Jump to content
BC Boards

USBCHA allowing AKC herding judges at finals


Jumpin Boots
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The argument from the USBCHA BOD side seems to be that they are having a hard time getting folks who are willing to judge the finals. As someone who has been involved in organizations that rely on volunteers, I can completely understand this problem. I do think there are ways around it though. Yes, people want to qualify and run their dogs in the finals, Who doesn't? But then Alasdair judged last year, didn't he? So even though he has a good chance of winning when he runs, he still gave time to judge a finals. If it's that hard to get judges then maybe there's a way to make judging the finals more appealing. I don't know what that is; I'm sure it's a mostly thankless job, but for people who run in a lot of USBCHA trials and attend a lot of finals, maybe there's a way to appeal to their sense of giving back to encourage more folks to step up.

 

I agree with those who say that it's one thing to be involved in AKC and to give lessons, etc., but I do think it sends the wrong message to allow someone who is an AKC judge to also be a USBCHA finals judge. It's not personal (I don't actually know the person in question, but the website says a lot), but I do think it's not really possible to have "two masters" and this is a case where I think USBCHA needs to draw a line.

 

To me, anyone who is that involved with AKC and who doesn't (can't or won't) acknowledge the harm that AKC does to working (purpose bred) dogs isn't someone who needs to judge our finals. If a person wants to be a part of that organization, fine, but if they're doing that and are also running in USBCHA open and doing well enough to be considered a judge for our finals, I have to wonder how they can be unaware of the damage the one organization's overall philosophy, policies, and practices are to the very traits that are being tested for within the USBCHA trialing system. How do they reconcile that? I don't think one can ethically support two such diametrically opposed philosophies, and offering them up the bragging rights just strikes me as misguided at bes. My opinion.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is reconciled by MONEY. Period. There are far more people wanting to take lessons with and consequently run Poopsie in those arena trials with knee knocker sheep than there are serious folks wanting to really understand, train, and run the true working stockdog,

A

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was more of a rhetorical question. I know full well that the AKC herding types don't blink at paying $$ and plenty of it in order to get all those nice letters around their dogs' names. I wouldn't want to keep anyone from making a living, but if you choose to make your living that way, I don't think you need to judge the USBCHA finals. I can't imagine what USBCHA pays could possibly make up for any loss of income incurred by being away from an AKC clientele in order to judge our finals.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then I hope USBCHA can talk AKC to sponsor the finals! I don't know why they would be expected to reward the Handlers for giving AKC more reasons to brag (Their judge ... judged the National finals!)

 

I don't care who handlers give lessons to but let's not elevate them to one of the top positions in the USBCHA. The rule was NO AKC judges - they changed the rule to suit what they wanted to happen.

 

If you are on Facebook - go to District one. It's not an open group but you can ask to join ... and read the comments. There is a firestorm against this ... with good reason!

 

I'm a life member of both and told the USBCHA ... if I wasn't I would NOT join! I'm beyond upset!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree with a rule change that would allow somebody who have judged an AKC competition of any kind to judge our National Finals. I believe that as a member of the Handlers Association and a lover of our herding Border Collies you need to choose between associating yourself in any way with AKC, which can certainly be taken as support of their goals towards our dogs, or only take part in non AKC ventures whether as a competitor or judge. Lena Bailey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's been an overwhelmingly huge discussion of this on the District 1 FB page but what it boils down in the final run is that if you are a member of USBCHA, please email or otherwise contact your District Directors with your feelings on this subject. Be rational, be as brief as possible (they are busy volunteers and probably getting a bit of feedback already), be impersonal, be polite, and be thankful that they are unpaid volunteers in a sometimes thankless job where they only hear from people who are unhappy.

 

I hope and think this issue will be resolved and hope it does not come up again. For that, the USBCHA will also need enough qualified people nominated for judging the Finals each and every year. That means that some experienced and top handlers will have to be willing to forego running dogs and sit in the judges' booth each year so this issue never has to be readdressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for letting us know, Laura, but what do you mean by "resolution"? Do you mean that a vote is in progress? If so, wouldn't writing to the directors (who might not yet have voted) be helpful? Or do you mean that the vote has concluded? Thanks for the clarification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

This was just announced on Facebook:

 

"Enough directors have voted today so Carol Clawson has called it. The original rule will stand .No judge who is listed on an AKC approved judging list may judge the Cattle or Sheepdog Finals."

 

My thanks to the USBCHA Officers and Board of Directors for revisiting this issue.

 

Regards,

nancy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although I don't trial my dog (yet, although hope to trial in the future), I have not commented on the rule change, but was certainly not supportive of the rule change to allow ACK judges. At this point though, I will add that I am happy to see that the rule has reverted to the original wording.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have somewhat mixed feelings about this.

 

I know several people who are AKC herding judges who are vehemently opposed to Border Collie involvement. These people are or were Open handlers and stockmen. They have an excellent eye for a dog, are pragmatic and I would be proud to have them judge a USBCHA trial I hosted.

 

Most of the people I know who are involved in both AKC and USBCHA I would not want judging a trial. I've head them actually brag on their dogs' AKC herding championships. If one of these people judged the Finals I would have a real hard time respecting the USBCHA. But then, I would say the same thing if they were not AKC judges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To my mind, it's not about whether or not an AKC judge is also competent to judge an USBCHA Final, but about what it says that this person and the AKC will be able to blur the lines between the principles espoused by the two groups.

 

What does it say when a judge from their joke of a herding program also judges an USBCHA Final? Far too many people are going to think it confers legitimacy to the inferior evaluation of a dog who's titled in the AKC arena's skills.

 

If it were up to me, no AKC judge would be eligible to judge any USBCHA trial at any level. I'd like to keep the 2 entities as distinct and separate as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also have mixed feelings, but maybe tend to think it doesn't really matter as much if folks are truely qualified. I am relatively new to trials, but one of the things that surprised me talking to handlers at trials is how many really talented, top handlers got their start in AKC herding trials and that a few of them have been or currently are both USBCHA judges and AKC judges. I would guess they do it because it is a way they can make a living working and training dogs. I wouldn't fault them for wanting to get paid for doing something they love. I know that some of these folks make it to the finals year after year and that they are consistently winning open trials. I know someone that is both a USBCHA and AKC herding judge who won the cattle finals in the recent past. I wouldn't have a problem running under any of them at a trial.

 

Just to clarify, I have never run in or even seen an AKC trial and have no desire to, but am not feeling I am in any position to judge those that do.

 

As a side note, I do know a few people with other breeds of dogs (tervs, rots, gsds, boxers) that do compete in AKC herding and they don't like judges that run border collies because they think they are unfair to other breeds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pam, we can't stop people from participating in ACK events, nor do I think it's anyone's place to do so. Ditto for people who got their starts there and have moved on to bigger things, or even continue to compete in both venues.

 

But that's not the same thing as hiring a current ACK herding trials judge to judge in the USBCHA Finals. That sends a different message IMO, one of a tacit leveling of the 2 organizations' philosophies and raisons d'être.

 

I'm thrilled that the USBCHA BOD has reconsidered and amended their vote based on the sentiments of their members. But it worries me that some people have become so indifferent to the potential repercussions such a move could have had.

 

I'm not going to keep flogging the proverbial dead horse since the matter's been resolved, at least for the time being. But I hope that people won't loose sight of the fundamental problem with this issue further on down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said, GentleLake.

 

There is a pool of people who are qualified to judge the USBCHA Finals -- let's call them Group A. There is a pool of people on the AKC approved judges' list -- let's call them Group B. There is, at most, a very tiny overlap between the two groups. If there were not sufficient people in Group A to judge the HA Finals, then we might have to consider whether we should nominate a hypothetical qualified person who is a member of both groups. But fortunately we do have sufficient people in Group A to nominate as judges for the Finals, so that issue does not arise. That being the case, there is no need to even consider taking someone from Group B to judge the finals. Why would we want to do that? No one who really recognizes the danger that AKC presents for the working border collie would want to do it.

 

Of course the line between the working border collie and the AKC is no longer 100% sharp. That was bound to happen once AKC recognized the border collie -- indeed, that's the reason AKC recognition was so bad, and why so many people fought against it. There are now people who think, "Why shouldn't I take money for doing what I love, even if it's in AKC and AKC is paying me? Who could find fault with that?" There are people who think, "Why shouldn't I register my dogs with AKC and support them with my entry fees, if it means more ways to have fun with my dog. Who could find fault with that?" There is bound to be a slide in that direction, an erosion, but that slide will accelerate faster and faster the more people signal acceptance of it. If the rule against AKC judges for the Finals had been changed, that would have been another loss of ground to those who are fine with the AKC-ification of the border collie. To me, the very fact that there has been blurring of the line is all the more reason to hold that line, and fight against anything that would blur it further.

 

There was a time when the HA board would never have dreamed of changing the rule against AKC judges at the Finals, but the mistake has been rectified and all's well that ends well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Doggers,

 

I have twice invited handlers I knew to be AKC judges to judge my trial. One did a fine job, the other is the only judge in 25 years I wouldn't invite again.

 

Several years ago some Big Hats floated the notion that only HA certified judges (i.e.themselves) could judge a sanctioned trial. Hosts - including myself - announced that under those circumstances, they would continue holding trials but not sanction them and the Certifiers went away. My farm, my sheep, my effort, my guests, my risks, my reputation: my trial.

 

I've also helped host two National Finals and they are a different story. The National Finals Sheepdog Trial is Our effort, Our registry, Our breeding strategy, Our biggest test and Our national showcase for the Border Collie we have vowed to hand on to our grandchildren just as we found them: useful, brilliant delights. The Finals belongs to our dogs and is too important to be judged by those who part-time for an organization that promotes breeding that has ruined other breeds and would destroy ours.

 

Donald McCaig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...