No co own, just purchased. Obviously not thinking of showing "the" puppy, just any other puppies?

Sure why not. All the "names" show to all of their friends, so why can't you show other puppies to a judge you bought a different one from???

Look here: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/rulebooks/REJ999.pdf

"No entry shall be made at any show under a judge of any dog which said judge or any member of his immediate household or immediate family has been known to have owned, handled in the ring more than twice, sold, held under lease or boarded within one year prior to the date of the show."
"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."

Thank you, Laura.
Wish more people were like you.

as long as it isn't a puppy judges breeding/kennel then you're good to go.

You know, this is always a sticky wicket - there are some situations that are specifically listed as no-no's, but there are also a ton of things that fall into that gray area that makes up no man's land. If you feel funny enough about it to ask the question, then maybe you have your answer. Keeping appearances for appearance sake isn't a bad philosophy. And in the final analysis, consider whether it would make the judge uncomfortable.

Broadly speaking, you should not show under a judge if you have had a business relationship with that judge within the past year. Usually, people think of working for the judge, handling their dogs, etc. But there are most likely some people who might consider having purchased a puppy from the breeder as having had a "business relationship". JMHO as a judge....

Thank you Laura for posting that. Unfortunatly we see too many people showing to judges that they still co-own dogs with, do regular breedings with etc. I was raised to follow the AKC rules as they were written, I don't bend them to my personal needs. I get tired of hearing people brag about the major they won under a breeder judge who is their co-owner and mentor.

Wouldn't the AKC notice such a violation of the rules and forfeit the win?

Without even reading the AKC rule - it falls under the category of tact, ethics, and respect...NO!

i may be in the minority, but I think using their dog for stud or purchasing a puppy from them is definitely a business relationship. Having said that, it you take the time to read the results/sires and dams it's always very interesting to see who is showing to who a year after breeding to their stud dog or buying a dog/puppy and going BISS or BOW or whatever .. and then the competitors end up judging later in the year and they put up the judge who put them up ... All very interesting and I think the optics are really bad in those situations .. JMHO

It might just be that they admire each other's dogs.

So you can't show to a judge who's stud dog you've used?? This is not a business relationship, but rather a simple transaction and I don't think it's what the AKC had in mind when making regs. If this were the case, then I can bet judges with some of the top used studs in the country will have greatly reduced entries. I don't think any one stud dog owner can even know which dogs showing to them are sired by their dogs! They're lucky to find out later by checking the catalog once judging is complete, but prior to that... no way. And additionally, if a judge puts up crap solely because it was sired by their dog I can also bet they won't get very many assignments, as it just makes them look like they don't know what they're doing.

I've watched one person in particular in Canada (Winnipeg)show under and win with a puppy that the judge was a co-owner of the stud. Judge is a well known American breeder judge. This person is now following the same judge. I'm now saying the puppy isn't nice - just that the ethics are questionable.

I would say that the person with questionable ethics is the owner of the puppy, not the judge! To me, all that says is the owner must not think his/her dog is good enough to show anywhere else... how sad is that!? Sort of defeats the whole purpose of this. I also would have to wonder if the judge- being solely a co-owner even knew who the stud was bred to, etc. as it only takes one signature to get a litter registered on a co-owned stud dog.

Come on now...this is getting to the point of silliness. Are exhibitors really that paranoid? We covet breeder judges (generally speaking)...how many of you breeders don't use another's stud dog? How many don't purposely show to judges who might prefer a style of dog similar to what you breed? Don't you look for potential stud dogs that are similar in type and style when doing a breeding? Wouldn't it make sense that you would also probably show to that judge? Can you see where I am going with this?

Would you all prefer that our judges live in seclusion and not interact and learn from other breeders and judges? Then you would be complaining that they are not knowledgeable.

The one thing I have learned through the years in life is that perception does not always equal the truth. It is very easy to sit outside the ring and start the wheels turning and before you know it you have created your own version of what you believe to be fact deeply rooted in what you perceive as an observer and whatever your own biases are at that moment in time.

Are there crooked judges? Sure... there are opportunistic people in every walk of life. Complaining and screaming unfair is unproductive and childish. Make your stance known by your actions...don't show to that judge and if you are part of a club and have input on judging assignments you will have power there as well.

But as with most things in life...those that complain the loudest are often the ones who do nothing...except complain.

I realize that not every stud dog owner knows the people that use their stud dogs. It is the people that are close friends with the judge, that use the judges stud dogs, co-own with the judge and in some cases the judge has taken puppies back from the breeding, those are the people that are breaking the rules.In cases like this it is the fault of the exhibitor and the judge. It goes on far too often and is very tacky. AKC only reacts to it if it is reported to the rep at the show.

Seriously- LOVE YOUR POST!!!

To those who think you should not show to any judge you purchased a dog from - do you feel the same way about a sweeps judge? Does that change it?

Here is my two cents
1.You should not show a puppy to a judge, regular or sweeps, if you are listed as owner or coowner of that puppy. Not a problem for me if you want to show other dogs or puppies that those particular judges

2. If you travel with, go away on vacation with, regularly hang out at shows with or have handled judges dogs (wether for cash or as a favor) then AKC rules are very specific. If the sweeps judge has handled your dog within 4 months of their judging assignment, then DON'T show to that particular judge, any dog or puppy.

3. If you've bred to a stud dog owned by a judge (regular or sweeps) I don't see a problem showing to them. Most judges are not going to know the parentage of puppies brought to them, unless of course you play the game and put your dogs photos and pedigree stats up on your FB multiple times before the show and start calling your puppy by name in the the show (: There are some judges that will know their stud's puppies and put them up as a way to confirm their stud produces great stuff) Again you have a choice, dont show to them.

So what if we look at the Flip Side? If a Judge likes your boy so much that they breed to your boy. Then as the puppies arrive you like the puppies so much that you take a puppy back in lieu of Stud Fee? The breeder on record is the judge, the owner of this new puppy is the Stud Owner so there is no co-owned involved?

So does this fall under the Business Transaction Rule?

You can show anything BUT the puppy you took in lieu of a stud fee to that judge. All you did was buy a puppy.

IMO this poster sounds like a bit of sour grapes. I was at that show and the puppy that won was a beautiful bitch. She should have won. I also think the post is in poor taste for the fact that if someone really cared they could find out who the judge and exhibitor was. The judge did an exemplory job. If you go to any of the large specialties the judge knows and is friends with at least 50% of the exhibitors. Should they all not exhibit to that judge? I would think that our specialty clubs would soon go broke especially in Canada where our entries are small enough.

There's nothing wrong here. Breeders these days are often times strangers to the stud dog owner. Contact is made via phone or internet. The judge has to judge the dogs. If you have to question yourself then don't do it. If you are questioning someone else, forget it. It's their business. Maybe you don't like what they've done but if it's not listed as an AKC no-no let their conscience is their guide.

Exhibitors have followed judges from the beginning of dog shows. Just because a judge happens to be the co-owner of the stud dog doesn't mean that judge will like the puppy. Showing to friends is very common otherwise you'd have precious few specialties to go to. Sometimes they travel together, sometimes they have dinner together. If they like our dogs, they like them. If they don't, they don't.

I think you are really exaggerating. Maybe Facebook friends with 50%.... But how many FB friends are really "friends". I do not count a ton of people as my "friends"... I may be friendly to them, but I really want to know someone before we are close enough to trust one another the way friends should. JMO.

If you have to question whether or not to show to a regular or sweepstakes judge, then you have already answered your own question.

We all know of a huge specialty where the president, show chairman, and judges welfare person own dozens of dogs which are exhibited to the foreign judges that they socialize with during the week. To me that aroma does not pass the "smell test".

[We all know of a huge specialty where the president, show chairman, and judges welfare person own dozens of dogs which are exhibited to the foreign judges that they socialize with during the week. To me that aroma does not pass the "smell test".]

If a judge is stupid enough to put up a "friend" without truly thinking that particular dog is the best that day, then they deserve to get the dwindling entries they eventually receive. If on the other hand, it's the best dog, then cudos to them for having the guts to do it no matter who owns it and no matter what people may think