In an article I read many years ago in America’s DOG NEWS, a high profile

judge from the USA was questioning the qualifications of some judges who are

invited from overseas to officiate in the United States. It is an article which could well

have flowed from a British pen, as frequently British exhibitors find themselves

questioning the credentials of overseas judges whose experience – to British eyes –

is considerably less than would be expected of a native judge. That said, the British

Kennel Club’s former reluctance to automatically approve FCI judges has, after

some years of prolonged negotiation, recently reached something of an acceptable

compromise.

The question of overseas judges and opinions has long been a subject of

debate and heated emotion and more recently has become an even hotter potato.

Gone are the days when the great British stockmen were sent to all corners of the

globe, enjoying almost missionary-like status, to evaluate the breeding stock in

emerging dog-showing nations. Today the dog world is truly global, and many

countries have developed a fancy that rivals (and some would say surpasses!) that

in the sport’s homeland. Many countries have taken dog breeding and showing to

their bosoms, enthusiastic fanciers have established their talent as producers of

excellent stock and, thanks to the wonders of present day travel and communication,

the interchange between countries of bloodlines has resulted in noticeable

improvement in so many ways … and Britain has benefited as much as any country

by importing stock from the USA, Australia, Asia and various European countries.

As the dog fancy in other nations progressed, those who had been

instrumental in elevating the quality of various breeds naturally became judges.

Having a natural “eye” has nothing to do with passports; it is an inherent talent,

which can be nurtured and honed to a level only determined by the capabilities of its

possessor.

There seems to be an unfortunate attitude that exists amongst many of the

numerically stronger dog countries that rather looks down on those who come from

places where the sport survives on a much smaller scale. I would like a pound for

every time I have heard the phrase “big fish in a little pond” banded about in the dog

world, yet just because a judge comes from a country where the popular breeds pull

breed entries of 100-plus at every show, that does not ipso facto mean that he or she

will have a great natural eye. It is true that they will have had great exposure to

numbers and an increased opportunity to develop what eye they have, but not all will

have benefited to the degree one would expect.

The smaller countries that fall under the FCI umbrella also tend to come in for

criticism when it is apparent that some of their number seem to be run by Kennel

Clubs that are in effect nothing more than family businesses from which the

proprietors make a handsome income. A governing body that is in a healthy position

financially is admirable; when it is being run purely for profit with scant regard for the

interests of the sport at large then that is another matter.

Interestingly, in the same issue as the aforementioned article, I read one of

Lenora Riddle’s travelogues in which she cited two Uruguayan gents with whom she

had judged in South America as being masters of their craft. Adrian Landarte is a

close personal friend of mine, and since I first met his partner, Jorge Nallem, when

judging in Colombia many years ago, I have marvelled at the skill of these two

enthusiasts and their amazing natural eye, both as breeders and as judges.

I once asked them, without trying to sound in any way patronising, how they

could have learnt so much in as tiny a place as Uruguay, and realised that they had

a natural desire to learn about the various breeds and had gone out of their way to

study them by reading, watching videos and travelling as much as they could to the

strong dog-showing countries.

Some years ago I had the pleasure of driving Jorge and Adrian around to

various kennels in the UK, as they were keen to find a prepotent stud dog for their

Wire Fox Terrier breeding program. They knew the qualities they wanted and also

the bloodlines that would be best suited to their existing stock.

We visited one breeder where we were shown a number of young dogs that

could have been bought, all of which were in show trim, but it was obvious (from my

limited knowledge of Spanish, listening to their comments and studying their body

language) that nothing really appealed to them. Having looked at what was available,

we were given a tour of the large kennel where Jorge spotted a dog that was

pottering around in a run – he asked our host if it would be possible to bring out this

dog who had clearly not seen a stripping knife in months. He looked like a bush but

once up on the table I began to see what Jorge had spotted instantly. The dog was

not being shown as he had taken a dislike to the ring after a trauma, but after much

discussion his owner agreed to let him go to Uruguay where he was subsequently

nurtured, and produced some outstanding puppies. He was subsequently shown to

his title outside of Uruguay (as the partners did not exhibit in their own country due to

their high-profile with the country’s Kennel Club), which says much for the care and

attention he has received in his new home.

I mention this simply because it illustrates so well the natural eye of someone

who comes from a small country which may not be taken seriously by the big boys.

Smaller countries have smaller numbers and less opportunities for hands-on

experience when it comes to judging dogs. We have to accept that geography and

popularity will dictate that there are huge differences in the background of those who

judge dogs on the international scene.

There will never be a perfect system whose reciprocity will be universally

acceptable, and the reasons for inviting overseas judges as listed in the article I refer

to can sometimes be rather dubious, however we should not become too bogged

down with paper qualifications, as that is something which has proved detrimental to

the progress of many countries’ judges’ progress.

Personally, I would far sooner show a dog to someone who has a natural eye,

knows what he’s doing and always focuses at the lower end of the lead, than

someone who has judged thousands of the breed and not pointed at the right one

yet.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

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

permission)