed feelings about this idea. Yes, there is a huge number of AKC-approved judges, but a relatively small percentage are regularly seen on panels! There are literally thousands of judges who are approved for less than one group — only their own breed or a handful of breeds — and a quick search on the AKC judges directory shows they have no upcoming assignments!
I don’t feel that the judges should necessarily be limited on the number of assignments; we already are restricted by miles and date. What needs to happen is that the clubs need to hire some fresh faces! Instead of a club only hiring judges with two, three or more groups, put the effort into helping newer judges advance!
Sue Bauman
Allentown, Pennsylvania
I feel that judges should be limited to how many shows in an AKC district they can judge in. Since the AKC divides up the country by districts for the point schedule, why not use it for this purpose as well? That way it is easier to track what judge has been in each location and how many times in a year they have judged there. This could also be made available to the show chairs when creating their judge panel.
Dr. Eric Liebes
Peyton, Colorado
AKC judges have a limit to assignments: 30 days and 200 miles. This limit is insufficient in the more spread-out part of the country, like in Colorado, where most clubs define conflicting assignments as being in state for three or six months. Many judges (including me) limit ourselves more than the 30 days and 200 miles. I don't ever want to judge the same puppy class twice, so I won't accept assignments in the same general show area within a few months. I don't think we need any more limits than what the clubs impose and common sense.
Randy Garren
Apex, North Carolina
My answer as a show chair and judge for many decades is a definitive and resounding NO! I believe in free choice as to whomever clubs want to hire and the judge's discretion of accepting assignments. The "market" will take care of itself without unnecessary and possibly detrimental intervention. If a judge does a capable job, he or she will receive assignments and certainly the reverse is true. Limits would only penalize our better judges (and conscientious show chairs) while rewarding the less competent.
Peter J. Festa
Smithtown, New York
There is no reason in the world why an AKC judge should be limited on the amount of judging assignments they can do in a year. The same judges keep on getting used over and over again because we obviously don't have enough judges to fill the needs of all the clubs in our nation. As a breeder, judge and show chair, it's very difficult to get judges to cover the shows in the New York metro area as well as the tri-state area with all the shows we have. Plus the distance rule for judging. It takes a lot to become a judge, and great cost and work. Why on earth would anyone limit a judge from judging? We should encourage more people in our sport to encourage new people to enter our sport. And try to make it a little easier for potential judges to become judges.
Lorraine Bisso
Metairie, Louisiana
Rather than limiting the number of assignments, I think changing the AKC restrictions to 300 miles and at least 45 days would be more beneficial. The current 200 miles/30 days is outdated given the number of shows, clusters and frequently used sites.
Marjorie Martorella
Millstone Township, New Jersey
I don’t think AKC should put a limit on the number of shows a judge can accept annually.
The show-giving club should hire whomever they want to judge at their shows. AKC does not need to micromanage the club’s judging panel.
Sylvia Arrowwood
Charleston, South Carolina
Yes, limit the number of shows a judge can serve at. There are plenty of newbies out there who deserve a chance, but the same-old, same-old keep showing up.
On the other hand, it is cost prohibitive for some clubs to hire a judge who cannot cover three or four groups. If a judge can only do one or two groups, it does not pay to bring them in due to costs.
Nitsa Trayler
Tracy, California
The problem isn’t that the same judges are judging all the time on all the panels. The problem is the process to apply for more breeds and make judges more available is not only ridiculous but very expensive. The current process for applying for new breeds for your first breeds is cumbersome, and complicated, and in my opinion does not turn out any better judges. Slim down the process and get better judges out there. There are many judges who stopped applying for more breeds because of the complication of getting the applications done.