Sun, 02/13/2022 - 7:26am

Dog Is In the Details

So is genericism our future?

I am infamous for creating new words, especially for conditions I don’t like, and “genericism” I thought was one of them?

There are probably many other already accepted “isms” that I could utilize to express my opinion about what is going on in parts of our dog world, but I still like this!

But then, sadly, I discovered it has been in the Oxford Dictionary for ages. But even “sadlier” is that the word generic seems to be creeping into more and more breeds as an increasing number of newer judges seemingly judge dogs as dogs and not breeds as breeds!

Where I was introduced to this sport, it was of major or, for some breeds, even prime importance that the dogs were, regarding conformation and mentality, fit to do the work they were originally created for. But from different perspectives.

As a very young boy I was present at a club meeting when selection of judges for a variety of breeds was discussed. It was supposed to be an all-breed show, but what surprised me was that the Norsk Elghund Klub refused to allow the show to schedule Elkhounds. Reason was that there were no elks in our area and hardly any Elkhounds – so not possible to engage a breed expert.

On the panel were two world-famous British lady judges: Mrs. Judy de Casembroot, famous for her Treetops Cockers and Greyhounds, and Mrs. Dorothy Whitwell, whose Seagift prefix was first and foremost famous for Greyhounds, but she also owned and trained a number of Sporting breeds. What surprised me at the time was that the setter and pointer clubs denied the application for all their breeds to be scheduled at the show as the judges were British. To my mind: What could be more appropriate than having British judges for British breeds? The argument was that these judges would place more emphasis on beauty and coat that on fitness and function.

The “Hunt Brigade” in both Norway and Sweden in those days ruled the dog world, and at that time Cockers or any other spaniels could not become champions without a working certificate. This was changed later on, but a number of breeds in the Sporting group could not even compete in the “winners class” or be awarded a Challenge Certificate and thus not become champions until having proved their working ability.

As many of the hunters also were conformation judges, basically all the setter and pointer breeds were of the more lightweight hunting type, which of course made visiting British judges cringe … and one famous breeder was even permitted to cross English Setters with his own Gordons to improve the working ability! (In comparison to the Gordons we see in this country? Well, at the time you would hardly have recognized the breed apart from the colors!)

There were strict rules also for a number of working breeds where a character test was required before any titles could be added – and also a number of Hound breeds had working certificates required prior to competing for the Challenge Certificate.

The breed clubs had absolute power – and the kennel clubs followed their directives.

But there were clearly different camps: the breeders who focused on beautiful show dogs, but still with the instinct to work, and the other lot who for some reason refused to believe that the two could be combined … And then of course some in between who had no success in either direction!

I remember so well the famous Carin Lindhe, who was definitely a show person with interest in so many breeds, which included Beagles. She was showing one that had done exceptionally well until then under a judge from the “hunting fraternity.”

Going over the dog on the table, the judge asked Mrs. Lindhe: “Does he hunt?”

The answer: “He should only dare …”

Suppose the judge was shocked, but I have a feeling the dog still won the breed.

The reason I have babbled on about all this is to highlight the huge differences there are about what are considered essential as parts of the package to create accepted breed type and overall quality.

It is an undisputed fact that many of the visiting judges from the U.K. were appalled when they saw what appeared in champion classes of some setter breeds (other breeds, too, but that’s a different story), as in their opinion it was an unacceptable deviation from what the original breed standard called for.

But if you live in a world where hunting instinct and workability are the main ingredients, where the hell do things like expression, ear carriage, tail set and all the other stuff that we as show people consider to be of prime importance come into the equation? And so many of the best workers in different specialties are what we would consider ugly and as show dogs substandard based on our interpretation of breed standards. For most breeds, their working or hunting ability is nothing visible: It’s all in their heads!

I might be one of the few who thinks it is a good thing that some breeds now appear in several versions due to their intended use. Some breeds have forever ongoing disputes about that very subject where dual purpose seems to be the single acceptable alternative.

But for those of us who are in the modern group of conformation judges: We can only judge what we see – and here I think we see an increase in lack of individual breed knowledge.

Talking terriers, I have always said that in an ideal world you should be able to identify each breed by a cut-out of its eyes and expression. Wire Fox, Lakeland and Welsh terriers have been interbred for generations – hopefully no more, but not that long ago. Breeders needed to widen their gene pools – or even “steal features” from each other – and they only selected individuals that had the desired features, and anything else that came along could take forever to breed out. But these guys had time, space and not least of all help, and so could afford to breed a couple of generations before introducing the new and improved product to the show ring! Breed type preserved and prioritized along the way.

How many of us can say hand on heart that we have sufficient knowledge of every single breed we judge? In one breed alone it can take decades of serious involvement – and you still keep learning new things every day …

Just recently I was looking through a magazine filled with adverts and numerous multiple Terrier group winners. And behind them holding the majority of these rosettes were judges who as far as I have been able to verify have had absolutely no “terrier background” to show for themselves. I am disturbed by the fact that the Terrier group to a large extent is a low-entry group, which means the way from scratch to a fully “qualified” group judge is rather uncomplicated for a person with average intelligence. But not necessarily with an eye and the most important point of all: Knowing which features are really required to make a breed a breed. What separates a WFT from a Lakeland Terrier, a Welsh Terrier – or even Irish Terrier or any other terrier breed? Do you know that they are constructed differently, tailormade for the topography and terrain where they originated? The same with a number of other terriers, spaniels and breeds that share and have respectively evolved from the same source some 100-plus years ago.

Scottish Terriers with long necks, Irish Terriers with short backs are surely looking good at times, but … Lakeland and Welsh with ears and expression like a WFT – is that OK?

What is the correct amount of coat – and what is the breed-typical movement? And from a functional point of view: Why is a front required to be fairly narrow, a neck long, the body flexible and hindquarters strong?

If you know anything about a breed’s background, you will know there is a reason breed experts with decades of experience penalize bad bites, overly gay tails, bad feet or, maybe in some cases most important, light eyes: It is because these faults have been problems in the breeds and something breeders for generations and decades have tried to eliminate. So when you comment to a judge about any of these issues and are told, “That’s just another fault!” it makes me cry.

Any of these faults would in my old world (especially under Finnish judges) result in a second prize in quality, at most, and elimination from further competition!

I personally firmly believe that the toughness of the Finnish judges (which they have been famous for over the years) is the reason the quality of Finnish pedigree dogs reached the level, a very high one, that they still have to this day. Fortunately, not least through Hans Lehtinen, it rubbed off on a number of judges from the other Nordic countries.

I know it ain’t easy, but for some rather obvious reasons I think that low entry and new breeds should be treated with more respect and stricter qualifying criteria for judges than the breeds seen in larger numbers. And not just be handed over to more or less anyone who wants to increase their “usefulness” and desirability for those hard-working show secretaries.

Cannot help but say it again: It takes a long time to acquire sufficient knowledge to understand how little we know …

Until next time …

 

 

© Dog News. This article may not be reposted, reprinted, rewritten, excerpted or otherwise duplicated in any medium without the express written permission of the publisher.

Stay Connected

YES! Send me Dog News' free newsletter!