Top UK judge Andrew Brace is making a stand. He has announced that he will no longer judge any of the "high profile" Category Three breeds in the UK (i.e. those dogs subject to the "indignity" of a vet check at champ shows). This is because Brace thinks that breed type is much more important than some trifling fault that - in his opinion - has only a minor impact on the dog's health and welfare.On a Facebook page for show judges, Brace explains:
Ever since the initial announcements were made, heralding the introducing of the vet checks for certain BOB winners, there was an understandable resentment on the part of judges that statements which came out from the Kennel Club's press office that by inference suggested that in the past judges had ignored the need for their winning dogs to be fit and healthy, free from exaggerations that caused them any discomfort. This of course was nonsensical as any self-respecting judge had always sought to reward dogs that represented their breeds in a wholly typical manner, yet were happy, fit and healthy and in no way constructed in such a way that they suffered as a result.
Er, you mean like this dog?
Or this one?
Or perhaps this one?
Or how about this one?
Dog shows have been
the single biggest driver in reducing some formerly-functional breeds into oversized, over-angulated, over-coated, over-wrinkled, saggy-eyed travesties. For Brace to believe otherwise is delusional (and, indeed, directly contradicts what he himself said in
this article in Dog World just a year ago.)
And yet Brace goes on:
"In some cases the BOB had been awarded by judges of the reputation and standing of Ferelith Somerfield and Zena Thorn Andrews, the latter being at the time the solitary all-breeds judge in the UK."
Now that's a reference to Ch Buzz Lightyear at Dereheath - the Basset that Zena Thorn Andrews awarded BOB at Crufts 2012 and which
failed the vet check.
This dog (described by Mrs Thorn Andrews as having "superb conformation") failed for an eye problem, not the fact that he had excess flesh dripping from every limb. But look what happened at Crufts the following year? This dog won. A vast improvement.
Unfortunately, Crufts 2014 saw a regression to this... a real shame.
But I still believe that the vet checks are, in the main, making judges more careful about the dogs they reward and that no judge should ever put up any dog that is in less than demonstrably good health on the day. Extreme conformation in and of itself is not (say the rules) a reason to DQ a dog, but because the more extreme dogs are more likely to have accompanying signs of clinical disease (e.g. sore eyes from from ectropion) the vet checks have had a moderating effect.
Brace, though, won't be swayed - and rather than lobby to improve the vet checks, he wants them gone. He thinks the independent scrutiny of these "victimised" breeds are "humiliating" and, further, he denigrates some judges who are willing to continue to judge them as "fault-obsessed" at the expense of type. He maintains:
"The problem with the vet checks is that they tend to encourage judges to become obsessed with faults and in so doing can overlook a dog’s many virtues. Obviously a dog that is dripping in breed type but that cannot walk should never be considered for any award, but there has to be a degree of leniency shown when faults do not affect a dog’s functionality and comfort."
And he goes on:
"Judging dogs brings with it enough pressures, and enough concerns to do the job right, without the additional worry of finding a dog that not only pleases the judge sufficiently to award it BOB, but will also satisfy some vet who may have no intimate knowledge of that breed as to its suitability to represent its breed in the group ring." The vet, of course, is not there to judge its suitability to represent its breed. The vet is there to judge its suitability as a dog.
And herein lies the rub. The Fancy wants the right to continue to do what the hell it likes, without outside scrutiny. That it so often finds itself in conflict with the veterinary profession is telling.Says Brace:
"Judging dogs should be a pleasurable experience, for the exhibitors, for the judge and for the ringside." Um. And for the dogs, Andrew.
For the dogs.
Here's the whole sorry post from Mr Brace.
 | Since making it known that I am no longer accepting invitations to judge the “High Profile” breeds in the UK as long as the ridiculous vet checks of the BOB winners persist I have had several messages from people asking me to reconsider. I hope that the following will make people understand why I have made this decision. It won’t make a blind bit of difference to the decision-makers in the British Kennel Club but it is the only way I can personally make a stand.
When a few short years ago the Kennel Club in Britain decided to have a number of what it deemed “High Profile Breeds” subjected to the indignity of having their BOB winners at Crufts dog show examined by a vet to determine whether or not they were fit enough to compete in their respective groups, there was outcry when many of them failed and were denied their place in the group. In some cases the BOB had been awarded by judges of the reputation and standing of Ferelith Somerfield and Zena Thorn Andrews, the latter being at the time the solitary all-breeds judge in the UK.
Despite widespread condemnation, the Kennel Club has continued with these vet checks and yet these checks do nothing to indicate how healthy a breed is at large. How can they when, as an example, the same Pekingese has been vet-checked more than thirty times?!
If the Kennel Club is serious about improving the health and welfare of breeds across their whole population there are far more effective ways of doing so and to some extent it has taken steps to develop a system which is more in line with the more logical and general judges’ reports which originated in Sweden. Yet still the humiliating BOB checks persist.
Judging dogs should be a pleasurable experience, for the exhibitors, for the judge and for the ringside. Ever since the initial announcements were made, heralding the introducing of the vet checks for certain BOB winners, there was an understandable resentment on the part of judges that statements which came out from the Kennel Club's press office that by inference suggested that in the past judges had ignored the need for their winning dogs to be fit and healthy, free from exaggerations that caused them any discomfort. This of course was nonsensical as any self-respecting judge had always sought to reward dogs that represented their breeds in a wholly typical manner, yet were happy, fit and healthy and in no way constructed in such a way that they suffered as a result.
The challenge of judging purebred dogs is a demanding one. It requires someone invited to carry out a job, employing their knowledge of a breed and hopefully their inherent integrity which should be such that they are capable of evaluating all dogs shown to them impartially, taking no account of what a dog has won, how it is bred or who is handling it. All judges have their own methods of arriving at an ultimate decision, but at all times they should tend to focus on the positive, acknowledging and rewarding merit whilst at the same time recognising faults which should always be seen in perspective.
Judges of my generation were taught by the old school that fault-judging is the road to nowhere. “Throwing the baby out with the bath water” was an expression that was often used when I was in my formative years, having it explained to me that losing an otherwise outstanding animal on the strength of one obvious, but relatively minor, fault would never result in excellent judging.
The problem with the vet checks is that they tend to encourage judges to become obsessed with faults and in so doing can overlook a dog’s many virtues. Obviously a dog that is dripping in breed type but that cannot walk should never be considered for any award, but there has to be a degree of leniency shown when faults do not affect a dog’s functionality and comfort.
Some of the dogs that have been banned from appearing in a group, despite having won the CC & BOB under a judge who has been approved by the Kennel Club, have apparently been so treated because the acting vet has found an ageing piece of scar tissue on an eye which would not be obvious in a judge’s routine examination, and in some cases because of evidence of "mucous"! Judges are not vets and should not pretend to be. Similarly vets should not assume the mantle of dog judge. Neither has been through the training required of the other.
Judging dogs brings with it enough pressures, and enough concerns to do the job right, without the additional worry of finding a dog that not only pleases the judge sufficiently to award it BOB, but will also satisfy some vet who may have no intimate knowledge of that breed as to its suitability to represent its breed in the group ring.
On a personal level this extra burden I find detracts from the whole judging experience and also negates much of the pleasure that the task should bring. That is why I, and some of my colleagues, have decided that we no longer wish to judge these victimised breeds at Championship level in the UK. That may not be viewed as any great loss in some quarters, but as far as the breeds at large are concerned it may rob them of the opportunity to show under a number of experienced and knowledgeable judges, whilst at the same time seeing the judging ranks augmented by new judges who are fault-obsessed. |
Related posts: |
