nsitional.dtd"> Dogworld South Africa
the dog site for show people, the show site for dog people
Dogworld

Show Reviews

Please read the Introductory Comment from the Editor prior to reading the Show Reviews.  If you wish to comment on any review please do so in writing.

 5 September 2012
REPLY TO ALL THOSE WHINGERS WHO ARE UPSET ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF THE HIBISCUS AND MARGATE SHOWS FROM SOME KWAZULU NATAL AGILITY HANDLERS:

Do not blame us for this cancellation.

You have lost 2 championship shows.   We have lost 4.    You may not realize, but the Agility World Championships will be held in Johannesburg next year, and many of us would relish the chance to compete there against the top handler and dog combinations from around the world (over 40 countries).   We need top shows to use as practice for this, especially those of us that are not due to go to the Czech Republic to compete in AWC which is held the week after the Hibiscus shows were scheduled.   All the dogs who compete in the trials to go to AWC are breed registered – the majority are also breed champions as well as champions in other disciplines.

We agree that the cancellation of these shows is upsetting, however, two of Natal’s Agility handlers paid over R3000.00 on accommodation in East London, to then be advised that the shows were cancelled due to lack of entries prior to the closing date of entries, they did not make any song and dance about this.  Another Natal Dog Jumping handler entered the Dog Jumping shows in PE and arranged for camping on the grounds but when she arrived she was told that the camping was for the Breed shows the previous weekend and then had to find accommodation on the Easter Weekend in a holiday resort at over inflated prices, she also did not slate the clubs on a website.

There are no agility handlers on the Hibiscus committee – if there were, we would have managed to run the shows easily, after all we run 25 – 30 shows a year for our sports in KZN on behalf of the show holding breed clubs.   We also manage to get our own sponsorships and prizes as the majority of prizes we receive from breed clubs is pathetic, and generally worth much less than the entry fees for one of our dogs.   Most of us handle 3 or 4 dogs in 3 disciplines per show.   You talk about your entry fees – they are nothing compared to what we pay out per show.   For 1 dog to enter dog jumping and agility at the Hibiscus Weekend it would have cost  R120.00 per dog per show for less than 4 minutes in the ring for a winning dog.

To “Breed First”   You are really pathetic to hold a grudge about prizes for so long.   TEN YEARS ago two agility handlers who make dog beds donated prizes to agility and dog jumping winners only because they were ashamed at the way we are normally treated at breed run shows, and you have held it against us since.   At a recent, very expensive championship show the CC winners, who have spent years in ongoing training of their dogs, and thousands of Rands in entry fees to qualify to get into the top grades, had to beat the clock and all other competitors in their grade on time and accuracy and were presented with a rosette and a voucher for a small amount off a bag of dog food – a voucher which will probably not be used as we support the sponsors who support us.   You complain about prizes????? 

To “Unsympathetic” and “Upset and Dispiritedness” – No, we are sure that the Hibiscus Committee didn’t give a thought to all your comments, most of them have never even attended one of these weekends, let alone competed in or run one – but one of the Agility handlers contacted South Coast Tourism who advised all accommodation establishments of the cancellation, and recommended that your deposits be refunded if possible as you have a genuine reason for cancellation!   Would the breed people have done that for us – we think not?

We are truly fed-up with the way we are treated with distain by many breed people, yes our sport is growing and is vibrant and is fun – and yes, because our dogs love our sports and get hyped up to compete at their peak they do make some noise, although we try to contain it.  Our sports are highly competitive.  The agility and dog jumping handlers are competing for CC’s just as you are, but to achieve a CC in our sports is extremely hard, we can have a perfect round and be beaten by 100th of a second, so yes we do need to hype our dogs up before they compete. 

We are also fed-up with the fact that more and more grounds are being closed to dog shows because of your dog mess left behind. In all the years we have been competing we have never once seen an Agility dog allowed to defecate in a breed ring but have witnesses several ‘Breed’ owners not only let their dogs ‘poo’ and pretend not to notice, but also wander in to a ring and let their male dogs relieve themselves on the actual equipment.   Its not just the Agility people that suffer this but the Obedience, and carting rings have to clean up after the Breed people walk their dogs thru.

In closing we wonder what would have happened if the Hibiscus’s very inexperienced committee, with the help of a few others, had actually put on the show, but with a few problems along the way because of this inexperience.   They would have been crucified by the very people who are now complaining because they have admitted that they are not capable of running the show.

Perhaps you should all take a leaf out of Agility and Dog jumping and keep your web sites positive and offer help and encouragement to show committees, instead of the vitriolic crap that is published on this site.

If you, as you obviously do, feel so strongly why are your comments anonymous?

We have all competed in breed, though some more than others and are not ashamed to sign our names.   If anyone has any further enquiries please do not hesitate to contact any of us so you don’t embarrass yourself further by writing pathetic rubbish.

Jean Whittaker, Kay Sargent, Ann Holder, Gail Taylor, Barbara Egan, DeleneTaylor – with the support of the majority of the Agility and Dog Jumping Community.


5 September 2012
Thanks for the comments guys, I thought the weekend went well on the whole. We still had an incident in the Utility ring. Would you call it a lack of ethics or just bad manners when a well known South African judge who was not exhibiting on the day felt it necessary to start a conversation with the presiding judge whilst her breed was in the ring? It could have been a chat about the weather but nevertheless showed extremely bad judgment, the steward was obliged to break up the “tête-à-tête”.

In addition there was a spectacular display of bad manners in the herding ring where, another S.A. Judge who was exhibiting had a massive tantrum when he didn’t win.

I don’t think we should dwell on historical misdemeanours, we should focus ensuring it does not happen in the future.

I think if you spot unethical behaviour you should bring it out into the open, preferably using your own name because when you use a pseudonym no one knows if it is just someone with a grudge.

However you can always come and chat to me ­ “watch for the hat”, because the more we bring this out into the open the less likely we are to have a repetition.

Rosemary Elliott


5 September 2012
So here I sit planning my entries for all the shows in the Cape during October. 6 in all if you have a breed that has a specialty show thrown in. So at R90 /R95 a dog , that’s a lot of money. And even more if I want to enter more than one dog. And that is just the entry fees I am not mentioning accommodation/ food/ travel costs/ sundries etc.
WHY are these fees so high? Is it to pay for all these imported Judges that we are subjected to? Keep bringing them in and you will also go bankrupt like is happening with some clubs already.
We now have this marvellous new Judges Programme (heard it will be effective Jan as all Fedco remodelling has been attended to and we now have a couple of new ABJ's ) and we have an ethics patrol so what do we need them for?
Entries down - I wonder why?

Azara


9 September 2012
Three cheers for Azara!!! He/she has hit the nail on the head. This new scheme is going to churn out judges by the dozens and we won't have to pay for the Irish, Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders and the scary South Americans anymore. I've heard that if you play your cards right and have the right connections then it will only take about three years to qualify as an ABJ like it does in South America. So then we'll have plenty of judges of the same caliber, so what's the difs.

So don't dispair - the whole dogworld will be judging soon and there will be plenty ABJ's to choose from. What's more, the E.P. will keep them all on the straight and narrow so no hanky panky.
Judges by the score


11 September 2012
Will our local judges never learn that if you show under another local judge and they give you a group or a in show award and then they show under you a scant few weeks later and you do the same for them that everyone will believe that this is a reciprocal payback.  It doesn’t matter if the dog is a constant winner, no one will ever believe it won on its own merits. 

If you chose to be a judge you should be above suspicion otherwise you have no credibility at all. Instances like this show very poor judgment. (no pun intended)

The other instance was a judge showing a dog on one day and judging the next, several people felt this was “tacky”.

None of these instances are breaking any rules - maybe we should be seriously considering changing the rules.

Rosemary Elliott (E.P.)


18 September 2012
From the Grahamstown & Queenstown Kennel Clubs we would like to thank all those that travelled to our shows for contributing to the success of our show which attracted bumper entries! Besides the gale force icy winds on Saturday, everyone was in good spirits and the atmosphere great! Thanks again for contributing to an awesome show weekend. Until next year...

Many thanks

Dudley, Lee, Jane, Sonya & Ron


26 September 2012
Hmmmm…. I wonder how many people are predicting the Junior Dog of the Year Winner?  What a nice line-up of judges for one particular exhibitor, sooooo well connected and all in the family (or friends) from start to finish.

Cynical


28 September 2012
A few months back Ria Wessels Had my admiration by not hiding behind a non de plume and quoting the KUSA rule and its relevant number relating to presentation of exhibits in the ring I.E dyeing, trimming etc. The whole concept of a judges training scheme (to which I am vehemently opposed)  falls flat when I see, consistently, dogs that are coloured (varying even from one day to the next) and are clipped instead of correctly stripped, actually winning under pass outs from these schemes, local or overseas. Ninety percent of these "Number Collectors" do not have an EYE, for an animal. That is a God-given gift, It cannot be acquired, only honed. Maybe an EYE is not needed after all but a good memory for FACES would suffice plus a willingness to trade favours  in the ring seems to be all that is required to get you by. Do they even worry that they make fools of themselves? No doubt they sleep well at night for most of them have no conscience. 

Graham Thompson    


28 September 2012
Well, well, well, so the Junior Dog Of The Year is a foregone conclusion according to "Cynical" who is so gutless that they cannot put their name to the accusation. "Cynical" is obviously wanting a certain dog/bitch to withdraw and thereby achieving what they have set out to do by insinuating that the said owners have all their ducks in a row. You pathetic soul, you are questioning my integrity. You are not obviously someone with whom I mix with socially for if you were you would know that I will NEVER be influenced and am renowned for doing "my own thing". Get a life you manipulator or do you act on instruction from elsewhere in the country? Let’s see what the run of the Cape shows yield in results as perusing the line-up of judges down there, I see a variety of "Ducks in a row" waiting to be played out.

 Graham Thompson - Semi-Finalist Judge for Junior Dog Of The Year at SALKA   

 


28 September 2012
Dear Cynical, this sounds like a case for the Ethics Police. Now that you’ve pointed it out, I’m sure it will all get sorted out in advance, just as Goldfields was.

Keep on keeping it Clean


28 September 2012

EP Alert!!! EP Alert!!! Don your cap and be visible ring side for the judging of the JDOTY. I agree with Cynical one dog has got it made with a clear run way so it is just a question of who is going to be runner up.

Gosh I wish I can strike it so lucky!


30 September  2012
Touchy, touchy, Mr Thompson!  I had no clue what this was all about but with your help and asking around a bit I think I'm now on the rights track. But why the tirade?  Is it because the master plan has been exposed?

Uncomfortable to be stuck in the middle.


30 September 2012
I agree - the Ethics Police will have their work cut out for them at Salka. Thank goodness for Rosemary and her team because the judges will know that their every move will be watched and that favors for buddies are out.

Nowhere to hide


2 October 2012
Whilst you are aware I am very keen to do as much as I can to point out, and hopefully stop the dodgy performance of some exhibitors and judges, I think we need to take a couple of steps back and look at the situation.

Yet again I really think that anyone who does not use their own name is also being unethical, I agree with Graham Thompson on a couple of issues and this is one of them.  Why on earth if you have no ulterior motive are you not prepared to identify yourselves?  And before you start muttering about reprisals I don’t think anyone has recently been more outspoken than myself, and it has not resulted in any untoward actions by anyone.

Please note I did not prevent anything happening at Goldfields, a decision had already been made, I just reported it

You are referring to the Shih Tzu Midnightdream Thrill’f Victory “Danny” belonging to Riekie Erwee, and the fact that she has shown successfully under one of the judges and has been friendly with the other judges’ wife.

I cannot imagine telling either of the judges involved what they should do, I think you would be given very short shrift.

Let’s bear in mind that Danny, has this year won 14 Utility Groups, 7 BJIS, 2 BIS, 3 RBIS, he was KUSA’s National Puppy. This is a dog that is a consistent winner and all under two years of age.   Do you not think he deserves a shot at the title?  I doubt very much if the judges were chosen with this particular dog in mind.  It is the luck of the draw.

Whilst we must work on improving our ethics we must not be paranoid.

My philosophy, which I am sure I have mentioned before -  if I enter under a judge and they have insufficient knowledge of my breed I would be very wary of giving them an entry in the future.  I don’t believe that they are unethical or crooked, although I often wish I could sit them down with the breed standard!  The odd few that I think make decisions based on friendships or tradeoffs I enter in the BIG BLACK GRUDGE BOOK and hell will freeze over before they put a paw on one of my dogs in the future.

Riekie is a friend of mine so it would be impossible to be completely unbiased, but as any of my friends will tell you I never hesitate to tell them if they are doing something wrong and I hope they will continue to do the same for me.

Rosemary Elliott (Ethics Police)


2 October 2012
Is Graham Thompson is a good or bad judge? That's a debate for another day, Is Graham Thompson a sad, pathetic judge whose only ability is to judge the handler, as he has no clue?

Some may say there are other judges out there who fit this description!

But I say that Graham Thompson does not. I have found that he values his integrity far more.

I consider Graham to be an excellent consistent judge, not influenced by small minded buffoons.

Andrew Wright



2 October 2012
Have you bunch of nine year olds ever considered growing up? With all your childish behavior any sensible new comer or even old comer would run a mile once they discover what really goes on in the dog world. Is it really so hard to accept that a dog wins because it happens (gasp) to be a good dog? Yes, there are people who will do anything to win and yes there are judges who cannot see a good dog even if it stands on its head while singing Rudolph The Red Nosed Reindeer. But it is not always the case! Can you not handle the fact that someone might beat you? Half of you need to go to primary school and the other half need to learn some honesty! To be totally honest I find all these letters extremely funny. You all make a very small matter into a very large one. Even half the junior handlers never come back because they can't stand the politics and accusations! Guys, come on, shouldn't you be encouraging the young and new instead of spreading nasty rumors?? Even if that's impossible for you selfish lot, you could at least make an effort to keep the "old" ones in? Once you put the nastiness, back stabbing and ego trips aside it is a fun hobby. It is also shocking to see how little the general public know of this sport! No wonder entries are going down. Many people seem to think that it's all about what tricks the dog can do or how bushy its tail is. EDUCATE THE PUBLIC my friends before we lose it all together. Maybe then you will be too busy trying to breed a dog that can win instead of thinking up and saying nasty things. It’s a nice thought isn't it?

A Junior handler


3 October 2012
Dear Junior Handler, I do wish you had put your name on your comments, because you should be proud of your stance.

You get a bit carried away but you obviously feel very strongly about the subject which is great.

I have been indebted to junior handlers (and one ex junior handler) for the last few years as I am not able to show my dogs myself.

They have all been unendingly helpful, and patient with my stress levels, and have done a much better job than I ever could.

The thought that they have been made uncomfortable enough by adults to leave the show scene is tragic.

You are right it is a really “fun hobby” and I and 90% of exhibitors enjoy it thoroughly.

So if you or any other junior handler has some advice to give us on how to give more encouragement or entice other youngsters to get involved – let us know.

But bear in mind what Winston Churchill said “Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never – in anything great or small – large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense”.

Rosemary Elliott


5 October 2012
I have lost track of Rosemary’s thinking.  The one minute she’s the Ethics Police with no gray areas and the next there is all kinds of allowances for her friend’s dog.  What it seems to boil down to is that if you are Rosemary’s friend, you are allowed to show and win under friends, but god help you if you are not.  Then the EP is there with an arrest warrant!!

As for Andrew Wright – who said Mr Thompson is a bad judge?  Get back in your box please.

The whole dog world is barmy 


5 October 2012
I really feel that I need to write to this forum after a really long absence!

I was under the erroneous impression that dogs shows are about the dogs and the exhibitors and their welfare, enjoyment and comfort.

All too often however it is apparent that committees of clubs seem to think that it is about the Committees, the Clubs and the judges- DING wakeup call!!!!! NO exhibitors NO SHOWS! And there would be NO NEED  for committees to run clubs or shows or anything else. They could then use their talents in some other arena.

Most people work for a living and in the hard economic times find it very difficult to take off from work.

The shows this weekend are going to be held in extremely hot weather conditions, mostly on a field where there is NO SHADE AT ALL. Some exhibitors have taken the time to mark off space under trees so their dogs’ comfort and wellbeing can be catered for- and what do the GROUNDS committee of Goldfields do? REMOVE all the tape because THE SCHEDULE (read: the gospel) says no putting up of gazebos or marking off space before 12 noon on Thursday 4th October!- Not sure the raison d’etre but perhaps the world as we know it may come to an end? We have after all been warned about the forthcoming Rapture!

So can someone, ANYONE explain to me in really SIMPLE terms (because I am afraid my brain cannot cope with anything TOO DIFFICULT to understand) why we cannot put up or mark off? It doesn’t stop the committee/grounds people erecting rings- the spaces marked off are way back from ring side under trees? What harm does it do-?

The short answer is NOTHING- it is simply a way for the organisers to flex their muscles and say IT IS THE RULE!!

When the ring plan came out to say many were astonished because the show is so spread out- but we quietly said nothing because maybe it will be a good thing and only after experiencing the unnecessary long treks between rings will be able to make a valid judgement call, but this business of not being allowed to tape off before the ALLOCATED TIME is :

So sad so pathetic and so unnecessary

Jackie Browning


5 October 2012
Oh I can’t wait for the Junior Dog.  It is going to be so interesting to see how the cookie crumbles, especially now that the EP has given the green light.  Maybe they’ll have to hire some canned applause.

Any bets for 2nd?


5 October 2012
It is with some relief that I read the posts on show ethics, notwithstanding Rosemary Elliot’s latest contention that anonymity is unethical (you can tell already that mine will be an anonymous post).  Of all the unethical behaviour in the Dogworld, the corruption that appears to be inimical therein is of far greater concern than anonymous posts which vary from whistle blowing to nasty.  The nasty ones elicit quick retaliatory posts while the whistle blowing ones shed some light on the inner workings of various breeds and clubs and serve to establish firstly, that the behaviour we witness within our own breed and group is replicated elsewhere and secondly one of the clear reasons why the Dogworld has systematically shrunk over the last thirty years.

I appreciate the irony that the very show-goers who actively post, defending ethics of others, often at the same time despair that our government is generally corrupt; they dismiss government’s efforts as “favours for friends” and decry our residency in a country riddled with corruption.  Yup, corruption is a parasitical thing which eats away at its host and this is no more true for dog showing as it is for local government.  A great problem we face as a hobby is the fact that our officials, referees, participants and spectators are all the same people.  There is no separation of powers and there are very few neutral parties.  Our president, moreover, has overstayed his official welcome, as granted by the KUSA constitution, and hence has promoted all sorts of fiddling with the system to assert that original term limitations were a bad idea when it comes to himself personally – rather like Mugabe successfully did and Mbeki tried (and look at the great state of contention our national politics as a result of Mbeki’s machinations).

Nevertheless.  A few points:

1.       So we have a system which is not standing up well to its own constitution (the original one, forget about the costly attempted re-write which was scrapped anyway) and a leader more concerned with personal job security than the long term strategy of the organisation itself.  Consequently what has KUSA done to promote the sport?  Apart from a few ill judged comments now retracted about incorporating the million household “Maltese poodles” into the system, there is nothing.  Fedco also has no plan.  Nor do the provincial clubs appear to have a plan.  Whither the growth?

2.       Our shows are shockingly white.  As in ethnicity.  Whites are a dwindling proportion of the populace and the whites within the Dogworld are a rapidly aging bunch.  Sadly there are far more death notices sent out by provincial clubs and mourned on Dogword and Showdogs than celebrations of births or membership drives.  So you argue dogs are not a “black thing” well yes and neither was  golf but that sport has done a lot to recruit all South Africans.  At least KZN has done something to reach out to poor communities.  But what about the rich black ones?  Will they not find pets rewarding?  Are all the dog walkers in 702’s Walk the Talk white?  Granted if you did recruit more black people to the show world you would have to attempt to re-educate the unreformed white ones who are there already.

3.       Right.  Once recruitment of new blood (of whatever colour) has happened, how do you explain our metrics?  That is our system of measurement based on the holy grail of the “breed standard” as interpreted by a judge while said individual has pre-existing ties and multiple roles within the system.  So we shuffle along to breed talks and hear on one item we have to follow the standard and on other items “these are very old fashioned” “they are not actual working dogs after all” “we are breeding for the ring” – and I quote a highly esteemed KUSA judge when questioned why his most vaunted specimen lacked something basic called for in the standard.  I have always been mystified that a dog can be “old fashioned”.  If we are breeding for function – which we constantly purport to be – why then are we acceding to fashion? So we follow our own metrics “sometimes” because, hell, some of it is old fashioned.  Form was supposed to follow function but now it is more than acceptable to have function following form.

4.       Ok.  So far so hard to explain to the newcomer.  Then we have the antics of some of the current bunch of breeders who actively promote the traits their dogs possess over the ones they don’t while vilifying those dominant in the competition.  Fair enough; this is to be expected.  These individuals then seek to “educate” new and old judges alike as to what is “correct”.  C’mon, admit it guys, really to win is “correct” and what constantly wins through fair means or foul is therefore the standard, ipso facto.

5.       Now for the much maligned and often harassed individual known as the judge.  They have pre-existing ties within the community and are often party to ringside chats and schooling sessions as to the mythical beast of the “standard”.  It is up for debate the extent to which the judge adjudicates what is in front of their eyes according to an independent standard, what they have been told from interested parties or what they have seen constantly winning.  Moreover is the judge confident enough in their own beliefs?  Or is it easier for them to go with an established show brand where they can’t be faulted rather than someone else?

6.       And then there is Facebook.  Zuckerberg’s genius has magnified and globalised problems 3 through to 5.

What the hell is in the sport for new people who seek to be ethical?  I guess I am struggling with the question myself – what am I doing here?  I had a black book of “no go” judges but this keeps expanding.  Often foreign judges are either the ones no other country would invite or else have sold dogs into the country and are unable to separate themselves from the very people they sold them to; they know all about local dogs and traits and groups all shamelessly promoted and friended (if there is indeed such a word) beforehand on facebook.  Local judges are often too nervous to go outside of the main brands, regardless of what these brands are showing.  I witnessed an incident last year when a long time judge and exhibitor interrupted the judging of another old hand for a 15 minute chat and amazingly their dog won the CC ten minutes later!  Astonishing.  Done at ringside. Agreed you cannot establish the causality that a ringside chat led to a CC, but the correlation sure is something.  Ten out of ten for chuzpah!

I am always intrigued when a judge is confronted with all the big brands together ‘cause then you know whose share price is higher - or – even better – two dogs from the same brand in a faceoff – or better still – two dogs from the equally pushed and promoted from the same brand. Then you have the “standard” ceterus paribis (all things held equal as the economists would say).  Now they have to judge the dog.  What will they choose?

So yes “junior exhibitor” we whine.  But it is actually because some of us are depressed.  If we don’t network, build our brand, actively promote etc. we are on a hiding to nothing.  Not on Facebook?  Too bad, so sad. 

I have been involved in showing since the 1980s.  Then you had three types of judges: the good, the bad and the lucky packet.  With the good and the lucky packet, yous pays yours money and yous takes yours chances.  The bad you took note of and avoided.  Now you have very few good men, and the bad and the lucky packet go for what they are told.  Most shows you can post the results to the committee as soon as you read the schedule.  Entry fees are a donation to the club.  I have witnessed a fourfold decrease in entrants over the last five years in my breed alone and shows which are a procession rather than a competition.  There is a great deal of genuflecting to the received few.  Corruption is a parasite which destroys its host.

What’s the point?  You simply land up with too many dogs who all deserve a good amount of attention and very little progress to show for it.

And of course there is the New Judging Scheme which has a very large set of Thought Police attached. 

So thirty years of shows? Maybe that’s enough for this bitch.

Desperately seeking a new dog related hobby


5 October 2012
To Barmy, oh sorry (whole dog world is barmy), I agree with you I am conflicted, I may well have given my friend the advice not to show the dog until I saw all the posts.

That got me thinking – Was this a manoeuvre to stop the dog being shown?  If so is this not highly unethical?  If the names had been posted I could have assessed if it was genuine!

I took into account that the dog is not being shown under “friends”, and made a decision.  You are welcome to disagree with me, in person – this weekend – come and have a discussion,

I will be by the Utility ring all weekend.

Rosemary Elliott (EP)


5 October 2012
Hi Jackie,
Thanks for the posting pointing out that marked off areas for exhibitors outside the rings were removed by the GOLDFIELDS GROUNDS COMMITTEE.  This is not entirely the truth and I would just like to verify a few things.

The GROUNDS COMMITTEE were asked by the SHOW HOLDING COMMITTEE to assist  by removing the taping.  The Show Holding Committee  REQUESTED it.  GOLDFIELDS GROUNDS COMMITTEE have no jurisdiction over what the SHOW HOLDING COMMITTEE’S request.

Ring layouts, office set up AND ALL MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE SHOW all fall under the jurisdiction of the SHOW HOLDING COMMITTEE. GOLDFIELDS GROUND COMMITTEE is just in charge of keeping Goldfields as clean and user friendly as possible, we are trying very hard to do this. We also assist with set up when requested.  THAT IS ALL!

The Goldfields Grounds Committee has been hard at work planting new trees, some of which have been driven out of the ground by exhibitors, to alleviate the shade situation.  They would be able to make an even

better job of this if they had more support from people using the shade and not making contributions.  Please would you and anyone else who feels the urge,  come via the GOLDFIELDS GROUNDS COMMITTEE tent tomorrow and make a contribution toward the running of the grounds. We would appreciate it.

If anyone has a problem with the GROUNDS COMMITTEE, we are all on hand on our cell phones to sort out the problem.  Please feel free to phone us.  My number is 0825567369.

Have a wonderful weekend showing,

Judi Musto
For GOLDFIELDS GROUNDS COMMITTEE.


6 October 2012
Dear Desperate Hobbit

A good post apart from paragraph 2 which is somewhat distasteful. Why on earth do you want to bring the 'race card' into  our sport? You say maybe its not a black thing & you are right its NOT so leave it be & stop playing devils advocate with AA & BE. We have enough of that away from the rings.

If you take time out to look at the American / Canadian / British / Continental / Australian etc scenes they are all white bar a very few exceptions. Its called choice. In my opinion forced or enticed mandates don't work.

To each his own


7 October 2012
Ye Gods & Little Fishes, I have just read the comments etc regarding the Judges for the Junior Dog Of The Year...quite frankly I feel like hauling out a gallon of milk two dozen saucers and letting all the cats get on with it.  For heavens sake people no wonder this 'sport' is dead on it's feet.

As regards Mr Thompson's integrity, I have known him personally for over 50 years (yes it shows how long we have been in the dog world) he is "Un-get-at-able"  He does not curry favour with anyone.  He will put up which-ever dog he feels is the best on ON THE DAY.

Please grow up......lets face it we all want to win, but in the end YOU TAKE HOME THE BEST DOG.

Yvonne Murgatroyd


8 October 2012
I was under the erroneous impression that dogs shows are about the dogs and the exhibitors and their welfare, enjoyment and comfort.

There you are, you live and learn!

All too often however it is apparent that committees of clubs seem to think that it is about the Committees, the Clubs and the judges- DING wakeup call!!!!! NO exhibitors NO SHOWS!

Ding! wakeup call! No clubs, no committees, no Judges, no ring stewards, no shows! What an incredibly mean accusation!

And there would be NO NEED for committees to run clubs or shows or anything else. They could then use their talents in some other arena.

A point well made. So why do these dedicated people give up all their spare time, organizing and sweating it out to put on shows for the benefit of their clubs and breeds. Why do they often give their own expenses to the shows? Why do they try to remain calm, suffering the abuse of (some) participants (and even some non-participants) over minor problems, who expect everything to run totally hitch free? After all “they have to work for a living” as well and also find it difficult to take time off work as well. And they are people with feelings as well! To put on a weekend of shows involving over a thousand entries, many of which are incomplete, incorrect, badly written to the point of being indecipherable, to sort, classify and collate entry envelopes takes  hours of pre-show work. Apart from the paperwork, getting to the grounds, deciding how and where to put the various rings, and getting them set up in good time for exhibitors who arrive to find everything laid out and prepared. Why do they bother? Of course..it’s so that they can flex their muscles and order people who live nearby not to mark out their little piece of real estate until the show ground is ready.

The schedule is there for a purpose. It says basically how the show is going to be run. Entrants must follow the schedule. When people think that anarchy is the best system then they ruin the show for THE OTHERS. But never mind we can blame the committee! Organising committees bend over backwards to accommodate everyone but are not always completely successful.

Maybe as the show was “so spread out”, the committee should organize golf carts to transport people like Jackie from ring to ring? Maybe those entrants who need to be in more than one ring should advise the committee in advance of which rings should be placed next to each other for their convenience? Maybe then they should form their own “ring placing committee” as there are bound to be conflicts and they can fight amongst themselves as to what goes where!

No shade? Bring your own like nearly everyone else! Discourage or remonstrate with drivers who go off the road and drive over newly planted trees! Try encouragement, try pitching in yourself.

So sad, so pathetic, and so unnecessary! Right!

Mike Dannatt


8 October 2012
To each his own

Thanks for the reply.  I understand where you are coming from; I am against social engineering as a whole and particularly of the legislated kind.  I did not intend to play a "race card".  What I meant was in a country where the main culture which supplies the show scene with participants is declining in number and, that being the case, where is the new growth to come?  "Culture is learnt" the textbooks say so are we actively seeking other groups to "learn" our dog orientated culture? If we value our dog orientated culture, surely some proselytizing is needed? And if this was met with success with individuals from another population group, would they be made to feel welcome? No quotas, no numbers, no letters from the beginning of the alphabet (a la AA, BEE etc.).

Your comments on this as well as the rest of the post are most welcome.

Still seeking another hobby AKA "Desperate hobbit"


8 October 2012
I find nothing in the second paragraph of Desperately seeking...'s post in any way in bad taste. He/she has hit a whole bunch of nails squarely on the head as far as our ailing dog sport is concerned, including the desperately clinging president of Kusa.

It's time we face up to the issues



8 October 2012
I fully agree with Yvonne Murgatroyd. It is about time that someone speaks out. All the back stabbing, gossiping, badmouthing, rude remarks to new-comers and negative criticism, mostly by people who sit back and do not help in organising any event, are killing dog shows. Bring back mutual respect, politeness, friendly words of welcome, help and encouragement to new-comers, and we will see an increase in the number of entries. Maybe some more fun events would help to cool down some hot-heads. And yes, Mr Graham Thompson's integrity is without any doubt above any suspicion. He and all our judges deserve better treatment. Let us turn the ship before it is too late. We can all learn from some of the "veteran" exhibitors who have maintained the ethical high ground over many decades. Yes, we all want to win, but should it be at all cost?
Daniel Kritzinger


8 October 2012
Now that the judging of the Junior Dog of the year is done and dusted hopefully there will be a full statement from the Ethics Police.

Congratulations to Eileen Ashton and her lovely Beardie.

Waiting in anticipation  


9 October 2012
On Saturday I travelled to the TKC show with a young couple who planned to show their young Dobermann, just turned six months. They were very excited and looked forward to showing him. Due to a road block we arrived around ten minutes late for the start of the show. But it wouldn’t be a train smash, Dobes weren’t on until later.

I later learnt that the scheduled order of judging was changed without prior notification because a Boxer exhibitor had phoned in to say he was stuck on the highway. The club had two good options – one was “Sorry sir, if you’re not here you’ll be marked absent” – and I’m sure that’s happened to quite a few of us – the other was to delay judging for that group for, say, half an hour (nothing unusual for the whole show, nowadays). But no, the Club decided that Dobermanns should be judged immediately. This resulted in, I understand, around ten people standing ringside, waiting to be called for their class, only to see BOB being awarded to an exhibitor already in the ring. Many of us have dogs being shown in two different groups and have to try and juggle things as it is – for instance anyone showing both Alaskan Malamutes and Airedales already has a problem. Peremptory decisions such as that at TKC do nothing to help. I did not even hear a message over the tannoy to announce that Dobes were to be shown earlier than scheduled. I don’t know about the other exhibitors involved, but this certainly left one young couple bitterly disappointed. Entries at dog shows are falling quite rapidly as it is. Do we want dog showing to die out with us “oldies” or do we wish it to go on with zest into the future? Something, I dare to suggest, that we need to consider.

Dorothy Berry


10 October 2012
So, which of this past weekend’s clubs gets the award for the rudest, most unhelpful office this year? I’m not sure which annoyed me more, perhaps Saturday. Certainly the workers selected to dish out exhibitor numbers and CC’s did nothing for your club’s PR. One particular person must have put at least half of the exhibitors into a bad mood.

We know you work hard to put on a show, but we also work hard to prepare our dogs and pay good money to enter. Please at least be civil when we come to the office. The mistakes on my entries were all made by you, my entry forms were neat, correct and submitted in good time.  I was not rude when you couldn’t find my numbers due to the errors, but you were snappy and dismissive when I pointed them out. You were also extremely rude when I collected my tickets and one had been printed for the wrong dog.  I was trying to point out the error and you basically told me to get lost. Next year I will. I’ll rather spend my money on a “country” show like Sasolburg where people smile and help exhibitors.

Tired of supporting exhibitor unfriendly shows.


10 October 2012
Dear Daniel Kritzinger

You talk about "friendly words of welcome".  Did you go to this last weekend's shows?  I have never come across ruder people at the front table in all my life!!

The numbers and certificates were a complete b****r-up on Saturday and then they still have the cheek to be so rude to people who come to sort out THEIR mistakes.  And those that didn't spend their time being rude to exhibitors were running around like headless chickens all behind SLH the chief hen.  Why is it that every show SLH is involved in is such a monumental disaster - just think back on the nationals.

TKC has run some bad shows in the past, but this one was the worst. And before Mr Dannatt jumps to the club's defence again - nobody is holding a gun against their heads to put on a show. But if they decide to do it it does not give them a license to verbally abuse and be rude to exhibitors.

I hear there was also a disaster with the Dobermanns where the club broke KUSA rules.  Hopefully somebody who was involved will expose what happened so that people can see for themselves how inefficiently this show was run.

Down with TKC


10 October 2012
Well chaos ruled supreme at the "Spring Weekend" shows......Certificates lost, dogs entered but not on stewards/judges sheets etc etc etc!

Those shows have certainly lost their atmosphere, I used to look forward to those two shows, not any longer though, it's becoming one of those weekends to avoid at all costs.

I was wanting to watch Junior Dog BUT at 5.30 I gave up and went home, there was such a long wait between the final of the Championship show to the start of Junior Dog (or so I understand, I couldn't wait any longer)

Both Clubs need an injection of new blood onto those committees.  Granted being on the committee of ANY Club is no walk in the park, but for heavens sake get people "In Front" who are courteous and friendly.

Also I think that FCI shows should be run by people who are au fait with how FCI shows should be run, not by the committee of KUSA holding shows.

Yvonne Murgatroyd



10 October 2012
Thank you “waiting in anticipation”, I think it is important that we separate the people who genuinely want to improve the ethics in the dog world from those who have a personal agenda.

I am sincerely sorry for you, I cannot think what would make someone feel so bitter in their personal life that they would pursue such a vendetta.  It is very sad.

Rosemary Elliott (EP)


13 October 2012
I have ruffled good friends’ feathers with my last post which was not my intention and for which I apologize.  I was in no way referring to the committee’s of TKC or Ladies in my post but speaking about ALL SHOW HOLDING CLUBS. 

 Until the morning before the show the GROUNDS COMMITTTEE needs full access to ALL areas at the grounds to mow and clean.   There is no way we can be expected to mow around marked off areas.   DO NOT  mark off areas prior to the time on the schedule of the SHOW HOLDING CLUBS or the GROUNDS COMMITTEE will, of necessity, remove them!

The SHOW HOLDING CLUBS are paying good money to us to hold their shows at our grounds.  It is for them on the morning of the set up, to approve of the grass length or request that certain areas are again mown.  Please respect that.  They are working for your good, as are we. 

Regards

Judi Musto


17 October 2012
Dear Exhibitors

When you find a parking place under the trees, marked off with rope which does not belong to you, it means that that parking place has been booked by SOMEONE ELSE and not that some kind soul marked it just for you! To the rogue parkers at the first weekend of Cape shows, what a pity you have no manners and even have the audacity to just drive over the pegs holding the rope and break them.

No wonder there is always so much ill-humour surrounding dog shows.

Janet Burmeister


18 October 2012
To the roped off parker Janet Burmeister

I don't know what goes on in the cape but at TKC some selfish person roped off half a side of the utility ring and DIDN'T use it all weekend and on Sunday the tapes suddenly vanished. I live out of town and do not own an oil well to be able to come and mark off territory before a show. I also had a lot of dogs to prepare so I could enjoy my day.
In the terrier ring my husband could not get his Fox Terriers out of their boxes due to a staffie person putting a guy rope in front of their doors. Do people have to be so selfish and unthinking?

Next year I will also be erecting my tent in other peoples marked off areas. Fight fire with fire.
Di Thompson

24 October 2012
To all the Club Committees of the 6 Shows held recently in the Cape - you all did very well in such adverse weather conditions & I praise you for that but please consider this for the future - the Working breeds do really need more space.  Not only for the dogs to run but for all the trailers & gazebos.  Please don't place us in tight corners it makes things so difficult.  Perhaps a larger ring away from the others.

Please.

Working Breeds Exhibitor


24 October 2012
Following my post of 9th October, I have just heard that the young people concerned have had their entry fee refunded and also been given free entry to both TKC shows next year as a form of compensation. Well done, TKC!  Thank you for restoring their faith.

Dorothy Berry


26 October 2012
Before lavishing praise on TKC for trying to rectify the appalling breech of KUSA rules at its show which severely inconvenienced many exhibitors, Dorothy Berry should be aware that this sudden act of benevolence is only because the club got wind of the fact that an official complaint was being laid. Had this not been the case, there would have been no action.  If the club was indeed so sorry about what happened, they would have been more sympathetic on the day instead of the rudeness everybody who complained encountered.

What about the traveling costs of those who made the journey to Goldfields for nothing?  Was that refunded too?  If not, stand up for your rights!!!

Too little too late, I'm sorry. I hope the complaint against TKC goes ahead.  This club and some others are serial abusers of exhibitors rights and its time that they be brought to book.

Fedup with TKC


27 October 2012
Hear! Hear!  This changing of the judging order because 1 exhibitor is busy in another ring must stop immediately. It is 100% against KUSA rules. Remember the show schedule is a contract between the club and the exhibitor. In Cape Town they shuffled the order of judging so often in the Herding ring that one lost track. All without consultation and all against Kusa rules. It was reported to the show manager, but no action.

So yes the shocking violation at TKC cannot go unpunished. If action is not taken, this will just continue. I also agree that exhibitors must stand up for their rights. I did not hear the verbal abuse of the Dobermann exhibitors who dared to complain at TKC, but I believe it was really ugly. So to all those who suffered financially and psychologically because of these womens uncooth behavior, make your case and make them pay. Remember you cannot loose - the club violated the rules in the Kusa constitution. It is cut and dried.

Stand up for your rights and don't be taken in by the club all of a sudden sucking up now that it knows it is deep in the toilet. 

Rules are rules


28 October 2012
Is KUSA going to do something about the Doberman attack at the FCI show in Cape Town?  This was a terrible unprovoked attach of one dog on another in the show ring when the handler lost control of her dog. Surely we cannot allow dogs with such shocking temperaments into our show rings.

I witnessed the incident as a passer by, but can assure you that with such an animal on the loose no dog on the show ground is safe.

Hope drastic action will be taken


30 October 2012
Dear Exhibitors,

Talk about a mess you ain’t heard anything yet apart from the appalling rudeness in the office on the day of the show – and the Secretary  shouting “I can cope” which quite clearly she could not and under the circumstances of her recent bereavement should have excused herself for this show.

Hereunder my story and correspondence to KUSA to which I have as yet had no response.

Dear Adele,

I have still not had a reply from you regarding the undermentioned issue. I would very much like a ruling on a beaten CC winner going on for Best of Breed.

Regards,
Julia.


From: Julia Van Rooyen
Sent: Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:33 AM
To: Adele Bastick
Cc: Jackie Ratner

Subject: Subject: JUDGING AT THE TRANSVAAL KENNEL CLUB CH. SHOW - 6 OCTOBER 2012

Dear Adele,

I wish to draw the following irregularity/misinterpretation of schedule 4 to your attention for a ruling please.

Bulldogs – the bitch puppy that was placed 1st in her class also went on to win the bulldog Best Puppy against the dog puppy dog that won his class and was awarded the C.C. – so he became a beaten dog.

When the dogs were called back for the Best of Breed the following dogs were back in the ring.

C.C. Dog (Now a beaten dog), Champion Dog, C.C. Bitch and the Champion bitch.

The judge then proceeded to make the Best of Breed Award to the dog puppy (an already beaten dog) , and awarded the Reserve Best of Breed to the Champion bitch.

The Best of Breed dog (a beaten dog) then went on and was placed 2nd in the Utility Group.

It is my view that a copy of Schedule 4 should be made available to all the judges in the ring – so that anomalous positions such as this can be resolved on the spot, and it can then be pointed out to the officiating judge that in terms of the regulation that a beaten dog cannot be considered for a Best of Breed Award, and should not be called back into the ring for this award.

Trusting you will note this position and clarify the regulation for future reference.

If in fact what happened above is incorrect then surely the Res. Best of Breed should be promoted to Best of Breed and the first 4 dogs in the Utility group also promoted by one position.

Awaiting your response to this query.

 I may add that the Res. Best of Breed certificate was made out to the incorrect dog and although this was pointed out nothing further has happened.

 Julia van Rooyen




31 October 2012
Julia van Rooyen’s post is a classic example of why Best of Breed should always be judged first.  Had Best of Breed been judged first in Julia's scenario, the Puppy dog, having won Best of Breed, would automatically have been awarded Best Puppy. No mess, no fuss.

When is it ever going to penetrate with clubs that Ring Stewards and Judges lose the plot when minor awards are judged first. How often haven't we seen this?  You would think that experienced show committees would try to prevent the embarrassment caused by contradictory judging.

And please don’t tell me that KUSA rules say that you MUST judge Best Puppy before Best of Breed. The only rule is that you must judge Best Puppy IN SHOW before Best IN SHOW.

Carol Immelman


31 October 2012
Just to confirm Julia van Rooyen's account of the bizarre Bulldog judging at TKC, here are the recorded results:



31 October 2012
With the show year at an end, it's time to summarize:

1, Who ran the most disastrous show of the year?: TKC of course!!!
2. Who had the rudest bunch of women manning the table?: TKC of course!!!
3. Whose organisers were clueless when it came to Kusa rules and regulations?: TKC's of course!!!
4.Whose certificate printing was a total mess?: TKC's of course!!!
5. Who should go back to show school?: TKC of course!!!
6. Who should go for a course in anger management?: TKC of course!!!
7. Who will never get an entry from me again?: TKC of course!!!!!!!!!!!

I hope people who serve on other club committees took note of how NOT to run a show.

Farewell TKC


31 October 2012
The dog world is a sport and what a wonderful sport it is - in my book, I could not think of anything better than having to share so much time with man’s best friend.

But it is a sport that is very challenging, demanding and it operates in a way very much like a graph – it has its ups and its downs. How to deal with the highs and lows is the real challenge – Acceptance is the key word but in a competitive market one can expect to be victims of envy and jealously.

One has to face the reality, one can never wipe out the problem, no matter how hard one does try, it’s not going to happen. So what does one do?

Do we carry on regardless? Or do we give up based on ones convictions and good sense? I truly wish I had the answers as to what needs to be done – I don’t , what I do know , it’s an emotional issue and we all have our very own make up and its always the strongest that survives to the detriment or expense of another – very sad indeed.

Personally and gratefully I have not be involved in any unpleasant situations ( I was never a threat ) but I have seen and heard enough and will be no longer showing as I do not want to associate myself with the “Dog People” anymore – they put the contestants on Survivor to shame.

I remain anonymous as it gives one less to talk about or to finger point.

CRAD


31 October 2012
Hi Change or Choke,

To start with where on earth do you find these dim-witted pseudonyms?  I still find it very hard to take seriously anyone who is not prepared to identify themselves.

However your comments about the disciplinary hearing warrants a response.  I think it is important that people do take action if they perceive an infringement of rules or ethics has taken place whatever the outcome.

In all interactions with others we have a perception of what we believe happened as does the other party.  Quite often the truth lies somewhere between the two, and it needs a objective viewpoint.

Please correct me if I am wrong but I think KUSA firstly decides, based on the information received, whether there should be a hearing and only carries on if it is justified.

I would think that all involved would want to have their say, I am sure that the “respected judges” in question would rather be exonerated than be regarded as questionable and would feel it was worth the costs involved.

The EP were not involved “apparently” or otherwise, I did not hear or see anything – probably too busy chatting instead of paying attention.

What I did comment was “If the people in the utility ring felt that an unethical practice went on – good for them in making it official”.  Still think so! Still believe we should all do the same whatever the outcome, if it does nothing else, maybe it results in some self examination – never a bad thing.

Rosemary Elliott (EP – on leave now until the shows next year)


31 October 2012
In reply to some of the correspondence to my letter I wish to comment as follows:

1.    I totally agree with Carol had Best of Breed been judged first as in years gone by and then the Breed Puppy – this situation would never have come about.

2.    In reply to CRAD I have shown, judged and been Secretaries of two big Show Clubs for the past 40 years, and I don’t have any issues with personalities – I have over the years  owned and bred top winners not just locally but internationally as well, and as it happened I did well on the day – so this is not a witch hunt..   Enjoy dogshowing, it can be a lot of fun, but like everything in life play by the rules.

       The intention of my letter was

       To point out exactly what Carol Immelman said Best of Breed should be judged before puppies then this situation would not have come about.

       To point out how much Ring Stewards need to know and watch the judges – as I said had the relevant Schedule been available at Ring Side this could have been resolved immediately.

       I distinctly heard the judge saying to the Ring Steward “I want that puppy back”.    The Ring Steward pointed out in terms of regulations it was disallowed, but she insisted.  

        The only thing that should have happened but unfortunately was not was for the Ring steward  to ask for the Show Manager and KUSA rep to come to the ring and explain procedures.

I want a ruling on whether a beaten dog regardless of whether he won a CC in the Breed Class  can be recalled to compete for Best of Breed and not to get into arguments regarding personalities which I have deliberately  omitted.

As far as I am concerned and the way I interpret the rules a beaten Dog cannot be called back for Best of Breed. After all said and done it makes sense he has been beaten by a Puppy so what point is there in bringing him back and “technically reversing a previous decision”.

Julia van Rooyen.


31 October 2012
To Change or Choke

Let’s get things into perspective …..

Obviously you have inside information that was not available to the Complainants. Just to clear something the “against all the advice and pleadings” was not from the Complainants side. Since justifiably lodging a legitimate complaint with KUSA I have heard - no hearing aid needed - a few happenings such as a friend of one of the accused standing at the side of the ring next to the judges table loudly - no loudspeaker needed - commenting that “her dear friend” has been wrongly accused ……..by the one showing her dog on the judges table at the time - you ask yourself the motive of the owner’s foghorn. Another comment made by an all breeds judge to the one complainant was that it was common knowledge that KUSA will NEVER take action against an all breeds judge and that it was a waste of time. The “frivolous complaint” may be frivolous to you as you were not involved but I am sure - in fact, I know - that if it happened to you, you would be the first to scurry off to make a complaint. KUSA obviously saw merit in the complaint to have called for a hearing otherwise they would have thrown it out. Regardless of the decision made by the disciplinary committee in their biased decision the fact still remains that no-one has the right regardless as to whether they consider themselves “a senior judge” (and therefore an untouchable) to verbally abuse and threaten anyone. The ranting and raving by the untouchable Lynn Brandt led another “untouchable” friend in the next ring to stop her judging and scurry off to the office to get the show manager to stop the outburst (KUSA referred to it as being an “altercation” - this was no altercation as it was only the ranting and raving by the ring steward - sorry, the untouchable Lynn Brandt - had caused.

Everyone should have peace of mind that they can happily attend a dog show and show their dogs without the fear of being verbally abused and threatened by raving lunatics.

The entourage you refer to were all quite entitled to be at the show as for whatever reason in the interests of following their passion (dog showing – in case you have forgotten what this is all about) and do not need any permission to attend a show in which they have legally entered dogs. Whilst I do not have to justify our attendance at the show – for your information I co-own the one dog and the previously mentioned expert groomer/handler (the person loves the compliment) was there to assist as I no longer am able to handle my dog in the ring - no harm in that and oh, the other part of the entourage was “the bad loser” partner. Most people in the dog fraternity have their “entourage” so why single out one?

Everyone has the right to fair judging and to know that correct ring procedures are being carried out according to the KUSA Schedules. The ring steward – sorry the untouchable – on the day should have known what the correct procedure is in dealing with any activity and not to take things into her own hands. She knows she did wrong in disrupting the judging of that particular breed causing confusion to the exhibitors AND the judge as the judge even questioned the untouchable as to the sudden change and the untouchable laughingly said “we are doing it this way now” – this being the last breed of the group on the day. No-one needed hearing aids to have heard the response. The untouchables cannot deny the fact. Perhaps the untouchable should keep to being an untouchable and not be a ring steward until she has more knowledge of ring procedures and anyway as a judge should also know what the ring procedures are. How she became a “senior judge” sorry an untouchable without the knowledge of ring and judging procedures - you be the judge! Sorry did I say “judge”.

IF you were present (I very much doubt it as your facts are totally incorrect) you would have seen/heard the judge approach the “bad loser” to explain by her own admittance that she was not a specialist but gave her reason why she gave the other dog the Best of Breed (note: This was not an FCI show and therefore the critique was uncalled for). After listening to the uncalled for explanation the “bad loser” said “it’s alright with me, mam”. The “bad loser” did not pick up her dog and storm out of the ring without going to her placing which is the common practice of most bad losers. Oh, I forgot the ring steward nor judge placed the dogs – only rosettes given to the relevant handlers, so everyone else had to assume the awards.

The untouchable obviously was totally aware of all that she was up to on the day as to have been so touchy about overhearing comments made in the Complainants tent. So, beware all exhibitors you can’t talk in your tent – it has nasty big ears. It is well known that a guilty person has a lot to say for oneself and that day proved it.

The BIG “I am’s” are mostly such small minded people who obviously do not have a life other than to conjure trouble at dog shows in order to win or to sit on a website stirring on matters that don’t concern them. So please just catch a life and give your dogs the attention that they so obviously lack due to you wasting your time poking your nose in everybody else’s business. You may think you know everything but sadly for you,  you do get your wires crossed – oh dear, politics again have got in the way.

I am known by many not to get involved in politics and have been respected for saying how it is and being open. I have had ups and downs in the dog showing world for 40 years but I have always been true to myself and despite not winning due mostly to obvious show politics I have carried on purely for the love of my beautiful breed and the dedication to the improvement of the breed. I will continue to chase that elusive Best In Show win and have fun in trying to achieve my first. Whatever you say or do to me will NEVER stop that passion and I always go home with/to the best treasures in my life – my dogs.

I am sure that certain people will be starting with the jittery withdrawal symptoms now that there are no dog shows to go to in order for you to plan up your next hits. I am sure you are anxiously awaiting the announcements of names of judges for 2013 so that you can start diarising dinner dates – shame, I pity you. I in the meantime have a life and enjoy it to its fullest.

Corinne Diggins


4 November 2012
Dear Corinne,

It is very disappointing after a life time within the dog world to read a post about my mother (Lynne Brand) where her character is being so severely attacked.  My mother has given so much of herself to the dogworld and worked incredibly hard at achieving the all breeds judging status that she has and that you clearly have an issue with.  She has been recognised internationally as an exceptional judge and has always demonstrated the utmost integrity in every decision she has ever made.  Your comments about a ranting and raving lunatic are uncalled for – when an individual is being accused of being unethical in front of all at the dog show, as a result of pure bad sportsmanship, I am not surprised that there was a reaction.  I, as well as many others, would also have stood up for myself.

If she was an “untouchable” as you have stated, she would not unnecessarily have been dragged from pillar to post over the ridiculous accusations that were made about her over the past few months.  I am just pleased that common sense prevailed and the right decision was made at the hearing.  There was no benefit to her in ring stewarding that day, she was assisting where needed and had been asked to help out, to then be brought into question so bitchily at the ringside was just uncalled for.  To quote your phrase – “get a life”, she most certainly has an incredibly fulfilled one where dog showing and judging forms such a minor part of it – clearly unlike yourself who feels the need to attack the character of one of the most respected and longest servicing members of the dog world community for no purpose other than to cause a drama.

I trust this issue has now been resolved to all – letters like the one you have written on the post only paint yourself and those around you looking for a drama in a bad light.  People looking to join the dog world don’t need to see that this kind of behaviour is accepted practice.

Regards

Maegan Bell


6 November 2012
I should like to set the record straight on a statement made by Corinne Diggins in her recent post. I quote: "The ranting and raving by the untouchable Lynn Brandt led another “untouchable” friend in the next ring to stop her judging and scurry off to the office to get the show manager to stop the outburst..."

First, I need to point out that Lynne Brand’s name is not Lynn Brandt. It is really discourteous not to verify the spelling of a person's name, even if it is an "untouchable".

Second, I presume I’m the “untouchable friend” referred to in the post as there was only one ring adjacent to Utility ring, the ring in which I was judging Toys.  According to Corinne the “ranting and raving” led me to stop my judging and scurry off to the office.

That is simply not true. I had already completed my judging when the altercation occurred. Corinne’s inaccurate statement is a classic example of how perceptions get skewed in the heat of the moment. In the same manner, Corinne’s opinion of the decision made by the Disciplinary Sub-Committee is clearly coloured by her emotions. She applauds the KUSA Disciplinary Committee of Inquiry for finding sufficient merit in the complaint to call for a Disciplinary Sub-Committee to hear the matter, but then accuses the Sub-Committee appointed by the Disciplinary Committee of Inquiry of bias.

I’m sorry, but you can’t have your cake and eat it. There are many sides to every story, and the DSC is there to hear them all and make a decision. If you use the system to lay a complaint and the finding goes against you, you cannot turn around and discredit the system.

Corinne’s begins her post by saying "Let’s get things into perspective…"  Whose perspective? Corinne’s? Perhaps she too should take a step back and question whether her view of everyone’s behaviour on the day might not have been clouded by the judge’s decision going against the dog she supports.

Carol Immelman


6 November 2012

Dear Corinne Diggings,

I have no involvement at all in your debate if that’s what you want to call it?

BUT TO ME  you are acting like a school child!!!!

Lyn Brand (BELL) has always been a well-respected LADY  in the dog community

Wow are we adults or should some of us start at the beginning again?

Class 1 or as it is now called grade 0!

Joy Tyrrell


6 November 2012
Corinn Diggins says:

“Another comment made by an all breeds judge to the one complainant was that it was common knowledge that KUSA will NEVER take action against an all breeds judge and that it was a waste of time.”

Funny, I heard that one of the accused was warned that she would definitely be found guilty, no matter what the evidence, as the decision was a foregone conclusion. The complainants had connections at the top, it was said, and those connections were out to get the accused.

It just goes to show what rubbish rumours circulate the dog world. How sad that most people believe them.

Tired of Listening


7 November 2012
Carol, that is very rich coming from you! I wish to remind you that not once but more times I have requested from you, when I have judged at shows, for you to correct my name to be printed on award certificates from your Soloshow program to which you have flatly refused. I trust you will take note of the discourteousness you have shown me in your refusals and correct it the next time I officiate at one of the shows where you will be running the Soloshow program.

Shoot me for spelling a person’s name incorrectly. I sincerely apologise to the injured party (Lynne Brand) but there was no ill intention merely a slip of the finger in the heat of the moment. I totally agree that it is discourteous but generally people nowadays do not think that it is important (note how many different ways my names have been spelt in the last couple of posts on this site). Also the pronunciation of my name varies greatly but I have learnt over the years to accept that people are just not going to get my name right and have moved on. At the risk of again being called a child for bringing this up but did you notice that I was not the only one to have misspelt her name.

Perhaps as a way forward you should take on a proof reading job for the site and then we hopefully won’t have any typo mistakes in any letters published and everything will be faultless as you.

Corinne Diggins (also referred to, apart from other names, Corinn , Diggings)


8 November 2012
I applaud you, Meagan for standing up for your mother, as I would have my late mother.  The big difference is that my mother would NEVER have ranted and raved AND threatened anyone at a show.  Although not an all breeds judge but a judge she held herself with decorum throughout her many years in dogdom both judging and exhibiting and I never found it necessary to have to defend her.  In fact my mother would never have expected me to defend her if she behaved in the way yours did.

As you were obviously not there on the day you should perhaps reread my post as you have obviously missed some points.  The discussion is not as to whether your mother is an excellent, good, mediocre judge but it is the way in which she behaved at the show and by verbally attacking and threatening an exhibitor.  In her outburst she referred to herself as “a senior judge and that she had the right to act the way she did” thereby indicating that she was “untouchable”.  She should also be totally au fait with the KUSA Rules and Regulations (which by the way is part of being a judge on whatever level they may be on) wherein it is against the Rules to have behaved the way she did on the day and actually should also be an embarrassment to KUSA to brag that she was a “senior” judge and was entitled to behave the way she did.  She should also have known the procedure to adhere to at a KUSA licensed show and this she did not follow but choose to take the law into her own hands regardless as to whether she was helping out on the day or not she was after all an official on the day.

In everyday life if one decides to take the law into one’s  own hands justice will generally be had in the end no matter how or when but it will come back to one.  I do not have the power to mete out any justice but the happenings on the day just cannot be accepted as being OK.

No one should be subjected to such outbursts and threats and for sure for anyone (new exhibitors or even the public) in hearing distance to have witnessed such a performance will certainly not return to the show ring.

Corinne Diggins


12 November 2012
I spent an entertaining hour over the weekend catching up on the posts on the DW website.  I guess Ms Diggins is not planning to show under Mrs Brand anytime soon!

Thanks for the entertainment


20 November 2012
Western Cape Top Dog
What a breath of fresh air to have the Bichon Frise awarded Top honours and well done to Lois Wilson for her excellent choice.

And to the foul mouthed exhibitor who had so much to say about her lack of placement - go wash your mouth out. Preferably with carbolic. What a BAD looser you are.

Bichon supporter