I can't seem to find AKC rules regarding this situation but am hoping someone can advise. I'm considering going to a show (specialty) and one of the judges is a co-owner on a dog I own. This judge and I have never seen each other in person, so he would never know me if he saw me. I am wondering if it would be unethical (or against AKC rules) to show a different dog to this judge (obviously not the co-owned dog)?? Thanks.

As long as you are showing a dog the judge doesn't co-own and/or has had any recent affiliation with (i.e. trained, handled, etc.), I would think you'd be well within the rules to show to him.

Just MHO...Good Luck!

I'm considering going to a show (specialty) and one of the judges is a co-owner on a dog I own.

NO you can not show a dog to a judge that co-owns the dog with you whether they know who you are or not.

To clarify again, the dog in question is NOT co-owned with the judge, however I co-own ANOTHER dog with the judge.

Doesn't matter if it's a different dog. Because you co-own another dog with this judge, you cannot show any dog to him.

My suggestion to you is to email or call AKC and ask THEM the question you want the answer to, that way you will be sure to get the RIGHT answer.
Aloha,
Jackie

This is the rule:



In particular, I believe the bolded part is what applies in this situation. My interpretation is that, as long as the co-owned dog is not exhibited, you may still exhibit another dog (of which there is no recent affiliation) under the judge.

This is just my interpretation, of course. As Jackie suggested, AKC would be the authority.

OP, if you do contact AKC, would you please post their response ("nutshell" version would be fine)? Thank you!

Sorry Kathy, I think you're wrong about it not mattering if it's a different dog. The last poster quoted AKC rules, the way I read them the OP can show another dog to this judge with stipulations.

OP, I also suggest contacting the AKC. Ask for the name of the AKC employee you speak to.

Most of the time, this isn't the place to get an accurate answer to an important question. Always go further to be sure.

First, I am in agreement that this forum is not the place to get a final answer on any rules issue, whether it be AKC, Customs, Border Control, Airlines, Licensing, etc. Having said that, I know that you cannot show any dog to that judge for the simple reason that you co-own a dog together. But by all means get the final word from the AKC.

My guess is that as long as you don't show the judge the co-owned dog, you are fine. He's never owned your other dog, so he should be able to judge it. I would double check though.

Just reading rules, it says even if a puppy was SOLD to you by breeder/judge you cannot show under that judge. Seems this rule is violated on a daily basis! What a can of worms if the rules were straightforward, followed and/or enforced. hmmmmmmmmmm

The breed winner of one of the last specialties co-owns a dog with the judge, not the one that was put up. It seems that this question has been brought up before and the rules must allow it as long as it's not that particular dog being shown to that judge.

When you enter into a relationship/contract with another, such as a co own, you now have a personal relationship. People at the show won't know, or care if you have never met your co owner/judge, or you that you are showing a dog that isn't co owned with the judge. All they will see is that relationship, should your dog win. I certainly wouldn't want any of my points/wins marred by speculation, suspicion or vestiges of impropriety. AKC rules aside, I would not show to a judge that I co own a dog with, because I think it is the "correct" thing (for me) to do.

NO, you cannot exhibit under any judge with whom you co-own a dog. "…a person with whom you co-own dogs."

See AKC RULES, POLICIES AND GUIDELINES FOR CONFORMATION DOG SHOW JUDGES
http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/REJ999.pdf PAGE 2

ETHICS: HONESTY AND COMMON SENSE
AKC judges possess and project a commitment to
integrity and ethical behavior that insures the reputation
of AKC dog shows as fair and well judged. With
common sense, judges can easily avoid situations
which might raise ethical questions.
Judges are honest, competent and dedicated.
Nevertheless, it is possible to find yourself in an uncomfortable
or inappropriate situation. This publication cannot
address every situation; however it can help you
avoid improprieties perceived or otherwise.
Obviously, some rules, policies and guidelines are
clear. For example:
• Never solicit or promote assignments.
• Never accept any payments or presents for past or
future placements.
• Advise potential exhibitors not to enter under you
when their presence or the presence of their dogs
might give the impression of unfair advantage.
For example, if the exhibitor is:
…your employer or an employee.
…a relative.
…a person with whom you co-own dogs.
…a person with whom you travel to dog shows.
These are only examples. The key is to avoid all situations
that are likely to give the impression of impropriety.
You must do everything possible to keep your
reputation above reproach.

Ok, how about this?

I co-own with Judge Judy. I also co-own SuzyQ. Can SuzyQ show the dog (that she bred) that she co-owns with me, to Judge Judy?

I had the pleasure of awarding a wonderful chocolate dog best of breed this weekend at a specialty. I had no idea who he was or who owned him, just that he was a gorgeous typey dog. Turns out that he is co-owned and bred by a person I used to co-own a different dog with. That co-ownership with me was ended some time ago although their web site had not been updated to reflect that. I believe it has been now. I just thought I would clear up any confusion in this case.

This exact scenario occured some years ago. The judge gave the dog WB. When he found out about the relationship--co-owner of dog co-owned another dog with him--he was furious as it was illegal according to him.

I contacted AKC this morning and discussed the issue of the co-own with them. They agreed that I do not currently co-own with the Judge of the specialty and have not for quite sometime and therefore the win should stand.But that being said I should have been more diligent in the up keep of my website, providing Mr.Shearer with a list of people that I have had business relationships with and what shows my dog had been entered in.I do not want my lack of action to cast any doubt on the honesty of Ms.Stinzcum or Mr.Shearer. I will be more aware of what is going on
with Ollie going forward.If anyone would like to discuss please feel free to call 505-215-2001. I hate the fact that there is shadow of doubt over this win,Ollie is a beautiful dog and has been something special since the day he was born. If there is any fault or blame in this situation it is completely mine.
Thank you, Doug Bowers

I just read this post hoping it was just a simple question from a Newbie. Nope some person with nothing to do but stir things up. How sad is this.
Ollie is a nice boy. Why do this. Congrats to Ollie on his win. I had no clue that is what this was about. A sore looser.

My question was not directed at the recent BOB winner. It was a question I've had for some time since I co-own a few dogs, some with people who have become judges. Because of the nature of the thread, I thought it would be the appropriate time to make a "general" question. Again, it was not directed toward any specific recent winner. My congratulations to the winners of the recent specialties.

I agree. Why is it that common sense cannot prevail in these situations? Why is it that a beautiful dog cannot be rewarded without folks finding something negative to say about it?


How messy do you want this to get, folks? This post is a perfect example of how messy it could get, if common sense doesn't prevail. Why should SuzyQ miss an opportunity to show to Judge Judy simply because she co-owns with Jane Doe who co-owns with Judge Judy? For that matter, why should Jane Doe miss an opportunity to show Judge Judy another quality dog that is not co-owned? Seems to me if the ethics of this rule were to run this deep, there would be many excluded from specialties (or even all breed) shows on a regular basis...

Just MHO, but I feel that shows should be about the DOG (Are there ways to help or hinder a dog's performance on any given day? Sure, but that's another topic), and, according to the rules, a person is well within their rights to exhibit a dog under any judge as long as the judge doesn't co-own or have any recent affiliation with the DOG. Therefore, I believe if you conduct yourself within the rules & regulations (exhibitors and judges alike), you shouldn't have anything to fear from the "ethics police".

Kinderwood, did you not read the post Laura D posted? Nothing to do with ethics police.

• Advise potential exhibitors not to enter under you
when their presence or the presence of their dogs
might give the impression of unfair advantage.
For example, if the exhibitor is:
…your employer or an employee.
…a relative.
****…a person with whom you co-own dogs.****
…a person with whom you travel to dog shows.

I'm sure the judge would have informed them if they had co-owned dogs, but as they have stated no co-ownership exists so nothing wrong was done.
The OP's original question was can they show to a judge they co-own with and the answer is no they cant.

I think with all the fingerpointing behind us on this issue, congratulations are in order to:
1. the winner of the WLRC : CH. Stone Cliff Another Fine Mess.
2. The owners: Gail & Tom Shearer & Doug & Kelly Bowers
3. The Judge: Traci Stintzcum, who did an excellent job, and had a wonderful final line up of quality dogs.

I am just sorry that so much of the joy was taken out of this win for all those involved.

I also want to thank Traci for acknowledging the bitch I sent her, Cabin Creeks Hocus Pocus, giving her BOW. Neither of us were familiar with the bitch, the owners, nor the kennel.

This is obviously why you're not supposed to show to someone you've had a relationship in dogs with. Even though the co-ownership no longer exists, it was there in the beginning so will cast doubt in some minds. He's definitely a gorgeous dog and deserving of that kind of win but you set yourself up for criticism in this case.

OP, and I can't believe I didn't think of this before (I'll claim a brain fart for now, lol), if you're really intent on this show, why don't you have someone else show your dog (the non-co-owned one)? It doesn't have to be a professional, just someone unrelated (i.e. without a relationship) to the judge. Do you have someone that could do that for you?

Agreed. Congratulations to all the recent winners!

I know that the person showing the dog to Traci did not have a relationship that would come under question. And they showed numerous excellent dogs to all 3 judges that day. The other co-owner that was not present at the show, had only had a past relationship of a now non-exisitant co-ownership on another dog.
My thought is only, at what point do you draw the line. If you are in this long enough, everyone will cross paths. You might have once traveled with someone to shows years ago, or used a multitude of breeders different stud dogs through the years, maybe bought a puppy. What is suspect? Having lunch with someone you might judge in 6 months, or maybe a group of 12 go to lunch, and 3 are judges, yet you have known them 30 years.
I know every judge is put under the microscope, and most times judged harsly. Surprise! We are not perfect, nor is the dog world. All I know is an excellent dog came into her ring, she loved him and was thrilled to have "found" him. That is very exciting for any judge.
It was hours later when Jerry Saldana & his lovely wife, Joan, Traci and myself received our catalogs and we set in my room exchanging judging sheets, that anyone knew who the winners actually were.
Everyone now has quoted the rules and the policies. There is NO rule against. It is advised (in the ethics section) to notify a co-owner. The point is, that she does NOT co-own a dog with the winners.
I know it seems like all judges are suspect, but we really go into the ring hoping to find something that makes our heart sing, something WE would like to take home in our suitcase.
In my long winded statement, I will give you an example where I, myself, cringed. I judged in S. Korea in 2002. They have brought in beautiful dogs from all over the world. I put up a gorgeous black male. Guess where he was from? John's Island, South Caroline. 30 minutes from my house.
I did not even know that they had sold the dog 6 months ago, nor had I ever seen him. Did he deserve to win. YES, Did I say OH S___! Yes. Should they have not shown him because he was from SC? I am not sure they even knew where SC was.....

Per AKC rules you can not enter ANY dog under a judge with whom you co-own dogs with, it does not matter who the handler is that brings the dog into the ring.

The co-ownership must be over for 1 year (AKC papers changed)before you can show to the judge with whom you co owned any dog.

that is correct. But the dog in question was NEVER owned or co-owned by the judge. The judge HAD co-owned another dog with the co-owner of this winning dog. The word is "had" co-owned another dog, but no longer co-owned the other dog. So I think we are all on the same page.

UNBELIEVABLE!!! This question was referring to MY SITUATION, about showing MY BITCH at a fall specialty. This is the first time I have ever posted anonymously, given the nature of the question. It has nothing to do with the Winnebago specialty or the BOB winner, and quite frankly I have no idea why it was even brought up at all, especially by one of the show judges.

Thank you to those of you who responded to my question. I was curious because I've never been in this situation before and couldn't find the answer on the AKC website.

Sorry, Doesn't want. My mistake. Re read all. Staci is the person who mention where she judge and everyone took it from there thinking it was that situation. Got really out of hand. Guess, you can't be to clear when asking questions on here.

OP, I believe you and no one else has to but you. A question was asked of your situation, not of a situation that just occurred. But the idiots on this board are always pointing fingers.

Just b/cuz there was a recent show with a situation doesn't mean you were trying to cause trouble regarding it. The judge brought it up on a public list, not good strategy for a judge. You weren't talking about that judge from what I can see. You asked a question regarding your situation.

Don't ask these questions on here. I said it earlier, it's not the place to get final or concise answers. The only thing that happens is people misconstrue what others say or do and call them trolls or worse.

Contact the AKC to be sure, then do what is within the rules. G.L.