Thank you bjh, that was a very good explanation. That makes perfect sense. I went and looked up the word "must" in the dictionary and it is vague enough to support the historical precedent to not have weigh ins. However, I do think the word has an implication of requirement. You must eat food to live", "You must follow the law". Still the word can be used as "feel urged to; ought to" i.e. " I must buy that book".
Semantics aside.
Let me ask you a question because it's fun to think outside the box. Wouldn't weigh ins be an innovative, modern way to help a judge? In sports, I have seen that to often the answer as to why things are done is "because we have always done it that way". I don't like to think that way. If there is a better way to do something then why shouldn't you do it? How easy would it be to do? How would it hurt the judge or the breed?
I'm not suggesting an 8 lb male be immediately disqualified, but whats the downside of having that weight be known? What IS the weight limit? Is it 10 lbs, 15, 20? At what point are you beyond the standard. If a judge consistently puts up dogs that are over sized doesn't that hurt the breed on some level? As an exhibitor wouldn't you want to know the weights of the dogs the judge has put up before? Wouldn't this save time and money for exhibitors? If you can see statistically, that a judge prefers dogs over 7lbs wouldn't that help you choose what dogs you enter?
What do you guys think? |