1154

DISPLAYING THE DOG – AND ITS FAULTS!
By David Hancock

  Exhibiting your dog to meet someone else’s design and to vie with other owners, some of whom you might know quite well, is perhaps exhibitionism-by-proxy – as some unkind media critics allege! It may be a centuries-old sport now, but is it good for the dogs themselves, or dogs in general? I went to my first dog show to accompany the show vet, whom I worked for as a teenaged kennel-boy, soaking in his every word on the entry. Since then, over the years, I have been to seven World Dog Shows, countless national and championship shows and any number of so-called ‘unsanctioned shows’. I have attended quite a number of seminars for judges and judged four different terrier breed shows and two different bulldog breed shows, none of them featuring pedigree dogs. I have therefore obtained a good working knowledge, across a wide field, of the ’sport’ and its participants, human and canine. My worrying conclusion, looking back over the last seventy years, is that the knowledge of the exhibitors is now less, the quality of the entry a cause for alarm, the behavior of many exhibitors quite shameful but above all these observations, the standard of governance in far too many countries is simply unacceptable. Since the British started the whole showing business and been the longest in the field, the Kennel Club should take much of the blame. It has failed its own ‘reason-to-be’ and in its self-stated mission of ‘improving dogs’. Dogs have simply not been improved - by this one or any other kennel club in the last century or so!

    Like so many other governing bodies: the Jockey Club, the Football League, the Lawn Tennis Association and the MCC, the Kennel Club is much criticised, often maligned and frequently misunderstood by writers, the general public and even their own members. Established by real dog-men well over a hundred years ago, the Kennel Club became the authoritative body in the world of pure-bred dogs, although in recent times more dominated by the show fraternity than the devotees of the sporting breeds.  There is no doubt that the KC has done some good in the pedigree dog world and I believe has always been well-intentioned, however misinterpreted or misused its role and rule has been. Breeds, for example, like the Deerhound, the Irish Wolfhound, a number of terrier breeds and spaniels like the Sussex, Field and Clumber have been perpetuated in KC show-rings long after sportsmen had abandoned them. Even its strongest critics realise that the KC is rather more than a durable Aunt Sally and isn't going to go away; I suspect that all those genuinely concerned with the best interests of dogs would prefer to salute it rather than slam it.

  With increasing public concern over discomfort and disability in some breeds from the exaggeration of typical features, growing veterinary concern over the worrying increases in hereditary diseases and widespread distaste for cosmetic surgery on dogs, the time for the KC to change direction on a number of important issues is even more pressing. There is a clear requirement for moral leadership to replace benign patronage, for there must always be a moral dimension to the work of each body dealing with live animals. The freedom given to the breed clubs by the KC has not been honoured by every breed club, with some falling victim to a dominant clique of misguided individuals. In such cases the stance of the KC has sometimes seemed to be "tell me where you want to go - and I'll lead you there" rather than that of safeguarding the best long-term interests of the breed concerned, whether over the wording of Breed Standards or the probity of breeders with defective stock.

  It is simply not good enough to act as a fee-collecting, rubber-stamping agency feigning helplessness in such circumstances. Authority without responsibility is disastrous. Against this perennial background therefore, I was considerably heartened to read some thirty years ago a report of the KC Working Party on surgical enhancement of the appearance of dogs and hereditary diseases in dogs. The submission of a report, however commendably-worded and admirably-intentioned, would of course only be the first step in a sequence in which actions eventually speak louder than words. I was aware too that KC committees have a record of trying to "place a pillow on every fence" and I have learned only ever to expect real change to come from strong-minded, stout-hearted individuals rather than committees however well- intentioned. I had a lingering fear that some parts of the report had been written in an attempt not to antagonise some prominent breeders.

   Whenever real change is achieved, someone somewhere nearly always has to be put out. The report covered a lot of ground and made many different but related points. A code of ethics for owners and breeders of registered dogs was drafted and recommended for implementation. Identification of dogs was considered desirable. The KC/BVA committee was to be reconstituted. Stricter criteria for acceptance on the breed register were advised once the code of ethics had been promulgated. But, for me, the most important element in the report was the section dealing with hereditary defects. The report recommended that notification to the KC of operations carried out by veterinary surgeons on inherited anomalies was highly desirable. The fifth article of the general code of ethics stipulated that all those under KC jurisdiction "agree without reservation that any veterinary surgeon operating on any of their dogs to correct a hereditary defect, may report such an operation to the KC". Having campaigned for over four decades for all inherited defects in dogs to be made notifiable by veterinary surgeons, I applauded this as the first step in the right direction. There were a number of aspects over the implementation of these measures that concerned me, at the time, however. My concern was well founded.

 The veterinary profession is there to serve animals not their owners, yet I foresaw objections from vets not prepared to offend paying customers by "informing on them", seeing it as some kind of ethical dilemma! I groan inwardly whenever I hear scientists pleading ethics as a problem; ethical behaviour is essentially a matter of our individual consciences rather than a professional response. Dogs in distress from genes or germs should expect to receive the unquestioning support of any animal doctor. But even more problematical was the action to be taken by the KC against breeders of registered stock transmitting congenital flaws. Unless the KC backed its words with action it would soon lose the respect of its better members and the confidence of the dog-owning public. There must be sanctions, including deregistration, against those breeders using stock that passes on hereditary defects. Only the KC could achieve this. Yes, there will be kennels that go out of business if sanctions are imposed on them, but we are dealing with the health of future canine generations here not stuffed animals on wheels. Yes, some dogs may have had to be put down as a direct result of this edict. The alternative was the promotion and perpetuation of prolonged discomfort for thousands of dogs that could have been bred from them.

An article around that time, in a weekend magazine, quoted two prominent KC officials as saying, firstly: "Kennel Club registration is like Debrett's...there are people who appear in Debrett's who should not be bred from...Our registration system is a statement of breeding, not a statement of quality." I have always regarded the breeding of all livestock as a perpetual search for quality. The second one stated blithely: "Does anyone want a Dandie Dinmont that hunts rats? Nowadays people want pets, not working dogs"- continuing on a theme suggesting that dogs originally bred to work no longer have any need to be.  If these two quotations were accurately worded and correctly attributed to them, coming, as they did, from two influential individuals in the KC, I felt greatly depressed. The Debrett's analogy will surely go down as one of the sillier remarks of 1989; those listed in Debrett's are not bred to a blueprint through arranged matings not of their choosing. Even cars cannot be registered without a certificate of road worthiness. The KC studbook should be a record of sound dogs not a register of traceable, congenital disease carriers. As far as the "no one wants their pet sheepdog to herd sheep, their pet terrier to bolt foxes or their pet springer to put up game" argument is concerned, this line of reasoning was unworthy of the appointment held by the official using it. What really is the point of producing or purchasing a terrier if it is not true to its own heritage and physically capable of carrying out its originally-intended historical function? Can it really be better to produce a newly-created breed, a purpose-bred "hearth-harrier" or a "carpet-collie", designed to suit its contemporary environment? We revere our various breeds of dog because of their heritage, not in spite of it. If the blueprint for a working dog is faithfully observed, a mentally and physically sound animal must be produced. Is that not for the good of each sporting and working breed, even pets? The Kennel Club was then and still is now at the crossroads, it can continue its benign torpor and receive disrespect, impatience, even scorn. Or it can bite on this particular bullet, offend a few wallet-conscious breeders and vets but at the same time set a lead, as their Finnish and Swedish counterparts have done, for all pedigree dog-owners. In this way they would earn the admiration of all true dog-lovers and probably find it much easier to conduct the rest of their business as a direct result. At the Annual General Meeting of the KC on the 28th of May 1987, their members accepted a proposal that the general committee "take steps to examine and report on methods whereby dogs which may transmit hereditary disease could be barred entry to the studbook". They haven’t! It is now well over a quarter of a century later; pedigree dogs have been failed by the very club set up and perpetuated just to improve them – this is not animal welfare but animal neglect.  There is a distinct difference between displaying dogs for their virtues and continuing to display them with wholly avoidable faults. What is the value of exhibiting flawed dogs? The media critics are right! Showing dogs may well be exhibitionism-by-proxy but to display faulty stock is unforgiveable ignorance. The kennel clubs’ role here is irrefutable. They don’t have to be ineffective, self-regarding, forever-dozing committee-led calamities?