1208

LOOKING BACK AT CRUFTS 2019
By David Hancock

 Crufts, with its opening fanfares, fulsome coverage, shameless dumbing-down by commentators, and, for the dogs, an endless sea of human legs, comes and goes each year as a national institution, albeit one now with an international following. With over 20,000 entries and well over 150,000 visitors, this is an annual British landmark. But has this been to the benefit of dogs, pedigree dogs in particular? If the best dogs win, are only entered after rigorous health checks and are sound anatomically, it should be an arena for choosing future breeding stock - for the better future of the recognised breeds involved. But, as with many competitive events it has predictable flaws: judges of questionable ability - chosen all too often by reciprocal back-scratching amongst the breeder-judges around Europe, fickle fashion affecting the soundness of some popular breeds (as the sad decline of the German Shepherd Dog illustrates), harmful exaggerations in physique being condoned and cups and coats becoming more important than soundness and vigour. I believe it is entirely fair to state too that dogs are less respected now than ever before, regarded as animated toys or prestigious possessions, never for what they can do.

 The value of Crufts should lie, not in the much-televised competitions of fly-ball, agility, obedience and heelwork, but, as veterinary knowledge and breeding expertise increases each year, the parading of dogs that are true exemplars of excellence in their breeds both for genetic soundness and historic breed-type. It should not be possible for genetically-flawed dogs in breeds where such faults are traceable or breeds altered by influential breeder-whim to triumph - but they do. When a terrier can win with obvious signs of a luxating patella, a Pointer can win despite displaying a Hackney-action barred by its own breed standard, and a Cocker Spaniel can become a champion despite having ears longer than its word-picture or Breed Standard allows, the breeding of these dogs is becoming harmfully casual. Boasts about the huge entry cloud the fact that many of the exhibits do not deserve to be there; every year the Crufts' judges' critiques make the comment: How did some of these dogs qualify?  

  But what do the judges at this most prestigious of shows think of the dogs arrayed before them, dogs which have had to qualify under other KC-approved judges to appear there. At the 2019 show, judges’ reports included these: Staffordshire Bull Terriers – “…some fine exhibits had dropped too much weight…some very good quality dogs lacked muscle tone…” Staffies lacking hard muscles – that’s a crime! Mastiffs – “Mainly eyes are much cleaner and much less head and body wrinkle, although we do need a certain amount for breed type.” Oh, no, you don’t! Look at dogs of long ago with no sign of wrinkle on head or body. Lakeland Terriers - “…there were very few dogs there that had coats as described in the breed standard…” If the exhibits that had qualified for Crufts displayed coats lacking weather-resistance, what hope for the breed? This is a sporting terrier breed not a Utility breed, it was designed to cope with Cumbrian storms! Italian Spinone – “I feel I should mention some concerns I came across, the most notable one being a lack of really firm, well-tuned muscles…” A gundog breed lacking firm muscles! What were those like that didn’t qualify for this show? But what were the parents and grandparents of this entry like?   

  In 2010, the Old English Sheepdog judge at Crufts commented: "...all four top honours went to dogs from or bred in Canada, Germany, Russia and Spain, does this not say something about the breed here in the UK? One or two other things concerned me about this lovely breed, quite a few had light eyes, poor under-jaws, poorer-constructed rears to the point of very little deviation from thigh to hocks...Top-lines in many I found totally wrong..." The Whippet judge at this show concluded: "I am concerned that over-angulated hind-quarters seem to be coming more prevalent, too long from the point of the stifle to the hock. Not only does this spoil the balanced and symmetrical outline but is a serious fault as far as the functional capability of the Whippet is concerned." The English Setter judge reported: "I was disappointed to find that there seemed to be a lot of setters with long loins...breeders please take care. I also thought a lot of exhibits were not as well-muscled as they should be, with flabby soft rear ends and no second thigh muscle. An English Setter is a gundog..." For fundamental faults such as these to even appear at such a show tells you a great deal about the knowledge of anatomy of breeders, and indeed in the judges that qualified such flawed dogs for this top show, and this is extremely worrying. But such exhibits get bred from, the offspring of these dogs would have appeared at Crufts in 2015 and again in 2019. Crufts’ qualifiers get bred from – their faults perpetuated!

 The fawning TV commentators and the self-interested canine press never give front page coverage of the critiques of the Crufts judges each year. Here are some from the 2015 event: Boston Terriers: "I was disappointed at the number of exhibits who failed in action. Weak pasterns, bow fronts, cow hocks and hocks so close together they could almost ignite when moving away! I was also slightly concerned at the number of dogs who have almost no muzzle length at all..." Saluki: "Heads are a problem, eyes also and what has happened to the feet..." Labrador Retrievers: "Points still to address, round eyes and short upper arms, splayed feet and height (i.e. too tall for the breed standard)..." Pointers: "We do however still have a problem with front angulation and upright shoulders. Some exhibits were lacking the length of upper arm that is necessary to get the correct layback of shoulder needed to achieve the reach and ability the ground easily when on the move..." Japanese Chin: "Weak rear movement has been a problem in this breed for many years, now I am seeing small heads, pinched expressions and lack of strong under-jaw...Some dogs lacked muscle-tone in rear or did not have good angulation..." Chow Chows: "...it was disturbing to see no depth of quality in some classes and (in) movement." Dogs that qualify for Crufts are clearly not all sound; the judges that qualified them are not all sound either!

  These quotes have not been singled out to make a point. Other judges' critiques from the 2015 Crufts include: Dachshunds (Miniature Long-haired) - "Feet were bad in the overwhelming majority of those here." Basset Hounds (Griffon Vendeen-Grand): "Fronts are a cause for concern, very few had the requisite lay of shoulder and return of upper arm...I was rather disappointed in the muscle tone overall, very few in hard muscular condition..." Kerry Blue Terriers - "I think movement is generally a problem but that said I think that is true of all breeds" (This from an international all-breeds judge). Irish Red and White Setters - "...feet are still so often flat, soft or open and pasterns are too are weak..." Leonbergers - "Points of concern for me are the weakness in both front and rear action. I found too many with slack pasterns and Charlie Chaplin feet..." Are these dogs truly the 'best of the very best' as the Kennel Club has claimed?  Four years later, their offspring are ‘earning’ similar critiques.

  Their progeny drew these comments at the 2019 Crufts: Basset Griffon Vendeen-Grand, incorrect mouths and lack of ‘balanced’ bodies; Cairn Terriers, a few incorrect mouths, narrow heads, lack of muscle tone, the odd upright shoulder, moving too close behind; Chinese Crested, too square in outline; Rough Collies, movement left a lot to be desired, some lacked underjaw; Finnish Spitz, disappointing movement, weight needs watching; Glen of Imaal, coat texture is a concern; Great Danes, movement could be much improved – needs a blend of construction and conditioning; Hungarian Vizslas (wire-haired), getting too tall and overweight; Keeshonds, movement is a cause of concern; Parson Russell Terriers, found some domed heads and full cheeks; Labrador Retrievers, too ‘bully-headed’, soft coats, ‘otter-tail’ going out of fashion; English Setters, great variation in type, lack of ‘stop’ in skulls; narrow hind movement; Irish Setters (bitches), poorly-shaped feet – hare-feet or open flat feet not of use to gundogs; English Springers, too Cocker-like, big bodies on short legs, lack of muscle and substance in younger entry, short upper arms; Tibetan Terriers, lack of underjaw, long weak muzzles, short rib cages, straight stifles; Welsh Corgi (Pembroke), wide variation in type; Whippet, mostly with plenty of muscle tone! This breed looks quite awful without hard muscles, almost Italian Greyhound-like.

  But what kind of knowledge lies in the judges who ‘qualified’ such flawed stock for this allegedly ‘best of the very best’ top-quality dog-show? In the weekly dog-paper Our Dogs of the 22nd of March, 2019, a reader wrote in on the subject of judges’ capability to state: “I despair of those who accept breeds to judge which are outside of their experience…”. She then went on to describe one judge who praised a ‘bitch’ that was in fact a male! She expressed concern over judges asked to go over a collection of breeds, rather than just those for which they are qualified. She ended by pointing out that, in the 1960s, she won Best-in-Show with a male dog, described in glowing terms by a famous judge as a bitch! These are not exactly the errors of novice judges; who is monitoring the judges, judges whose decisions can determine breeding plans?       

 The late Alexander Solzhenitsyn once wrote: 'to do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he's doing is good. Or else, that it's a well-considered act in conformity with natural law.' Breed enthusiasts who exaggerate their dogs usually argue strongly that there is nothing wrong in muzzle-less, legless, elongated, 'overdone' dogs; some claim to be just 'conforming'; all claim to be doing 'good'. The French have a pertinent expression for hobby-blindness, they term it 'deformation professionelle' or being unbalanced by professional zeal, so close to your obsessive approach that reality cannot get in. I have met Bulldog, Basset Hound, Mastiff and Dachshund breeders with this affliction. When you listen to their excuses for exaggeration in their stock, you don't know whether to laugh or cry - laugh at their self- delusion or cry for their dogs.