by   David Hancock

Modern times have brought about dogs of high financial value but little functional worth. In times past dogs were valued for what they could do rather than how they looked. Wentworth Day, the renowned sportsman and gifted writer, had very definite views on the betrayal of function in dogs. In his The Dog in Sport (Harrap, 1938), a wonderful read for any teenager interested in dogs, he wrote, on the subject of the Dachshund: "Born a fighter, bred a warrior, nurtured on Nordic aims of war, he has become a mere paddler about carpets, a licker-up of chocolates, a sycophant at women's knees. So the days of dogs decline." And on retrievers he wrote: "...I mourn for individuals among them. The show-bench and the drawing-room have made fools of them, undermined their character, ruined their stamina, set their nerves on edge, reduced them from working dogs to park paddlers, tea-table sycophants, and drawing-room druggets." He never truly mastered understatement!

Dogs developed as functional creatures and those specialising in certain tasks over several hundred years merit our empathy. We seem to take more interest in coat colours and tail lengths than functional capability in dogs, and they deserve better. I warm to show-ring judges who still try to reward the working physique in their entry. But, some will cry, the breed standard will protect the functional anatomy. If only this were true. There are clearly breeders of sporting and working dogs who have no idea whatsoever of the build which allows their breed to function. The critiques of more enlightened judges illustrate this fact. But critical remarks from more widely read professional journalists do no favours to the show dog industry.

Writing in the 21 Sept 2002 issue of The Spectator, Robert Gore-Langton produced this paragraph: "Whatever it was that won Crufts earlier this year, it wasn't a dog. It was, more like, the love-child of Danny La Rue and a vast gerbil. With vast blobs of white fluff and patches of chicken skin, this coiffured quadruped was a glaring example of what happens when dog breeders go pedigree-mad. They end up with award-winning powder puffs about as stupid as cows. It is outrageous that while these animals are given rosettes, real dogs with real jobs are under threat." Such a view of exhibition-dogs is neither new nor rare; but linked with contemporary attitudes towards the treatment of animals by humans, should such a view be merely shrugged off?

Crufts presents a unique opportunity to interpret for the viewing public the many sides of the pedigree-dog industry. But what sort of national TV coverage does it attract? Gushing fluffy doggie-worshippers, with little knowledge of the purpose and value of breeds, delivering glib lines of worthless superficiality ad nauseam. What a missed opportunity! And the Kennel Club, responsible for the outward face of the pedigree-dog industry, facilitates this coverage every year! Magazine columnists may well be reacting to the coverage rather than the experience. If so, breeders of pure bred working dogs deserve better and a more enlightened registration body.

Crufts does, not surprisingly, embrace the best of the very best-looking  (as it claims) as well as the poorest of the poor (as it is loathe to concede). There are gifted breeders exhibiting their stock there and not only perpetuating breeds which might otherwise be lost to us but producing character-packed dogs that could earn their keep in a working environment. Sadly there are also breeders there who would be better off showing stuffed dogs on wheels, for they show no respect for the functional essence of their produce. The more dogs are exhibited when they cannot move freely or without discomfort, are practically muzzle-less or suffering from red-raw eyes, or with coats too profuse and long for the wearer's comfort, then the more will writers like Robert Gore-Langton in The Spectator advise the public to buy a lurcher. The latter may be good for lurcher breeders but does a disservice to worthy well-intentioned breeders of useful purebred dogs.

There is nothing new either in the public distaste for over-exaggerated, harmfully-constructed dogs or in press criticism of show ring exhibits. What is new is the ability of the news media to reach into every home with revealing pictures, coupled with a revitalised if sometimes misguided interest in animal welfare. The former of course fuels the latter. Animal welfare campaigners, and a few have my support and admiration, can be misled by hidden agendas. When I was young a ban on hunting with dogs would have been unthinkable; is a future campaign against showing dogs with physical limitations too absurd to contemplate? It could be based on selective evidence, tendentious arguments and flawed debates, just as so much parliamentary business is conducted.

It would be foolish in my view to assume that the new wave of moral vanity, or virtue-signalling, in the name of animal welfare will not affect the pedigree-dog world one day soon. If the best-bred, fittest dogs in the country can be banned from engaging in their centuries old activities, what chance have the less fit often less well-bred dogs have in engaging in their century-old show ring activity? And before precise comparisons are made between showing and hunting, and the scoffing starts, could we commence by defining cruelty? The tabloid press could produce any number of scientifically-qualified 'experts' to state that shortened legs, lengthened backs, truncated muzzles, sagging eyelids, excessive coats and bulging eyes are cruel and unacceptable in a civilized society. Before shouting 'twaddle', do recall the way in which the docking debate was conducted. And was the Dangerous Dogs Act based on sound argument?

The pedigree dog world is a very diverse one. There is a gulf between the working and the showing side in so many breeds. Just as most dog owners don't hunt, most dog owners don't show - so why should they care? The operating bodies rarely cooperate, the ISDS (International Sheep Dog Society) sometimes with the KC but MFHs (Masters of Fox Hounds) never. Breeds go their separate ways too; why should the owner of a Pekingese care about the Dangerous Dogs Act? Why should the owner of a Staffie care about breeds accused of having undesirable and harmful exaggerations? Why should the powerful German Shepherd Dog clubs get in a lather about docking? Who in the world of pedigree dogs gives a damn about lurchers?

When hunting with dogs, the docking of dogs' tails (by anybody) and the possession of a powerful guarding breed can each be legislated against after a thoroughly unconvincing debate, it may actually now be easier to legislate against the breeding of dogs bearing harmful exaggerations. And which body will be heading up any opposition to such legislation and with what support? The hunting fraternity? The working sheepdog owners? The working gundog lobby? I doubt if 400,000 would march round London to protest. Such issues are settled on emotive bases and who would march under a banner supporting harmful exaggerations, however harmless many would argue they can be? 

The threat of legislation initiated by The Council of Europe, ETS 125, on the ethical treatment of animals, has prompted the KC to append a fault clause in breed standards, to the effect that judges must take account of exaggerations beyond the wording of the breed standard. One commentator described this move as 'brilliant'; I suspect that an animal welfare activist might view it as a 'cop-out', a means of avoiding doing anything authoritative. And would every specialist show Basset Hound judge see something wrong in overlong ears, under-length legs, sagging eyelids or elongated spines? Would every Bulldog breeder anticipate the judge marking down or dispatching from the ring an exhibit with no muzzle? For many the wording of the breed standard is a challenge; long can mean very long, loose can mean very loose, short can mean extremely short.

There has been too much wriggling over the interpretation of Breed Standards for far far too long. It is not usually done by the gifted breeders but by unsuccessful ones, striving to win, whatever the cost to their breed. In so many breeds untypical exaggerations have been tolerated for so long by weak committees that untypical has become typical. This is dishonest and has often been associated in the distant past with crafty breeders promoting their own flawed stock to the detriment of the breed. I use the word flawed because that is exactly what a diversion from true type is: a flaw; worse even than a fault.

It is the Kennel Club's intention that each Breed Standard shall be a description of the ideal specimen in each breed. In this way, the show ring judge can look out for breed points, rather than judge every breed to one common standard. If you are breeding and showing pedigree dogs to a breed blueprint, then the words used immediately assume enormous importance. It is rather lame to complain when dogs in the ring do not conform to a Breed Standard if that Breed Standard isn't worth the paper it's written on. The wording in far too many Breed Standards is being ignored; most of them are badly worded; many are poorly constructed and few produce the crystal-clear meaning so vital for competent judging and sound breeding programmes. Far too many breed clubs seem content with words which do scant justice to the fine breeds they represent and claim to cherish. There is now a more than pressing need for the Kennel Club committee responsible for Breed Standards to concentrate less on ease of amendment and more on validity. Word pictures guide judges in assessing exhibits - and breeders!       

I have heard it argued that the KC as custodians of the standards see it as their duty to resist changes from breed clubs, on behalf of their members, to suit a contemporary desire. But this argument does not withstand even a cursory examination. Look at the standard of the Golden Retriever. Sixty years ago the required colour of the coat was laid down as: "Rich, golden, must not be...cream colour". But some breeders could not manage this. The desired colour now is "Any shade of gold or cream". So much for principles! Look too at the standard of the Bull Terrier on the subject of eyes. Nowadays they are required to "appear narrow", but this was not the case when this breed standard was first written by the most knowledgeable Bull Terrier breeders in the world. 

The Kennel Club-authorised Breed Standards for our distinguished breeds of pedigree dogs are in a mess. They can be amended to suit the breeders of a particular period - as the last paragraph demonstrates. They are confusingly worded, mean different things to different people, are consistently ignored in the show ring and do scant justice to the superb qualities of their subjects. Our world famous breeds deserve better than this. If the blueprint isn't right - well, ask any engineer or architect what the result is, usually a functional disaster. This is a simply vital aspect of the dog breeding and showing world. It is quite clearly one receiving not just inadequate attention but a distinct lack of both honesty and commitment. I admire the breeds of Deerhound and Border Terrier because they have managed to avoid being changed by generations of breeders, some no doubt not without influence. I resent the breach of faith represented by the head of the Bull Terrier in today's rings. I dislike the lack of substance in contemporary Boxers, so unlike the Boxers I saw when living in Germany over forty years ago. I regret the seemingly upright shoulders now de rigueur in the Airedale, so unlike the dogs I saw in the Harbutt's 'Bengal' kennel well over half a century ago. And these are relatively harmless innovations. What a field day an animal rights fanatic would have examining old photographs or accurate paintings of some breeds and seeing how in time breeders have knowingly reduced their quality of life. It's time for the needs of breeds of dog to prevail over the misguided transient whims of humans.