A VERITABLE ZOO?
Written by DR. GARETH MORGAN-JONES
(found in the November 2009 edition of The Canine Chronicle, Volume 34, Number 11 on pages 70, 72, 74 & 76)

How often have you heard someone or other say something like its a zoo out there, referring somewhat less than flatteringly to the condition of the sport of pedigreed dogs in conformation competition? There is a veiled content here to the effect that the law of the jungle essentially prevails. It may not exactly be an accusation of behavior akin to that of animals but the evolution of human consciousness and values may be viewed in less than perfect light. Is this kind of thing false, unreal, and imaginary, or is there some element of truth to the notion that our activities in this area are not always quite as mutually hunky-dory, above board, and satisfactory as one might like to think? Ive even heard someone recently call some of what goes on as a racket! By this what is surely being inferred is that there might exist a deceitful, dishonest, or even outright fraudulent dimension within our firmament. The enterprise is not as clean as we might wish say some. There are people who firmly believe this to be the case, while there are others who maintain that things are not as bad as is sometimes pictured. It is, of course, easy to shrug this off as coming with the territory, so to speak; a sort of integral, if unfortunate, part of the culture. On occasion each of us is confronted with a situation which generates some serious questioning about the well-being of our sport and whether or not it is in the best possible condition, ethically-speaking at least. From time to time all of us are witness to some doubtful decision making on the part of judges and wonder what goes into their formula, what dictates the way they act. Sometimes what goes on is patently obvious, other times things are a little more subtle but yet not all that difficult to discern. Interestingly enough, this past year, there have been some eyeopening experiences and occurrences which have led this writer to revisit this subject. Troublesome incidents demand reaction. Hence this essay!

One of the questions often asked is why the same dogs do a disproportionately sizeable amount of winning whereas others, which might be equally meritorious, hardly get a piece of the action. What are the contributing factors which regulate this scenario? From time to time widespread discrepancies among decisions rendered by judges are palpably manifest and understandably become, on occasion at least, the subject for critical comment. The disparities of opinion regarding the relative merits of exhibits, while easily perceptible to the acute mind, may sometimes pass unnoticed but yet there are often situations where this phenomenon is so highly visible as to cause quite serious concern. This is particularly the case where, at important events, the same dog may one day garner a significant win but suffer an ignominious fate the next day by failing miserably. When this type of thing happens in short order people begin to wonder what on earth is going on. Something isnt quite jiving here, something isnt quite right. Or so the thought process goes. Then there are the attempts at explanation. Is the sport so incredibly and intrinsically subjective that there can be no meaningful consistency among winners or are there elements at play which sometimes compromise objectivity, which taint the whole process of reaching rational, valid decisions? By the same token, when a particular dogs winning appears to be unrelated and out of all proportion to its relative merit we begin to speculate about reasons for same. There is every reason to believe that a cause and effect is at play here.

Has all this something to do with varying levels of competency and insecurity among judges or with a variety of contaminating influences or with, perhaps, a veritable mixture of such things? When a dog fails to get beyond the first cut at the Best of Breed competition at a large National Specialty under a well-respected breeder-judge, a person widely regarded as an authority, but yet is a highly-ranked, multiple Group and All-Breed Best in Show winner where is the rhyme or reason in the overall evaluative process? There is a kind of disconnect here which is troublesome, or should be, to many. Are there indeed various factors often at play which cause impairment of the ability to reach well-founded, credible decisions? How much of a role do compromising factors which judges may bring into their ring play in this? Often hard to say. Is the unadulterated, uncorrupted decision, particularly at a certain level, in a certain context, a thing which is now becoming of less common occurrence than it should be? How much influence does that insidious practice of systematically trashing the competition have on the careers of show dogs?

How often have you heard a remark to the effect that so-and-so dog had no business winning the Group at such-and-such an event but that this outcome could have been foreseen? The premonition and proselytizing, the I-told-you-so, things inevitably kick in here. When considering such a matter as this it is important that we bear certain things in mind. For a start it should be recognized that the intrinsic authenticity, and hence validity, of decisions decreases exponentially as we proceed from Breed to Group to BIS levels. This is in the very nature of things and this fact alone should discipline and temper some of our thinking in this regard. There are, of course, a number of reasons why this should be. The focus differs in context and intensity; the criteria upon which decisions are made may not be exactly the same; the comparisons being made are, in a sense, more abstract; the balance between objectivity and subjectivity shifts, and there is the added dimension of those ever-present outside influencing factors, including prior visibility, or lack thereof, as the case may be, of the exhibits under consideration. It is all well and good to roll out the old jargon about each exhibit being evaluated in relation to how they match up to the dictates of respective standards but the process is surely never quite that simplistic nor, in reality, is it this straightforward. In theory, this sounds all fine and dandy but in practice the equation is much more complicated. Let us not kid ourselves otherwise. Added to this there is the matter of degree of competency which is essentially determined by how familiar a judge is with each breed under consideration, particularly at the higher levels. Quite obviously there is considerable unevenness insofar as the latter factor is concerned and it is probably true to say that very few judges, even among those who have all-breed approval status, possess the sort of knowledge that allows them to render decisions which are indisputably and invariably authoritative, definitive, and fully legitimate in the real sense of that word.

Opinions about exhibits seemingly vary quite considerably and then the question becomes: do some opinions carry more validity than others and how do we go about determining such a thing? It is the easiest thing in the world to say that, in this context, some opinions are superior to others but how do we really know that to be true, for a fact? This, after all, more often than not amounts to just an opinion about an opinion! Likewise it is not too difficult to convince oneself that ones own opinion is exceedingly exceptional and therefore finer than another persons. It should also be added that it is very easy to be perfectly glib and nonchalant about this subject and it becomes a trap that people readily and habitually fall into. Is such a determination based on the reputation, generated unilaterally by whomever is passing muster, or collectively, of the persons rendering the decision or is there some more clear-cut, conclusive, empirical way of knowing if one opinion is superior to another? Can one ever generalize in this regard? Does it just become an in my opinion this judges opinions are invariably better than that judges opinions type thing or is there some more substantive way that we can go about the business of verifying absolute validity? Which begs all sorts of further questions. There must surely be some meaningful way of determining the cogency, that which appeals strongly to the mind or reason, of one opinion versus another. In all of this a certain consensus builds, based on observation and experience, which forms the foundation for whatever thoughts are generated.

Having said all of this I would be the last to argue that one should never generate an opinion about another individuals opinion. Certainly and by all means do unto others as they might do unto you. Judging pedigreed dogs, the evaluation of breeding stock, must surely, however, have a more substantive basis than merely expressing an opinion, it goes beyond the personal into the collective dimension. There is a connoisseurship content involved and a certain sophistication attached to it. But the problem is that the activity is oftentimes exceedingly vulnerable, whether or not we are always conscious of it, to extenuating circumstances and tainting influences, which sometimes compromise its very integrity. We all know that there are dogs out there which win out of all proportion to their respective merit and this for various reasons. Take, for example, the visibility factor alluded to above the snowball effect, if you will. Once a particular dog starts winning a certain momentum comes into effect, oftentimes fueled by advertising and other promotional activity, and this sometimes translates into greater recognition and more awards than are perhaps always warranted. Add to this such factors as who bred the dog, who owns it, who handles it, how much fiscal resource there is behind the exhibit, and the propulsion is compounded. A certain profile, a certain image becomes locked in and the amount of winning which the dog does may not always necessarily be accurately reflective of the extent of its overall quality. I am not, of course, remotely suggesting here that every big-time winner is in some way undeserving of all its awards.

There are some judges who undoubtedly allow themselves to be influenced, perhaps sometimes even subconsciously, and thereby the integrity of the decision-making process may be compromised and the whole exercise devalued. We have all seen it happen. I certainly have. Maintaining ones independence is one of those challenges that have to be met in order to perpetuate ones self-respect and the high regard of others. It is also one of the fundamental building blocks, together with honesty, of a sound reputation. Please do not misinterpret what I am trying to say here; I am not suggesting that this is pervasive but it surely accounts for some of what is seen out there and, in part, may explain why the discrepancies mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay crop up when they do. We all, presumably, know this to be the case. Then a judge comes long, passes on the exhibits presented conscientiously and bucks the trend. Then there comes the immediate pronouncement, the formal declaration of opinion, that his or her opinion is suspect, if not downright worthless. Hold on say some, not necessarily so! Which only goes to show that we have to be very careful lest we jump to an automatic conclusion and get it badly wrong. When a dog does a whole lot of winning it does not necessarily mean that it cannot or should not ever be beaten in the Breed ring or, especially, at the higher levels of competition. If and when there are notable inconsistencies in competition outcomes, especially at back-to-back events with the same entry on successive days, each such occurrence should be viewed in proper context and not through some spurious speculation as to cause and effect. This is not to say that judging incompetence should be allowed to fester behind the mask of the subjective nature of the activity but by the same token it should not be automatically assumed that where opinions as to respective merit radically differ one judge must clearly be vastly superior to another. This might well be the case in some instances. On the other hand, it might not. Disagreeing and being at variance, after all, often come with the territory. This is a fact that we surely have to live with. So why do you think a dog might be a Group winner one day at a very high-profile show but yet fail to get out of its Breed the next with the same entry? Has this sort of thing now become par for the course or just an aberrant happening which is unlikely to be repeated with any significant frequency? Or do the same dogs win most of the time by the very nature of the influences which impact decision-making?