Change the rule for dogs DQ'd by AKC Judges

MacIain Tibetans support the change, There should be a trial by jury -- not police, judge and executioner.

I think it is time for AKC to review its policy to make sure it gives the exhibitor and the dog the best consideration.

Having a puppy who was frightened by a judge grabbing her hind legs and yanking back on them, I appreciate that she was not DQ'd then or at any of the 4 shows following that incident. In the 4 shows following, it was hard for the judges to get a hand on her. Thankfully, we have worked past that issue. There needs to be some recourse for exhibitors.

This would be such a simple change in the process. Just modify it so that all dogs, save those that delivered demonstrable bites (broken skin), are open to the reinstatement process. If skin is broken, it will be obvious to all and is easily documented. It seems a shame that a dog could be DQd for life for a growl when others (and I have seen this) air snap/lunge yet the judge chooses not even to excuse. While I believe a judge's discretion is an important thing the rules need to be applied more evenly and fairly. The safety of the judge and other exhibitors is very important, which is why perhaps more than one examination should be done for serious infractions. Everyone can have a bad day. And everyone can have an unusually good day.

My puppy was stung by a yellow jacket and it really hurt. 3 days later while on the table at a show a bee buzzed around her head and she snapped at it. The judge, not knowing the dog's experience, excused her, thinking the dog meant to snap at judge rather than bee. Luckily this judge excused rather than DQ'd, but one bee sting could have ended the career of a promising puppy. I certainly don't want anyone to be bitten and want judges to be safe while doing exams but there's got to be some room for discretion.

I think that this change would be in the best interest of the sport.

For a dog to be disqualified, it should not be one judge's decision, that could be arbitrary, that impacts the dog's or breeder's reputation.

Blatant unfairness

Mine were DQ d this past week, both within standard, the ambigous statement of white on the dogue de bordeaux chest has become an issue. So I know first hand this.can happen.

Yes, accused dog and handler must have a way to explain their side of the story. 7 people were ring side and wrote to AKC affirming that my 11 month old puppy had leapt backwards into the handler's arms because the judge came up from the side without warning and grabbed her. The handler was setting her up on the table and didn't see the judge coming either. The judge claimed the puppy bit her - while traveling backward out of harms way ?Anyway under current rule, whatever the judge claims is the truth even when it is a lie.

I believe the reinstatement process should be less stringent, and require a more objective opinion.

I believe, to be fair, there should be more of a review on DQs by judges.

I had a wonderful dog who snapped at a judge because the judge raised his hands at me and looked like he was going to push me, I stopped showing for 10 years after that.

Had a judge paid off to DQ a dog and even with proof was told it was simply the judges discretion.

I also feel one judge should not be able to block a dogs reinstatement. A panel would be fair and would prevent one judges bias against a particular dog or breed for existing.

This is a ridiculous rule that should have been trashed years ago!

Sometimes the judges are the cause of a dog backing away or shying or making a small growl. Sometimes it IS the dog. But the only way to know is to allow the dog a further chance under a different judge.

One judge should not be able to veto a reinstatement examination. That is very unfair.

In my opinion this is an unfair rule even though in 50+ years of showing I have never had a dog dq'd.

Do the right thing.