Mr. Peter Gaeta on Judging & 2006 Additional Approval Criteria
Background - The Issue - See Part One
Peter Gaeta, former field representative, was
appointed AKC Director Of Judging Operations in
2005. He is committed to improving and maintaining
the best judging system in the world, a judging
approval system which formally began in 1982. We
have not always met with such total and courteous
cooperation when contacting AKC for information.
Mr. Gaeta raises the bar for communications
expertise between AKC and the fancy.
TDP: Mr. Gaeta, would you briefly
address the more stringent requirements in the new policy as regards
encouragement for knowledgeable breeder-applicants or people who
plan to apply for a Group?
PAG: First I would like to address a misunderstanding that has
grown out of our first conversation. The new policy is an insertion
that does apply to a first application only. However, the prior
approval process remains available after 12 years in a breed. This
insertion in no way changes the existing approval policy; it is an
addition to that policy.
Until this recent insertion into the approval process, a whole Group
was not available on a single application. This new policy applies
only on the first application a qualified prospective judge makes.
Thereafter, applications are limited according to the existing
approval policy. Presently, the breed by breed requirements on an
initial application are far easier to satisfy than the requirements
for a whole Group under this new policy.
An applicant is required to have participated in conformation with a
breed for a minimum of 12 years, bred five litters and produced four
champions. In addition she/he must have judged six sanctioned
matches (with Specialty matches, Specialty Sweepstakes and
Futurities counting as two), and ring stewarded six times. If an
applicant cannot meet the “12-5-4” requirements, they can qualify
with 15 years in a breed and scoring 60 points from a very liberal
list of conformation related activities and a minimum of 15 points
in breeding, owning or handling.
Thereafter, qualifying for additional breeds involves satisfying
four of the following enriching components: Owning/exhibiting;
attending specialties; attending seminars or institutes; judging
matches, sweepstakes or futurities; working with mentors; doing
in-ring observations. The approval for additional breeds is much
easier than qualifying for initial breeds.
After the first application, and until a judge reaches her/his
fourth application for additional breeds, each application is
limited to the number of breeds already approved up to a maximum of
13. Thereafter, the limit is 13 breeds. While a judge must wait one
year between each application, the progression toward approval for
each breed in a Group (and thereby the Group itself) is basically
dictated by the number of breeds an applicant qualifies for on the
first application and the provisional process. After the second
application it is not unusual to see judges cycle through every 18
months or so.
In short, the conventional approval process is more liberal, and, in
fact is a faster track than the new insertion that allows for a
whole Group on the first application. An applicant with 50 years
experience could have been applying for breeds for 38 years on a
more friendly criterion.
TDP: Regarding the lead sentence on “policy for approving
up to a Group on the first application” you have explained
that applies only to a Group in which one is not approved for each
breed and that a person can work their way through a group, breed by
breed, and thereby become automatically approved to judge that
Group. Would that not be unduly expensive, time-consuming, and
discriminatory if a person chose to finish a career or raise a
family before pursuing a judging career? Wouldn’t they be a senior
citizen before qualifying under the new system!
PAG: As I wrote above, the new insertion is only available to
applicants on their first ever application.
If a fancier did not get involved in dogs until the early twenties,
she/he could be approved for breed(s) by their mid thirties.
Thereafter it is simple arithmetic. The first Group could easily be
approved by the mid forties. Thereafter, for a good judge, progress
would be at about eight breeds each year and a half. Some go even
TDP: Peter Green’s Group approval is more than deserved - he
certainly qualifies under “50 years in the conformation aspect
of breeding and exhibiting dogs” and has easily met the
requirement to “judge and award Championship points in at
least two AKC recognized foreign registries.” As an elder
breeder with ties abroad, he might have met these two criteria but
most breeders could not. The perception is that he would not have
been able to qualify had he been only a breeder. How do you see it?
PAG: All things being equal (i.e. they started at the same time),
that “elder breeder” could have applied for first breeds 38 years
ago. I know of judges who got their first breed nearly 30 years ago
and now have four and five Groups.
TDP: The criteria states an applicant “must have (bred or)
finished at least six exhibits in 75% of the breeds in that Group.”
The two words I’ve inserted in parenthesis would clarify the
intention of that sentence if indeed it was not meant to favor
handlers. However, it continues “and at least two exhibits in
the balance of the breeds in that Group.” Two questions
here: How can that apply to the kind of breeder or judge one hopes
the AKC seeks? Even if the two words (bred or) were inserted, would
it not still favor only handlers or commercial breeders dealing in
PAG: Under the present system, having bred four champions (and
meeting the balance of the criteria) qualifies a breeder applicant
on the 12-5-4 Method. Having bred two champions (and meeting the
balance of the criteria) qualifies a breeder applicant on the 60
Point Method. It would seem that the new insertion actually favors
breeders over handlers.
TDP: Upon having time to reflect on the overall perception of
the new requirement and discuss it with the AKC Board, if the new
requirements do favor handlers over breeder applicants, will AKC
have another look at the policy?
PAG: The process does not in any way appear to favor handlers
considering all of the possibilities available to breeders on an
ongoing basis. On the other hand, handlers are not eligible to be
approved to judge until they retire from handling. Judges are not
allowed to handle anything they do not own or co-own.
TDP: How long do you estimate it might take a
breeder-judge to work their way through all the breeds in a group
and thus, become eligible to judge a Group?
PAG: If a breeder started with one breed, she/he could be
approved for all breeds in the smallest Group in five applications.
In six applications every Group is arithmetically within reach. That
would put Group status within reach in about eight years. Starting
with two or three breeds on the first application could shorten the
process by a year. Thereafter, the applicant could get eight or more
breeds on each application and conceivably be approved for a new
Group every five or six years depending on how quickly provisional
assignments were completed.
TDP: Doing quick math, that equates to roughly 50 years?
PAG: I assume you mean to become an all-breed judge. Let’s see,
one group in eight years and say six years for each additional group
is 36 more. That total is 44 years. Add that to whatever starting
age you wish to project.
Now, let me ask a rhetorical question: do you truly believe very
many of even our most qualified judges ought to be all-breed judges?
Most might want to be, but then lose interest in pursuing the
rigorous educational requirements we all want them to meet. By the
time most judges are approved for three or four Groups they are
approved for nearly all of the breeds they have a passion and a feel
for, and they are judging as frequently as they want to. They do not
have time for further education.
TDP: Well, since you put it that way…. You are right on target and
it is less a rhetorical question than an astute observation. A
shortage of breeder-judge applicants is a fear, partly because of
what you just said, partly because people lack motivation and
physical ability after the age of retirement. If a Group applicant
can “document” 50 years, we can safely assume that person must be
over 65 years of age, so even if the other criteria are met, the new
rules present complex barriers which can only be detrimental to the
sport. Do you see any validity to this concern? Or that they might
not have long to serve the sport by the time they became qualified
to do all breeds?
PAG: Why would a breeder wait until age 65 to apply for
breeds? Actually, an exceptional judge who is in frequent demand can
cycle through most Groups in about three years once they have a
couple of Groups. I generally reference what is the norm. The
exceptional judge, however, could become an all breed judge in just
over 30 years. Now, another question: do we want other than
exceptional judges approved for all breeds?
TDP: Well of course we want only exceptional judges to become
all breed judges. Still, it seems doubtful that retiring All-Breed
and Multi-Group judges can be expeditiously replaced, especially
with the growing number of shows. Additionally, the economic impact
on clubs could be significant because finding an available Group
judge would become increasingly difficult and expensive. How would
AKC solve these long-term problems?
PAG: Long term problems are not anticipated, as the present
approval policy provides greater numbers of judges each year.
TDP: With no disrespect to Handlers who are paid to win, breed type
can become secondary in the quest for showmanship and extremes of
type meant to draw the judges’ eye. Could breeding for the
handler-judge actually defeat the purpose of judging, that being the
preservation of breed type, i.e. purebreds?
PAG: You answer your own question. In the first place, to
understand extremes of type presupposes the understanding of type.
Secondly, handlers may be able to more easily distinguish between
“ideal” and “extreme” than breeders who are more emotionally
connected to what they have to work with.
TDP: Most agree on one thing: AKC must quit worrying about
fairness, political correctness, avoiding legal action over denials,
and go back to putting first those who painstakingly create top
quality exhibits, with no diminishing of gratitude and respect for
the huge contribution made by pro handlers. Would you speak to
PAG: In a perfect world, I cannot imagine anyone who truly
cares about these highly specialized creatures that man has either
totally engineered or who have evolved on their own to live so
closely as to become integral family members would disagree with the
way you put it.
TDP: Well said Mr. Gaeta! TheDogPress and over 6,000
subscribers appreciate the time you have taken to address these
concerns. We hope most if not all, have been put to rest and we can
all move on to new shows, new judges, and a bright future for all.
Background - The Issue - See Part One
TheDogPress.com - Reprint rights hereby
a link to this page is included in the article and the
URL or a copy of the article is sent to Press
Publications P.O. Box 3037, Rutherfordton, NC 28139 or
email@example.com upon publication. Under
penalty of law, no portions thereof may be otherwise
stored or reprinted in any form, without prior express