Ethics - AKC Trains Judges to Judge Dogs But Loses Great Judges Like Lanting, by Julie Borst Reed, TheDogPress

Copyright © 2008 TheDogPress.com - Reprint rights hereby granted provided 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 contact@thedogpress.com upon publication. Under penalty of law, no portions thereof may be otherwise stored or reprinted in any form, without prior express written consent.

Ethics - AKC teaching Judges How To Judge

not disciplining a Great Judge, Fred Lanting by Julie Borst Reed

AKC bangs yet another nail into the board that keeps me from wanting to go into judging dog breeds for them; and I would be a natural, sorry, that's true, as conceited as that may read. I grew up in AKC shows, I work with dogs daily (I have all my life) and the AKC NEVER gave me a lesson about pure-bred dogs that I didn't pay for myself in so many, many ways. To think the AKC staff has the audacity to state that the AKC spends too much money in educating judges to PERMIT them to judge the same event or breeds other places is absurd from my experience. The earnest judges actually putting more time and money to educate themselves than the AKC probably spend to educate ten judges. Perhaps the AKC staff's opinion formed, may very well have been from observing the most non-talented, non-motivated judges? I don't even know those people personally.

Great judges go to great extremes to learn as much as they can about many breeds and how those breeds are developing and being maintained not only in this country but in many countries and many registries. Fred Lanting is one of the most talented AND studied judges I have ever had the pleasure of watching judge a dog show. I have only shown under this judge once and we had a dozen or so of my breeding stock brought to him with owners of varied backgrounds in dog show experience. Fred Lanting did a better job of judging, more than I had ever seen, knowing just what dogs were worth the better placements - no matter the owners' handling, etc... His kind hands and knowing nods and overall comments of actual structural knowledge were a breath of fresh air to everyone in the ring that day. No guessing what he was interested in finding - he wanted the best. Thank you, Fred Lanting.

I have since really enjoyed studying Fred Lanting's intelligent interpretations of many dog world issues and see that with this recently reported action by the AKC "staff" concerning an IN THE OPEN note posted, that it seems that he has been unfairly singled out. Fred Lanting is well-rounded, a world-studied dog man. This note placed on a table for possible contact to set-up an interested party can not for a moment compare to some type of inappropriate action that AKC deems against the best interest of pure-bred dogs. In an instant after reading that information tonight, I thought of how much junk I have had to witness that the AKC Reps decide is no big deal while it occurs behind the scenes or even in the open - directly to THE DOGS - AT THE SHOWS!!! . . . . I can only plead that it is time to focus on the real problem please.

AKC should send me in as a spy for just a month and I could blow a huge hole in the entire "what is permitted to go on and what is really not a problem" problem. Professional handlers should become a thing of the past if the dog show world is to thrive again and retired professional handlers as AKC representatives should NEVER ever be hired in the future by AKC to be "STAFF". That is one of the biggest problems AKC is creating for itself.

And who am I to know any of this? I'm not about sour grapes or about how much money things cost. I have never been a professional handler, to do that job properly takes 2 x more energy than I have at my personal disposal. I have hired and worked with top handlers. I have seen too much perhaps because I am a very aware person. I have bred some great winners/producers and then dove far away because it was worse achieving a childhood goal in AKC with what I witnessed than I ever could have been imagined – especially what I witnessed done for and to the dogs so they would have a better chance at winning under judges that should have excused dogs after what they witnessed exactly what was obviously done to them.

Only once (oh, that I witnessed) was something done like this to a beautifully-trained, lovely moving bitch I owned. In the Open Bitch class she zig-zagged while gaiting as though she was drunk and she was with a top handler. When I turned it into the National's show committee, the word came back that the handler traveled with so many dogs, he had no choice but to "medicate" many of them for safety reasons! That was the official word. Nothing was done because the handler just stood with arms on hips and said to me, "Prove it."

That was a dream wrecker. It was the outlandish things I saw done to the dogs, not the fact that I couldn't hire good judges because they had assignments in other registries, that is why intelligent people want something else. You want to really focus on the problem of people jumping ship - start with the rules already in place and enforce them.

I currently am someone staying an arm-lengths away because the entire thing is stinking so badly... I know the game needs the best foundation of good breeders, but why at my sacrifice and with the recent decrees from the AKC STAFF to limit judging and then this with Fred Lanting. I am shaking my head. I try to play AKC now and again; after 2 decades on and then another off... and with the Dog Show Rules not enforced, it just doesn't promote good sportsmanship in my breed (Poodles). Rules, I ask, what rules? So, because I like a fair playing field, it is refreshing to read Lanting's accounts in his many articles of other countries' and those registries thoroughness in judging; all round dogs promoted, those with good structure of good bone/ligaments, good teeth and good temperament celebrated. These features listed would be held important to me if I were a dog!

My husband and I WANT our efforts in dog breeding judged by the highest level. Yes, we have thought of moving to another country for this very reason. We consider a cap on the inbreeding percentage and mandatory health screenings passed to be an excellent set of criteria not just as a goal but as a prerequisite for parent clubs to achieve someday in leading their breeders to produce the best dogs for the future. To us, it is short-sighted not to consider some of these "OUT-OF-THE-BOX" ideas.

Fred Lanting just helps people look and continue to think out-of-the-box and it seems that the AKC wants everyone to stay in their solid-sided box. "I think, therefore I am" is what I think about when I think of Fred Lanting. You can't expect anyone that has met Fred Lanting as a fellow breeder to believe that he has done anything against pure-bred dogs. Quite the opposite. Those of us speaking out about the need for the precious new blood for breeds or for the need to breed well-constructed, proven dogs are a very good goal for the dogs. I will be happy to support Fred Lanting for all that he has done for pure-bred dogs and because he is one of the true gentlemen I have met in over 30 years of showing dogs very competitively.

Write letters if you care!

Julie Borst Reed jborst1@san.rr.com

Handy links: __________________________________

For More Articles by Julie;

Ethics, AKC Teaching Judges to Judge

We Are Being Betrayed By AKC

AKC Conflict Policy - Not In Our Best Interest