Introduction document for non sporting trainees 2015

2016NON SPORTING TRAINEE

JUDGES’ PROGRAMINFORMATION BOOKLET

Leader: Andrew Burt PH: 9455 2268 MOB: 0419 545 938 [email protected]

Assistant: Julie Aspinall PH. 5424 8428 MOBILE: 0438 273 [email protected]

LECTURE DATES 2016 NON SPORTING (GROUP 7)

All Non Sporting Lectures to commence at 7.30pm SHARP.

Wed 27 Jan Introduction – it is strongly recommended that in order to gain the most benefit from the program, Trainees attend this night

Wed 10 Feb Compulsory Theory: Dalmatian and Great DaneWed 17 Feb Compulsory Practical Night: Dalmatian and Great DaneWed 24 Feb Compulsory Theory: Chow Chow and SharpeiWed 2 March Compulsory Practical Night: Chow Chow and SharpeiWed 30 March Compulsory Theory: German Spitz (Mittel and Klein),

Japanese Spitz Wed 6 April Compulsory Theory: Keeshond and SchipperkeWed 13 April Compulsory - Eurasier, Canaan Dog, XoloitzcuintleWed 20 April Compulsory Practical Night: German Spitz (Mittel and

Klein), Japanese Spitz, Keeshond and Schipperke

Wed 27 April Compulsory Theory: British Bulldogs, Boston Terriers, and French Bulldogs

Wed 4 May Compulsory Practical Night: British Bulldogs, Boston Terriers, and French Bulldogs

Wed 11 May Compulsory Theory: Poodle (All Varieties)Wed 18 May Compulsory Practical Night: Poodle (All Varieties)Wed 1 June Compulsory Theory: Tibetan Terrier, Shih Tzu and Lhasa

ApsoWed 8 June Compulsory Practical Night: Tibetan Terrier, Shih Tzu and

Lhasa ApsoWed 15 June Revision OneWed 22 June Revision Two

CRITIQUES

HOW TO CRITIQUE

MAKE IT SIMPLE MAKE IT FACTUAL DON’T SAY WHAT YOU WANT, OR WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BUT WHAT THE DOG

HAS SAY IT WHEN YOU SEE IT MAKE IT SYSTEMATIC TAKE AN OVERALL IMPRESSION FIRST, THEN START WITH THE HEAD AND

WORK DOWN THROUGH THE BODY. FINISH WITH FORE AND AFT MOVEMENT, SIDE GAIT, AND THEN LOOK AT THE OVERALL IMPRESSION AGAIN

DETAILED CRITIQUE FORMAT

AGE AND GENDER TYPE AND CARRIAGE SIZE, SUBSTANCE, BONE, PROPORTIONS HEAD, SKULL, STOP, MUZZLE, CHEEK (HEAD FORM) EARS, EYES, LIPS, PIGMENT, BITE AND TEETH NECK, THROAT, WITHERS, TOPLINE, UNDERLINE, RIBBING, FORECHEST FORE AND HINDQUARTERS WITH ANGULATION PASTERNS, HOCKS, AND FEET COAT, COLOUR AND MARKINGS TAIL – LENGTH, SUBSTANCE AND SET. TAIL CARRIAGE ( MOVING AND STANDING

) MOVEMENT FORE AND AFT, SIDE MOVEMENT TEMPERAMENT AND CHARACTER

MORE GENERAL CRITIQUE FORMAT

AGE AND GENDER TYPE SUBSTANCE, BONE, PROPORTIONS HEAD, EXPRESSION AND MOUTH NECK AND FOREQUARTERS BODY HINDQUARTERS AND TAIL MOVEMENT COAT

BREED SUMMARY - BLACK RUSSIAN TERRIER

History Developed by the former Russian Red Army to guard military installations etc. They required a dog able to work independently and to withstand various climatic conditions. The basic breeds used were the Airedale, Giant Schnauzer and the Rottweiler. The Giant Schnauzer for its intelligence and quick reactions, the Airedale for its leadership, temperament and stamina, the Rottweiler for its firm stature and fearlessness. The Giant Schnauzer contributed the most to its appearance. By 1956 the breed bred true and was accepted by FCI in 1984.

It was important to have a large breed, to be reliable and trainable in different situations and be able to endure the harsh Russian winters.

Short Description

Large, heavily boned dog with a tight skin & well developed muscles

Just off square in balance Long mod narrow skull, well rounded

cheek bones, scissor bite, strong jaws

Head Parallel Planes & square appearance

Muzzle just less than skull and appears truncated

Small oval, slanted & dark eyes, high set ears small & triangular

Neck long powerful, Lay back more open, upper arms short & strong

Withers high, barely seen slope over croup to tail

Hindquarters wider than front, lower thighs longer & set obliquely

Thick well arched pads, round feet Tail set high & short Easy harmonious & effortless gait,

springy movement Rough, hard, dense coat. Muzzle

coat forms a rough bushy moustache & beard. Neck & withers longer & a mane. Legs rough & long coat. Dense undercoat with black or black with grey hairs

Dogs 25.7” – 28.1” 66 – 72cms, Bitches 25” - 27.3” 64 – 70cms

Compiled byFelicity SummersBibliographyANKC Breed Standards www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Russian_Terrier

VCA JUDGING SCHEME – JUDGING COMPETENCIES

www.rbtclub.co.ukwww.brtca.org/default.aspx

Other names Black TerrierTchiorny TerrierChornyiRussian Bear SchnauzerRussian Black Terrier Nicknames BRT Country of origin Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

A competent judge will be able to:

1. Demonstrate an understanding that the breed standard for each breed underpins all dog judging

2. Demonstrate an ability to interpret a breed standard

3. Display a high level of knowledge of canine terminology

4. Demonstrate an ability to talk in dog terminology

5. Demonstrate an understanding of anatomical construction relevant to each breed

6. Demonstrate an understanding of anatomical construction peculiar to certain breeds in a specific group

7. Demonstrate an ability to relate breed standards to breed function

8. Demonstrate an ability to correctly describe breed characteristics

9. Demonstrate an ability to recall, recognise and assess specific breed characteristics from the breed standard e.g. height/weight/colour/coat

10. Demonstrate an ability to recognise correct breed type

11. Demonstrate consistent application and understanding of breed type

12. Demonstrate an ability to recognise quality

13. Demonstrate an ability to recognise size

14. Demonstrate an ability to explain proportions

15. Demonstrate an ability to explain how proportions relate to breed function

16. Demonstrate an ability to evaluate correct balance for each breed

17. Demonstrate an ability to recognise balance as it relates to movement for that breed

18. Approach a dog correctly and appropriately for that breed and demonstrate an ability to properly handle a dog in a purposeful manner

19. Demonstrate an ability to assess all parts of the dog

20. Mouth a dog correctly

21. Demonstrate a capability to read about dog breeds and an ability to write critiques

22. Demonstrate an ability to be able to justify placings in judging a specific breed and a group of different breeds

23. Demonstrate an ability to recognise and assess the differences between breeds and/or exhibits

24. Demonstrate an ability to recognise and assess specific breed movement

25. Demonstrate an ability to recognise correct coats, correct coat texture and correct coat preparation

26. Demonstrate appropriate deportment, manners and ring skills

27. Demonstrate fairness and consistency in assessing each breed and/or specimen

28. Demonstrate control, organisation and effective use of the judging ring

29. Demonstrate an ability to make decisions in an effective way and in an efficient time frame

30. Demonstrate a practical knowledge of stewarding

31. Demonstrate an ability to understand and apply the regulations relevant to dog judging

Excellent Article: Are You Part of the Problem? Are You willing to be Part of the Solution?

It used to be that the purpose of dog shows was to showcase your best breeding stock. In my opinion those days are mostly a thing of the past. It seems that shows today have become so political and so money oriented that the dogs themselves have gotten lost in the shuffle. Sadly, the dogs are often stripped of their dignity by the "win at any cost" tactics put upon them. With that said, I believe it is reasonable for all exhibitors entered at a dog show to have the expectation that their entry will get an equal and unbiased assessment by the judge based on their breed standard.

An exhibitor has the right to expect that their entry has an equal chance of going Best of Breed whether their entry is a class dog (that includes 6-9 puppy!) or a Special. The AKC Judges Guide tells judges they should, "Always judge dogs solely on the basis of their condition as they are presented in the ring on show day." (emphasis AKC). The judge is responsible for judging each dog by the breed's standard. (emphasis mine)

In most cases, entry fees are the same for all dogs entered. (Some clubs will give price breaks to puppies and bred by). The judging guide does not state that if there are price breaks for certain classes that those entries receive less consideration and are not eligible for Best of Breed. In fact, no where does the guide state that the Winner's Dog/Bitch shall receive less consideration for the award of Best of Breed.

In theory, since a dog show judge's duty is to select the best representative of the breeds exhibited to them, you would expect a dog show to be an equal opportunity sport. You would expect that every exhibitor should feel confident that they are getting a fair shake, but are they? With the above facts in mind:

Are you a judge who, if you disagree with a breed standard, will not hesitate to award your personal preference, even in some cases when your preference is a fault? Just two examples are:

1. having a preference for a specific color and never putting up other equally allowed colors.2. ignoring the breed standard for minimum/maximum heights

If you answer "yes". You are part of the problem.

Judges should be professional and their personal preferences should be set aside. The breed standard is the rule not a guideline. If the standard states that there is no colour preference, what right does a judge have to assert their preference for colour? It is unfair to the exhibitors that have paid their money for equal assessment.

Judges should not penalize dogs for size when the size of the dog is in standard. Statements like, "I prefer them bigger" (who cares?) is fine as long as the "bigger" is equal or better and preferably In the standard. Too often, that is not the case. For example, if a Samoyed looks to be the same size as an American Eskimo, that probably means that you have a Samoyed bitch at the bottom of the standard. The bottom for Samoyed bitches is 19" and the top for the American Eskimo male is 19". Both are correct, neither should be penalized just because you dislike one end of the standard more than the other. In the case of the Samoyed, a judge will often put up a dog or bitch out of standard, (on the big end) or a dog of lesser quality rather than reward the more correct dog that looks like an "American Eskimo". This is not judging a breed by its standard and it hurts the breed when judges insert their personal preferences.

Are you a judge who believes you have the right to interfere with a dog owner's right to decide what is best for their dog by withholding the award the dog deserves? In other words you have a dog/bitch that should win BOB, but you have decided that the dog is too young, too old, the owner too novice, etc., etc. to go to the group?If yes, you are part of the problem.

Judges are to judge dogs in their ring based on their standard. Whatever might happen in the Group should not be of any concern of the breed judge. The breed judge is supposed to award BOB to the best dog. That is what exhibitors expect and that is what they pay for. Exhibitor's do not need nor want judges denying their dogs the award they deserve due to the judge's personal speculations on who is ready for the Group ring. A judge who does this interferes with the dog owner's right to make their own decisions regarding their dog. Judges who do not just judge dogs, but insert their personal feelings as to who might look better in the Group actually change the outcome because the Group judge is deprived of actually judging the best dogs.

Are you a judge that knows or has strong suspicions that a dog has been groomed illegally and you ignore it? Examples might be wigs in poodles or over trimming in the Golden Retriever and Pomeranian, etc.

If yes, you are part of the problem

Judges have the obligation to investigate any suspicions they may have. The AKC guidelines state, "In reviewing a class, avoid excessive rearranging of a dog's coat, whistling, gesturing or baiting. However, do not hesitate to feel out a suspected fault beneath a highly groomed coat." Over grooming has become epidemic. Almost everything in a breed ring today is "sculpted". A friend of mine recently relayed a phone called she received from a friend of hers who is a Field Rep. The Field Rep. asked, "what the %&*#@ is going on with Newfoundlands? She was very angry and said, "They all look like cookie cutters in the ring!!" Frankly, I don't know why breeders and handlers make more work for themselves on dogs that should be shown in a clean, groomed and natural state. If judges would not reward this, it would not continue.

Are you a judge that faults a dog based on your speculation of what the dogs height, bite, or colour might be later?

If yes, you are part of the problem

The Guideline states, "Give absolutely no consideration to what a dog's quality may be at some future time, or what a dog's condition might have been were it not for some disease or accident" Enough said.

Are you a judge who, regardless of the quality of competition, always puts up the ranked dog even

though it may not be the best on that day?

If yes, you are part of the problem

Please stop it. This common practice is a total disservice to exhibitors and to the sport of purebred dogs!

I have heard some lame excuses for this. One is they do it out of respect for the dog's show record. They do it because of all the money spent on advertising. IF there is a better dog, please do the ethical thing and award that dog what it deserves on that day. That is a judge's duty.

Are you a judge that will not put up a dog unless it "asks" for it?

If yes, you are part of the problem.

Not all breeds are the bubbly, crowd pleasing, free stacking stars that "ask" for it. Several standards state that the breed is reserved/conservative with strangers or when out of their territory. (Judges are strangers!) Some of those breeds are Rottweilers, Kuvaszok, Samoyeds, Clumber Spaniels, Bernese Mountain Dogs, Caanan Dogs and Anatolian Shepherds. The Rottweiler standard specifically warns judges not to penalize dogs that are aloof or reserved, "as this reflects the accepted character of the breed." The Mastiff standard states, "Judges should also beware of putting a premium on showiness." If there have been a few dogs in one of these breeds that were exceptions to the standard's description, that is all it is, an exception and the rest of the breed should not be judged and compared to the "exceptions".

Since the "exceptions" are not displaying the typical character/demeanour as described in the "breed standard" some might consider that in itself a fault. Judges should be mindful of the breed standards and the descriptions of character and temperament. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing, "well, it is a 'show". Unfortunately, it is that kind of thinking that has turned the purpose and priorities of dog shows (including the character and temperament of some breeds) up side down.

As an experienced breeder, who would select the dog that simply has to "ask for it" over the dog that has the best overall qualities of the dog you're looking to breed to? Not all breeds are going to "ask" for it, but are still exquisite representatives of their breed and should be appreciated and rewarded when they deserve it. That is a judge's duty.

If you answered "NO" to the above questions, most of us probably already know who you are and appreciate your dedication to our breeds and more importantly to our breed standards. It takes an honourable and ethical person to set aside personal feelings and reward the exhibitor what they deserve on that day.

Gini Addamo

Excellent Article: Judge And Ye Shall Be Judged By Sierra Milton

What qualities should dog show judges possess to be considered top calibre? Before that question can be answered, other more fundamental definitions should be established – what are the actual responsibilities of a dog show judge? Or even more basic – what is a dog show?

Dog shows were originally established as a means of determining which (not whose, but which) dogs most embodied the standard of excellence determined for each breed and should be used for

breeding in an attempt to reach the ideal type symbolized by that standard. Dog shows, much like horse and other livestock shows, were a proving ground and a means for exhibitors and breeders to determine how close they were to the standard and in what areas their stock needed to improve. These events also served as both educational forums and places where neophytes could go in search of mentors and knowledge about the sport and their breeds. The AKC states that ‘Competition in conformation and performance events can best demonstrate the progress that has been made in breeding for type and quality, and/or for practical use, stamina and obedience.’

Unfortunately, that original purpose has somehow become lost to the vast majority of dog show exhibitors in today’s show scene. Very few exhibitors spend the entire day at the show. Even fewer engage in actively seeking to learn more about their sport, the history of their breed, structure, movement, or in watching the maestros art of presentation, grooming, or a hundred other aspects that go into making a well-rounded, knowledgeable enthusiast. Most exhibitors support the ‘show and go’ philosophy of modern events – show your dog, grab your ribbon, and make it home in time to spend the rest of your day in some other pursuit. Don’t believe me? Walk around the next show you attend and listen to the conversations; pay particular attention to how many of the thousands attending the show are actually around the group and best in show rings at the end of the day and again listen to the conversations. The talk is not about why a dog moves a particular way or who the ancestors were in the pedigree that contributed to that great presence, but instead the conversation will centre around politics, past wins, which judges like the dog and who is going to win best in show based on who is handling what dog. Few exhibitors, even the most ardent, can actually give an accurate history of their breed or know which breeds of dogs were used to produce their breed. If I am wrong, please let me know – if I am right, donate a few dollars to Take The Lead or the Canine Health Foundation!

Now that we have determined dog shows in their most original form are a means of determining our progress in breeding against a standard for type and quality, we need to look at how judges relate to that purpose. Judges should, if we concur with the original purpose of dog shows, be an integral part in the future of the breeds. They are charged with determining which dogs are suitable from a type and quality viewpoint of being bred, thereby greatly influencing the development and well-being of those breeds. If a judge overlooks bad or improper movement in a dog and awards a win, harm has been done to that breed. While fault judging should not be practiced, neither can major faults be overlooked in the excuse that the dog moved great last week - or even yesterday - or because its handler is a ‘good guy’ and presents the dog well. Judges are as integral to the future welfare of the breed as are the breeders. Breeders judge every single time they evaluate a litter of puppies they have produced or evaluate the dogs to be bred from; judges breed every single time they give the nod in the ring.

Judges must, as specified by the AKC:

• Demonstrate breed knowledge through continual study of the breed standards, knowing and demonstrating a thorough understanding of the breed and its purpose through the dogs that they place and advance in the show competition.

• Practice good ring procedure, control and adherence to the rules set forth.

• Show impartiality. As stated in the AKC Judges Guidelines, ‘It is essential that fanciers have full faith in the impartiality of judges. There should be no doubt that your decisions are based solely on the merits of the dogs being judged.’

• ‘Possess and project an unwavering air of integrity and ethical behaviour that protects the reputation of AKC dog shows as fair and well-judged.’

• Possess and use common sense to avoid situations that might compromise or raise ethical questions.

The AKC must have thought the terms ‘integrity’ and ‘ethical’ to be of sufficient importance to boldface those words. But what is ethical and what is not ethical? And just what constitutes integrity? What types of professionalism should a judge display and does that professionalism end when he or she steps out of the ring? How should judges conduct themselves at or away from shows? Should there be a code of ethics that a judge must ascribe to and abide by before being allowed to judge? And what exactly is meant by “ethics” or a “code of ethics”?

The word ethic is used to describe the concept derived from the ancient Greek word ethos, meaning moral character. The social rules of a society were known as ‘mores’ from which the term ‘morality’ comes. Ethos, in ancient Greek, referred to one’s inner character or choices, while mores referred to external pressures of society. Nowadays, the meanings of these terms are somewhat reversed; however, it should be considered significant that the origins of these two words reflect the tension between inner- and outer-driven analysis of what makes moral choices consistent. Ethics are regarded as those principles which govern an individual or profession – moral principles that are laws or rules of conduct governing or directing a person’s actions. Quite simply, a code of ethics is a ‘moral set of rules of conduct governing an individual or a profession.’

‘Integrity’ is defined by Merriam-Webster as implying ‘trustworthiness and incorruptibility to a degree that one is incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility, or pledge.’ The Encarta dictionary gives a further definition as ‘the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards.’ Not surprisingly, the synonyms for ‘integrity’ are honesty, honour, truthfulness, veracity, reliability and uprightness.

So, we should be able to define judges as ‘persons of integrity, honour, veracity and good moral character who uphold the rules and principles of any kennel club which has entrusted them with the duty of determining the progress and future of a breed by selecting those dogs that most meet an exacting standard of perfection.’ We, as exhibitors and breeders, should be able to rely upon these individuals to do their utmost in advancing breeds and sport.

But can we?

I wish to make it perfectly clear that I believe the majority of people who aspire to be judges do so for the most altruistic and most honourable reasons. What is undeniable though is that some of these same people later lose their way in the highly competitive, emotionally charged arena of today’s dog shows. Some, while able to recite the standards, are unable to effectively interpret them in the ring, particularly when faced with intimidating personalities. Others begin to believe themselves above reproach or accountability, hiding behind the ‘god syndrome’. Others, courted by sycophants eager to curry favour, fall victim to their celebrity status and begin to crave more adulation and recognition. Still others, enjoying the centre ring limelight, either actively or indirectly begin to curry favours of their own with show chairmen and other judges in an effort to garner more assignments. And, a very few abuse their perceived power through a variety of personal gain misconducts, whether monetary, gifts, or sexual in nature. More common in the UK than in the US are those breeder-specialist judges who exchange wins among themselves or who give wins to dogs connected to their own kennels by either offspring or being progeny.

One of the most common complaints heard is that too many judges are ‘face judges.’ While some of this may be attributed to ‘sore loser syndrome,’ face judging does occur and is believed to transpire on a major scale. Most commonly ‘face judging’ refers to well-known professional handlers and breeders who are known to the judges through years and numbers of dogs shown or having been

heavily advertised. If face judging were not considered to happen and exhibitors did not believe that judges seeing advertisements of dogs winning championship points, breeds, groups or best in shows would not give the exhibitor and their dog an edge in the ring, why would such vast sums of money be spent on advertising? Why would professional handlers have entire sections advertising the dogs they show? And why would an advertising budget be an integral portion - and often part of the contractual obligations - of any heavily campaigned show dog? And, why would the vast majority of advertisements feature the handler prominently by both photo and name? And can we trust that these photographs have not been visually enhanced, giving the viewer false expectations?

Advertising in itself is not evil or lacking in merit. Done tastefully, and provided the dog is of high enough quality to warrant the advertising for any reason other than attempts to influence votes of judges, it plays an important part in the dog world. Dog publication editors do a good job of ensuring that tasteless ads do not appear in their magazines and papers. The advertisements make it possible, just as ads in any magazine or paper do, for the production of that publication. However, it is the owners and handlers that have to determine whether the ad is promoting the dog or attempting to influence or manipulate judges. Competent judges of integrity and honour will not be unduly influenced by this advertising spin and will not put up or beat those heavily advertised dogs by prejudging based on the promotions. I believe that advertising has a useful purpose, particularly in those countries where breeders may not actually see or know every dog being shown. Unlike the UK where the majority of same exhibitors are seen at every championship show, advertising makes it possible for a breeder on the East Coast of the US to be aware of and see a dog from the West Coast that may be of value to their breeding program. I am not naïve enough, though, to purport that advertising has not evolved to be part and parcel of win and campaign strategies for all the wrong reasons.

What causes judges to succumb to face judging? Those judges who are not thoroughly familiar with the breed, its purpose and standard will settle on the familiar face, sometimes mistakenly trusting that the professional or well-known face will be a safe placement. There are also those who enjoy seeing their faces in the various dog publications, believing that they are as vital a component as the dog, losing sight of the main premise of dog shows – it should be about the dog and not the handler, judge or show. Another group believes that the more they are seen in the advertisements, the more popular they will seem and the more judging assignments they will reap. Other judges may be lacking in self-confidence and believe that, particularly if time is pressing, that placing a well-known exhibitor at the front of the line is less likely to cause controversy. There are also those individuals who succumb to manipulation and the intimidating presence of some exhibitors, lacking the intestinal fortitude to put up lesser-known or unknown dogs.

One of AKC’s most famous shows sequesters the Best in Show judge prior to entering the ring, thereby reducing any hint of impropriety since the judge has not mingled with the exhibitors or watched any of the previous judging at that show. While this is not practical for most shows, there are those judges who maintain a highly professional manner by restricting conversations before and during judging. One of the downsides to this approach however, is that judges may develop paranoia about even basic discourse and refuse to impart valuable knowledge to those exhibitors willing and desiring to be educated.

While judges are not required to justify their decisions, I am always sceptical of those judges who refuse to discuss decisions when approached in a non-confrontational manner. Judges should be willing to discuss with the exhibitor after the judging assignment is over; after all, the judge is supposed to be the ultimate evaluator of the breed. Passing on knowledge and information ultimately helps the exhibitor by not only giving insight into what characteristics of the breed the judge considers important, but also in what areas the individual’s dog is strong and weak.

It is easy for judges or kennel clubs to deny that certain individuals or dogs have an advantage over other competitors and acclaim that the ‘best dog won.’ It should be stated that in many cases, this is absolutely true. Unfortunately though, the lack of common sense displayed by some judges gives weight to the claims of partiality and unprofessionalism. It is possible through statistical analysis to uncover trends in face judging. Regrettably such analysis is time-consuming and would require that the AKC and other kennel clubs both acknowledge and take a proactive stance to eradicate or lessen the tendency of face judging.

Judging the wrong end of the lead is not simply awarding wins to professional handlers or well-known exhibitors though. Over the years, judges have been charged with different types of face-judging follies:

• Exchanging wins with exhibitors who will be judging future shows at which the current judge will then be exhibiting. While it may be explainable, judges should endeavour to not show to those judges that exhibit to them. This also validates the AKC’s rule barring judges from soliciting or promoting assignments.

• Granting wins to exhibitors who have sold or given them dogs, some foolish enough to do so without even a respectable interval of time elapsing. What price is that win really worth?

• Using the exhibitor’s dog for stud, either before or shortly after, giving them the win. In some cases, rumours spread rapidly that the win was in exchange for a no-cost stud fee.

• Giving a win to a show committee member in exchange for an assignment at the show committee member’s show.

One of the most visible displays of lack of common sense here in the UK are those judges who travel to shows with an exhibitor who then goes on to show under them at that same show. How are other exhibitors supposed to react when the travel-mate gets the nod? While the dog may have been the best in the ring, any judge who imprudently fails to maintain a sense of judicial propriety needs to consider the cost to the sport of that shared transportation.

Distasteful as it may be, another daft impropriety involves the exchange of sex for wins. Those foolish enough to barter themselves for a slip of paper or ribbon may wish to consider the fate of an exhibitor who did just that and was given a reserve (fourth) placing here in the UK instead of the promised win. The exhibitor who complained bitterly afterwards is rumoured to have been told that ‘…it hadn’t been worth more.’ Whether the dog or the act itself was of not sufficient quality, or whether the judge regained his integrity with morning tea remains to be revealed!

Each kennel club has its own set of rules pertaining to judges, some more lenient than others. Those who are or aspire to be judges should hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct, setting themselves above the masses as examples of behaviour. Dog show judges are similar in nature to justice court judges in that their behaviour and decisions affect the masses and reflect upon the sport. A recent appellate decision stated: “There are good reasons why our justice court judges must regard scrupulously the nature of their office. In the first place, most of our citizens have their primary, if not their only, direct contact with the law through the office of the justice court judge…The perception of justice of most of our citizens is forged out of their experiences with our justice court judges. If these judges do not behave with judicial temperament and perform their duties according to the law and by reference to the process of adjudication there seems little hope that our citizenry at large may understand and respect the legal process.” Mississippi Comm’n on Judicial Performance v Spencer, 725 So.2d 171, 179 (1998). It is easy to apply the manner in which legal justices are expected to conduct themselves to the honourable comportment of dog show judges.

Consider some of these applicable canons cited in the above-referenced decision:

• Canon 1 provides ‘An independent and honourable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society.” It further provides that a judge “should himself observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary may be preserved.’

• Canon 2 provides that the judge ‘…should conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.’

• Canon 4 states that a judge ‘shall conduct all of the judge’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not: (1) cast reasonable doubt on the judge’s capacity to act impartially as a judge; (2) demean the judicial office; or (3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.’

• Canon 5 requires that a judge may engage in ‘avocational activities’ such as writing or lecturing only ‘if such avocational activities do not detract from the dignity of his office…’

• Canon 5 also goes on to state that:

• A judge ‘may participate in civic and charitable activities that do not reflect adversely upon his impartiality…’

• He should ‘refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on his impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of his judicial duties, exploit his judicial position, or involve him in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he serves.’

• ‘Neither a judge nor a member of his family residing in his household should accept a gift, bequest, favour, or loan from anyone’ except in very specific circumstances and such gifts, bequests, favours and loans should be disclosed in writing to the governing body.

It is with relative ease that such principles can and should be adhered to by those people entrusted with the task of not only judging the dogs who form the basis for the future, but in doing so with integrity, impartiality and in such a manner that they, the registry body or the sport itself does not come to be viewed adversely by the public.

Here in England, the media are in the frenetic throes of deciding whether someone’s personal lifestyle and choices reflects upon their ability and nature to conduct themselves in a professional manner in an unrelated sport. Does a person who fails to maintain their personal promises, vows and agreements influence our ability to rely upon them to make honourable and ethical decisions in the show ring? Can the public trust the integrity of someone who behaves less than prudently in all areas of his or her life? To realize how public opinion is affected by such revelations, one only needs to look at political public confidence polls after a politician has dallied with a staff member or has been involved in shady financial dealings or accepted gifts from lobbyists. The stretch from the effect on a politician’s credibility to that of a dog show judge is easily comparable. In recent news, the Crufts Best in Show judge removed herself from judging because past breeding practices in the 1970’s were viewed unfavourably by 21st century standards. Regardless of whether the accusations were right or wrong, I believe that she showed a tremendous respect for both the sport of dogs and the future of dogs by stepping down from such an esteemed assignment and withdrawing from all future assignments. She placed the sport above herself and conducted herself ‘in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity…of the judiciary.’

Golf-outings and even boondoggle weekends have been promoted by some individuals, groups and shows at which judges, professional handlers and even some exhibitors participate. Such activities must be considered very carefully since public perception may be skewed and the integrity of the judging process suspect. A better use of ‘off days’ during a circuit would be educational seminars or outings designed for strictly judges or handlers, but not both together. It is not a matter of whether the individuals have the integrity to comport in a fair-handed, unbiased manner after socializing on a continued basis, but rather how the public and the exhibitors perceive such socialization. If it lends itself to even a modicum of adverse reflection, such activities should be actively discouraged, rather than encouraged. Those judges wishing to maintain the highest levels of exhibitor confidence should understand that once one becomes a judge, maintaining the respect of the average is paramount and, rightly or wrongly, those in positions of power must be held accountable to a higher standard of behaviour. Judges need to accept that their socialization and friendships change upon accepting the responsibility and lofty power of being a judge; their peer group has changed with that acceptance.

Consider these hypothetical scenarios (Characters, places and incidents are used fictitiously and any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, events, or locales is entirely coincidental):

• The show chair of a large show wins at numerous shows under several of the judges that were contracted for the two shows of last year.

• The offspring, partner, sibling, or unmarried mate of a judge seems to continually enter the same shows where the judge is adjudicating and wins at a higher ratio than at shows where the parent, sibling, partner or unmarried mate of the judge is not judging.

• The person seen furtively leaving the judge’s room in the early hours of the morning wins the breed that day.

• A certain type of person, be it same sex or younger or short skirts or anatomical endowments, seems consistently to win under a certain judge.

• A judge is involved in a lawsuit alleging poor treatment of a dog in their care and yet is still determining the fitness of other dogs in the show ring.

• A judge has been convicted of a white-collar crime.

• The judge gets ‘lost’ during judging and must be guided to the ring and reminded of what he or she is doing throughout the judging because of advanced age.

• The line-up of placings is a conundrum to those standing both inside and outside the ring with no continuity as to type, movement, or condition.

Should these people be judging? The worrisome fact is that because judging is subjective in nature, it is very difficult to prove that any impropriety is occurring. Few, if any, charges of misconduct will ever be brought forward. Exhibitors are afraid to do more than shadow whisper because they fear being known as troublesome or whistle-blowers. It is easy to whisper innuendoes and gossip; it takes effort and courage to step forward and demand that the judging be done solely on the dog. The majority of exhibitors will support these judges by entering under them, even while complaining about the very character flaws that make their judging less than judicious. If you believe a judge to not judge impartially and fairly, there is a simple solution – do not enter under that judge! It does not matter if the judge is at a show only ten miles from your house or if the judge is judging on the third day of a five-day circuit, or even if you think the entries will be low and you ‘just might have a chance.’ By supporting the judge and entering, you are inferring your blessing and directly condoning the manner

in which the judge conducts themself. Shows are not conducted to lose money for the club, and those judges who fail to draw entries will eventually not be retained. Furthermore, the exhibitors following the judge around for major wins will cease doing so if the numbers are not there. Simply put, we, the exhibitors, hold the power to stop bad judging, just as we, the voters, have the ability to remove bad politicians. Vote with your feet!

What can be done to curtail bad judging? Other than boycotting and refusing to show to those judges who fail to comport themselves professionally, the various kennel clubs need to look at how judges must first qualify and then maintain that qualification to judge. The AKC has, perhaps, one of the most comprehensive requirements for granting the right to judge to individuals. It certainly is not as subjective as the system employed in the UK where individuals are moved up the judging ranks to the level of championship judge based on their toadyish ability rather than on what they know and how they have learned the evaluation trade. Those systems whereby judges are moved forward dependent solely upon their personalities and not abilities are likely to face greater infractions of the code of conduct for judges. Those highly placed individuals in clubs in the UK have a great deal of power in not only granting the ability to judge at a championship level, but also in promoting those judges to the championship clubs who request the list of approved judges maintained by the breed club. There is a great deal of truth in the saying that ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely.’

The Racking Horse Breeders’ Association of America requires annual re-licensing of their judges. Each judge must attend an annual judges’ clinic where the annual written examination is given a minimum of two out of every three years. Those judges not attending the annual Clinic have to produce written evidence of their inability to attend and that absence must be excused by the Judges’ Committee prior to the judge being re-licensed. All negative reports are reviewed by the Judges’ Committee prior to the annual re-licensing. Any judge failing the written test, which is revised annually, must wait a period of one year to be retested; if the written test is failed for a second time, the candidate is dropped from the judging program and must wait for a two-year period before reapplying. The Association believes that the term ‘licensed judge’ means more than a mere position and that it ‘connotes competence, fair dealing and high integrity resulting from adherence to the Bylaws and Rules of the RHBAA and to idealistic and high moral conduct. No inducement of profit or personal gain can ever justify departure from this ideal…’.

There are professions that require psychological examinations prior to employment. These exams show tendencies – whether inconsistencies or the ability to carry out the necessary responsibilities – and would be useful in not only showing those individuals who are unsuited temperamentally, regardless of knowledge, for the task of judging, but also those individuals who would benefit from additional ethics education. Many employers commonly use a variation of personality assessment tests as an aid in determining the suitability of an individual for a specific position. There are many types of pre-employment assessment tests ranging from honesty and integrity tests to full blown management evaluations measuring career competency. Clinically oriented psychological profile tests, such as the MMPI, while diagnostic in nature, also have a section on trait assessment. The Achiever test is said to provide good cognitive assessment (information regarding six mental aptitudes), management skills, leadership skills, communication skills (plus nine behavioural traits), as well as providing personal development suggestions. Rather than using these types of testing as a means of refusing judging candidates ranking low in certain areas, the tests could certainly be used to emphasize those areas that need attention and further development.

Other than psychological evaluation, annual licensing and testing, a merit system for acceptance into the judging peerage, review of any negative reports, and exhibitors refusing to show to specific judges believed to be partial, the kennel clubs need to take a strong stance in the fight to demand and maintain integrity and impartiality. Analysis needs to be done on judging trends. Mandatory and on-going attendance in ethics classes should be instituted. A judges committee needs to randomly, and

unannounced, observe judging of peers. Care to maintain confidentiality of those individuals brave enough to report perceived misdoings must be paramount. No one will actively speak up and reveal bad judging if they fear being ostracized or penalized in future events.

Good judges do abound in our sport. The numbers who fail to meet the exalted expectations tarnish those who are determined to fulfil their duties with integrity, honour and dedication. If my words have incited your anger and derision, perhaps you need to do some further introspection. I believe that those judges who are impartial and highly professional share in the sadness that our sport, as well as the future of all dog breeds, is jeopardized by those who have lost their way.

Which end of the lead do you judge and who pulls your leash when it comes to handing out placings?

We Are Not Judging Statues by Lisa Dubé Forman

In my brief five years of judging, I cannot count how many times I have communicated to exhibitors that I am not judging a statue. I offer this as relaxing encouragement to them while they attempt to correct their dog’s stance as it is being examined. However, many handlers persist, sometimes in vain, to replace dog’s feet in positions that the dog has already decided were uncomfortable. Immediately after a correction, many dogs will then go on to move their other feet. At this point, it is my policy to recommend to the exhibitor not to bother fidgeting with the dog, as I politely tell the handler I can feel everything I need to feel, regardless if the dog has moved its leg or shifted its weight. Simply, I am judging a live animal and not a statue. Some exhibitors will listen, while others persist perhaps because they perceive the dog’s movement as an affront to their handling skills. For clarity, references to handlers are meant to be all-embracing, for any person showing a dog.

Here on this point, I offer a suggestion to exhibitors. I typically walk my dogs into their show stack. I usually do not fidget with their feet unless they are in an exaggerated stance such as “posting.” This allows the dog to feel comfortable with the process of examination, especially the Sighthound breeds which can be more averse to a stranger’s approach and hands-on exam. Moreover, walking the dog into a stance is much more relaxing as the dog usually will land and stand over their ground in a comfortable position. Remember, the sole purpose for dog shows is not a contest as to which dog can stand still the longest, in some cases in an excessively exaggerated posture. The purpose of a dog show is to select and adjudicate over the best of the stock to perpetuate the breed. I will quickly digress here to expound on my remark about exaggerated postures. One such profile example is frequently seen in Afghan Hounds, with many of the dog’s rear feet stacked well behind the seat bones of the hindquarters. If you dropped a plumb line from the Ischial Tuberosity (rear seat bones), it is supposed to touch the front of the toes of the rear feet, however, due to exaggeration in stance or construction, that plumb line, in some cases, is far forward of the rear feet. Commonly, when stacked in such a manner and before the dog can move, he must first bring the rear legs back up under his pelvis, with some returning to a normal stance before stepping off. Other dogs, while standing naturally or even four square, are able to lead off immediately with their front leg. If such exaggerated stances were correct for the structure of that breed, then that dog would have no need to bring its rear up and under him first before he could lead off on a front leg.

Not all exhibitors are skilled and simply fussing. My biggest point of disagreement while observing some exhibitors, is the clumsy effort to correct a stack by reaching over the back, grabbing the loin and pulling the dog’s hindquarters towards themselves. This action does not achieve a relaxed stance in which the judge can reflect upon and appreciate a lovely silhouette. Instead, this grappling produces a dog who was just dragged into position and who now is flexed and tense. Never mind it is very uncomfortable for observers – effectively making us cringe – and usually the handler does not stop there. After they drag the back end of the dog over to a side profile, they begin wrestling feet into

place. This struggle is no more graceful than the first as the exhibitor pushes and pulls, then drags feet backwards and forward. Sometimes it is comical as the judge gives up or is impatient and approaches the dog while the exhibitor is still wrestling with the feet, head bent down with their buttocks up in the air. A solution for inexperienced exhibitors is taking five minutes every day to work with the dog by teaching it to walk forward into a stack. The stack does not have to be perfect because, again, we are not judging sculpture. Teach or train the dog on its show lead — not a walking lead so they can differentiate when they are working — and train the dog to walk slowly forward as they place their front legs straight up and down with elbows directly under their shoulder blades, their hocks perpendicular to the ground. When showing, if one leg is back somewhat, don’t fret, leave it. If the dog’s stance is still unacceptable to you, correct it after the judge has completed their exam and not while the judge is examining the dog. After the judge is finished, quickly readjust or if it is a body shift then slowly walk the dog forward one or more steps to the desirable stance. Every judge should allow the exhibitor the few extra seconds, if the handler chooses to do so, to walk the dog forward a step to correct a bad stack. This is courteous to do so since it is the exhibitors’ hard-earned money paying the judge for the evaluation, not vice versa. Likewise, walking into a stack is a bonus for bona-fide judges, those not looking at their wristwatch, as most dogs tend to relax and settle into themselves quickly. No matter the handler’s choice, just please stop wrestling.

Conformation purebred dog events have been transformed into a showing and grooming contest. Today we observe many firmly established handling habits. Exhibitors will place huge emphasis on a dog’s stack while on the table or ramp. If the dog moves, the exhibitor constantly makes corrections, as if the judge will not be able to feel the placement, angulation and length of the bones and muscling, or quality of coat if a foot is out of place. Moreover, exhibitors need to remember that judging does not take place on these elevated platforms, only examinations. Dogs are only judged on the ground. If the opposite were true then each of these dogs would be exhibited on a table or ramp in the ring always. Perhaps this habit has manifested itself so widely because exhibitors follow the lead of many professional handlers who have perfected the ability to emphasize perfect, statuesque stacks. Consider an exhibitor’s reaction the instant a dog moves their head to look around while stacked in the lineup. Many have a death grip on the muzzle. A reminder to everyone in our sport, dogs should not receive extra consideration for being able to stand still the longest.

Other established and trying habits include handlers overemphasizing certain breeds abundance of thin, loose skin, wrinkles or folds. Short-coated breeds are “what you see is what you get.” Still, we have exhibitors over-accentuating by grasping and pulling the skin up and forward. The judge is not blind and can clearly see and feel the skin’s looseness, along with scapula placement, without the aid of the handler. As an extra factor, I have heard disapproving comments by spectators. Although we seasoned fanciers understand this does not hurt the dog, no amount of reassurance can change some people’s minds. Taking into account the purebred dog controversy in place today, we can do away with such unnecessary elaboration. Another annoying and dispensable habit during examination are handler’s stretching dog’s neck, pulling upwards, almost lifting the dog’s front off the ground and then flipping the ears over both eyes — all in a grandstanding effort to feature the neck on a smooth or short-coated breed. Speaking plainly, a judge is quite capable of discerning a proper neck without all this dramatizing, especially since most are approved to judge heavy-coated and long-coated breeds. If the judge requires or encourages such elaboration on a neck then they should reevaluate their role in our sport.

Dog shows were not meant to be a contest of animal or people showmanship. Our shows were not created or designed to determine who is the more flamboyant handler, for instance the handler standing out nearly four feet in front of the dog waving a piece of bait in their free hand. Some handlers claim that the dog who is posed looking very much like a sculptured bronze is, indeed, in a natural stance. Occasionally, this may be true and usually can be determined by directing the handler to move the dog around to the center of the ring and having them stop without touching the dog. Few

times will the dog land as they were previously stacked. Many times, the dog will land and stand much more naturally, which a true breed expert will appreciate moreso than an over-dramatized stance. In truth, show dogs increasingly now are trained to stop and self-stack in dramatic poses without interference by the handler. Yet, what I would find most telling is if we were to see the same dog running and playing in the yard or field they most likely stop and stand in an entirely different manner contrary to dog show pageantry.

Aficionado judges appreciate the dog without the glamour and fanfare. An enhancement to this and what I consider exciting is to find a truly well-made dog who feels good under your hand who may not be the showiest entry in the ring but who epitomizes the breed standard. To be able to “find” a great dog in the show ring is the ultimate reward. My usual response is to quietly laugh when I read judges interviews or hear their commentary on dogs they have awarded. I am sure you all are familiar with, “The dog gave it their all,”; “The dog asked for it and could not be denied,”; “The dog showed beautifully,” ; “The dog was so on,” ; “The dog has attitude.” Conversely, “The dog did not perform that well,”; “The dog could have been more on.”

Taking into account these critiques, it is no wonder almost all exhibitors fret constantly about a misplaced foot, constantly adjusting and readjusting legs, death grips on the muzzles, stretching out necks, pulling the skin over the dog’s face and so on. These dispiriting comments all highlight the non-essentials of our sport. Why place more value on the dog flying around the ring at the end of their lead, many at incorrect speeds? Why do judges value the dog in an aggrandized, statuesque stance moreso than its competitor(s) who may fidget but who stands over their ground in a comfortable, confident manner sans embellishment? Doesn’t breed type and symmetry trounce being overdone and flamboyant? We should all worry about the general direction in which our sport has developed. It is deeply concerning and saddening for many veterans. Over the years, our sport has been steered towards glorifying and worshipping the most highly trained and unflinching statues. This is a show with live animals, not a statue exhibition. Though I would not nor am I suggesting a dog should be penalized for being perfectly trained and very stylishly shown, at the same time a judge should not bestow additional merit on this dog over its competitors based upon this ability to attract, in many cases, undue attention. However, we are very much aware of this or similar preferences by some judges through their critiques. Absent from reviews are conclusions on a specimen’s structural integrity, the virtues of that dog’s priceless breed type expounding on the near flawless shape, describing the breed’s topline and underline, discussing the prosternum, its fill and relative station and length of ribbing. Going into detail about the dog’s diameter and length of bone, the breed standard’s ideal length, strength and breadth of loin or the opposite, well-coupled with strong breadth of loin, or remarks on the symmetry of the dog’s conforming length and placement of scapula/humerus in relation to the femur/tibia, or any mention of superior muscling. On occasion, we do hear vague comments about headpieces as they are first discernible and easiest to describe. All the same, the comments provide little insight such as, “What a lovely head.” We do not read instructive remarks about proper length of planes with degree of desired stop, eye set and shape, width or shape of skull and muzzle.

Overall, in place of educational particulars, we are provided nebulous, frivolous comments. This may be due in part to judges’ inexperience with formulating and expressing their opinions, remarks and reactions to the dogs. Many quality judges with a keen eye instinctively know a good or great dog when they see one and have trouble conveying why, then there are other judges who skate by with a quick but insubstantial remark about, “how spot on” a dog was in the ring. What is the value of saying this? How does that have anything to do with the breed standard for which the dog is judged? It is no wonder that our sport is filled with uninstructed, naïve exhibitors and breeders. If they hear or read a judge’s explanations about the winning dogs and all they are offered are the aforementioned, meaningless comments, then it should come as no surprise that our sport has devalued. These comments undermine the importance of, the genuine purpose of our sport, why and how it began. It does not have to be this way. We judges can effect change, have

a marked influence on breeder and exhibitor priorities which, in turn, will return focus on breeds’ standards of excellence. As I am very fond of repeating, we need to get back to the basics.

Understanding Frontsby Richard G.Beauchamp

________________________________________

This article was published in the February 2008 issue of Dogs in Review.

Just recently a friend of mine and I were sitting at ringside watching a breed we are both very interested in. After watching a bit I remarked (quietly, I though) that the dogs in the breed we were watching were certainly uniform - if not quality, certainly in their faults. There wasn't a dog in the ring that had a decent front - all poker straight, and this was a Sporting breed!

The young lady sitting on my left leaned over and said, "I hope you don't mind me intruding but I've just started in this breed and I've heard other people make the same remark, about fronts that is, and I don't think I understand what they're talking about." I assured her I didn't mind at all and asked her just what it was that she wasn't clear on.

"Well," she went on, "I hear people say a dog is 'straight as a stick' in front and that seems to be a criticism. But other times someone will say the dog has a beautiful straight front. Obviously this is a compliment. And then it seems that a Terrier front can be both good and bad. I want to breed for the right thing, but I am not at all sure what the right thing is."

Her questions really made me stop and think. Quite frankly, she hit upon two universal problems we deal with in the dog game today. It is amazing how few people have bothered with that first important step in breeding, judging or just showing dogs. It's "Purebred Dogs 101 - Basic Canine Anatomy."

Her confusion also cast the light on just how ambiguous common dog terminology can be. What seems perfectly clear to some of us may well be an unfathomable mystery to others, particularly so when everything we talk about has two or three different names and several different meanings.

Perhaps our newer dog fanciers' reading habits have a bit to do with it. My contemporaries and I cut our teeth on McDowell Lyon's The Dog in Action, Burns and Fraser's Genetics of the Dog and Rachel Page Elliott's Dogsteps. I think we are more apt to find copies of "How to Win Westminster" or "how to Become an All-breed Judge: on the bookshelves of a good many of today's novices. Perhaps I'm way off base, but I'm inclined to believe that's starting at the wrong end; few journeys I know of begin at the destination. I guess that wouldn't be here or there except for the fact that there are probably more litters born in the homes of the new people than there are in homes of people we will politely refer to as "veterans" of the dog game. These new people shape the dog breeds of tomorrow.

But back to our lady at the dog show and her questions of fronts. My friend and I did our best to give her a quick primer on fronts and I told her not to feel alone in her confusion in this area, in that I find fronts to be the least understood and most underestimated portion of a dog's anatomy here in America. I promised the young lady I would put some constructive thoughts down on paper and mail them off to her. I dutifully jotted down her address on the back of my catalogue and then promptly proceeded to lose my catalogue!

Nevertheless, the whole thing got me thinking. Judging by the manner in which some breeders have neglected fronts in order to achieve some other characteristic makes it obvious they have no idea

how important front construction is to correct conformation and proper movement.

I did put some of my ideas regarding fronts to paper in hopes that some kind soul would find my catalogue and return it to me. At this point, however, I have lost all hope of ever finding Concerned Young Lady again. All the same, I thought perhaps there might be others who will read this (or someone you know who should) and my time would not be for naught.

HOW IT'S MADE

I am neither an engineer nor an anatomist. Most of what I know about anatomy I learned from laymen and in laymen's terms. I consider myself quite fortunate to have received my education in dogs from what was probably the last wave of the great dog men and women of the old school. Things were much simpler then. We had fewer technicians but there were more people who just imply knew dogs. A dog was either a good one or it was not, and their judgment had little to do with much else.

But then as now, there were certain basics that had to be understood before one could ever hope to breed or recognize a well-made animal. This knowledge is also important so that we can all have a common point of reference from which to proceed.

Every breed of dog, whether it is a Bulldog, Fox Terrier or Great Dane, has two bones in its forehand assembly the size, shape and angulation of which determine not only how the dog looks but also how it moves. These two bones are the shoulder blade (scapula) and the upper are (humerus).

THE SCAPULA

Let's take a look at the shoulder blade (scapula) first. Most (but not all) breeds are in need of what we refer to as either "well laid back" or "well angulated" shoulders. The degree to which the shoulders are angulated depends upon the breed's purpose and function, but even at that the variance is not great. A well laid back shoulder that is attached to an upper arm of similar length permits a breed to move with easy, ground-covering reach. It is usually matched by a fairly well angulated rear. This is typically found in our Sporting dogs, among others. I've always thought the Sporting breeds were an ideal place to begin studying dogs in that the other breeds or Groups are simply more than or less than these dogs who work in the field.

At any rate, dogs who aren't required to traverse the woodlands all day long or whose duties revolve around hauling really don't need as much angulation. But only where a breed is required to have short, stilted movement would upright shoulders be desirable. A perfect example of this restricted gait can be seen in the properly moving Chow Cho.

One can only assume that if a breed standard calls for movement as far removed from the norm as the Chow Chow's, it is a critical point and should receive great consideration from the breeder, exhibitor and judge. As important as short, stilted movement is to a breed like the Chow Chow, or the rolling gait is to the Bulldog, so should we demand most other breeds to get about easily and naturally with a minimum of effort and little strain. For the purpose of this article, we will confine ourselves primarily to breeds in which ease of movement is both a natural entitlement and a requirement of the respective breed standard.

So then, how does the layman go about determining the degree of shoulder angulation? If can

easily be determined by putting the thumb and index fingers of the right hand at the uppermost points of the shoulder blades and the same fingers of the left hand at the point of shoulder (where the shoulder blade joins the upper arm). The imaginary line that runs down the center of the blade between these two points, and hot it deviates from the vertical determines the degree of angulation. If you extend that line to the ground in front of the dog, it will, in most cases, mark the extent of the forward reach of that dog. We will look at how this forward teach can be restricted as we go along.

Anatomical perfection would have the shoulder blade slope back from the vertical at a 45-degree angle to allow maximum reach. Please note that I say "anatomical perfection" would have this be so. Nature, however, is not so compliant and if you speak to most judges and experienced breeders they will tell you one seldom if ever encounters true 45-degreed shoulder layback.

But please, because this degree of angulation is so seldom achieved, don't misconstrue the fact to mean should scrap the whole idea. Failing to reach the North Pole on our early explorers' first try didn't eliminate the North Pole! Perhaps all this yapping about how seldom you find the ideal shoulder angulation is responsible for so many exhibitors treating it with utter disregard. Something has set us off in the wrong directions and we have need to get back on track.

The result of being negligent in our demand for ideal shoulder angulation is not confined to movement alone. Upright shoulders make the neck shorted than it should be and the back longer,

thus destroying the dog's correct balance. These badly articulated shoulders are often connected to short upper arms which are also poorly angulated, thus moving the entire front end assembly too far forward on the ribcage. This results in a lack of forechest and a nearly straight line from throat to fee. This construction is frequently accompanied by a hollowed out cavity in the chest area between the legs. Construction of this nature indicates lack of endurance due to restricted heart and lung room.

The correct front for most of the long-legged Terriers, much to the surprise of many Terrier breeders themselves, also requires a long, sloping shoulder blade. The straight front line of the "Terrier font" is actually created by a short, nearly upright humerus (upper are) - not by upright shoulders! Some authors believe that the short upper arm evolved because it was advantageous in "going to ground;" the dog could work on its keel (lower chest) with its legs free to dig. Here this straight line front is a virtue.

A long shoulder blade and a short upper arm is not as easy a combination to achieve as one might think in that the upper arm and shoulder blade, like all bones in the canine skeleton, seem to have a natural inclination to approximate the length of their adjacent neighbour. In other words, if the "the

toe bone's connected to the foot bone," like the old song tells us, the bones in the toes will attempt to approximate the length of the bones in the foot proper. Or another example: a man with a long forearm is invariably going to have longs hands, etc.

Thus, what we are more apt to get in dogs (even in Terriers) is the unhappy combination of a short, upright shoulder and a similarly proportioned and placed upper arm. Therefore, in order to breed the well-angulated, ground covering front, one must pay attention to both the length and angulation of the shoulder blade and the upper arm.

About the Front Assembly – Taken from the net

A dog's front assembly determines the amount of reach he will have when moving. It also determines -- at least partially -- how clean, correct and efficient his front movement will be. (Front movement is also determined by length of body and the similarity of the dog's front and rear angulation.)

When going over the dog's front assembly, one looks for the following characteristics (among others):

Length of upper arm or humerus: As you can see from the diagram at left, the dog's upper arm (humerus), should actually be slightly longer than the shoulder blade (scapula). Most people assess length of upper arm by using three reference points that can be easily located (even when covered with skin and hair). These reference points are the top of the dog's shoulder (point A in the diagram at left), his point of shoulder (B) and the tip of his elbow (C). Putting your thumb on B, you can reach the top of the shoulder (A) with one of your other fingers. Keeping your hand in the same position (keeping the same spread between thumb and finger), swing down to the tip of the elbow (C). The second distance measured -- B to C -- is somewhat shorter than the true length of the upper arm; but if the upper arm is long enough, the distance from B to A should be the same as the distance from B to

C. If the distance from B to C is shorter than the distance from B to A, the upper arm is too short. This common structural problem can result in less reach when moving (an inability to swing the leg forward the optimum amount in order to cover the most ground). It can also result in inefficient movement, such as lifting the front feet too far off the ground with each stride (the front feet should just clear the ground as the dog moves -- anything more is wasted motion).

Layback of shoulder: When going over a dog's front, most people estimate shoulder layback by placing the thumb at the point of shoulder (point B in the diagram) and one finger at the top of the dog's shoulder (point A) and figuring the angle of that line (B-A) off the vertical (line E-B). Using this method, you can see that the dog in the diagram has a shoulder layback of 30 degrees. Many standards, including the Sheltie standard, call for a shoulder layback of 45 degrees. This angle was derived from what the standard-writers knew about horse anatomy, where well-laidback shoulders make for a smoother ride. Unfortunately, good front assemblies in dogs and horses are very different.

The front assembly a rigid-backed horse needs for optimal gait (the comfort of a rider being the primary consideration) has little relationship to the correct front assembly in a dog, which has a flexible back and is not ridden. Research has shown that the best-moving trotting dogs have an average shoulder layback of 28 degrees, plus or minus 5 degrees. Galloping dogs (sighthounds) have considerably steeper shoulders (more like 15-20 degrees), while diggers (such as Dachshunds) have greater layback than trotters. Shelties are trotting dogs.

Insufficient layback -- sometimes referred to as "a straight shoulder" -- is a widespread problem in Shelties. When moving, dogs with insufficient layback lack reach. This can lead to other movement faults, especially if the rear is better angulated than the front -- a common problem -- causing the drive from the rear to be better than the reach in the front. Such dogs will have a longer stride in the rear than in the front and will have to find a way to compensate. One possible compensation is to lift the front feet too far off the ground with each stride. This is wasted motion, but it enables such a dog to "get out of his own way." The dog may also fail to single-track (feet converge toward a center line) in front, so that his rear feet -- which are single-tracking with good, long strides -- can swing between his lifting, non-single-tracking, short-strided front feet. (Some people call this type of a movement a "reverse tricycle" -- i.e. two "wheels" in front, one behind.)

THE REASONS BREEDS CHANGE BY ANDREW BRACECreated: 08/05/2013

I WONDER how often we – as breeders, exhibitors or judges – stop to consider how easily we become accustomed to changes within a breed.

In some cases these changes can actually become so engrained in a breed that they are elevated to the level of desired characteristics, even though they might be quite alien to typical and necessary. It is generally the case that such changes begin with dogs shown by well-known exhibitors or handlers, as these so often set the benchmark that others gladly follow.

How do changes come about? They begin with the breeder who produces a litter that gets to an age where the puppies need to be evaluated. The breeder who fully understands his breed is looking at every puppy in terms of the breed Standard and what is correct for the breed. In most breeds ‘moderation’ is a requirement that is desirable in many aspects, and it is the consistency of moderation throughout any animal that will contribute significantly to its balance, and the impression that everything fits. However, occasionally there will be a puppy who has something about it that always catches the eye, and invariably that ‘something’ tends to be an exaggeration of some kind or another – too long a neck, too refined or overtyped a head, excessive rear angulation – and here is where the danger lies. The totally steeped-in-the-breed breeder will see exaggeration for what it is and will discard the guilty puppy as being alien to correct type. Many others, however, will be realistic enough to acknowledge that the exaggeration, which is constantly catching their eye, will also catch the eye of the judge when the dog hits the show ring. And so the puppy is kept, nurtured, schooled and groomed.

As soon as a dog whose type deviates from correct starts winning, the ball is set rolling. That dog appears in the big ring and other judges comment on its great bone, long neck, fabulous angulation, ultra-short back, high tail set, great open side-gait or whatever, even when these may not be breed-specific attributes.

They reward it when they get it, and others follow suit. In due course breeders see this dog and all the winning it is doing, and they think that they had better start breeding something like it. They rush off to use said dog, and within a matter of years the rather deviant type has got a foothold in the breed.

It takes a little time, but soon judges arrive at a situation where they get a class of six dogs – five of them are of the ‘new’ rather off-beat type, one is completely correct. The knowledgeable and constructive judge will know enough about the breed to be able to say with conviction "This one is right – the others are wrong” and judge accordingly. Many other judges, however, perhaps lacking depth of knowledge of that breed, will take the easy option, assume that the five must be right as they form the majority, and the sixth dog in the class gets left out of the awards.

This particularly applies to size in a breed. So many of our breeds have, over the years, got bigger, maybe because of improved nutrition and very gradually size has crept up. As we only routinely measure or weigh a handful of breeds that have more than one variety determined by size this increase is barely noticed.

However, when some dedicated breeder puts in the ring a dog that is of absolutely correct size in terms of its breed Standard it is criticised by other exhibitors as being small. In truth, this is the correct sized dog; it’s just that the others are over size.  

Going with the flow

At this juncture the dedicated breeder who has been intent on maintaining type and simply intensifying quality begins to get, understandably, frustrated. He knows what he is breeding is correct, but the numbers of those who are drifting away from type are such that other breeders, exhibitors and judges seem to be going with the flow, and he is left swimming upstream.

This has happened in several breeds in Britain and beyond, and I have seen many ‘old time’ breeders reduce their exhibiting activities dramatically, simply because they feel it is pointless showing dogs under judges who just don’t understand breed priorities. These are the very breeders who SHOULD have stock in the ring, so that those who do have independent minds can see and appreciate it.

When dogs with major faults – usually of the ‘attractive’ kind – continue to win and be bred from, newer breeders will see no reason to correct and improve. Why should they? These dogs are winning. Those who own the ‘modern’ dogs can usually talk the talk, and provide convincing arguments as to natural evolution and obvious improvement. In some cases strong-minded individuals can actually be instrumental in persuading breed clubs to change the breed Standard to fit these new dogs, a heinous crime in anyone’s book. And then of course there is the power of advertising and social networking!

Sadly many of the breed changes we have witnessed are pleasing to the average eye – so what if a dog is too necky, too hairy, too upright, too short, too long? It looks pretty and the judges like the look!

Although showing dogs is today, in truth, more about chasing challenge certificates, ribbons and points than it is about preserving breeds, the show ring should remain the breeders’ shop window. It would be sad to think that genuine breeders who are keen to maintain true breed type could not find the dogs necessary to perpetuate correctness in the next generation.

If we look at the Pekingese, for example, through the years this country has produced many outstanding specimens that have taken on the best of other breeds and flown the flag for their breed. But it is a long time since the breed’s vintage years when there were numerous large, strong kennels owned by knowledgeable and strong-minded breeders who produced their own distinctive kennel types.

I believe it would be fair to say that as these kennels began to become less and less the breed went through a period of exaggeration, not just in terms of the physical aspect of the dogs seen in the ring but in the manner in which they were presented. A Pekingese should possess a coat that enhances its body shape, not mask it and turn it into a walking footstool, yet some exhibitors seemed to be of the opinion that the more hair, regardless of texture, the better.

Historical context

In recent years the conscientious Pekingese breeders have addressed health issues with conviction and the results can be seen in the ring. The fact that, despite being deemed a ‘high profile’ breed, we saw a Pekingese as the top winning toy dog of last year is testament to the fact. Furthermore let’s not forget that a British-bred Pekingese won best in show at Westminster, America’s most famous dog show, last year.

However it is always interesting to stand back and look at a breed in an historical context and for that reason I am including in this article a famous photograph of the legendary Ch Caversham Ku Ku of Yam who was for many years the top winning Pekingese of all time in this country.

Although the study by Thomas Fall, who photographed so many of the great Pekingese of the past, is of Ku Ku sitting down it is clear to see that he did not carry an unduly profuse body coat (other full body photographs of him confirm this fact). His coat is obviously clean and well groomed but is presented in a very moderate fashion, rather than having the hair on his ears brushed up in an exaggerated way to emphasise width.

However it is the dog’s face that I feel is worthy of the most careful study, and bear in mind that this dog was born in 1952. Here we see a Pekingese head which complies perfectly with the requirements of the breed Standard yet in no way could be considered extreme. A seminar could be given on this head alone. Look at the width yet shallowness of the face, the naturally flat top skull, the position of the correctly fringed ears and then examine the facial features. Here are eyes that are set well apart, large and expressive, with no suggestion of being bolting. The position of the eyes relative to the nose is exemplary, the nose and nostrils being sufficiently large. The over-nose wrinkle is in no way exaggerated and sits perfectly on the nose while the muzzle is well padded, wide and in no way ‘lippy’. Most importantly the underjaw is wide, deep and strong, proving perfect lip-to-lip placement. I feel that so many of the Oriental breeds these days are lacking in chin and this is a vital ingredient when it comes to creating the essential arrogance of expression. All these individual features help to demonstrate the ‘openness’ of the face.

I believe it is vitally important that breeders and exhibitors should occasionally browse through the old breed books and actually study the dogs of yesteryear. Doing so might give them a slightly different perspective on the dogs of today and pose some interesting questions.

STRUCTURE

Dentition

Canine Dentition  Adult dogs have 42 permanent teeth

(20 upper and 22 lower teeth)Puppies have 28 baby (deciduous) teeth

(14 upper and 14 lower teeth) 

CONVERSIONS