1127

RESPECTING THE BREED
By David Hancock

 Crufts 2018 is over, the gushing TV coverage is mercifully over too! The ceaseless lack of respect for dogs ahead of respecting them as sentient creatures with distinct needs of their own is repeated year after year. Celebrity presenters have finished strutting their stuff, the near-hysterical staging of flyball and agility/obedience displays has been shelved for another year. The part-time 'experts' on dogs and dog breeds have crept back into their shells after another year of shamelessly-revealed ignorance. (When has there ever been a real terrier-man or a professional shepherd on such a show?) The parading of breeds has once again stimulated the usual misinformation on each one. But far worse is the lack of respect for sporting, working and pastoral breeds - their fitness for purpose only ever being an afterthought. The Crufts entry is viewed by the TV producers as, at times, 'cuddly-toy time', with dogs being praised for being 'cute' and not related to their desired function, unlike, say, the coverage of the Cheltenham Festival each year where the entry is rated by their ability to run and jump. The respect for the horses is impressive. Greyhounds at Crufts are rated on how they look - never on whether they can race or hurdle. Yet that is what this breed of dog should be respected for - its ability to perform in its breed function!

  And how we take for granted the magnificent breeds of dog handed down to us by our ancestors, pioneer breeders par excellence. If we are to respect the breeds and honour their heritage it is vital to continue all the painstaking dedicated work done selflessly by these admirable people. So often we mention their names in semi-hushed respectful tones only to undo their devoted efforts by disrespectful breeding. Long-gone but still revered breeders like Lady Swinburne and Mrs Chapman in Bloodhounds, Laverack and Llewellin in setters, Whitehouse in Pointers, Proctor in Bassets, Cooke in Flatcoats, Dr Sidney Turner in Mastiffs, Stewart in Great Danes and the Martinez brothers in Dogos Argentinos, strove mightily to produce outstanding dogs. Each one bred to produce a functional animal. How often nowadays function is relegated or, even worse, overlooked altogether. But how, nowadays, do you assess the 'state of a breed'? Are Breed Councils obliged to submit an annual 'state of the breed' report to the Kennel Club, as would happen in many other walks of life. Shouldn't the supreme body take a close interest in the state our precious breeds of dog are in? Is that not a key element in showing respect for breeds?

  In the late 19th century, the Kennel Club's own newspaper The Kennel Gazette, regularly published what might be termed annual accounts of the state of a breed at that time. They must have been extremely valuable to breeders and exhibitors and still have value, as many faults seem sealed in a particular breed, like straight stifles in Mastiffs. What made them especially valuable was their honesty, sometimes pulling no punches in their quite painful frankness. But which contributes more to a breed, a thoroughly dishonest critique or a painfully honest one? In latterday critiques, judges often apologise for being critical - in a critique! Late Victorian judges were far more straightforward, assisting the development of a breed. If any breed has flaws surely it is preferable to confront the challenge rather than wish them away. How can a tyro-breeder respect a breed when the elders don't?

The editorial in The Kennel Gazette of January 1889 is a most valuable survey of the breeds being exhibited then. It mentions light eyes, badly-carried sterns and wretchedly-poor bitches in Pointers, laments great size at the expense of type in Clumbers, comments that the golden liver colour in the Sussex Spaniel as becoming almost extinct and complains that Bulldogs of that time 'fail below the eye'. In this issue, a Mastiff judge writes: 'I notice a growing inclination to straight hind legs and general weakness in the hindquarters, which, to my mind, is the greatest possible disfigurement to a mastiff, and will ultimately, if not checked, tend to a sad degeneracy of the breed.' The man was a prophet! Can you imagine The Kennel Gazette of today being as forthcoming. I wrote for this magazine for over four years in the 1980s, some 50 articles, then dared to criticise them and had my submitted (and accepted) material returned. Sycophancy achieves nothing; if anything it creates complacency, confirms static thinking and condones poor breeding. Outspoken honesty is essential if breeds are to earn respect through constructive criticism.

   If every Breed Council had to produce an annual audit of their breed, listing the strengths and weaknesses in the breed, would that not contribute to the breed they claim to love? If every show judge was obliged to submit, as the first paragraph of their mandatory critique, a summary of the state of the breed as they found it at that show, would that not contribute to a breed's future? When a breed is degenerating, are we all expected to just watch and keep quiet? Our ancestors thought honesty was the best policy, shaming the contemporary culture of shouting down any and every dissident voice. Read again the reaction of the KC to honestly-intentioned constructive criticism of the dog-game at Crufts time; their whole response is one of denial, never let's look at this, for the good of dogs. That conflicts with their self-imposed mandate of being there principally for 'the general improvement of dogs' .

The Kennel Gazette of February 1889 covered the need in Gordon Setters to 'get back to the real hunting qualities of this breed'; in the June issue, a Great Dane judge wrote 'I would suggest that as these are German dogs they be judged as German dogs and not by any new fangled English idea as to what the breed ought to look like in Englishmen's opinions'. In the same issue a retriever judge, gundog expert William Arkwright no less, wrote that 'it is quite extraordinary to me how judges can award prizes to so-called retrievers, which are manifestly unfit for their work...' In the July issue, one judge described the Irish Terrier entry in champion dogs as 'they are both awful, worst feet I ever saw'. Honesty and tactfulness don't always go together but, when selecting future breeding stock, give me honesty every time. Are we aiming to breed better dogs or striving to avoid hurting people's feelings? Covering up or suppressing criticism does breeds of pedigree dog no good at all!

 In this same issue, the great Bloodhound breeder, Edwin Brough, wrote: 'I fear that dog shows and their attendant changes of fashion have done an immense amount of harm to some of our most useful breeds'. When I wrote, in similar vein, for the same magazine one hundred years later, my words were no longer welcome! We need a kennel club, but we need an honest one, a robust one, not one in a state of denial or eternally defensive or one so self-regarding. The work of a kennel club affects canine welfare; it affects the well-being of breeds too. When the discredited Dangerous Dogs Act was being drawn up, the Home Office regarded the Kennel Club as the national organisation concerned with breeds of dog and consulted them as such. But you cannot claim authority without the exercise of responsibility: responsibility for the future of our breeds of dog. You cannot carry out such a task without information and without taking action when this is needed.

   There is a meaningful late 19th century painting by Creswell Desmond, entitled 'The Old Order Changeth, Yielding Place to New', which depicts two Bulldogs, one centre-stage, the other departing. The latter, a white, leggy, athletic, longer-muzz1ed Bulldog is being replaced by the brindle, massive-headed, pug- faced specimen. This scene illustrates so vividly what can happen to a breed when the KC looks away. In his masterly The Dog Book of 1906, the under-rated Scottish writer James Watson recalls visiting a dog show at Alexandra Palace at the end of the 1870s and being briefed by the famous Bulldog man Bill George's son, Alfred, with the words: "...there has been a great change since you went away. You will see some of the old sort at father's, but they don't do for showing". Where was the KC when the 'old sort' were being upstaged? Who is in the best position to prevent breeds being altered to suit human whim? Breeds can be ruined by uncontrolled faddists. But you need a breed 'conformation' survey to produce the evidence of the respect being given to a breed.

   I can understand any governing body being anxious not to appear dictatorial or drunk with power. But when both animal welfare and our canine heritage is involved, some body has to take charge. Otherwise, the Bull Terrier will end up with an egg-shaped head, the GSD's hindquarters will be deconstructed, the Basset Hound's ears, with the head lowered, will one day reach the ground and the sheer length of the Dachshund's back will create inherent weakness to the detriment of the dog - as has happened in each case! It is clearly not enough to leave the breeds to the breed clubs and the breeders. Some body has to take responsibility. If nobody does, is it surprising if vets, journalists or, worse still, legislators step forward? Judges' critiques should not be misused, they lose impact when they are. They should not be the vehicle for social banter or expressions of gratitude to show organisers or stewards. Every word should serve the breed. An accepted format would help, say, an introductory general paragraph giving an overview of the quality of the entry, followed by the customary report on each class. If, in a breed, in a short period of time, half a dozen different judges report the same widespread fault, does not that demand a response, over and above that from those individual breeders actually striving to improve their kennel? If judges of six hound breeds, seven terrier breeds and five gundog breeds report widespread upright shoulders and short upper arms in the breeds on show, is it only the task of individual breeders to respond? Or, has the problem only become widespread in these breeds because no-one in authority is prepared to take action?

   Do we all just wash our hands of such a wholly unsatisfactory, ever-worsening situation? Breeders have investments to protect, but those investments are sentient creatures called dogs, who have, even as subject creatures, a right to expect to be bred soundly. There is a higher responsibility to be exercised here, and the vision to introduce much-needed change. Some show critiques cry out for action by someone. I have in mind this sort of comment in them: Miniature Poodles, Crufts, 2004: "What on earth has happened to this once wonderfully strong and competitive breed..." Lhasa Apsos, Crufts, 2004: "...but sadly I was very disappointed in the way I feel the breed has deteriorated." Old English Sheepdogs, Crufts, 2006: ". ..it is still worrying that we appear to be losing our beloved type..." Tibetan Terriers, Crufts, 2006: "I was most disturbed by the fact that at least 60% of the exhibits had upright shoulders or short upper arms." The disrespectful of course ignore such valuable advice but they are allowed to!

    There are matters being identified here that need Breed Council attention, if they had any executive authority. The laissez-faire situation in which breed clubs 'run free' might sound admirably democratic, but is it good for a breed where things are going wrong? At Crufts, 2006, the Norwich Terrier judge reported: "...1 was very sad to see to see the state of this breed in the UK..." That is a most damning comment on a breed's entry for our top show, but does anybody respond? Who has the authority to act? The Airedale judge at Crufts 2007 wrote that "...movement is poor and in some cases appalling. .." The Airedale judge at SWKA 1997 wrote: "Movement in Airedales has deteriorated to the extent that I cannot honestly say that anyone of the ones I judged could be classed as having excellent movement. The best I would rate as passable and the worst as appalling."

   Ten years pass and the same condition in a sporting terrier breed, time for someone to be bossy but it's clear that no-one dares, or cares. But the Crufts judge (from overseas) of 1994, reported on the Airedale entry: "I am sorry to say that the anatomic structure of most of the Airedales shown in the ring, even if they were champions, was more or less incorrect." Four years later, at the Manchester 1998 show, the Airedale judge wrote: "I do feel that if the breed is not to deteriorate still further, light eyes and movement will have to be watched and steps taken to breed it out." Nine years later, at Crufts, the judge found movement in the breed to be appalling. When I suggested in a BBC studio, at Crufts time 2007, that Crufts didn't display 'the best of the very best' as claimed, the KC secretary pooh-poohed such an idea as weird and out of touch. So much for humility! So much for respecting the breeds' annual parade!

  Who was 'in touch' for the 13 years in which a KC breed was allowed to deteriorate? In the United States, the American Kennel Club has already been accused of being 'the registry of sick dogs' .But kennel clubs are obvious targets; the first-post responsible body for any breed is its breed club. Each one has to register with the KC. Straightaway that gives the KC an opportunity to establish ground rules. How about: every breed club is obliged to submit an annual audit of its breed, setting out concerns over conformation and, separately, its genetic health, with a mandatory health survey every five years? The Breed Councils should be given teeth, executive power, not just a liaison role. It's a cop-out to plead that breed clubs need to be independent, unsupervised and unmanaged. When the welfare, well-being and whole future of a breed is at stake, arguments about sovereignty are a luxury. Breed Councils have to earn the respect they need to have if they are to influence policy from their clubs.

  There are many admirable dedicated worthy people at work in breed clubs, but the challenges of our times need to be faced. The days when eminent sportsmen had a major role and took a big interest in pedigree dog-breeding have long gone. They were behind the wording of many breed standards, they were the early judges and they knew the demands of the field. If you take the example of the Airedale Terrier and keep in mind its acknowledged problems over movement, it is worth asking 'what would a Master of Foxhounds do about such a basic flaw?' He would breed out the problem with a firm clear agreed plan for his pack; one sure thing: he wouldn't try to evade the problem. Hound-shows such as the one at Peterborough each year demonstrate the quality control being exercised here. A MFH and his often reviled peers respect their charges and that respect comes through in their breeding. Their hounds get improved every year! They earn and deserve our respect too.