By Gretchen Bernardi

People from all segments of the dog fancy are concerned, and justifiably so, about the “graying” of our sport. Well, we’re not really concerned that the members of our clubs are getting older or even that they have gray hair, but they are stepping out of the show work force and off of all of the various committees required to run a club and successful shows. We’re really concerned that there aren’t an equal number of younger people coming into these clubs to take up the slack. And we’re also concerned that there are fewer people showing dogs for any length of time, certainly not long enough to translate the activity of taking dogs to dog shows into joining a club to help put on those very shows.

There are many factors—some simple, some complex—to explain the dearth of new people joining our clubs and these have been discussed both in these pages and elsewhere. Some of these factors, possibly most, are beyond our control, insofar as a rapidly changing society and social culture. The inability to attract younger participants is not unique to the dog world. Country clubs, the theatres, even bridge clubs are bemoaning the lack of young members, attendees and members of any age.

This lack of real, warm-blooded workers is more problematic for the smaller clubs not currently blessed with large cash balances and it is potentially devastating for the clubs trying to stay financially afloat one show to the next. The large clubs and the clubs that are part of well-attended clusters can easily survive with few actual hands-on members, since many of these clubs use their membership for outreach programs, public relations, trophy solicitation while hiring outside help for the real work on the day of the show.

When I first became a member of an all-breed club that functioned without the threat of competition from other shows, the club routinely paid for announcers, ticket-takers, clean-up, parking service, limousine service, security and a host of other jobs done routinely by most club members today. Our members solicited trophies and catalog advertisement, scheduled the ring stewards, often prepared and served the luncheon and otherwise pretty much enjoyed the day, providing friendly hospitality and smiling faces. But as far as the hard physical work, the running from ring to ring, the handling of the many parking disputes—forget about it. We paid for that and could afford to do so. Many clubs still operate in that fashion. More power to them.

And while I agree that the membership of our clubs is aging and that there are not new, younger members to replace those who are retiring from the sport, and while I further agree that this presents a real problem, I am seeing an exodus that is far more troubling. Many of the most stalwart members of our bigger club—the club of all dog show enthusiasts—are leaving in despair of what the sport is becoming…or has become.

People of good conscience often say that we really don’t have more cancer or more child molesters or more school shootings. It is simply that we have more communication outlets–especially 24-hour cable news networks–that disseminate this information to a wider audience and that perception is not, as is often said, reality. Other people of equally good conscience say otherwise. Applying this to our sport and all that the sport entails, are we in the midst of an epidemic of scandals–both in our clubs and in the show ring? Are we seeing more incidents of blatant bad sportsmanship and bad behavior or have the chat lists, the publications and the websites made the same amount of information more widely read?

One of the effects of the information glut is that almost everyone can find a statistical data set to prove almost anything. And the more impassioned one is and the more personally important it is to prove a point, the more likely it is that the data will be found, regardless of the validity of that data. Anti-oxidants will help prevent cancer…or they won’t. Homeopathy works…or it doesn’t. Caffeine is bad for us…or it’s good for us. Expensive skin creams will turn back the clock…or they won’t. So who among us has the time and/or the will to find out the truth. Not many.

So, in our case, perception is reality and a growing number of people in our ranks have the perception that our sport has lost its luster. It is certainly true that few people like change, even for the better, and some people refuse to accept it. This seems to be especially true in our sport. Otherwise, who could explain the furor and the arguments over such a simple proposal as eliminating one dog show class and replacing it with another? But simple resistance to change does not explain the current discontent.

Experienced judges in the midst of successful and rewarding judging careers have told me they simply are not going to apply for new breeds. The reasons include the approval process, the quality of the dogs they find themselves evaluating weekend after weekend and the overall feeling that few people in the ring really want an unbiased opinion of their dog. They complain that they are constantly pressured to reward the most advertised, most frequently shown dog in the ring. They say that bad behavior is rampant and owners, exhibitors, breeders and handlers feel entitled to stomp out of the ring, throw ribbons and verbally berate the judge. They relate stories of finding an outstanding dog of their own breed in the class and, after taking it to Best of Breed, being told that “you just dumped the top dog in the breed…or the group…or the world.” And sometimes those statements are true and sometimes not. But regardless, there is a real attitude of entitlement to a win and all judges must bow to the idea that the top-winning dog is automatically the best dog in the ring.

Top breeders with years of successful production of top quality dogs are feeling discouraged about showing their dogs at all, seeing changes in the appearance of their breed in general, due to careless breeding or fad breeding or the influence of a top-winning but not necessarily correct dog. And they realize, of course, that keeping the dogs of what they consider correct type out of the show ring only adds to the problem. And still a frightening number of talented breeders are withholding their dogs from show competition.

In the last month, five delegates have told me that they are retiring as delegates within the year. All of these have served long terms and were heavily involved, served on committees and added insight into all deliberations. When asked their reasons, all said, “What’s the point?” Their discontent seems to stem from a general attitude or philosophy in the sport rather than from a specific issue and most are also seeing undesirable trends in their own clubs– all-breed and specialty clubs alike. Not too long ago I believed that the salvation of our sports lay with our parent clubs, but they seem to have exploded with infighting and power-plays, in addition to issues dealing with their treasuries.

Is it possible that our clubs, our parent clubs especially, are in a transitional period between the old guard and the new? As the older officers and founding members of breed clubs retired, dropped out or died, there remained a void in the leadership mainly because no one thought to groom new leaders. Younger members or those who were given no voice in a more autocratic time now had an opportunity to flourish and there was no one there to rein them in. It was, and is, payback time. If this thought has any validity, perhaps we will get through this phase and arrive eventually at a situation with more equilibrium than before with a more democratic yet enlightened leadership in place. Or maybe not.

Everything does seem to be about money and the marketplace of our sport differs very little from the marketplace of the larger world. There seems to be more talk ringside, especially at the large shows, about backers than about breeders, about stud fees than about a sire’s influence, about a dog’s record than about his quality. The non-delegate mailings I receive from the AKC seem to be more about selling dog supplies than registering dogs. I have begun wondering if we are selling pet insurance to register more dogs or registering more dogs to sell pet insurance.

Earlier I wondered if simple change was the source of our discontent. But it seems to me that things haven’t changed all that much in some regards. We used to believe that all of this—dog shows, clubs, the AKC—was really just an ‘ole boys’ club’ and, in some strange way, we accepted that along with all of its inequities. As times and the sport changed, we began to think differently; that one participant in the sport got the same treatment, the same punishment, the same consideration as the next. But many are now doubting that anything has changed at all and a great many members of our sport are doubting it as well. Some judges get in trouble over trivial missteps and others get away with everything. Some complaints are handled promptly, others are ignored. Some handlers have disastrous mishaps with dogs and keep right on showing; others get reprimands and suspension over minor offenses. Some clubs don’t have exercise pens and get away with it; others get fines and warnings. In the end, it may still be all the same. Those that thought differently are disenchanted and, because of that disenchantment, we are in danger of losing our greatest asset—those loyal and devoted participants who believed in and worked for a greater, better sport.

Gretchen Bernardi •  berwyck@ezl.com