Kennel Notes.

Digger (Invercargill RSA), Issue 35, 12 November 1920, Page 11

Kennel Notes.

(By Theo: Marples, F.Z.S.)

ETHICS OF THE SHOW RING.

(Concluded). It is very bad form on the part of exhtbitors to ma-ke entries under a jndge and then roast him if he does not give that exhibitor jiust what he thinks he is entitled to. If an exhibitor is dissatisfied with a judge's awards, he has a remedy, and an effectual one— viz., not to show under that particular judge again. The motto of all exhibitors should be: "Let the best dog win, no matter to .whom he helongs." If that motto. were acted up to, there would be less selfishness, fewer bickerings, and more contentm'ent of mind than are sometimes experienced and on occasions displayed at shows. So much for the exhibitors' case. Now let us examine the position of judges. We have, happily, now almost entirely emerg. ed from the primitive i^actice of dual ,r triple judging which characterised the early days of dog shows. In these early days dog owners were not so well up in the p«jirits of dogs as they are to-day, and recognised all-round, capable dog judges were few and far between. The principle which p^mpted societies to appoint more than on.e judge to take all classes of dogs was no doubt due to this fact in tne first instance, coupled with a belief that what on.e judge did not know the other might, Since then the country has become highly educated in dog lore, and competent judges, specialist and all-round, can be found by the score. There is no need, therefore, for a continuance of this very unsatisfactory system of dual or jury judging which has gradually become obsolete. In practice its great defeet was tliat decisipr)S were arrived at by a give-and-take method which is not judging. An. other disadvantage which accompanied it was that exhibitors were at a loss to know which judge was responsible for their defeat, thus preventing them from giving him a "rniss in haulk" in future. There is no such shelter for judges ,to get behind and shirk responsibility for their decisions in single-handed judging. By the latter process judges stand «r fall by their acts, and many fall. Good judges of dogs, like good poets, are born, not maele. A competent judge may almost fc& detecced by the manner in which he performs the task of judging. He soon shows whether he has an eye for form in the classic canine by the way he examines and handles them, and the man'ner in which he separates the wheat from the oh~i* he does separate it, and particularly b/ i.h» position he a^signs to new or ^ovice exhibits with no bench record hehind thern.These aro all crucial tes««s of judical ron*petency. An unreliable or incompetent judge will wade through all his dogs m an Gpparent mnddle. He may find the peas in some cases, but it is odds against him. A judge who, having carefully judged a class and compared all the dogs in it with one another, and arrived at his decisions, goes over the same dogs, or one or two additional ones, which often happens, shows weakness and indecision. The only dogs he should compare with the win- ■ ners are the new ones. If his memory will not serve him to retain in his mind the oxact pcsitions which, after a careful scrutiny, he assigned to the dogs in previ. ous classes, it is far better for Tiim to make notes in his judging hook rather than waste his time and that of the show officials in floundering in the labyrinth of classes in the hope of finding his previous selections, in which he often fails, and reversals are the result. To be a successful and reliable judge, besides having a keeneye for form, he must have method — a system which will stand the test of analysis.