In a message dated 2/16/02 10:17:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> <<I admit that sometimes it may seem that way, and, for that matter, > sometimes > it is that way, However, Most of the folk who judge are honest and attempt > to > do a good job with the time allowed for evaluation. > It is discouraging to be constantly painted with the same broad and > insulting > brush.>> It must be tough on the honest and good judges to have to listen to the less then desirable impression that some judges (In my opinion more then a few judges) paint to exhibitors and onlookers. And some judges do work hard and do a good job and I'm very greatful for that. But whenever I hear judges admit that they know judging isn't always honest I have to ask Why don't you do anything about it? I have heard judges openly talk about other judges who always do this wrong or always put up this friend or handler, etc etc.. Granted sometimes this is just talk and/or sour grapes but sometimes it is just common knowledge that some judges are not good or fair. Surely if judges themselves have no power to push for clean up of their profession then what chance do exhibitors have of enacting change? What kind of monitoring is in place for judges? Is there any kind of periodic evaluation? Are results randomly reviewed and evaluated? Is there any kind of periodic re-certification? I am curious not so much as how hard it is to become a judge but as to what is done to assure judges continue to do a good job once they are appointed, especially when they start picking up more breeds. I'd love to see the ruling bodies take dogs in the ring annonymously with obvious flaws according to the breed standards or alteration say... an obviously trimmed Cavalier, stretch and stack it and see if the judge acts appropriately. If judges didn't know when they were going to be observed and/or tested it might help. Maybe these kinds of things are in place already I don't know. Peer pressure can inact change much faster then anyone can from the outside. Make it unacceptable to tolerate political favoritism and poor judging. It would be much tougher to act in this manner if it was unacceptable within the peer group. I think most just accept it as a part of dog showing rather then trying to do anything about it. And to all the hard working honest judges out there THANK YOU! and we need your help. Dave CastleMyst Cavaliers http://members.aol.com/CMystCavs ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
