By Gretchen Bernardi

Everyone, it seems, agrees that these are difficult times for the American Kennel Club and therefore for the sport we love. The story of how we came to this place is complex, nearly irreducible. Solutions to complex problems are rarely simple, but that is exactly what we want. Would someone please come forward with a solution to all of our problems? And do it now, this weekend, while we are all at the shows exhibiting, judging, handling. And, by the way, do not inconvenience us or cause any one of us to make a sacrifice.

By all accounts, several unfortunate circumstances have come together at this point in time: falling registrations, falling entries, rising costs of servicing our shows, to name a few. And then there are, perhaps, the two cruelest additions to this “perfect storm,” a faltering economy and rising gasoline prices.

All of us, or at least most of us, will be affected by the current situation; if not now, then undoubtedly before the crisis is over. Some clubs have been spared the extreme decline in entries, especially those large shows that are part of multiple show clusters and also those that have corporate sponsorships, enabling them to contract for more enticing venues. But most clubs are seeing a drastic drop in entries. As all show committees know, one low entry show almost always means an even lower entry the next year, as people look elsewhere for ranking and championship points. Lower entries mean the show is not as attractive to vendors, who want as many people walking past their booths as possible. Lower entries often result in those independent specialty clubs that support the show either dropping out altogether or seeking other clubs with better prospects.

There exists in some circles an attitude that, in these times, may the best club win, that the clubs that try harder with more innovative programs to lure exhibitors will survive, with the others simply succumbing to the perils of the marketplace. This attitude has some appeal to those that believe there is no place in our sport for the smaller shows, with fewer judges and perhaps a less competitive environment. These shows often appeal to novice ex-hibitors who are perhaps showing their first home-breds. This attitude will have some supporters also who have no concern for the thousands of club members that have worked for years to support their clubs, who regard them almost as family.

Indeed, there are clubs who have been badly managed and whose finances have suffered as a result of that management. But many clubs are faltering through no fault of their own, but because far more shows have been approved in their specific geographic area than that area can possibly handle in terms of community support and entries.

Looking at totals for shows this summer, entries in the 500 range are common in several parts of the country and clubs that historically have had entries well above 1,000 are now squeaking by with 700 or 800 dogs. These clubs offer majors in none but the most popular breeds, so exhibitors are spending multiple entry fees on shows where there are no majors.

The showing of dogs has been, in more recent times, a democratic and welcoming sport, not just for the wealthy kennel owners as in the past, but one that was, to one degree or another, accessible to most people. That accessibility has been part of its appeal and has contributed to its phenomenal growth in popularity. We have encouraged it as a family sport and have tried with success to make showing dogs a possibility for nearly everyone. But the current crisis may take us back to less inclusive days. Will as many people be able to travel to shows, especially those requiring overnight stays? Will people be able to take time away from work to travel, especially to Friday and Monday shows?

Surely our professional handlers will see a decline in clients, as fewer people will be able to afford their services. And dog publications will undoubtedly see a drop in advertising revenue, as some will no longer be able to afford to promote their dogs. Can we realistically expect people to continue to play in our playground when they are having trouble meeting mortgage payments and paying off credit card debt?

This crisis will pass, as all crises do, and the sport will come through in one form or another at the end of it. In the meantime, it might be that all of us will have to make some changes. Some of us, including individuals and organizations, just might have to make sacrifices or be slightly inconvenienced, or make decisions with which we have been uncomfortable in better times.

Clubs, even those that are suffering, could consider not raising their entry fees for their next show. The natural impulse when entries go down is to raise entry fees, but it doesn’t always work as exhibitors choose to go elsewhere. It may be true, as some say, that people enter shows they want to enter, regardless of the cost of the entry. That may have been the conventional wisdom, but not necessarily the way it will work in these more difficult times. Perhaps keeping entry fees stable could help.

Judging costs are one of the biggest expenses a show committee considers. Certainly clubs are beginning to look more carefully at some of the judging fees they are paying and are beginning to seek out judges who charge lower fees in addition to expenses. Certainly no one expects group and multi-group judges to judge dog shows at their own expense. But perhaps they could consider reducing their fees and being especially careful about airfares and other expenses during this period.

At the June show of my own club, our entries were down 200 dogs each day. Three of our judges reduced their fees because of the lower entry, because they understood the difficulties that show committees are experiencing. It was an unselfish act done for the good of the sport and it was appreciated, not only for the obvious reasons, but because club members realized that we aren’t the only clubs facing these problems.

Club treasurers across the country tell me that they had “sticker shock” this year when they realized how much the recording fee and the event service fee took from their bottom line. A club with back-to-back shows, each with an entry of 800, paid a total of $5,600 to the AKC for the recording fee and event service fee paid directly through its superintendent. That is quite a chunk of money for a struggling club. Add to that the approximately 40 percent of the entry income charged by the superintendent charges for servicing the show and the clubs have a shockingly diminished amount left to pay all other expenses. It just might be me, but, at the end of the day, I feel I got our money’s worth from the superintendent. Now AKC wants to raise that fee even further.

Is it possible that the AKC could make a sacrifice in this area as well? As it demands more and more of the clubs insofar as public education, matches, and other requirements for holding shows, could it not now bear some of the burden, perhaps by suspending these requirements for the time being or cutting back on some of the activities paid for by those fees, including judges’ education and the handler’s program? In fact, it might be a good time to take a long, hard look at corporate expenses across the board, including salaries, benefits and retirement programs, and especially travel expenses. For-profit corporations are drastically trimming their payrolls in an effort to be more profitable or even survive. Automobile manufacturers especially are laying off thousands of workers and closing plants across the country.

There are always worthwhile programs and expenses that make sense during good times that become burdensome at the other end of a financial cycle. Are there delegate expenses that can be pared? Is it time to simplify the meetings, pare down the hospitality? Would delegate committee members consider a reduction in the small honorarium they receive for attending an extra day of meetings?

We, all of us, pay a substantial amount of money to companies that are really not interested in our problems. This includes printing companies, temp workers, landlords, hotels, insurance agencies and the companies that service our shows: tent companies, convention centers, state agencies, transportation providers. But those of us who are involved in the sport in any way, whether for fun or for profit, have a vested interest in that sport’s survival. We are really the only ones who care and the only ones that can make a difference. We are, by our very nature, a competitive lot. But this may be the time for all of us to decide that this time, it’s not all about us. It’s about the sport and we can all do what we can to help.

Gretchen Bernardi •  berwyck@ezl.com