So you'd fault the kid with the trained dog? Or the 'dull' dog, and
place the kid with the hooligan? Why? IMO, mediocrity shouldn't be
rewarded, even in 4-H. If the dog needs more work, the dog needs more
work. To reward 'effort', or how far the dog has come, the judge would
have to be privy to the teams history.

No.

To begin with, your dog is expected to be stacked the entire time you are in
the ring. Your dog should constantly be standing four-square (or you should
be trying to con it into doing so).

I fault the three kids that walked into the ring, stood there watching the
judge, didn't touch their dogs until the dog was on the table. Their dogs
weren't stacked. Yet the girl that was obviously doing her best to get her
dog to cooperate didn't place, while two of the three that didn't do a dang
thing except when the judge was looking directly at them placed.

I don't like to see that the only kids that win awards are the ones who have
spotlessly trained dogs. It's a lot harder to make a dog that's misbehaving
look good, but the kids that manage to do that don't get rewarded because
the dog is misbehaving while waiting in line.

~Emily


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.501 / Virus Database: 299 - Release Date: 7/14/2003

From: (Emily=A0Carroll)

Their dogs weren't stacked. Yet the girl that was obviously doing her
best to get her dog to cooperate didn't place, while two of the three
that didn't do a dang thing except when the judge was looking directly
at them placed.

I dunno, seems to me that you're holding the kids with the calm dogs to
a higher standard. Their dogs are at least standing, just not
perfectly. The kid with the uncooperative dog, IMO, would appear to
have not been training her dog beforehand. The judge can only critique
what he/she sees in front of them. The dogs standing still are being
'shown' to better advantage than the boingy dog.

I don't like to see that the only kids that win awards are the ones who
have spotlessly trained dogs. It's a lot harder to make a dog that's
misbehaving look good, but the kids that manage to do that don't get
rewarded because the dog is misbehaving while waiting in line.

Indeed, and the way it should be, IMO. It's showmanship. Do you really
want to handicap the placements? How on earth would you go about doing
that? What if one of the kids 'just standing there' is standing there
with a dog that was running wild when found, and took the kid three
weeks just to _touch it? And the kid with the uncooperative dog _has an
uncooperative dog because he/she couldn't be bothered with 'training'
until the night before fair?

I think I understand where you're coming from... that hard work should
be rewarded? But you can't judge that in a few minutes in the ring.
Those kind of rewards would have to come from the leaders to be
meaningful. The judge is judging what's presented to them at that
particular time, and the placements as you've described them were right
on, IMO.

Debbie

"Melissa S. Frye" wrote in
:


DO you show in breed? Honestly I find a lot of the bitching abotu
handlers comes down to -
People not wanting to admit that the pro is a better handler and
groomer and might just have a better dog than they do.

I know it happens, but I realy think it is really easy to say it's
because X is a handler, rather than the judge didn't like my dog's
dippy topline.

OMG Melissa, I totally agree. I have stewarded a few times now (it's
SO interesting and such a learning experience to be on that end of the
game!) and many times, when the handler won, he/she has had the better
dog, or made the dog LOOK like the better dog. Handling is an art, a
skill--and pros do it for a living. They have mastered the art and can
do it effortlessly. Yes, I have absolutely seen judges be political.
Politics lives in every arena. Judges are human. Humans make mistakes
and can be "bought." What's important is that you are honest with
yourself about your dogs and your ability to present your dogs to their
best advantage.



I have seen a handler present a dog that made the dog look like a
different animal (moving it at just the right speed, really getting it
happy, as opposed to the way it looked the day before..

Absolutely.

--
-Abby

Pems, Aussie, and a Pug

****Remove shoes to reply****

"Melissa S. Frye" wrote in
:


DO you show in breed? Honestly I find a lot of the bitching abotu
handlers comes down to -
People not wanting to admit that the pro is a better handler and
groomer and might just have a better dog than they do.


BTW this happens with "regular" exhibitors, too. I had a gal tell me,
after my dog special won BOB over her special, that the only reason her
dog didn't win is b/c the judge didn't like skinny blonde handlers.
snort My dog has the better head, body, muscle tone, coat,
personality/showy attitude. They are equal on side-movement, her dog has
a better rear. I knew this judge particularly likes a very showy dog who
has pretty side movement and LOVES a gorgeous head. BTW, her dog is also
way oversize for the standard.

Now, was this "politics" or resentment?

--
-Abby

Pems, Aussie, and a Pug

****Remove shoes to reply****

(DogStar716) wrote in
:


At any rate, there were a few pissed off Berner people that day, one
of them decided to put a professional handler on her dog who was
consistently losing to my friends dog. The proffesional handler also
handled the judges own dogs. Same exact dog, different handler.

Guess who took Breed that day?

Well, AKC reps should have been called about this as it's totally
inappropriate, and possibly not allowed, for a judge's handler to
present dogs to that judge. At any rate, it was one judge, one day.
There's always another dog show, and if your friend is only in it to
win, that's not what it should be about. I have a dog special, too. I
win, and I lose. When I lose, I look at the dog who beat mine and I look
at the handler's skills (pro or not) and I really think about how we
performed that day. We lost last Saturday to a bitch I don't really care
for. Did my dog deserve the win that day? No..he wasn't feeling well and
didn't show his best. The bitch is a showing fool and her handler knows
how to make the dog look her absolute best. She's in perfect condition,
coat glossy, not a blemish to be seen. Yeah, it sucks when you truly
lose to an inferior dog, but it happens! Judges are human, and judging
is subjective! Yeah, definitely it happens. There are corrupt judges.
But it doesn't happen as often as people want to think it does.

Either way, it is a sport and I do it because I have fun, and if we
lose, oh well. There's another show next weekend!

--
-Abby

Pems, Aussie, and a Pug

****Remove shoes to reply****

But it doesn't happen as often as people want to think it does.

You need to travel out to my area. Small show circuit, same people, same
handlers winning all the time.

Sorry, buts that how it is here.

Dogstar716
Come see Gunnars Life: http://hometown.aol.com/dogstar716/index.html

On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 09:06:03 -0400, "Emily Carroll"
wrote:


Oh, good for you. I thought you were a mother hen concerned for your
brood.

I'm concerned for "my kids" (the kids in my club) but I'm more concerned
that dog showing in 4-H not turn into a caricature of what it's meant to be
(like horse showing has turned into). I did it as a kid for the pure
enjoyment of it. I didn't argue with the judges' decisions, and I wasn't
particularly good at it. However, as I grew up I did start taking some
ribbons because of experience.


OK, so this is really about group dog activities for kids with
ordinary dogs. Why structure that around a "dog show" where cocker
spaniels compete against whippets -- as though such competition could
mean anything for kids learning the basics with a family dog??? Why
not just tell 'em -- "This ain't competitive. For that you go to the
AKC."

It's junior showmanship. It's based on how well the kid can make their dog
look and revolves around knowing how your breed is shown (if you have a
purebred or obvious-lineage mix), but more than that. The kids are
(ideally) asked questions about dogs and dog health, which weighs into their
placements. It's not judged based on the dog--it's judged based on how well
the kid can make their dog look following the basic premises of dog
shows--you gait the dog at a speed that is good for that dog, you set the
dog up according to how it's breed is handled in the ring (stacking vs. free
baiting), and the other little nuances of conformation showing.

Some of the classes I would've placed differently than the judges. I want
to see a kid with a difficult dog that's TRYING get placed above the kid
that can just stand at the end of the leash without doing anything.

The key to winning lots of ribbons is paying a handler lots of money to
play
politics. OTOH, it's not the only reason people show in conformation.
Some
people (like me) just enjoy doing it, regardless of ribbons or lack
therof.

I've seen it on Animal Planet. It's right up there with Dr. Laura on
my "painful to watch" list. I pity you if you like it and I pity you
more if you participate.

And I pity people that make crass judgements without thinking them through.

Who determines what the breed is supposed to look like? And what
happens to temperament, etc., over a number of generations when you
aim for that physical type above all else? It's one thing to breed
the biggest mum, or whatever, but I think it's demented to seek an
exotic or extreme phenotype when breeding animals with feelings.

The national clubs determine the breed standard, at least here in the US
with AKC. The standards are originally based off what the original breeders
were striving for, at the time of AKC acceptance. However, breed clubs have
been encouraged to revise their standards to meet the AKC's format (which
puts things in a certain order, not change the wording), and the clubs are
allowed to revise their standard at will (I believe at will...) IMO, this
can be good or bad for the breed. It can be good if the standard is greatly
ambiguous about an important point, such as head structure in a "head breed"
(think Bulldog) or movement in a "gait breed" (setters, afghans, boxers).
OTOH, it can be bad if it is changed to match the current "trends" in the
breed. For example, if the GSDCA were to change their standards to meet
current trends, the breed would go downhill even faster than it already is.

If you can give me the suggestion of a breed that you particularly see as
"ruined" or difficult in the ring, maybe I can explain further how the breed
isn't being bred to the breed standard. You HAVE to remember--the judge can

I don't know about dogs in the ring. I'm serious when I say I feel
uncomfortable watching such behavior. I don't like strip joints for
the same reason. I don't want to participate in someone else's
personal degradation.

But, you asked for an example, and I will cite the English Labrador
from personal knowledge. The one I know came from a fancy show
background and cost a lot of money. He has the physical qualities
desired in the breed. But, he is too stupid to play fetch or avoid
obvious hazards. He's friendly and obedient, but not engaged. If he
gains access to unsecured food, he will gorge on it until he pukes,
every time. He is 8 years old now and half crippled from joint
problems. If his owner had the choice to make over again, he'd go for
something else.

only put up what's shown to him, AND the breeders are the ones producing the
dogs, not the shows, the superintendents, or the judges. (Well,
sometimes...but they can only put up what's given to them.) I, for one,
would LOVE to see more hardcore working folk compete. I believe right now
we have 30-odd living Ch/MH Labradors in the US and Canada--which is much
more than many of the spaniel breeds! I have seen Schutzhund GSD breeders
in the breed ring. Their dogs were fantastic. However, they got dumped,
mainly because they couldn't show the judge just how fantastic their dogs
were. You can't get placements if you can't show the judge your dog's
angulation because it won't gait properly, or your dog does the auto-sit
every time it stops (called the kiss of death in conformation).

Right. Because the standards are bullshit. They are invented by
people in rich suburbs along the Atlantic seaboard, with too much
money but not enough ways to distinguish themselves from others in
their class.

You might want to read "The Lonely Crowd." I forget who wrote it but
you can google it up. Given your hobby and your young age, I almost
guarantee you will find it hugely illuminating.

Charlie

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 10:21:03 -0400, "Emily Carroll"
wrote:

But, you asked for an example, and I will cite the English Labrador
from personal knowledge. The one I know came from a fancy show
background and cost a lot of money. He has the physical qualities
desired in the breed. But, he is too stupid to play fetch or avoid
obvious hazards. He's friendly and obedient, but not engaged. If he
gains access to unsecured food, he will gorge on it until he pukes,
every time. He is 8 years old now and half crippled from joint
problems. If his owner had the choice to make over again, he'd go for
something else.

Depends on his pedigree. Many so-called "breeders" will say that a Lab is
"English" and "valuable" because it's "English." What the American public
thinks of when they think of an "English" lab is generally MUCH different
than what a true English import looks and acts like.

This is an English import: http://www.karimarkennels.com/Paige.htm

I'm also not trying to suggest that some show breeders are in it only for
the ribbons & prestige. They are. Lots of them are. Labs are a VERY
political breed with lots of idiots out there ignoring either (or both!) the
breed standard or the purpose of the breed. Also, ANY breeder can have
health problems crop up, no matter how hard they try (though it seems that
we may now be able to deal with PRA in a much more positive light!) Hip
dysplasia is polygenetic. It can skip many generations and show up 4 or 5
generations down the road.

That gorging itself? That's a Lab thing. My BYB Lab bitch will do it. Top
show dogs will do it. Top field dogs will do it. That's just a trait that
Labs in general have. They like food. Lots of it. The more, the better.
They aren't the only breed that has that tendency--most hound breeds are the
same way.

Right. Because the standards are bullshit. They are invented by
people in rich suburbs along the Atlantic seaboard, with too much
money but not enough ways to distinguish themselves from others in
their class.

NO. The standards themselves aren't the bullshit part. It's the
interpretations of them. Think about the US constitution. You can
interpret it two very different ways and many other forms in the middle.
Breed standards are similar in that they are full of ambiguous terms.

Of course. I am not quibbling with the language in a document, Emily.
It's the whole snobby, fashion-crazed culture that is rotten, along
with the unhappy dogs it produces. It's like "The Island of Dr.
Moreau." Get away while you still can.

I grew up with a free-feeding lab retriever who was also a great field
performer, BTW. I don't know what the breed is supposed to be like
these days, but I know what labradors can be at their best.

Charlie