I feel that the issue shows a disturbing trend of aggression, rather than harmony, from AKC toward not only other organizations that offer alternatives to fanciers, but to the fanciers themselves. This may be all well and good for AKC's bottom line, but  I ask, is it good for the sport?

Here is how I see it:

AKC Judges Conflict of Interest Policy –does it help the dogs?

 It all started out innocently enough, when a Conflict of Interest Committee was formed by the AKC Chairman back in November 2003.The committee reviewed the existing “Guidelines for Conformation Dog Show Judges” and concluded that it was “sorely defective”, “overwhelmingly composed of negatives”, and that most sections were unenforceable. James Crowley, Executive Secretary of AKC, reviewed and reported to committee the whole existing gamut of Judging eligibilities, responsibilities and behavior policies, recommended that rather than trying to define every possible conflict, the issue of judging conflicts needed to be simplified into very general terms, leaving AKC to address any questionable behaviors that are brought to their attention on an individual basis.

 All in all, it appeared the committee was on the right track – to remove unreasonable and unenforceable demands and threats toward its judges, while maintaining the option to review a judge on an individual basis as deemed appropriate.

 In the meantime, a much bigger conflict was taking place internally – a conflict in AKC’s tenuous relationship with its primary source of revenues, its registration. Despite the AKC’s general stance against the wholesaling and brokering of puppies (from “puppy mills”), the majority of dogs registered with AKC come from these sources, raised under conditions abhorred by most serious breed fanciers. As AKC sought to improve the mass-market situation - applying pressure by inspections, regulations, DNA requirements and public education -- puppy millers turned to other, paper-only “registries”. Their strategy has worked well.

 The number of individual dogs registered by the American Kennel Club dropped a whopping 60% from 1992 to 2005, from 1,528,392 dogs to 920,804. Registrations dropped an additional 5 1/2 % in 2006. In 1992, revenue from individual and litter registrations comprised a full 74% of total revenues. The downward spiral continued rapidly. In 2005 registrations comprised only 49% of total revenue.

 With the growing threat to its bottom line, it is little wonder that the AKC staff began to view other registries as serious competition to its own well being. Unfortunately for us UKC Belgian fanciers as well as some others, the AKC included all other registries as competition. This included registries that had co-existed amicably with AKC for some time. In the case of UKC, this co-existence had been since 1898. The UKC came into existence just 14 years after the AKC. There was never any competition between the two. UKC was for a long time the primary registry and event-holder for coonhounds, hunting breeds, Toy Fox Terriers, American Pit Bull Terriers, American Eskimos, and others – breeds which the AKC showed little interest in until recent years. UKC has requirements for breeders that prohibit the sale of dogs or puppies to wholesalers or retailers, so UKC is of little to no significance in the drop of AKC registrations by the mass-wholesaler segment. While it is true that UKC has in recent years begun holding multi and all-breed shows (it used to traditionally hold only specialty shows for its primary, non AKC breeds, as an aside to its much more popular hunting and performance events) -- on the balance, AKC has recently been soliciting the long-standing UKC breeds into its own registry, picking up new revenues from those additional breed registrations & show entries.

 As registrations continue to plummet, AKC’s shining star, its flourishing and visible dog show events, flourished. In 1992 AKC approved 3,005 all-breed and specialty conformation events, having combined entries of 1,475,945 dogs. This continued an upward growth through 2005, when 3,684 all-breed and specialty shows were held with combined entries of 1,952,487. Its agility events have seen even more spectacular growth. Clearly, its popular and visible dog events are seen as a top priority and source of pride by club delegates and the AKC board alike.

The collective (not to mention individual) contributions of its clubs and its judges to the sport bear mention here because they are significant to AKC’s success in dog shows. This is an area, in my opinion, that is grossly neglected by AKC in their pomp and ceremony of boasting their prominence in the dog show arena in the U.S. The monetary and personal investment that dog show judges spend in order to be approved to judge AKC breeds is significant. To become an AKC judge, one must invest many years of servitude and a great deal of money into specific AKC activities – by registering dogs with AKC, exhibiting at AKC shows, breeding AKC Champions, volunteering service to local and parent show-giving AKC clubs, attendance at national and regional specialties, attending educational seminars, and of course, volunteer judging at AKC sanctioned matches and sweepstakes events.

 Judges then incur additional expenses judging their provisional assignments. My own example is quite typical -- I traveled from Michigan to California (two times), to Kansas, Texas, the east coast and Indiana. For the sacrifice of my time and travel, I received the typical Provisional Judge compensation of $2-3 per entry. In Belgians, we are talking oh anywhere from somewhere between 3 to 25 entries at a show. Oh yes,  and I did greatly appreciate two instances where clubs added one night’s lodging.  After the considerable investment of time and money to become approved, the majority of AKC judges will never recoup the expenses which they incurred to become an AKC judge -- not in their lifetime. Indeed, many judges will often likely continue to judge their original breed on an “expenses-only” compensation basis (if that) when they judge specialty shows. Judging is truly, for the vast majority of judges, an effort of love and dedication to the  breed or dog activity that the  judge feels is worth his and her efforts to support.

 There is also the issue of continuing educational enrichment. Good judges never stop learning. It is only through experience and continuing study that judges can demonstrate sound knowledge of the breeds they judge. In the case of judges who have AKC approval for only one or a few breeds, they will not get many assignments at all-breed shows, where it is more economical for clubs to hire Group and Best in Show judges. Therefore, many judges are delighted to have the opportunity to judge at other events. Doing so not only acts to the benefit of the breeds they cherish, but also affords to a judge an enriching educational experience of hands-on judging practice and experience. And, if they are a UKC judge of Belgians, they gain the additional huge benefit of the experience of writing a detailed critique for each entry.

 So imagine the surprise, when in May 2006, the AKC board announced that effective Jan. 1 2007 it would implement a new conflict of interest policy for its judges: Any AKC approved judge may no longer judge the breeds or performance events that they are approved for, at any non-AKC event. Period and end of story. Doing so would subject them to discipline, even to the point of revoking their AKC judging approval. AKC reasoned that it was spending millions of dollars on the education of its judges, insinuating (I can only surmise) that its judges were “stealing” by taking their knowledge to “competing” organizations.

 The way I see it, this was a clear but misdirected reaction on the part of the AKC board to the threat of losing its registration revenues. In weighing its loss of revenues against the high expenses it chose to spend on the administration of its dog show events, the AKC lashed out at those who had proven to be among its most dedicated servants!

 The policy was wrought from the beginning with the very threats, inconsistencies and un-enforceable wording that the committee had set about to rectify.  From the start, the AKC exempted those performance events which (in its opinion) pre-dated any similar events held by the AKC. For UKC judges, this at first only included the judging of UKC Coonhound events.

It mattered not that judges had invested considerable time, money and effort into venues that served their breeds or activities outside of AKC's jurisdicition. It mattered not that judges might feel their dogs would be best served across a wide spectrum.

 In at least one other breed (Aussies), there were AKC judges who were also Australian Shepherd Club of America (ASCA) judges. ASCA is the original foundation parent club for the breed in this country, established in 1957, long before the United States Australian Shepherd Association (USASA) formed to turn its registry over to AKC (ASCA opted not to). Long time and loyal ASCA judges, who had later offered their knowledge of the breed as AKC judges, now were placed in the predicament of having to choose club loyalties.

 Similarly, in my own case, I was one of a number of AKC judges who had judged my breed extensively for another organization (UKC) before applying for AKC approval. In fact, I considered this experience to be such a wonderful addition to the traditional AKC requirements that in my request for AKC approval, I sent the AKC a list of all the UKC events for Belgians that I had judged. I did this in part, as well, to set the record straight before I embarked on the expensive journey of provisional judging assignments – to let AKC know that I was also a judge of Belgians for UKC. With this letter from me in hand, AKC approved my application and accepted my provisional assignments, Then suddenly, by announcing their conflict policy, they were telling me that if I continued to judge for UKC or any other organization, despite my proven years of service, loyalty and belief in them, they would, without any discussion, remove me from their list of approved judges!

 Objections flocked in from many of AKC’s performance clubs on behalf of the many judges who for years had supported a wide spectrum of organizations that  served their interests for the betterment of dogs. And so, the list of performance event exceptions to the judges conflict policy grew even longer. Objections also flocked in to AKC from non-AKC clubs such as UBSDA, ASCA, and the Senior Dog Judges Association (which ironically hosts week-long judging institutes for AKC judges). None of these objections, that I could find, were made public by AKC. My personal objection as an AKC judge was quickly rejected and, as others, never published.. I then turned to the board of the American Belgian Tervuren Club (AKC parent club) requesting that they officially object to the policy, which they did. Again, I never saw mention of this objection in AKC minutes. We will probably never know how many objections AKC actually received.

 I then wrote to AKC Secretary James Crowley, asking that exemption be given for UKC/AKC judges of Belgians. I reasoned that the UKC venue for Belgians is entirely unlike the AKC venue. I needed not explain to Mr Crowley about all of this, having first-hand gone to New York a few years ago, commissioned by my parent club, to sit on executive panel with him and the AKC President, explaining to them the problems that AKC faced by registering Belgians as a single breed. In response to my request for UKC judge exemption, Mr. Crowley informed me that the board would not consider such an exemption unless all the AKC parent clubs requested it. All the while he admonished us (UKC fanciers) for supporting a system for the Belgians which was different than the AKC’s. I then contacted the BSCA and ABMC asking for their support. Thanks to the quick action of their boards, letters of objection from those clubs were soon forthcoming to AKC. These letters were, at last, mentioned at the Nov. 2006 AKC Board minutes, but were denied from lack of a motion. Nonetheless, the outcry continued, and steadily, the list of exempted events grew yet longer.

 Then, at the January 2007 Board meeting came a surprise turnaround. In response to yet even more requests for exemption to the judges conflict policy, the board suddenly made a departure from their firm stance. They revised the conflict policy to only prohibit those individuals from judging for the AKC if they have “significant interest”, such as ownership of, employment or holding office in “competitive” organizations. They dropped the inclusion of ALL judges from this policy.

 Now that most of us multi-venue judges are once again free to expand our knowledge and experience as we chose, why should anyone be further concerned?

 Without a doubt, the AKC is an immensely fine and worthy organization. Its contributions to the sport and welfare of dogs are enormous. It is a non-profit organization, and that assures a great measure of control by its clubs through their delegates. Surely we should all be concerned about the alarming drop in revenues from AKC dog and litter registrations – because it benefits us all to have a wealthy non-profit organization devoted to the sport of dogs in our country.

But the ill-fated Judges Conflict Policy shows an ominous trend. Is it good for the sport when AKC draws a line in the sand between its commercial interests and the best interests of the breeds they profess to serve?

 Does this sport not belong to you and I - the dog fanciers? Just how powerful and all-encompassing do we want the AKC to be in our sport of dogs?  Should there be only one organization that may hold dog shows in the United States? Should the UKC, with their family oriented, non-professional, total-dog concept, go back to registering and sponsoring events only if those breeds are not registered by AKC (as AKC continues to gobble them up)? Should the Belgian breed fanciers' experimentation within the UKC of the FCI way of registration and exhibiting our Belgians be banished inside the U.S.?  Should fanciers (including judges) be prohibited from exploring and embracing the ideas of other organizations, be them for-profit or not, in their thirst for new ideas for the betterment of their breeds or performance interests?

Would you wish that AKC judges only be allowed to get their experience and gain knowledge of their breeds at AKC sponsored events and educational forums?  Should fanciers be prohibited from serving organizations outside AKC that serve the interests of their breed or activity? Should a club whose primary goals are to promote an activity -- herding, for an example -- be restricted to holding events only if they are held under AKC’s rules?

 Perhaps AKC needs to look more amicably toward its so-called “Competitive” organizations. In many cases, those organizations had existed, nurtured and served segments of the dog fancy long before the AKC adopted their venues. Agility wasn’t AKC’s invention. It existed in the United States long before being adopted by AKC. The same goes for coonhound hunts, tracking events, working dog sports, rally, and most of the competitions that we now enjoy at AKC events. In the future, AKC will undoubtedly incorporate even more competitions into its venue that were developed by so-called “competing” organizations. New organizations continue to form, yes, some for profit, that bring yet more new and innovative ideas to the sport.  

As for me, I think that “competition” is a good thing for our sport. By participating in other venues that we feel are (or might be) of benefit to our breed and activity, we learn and we grow. In the end, this can only be good for our dogs.

 Karen P. Johnson