Before leaving home to judge a Terrier specialty in February, I received one of those frustrating phone calls. I am sure many colleagues are nodding with resignation right now, a breeder calling to say that they entered two dogs under me, and the handler is recognizable etc, etc… The best reply I have yet found to such conversations is to say, “The dog closest to the Breed Standard will take first place, so, surely, you have no worries.”
Unfortunately, the caller was unhappy with the judging results, and supported his view with a list of objections when we spoke again on the phone after returning from the event, so I called the court to order in my mind to make a review of the case.
Quality should be determined in the first place by the breeder in their selection of the breeding pair, then the selection of which pup to keep on in the kennel or entrust to an owner who will show and breed in the future. Secondly, several FCI judges will confirm this selection or not, always accompanied, in the FCI, by constructive remarks on the principal virtues and limits of that dog in their critique.
If, and when, the requirements for a title have been met, the kennel club will recognize that this dog is an example of exceptional quality, which, by definition, is recommended for use in breeding programs.
When I award a dog, I am signing off on a high-quality breeding candidate. I am saying, we need more dogs like this one. I expose myself to the approval or scorn of experienced breeders who know all about the dog I am judging. To beginners in the breed, I am influencing the quality of their next litter, and the success they expect from breeding to my first place dog. Moreover, to owners and handlers who are not interested in breeding, but in collecting ribbons, I am highlighting what sort of dogs will win in my ring. My reputation is on the line in every way.
This personal responsibility cannot possibly be influenced by ribbons won in the past under other judges. Specialist judges have, hopefully, studied the Breed Standard from scratch, reflecting on each phrase and using early texts and images of the breed as well as ringside observations, to formulate their own conclusions concerning priorities in that specific breed. Some career judges who aspire to all-rounder status must pass a huge number of exams. They cannot possibly be expected to take an in-depth approach to the hundreds of breeds they will be asked to judge. They will probably have cheat sheets listing essential information such as size, and relative qualities (fashionably called hallmarks today) of the assigned breeds which they read through before the event. This is not a negligible contribution, since the best of the all-rounders have a deep and solid grounding of what exactly makes an ergonomic dog for the various jobs the breeds were developed to perform. Complete knowledge of optimal construction for the chase, duration trotting, swimming, digging, draft, etc., together with a good eye for a dog and some basic breed-specific information, is sufficient preparation for an opinion of value to breeders. Let’s be real, there are occasions when a good judge can make an error; there are also judges who are not very well prepared in the breeds they judge. Therefore, while it is always appropriate to respect colleagues, their past decisions, even if I knew them walking into my own ring, could not possibly trump the view I have developed of the breed and what I see that morning in my ring. That is my reply to objections 1, 2, and 3.
As per objection 4, my reply is an extension of the prior observations. There is no intrinsic right of dogs entered in shows to become a champion. Neither judges nor kennel clubs are ribbon distributors. Just because the club has gone to the trouble of providing ribbons does not mean there are dogs present in each breed the day of the show to deserve them, occasionally, they must remain on the table. Early field events and shows were organized with a view to “improving bloodlines.”1 Since Championship Certificates were first awarded in the UK, they were assigned only in Open shows and only to the Best of Breed, though they were to be withheld if there was no dog of exceptional merit in the breed.2 As a result, many dogs never became a champion. In this author’s view, there is cause for reflection concerning the number of shows on the calendar today, and the relation between funding available for any given dog and assurance of championship titles notwithstanding aspects of quality. This leads me to a wider question: “Is the dog world all about money and ribbons, or are we improving bloodlines?” But perhaps we digress; I will reserve that discussion for a future article.
The final objection, 5, is arguably the most interesting. The dog has 78 chromosomes, and all breeders are well aware of the challenges involved in “fixing” at least some of the many traits essential to a quality dog. A very lucky breeder will have the advantage of beginning with a top-quality, well-bred brood bitch resulting from decades of work by an established breeder. When the time for breeding arrives, this new breeder will be advised by the kennel that bred the brood bitch regarding the choice of mates which will result, with time, in the small group of dogs that will be the new kennel’s foundation (progenitors). Inevitably, this new kennel will evolve, though it is likely that breed experts will recognize the original kennel’s type in future dogs for many years to come.
Now, getting back to the objection at hand, Breeder X has an outstanding kennel. I have known the two owners since I have been in dogs, and their breeding is recognized consistently at the highest levels. I, myself, consulted them while preparing for my exam in their breed. I did not recognize their breeding in the entry under discussion, so I telephoned Breeder X in the spirit of investigation. They instantly knew which dogs I wanted to discuss and, unsurprisingly, concurred with my opinion of the dogs in question. They mentioned that they had sold one dog as a pet many years ago and it figures in the pedigrees of the dogs in question at least three generations back on one side. The relatively new breeder (the one objecting to my opinion) never consulted Breeder X concerning their appraisal of the ancestor with their kennel name, or the pedigree of that dog, or regarding best choices in future breeding from that dog, and Breeder X did not consider that their lines were meaningfully connected to the entries I had judged that day.
We all recognize this phenomenon—name-dropping. We are all at its mercy. Moreover, the sad occurrence of seeing an inferior example of the breed, bearing our kennel name, used in breeding or showing always, frosts the heart of a responsible breeder, as does the cavalier use of our hard work with incompatible bloodlines.
The defense rests their case. The court recommends attention to the question of what Conformation events are meant to accomplish, and refers all involved to the FCI Show Judges Code of Commitment to the Welfare of Pedigree Dogs, an excellent summary of best practice for judges, directing our contribution to responsible breeding by judging conformation, movement and health, leaving handlers, pedigrees, and ribbon collecting to others.
Article 3.a: The show judge will be expected to make a proactive and valuable contribution to dog health and welfare as well to responsible dog breeding.
Article 4.a: For the preservation and the further development of the breeds he judges, the show judge must, in addition to the conformation and movement qualities, consider as well the health aspects of the breed or the dog and its fitness for functionality. This assessment should be clearly reflected in his critique of the dog.
