Yorkshire Terrier Club of Ethical Hobby Breeders

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by yorkielady06

Sorry Mary that was not what I meant and I am sorry if I miss quoted but the meaning is the same.
IF a handler can "show a dead cat" and champion it...what is that saying for judging? Is that not who tells you that your breeding program is where it is at? If so then what credibility is there? That was my meaning. Not that one of you personally could show a dead cat. I would think that you of all people would walk in with the closes to perfect, but if a dyed dog wins over yours what does that say to you? Should the mother clubs not be working on this issue? Are they?

I find it very disturbing that some judge's never look what is at the end of the lead and continually put u[ handlers, because of who they are. I've always wondered "if" ethics has fallen by the way side with handlers. Or if egos have gotten in the way and they do take such dogs in the ring just to prove a point.

One can only be responsible for one's own breeding program and only take the best of the best into the ring. If we don't then we are only fooling ourselves and short changing our breeding program. It is defeating the purpose of showing; to obtain approval of our breeding stock. We all know there is no perfect dog, but I was taught, if you see 3 faults in a dog, don't show it, the judge will find more. So, it's the 3 strikes your out.

[yorkielady06]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

I find it very disturbing that some judge's never look what is at the end of the lead and continually put handlers, because of who they are. I've always wondered "if" ethics has fallen by the way side with handlers. Or if egos have gotten in the way and they do take such dogs in the ring just to prove a point.

One can only be responsible for one's own breeding program and only take the best of the best into the ring. If we don't then we are only fooling ourselves and short changing our breeding program. It is defeating the purpose of showing; to obtain approval of our breeding stock. We all know there is no perfect dog, but I was taught, if you see 3 faults in a dog, don't show it, the judge will find more. So, it's the 3 strikes your out.

Also, if a handler can show anything, then what is it saying about he Judges? This happens more often than most might think I bet. Being so, where are the police to police them? Whos job it it? The AKCs? The mother clubs? The exhibitors? I say all of them. Someone has to complain to get the ball rolling.
This was years ago, but I watched a stunning Cocker in the ring, and was awed at the dog. Everyone was just staring at this guy strut his stuff. He was handled by his owner/breeder. Then a handler walks in with a Cocker that had obvious faults in the rear and not much confidence at all. But the handler is well known so guess which dog won? That was just one show I attended. I have been to about 30 in my life and that happened on about a quarter of them.

[Mardelin]

Originally Posted by yorkielady06

Also, if a handler can show anything, then what is it saying about he Judges? This happens more often than most might think I bet. Being so, where are the police to police them? Whos job it it? The AKCs? The mother clubs? The exhibitors? I say all of them. Someone has to complain to get the ball rolling.
This was years ago, but I watched a stunning Cocker in the ring, and was awed at the dog. Everyone was just staring at this guy strut his stuff. He was handled by his owner/breeder. Then a handler walks in with a Cocker that had obvious faults in the rear and not much confidence at all. But the handler is well known so guess which dog won? That was just one show I attended. I have been to about 30 in my life and that happened on about a quarter of them.

It happened recently at one of the biggest shows of the year. A handler had sent their assistant in with the a dog into the BOB ring (ring time conflict). Well the handler finished in another breed ring and was allowed to step into the ring and take over for the assistant. The atmosphere changed completely when said handler stepped into the ring. Now keep in mind some of the most beautiful dogs were being represented in this ring. And guess which dog was put up (and the dog was so undeserving)? Yep!.....The handler and the judge were from the same geographical area and the judge knew this handler from the time the handler was a child....knew the whole family, as the handler came from a handling family. Sad, but judges like this are also contributing to poor quality breeding dogs.

[yorkielady06]

That is sad. That is where I think that police are not doing their job and the breed as a whole is failing for it. Not as big of a scale as puppy mills and BYB do to the breed but think about it. If that dog that was undeserving produces 100 pups in his lifetime all championed sired and those offspring go on the carry one his faults in the hands of exhibitors....the consequences of one judge doing this is huge...now have one in each state and see how that snowballs.
That was why I chose to bow out of the show scene and even stopped going to watch the shows. It disgusted me. But I was wrong too, because I did nothing. That is what my intentions were when I added this to the thread.
Does the YTCA have that on their agenda? are they looking into this seriously?
I think ALL mother clubs should be pushing the AKC to improve and shape up their judges. I cannot effect change on that level but I know that if enough YTCA members pushed that it could end up on the agenda...and if all clubs banded together to represent not only that but a ban on puppy mills...think of how much better the breeds would be

[Rhetts_mama]

Originally Posted by peachbongi

The remainder of the meeting was a dynamic presentation by Patti Strand entitled
“Preserve Purebreds: Preserve Dog Ownership Rights.” The public needs to have
all the facts in front of them, not the mis-information touted by AR groups such as HSUS
and PETA. Most people truly value the animal-human relationship and would be
horrified to know that the true goals of these groups is to destroy this relationship and end
up with a world where there are no more pets. Recent US pet censuses reveal that future
trends may lead us down that very path. Marketing, legislative, and fundraising
campaigns of our opponents focus public attention on the problems and the media then
caters to ratings rather than to balanced reporting. The coverage of the Michael Vick
case and every “puppy mill raid” are prime examples. On the legislative front, even
when we eventually defeat bad bills, the public perceptions have been slanted and
influenced adversely, closer and closer to the AR agenda with each campaign they hear
about. So let’s take a look at the real facts about pets and where they are going to come
from in the future. If current trends continue, by 2018 only 220,000 AKC dogs will be
registered. Purebred dogs from hobby, backyard, and commercial breeders are ALL
down. International sources, both legal and illegal, are rising. Petfinders is the biggest
source of dogs for the public today. In 2008 between 78% and 87% of all dogs were
neutered, as shelters only adopt after neutering and many breeders sell only neutered pets.
To replace the dogs currently in US households today, 7.9% of those dogs will need to be
replaced annually. Today there are 72 million dogs in US homes, so that means 5.7
million new dogs are needed annually. By 2018, with current trends, there will be a
shortage of 1.86 million dogs! In only two to four years we will be unable to replace
dogs as needed. We have the highest rate of dog ownership in the world at 39%, with
France next at 25%, UK at 18%, and Germany at 13%. If current trends in breeding
continue, pet ownership has only one way to go: DOWN. We need to point this out to
the public so they see where trends are leading. We must promote AKC at every
opportunity. To do this we must tell the positive story of responsible dog ownership,
good breeding practices, health testing, health research and improvements, CHIC, and
CAR. A negative focus led by the AR movement and fueled by the media is leading us
to a world with no more pets. Only those armed with knowledge can stop this trend.


Anyone else find this information surprising?!? I would love to see the census talked about here. This seems so completely opposite from what we are taught from various sources. Confusing

Wow! What a bunch of BS!

[peachbongi]

Originally Posted by cj125

What do you guys think of this?

http://www.ytca.org/Delegate%27s_7-10-1.pdf

Originally Posted by Rhetts_mama

Wow! What a bunch of BS!

It's in the last page of the YTCA meeting previously posted.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

It happened recently at one of the biggest shows of the year. A handler had sent their assistant in with the a dog into the BOB ring (ring time conflict). Well the handler finished in another breed ring and was allowed to step into the ring and take over for the assistant. The atmosphere changed completely when said handler stepped into the ring. Now keep in mind some of the most beautiful dogs were being represented in this ring. And guess which dog was put up (and the dog was so undeserving)? Yep!.....The handler and the judge were from the same geographical area and the judge knew this handler from the time the handler was a child....knew the whole family, as the handler came from a handling family. Sad, but judges like this are also contributing to poor quality breeding dogs.

I would have said that handlers get put up more than owner/exhibitors, but take a look at these stats. From the infodog.com website.

JUDGES ONLY PUT UP HANDLERS, SO
HANDLERS MUST BE THE ONLY ONES WINNING AT DOG SHOWS
Really? If you speak with very many exhibitors they’ll be only too happy to express that statement. This got us thinking. So many folks believe this to be so, but upon what is this statement based? Perception? Experience? Their breed? What are the facts?
We decided to take a look at wins at dog shows. Using published records for MB-F shows held in 2008 and 2009 we looked at:
The number of Winners wins awarded
The number of Bests of Breed awarded
The number of Group Firsts awarded
The number of Bests in Show awarded
The number of these wins that were awarded to dogs with no agent listed and the number that were awarded to dogs that had an agent listed.

Here’s what we found.
For 2008:
82,724 Winners awards
11,771 (14%) were given to dogs with handlers listed and
70,953 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
50,587 Bests of Breed awards
17,033 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,554 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3402 Group Firsts
1857 (55%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1545 (45%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
488 Bests in Show awards
323 (66%) awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
165 (34%) awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
For 2009:
82,237 Winners awards
11,239 (14%) were given to dogs with a handler listed and
70,998 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
51,176 Bests of Breed awards
17,566 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,610 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3445 Group Firsts
1810 (53%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1635 (47%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
496 Bests in Show awards
310 (62%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
186 (38%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
The numbers are what they are. To find your individual breed, go to the accompanying table to see the numbers and percentages for Winners and Best of Breed. Please remember that not all breeds compete at each show. The totals account for every time a breed was entered at a show and competed. There are separate tables (by Variety Group) for 2008 and 2009. View the 2008 table
View the 2009 table

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by gemy

I would have said that handlers get put up more than owner/exhibitors, but take a look at these stats. From the infodog.com website.

JUDGES ONLY PUT UP HANDLERS, SO
HANDLERS MUST BE THE ONLY ONES WINNING AT DOG SHOWS
Really? If you speak with very many exhibitors they’ll be only too happy to express that statement. This got us thinking. So many folks believe this to be so, but upon what is this statement based? Perception? Experience? Their breed? What are the facts?
We decided to take a look at wins at dog shows. Using published records for MB-F shows held in 2008 and 2009 we looked at:
The number of Winners wins awarded
The number of Bests of Breed awarded
The number of Group Firsts awarded
The number of Bests in Show awarded
The number of these wins that were awarded to dogs with no agent listed and the number that were awarded to dogs that had an agent listed.

Here’s what we found.
For 2008:
82,724 Winners awards
11,771 (14%) were given to dogs with handlers listed and
70,953 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
50,587 Bests of Breed awards
17,033 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,554 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3402 Group Firsts
1857 (55%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1545 (45%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
488 Bests in Show awards
323 (66%) awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
165 (34%) awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
For 2009:
82,237 Winners awards
11,239 (14%) were given to dogs with a handler listed and
70,998 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
51,176 Bests of Breed awards
17,566 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,610 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3445 Group Firsts
1810 (53%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1635 (47%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
496 Bests in Show awards
310 (62%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
186 (38%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
The numbers are what they are. To find your individual breed, go to the accompanying table to see the numbers and percentages for Winners and Best of Breed. Please remember that not all breeds compete at each show. The totals account for every time a breed was entered at a show and competed. There are separate tables (by Variety Group) for 2008 and 2009. View the 2008 table
View the 2009 table

Actually that chart does show that handlers have a much higher chance at winning BIS. Notice handlers are only 14% of the overall winning population, but on wins for BIS they hold 66% in 2008 and 62% in 2009. This is a chart on percentages and it's really not statistics, and percentages can be very misleading, although they can give you some information. What you really need to know is what percentage of the overall showing population are handlers, and compare that number with the times handlers won. By doing this, and doing a statistical analysis you can get a number that actually shows the increased odds a handler has.

It makes sense to me that an experience handler would be able to show off a dog better, and make an average dog look like a champ. All this means to me, is that you better really research your breeders and lines before you buy a breeding dog.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by Mardelin

It happened recently at one of the biggest shows of the year. A handler had sent their assistant in with the a dog into the BOB ring (ring time conflict). Well the handler finished in another breed ring and was allowed to step into the ring and take over for the assistant. The atmosphere changed completely when said handler stepped into the ring. Now keep in mind some of the most beautiful dogs were being represented in this ring. And guess which dog was put up (and the dog was so undeserving)? Yep!.....The handler and the judge were from the same geographical area and the judge knew this handler from the time the handler was a child....knew the whole family, as the handler came from a handling family. Sad, but judges like this are also contributing to poor quality breeding dogs.

I was at a show last year and was watching the corgis, austrailian sheps and another breed and that judge picked a pro handler every time. Not one owner handler got anything even though in most of the cases the owner/handler dogs were better. I finally got up a left.
One small way breeders can get the point across to these type of judges is to not enter under them.

[yorkiekist]

Originally Posted by gemy

I would have said that handlers get put up more than owner/exhibitors, but take a look at these stats. From the infodog.com website.

JUDGES ONLY PUT UP HANDLERS, SO
HANDLERS MUST BE THE ONLY ONES WINNING AT DOG SHOWS
Really? If you speak with very many exhibitors they’ll be only too happy to express that statement. This got us thinking. So many folks believe this to be so, but upon what is this statement based? Perception? Experience? Their breed? What are the facts?
We decided to take a look at wins at dog shows. Using published records for MB-F shows held in 2008 and 2009 we looked at:
The number of Winners wins awarded
The number of Bests of Breed awarded
The number of Group Firsts awarded
The number of Bests in Show awarded
The number of these wins that were awarded to dogs with no agent listed and the number that were awarded to dogs that had an agent listed.

Here’s what we found.
For 2008:
82,724 Winners awards
11,771 (14%) were given to dogs with handlers listed and
70,953 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
50,587 Bests of Breed awards
17,033 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,554 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3402 Group Firsts
1857 (55%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1545 (45%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
488 Bests in Show awards
323 (66%) awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
165 (34%) awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
For 2009:
82,237 Winners awards
11,239 (14%) were given to dogs with a handler listed and
70,998 (86%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
51,176 Bests of Breed awards
17,566 (34%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
33,610 (66%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
3445 Group Firsts
1810 (53%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
1635 (47%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
496 Bests in Show awards
310 (62%) were awarded to dogs with a handler listed and
186 (38%) were awarded to dogs with no agent listed.
The numbers are what they are. To find your individual breed, go to the accompanying table to see the numbers and percentages for Winners and Best of Breed. Please remember that not all breeds compete at each show. The totals account for every time a breed was entered at a show and competed. There are separate tables (by Variety Group) for 2008 and 2009. View the 2008 table
View the 2009 table

Are handlers and agents always listed? I dont think they are.Please correct me if I am wrong.

[gemy]

No they are not always listed, it is up to the person entering the dogs for the competition to indicate if they are using a handler or not. Still there would have to be a significant number of entries that didn't use a handler to swing the % a whole lot.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by peachbongi

The remainder of the meeting was a dynamic presentation by Patti Strand entitled
“Preserve Purebreds: Preserve Dog Ownership Rights.” The public needs to have
all the facts in front of them, not the mis-information touted by AR groups such as HSUS
and PETA. Most people truly value the animal-human relationship and would be
horrified to know that the true goals of these groups is to destroy this relationship and end
up with a world where there are no more pets. Recent US pet censuses reveal that future
trends may lead us down that very path. Marketing, legislative, and fundraising
campaigns of our opponents focus public attention on the problems and the media then
caters to ratings rather than to balanced reporting. The coverage of the Michael Vick
case and every “puppy mill raid” are prime examples. On the legislative front, even
when we eventually defeat bad bills, the public perceptions have been slanted and
influenced adversely, closer and closer to the AR agenda with each campaign they hear
about. So let’s take a look at the real facts about pets and where they are going to come
from in the future. If current trends continue, by 2018 only 220,000 AKC dogs will be
registered. Purebred dogs from hobby, backyard, and commercial breeders are ALL
down. International sources, both legal and illegal, are rising. Petfinders is the biggest
source of dogs for the public today. In 2008 between 78% and 87% of all dogs were
neutered, as shelters only adopt after neutering and many breeders sell only neutered pets.
To replace the dogs currently in US households today, 7.9% of those dogs will need to be
replaced annually. Today there are 72 million dogs in US homes, so that means 5.7
million new dogs are needed annually. By 2018, with current trends, there will be a
shortage of 1.86 million dogs! In only two to four years we will be unable to replace
dogs as needed. We have the highest rate of dog ownership in the world at 39%, with
France next at 25%, UK at 18%, and Germany at 13%. If current trends in breeding
continue, pet ownership has only one way to go: DOWN. We need to point this out to
the public so they see where trends are leading. We must promote AKC at every
opportunity. To do this we must tell the positive story of responsible dog ownership,
good breeding practices, health testing, health research and improvements, CHIC, and
CAR. A negative focus led by the AR movement and fueled by the media is leading us
to a world with no more pets. Only those armed with knowledge can stop this trend.


Anyone else find this information surprising?!? I would love to see the census talked about here. This seems so completely opposite from what we are taught from various sources. Confusing

Interesting figures, to say the least. I doubt there will ever be a shortage of puppies.

[gemy]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

Actually that chart does show that handlers have a much higher chance at winning BIS. Notice handlers are only 14% of the overall winning population, but on wins for BIS they hold 66% in 2008 and 62% in 2009. This is a chart on percentages and it's really not statistics, and percentages can be very misleading, although they can give you some information. What you really need to know is what percentage of the overall showing population are handlers, and compare that number with the times handlers won. By doing this, and doing a statistical analysis you can get a number that actually shows the increased odds a handler has.

It makes sense to me that an experience handler would be able to show off a dog better, and make an average dog look like a champ. All this means to me, is that you better really research your breeders and lines before you buy a breeding dog.

Not so because handlers on average would show more dogs in any given day of competition then your average owner/handler. So at any given show there are likely to be at least 2-3 times as many owner/handlers, then pros showing the dog.
What I get from this chart is that once you get to group level handlers avg wins goes up markedly. I wonder if that is a self fulfilling prophecy. Common knowledge in show world, that unless you are a very experienced exhibitor best to hand off your dog to a pro for the group.

[JeanieK]

Originally Posted by yorkielady06

Sorry Mary that was not what I meant and I am sorry if I miss quoted but the meaning is the same.
IF a handler can "show a dead cat" and champion it...what is that saying for judging? Is that not who tells you that your breeding program is where it is at? If so then what credibility is there? That was my meaning. Not that one of you personally could show a dead cat. I would think that you of all people would walk in with the closes to perfect, but if a dyed dog wins over yours what does that say to you? Should the mother clubs not be working on this issue? Are they?

I knew what you meant. That a professional can make the worst dog look good. And that is not how it should be.

[Woogie Man]

I'd like to ask about puppy mills and their connections with registries and how that affects the standing of American and Canadian dogs worldwide. It seems that this connection is what prevents both countries from being full members of FCI.

This quote may explain what I mean...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"• Competence and responsibility for breeding rests with the member countries and contract partners of the FCI and includes breeding guidance, breeding advice and monitoring breeding as well as the keeping of the studbook.

• The FCI member countries and contract partners are under the obligation to draw up their own breeding regulations based on the FCI Breeding Regulations, in which the breeding objectives are laid down. Such regulations must take appropriate and reasonable account of the specific working characteristics of the respective breeds.

Dog traders and commercial dog breeders are not permitted to undertake breeding in a member country or contract partner of the FCI."

From this source.. fci.be/uploaded_files/Breeding_EN.doc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Are the parent clubs not concerned that this one thing (dog traders and commercial breeders) is the sticking point that separates us from the rest of the world? While the AKC and CKC certainly can't outlaw puppy mills on their own, they can specify what one is and refuse to register dogs from these sources. Would that be good enough for FCI?

I've also seen on other breeds' forums and pages that North American dogs are not the 'same' as dogs from other countries, and not for the better. Do the breed clubs not feel it's desirable to conform to FCI or are they content to go it alone, as far as stewardship of breeds? After all, isn't the #1 priority of any breed club the 'betterment of the breed'?

Just asking a few open questions as it seems like both the U.S. and Canada stick out like sore thumbs in the dog world.