1236

JUDGING LURCHERS AND TERRIERS
By David Hancock

Exhibitors at KC conformation shows would learn a great deal if they attended a few lurcher and terrier shows, the mood is different, the judging very different. Of course, a parade of sporting dogs, that have to perform in the field, used to be the purpose of KC shows. But now it is merely a display of warm-blooded ornaments with little purpose beyond showing them off – and breeding from the winners whatever their quality. Judging at lurcher and terrier shows, whatever the quality of the judges or the entry is about the seeking of a sporting dog, one that can perform. For some years I have attended these shows – run more as family shows than grimly-fought rosette-chasing contests. Looking round at the 2019 ‘Terrier and Lurcher Show’ of the Vale of the White Horse Farmer and Supporters Club held at the hunt kennels, it was soon apparent that this was very much a family show, with a relaxed attitude but a serious purpose. The judges were looking for dogs that could do a day’s work not the ones posing prettily. They were seeking a working anatomy ahead of canine beauty. It was good to note that the lurcher judge examined the ‘bite’ of each exhibit very diligently. My initial impression of the lurcher entry was their uniformity.

'Stonehenge' referred to lurchers well over a hundred years ago with these words: "A poacher possessing such an animal seldom keeps him long, every keeper being on the look-out, and putting a charge into him on the first opportunity; and as these must occur of necessity, the poacher does not often attempt to rear the dog which would suit him best, but contents himself with one which will not so much attract the notice of those who watch him". Strictly speaking, on this evidence, a judge at a lurcher show should automatically disqualify any dog which would appear to a gamekeeper like a coursing dog! That would thin out the class sizes in no small way! 'Stonehenge' has managed however to convey the essential ordinariness, the vital anonymity and the lack of type if a lurcher is to survive. Variety was not just the spice of life, it almost assured a life!

This variation in type manifests itself at lurcher shows today, with classes for rough and smooth-haired dogs and those under or over 23 inches at the withers. Some breeders swear by the Saluki cross and others by Bedlington blood; some fanciers favour a rough or harsh-haired dog and others the smooth variety. A minority prize the 'Smithfield' blood from the old drovers' dogs and there are often more bizarre crosses such as Borzoi cross Collie, Deerhound cross Dobermann and Azawakh cross Dobermann. The concept, as always with a hunting dog, is to find the ideal match between quarry, country and conditions on one hand and speed, determination and hunting instinct on the other. These qualities cannot of course be judged in a ring but an experienced eye can detect potential.

The best judge of a lurcher is a man who has hunted one himself, a man who visualises the dog before him in the ring in the chase. But he has to possess some basic knowledge of the fundaments of hunting dog anatomy or he has no right to be in the ring as a judge. I see judges at shows who never look at the feet, never test the hardness of the loin, don't examine the bite, and reward entrants with slab-sides, upright shoulders and rib-cages which lack lung-room. That can only reward bad breeding, leading to a production-line of mediocre dogs; winning dogs get bred from!

Firstly, why are so many lurchers so big! Staghound and Deerhound lurchers are often giants. It is worth remembering that the main reason why show Deerhounds tend to be huge is not need but origin. Deer hunters found that dogs over 28" at the withers lacked performance and quickly passed them on to the early show breeders. No Waterloo Cup winner has ever been thirty inches high. I regularly see lurchers at shows which stand 30" and which must weigh 90-100 lbs. I would have thought that even on Salisbury Plain or around Newmarket, 60-70 lbs was easily big enough. The famous coursing greyhound Master M'Grath, three times winner of the Waterloo Cup, believed by many to have no equal for pace, cleverness and killing power, weighed 52-54 lbs. Wild Mint weighed 45 lbs and Coomassie only 42; both were superbly effective coursing dogs. But whatever their size it is possible to judge these admirable dogs more effectively. If we are going to judge them, let's do it properly. A hound which hunts using its speed must have the anatomy to do so. Immense keenness for work will always come first but the physique to exploit that mental asset comes close second. A lurcher must have a long strong muzzle with powerful jaws and a level bite, with strength right to the nose-end of the muzzle. How else can it catch and retrieve its quarry? The nose should be good-sized with well-opened nostrils, for, despite some old-fashioned theories, sighthounds hunt using scent as well as sight.

For any sighthound to succeed, its eyes should be fairly prominent and be set slightly oblique, to the side of the head. One eye should look away to the right and one to the left so that, like any good rangefinder, both eyes can be used for long distance marking. It is likely however that at close range only one eye is used at a time. The neck should be long but symmetrically so, muscular and firm. Length of neck does not improve 'pick up'; flexibility in the 'swoop' comes from the placement of the shoulder blades. A lurcher must have well laid-back, sloping shoulders; I always apply the 'two fingers width' test to the space between the shoulder blades of a stooping dog. Many show Greyhounds have to spread their feet to drink from a bowl of water on the ground because of excessive narrowness in the set of their shoulder blades. The lurcher's back should hint at suppleness and power, be slightly arched in the lumbar region, yet have a mainly level topline.

The chest should be deep from the withers to point of elbow but be fairly flat, with the underpart of the brisket fairly broad across. The ribs should be well separated, with good lung room and space between the last rib and the hindquarters to allow a full stride. At full stretch, the impress of a hare's hindfeet is implanted in front of that of the forefeet; the lurcher should have the same capability. There must also be freedom of suspension in the ribcage or thorax in the way it is 'cradled' by the scapulae -- the dog needs to utilise this when hurdling a farmgate or turning at high speed. The hindquarters must be powerfully constructed if they are to propel the dog forward in the chase, but symmetry and balance fore and aft are the key to turning ability. Every sighthound depends upfront on good long arms and forearms, and, in the hindlegs wide and muscular thighs and second thighs, length of stifle and good angulation. The feet must be really compact with well-knuckled toes and short claws, naturally worn from working or sound exercise. Some greyhound experts have been known to assess a dog by looking at the tail first, noting any sign of coarseness, desiring the tail of a rat in appearance, long and whip-like with little hair.

Smooth-coated lurchers are sometimes handicapped by too little hair, lacking protection from wire and chill winds. Whilst not advocating a shaggy wolfhound coat, I can see operational merit in a stiff-haired, wire-haired or linty coat. The jacket of any sporting dog should shed the wet not hold the wet. Waterproofing comes from hair density and texture not profusion of coat; if you look at the originally-imported Afghan hounds and then compare their coats to today's specimens, you can see how function has forfeited to fashion. But the best physique is squandered without keenness in the chase and immense determination, an alert eager expression in the eye indicates this and is essential. A judge has to ask himself: will this dog hunt? Can this dog hunt with this anatomy? Better judging, based on a more measured assessment, should lead to the production of better dogs. Fieldsports’ folk have too much sense to allow such a concept to degenerate into the pretty-polly state prevalent in the pedigree dog show rings. Lurcher shows are a bit of fun; the only real test for such a dog is in the chase. But that 'bit of fun' can raise standards too if the judges' criteria are sound. Who wants to win with an unworthy dog?

Assessing the merits of a terrier may have to be changed if not going to ground is a criterion, i.e. judging the dog on what it is expected to do, rather than what it is banned from doing - as a working role. I believe that it is entirely fair to state that of all the types of dog ruined by the effects of the Kennel Club-approved show rings the Terrier Group has suffered the most. This is sad for a number of reasons: firstly, the Kennel Club was founded by sportsmen, with the Rev John Russell an early member and Fox Terrier judge; secondly, the breeders of those terrier breeds recognised by the KC boast of the sporting ancestry of their dogs -- and then dishonour it, and, thirdly, some quite admirable breeds of terrier have been degraded, even insulted, in this way. Discounting the Airedale, never an earth-dog more a hunting griffon, and farm dogs like the Kerry Blue and Wheaten Terriers, which were allrounders rather than specialist terriers, all show terriers should only be called full champions if they have passed an underground test.

Over a century ago, the respected writer on terriers, Rawdon Lee, in his book The Fox Terrier, of 1890, recorded: “Some judges – men, too, who bear a deservedly high reputation as such, will put a terrier out of the prize list if it be even a trifle crooked on his fore legs or slightly heavy at the shoulders; whilst another dog, narrow behind and weak in loins, to my idea a far more serious failing, is considered pretty well all right so long as its fore legs are set on like rulers. As a fact, there are judges who have recently gone to extremes in awarding honours to these so-called ‘narrow-fronted’ terriers. Such have been produced at a sacrifice of power and strength. Most of these very narrow- chested dogs move stiffly, are too flat in the ribs, they are deficient in breathing and heart room, and can never be able to do a week’s hard work in the country…” Sadly, we still live with these faults today; once a show ring fad becomes popular, it soon becomes acceptable in far too many terrier breeds – and not just in this country. Soundness gives way to rosette-chasing and working structure gets forgotten. Such terriers cease to be sporting dogs and their owners cease to be custodians of their breed but mere wallet-fillers.

There were some smart little terriers at the VWH show but do terrier shows have any value? Is the judging at terrier shows really producing the true winner, actually rewarding the best dog present? Terriers can achieve a reputation above the ground as well as below it; but is it fairly earned? The bigger types of dog, especially those with a close coat, are probably easier to judge, both for a sound construction and for movement, than a small terrier, especially one with a profuse coat. It disappointing to stand ring-side at a working terrier show, especially when a so-called 'hunt terrier-man' is judging, and see all manner of faults being rewarded by his placements. Of course, a one-eyed, heavily-scarred, three-legged terrier may be the best working terrier in the county, but a KC-show is all about appearance not reputation. I have actually seen a terrier win a first prize whilst suffering from a luxating patella; but that was at Crufts!

"First of all make certain that you have the sort of terrier whose build will enable him to do his job effectively and with ease to himself." That quaintly worded advice was offered sixty years ago by the field sports enthusiast and working terrier devotee, Major Ollivant. But what build does enable the earthdog to do his job not only well but more easily? OT Price, that much-loved old terrier-man, who sustained his own type of terrier from 1896 to the 1950s, opted for a dog "Twelve inches in height, about three and a half in breadth and weighing about twelve pounds." "I like a narrow eel-like terrier" he used to counsel. He wasn't advocating a skinny dog but one with a supple pliant very flexible torso. Geoffrey Sparrow, in his classic 'The Terrier's Vocation', goes for a dog "...weighing from twelve to sixteen pounds, with a strong jaw -- not snipey like the show breeds -- a good back, neck and shoulders, and fairly long legs. The length doesn't matter. They can be folded up while bad shoulders cannot." He would not have liked the Fox Terriers in contemporary Kennel Club show rings, with their upright shoulders and anteater muzzles. If they could actually get underground, they are unlikely to re-emerge!

In the United States, they are conducting such tests, ranging from 'Introduction to Quarry' and 'Junior Earthdog' to 'Senior Earthdog' and 'Master Earthdog'. To date I know of no master earthdog tests being held but just under ten dogs hold the senior earthdog title. In the introduction test, the terrier (or working Dachshund) has two minutes to enter a ten-foot tunnel, negotiate a 90 degree turn and 'work' the quarry for 30 seconds. The American enthusiasts say that "you put a dog down the hole but you get a terrier out of it". In the master earthdog test, acting in a brace, a dog has to follow a 100 foot scent trail to a hole, which is intentionally a false one, investigate the false den without giving tongue, then navigate 30 feet of tunnel, three 90 degree turns, a false exit, a constriction point and an obstacle.

Seventy years ago, Piece O'Conor was advocating something similar. He described the French apparatus for trying terriers: a wooden conduit 7½" wide, sunk in the earth, with passing chambers, just over 50 feet long. Terrier-testing underground is so much more a basis for judging than any 'beauty show'. It tests, however artificially, the working instinct and character of the dog. The French, in more remote country areas, still conduct their ‘ratier’ contests. But even beauty shows should end up rewarding a working physique rather than one cosmetically appealing. But what should 'working appeal' be based on? The original working Fox Terriers were often barrel-chested and featured a fairly straight stifle and hock; the longer tibia and well-bent hock of the show ring terrier of today is not much use underground. But an even bigger difference lies in the shoulder angulation and depth of chest. Show Fox Terriers feature without exception upright shoulders and slab-sided but deep chests; neither of these physical attributes help an earthdog. Nor does the short back of the pedigree Fox Terrier, which reduces flexibility and overall suppleness. It does however produce a more compact-looking showy type of dog.

The craze for long heads in show terriers, exemplified most clearly in the smooth Fox Terrier, is rooted in the misguided belief that length gives power. You also hear the expression: "plenty of heart room", which is strange when the heart doesn't actually change size when the dog is exerting itself. Plenty of lung room is desirable, especially in terriers which run with the hounds. But it is rib-space which gives a dog lung room, not depth of chest. I have heard terrier show judges fault a very muscular terrier, used to hard exercise, for being 'loaded at the shoulders' when the fortunate dog had developed muscle which projected on the outside of its shoulders. Any individual accepting a judging appointment should question their own capability and 'eye for a dog' before proceeding.

Working terrier enthusiasts will never show great interest in elaborate, carefully-crafted, appearance-led or wordy descriptions of anatomical features. But balance, symmetry, correct proportions and physical soundness really do affect function and therefore performance in a hunting animal. Terrier show judges may prefer to judge entirely by eye and experience, but is this enough? A seminar of working terrier judges to bring on the younger judges would surely be of value. It would be interesting to hear, should that happen, what terrier show judges' decisions are being based on. Pedigree livestock are still judged to a scale of points; pedigree dogs no longer are. Subjective judgements can bring fine differences of opinion to the fore. But for a working terrier to win a prize with upright shoulders, splay feet, a wry mouth and no lung room, as I witnessed last summer, is more than depressing. If countrymen can't judge a dog these days, what hope for what Boris would call ‘oppidan’ judges at Kennel Club shows? It was, incidentally, so good to see Manchester Terriers, a dying breed, being shown in the ‘family dog’ part of this excellent country dog show.