What's in a Name -- The 2017 Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show

Not sure if anyone else noticed while watching Westminster Kennel Club (WKC) Group Judging that as the judging progressed on the two evenings, the winners of each group were identified by their call names and not their registered names. For example, the television screen would show:

Group Winners, Hound Group, Norwegian Elkhound "Duffy"

and at the conclusion of each Group competition, they added the name of the newest Group winner in the same manner by identifying its breed and his or her's call name. They did, however, identify each group entry during the televised individual examinations by their full AKC registered name, as well as on the WKC Results website page.

This departure from the standard protocol is curious, and I reasonably assume that they were attempting to personalize the dogs and humanize the competition to the viewing audience. Make it seem more relatable to John and Jane Doe watching at home with their Labrador on the couch. Not a bad idea as the club's public relations firm was probably working overtime gathering as many details as they could on each entry. The Dog Media Profile page saw to this, and each dog's digital profile was to be used for press opportunities such as the information revealed on what they called a "Blue Card" during the broadcasts. A smart tactic that again made the dog more relatable with little tidbits like Muffy's favorite snack is Ritz Crackers.

A longtime friend who has been involved with AKC dog shows for decades pointed out that since WKC is a member of the American Kennel Club, the official and proper dissemination of winners must include the dog's registered names, not just pet names. I see her point as it appears that WKC is "dumbing down" the sport and competition. Sorta like, Mrs. Jane Doe stating, "Oh look, honey, Little Freckles the Chihuahua won the Toy Group, so maybe we can enter our Pookie next year." In doing so, it may be an oversimplification of such an achievement as the average home viewer does not realize the magnitude of many of these dogs journeys; the time, money and tremendous effort that went into "Little Freckles" WKC Group win. It very well may be seen as diminishing the role of the Breeder whose kennel title is customarily entered in a registered name but also their enormous toil, perhaps over a lifetime, to achieve this success with their bloodlines. To see their registered kennel name displayed on the television screen after having won the WKC Group must be a thrill.    

I am not versed in AKC show club policies as my friend is the expert, but I recognize and appreciate the tightrope that AKC member clubs and public relation firms are walking today to rejuvenate, rather, in my opinion, to resuscitate this sport. Wikipedia best describes public relations as being a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics.

Times have changed, and we must adapt as we find ourselves in this precarious position today because both the sport and its governing body, AKC, had been reluctant to embrace change for far too many years now. Cultural changes along with social media are "lie of the land, " and an aggressive public relations campaign enables the public to connect to our sporting competition emotionally, leaving them with the belief that they too could partake. This may be the only way forward. I wrote nearly seven years ago in "Exclusive, Not Inclusive" trying to personify a spectator's experience with our sport,

"We all see these people who are simply observing—they attend because they thought it might be fun to watch in the same way many of us might attend a horse race, horse show jumping, dressage, or even driving events. Many of us do not own a horse that we could enter in these events, but we attend anyway because we have a shared interest or love of the animal and because we thought it would be enjoyable...We must remove the elitism and become an inclusionary sport otherwise; we will run out of newbie’s to carry on in our footsteps."

2017 Westminster Kennel Club

I can only laugh at the shortcomings, once again, involving the Westminster Kennel Club dog show. I cannot comment on all the other breed competition videos, but an elementary age child must have been tasked with the responsibility for videoing this year's Westminster Kennel Club's Irish Wolfhound judging. Incredibly frustrating as this is a highly respected dog show and one would not expect to encounter such poor quality video cataloging but also consider the importance of the lost archival aspect. In short, shamefully, there is no salvageable video of this breed competition, on that day, in that special time and place but only a tongue-in-cheek parody.

The video begins with poor clarity as it is dark, over-saturated, with bad resolution. It most certainly was not my personal equipment as I tried to view the video on three devices. A Macbook Pro, an iPhone 6 Plus, and finally on the newest iPad Pro with Retina display -- all of which showed the same dismal results. It was not just the poor quality of lighting or contrast or resolution or whatever you want to call it -- there simply is no video of the hounds being judged!

The video goes to hell in a hand basket around the first minute and a half after we see the first dog entry judged though it was too dark to distinguish much of the dog. Next, the videographer must have decided to leave as the camera is squarely centered on the judge in the middle of the ring, and not on the class bitch entry who was set-up and had been gaited. The videographer seems not to know he is supposed to film the dogs as they stand for examination and while they move around the ring. On an amusing note, I assume the judge will be flattered once he learns that he, not the hounds, was the star attraction. I am left to assume that no one emphasized to the videographer that this was a "dog show" and not a "people show."

View fullsize

This is what we were shown during the judging!!

Then, 2:35 minutes in, the camera screen goes blank! Hmm, the videographer must have gone to the restroom and seconds later the screen begins cycling through Judging schedules and Ring Assignments. Finally, at the 3:15 minute mark we are back in the ring, all the while judging had continued and with a jerky zoom we are back in action. Oh wait, it is the judge handing over a ribbon. Well, all right we say, maybe we can catch some of the champion breed competition. Enter the Best of Breed (BOB) entries where they set up just to the left of the camera, yet, the resolution is so poor that we only see dark figures against a sea of fluorescent green. Of course, we recognize the first contour is that of a man with a wolfhound as we can identify their dark shapes and a wolfhound head and body but no details!

View fullsize

This the quality of the video on the rare occasion we even saw a hound

Oh dear, at 4:53, unbelievably, the screen resolution goes even darker, and now, all the BOB entries are only black blobs. Zoom zoom, once again, the camera is focused back on the Judge. Meanwhile, the entries are gaited but the viewer can only see dark shapes of the hounds trotting around the ring and one cannot even identify their color or sex!

Hey, the videographer must be saying to himself -- those three hounds look attractive. So, we are zoomed in on the one corner of the ring, furthest away from the judging where the last three entries are awaiting their turn (it is still too dark for the viewer to see anything, though), and there we remain. Meanwhile, several BOB individual entries are examined and gaited, but that is not what the videographer wants us to see. By golly, we are going to stare at this corner at the dark blobs and the adjacent ring of Australian Shepherds, whether we want to or not. Almost two minutes later -- hold on, I can make out a penis on one of the hounds -- our overachiever decides to zoom out to the line-up. Not until 10:48 into the breed judging are we privy to see an individual wolfhound gaiting, but keep in mind the resolution has not changed whatsoever, so all we can see is a head floating above a black blob.

Damn, I spoke too soon. I should have known better than to press my luck. The cameraman decides it is not necessary to see the next wolfhound BOB entry and promptly focuses back on their popular subject - the Judge! Next up, the last BOB entry -- Ahh, we are back in business as the cameraman allows us to watch the last BOB entry, of course, only in midnight lighting. Now, we are 13:30 minutes into this masterpiece and the viewer still cannot decipher anything -- perhaps if we wore night vision goggles -- when we are shown a fleeting second of a darkened wolfhound gaiting. When, wham, the cameraman feels we saw too much and back to the center of the ring and to the judge we go. Meanwhile, the BOB entries are gaited, out of sight, on the edge of the ring. Finally, at 16:57 the adjudication is over, whew, and we are privy to the awarding of ribbons and honors to hounds we never could see.

I think Westminster Kennel Club needs to get their money back.

View fullsize

Awarding of ribbons in a competition we never saw

Foreign Judges

If you read my previous blog posts you will already know that I attended the Westminster Kennel Club 2016 dog show. My take-away on both the breed judging's massive crowds at The Piers in NYC, and the lack of women's restroom facilities has been discussed earlier. I will mention that if I entertain another visit to WKC, I will not attend the breed judging programs, instead just the Group Judging events on both evenings. I'd much rather while away my day enjoying NYC's numerous attractions instead of re-experiencing the awful crowds during breed judging. Being on your feet, as one cannot find a seat, from 8:30AM until 4:00PM and walking the long distances in and between the Piers is exhausting, especially when you cannot view the competitions.  

However, when I posted from the show I did not go into detail about a glaring issue that was maddening to watch. During breed judging it was plain to see that a foreign judge had limited knowledge to proficiently judge dogs in accordance with AKC procedure. Not only did he demonstrate inadequate procedural knowledge but was painfully slow -- as evidenced by the show breed video and my iPhone video. I can confirm that this particular judge took, on average, nearly 3.5 to 4 minutes per dog -- and it was agonizing. All told, he took almost 26 minutes to adjudicate over 7 entries. From my observation point, he most likely would not have been able to complete his assignment if not for the capable hands of his Ring Steward who had to repeatedly explain how to proceed with the awards. This did NOT just occur in one but several of his breed assignments.

The foreign judge required constant consultation with the Steward regarding the awards process -- he would proceed to award Best of Breed and then wring his hands until the Ring Steward counseled him again as to what to do next. Minutes would fly by as the exhibitors were standing, waiting, while he discussed "who knows what" before he would walk over and declare another decision.

He appeared to be quite a jovial chap but that does not excuse his lack of proficiency in adjudicating under the AKC Dog Judging system. Surely, all foreign judges MUST understand and be fully versed in how to judge under our procedures, at the very least, they need to make an effort to do so. It was evident during this foreign judge's breed assignments that this was not the case and it was and remains maddening. If you are going to accept such a privileged assignment then you better know how to do it, properly.

And what is it with Judges, including this international judge, asking exhibitors the age of the dogs?! Are they not aware that under AKC rules, a judge is not permitted to ask the exhibitor such a question? If age is a factor in their decision making process then they must have the steward provide them with this information -- NOT the exhibitor. As any AKC Field Representative will inform you- an exhibitor might lie so you do not base any decisions on what the exhibitor tells you. The question I ask is WHY are foreign judges not versed in this and other procedures? If you are going to accept an assignment in a foreign country you MUST learn that country's federation judging system. You don't just wing it. I find it disrespectful and I know for certain, that if and when I do receive an assignment overseas, I will do everything in my power to make certain I am studied in their adjudication processes.

Re-posting my blog post "Happy Holidays & Westminster Musings"

As I was performing chores this morning my thoughts turned to the upcoming Westminster Kennel Club dog show on February 15-16, 2016. For me, it is disappointing that another year has rolled past without what I feel are necessary changes to the membership roles of the Westminster Kennel Club. If you are unaware, this venerable club is Men Only -- NO WOMEN ALLOWED AS MEMBERS. Yes, you read that correctly. This dog club is not the only holdover in the United States, but certainly is one of the most prestigious. Here is an excerpt from my article I penned in March 2015, titled "Musings".

This august organization’s ranks do not include women. Females are not allowed to be members, yet this kennel club maintains that it is “America’s Dog Show.” How ironic that this revered institution claims such lofty, patriotic status while simultaneously denying our sports gender majority — women — membership in their club. Consider these profound statistics from the 2002 Delegates Meeting Minutes revealing that 75 percent of AKC breeders and 72 percent of puppy buyers are women. Long ago, the American Kennel Club established that breeders, ergo women, are the backbone of the sport, but women are not welcome as members of several kennel clubs — only their hard earned cash...

That the majority of AKC dog show participants are of the female gender and are, still, taking a backseat role in the governance of this sport in the year 2016 should be alarming. That in the year of 2016, while humanity is pursuing deep space exploration and a colonization of Mars in the advent of a successful, historic landing of reusable rockets back on Earth, the Westminster Kennel Club still clings to its antediluvian traditions of banning women from membership. 

How can such an affront towards women, our sport’s nucleus group, continue unchallenged and be celebrated annually? WKC professes to crown “America’s Dog” just so long as women who comprise 50.8 percent of the American population “know their place”. The Westminster Kennel Club is a gilded cage enclosing their male membership within the comfortable confines of antiquated conventions. Purposefully an Old Boys Club, they celebrate and preserve their gender bias practices. Insofar as women, well, women are only necessary and welcome when the club needs exhibitor participation.   

While we celebrate the holidays and give thanks for all that we have in our lives -- ponder on this contradiction and dismissal of women's equality and our rights. Consider that if women took a stand against such blatant gender discrimination, we can make an enormous difference. We did so with the women's suffrage movement resulting in the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution ratification in 1920 guaranteeing all American women the right to vote. In the sport of purebred dogs, it is unjust that women have been continuously denied administerial duties of the American Kennel Club Board of Directors. An excerpt from my investigative article "Women in Leadership Roles at the AKC" follows:

Let us consider first the little known historic, consequential and stunning fact that AKC did not admit women to serve in the Delegate body until the 1970s. On March 12, 1974, a motion to allow women to serve as delegates was seconded and carried by a vote of 180 to 7.

Furthermore, that the administrative part of the AKC has just one female President over its entire lifespan since its formation in 1884, and to date, there has never been a female Chairwoman of the Board of Directors is simply a travesty of equality. 

Before I sign off from this post, I also would like to remind people of what had transpired during the 2015 WKC dog show. Another excerpt from my "Musings" article. 

Yet, unfairness or bias was not limited to the organization’s constituency roll. A particular incident took place during breed judging that reinforces the dog show community’s prevailing, cynical state of mind. No wonder fanciers are disgusted, throwing their hands up in exasperation. Actions that did not merely give an impression of but created a dense cloud of impropriety.

The ethical transgression transpired when a Judge presided over a Best of Breed assignment which included a dog this judge very recently used at stud. The litter sired by this entry reportedly was whelped already. Destroying any sense of impartiality, the judge proceeded to award this stud dog Best of Breed over the competition and also awarded Select Dog to yet another dog they previously used at stud as well! The basis of sportsmanlike competition is to adjudicate with neutrality, imputing ethics, honesty, and common sense. Instead, this incident exposes a lack of common decency and an illiteracy for the Rules, Policies and Guidelines for dog show judges.

This is an unambiguous example of Conflict of Interest. AKC dog show judges are responsible for situations such as this that require the judge to excuse an exhibitor for causes even known only to them and they were obligated to recognize that a conflict of interest existed. As for the exhibitor(s) who intentionally exhibited their stud dog under this particular judge? The responsibility for entering dogs that are ineligible or create a conflict of interest lies with the exhibitors, so says the AKC Rules & Policies Handbook for Conformation Judges. In fact, the Handbook states that awards won may be canceled, and exhibitors with repeat violations may receive reprimands or fines. Further exacerbating the situation, this competition was video streamed live throughout the world! A great many breed fanciers watched in disgust as the judging unraveled. It most likely has not nor perhaps ever will dawn on the judge that they would have gained a great deal of respect, if, in fact, they had exercised their right and performed their duty by excusing the violating exhibitors from the show ring. However, it is too late as now their repute is justifiably and seriously challenged.

As for the other exhibitor(s) competing in the show ring, in my opinion, they should have filed a complaint without delay with the AKC Executive Field Representative who was visibly in attendance. Until our sport participants slip their binds of submissiveness and possess the courage of one's convictions, violator's such as these described will continue to bully, unhindered. Here are links to both of my articles discussed above.

Women in Leadership Roles at AKC      Musings

Westminster Kennel Club 2016

Well, I am off to the 2016 Westminster Kennel Club (WKC) Dog show. I will also, hopefully, be taking photographs and I will post from there, especially if anything of tremendous interest occurs. Keep in mind that last year indeed those of us watching both live via video and ringside viewed actions that unfortunately were much more than an appearance of impropriety. A breed judge engaged in, and an exhibitor(s) purposely participated in what was an obvious example of Conflict of Interest during breed judging.

This brings me to the suggestion if you have not re-read it, that my earlier December 2015 blog post, "Happy Holidays and Westminster Kennel Club" should be reviewed again. It details the significant arguments surrounding today's WKC with a parallel issue, a dog show judge & exhibitors behavior involving their apparent subversion of neutrality and principles. I am re-posting it for this annual event.