says to let our club know if we encounter rough handling of our breed’s mouth while examination on the table, so that a con- tact could be made to said judge, inviting them to a judge’s education seminar or help with a mentor! –Susan Davis
IS ENOUGH TRAINING AND EMPHASIS GIVEN TO THE MENTORING OF NEW JUDGES?
MAYBE SO!
Maybe. With the judges who are applying for additional breeds without a doubt they should know fronts, rears, top lines, correct movement and dentition. However, they real- ly need help on the specific characteristics of what makes the breed unique. Ringside mentoring is helpful; however, it is not possible to go over the minute details. The very best method is the Breed Seminar with hands on that make these characteristics stand out. For the person who has never Judged before, they need to be helped with the whole dog and here again hands on is the best method, over and over again. However, each breed is different and it is the smallest details that make that dog outstanding and you cannot learn this from books, ringside mentoring or word of mouth, you need the dog. –Kathleen Kolbert Maybe. Mentoring has become a buzz word. A tele- phone conversation, even a lengthy one, will not take the place of involvement with the breed over a period of time. Certainly the process now in place is sufficient to get the new judge into the ring, but it is only experience that will truly lead to better judging. The most valuable experience and mentorship should come after they start judging the breed. –Richard Reynolds Training in mentoring is sadly lacking in many breeds. Unfortunately, those who volunteer to mentor seldom have much real experience in the breed past hiring handlers to show their dogs. Few judges seem to want to take advantage of the mentoring available at breed seminars where for in depth information can be provided than is possible with ring side mentoring. Hands on is necessary particularly in heavily groomed breeds where much can be covered up. In breed seminars it is possible to present similar dogs to judges, with explanations of the good points and what needs improvement “TOO MANY JUDGES THESE DAYS CANNOT SEE BEYOND THE HANDLE OF THE LEAD.”
No. Because mentors have their own opinions, I believe that each judge should be mentored by at least six-eight dif- ferent breeders. That way they get a variety of opinions on what us right or wrong with each dog being judged. Too many judges (especially handler judges) these days cannot see beyond the handle of the lead. By only putting up familiar faces. Too many inferior animals are being awarded cham- pionships that should never have been entered little alone shown. Breeds are being destroyed due to bad breeding, but if the judges wouldn’t use them then maybe these animals would never be bred. Breeders need to be more diligent about what is produced and judges need to only reward wor- thy animals, not just the familiar faces. –Anonymous No. I think we need more substantive mentoring. Then it needs to be verified. Unfortunately, we have some judges that report being mentored, when only a few questions and answers have been exchanged. The UKC (for three key breeds and for three such encounters) requires that the judge doing the mentoring complete a simple form indicating whether the applicant was well prepared, whether he needs more hands on, whether he understood the fine points of the breed, etc. The final question being ‘does the mentor deem the applicant ready to start judging that breed?’ The evaluation is sent directly to the main office without discussion with the applicant. This way there is a personal evaluation of ability and understanding which is far better than guessing about an applicant’s ability based on a filled-in box. The applicant also has a form to com- plete. Questions such as: Were there sufficient num- bers and quality of the breed to make a satisfying choice? –Arlene Grimes No. To learn about a breed, you must talk to long- time breeders. There are too many people on mentor lists who have owned top-winning dogs and call themselves breeders when, in actuality they merely have the money to buy good dogs and get them to enough dog shows that they end up on top. That’s not to say these are not good dogs— people rarely put money into a bad one, but a breeder is the person that compared pedigrees, decided on the breedings, paid the stud fees, whelped the litters, selected the best ones out of the litter and either kept one or sold them into a show home. Handlers often insist the breeder put their name on a show dog—not that the handler had any- thing to do with producing that dog—they merely want their name linked to a winner. There is certainly a need for handlers and backers in breeds, but it’s the successful longtime breeders that know what a good dog is through trial and error and know what a good dog is. –Anonymous
118 • S how S ight M agazine , J anuary 2017
Powered by FlippingBook