More than thirty years ago the late Stafford Somerfield approached me with a

view to writing a weekly column in DOG WORLD, the leading UK weekly specialist

newspaper at the time. My brief was to cover as many of the dogs and people I

encountered as possible when I travelled to dog shows and the column, by Stafford’s

choice, was given the title “Going Around”.

Originally the column filled a quarter of a page and was simply text in black

and white. Gradually the column increased in size and as printing techniques

changed it became a full page each week and in colour, usually illustrated with

photographs that I had taken myself as I am a keen amateur photographer.

When a dog has won a major award under me in any country it is obviously

because I consider the dog to be an excellent, and occasionally outstanding,

example of its breed. I believe that my column, which had a predominantly UK-based

readership, was a vehicle for showing British breeders and exhibitors what dogs are

being shown around the world and it proved its value by virtue of the fact that,

spurred on by seeing a photograph in the column, several breeders have researched

the breeding of dogs they have admired and this has led them to either import actual

breeding stock or semen from the breeders overseas. I believe this to be a positive

contribution to the sport.

I also believed, and others have confirmed, that giving this kind of exposure to

dogs that would not normally be seen in the UK also served as a learning experience

for younger judges who could study the photographs alongside my summation of the

dogs featured.

With the advent of Facebook, once my good friend Nikolas Kanales in Greece

had dragged me screaming into the twenty-second century and acquainted me with

the uses of social media, I routinely take a batch of photographs at every show I

judge at and post them, usually the same night, on Facebook. Mostly they are not

even identified at the time of posting as I will not have had access to a show

catalogue at that point. Dogs’ names are added as and when I have the time

afterwards, though other Facebookers are often very helpful in identifying dogs in

their comments when someone asks who exactly this or that dog is.

I repeatedly get kind messages from people around the world telling me how

much they enjoy seeing the photographs of dogs they will probably never meet, each

of which is very much appreciated.

When I judged in Orlando a few years ago one of the dogs that excited me

most was one of my BOB winners. For the purpose of this article it is not necessary

to even name the breed. In any event I posted a photograph of the dog after he had

won the breed, I then discovered the identity of the dog and its handler, and there

were several favourable comments posted on Facebook. Months later I found myself

in New York as a Westminster spectator and was keen to see this dog in the breed

ring, so took myself off to watch. As it happens he didn’t fare too well, but

nonetheless my press pass allowed me into the hallowed aisles from which I took a

completely candid photograph of the dog when he was standing on the ground,

totally relaxed, simply looking up adoringly at his handler. I liked the photo and it was

one of dozens I posted that night covering my day in New York. The dog wasn’t

identified, the photo wasn’t even captioned. I made no comment as to the fact that

the dog wasn’t in the ribbons; it was merely there.

What happened later was something of a puzzle. Comments came in fast and

furious, mainly from people merely saying how much they liked the photograph;

others who clearly recognised the dog and his handler went so far as to say it was

one of the best pictures they’d ever seen of him whilst some passed more detailed

opinions on the dog’s correctness and excellence. As is so often the way with

Facebook of course the thread then began to go off at a completely different tangent

when someone who is involved with the same breed started to make some very

sweeping and inflammatory statements. These varied from accusing a judge (me

presumably) of “promoting” a dog to claiming that professional handlers were ruining

this breed which was until recently considered (in his/her opinion) to be the divine

right of the amateur owner-handler.

I generally avoid Facebook "discussions" which tend to get personal and

usually involve people who are determined to have the last word at all costs, but I did

feel obliged to simply make one statement. This was not a matter of "promoting" a

dog and should have been seen for what it is - my posting a photograph (one of

many) that I took ringside at Westminster of a dog I had recently judged and greatly

admired, and which had attracted many favourable comments.

I may have an old-fashioned view of judging but firmly believe that the remit of

a true judge goes way beyond the competition ring. I believe we are not just there to

find the best dog (taking into account type, conformation, movement, coat and

condition) on the day but we are also there to educate by our actions and comments

- not just the ringside but those judges who are starting out on their journey. I would

emphasise at this point that everyone needs to remember that this sport should

centre around THE DOGS and not who handles, owns or backs them. I had never

met the handler of the dog in question before Orlando and it was only after we had

pictures taken that I had it explained to me who he was.

The word "promoting" is often misused and misunderstood. If by "promoting"

someone means a judge who has awarded top honours to a dog he considers to be

an outstanding example of breed type being prepared to discuss the dog openly and

freely with anyone who wishes to learn, then I was I guess guilty as charged. Far

more damaging to the sport is the "promoting" that goes on of untypical, unworthy

dogs that are heavily advertised in the hope of catching the eye of judges who do not

have the knowledge to realise that they are inferior specimens and when they judge

they point to them based on their publicity rather than their merit.

Rather than accusing judges of “promoting” dogs they greatly admire, perhaps

the Facebook warriors who were so quick to point the finger should turn their

attentions to the army of exhibitors who shamelessly “tag” photographs to judges

who have never, ever, seen their pictured dog but who will be judging it in the near

future. This seems to be an increasingly common practice that infuriates all but the

more hapless judges who seem to welcome any “help” they can get when they visit a

new country and may not be aware of present form.

For many years I judged internationally on a regular basis and still count

many professional handlers as close friends. However that friendship is such that

they realise, when they show to me, if they have what is in my opinion the best dog

they will win; if there are better dogs in competition they will not. I asked the critics to

see this photograph in context and think twice before making comments that had

taken the discussion in a totally different direction.

I believe that those of us who judge dogs with true passion get excited when

we meet a great one. We find it hard to control our enthusiasm and yes, of course,

we share our opinions with our peers. Sometimes they too may have judged the dog

in question and admired it. Occasionally they may have done so but had some minor

reservation about minor breed points which can lead into an in-depth detailed

discussion from which we all learn as we are all, always, learning. I remember last

year watching a group being judged at a big International show in Europe. One of the

Europeans who was in my company asked me about the Bearded Collie and if its

proportions were correct as he felt it was too short on the leg. I had seen the dog

coming into the ring and nothing had occurred to me as being particularly amiss so I

confidently replied to my friend, “no that’s fine for the breed”. However I then looked

at the dog from a different angle and at closer quarters and, guess what? It WAS a

little out of balance. I experienced an acute sense of guilt so felt it was only proper to

tell my questioner that he WAS right in his original suspicion. He was very obviously

delighted that I had confirmed his opinion, but it was the right thing to do.

Far more damaging than sharing genuine enthusiasm for an outstanding dog

that one has judged is the irrational talking-up of a particular breeder or handler

which seems to be based on the assumption that everything they bring into the ring

is unbeatable. Now THAT is unforgiveable.

© ANDREW H. BRACE

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

permission)