I am going through this exact ordeal right now. A multi BIS winner who was roughly handled by a judge on the table and the dog reacted. Judge DQ him and now he is scared to be examined. Seen many dogs dq by this man
L
Lindsay Dugan
10 years ago
There is a big difference between temperamentally unsound and a normal canine flub. The AKC rules should acknowledge this difference.
K
Karen R. Shaw
10 years ago
Most dogs deserve a 2nd chance. Definitely under 3 judges.
S
Susan Patterson
10 years ago
This is long overdue. And the judges who sign the DQ should have nothing to do with the reinstatement process.
N
NL NUTTER
10 years ago
Some judges can be very harsh in they're handling of dogs/handlers. It might be a good thing to have judges (all) go through a retraining seminar on how to examine our dogs.
M
Marykay Ligocki
10 years ago
I have seen multiple cases of dogs being DQ'd where I thought they should have been dismissed instead. I had assumed they would be reinstated. I definitely think it is reasonable to have 3 judges' opinions before banning a dog for life.
J
Jo Ann Secondino
10 years ago
I respect a judges decision to not put themselves in what they believe is harms way. A perceived bite attempt is very different than an actual attempt to bite. There needs to be a review process, a single judge should not be able to decide a dogs fate. We don't allow a single judge to award a dog their championship, why would one be allowed to keep them out of the ring for their lifetime.
E
Eileen Drescher
10 years ago
I have been very lucky to have never experienced this but it just seems to me that the rules are far too strict and it's just about the one and only thing that requires one, single opinion to ruin a dog's career. Have 10 OTHER judges make the decision or what ever. Needs to be better done
J
joan Berned
10 years ago
One Judge should not have the power to DQ a dog and then steadfastly refuse to
give the animal a second chance. These single judges have too much panel and I agree that a panel of three Judges for reinstatement should be appropriate
R
rosemary facchin
10 years ago
do not believe that one judge should be allowed to be judge and jury over the dogs. there are many reasons a dog will back down and everything should be taken into consideration,
P
Pat Malan
10 years ago
Hope they pay attention. Doubtful though.
D
Deyanne Hinman
10 years ago
This is a reasonable request. It should take more than one judge to make this important determination.
C
Charlotte Wagner
10 years ago
In full support
A
andrea samuels
10 years ago
Definitely a reasonable request. One judge should not be the deciding factor to end a dogs show career.
S
Shana Snow
10 years ago
One judge should not be able to end a dogs career.
P
PamelaTreat
10 years ago
I myself have examined this dog and had NO problem. She is a deliteful girl.
K
Kim Bixler
10 years ago
This is a fair and reasonable request. No one person should be able to make this decision.
C
Cathy Spears
10 years ago
I agree the dog should go before a review by a different judge before a DQ. I have seen dogs startle and judges immediately DQ when the dog did not bite.
A
annalee mcphilomy
10 years ago
reinstatement should go before committee and must have other witness that saw the incident.
D
Diana mccarty
10 years ago
A 3 judge panel should be the decider not 1 judge.
I am going through this exact ordeal right now. A multi BIS winner who was roughly handled by a judge on the table and the dog reacted. Judge DQ him and now he is scared to be examined. Seen many dogs dq by this man
There is a big difference between temperamentally unsound and a normal canine flub. The AKC rules should acknowledge this difference.
Most dogs deserve a 2nd chance. Definitely under 3 judges.
This is long overdue. And the judges who sign the DQ should have nothing to do with the reinstatement process.
Some judges can be very harsh in they're handling of dogs/handlers. It might be a good thing to have judges (all) go through a retraining seminar on how to examine our dogs.
I have seen multiple cases of dogs being DQ'd where I thought they should have been dismissed instead. I had assumed they would be reinstated. I definitely think it is reasonable to have 3 judges' opinions before banning a dog for life.
I respect a judges decision to not put themselves in what they believe is harms way. A perceived bite attempt is very different than an actual attempt to bite. There needs to be a review process, a single judge should not be able to decide a dogs fate. We don't allow a single judge to award a dog their championship, why would one be allowed to keep them out of the ring for their lifetime.
I have been very lucky to have never experienced this but it just seems to me that the rules are far too strict and it's just about the one and only thing that requires one, single opinion to ruin a dog's career. Have 10 OTHER judges make the decision or what ever. Needs to be better done
One Judge should not have the power to DQ a dog and then steadfastly refuse to give the animal a second chance. These single judges have too much panel and I agree that a panel of three Judges for reinstatement should be appropriate
do not believe that one judge should be allowed to be judge and jury over the dogs. there are many reasons a dog will back down and everything should be taken into consideration,
Hope they pay attention. Doubtful though.
This is a reasonable request. It should take more than one judge to make this important determination.
In full support
Definitely a reasonable request. One judge should not be the deciding factor to end a dogs show career.
One judge should not be able to end a dogs career.
I myself have examined this dog and had NO problem. She is a deliteful girl.
This is a fair and reasonable request. No one person should be able to make this decision.
I agree the dog should go before a review by a different judge before a DQ. I have seen dogs startle and judges immediately DQ when the dog did not bite.
reinstatement should go before committee and must have other witness that saw the incident.
A 3 judge panel should be the decider not 1 judge.