1077

SHOWING PRIDE
By David Hancock

  Anyone who is interested in domestic and/or farm animals is drawn both to agricultural shows and dog shows, whether the latter are KC-sanctioned or just as part of game fairs or country shows for enthusiasts. The latter events can often be chaotic but more fun, but all of them, however authorised, are contests, the exhibitors are seeking a judge's opinion and verdict. For me, it is usually a case of the farm animals being especially well-prepared for show and presented more professionally, the informal dog shows being the most enjoyable and the KC shows being the most revealing. Yet the latter, despite being the most heavily regulated, are the ones whose 'regulations' are regularly flouted. There are more unfit, unsound entries in the KC show rings than in the other arenas, and, worryingly, less friendly rivalry and many more disputes about placements. The carefully-worded, painstakingly-crafted word picture for each breed, or Breed Standard, is so often overridden by the judge's personal preferences on type and construction. But even worse, far too many of the exhibits are not presented in show condition - as so many critiques reveal. This is quite unlike the entries at agricultural shows, where the animals look simply superb - there is no lack of pride here.

   At times in the pedigree dog world there is a distinct impression given that style and fashion are more important to some than breed type and breed characteristics. Yet fifty years ago, in his informative book, 'The Practical Guide to Showing Dogs' (Popular Dogs, 1956), Capt R Portman-Graham emphasised the need for each breed to be shown differently: "The aim of the handler is to manoeuvre his dog in the way most likely to display the special characteristics and points of its breed, and to bring out the temperament which is expected from that breed." He would not have approved the strange desire for a shepherd dog to have to demonstrate 'gaiting' at great speed!

 Portman-Graham went on to condemn the odious too-tight a lead fashion, writing: "To strangle a terrier in a tight noose, and dangle it with its feet scarcely touching the ground in the attitude of a marionette, is not good handling." Neither is it good judging to allow it. How can any judge possibly assess movement when a tight lead is preventing proper contact between a dog's feet and the ground? It encourages faking. But it is happening in more and more breeds and is being condoned by more and more judges. To see any dog show judge pretending to judge the movement of exhibits strung up on a tight lead is a sad commentary on the competence of that judge. It would be a huge advance if the Kennel Club were to decree that every breed must move on a slack lead and be held on a slack lead when stacked.  

  When style is mentioned in connection with dogs, I immediately think of setters and pointers. But if you look at old prints and paintings of our native bird dogs, they depict dogs far more substantial than the current fashion. Setters and Pointers as depicted in the last two centuries display far more muscle than today's show ring dogs without looking at all cloddy. The skill of the pedigree dog breeder is to produce quality and uniformity without losing type. When that type itself falls victim to fashion or the style of the decade, it becomes, for me, a matter of man exploiting dog and not always for dog's benefit. Bird-dogs have leg muscle for their designed purpose not to suit a style.

  At dog shows both in the UK and overseas, I always study the movement of the entry and if possible their physical condition too - usually when chatting to their handlers. I am persistently disappointed by finding weak loins, upright shoulders, cow-hocks, toeing-in/pigeon toes, dirty coats - leaving your hands grimy, untrimmed claws, over-boning, misaligned jaws - with undershot being rewarded in some breeds, dirty teeth, sunken eyes - often with haw, out at elbow and too short a back in terriers and too long a back in Dachshunds and Bassets. These are fundamental flaws not over-fastidious assessments. If a casual onlooker can spot such faults why can't the exhibitors? Where is their pride!

  All too soon the fashion for needlessly heavy coats on admirable working breeds like the Beardie, the Rough Collie, the Shetland Sheepdog and the Bobtail, important native breeds, could become the only acceptable style.  Hungarian breeds like the Puli and the Komondor seem to be able to cope with heavy coats - which may be natural to them. But the British pastoral breeds haven't always had such heavy coats. The Collie is susceptible to all the dermatoses which affect the modern dog. The Beardie is still a working dog in some places but may in time feature the heavy coats now apparently de rigueur in the show ring. On all the collie breeds, the coat should 'fit well', still allow the outline to be discerned. A heavy overcoat even affects the way we walk – our style of moving.

 When I first worked in Germany, over fifty years ago, two of their native breeds, the Boxer and the Schaeferhund or Alsatian, were markedly different from the type favoured in contemporary show rings. A local car dealer used Boxers as guard dogs; they were solid black and strongly muscled. Today's Boxers seem half their weight and appear only favoured when carrying the 'Irish' markings: white feet, blaze and brisket. The German Shepherd Dogs I encountered on remote farms in Westphalia were like those I had used in the Malayan emergency: with a level top line, well-boned and only moderately angulated in the hindquarters. At World Dog Shows I see GSDs with dreadful bent backs, their hindquarters so exaggerated that the dog has to rest its whole rear pastern on the ground for comfort and with tails so long they drag along the surface of the ground. It's difficult to make sense of this an exaggeration inflicted within the breed.

 Abroad I have seen English Toy Terriers styled more like Chihuahuas than their own ancestors, if old paintings are at all representative. 81 Black and Tan Terriers were registered with the Kennel Club in 1908, in the Toy Division; in 2016 only 102 were registered as English Toy Terriers (Black and Tan). Human whim is difficult to check but it would be sad to see this old native breed unwanted by the public. In Toy Dogs, written and published by Lillian Raymond-Mallock early in the last century, she writes: "There has been a gradual falling off in the good old toy black and tan terrier in recent years...In this variety possibly more than others, the apple head and goggle eyes are too much in evidence...They should be counterparts of the Manchester terrier, any approach to the Italian Greyhound type being most objectionable." She wouldn't have liked today's fashion.    

   In every decade, in the world of the pedigree dog, the faddists are at work, sadly in far too many breeds. Sporting dogs, like the Setters, were once famed for their lung power; now they are mostly slab-sided in the chest, despite the evidence that such a structure enhances the likelihood of bloat. I see Mastiffs with huge ears when they should have small ears. A Cocker Spaniel can, it appears win Best in Show at Crufts with ears that defy the Breed Standard. Oh, doesn't he know, I can hear the gundog gurus proclaim, that there is a division now between working and show gundogs? My response is two-fold: firstly nearly all the gundogs taking part in the working tests I have judged were show-bred; secondly I am prepared to bet that most readers of sporting magazines buy their gundog from a show breeder.

  Fads may be passing indulgences for fanciers but they so often do lasting harm to breeds. If they did harm to the breeders who inflict them, rather than to the wretched dogs that suffer them, fads would be more tolerable and certainly more short-lived. But what are the comments of veterinary surgeons who have to treat the ill-effects of misguided fads? In his informative book "The Dog: Structure and Movement", published in 1970, RH Smythe, himself a vet, wrote: "...many of the people who keep, breed and exhibit dogs, have little knowledge of their basic anatomy or of the structural features underlying the physical formation insisted upon in the standards laid down for any particular breed. Nor do many of them - and this includes some of the accepted judges - know, when they handle a dog in or outside the show ring, the nature of the structures which give rise to the varying contours of the body, or why certain types of conformation are desirable and others harmful."

 Having watched the judging at a recent Crufts on Working Group Day, I can see why such words were forthcoming. Having gone to my first dog show well over seventy years ago, I feel, with enormous concern, that things are getting worse rather than better. In his book, Smythe goes on to say that "...the same may sometimes be written regarding those whose duty it is to formulate standards designed to preserve the usefulness or encourage the welfare of the recognised breeds." Encouraging the welfare of the recognised breeds has to be the underlying mission of not just the Kennel Club, whom Smythe is pointedly criticising, but every breeder, every breed club and every judge officiating at dog shows.

   Exhibiting dogs can be a rewarding pastime, but the fashions involved should not provide an arena for self-promotion. Dogs should not be discomforted in the ring and breed characteristics should be valued and exemplified, not subsumed into a common practice. The show ring has one huge, huge disadvantage, whatever the ruling fashion: it cannot reveal the dog's capability. We must be vigilant if we are not to lose character, determination, working prowess, instinctive behaviour, individuality, courage, intelligence and fortitude. A handsome dog without character has cosmetic appeal and is likely to win in the show ring but for me it has no breeding potential. I would place character ahead of any other virtues. Style is for showing off; fashion is blind copying.

   Far too many breeds of sporting and working dog are now fashioned by show criteria but we would be more than stupid if we bred solely for looks, especially the ‘fashion of the day’. The working dog fraternity might claim that that what's been happening for a century in the show dog world, a world in which a dog which is useless can still have high value. Not being an exhibitor I can choose my next pup on how I think its character might develop. But I must admit that I hope the pup I choose will become a handsome adult. But those purebred dog breeders who rely on the pet market for valuable income need characters, pups with substance. Fashions come and go; but favouring style over substance in companion dogs makes no sense at all and threatens the whole future of dogs, especially in our increasingly busy, evermore urban world. 

   A few years ago I was attending an agricultural show, chatting to a pony judge and a livestock breeder, when a visitor strolled past with his two huge Great Danes. All three of us, being interested in animals, paused to study them. When we looked back at each other the conclusion was mutual and painfully obvious: here were two anatomically seriously flawed four-legged animals, whatever their species. These two statuesque dogs were victims of their breed; although, victims of their breed fanciers would be more accurate. My colleagues turned to me, the member of the trio most interested in dogs, with the questions: Why do they (i.e. the breeders) do it? And, do they (the breeders) know what they are doing?

 It would be wrong however to pick out Great Dane breeders for scrutiny in answering those two key questions. At four World Dog Shows I have asked myself the same questions when viewing the Mastiff of my country being paraded like beef-cattle around the show ring. Small dogs and heavily-coated dogs often get away with faulty construction but a huge dog, especially one with a short coat, displays every fault in anatomy revealingly. A small or lightly-built dog can also manage reasonably well with structural faults; a huge dog however has a reduced quality of life from significant physical shortcomings, mainly from the sheer weight borne by the skeleton.

 When I was in farming I used to spend time studying our working shire horses, noting their shoulder placement, weight of bone, length of back and how they used their legs when used as draught animals. Their anatomical design came from their function; their great strength was needed to pull substantial weights, their movement had to be economical and their power geared to the ability to pull with the greatest efficiency. Dogs used as draught animals possess the same chunky build, as the handsome and admirable Bernese Mountain Dog demonstrates to this day. But it is a strange pursuit for breeders of dogs not developed to act as draught-dogs to desire massive bone in their breeds. Pride in our animals is a key component both in their appearance and their well-being; without pride we can show any old dog in any old condition and expect the judge to reward our neglect. Showing pride is being proud of your animals and wishing others to emulate you by showing pride in theirs; a little more pride in KC show rings would be so good to see. The breeds would benefit too!