Would like to hear the opinion of show people on the scenario of breed judge(FCI (cacib) show) who has just awarded BOB to exhibitor and is happily and publicily seen chatting to the person before he judges the same person in the group and awards this person group 1 ??? Personally I think this very inappropriate!!!!!!
Same thing here. "set your dog up PROPERLY, lock your arm and then look up. It isnt a STARE (I have seen some exhbitors do that ) and I have had one man stand next to me clearly muttering "pick me bitch" not "pick MY bitch" it was a lady judge!!
Just a confident look up at the judge.
I forget everything I knew from the moment I was born. My poor dog looks and goes "ah mammy whoy dont ya just stay home Oi will go moysel' "
And in a few years time when you have persevered and got to the top some novice exibitor will be passing the same comments and voicing the same frustrations and you will be happy because all the hard work you have put in will have paid off!!!!
Just had to add my tuppence worth. I totally agree its inappropriate but I feel this "net working " went on out of sight before. How often can we predict the result before we go into the ring because we know who the judge socialises with. I think it is just more open now.I have given an entry to judges recently on their first appointment knowing the outcome before I Left home but because it was their first outing thought I would support them but the results were as I predicted. These judges will have a lower entry in future.I also feel it unfair to show under a "close"friend as it puts them in a spot too.
Unfortunately this friendly judging is doing harm to our breed as there are dogs being made up who do not meet the breed standard purely because they are owned or bred by someone of note and they are then used over and over at stud etc which is bringing in deviations from the standard.Then you have to ask are the judges aware of the standard? or does it not apply to ones friends?
I have taken your last comment there slightly out of context. I was over last year at one of the shows in the North. Against my better judgement but one of the show committee harrassed me as the numbers were down in my breed.
I have known for a long time that the judge in question had already given honours to a dog when it was in puppy and true to form the honour went to that dog. Now that is bad enough but to then write in the preamble in the dog press critique that it was ridiculous to have such low numbers at a Ch show. did exhibitors not realise that we were in danger of losing our awards?????
This judge just didnt seem to realise that very few of us were prepared to shell out £200 for a ferry (let alone the entry) to not be given the opportunity of a fair chance.
That is all I want - to know that you looked at my dog and didnt ponce around making it look like you were "choosing"
Have faith Gillian, it could come from the most unexpected quarter.
Ossian......why do you say it was bad enough that a judge who had previously given honours to a dog when he was a puppy subsequently gave that dog top honours as an adult? Surely that is the natural progression if the dog had fulfilled it's early promise.
Dont go out of context Eva I may need to have expressed a little more clearly. It was the fact that most of us knew that the judge would choose this dog again and NOT look beyond it that suggested it wasnt worth (in todays economic climate) making the journey.
Then it was the fact that the judge castigated missing exhibitors for not turning up under them. So we were ro give this judge an entry regardless
This to Carmel's point - vote with your feet -this judge complained about us doing that and leaving them with a low entry.
It made sense in the first place and so did my response albeit I took one part of your comment to expand on.
What I said, and still maintain is that if the judge liked the dog as a puppy she would naturally like it as an adult. To critisize her for that is to be unfair. On the contrary I would have been surprised if she hadn't done so. And this is my point.....there isn't a judge living who will not fall foul of exhibitors criticism at some time in their career, no matter how honest they truly are. Can I pose another question to all you ladies.......if you have all judged before than please remember how you felt the first time you stood in the middle of the ring. What did you do? Did you put up a dog who you liked but hadn't ever won before or did you chose the safe option and go for the winning dog and owner. My bet is that it was probably the latter. Only natural. Of course there are judges we go under (who we know will favour our dogs) and those we don't (who will put up someone elses). It does not make any of them bad, just different. It is that difference that provides variety and makes the world go round. That does not necessary make them 'facey' or 'political' Yes there are extremes and that is the subject of Carmel's original question, but most judges try to get on with it as best they can and should never be held to ransom by exhibitors opinions or intimidated by acts of bad behaviour
Tania, who has contributed to this discussion, is a shining example of an exhibitor who was lucky enough to get a super dog as her first show dog and has had tremendous success with him, beating better known exhibitors and under judges who could be considered 'facey'.