The current CKC rule for Judges states “A judge must not accept an assignment to judge the same breeds, groups, or general specials at shows that are held less than 90 days apart if the distance between the shows is within 250 road miles (402 km). (The time and mileage restriction will be waived for an emergency substitute judge who is required to replace the published judge at the last minute, due to illness, etc.).
Would you like to see the distance between shows increased, or the individual clubs adding longer time periods for assignments in their area to their judges contracts, to avoid various shows having similar panels which affects their entries?
I think the current rules work. As a judge I try and limit myself so that I am not seeing the same dogs all the time. For example, I only do one show in B.C. and one in Alberta each year. Recently I turned down two other shows, all outside time and distance, but I felt being in each place once was enough. As a CKC judge I am of course also a member (life in my case). I feel as a judge I bear some responsibility to keep our show fresh and attractive to exhibitors. One way I have chosen to do this is to exceed the rules set by the CKC for the time and distance.
I believe the distance and time should be increased for judges. In the Prairies, we draw from the same entry pool whether they are in Edmonton or Medicine Hat, which is a 6 hour drive apart. We also draw from the same pool that Saskatchewan draws from. We prairie people don’t even blink at driving 6-8 hours each way for a dog show.
The existing CKC policy leaves it open for clubs to have reduced entries due to repeat judges, but the clubs here have taken that bull by the horns and have instituted their own policies to alleviate that. Clubs on the Prairies now expect a time period of 6-18 months between assignments (most are 6-9 months), and many clubs have also extended the mileage to 300-500 miles.
Even in more populated areas, I agree with increasing the mileage/time restrictions. People are, wanting variety and if the same judges are in the same area over and over, entries will diminish. In a province like Ontario, where an exhibitor has options of where to go on any given week-end, those that ‘follow’ a judge can potentially continue to do so if the mileage/time restrictions remain the same. And those that haven’t been fortunate under a certain judge will go elsewhere, which can cause clubs to lose entries (and thus lose revenue).
Everyone says things need to change to keep the sport alive. The previous time/mileage restrictions were perfectly appropriate at one time. But it needs to change. Every small change can make a huge difference in the future of this sport.
I would definitely like to see the time between assignments in the same area increased by either of these methods. While it is understandable that in less populous areas the number of judges to select from may not be a large as in other areas, clubs always have selection of permit judges who are willing to expend effort and co-operate with clubs to get assignments, so there is no need to continually have the same judging panels.
I feel increasing the distance between assignments, or clubs increasing the amount of time in the individual judges contracts, of which they can accept assignments would be a definite benefit for the clubs.
I am sure many clubs hire their panel and then find the same names are just meeting the current regulations, by distance, or are neighbor provinces, and this surely will affect their entry.
From watching the show numbers on Canuck dogs, those clubs who have “out of area ” judges, whether out of province or country, I see entries are on average larger at those shows.
Our club has it’s own separate contract. I expect that if a judge agreed to officiate for us that they stick to the terms outlined within that contract. We are a smaller club so judges, judging in the same area could cost us in the long run.
I feel that the current rules regarding time/mileage are too liberal – one of the clubs I belong to, has increased the limits for permits to 6 months & 500 kms, and for non-permit assignments to 9 months and 500 kms. This forces clubs to look at new faces, and prevents over exposure.
I would like to see both the show giving clubs and our judges be held more accountable. Clubs should impose larger mileage restrictions of at least 500 miles (804 km) on their judges and judges should take only 1 (one) assignment in each province annually. It is not rocket science folks. Entries are down for a lot of reasons and we have touched on two of them here.
With all of the terrific questions asked of the fancy in the past few years, it almost seems ridiculous to keep answering with our thoughts. IF the CKC actually looked at these questions of the week, and tried to digest some of the knowledge that our general membership is putting forth, do you not think that we could have a viable well run CKC? Every question asked, has come back with tremendous response, and ideas on how WE the membership could fix problems that the CKC seems to bring on themselves. Why do they not listen to the membership? We are the ones out there working, showing, entering, breeding, promoting, and yet we think we take a step forward only to be pushed back 3 steps by CKC and their infinite wisdom.
We are now having shows in the Prairies backed up upon one another. British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba rely on the entries from all four provinces over a weekend. Having shows coincide with each other is killing off the clubs that work so hard to put on a dog show. Yes the requirements are met on mileage for all show giving clubs, and judge assignments BUT, Canada’s geographical map is far too small to continue on with this method.
In the Prairies any one of us is expecting to drive at least seven hours one way to attend a show, which is in close proximity to where we live. The handlers find themselves driving 12 – 15 hours to attend a 200, dog entry for the simple fact that there actually is a show held on that weekend. It is NOT the judge’s faults for accepting assignments in each province, as I am sure they look up the mileage and think that all is ok. This sometimes is the reason for duplicate panels within two months out here.
On one weekend in May, we have three provinces all holding a show. CKC should have looked more carefully into the applications, because we now must choose between Regina, Calgary and Fort St John… Shows that we have all attended prior years due to the fact that they were held on different weekends. I feel that these three clubs are going to see a great decline in their entries this year with us having to choose only one show to attend for this particular weekend.
For those of you that have not read the open letter to the CKC from the Edmonton, Alberta NACA club, I suggest you go on Canuck Dogs and click onto the link that coincides with the NACA set of shows. Is this how our organization is run?
The CKC pulled staff to compile LAST YEARS points and put pressing matters on the back burner? First off Canuck Dogs has already published these stats and they are up to date, they may be off a few numbers but they are there. We then get a newsletter from CKC proudly presenting Canada’s Top Dogs four months after the fact. Was this so pressing that they forgot to approve NACA’s judging panel and their entry closing date is under a month away?
I would love to compile all of the terrific answers that our membership has provided for all of these insightful questions of the week, and send them to CKC. We as a membership – do have a voice – and also many great solutions into making the current system far superior to what is has now become. Unfortunately with the protocol as it now stands and the length of time a suggestion takes to “go to the board” I fear that we will continue to see the entry- level decline at our shows.
We seem to have the same judges over and over again. I think it is affecting the entries. There should be more variety, however I do understand that the clubs cannot afford to be bringing in international judges. That being said, longer mileage distances and time frames for judge’s assignments would help, and maybe the clubs need to work together, instead of a competitive attitude among them, and not bring in the same people.
For years Brantford had a six-month clause for judges and this had worked well for years. With the increased number of shows, declining entries and escalating costs, this is now difficult to achieve.
As for shows an increased distance between shows would reduce the number of shows and possibly increase entries at events. This could breath new life into some clubs and restore credibility to our shows.
One of my biggest complaints about the shows of late is that there are a handful of the same judges officiating at almost all of the shows. I appreciate the financial difficulties that the clubs are facing in hiring judges, but I think part of the dwindling numbers is because people are tired of showing to the same old judges. A judge’s ability notwithstanding, I believe that new faces would encourage more exhibitors. Based on this I would definitely be in favor of increasing the distance between shows as well as the time periods for assignments in their area.
Dr. Gail Forsythe
A six-month window seems more appropriate, to increase the likelihood of more entries.
Yes I would on both parts. It happens way too often that we see the same judges on panels over and over again, sometimes only a week or so apart. I don’t think this helps the sport at all. Why would I enter ‘club b’ in two weeks when I just lost under the same judge at ‘club a’s’ show. It happens too much. We need more variety in judges if at all possible.
Those that can make the changes don’t listen, and clubs are not looking at the big picture. They are only concerned about their own club and how well it does, plus they don’t want or have the money to change the choices they make.
We were at our SKC meeting last night we have to do some fund raising before our next show, just so we can afford to bring in those judges that will make the difference. It’s not enough just to run a good show.