It is one of life’s anomalies that some breed standards list disqualifications

whereas others do not. Those who do usually centre around size or of course

standards vary from country to country. In the UK all our Standards contain a clause

which effectively says that any fault should be penalised according to its degree, and

only in Dachshunds, Poodles and German Spitz is there a recommendation that

dogs have to be measured or weighed in before receiving any prize. Other failings

are left to the judge’s discretion. Personally, I like this attitude and I believe this to be

one of our Kennel Club’s wiser policies.

Other countries are very specific in their insistence on certain faults being

disqualifying and whilst it is easy to understand the logic of keeping a breed within

certain height, weight or colour parameters, does the consequence of losing an

otherwise outstanding dog actually benefit the breed?

Let us take for example a breed with a height limit, over which any dog is

deemed disqualifiable. You get a dog that is dripping in breed type, is beautifully

balanced, moves true out, back and around and has a head and expression that is a

model for the breed, but it measures out. Judges are, if they are officiating under a

disqualifying regime, obliged to excuse that dog. Dog shows are supposed to be

about improving breeds, and are in theory the breeder’s showcase, so is it really

wise to effectively by inference lose such a dog? The judge’s job becomes

exasperating when the dogs that “measure in” are mediocre by comparison. These

can sail under the wicket and receive prizes, yet the judge of the day will know in his

heart of hearts that the best dog is the one that has had to leave the ring.

From the breeding perspective, which of these dogs is likely to be of more

use? Sure, the best dog is oversize, but it is a well-known fact that one of the more

common consequences of in-breeding is reduction in size, so logically one would

think that a slightly large specimen of great quality could be bred to and in-bred to

and reproduce its quality but in a smaller package. What can the mediocre correct-

sized dog contribute to the breed by comparison, other than the perpetuation of

mediocrity?

Some breeds have specifically listed colours in their standards, but no

disqualifications, so how should the judge deal with non-recognised colours? Here

another can of worms gets opened. Some time ago Miniature Schnauzer breeders in

the UK were expressing great concern over the appearance in our show rings of

white Miniature Schnauzers. The Schnauzer breeds originated in Germany, a

country that falls under the FCI umbrella, and the FCI has for some years accepted

the white Miniature as a separate variety. The British standard used to detail pepper-

and-salt, black and black-and-silver as recognised colours, with no mention of white,

but judges at that time faced a dilemma with the whites and had to decide on their

own particular preferred course of action. Amongst the breeders there was a vocal

faction that maintained that the Miniature is a dwarfed version of the Schnauzer, and

in the Standard variety the white does not occur, so it was alleged that the white

could only have occurred through the introduction of alien blood. Others claimed that

whites have occurred naturally and so should be included. The Kennel Club

subsequently recognised White Miniature Schnauzers.

A slightly similar situation occurred when our first brindle Basenjis appeared in

the show ring. Again judges had to decide how they would handle the striped dogs

until such time as the Kennel Club accepted the colour as there was documented

evidence that brindle had historically occurred in the breed’s native land for many

years.

Judges tended to fall into one of two camps when confronted with a white

Miniature Schnauzer – one believed that it was not a recognised colour, therefore it

should not receive any awards whereas the other maintained that a divergence from

the recommended colours should merely be treated as one single fault. Certainly

history has related that from time to time in many breeds deviants have appeared

and with time come to be accepted, given that type is maintained. A further

complication was that our Miniature Schnauzer standard contains a clause which

states that structure should be given priority over cosmetics, thus giving the White

lobby a stick to beat them with, but the purists argued that the inclusion of this clause

must be seen in an historical context, and was originally included when more

attention was being paid to colour and the breed risked falling victim to “toyish”

specimens who excelled in colour yet who lacked true Schnauzer type.

Those who are in favour of disqualifications as regards height or weight will

insist that these are in place to control the temptation to drift away from the ideal.

They will say if you forgive an inch, an inch oversize becomes accepted and the next

thing is that two inches get forgiven, and so on until the size gets out of control.

Much depends on the judge’s eye, and many judges of my acquaintance prefer to

rely on their eye rather than a wicket, which can sometimes prove disastrous.

Provided the eye is conditioned by looking at dogs of the correct size, relying on that

eye may work. However, if a gradual shift occurs then the eye may not become that

reliable.

The demands of a judge are many and varied, but uppermost must be the

insistence of correct type and balance with commensurate conformation, movement

and temperament. The disqualifications that exist in the USA may well have

historically removed significant dogs from that breed’s gene pool but that country’s

loss has proved others’ gain. For example, several key Beagle males over the years

have with maturity “measured out” and found their way to the UK where we have a

recommended height maximum of 16 inches. Those dogs that found themselves no

longer passing under a 15 wicket have contributed significantly to the breed in its

homeland and have helped advance the breed in no small way.

In the USA where tail-docking and ear-cropping are still permitted the waters

are further muddied when parent clubs in docked breeds take a vigorous stance on

dogs with full tails. I am at a loss to understand the logic behind insisting that judges

should not place dogs which are presented in the ring exactly as they were born,

whereas tolerance is advocated when dealing with much more serious faults that

detract from breed type much more than the natural tail. This is even more harmful

than the size or weight dictums as the cosmetic surgery of tails – or ears come to

that – is simply that, cosmetic surgery, and it does not strike me as responsible for

any club to wish to demote any dog from its just deserts just because it is exhibited

without any form of surgical “enhancement”.

Are we now living in an era where the show ring is no longer about breeding

but rather about showing? The disqualifying of dogs that could in reality be of great

use to their breeds would seem to suggest so.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

(This article may not be reproduced in any form without the author’s

permission)