I feel there should be a different process & a possibility for Reinstatement. Except for dogs who have bitten anyone, inside or outside the ring. One bite & out for life!
A
Anonymous
10 years ago
I've always thought some judges were too strict and caused some of this.
A
Anita Rosenberger
10 years ago
No one person should hold that much power, there should be a system of checks and balances. If a dog's temperament is that bad, it will be borne out in the proceedings of a committee review.
V
Vann Smiley
10 years ago
Remember this, dogs are like people and they can get overwhelmed too, try and remember that.
J
Jennifer Vawter
10 years ago
I certain ally feel that a dog should go before a panel of judges and let the panel decide if the dog is stable enough for reinstatement.
A
Andrea Paysinger
10 years ago
I think that there are times when a judge is to blame for the behavior of the dog - one that has been shown numerous times with no problems. I never had a dog DQ'd but have had dogs back away from judges who were heavy smokers and had such a strong scent of tobacco that I felt like backing away. Fortunately, those judges were REAL dog people who understood when I told them the dog was not used to tobacco.
C
Cherry L Lawson
10 years ago
there needs to be a panel not just one person
R
Rita Nixon
10 years ago
This request is fair and reasonable. Serious consideration should be given to Changing this rule.
J
Jo Thompson
10 years ago
This is a well reasoned and balanced request.
T
Toni Ackerman
10 years ago
Please consider this request. It is very reasonable.
C
Carrie Morris
10 years ago
There needs to be an impartial panel or examiner for DQ appeals. No one person should be able to end the career of a show dog.
S
Shawn K. Colgan
10 years ago
There needs to be an appeal process by committee. One judge should not have total say in a dog's show career.
L
lynne zimmermann
10 years ago
It's time judges give the reasons for DQing a dog, in writing and there be a way to appeal before an impartial panel. There should be a change in the rules where the right to appeal is automatic and goes before a panel, Not all dogs will be reinstated but at least appealing to a panel levels the playing field, gives every exhibitor the same chance and takes away any appearance of bias off a judge.
M
Maryanne Lavner
10 years ago
DQ's are unfair!
N
Nancy Zinkhan
10 years ago
This should not be one judges opinion!!
B
Ben Goff
10 years ago
I think that it would help alot if the dog is a Canine Good Citizen but like others have said, even dogs and judges have a bad day or a bad moment. In my experience, I have had judges come up behind the dog without saying a word or making a sound. There are committees for just about everything in the AKC, so why not for this?
K
Karla Schreiber
10 years ago
The problem with the current rule is that it puts absolute veto power into the hands of one individual, the judge who disqualified the dog. While their opinion and perspective is relevant, and needs to be provided to a committee or anyone ultimately reevaluating the animal, giving veto power to one person opens the door for bias and abuse. A disqualification is a very serious matter, and so is reinstatement. My thought is that it is serious enough for a request for reevaluation to be considered by more than one individual, and passed on by more than one individual. Right now as I understand it if the disqualifying judge says there will be no revaluation, there is no appeal process for the owner to pursue. That lack of an appeal process is the primary reason I am signing this petition.
S
Sunnie Fair
10 years ago
A committee making the DQ decision is a great idea.
V
Victoria Wilt
10 years ago
Victoria Wilt Baltimore
I cannot believe AKC has not changed this No where should one person make this kind of a decission other than for that one day . There should be a comittee that together should make this kind of decission . Lets face it even a judge can have a bad day but that should not make a permanent decission for a lifetime
V
Valerie Rodger
10 years ago
No single person should be able to permanently ban a dog from showing, with no avenue for appeal.
I feel there should be a different process & a possibility for Reinstatement. Except for dogs who have bitten anyone, inside or outside the ring. One bite & out for life!
I've always thought some judges were too strict and caused some of this.
No one person should hold that much power, there should be a system of checks and balances. If a dog's temperament is that bad, it will be borne out in the proceedings of a committee review.
Remember this, dogs are like people and they can get overwhelmed too, try and remember that.
I certain ally feel that a dog should go before a panel of judges and let the panel decide if the dog is stable enough for reinstatement.
I think that there are times when a judge is to blame for the behavior of the dog - one that has been shown numerous times with no problems. I never had a dog DQ'd but have had dogs back away from judges who were heavy smokers and had such a strong scent of tobacco that I felt like backing away. Fortunately, those judges were REAL dog people who understood when I told them the dog was not used to tobacco.
there needs to be a panel not just one person
This request is fair and reasonable. Serious consideration should be given to Changing this rule.
This is a well reasoned and balanced request.
Please consider this request. It is very reasonable.
There needs to be an impartial panel or examiner for DQ appeals. No one person should be able to end the career of a show dog.
There needs to be an appeal process by committee. One judge should not have total say in a dog's show career.
It's time judges give the reasons for DQing a dog, in writing and there be a way to appeal before an impartial panel. There should be a change in the rules where the right to appeal is automatic and goes before a panel, Not all dogs will be reinstated but at least appealing to a panel levels the playing field, gives every exhibitor the same chance and takes away any appearance of bias off a judge.
DQ's are unfair!
This should not be one judges opinion!!
I think that it would help alot if the dog is a Canine Good Citizen but like others have said, even dogs and judges have a bad day or a bad moment. In my experience, I have had judges come up behind the dog without saying a word or making a sound. There are committees for just about everything in the AKC, so why not for this?
The problem with the current rule is that it puts absolute veto power into the hands of one individual, the judge who disqualified the dog. While their opinion and perspective is relevant, and needs to be provided to a committee or anyone ultimately reevaluating the animal, giving veto power to one person opens the door for bias and abuse. A disqualification is a very serious matter, and so is reinstatement. My thought is that it is serious enough for a request for reevaluation to be considered by more than one individual, and passed on by more than one individual. Right now as I understand it if the disqualifying judge says there will be no revaluation, there is no appeal process for the owner to pursue. That lack of an appeal process is the primary reason I am signing this petition.
A committee making the DQ decision is a great idea.
Victoria Wilt Baltimore I cannot believe AKC has not changed this No where should one person make this kind of a decission other than for that one day . There should be a comittee that together should make this kind of decission . Lets face it even a judge can have a bad day but that should not make a permanent decission for a lifetime
No single person should be able to permanently ban a dog from showing, with no avenue for appeal.