1121

DEFINING SHOW CONDITION
By David Hancock

  Spending a few days at Bath Dog Show, at their top-class site north of the city, as I do each year, often leaves me quite shocked. Not by the double handling in some breeds or the exaggerations in much of the entry in some breeds but by the physical condition of far too many of the exhibits. Is this not a Championship Show for showing off the top quality and high standards of breeders of pedigree dogs? I use the word 'shocked' quite legitimately because, if the breeders, the exhibitors and especially the judges are prepared to go along with this situation, there is something fundamentally wrong - with worrying possibilities for the future. Of those who argue that such a show is just a beauty contest and the condition of the dogs an afterthought, let me ask a couple of questions. Firstly, when did you ever see a national beauty queen with a spare tyre and podgy limbs? Secondly, what is the point of having a serious hobby if you don't take it seriously, especially if you want to earn admiration for your stock? And thirdly, if exhibits are expected to be in "show condition", why are judges taking a different view? I was also disturbed to watch four successive classes of one breed being 'judged', without the exhibits' feet once being examined. The bite of each dog was cursorily checked and infinite care taken over the comparative assessment of the coats of the entry. But feet are crucial to every breed, more important even than mouths. Why does the organisation inviting the judge invite such an inadequate individual?

 But what is actually meant by the expression 'show condition'? The Kennel Club's Glossary of Terms defines condition as: "Health as shown by the body, coat, general appearance and deportment. Denoting overall fitness." Not brilliantly written but the last phrase is the key one. Frank Jackson, in his most useful "Dictionary of Canine Terms", defines condition as: "Quality of health evident in coat, muscle, vitality and general demeanour." Harold Spira, in his "Canine Terminology", describes it as: "An animal's state of fitness or health as reflected by external appearance and behaviour. For example, muscular development..." The Breed Standards and Stud Book Sub-Committee at the KC inform me that show condition indicated an expectation of "a dog in good health as indicated by good coat condition, good muscle tone, a bright eye and up on the feet", adding that any competent judge would know this. One thing is inescapable in the interpretation of these definitions, condition means fitness as demonstrated in the dog's muscular state.

 Why then, at a Championship Show, do judges place dogs in poor muscular condition and quite clearly not fit? Is it ignorance, incompetence or indifference? Some of the judges I watched simply did not know soft muscle from hard and seemed incapable of detecting the absence of muscular development. I shudder to think where this will lead us! Judging livestock is essentially a subjective skill based on what you see in the entry NOT what the exhibitor wants you to see. Rather than a reaction to the animal before you, it is more a conscious action to relate the animal presented to you in the ring to the beau-ideal for that particular breed. For working breeds like the Bullmastiff, the Mastiff, the Neapolitan Mastiff and the Great Dane to be overweight, down on their pasterns or lack hard muscle is surely unacceptable.

 If we are going to accept unfit exhibits lacking muscular development as challenge certificate material, then novice exhibitors are being given a wholly undesirable impression and standards have already become unacceptably low. We are in effect betraying the work of the skilful pioneer breeders who handed these fine breeds down to us. That apart, where is the pride of the breeders, owners and handlers concerned? Who admires a puny, unfit, under-developed dog or an obese flabby one? Many of these breeds were designed to work or function in the sporting field in exacting task! What sort of encouragement is this to those admirable exhibitors who do spent hours getting their dogs into real show condition?

 In his book "All About the Bull Terrier", the much-missed Tom Horner recorded: "A wise breeder puts on show only his best stock and presents them in the peak of condition, physically fit, clean and trained to show off their points". Are we losing our way as we lose our most experienced, most knowledgeable, most informed judges? There are far too many exhibits at major dog shows being noticeably overweight, lacking any muscular hardness and never 'up-on-their-toes'; if they don't impress a spectator how can they be even considered by an astute judge? There are far too many exhibits demonstrably not physically fit. Some of these that I saw were actually favoured by the judges. If this is the case at a show of this standing, where will it all end - with prizes for fat dog of the day? Who truly admires a podgy Labrador or a Weimaraner with no muscular development? What kind of breeder is unaware of such demerits?

 In his informative "The Practical Guide to Showing Dogs" of 1956, Captain Portman-Graham wrote: "The fact that a dog is structurally sound is not in itself sufficient to ensure that it will always win at shows. It is of paramount importance that it must be...at the highest standard of condition. Perhaps one of the biggest advantages which dog showing confers on the dog as an animal is the care which must be bestowed upon it." If unfit dogs with poor muscular condition can win at dog shows, then the whole argument that such shows improve dogs is totally destroyed. Dogs which are inadequately exercised and merely wheeled out for the next show can be so easily identified by any competent judge and quickly  thrown out of the ring that such an insidious practice, both for dogs and the dog game, can be ended. Are our current crop of judges up to this?

 The esteemed Portman-Graham went on to write: "...exercise is a vital consideration in maintaining any breed of show dog in bloom, health and vigour...When one watches the beautiful muscles of a racehorse one sees a similarity between a dog's muscles which have been developed correctly and naturally, and ripple in movement. Yet there is evidence of lack of muscular tone and development in many show breeds today." He would not have liked the rings at most of the Championship Shows of today. Surely such a show should be didactic not merely epideictic; in other words it has a role in teaching those wanting to learn not just being conducted literally for show. A dog show, properly conducted, should attract worthy exhibitors not shameless exhibitionists.

 But what are the reports from shows producing on this theme? Here are extracts from some: Dobermann bitches  - "I do worry however about the number that are presented in overweight, flabby condition and also those that are the right weight and shape but are soft and without muscle." Bearded Collie dogs - "So many dogs were lacking in muscle tone - does no one exercise their dogs anymore?" Labrador Retrievers - "Yes, I am saying that many were very overweight!" Rottweiler bitches - "A Rottweiler is classed as a herding breed, they are supposed to herd cattle not look like them..." Rough Collie bitches (at Crufts) - "But I was faced with many, very fat, cloddy shaped bitches, who because of the fatness...moved so badly". Hungarian Vizslas - "Some dogs lacked bone and robust bodies, many lacked muscle tone..." Mastiffs - "What I would criticise is the fact that too many were overweight and lacked muscular tone. Nothing is achieved by piling on surplus flesh..."

 I would go further than the last judge and state that surplus flesh can only do harm. Nowadays we are bombarded with verbal and written instructions from a host of nutritionists and crafty manufacturers at shows yet I see more fat dogs these days than ever before. We all know that an overweight dog is an unhealthy dog. If exhibitors produce unhealthy dogs in the ring then every judge has a duty to point this out and decline entry to such exhibits. If a judge does not take this course of action, then a complaint should be made to the KC. This wholly undesirable situation in which unfit unhealthy dogs are allowed in show rings simply cannot be condoned.

 Those who exhibit dogs in a show ring have a distinct role in demonstrating to the public what the pedigree breeds should look like when presented, in show condition, to the judge. Their dogs should be exemplars of cosmetic excellence. The public as spectators, and novices as students, should not only admire what they see in the ring but be guided by the standards there. The general public may not know that a Basset Hound, a Bloodhound and a Cocker Spaniel's ear-length defies its Breed Standard. But every exhibitor and certainly every judge must know this. A Bulldog or a French Bulldog with no muzzle-length is in breach of its breed's blueprint anyway! Why are they even entered and judged? If, too, an exhibit needs a good bath, it should, in rugby league parlance, be sent for an 'early bath'. If its claws need cutting, its teeth need cleaning, its coat needs unmatting and its eyes and ears need a thorough wipe, then the exhibit is not ready for its class and should be banished until it is. Soft-muscled and overweight dogs however pose a much more important, more long term problem.

   Writing in the Summer 1995 number of "You and Your Vet", Simon Wolfensohn, a vet worth heeding, recorded that three out of every ten pet animals are overweight and that more pets are killed by misplaced kindness than are starved. He identified the concomitant health problems: fatty deposits around the heart, fat damage to the liver, weakness of muscles caused by fat deposits, diabetes and even arthritis because of the increased burden on the joints. He cited the cases of a Bouvier des Flandres which weighed 132lbs (the weight of two Bouviers on one set of legs) and of a German pointer of 95lbs, roughly twice her desired weight.

 If you purchase an expensive pedigree dog, why try to feed it to death? If you spend time and money breeding and exhibiting pedigree dogs, why frustrate yourself by putting dogs in the ring which cannot win? I should hastily add "should not win", for the judge makes this differentiation. Nearly a century ago, Theo Marples, writing in his "Prize Dogs", put the condition of a dog in the ring ahead of its ability to 'show'. He also wrote that "It is always best not to show a dog in bad condition, even although he may be entered for a show. Many a good dog has met defeat and tarnished his reputation by being exhibited in indifferent condition". I see dogs "in indifferent condition" being presented to the judge at most of the shows I go to. What folly! Some of the owners of such dogs moan later about the standard of the judging when their dogs fail to gain a place. Winning is all about the pursuit of excellence, not just turning up on the day. Grossness is not just a manifestation of obesity, gross exaggeration may delight the faddists but it ruins a breed.

 Are soft-muscled overweight exhibits now actually becoming acceptable at shows? If so, then we have not only too many incompetent judges but a potential disaster on our hands. For, if, as is claimed, the improvement of dogs is the Kennel Club's mandate and dog shows are the vehicle for this, then permitting soft-muscled overweight dogs even to enter the ring substantially undermines this claim. Pedigree dog shows, and Sporting and Working Breeds' shows in particular, must demonstrate to the dog-owning public what each breed should look like in peak condition. If this is not happening, then the whole credibility of pedigree dog breeding is put at risk. There is now an urgent need for us to exercise our minds as well as our dogs.