Were you to scan the pages of Facebook on a regular basis and the majority of your “friends” are involved with the world of purebred dogs, you could be forgiven for thinking that there are a lot of bitter and frustrated people out there. Social media has changed the way we live and to some extent the way we think. Individual daily input varies from the banal “I am having a coffee with my friends at Starbucks” to the posts that express an opinion on anything and everything. Difference of opinion and respect for the views for others are essential in any civilised society but there have to be boundaries.

Facebook has given those who breed and exhibit purebred dogs a new platform for self-promotion. There are those who bombard viewers with puppy pictures from as early as the first scan (I have even seen breeders publishing photos of dog and bitch tied in the first step of their next long-awaited litter!), through stacking sessions when they can barely stand until they reach the ripe old age of 6 months and their debut show awaits. Interestingly many of these puppy pics are far from flattering which obviously brings into question the knowledge of the breeders who are happy to publish them. The concept of advance publicity for a dog that has not yet been shown has always mystified me. Why publish a photograph which can be studied at length by rival exhibitors and give them the opportunity to have the new hopeful dissected in minute detail? When I was actively exhibiting (long before Facebook of course) no one ever saw photos of my new puppy in advance – the first opportunity for them to see it was at its very first show (which was not necessarily when it was 6 months and one minute).

Show successes are now highlighted (and often exaggerated) on the pages of social media, all wins of course being awarded by “honourable” judges! Do exhibitors really think that judges plough through the pages searching out potential winners? The transparency of exhibitors who attempt to “befriend” judges that are shortly to judge their dogs would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic, yet this seems to be common practice in some countries when overseas judges appear on a judging slate. Sadly I have discovered that some judges obviously DO spend time mugging up on winning dogs before they visit another country and I have often been amazed to hear how much they know of a dog’s winning record when they have “found” it!

I have always thought that one of the joys of judging overseas is that the vast majority of dogs and handlers will be unknown to you as the judge, so you are free to do the job you’re being paid for without the mental baggage that can sometimes get in the way of logical decisions. Maybe others lack confidence in their own knowledge and ability and welcome a little help?

There are of course many constructive aspects to Facebook and I have found in various groups some excellent discussions on individual breeds where changes in type over the years have been discussed in a measured manner, prompting deep thought and possible revaluation. There is much material to be found which can aid the individual learning process and is presented in a totally unbiased manner. This can only be for the good. In many instances photographs are reproduced of important dogs from the past and sometimes it can be sobering to study these dispassionately as oftentimes perhaps some of the “greats” would not be viewed so in the context of the present day. It is however true that when we were revering particular dogs of historical significance we may well have been very wet behind the ears and just beginning to learn about a breed. As we get older, and hopefully wiser, we learn more about construction, balance and harmony, and perhaps the shortcomings of a particular dog from our embryo years become more obvious and apparent.

What bothers me hugely is the increasing occurrence of criticising dogs that are currently being shown, and this makes me question the efficacy of the people who set up and moderate the various groups. Only the other day a photograph appeared in a Judges’ Group that had been lifted from its owner’s page, the dog being photographed with its awards, by a rival breeder in an attempt to discredit it, questioning that it was not of an acceptable colour. I was amazed at the volume of comments that followed, most of them far from complimentary. Surely this is totally unacceptable behaviour. When exhibitors enter a dog show, they pay for the opinion of the scheduled judge … not for that of half the Facebook world.

The first principle of showing dogs is that they should all be judged on a level playing field. How can this happen if they have been subject to a social media assassination by a rival exhibitor?

Something else that seems to be on the increase is a subtle game of oneupmanship amongst judges. More and more we are seeing sycophantic posts by judges who are so “honoured” to have been nominated for this and that plum appointment (presumably a thinly veiled “vote for me” message?) along with screenshots of letters of invitation from stellar shows. Are judges’ egos really that fragile?

Just as dogs themselves being ripped to shreds in the public domain, judges too do not escape the venom of disappointed exhibitors. It is true that mistakes are made and often unfathomable decisions are made but when heinous crimes are committed and rules broken, then there are official channels through which they should be processed. In the good old days, disappointing judging was vociferously discussed on the journey home with friends and then forgotten about. Nowadays it seems that exhibitors can’t wait to get home to their keyboard … and sometimes they don’t even wait for the comfort of home with the advent of the iPhone. The vast majority of keyboard warriors are basically cowards, the kind of people who would never dream of approaching the object of their vitriol face-to-face for a reasoned discussion. These days it is all too easy to light the blue touch paper and watch the fireworks, being in control to such an extent that comments which do not suit the perpetrator can be deleted, leaving only those of people who happen to agree with the originator of a post.

It may be worth studying the guidelines the British Kennel Club published some years ago with regard to the use of social media:

“Kennel Club Issues Advice On Social Media Use"

The Kennel Club has issued advice to people using Facebook and other social media platforms to discuss issues concerning Kennel Club-based activities such as breeding, competing with and judging dogs. The Kennel Club is made aware on a regular basis of conversations held on public internet forums which sometimes include disparaging comments on dogs bred, one-

sided accounts of private disputes, criticism of judging from exhibitors and other judges, and in extreme cases threats made against individuals. The Kennel Club is unable to directly intervene in the majority of such cases and has issued the following guidance which is intended to provide advice to people who have been the subject of such allegations and criticism, those who have been

involved in such discussions, and also to give direction on when the Kennel Club can and cannot intervene.

To those conversing on social media

This is addressed to those who think that careless, uninhibited and ill-considered comment and criticism aimed at judges, dogs and exhibitors on Facebook and other forums is acceptable and that its impact will not offend, hurt or deeply distress, alongside damaging peoples reputations. Freedom of expression and opinion is, of course, a right of all - but that should be in the context of normal and civil behaviour. In other words if you have something worthwhile to say, then it should be said in a spirit of constructive criticism and not in an offensive manner. Judges should take great care in joining in such conversations since it is not acceptable for judges to criticise fellow judges; decisions in a disparaging way. Judges should keep a distance from contentious issues and maintain an independent and private view. This is a matter of perception, public confidence and general respect for those involved in any breed at a senior level. Judges should certainly not give indications about preferences and intentions on placing for a forthcoming appointment. 

Anyone judging at Kennel Club licensed events is warned that in certain circumstances the Kennel Club will refer inappropriate content to the Judges Sub-Committee for a review of status and future appointments.

To those reading social media content

Anyone who finds him or herself targeted, or the subject of such conversations, is advised to ignore such material and not to read, respond or engage in the conversation. The law is intended to offer protection from the more extreme material.

Try to put the matter into perspective; everyones reality is subjective and most of the material is a matter of opinion, on occasions an expression of anger, and is often not based on verified fact. Rude, spiteful and ill-informed comments say more about those writing them than about those who they seek to criticise.

In extreme cases of direct threat or harassment, then the police should be contacted.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently issued guidelines on prosecuting cases involving communications sent by social media and these can be found

at https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/atoc/communicationssentviasocialmedia/.

These guidelines take the approach that there must be something more than the expression of unpopular opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humour

even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to; before intervention is possible.

The Kennel Club has to apply a similar approach and policy and is therefore unable to intervene in the majority of cases.

It remains our advice that it is better not to read, engage or respond to this sort of material. Sometimes it is better to allow those who choose to air views on these channels the freedom to do so, even if they do not do so in an adult and mature fashion. Those who wish to read such postings should treat such content, particularly if critical, with caution and not make any judgment or assume the truth or foundation on the basis of what is being written. Social media content should generally be treated as gossip and not a validated and reliable source of information.

Ultimately if you feel you have to join in, be informed and be polite; if you have to read the content, do not assume what is said is true; and if you are the subject of gossip or rumour then treat it for what it is. And remember that the most effective and practical way to deal with offending material is not to join in or respond.

A few general guidelines that all social media users should follow are included below:

You are responsible for what you post since it is a public medium.

Maintain privacy: Do not post confidential information. Do not discuss a situation involving named or pictured individuals without their permission.

Does it pass the publicity test: If the content of your message would not be acceptable for face to face conversation, over the phone or in any other medium, then it is not acceptable for a social networking site.

Think before you post: If you feel angry or passionate about a subject, it is wise to delay posting until you are calm and clear headed. There is no such thing as a private; social media site, even if you delete a post.

Be aware of liability: You are responsible for what you post on your own site and on the sites of others. Individual bloggers could be held liable for commentary deemed to be libellous, obscene or which infringes copyright.

What the Kennel Club can and cannot do

The Kennel Clubs jurisdiction lies primarily with the enforcement of its Regulations and issues arising out of registrations and incidents at licensed events. It does not have any remit or authority to censor material on the internet, or to censure those involved, and is therefore unable to intervene directly in the majority of cases. However, there are ways to deal with the extreme versions of offending material online, including complaints for defamation or harassment or sending malicious correspondence. These are criminal or civil offences and forum moderators are usually (or should be) quick to respond and remove content that has no place being published.

Extreme cases of threat or bullying should be reported to the legal authorities and to the Kennel Club for consideration and advice.“

If only everyone followed these guidelines the world would be a much happier place.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

(This article may not be reproduced in any form without the author’s permission)