behavior expectations - Page 2

Dog 1, after all the good I have heard of contacting you, this was truly a pathetic post from you. People investing big money into purchasing dogs to show are not stupid. Your comment that if you don't fancy one judge then just don't enter leaves the club taking a hit.I think it best that we try to make sure that any/every show that we attend offers a fair venue. And I do believe the wining and dining is evident and probable should be banned.

Maybe it's me, but Elizabeth, most of your posts are very critical and negative in nature. I’ve gone back and viewed your posts and I can not find ANYTHING of a positive, constructive or informative nature that you have contributed to this site. If everything and everyone sucks so bad why do you even waste your time posting here? You seem to thrive on causing dissention and being negative to everyone you encounter. Does the term “Shit Stirrer” mean anything to you? You have taken over where Brittany left off. I hope you are proud to be thought of this way. It’s time to join the human race. There’s a drug for you, it's called PROZAC, go get a script filled, you certainly need it.

I would really like to agree with Dog1, it is what every exhibitor wants to believe, and what every exhibitor deserves to believe. Sadly there are favours done by many judges, normally just enough to be hopefully unnoticed or tolerated. The amount of favours obviously varies from country to country, and from Judge to Judge. It is utopia to believe that Judges enter the show ring determined to judge only the dogs, and totally ignore the dogs 'connections'. It should be the case, bus sadly it isn't. Far more qualified and experienced GSD Judges are outside the show ring watching the Judge, than on the inside of the ring actually judging, and all too often 'favours' are obvious. The issue is not 'pushed' because how do you prove it, "its a matter of opinion" - but regrettably sometimes the 'favour' is so obvious, and the frustration of those witnessing it so great, it causes people to leave our sport or become very cynical about it. Imagine what it feels like if your dog is a victim of such judging, just missing out on a top award it clearly deserved, and there is nothing you can do about it. There are some very good Judges in our sport, but not enough. I suggest you watch the Sieger Video or DVD, study very carefully the first 20 in each young class, JUDGE THEM, make notes, critiques etc. identify the ODD ones, and see if they appear the following year, and where they are placed, or if they have been sold, and examine the dogs 'connections'. In the UK it is best to look at those dogs that get the top awards, and those that just miss out, and study the 'connections'. It is my sincere belief that too many Judges are oblivious to the close scrutiny they are under, and how it is increasing with technological advances in communication and video. The results of this scrutiny are growing frustration and fewer people participating in our sport, indeed the numbers are falling at an alarming rate. I often wonder at what point in this obvious decline will our breeds ruling organisations actually realise what is causing it and make the challenging decisions to actually tackle the problem.

Thanks Moe, I have read your posts and feel the same way. Oh well, just made a note to automatically skip yours. Suggest you simply skip mine. Peace. Thank you Solo, your post was very informative. I did watch the video from NASS2003 Protection and agree that it was pretty obvious. Did the judges know the video was running?

Your welcome Elizabeth, believe me I've tried but sometimes you make it impossible. Here is Brittany's email address, you two are perfect pen-pals for each other. K9Wolfz@bellsouth.net

Moe: if you are now including me in the statement above, you obviously do not like a different point of view than your own, thats fine, but remember others do have a point of view, and are entitled to it. please study my comments throughout this site if you feel inclined to, I probably know the answer already. If you wish to wear rose specs, please do, if you wish to be part of the in crowd, please do, if you wish to ignore the obvious and only look at the not so obvious, please do. BUT do not start making comments about other peoples genuine and sincere points of view, especially when those people obviously do not want to follow the current trend of "BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU SAY OR YOUR SHOW RESULTS WILL SUFFER" - put another way, "KISS ARSE AND GET BETTER SHOW RESULTS".

Moe this is a good discussion...stop trying to pick a fight. If you don't like Elizabeth then be the adult and don't read what she puts. That isn't hard. It is getting hard for me to send my clients to this great site because of this kind of crap I am real tired of weeding through it. I have seen big kennels take judges and wine and dine them, show them the sites ect. I think this is the job of the club that is hosting the show, not the contendors. It does look bad. Heather

Hi Heather, You are RIGHT, and there are a few sets of Kennels in the US that practice this, and this is how they get the Polictics to running, and it works for them. Ive seen it frist hand one time too many. Its very primary for this pratice at big shows. Jerry

David, if you took the time to read who I addressed my comment to you would see that it was Elizabeth, so unless you changed your name there was not anything I said that pertained to you so please try to keep up. Het I was not trying to pick a fight, in fact the reason that I posted at all is that I took exception to Elizabeth's comments to Dog1, this was her remark: "Dog1, after all the good I have heard of contacting you, this was truly a pathetic post from you. " It seems that Elizabeth has some problems with other peoples opinions, not me. It's the way that she communicates it that I have a problem with. I'm sorry if my opinion about the tone of her posts offends you, and I'm sorry if I took your discussion off topic.

Oh....Het...who are your clients? What are you talking about?