Way back when I said that the purpose of a dog show was the evaluation of breeding stock, an attempt to see which dogs were best suited for passing their genes onto future generations. How well does the process work? In theory, it's a good one. In practice, it falls short of its goals.
I've already dealt with the question of whether the dogs can do what they're intended to do. That is not the purpose of a conformation dog show. A conformation dog show looks at how closely a dog comes to the ideal of its breed, an ideal based on the purpose of the dog. In my opinion, tt is not the idea of a conformation show or the way it's run that is deficient, it's the breeders and judges who ultimately cause the problems.
I don't want to get into the theory and practice of breeding dogs, a subject where my ignorance is almost without limit, but no one should breed without knowing exactly why they're doing it and what they hope to accomplish. Alas, this includes all too few breeders for the show ring. Breeding should be only be done with the goal of improving the breed, coming ever closer to what the breeder sees as the perfect dog in structure, movement, and temperament. This can only come from knowing a number of things:
- What the purpose of the dog is (gleaned only from intensive study of the history of the breed),
- What the breed standard calls for,
- What deficiencies in the current stock need to be corrected,
- Finding the right stud for accomplishing these goals.
Far too many breeders don't do these things. Instead of breeding "the best to the best" they figure that if their bitch has her championship then she should be bred. Or they may just want to breed to the Number 1 stud, without regard to whether that's best for their own program. Or they may say, "It would be a shame not to breed her." Or they may just look at compatibility of pedigrees, what one friend sardonically calls "breeding two pieces of paper." Or they may seek to imitate a feature that Number 1 dog has, regardless of whether that feature is proper. Many breeders are too kennel blind to see anything wrong with their dogs and do not correct faults accordingly. Some few don't care at all and are in it just for money selling dogs.
My lovely bride does the brain work involved in breeding; if - God forbid! - something should happen to her, I couldn't take on that responsibility. She has just one dog and a spare she wants to breed at any one time. Right now, Lacey is the only one we'll be breeding in the future and Hope is the back-up. Lacey is a beautiful, elegant girl, but my lovely bride would like to see more of some things. She considered a large number of studs for Lacey last year, but for one reason or another rejected them all and decided not to breed her. The stud we really want to use is our Alan (Soyara's Singer of Songs), who is a half-brother. Alan is built like a brick shithouse with both doors open and has the kind of shoulders, chest and head we'd like to have Lacey's progeny have. Sadly, because of a dispute with a co-breeder, Alan isn't registered with the AKC yet and can't be used at stud. In which case it's possible that nothing will be done with Lacey.
Some blame attaches to the judges of these dogs as well. Some 95% of applicants for new breeds are approved by the AKC. How many of them really know about the dogs they're applying to judge? Do they know what the breed was intended for and judge accordingly, or are they just judging a collection of parts? I've talked about some of the irritating things judges do, but looking at only one feature or "fault judging" rewards the exaggerated or the mediocre over true breed type.
Judges can only judge what's brought to them. If they're presented with a set of substandard dogs, they would be perfectly justified in withholding ribbons. If it was done more often, this would send a clear signal to breeders that their program was seriously misguided. Alas, judges dislike withholding ribbons since this might adversely affect the number of assignments they get. More's the pity!
I've outlined the approval process for judges, which is totally in the hands of the AKC. Observations of provisional judges are carried out by an AKC representative, who may or, more likely, may not be an expert in the breed. I know it's impractical, but I think it would be better if the approval process were in the hands of the national breed clubs and not in the hands of the AKC. Instead of a field rep doing observations, a breed mentor would do them. Wouldn't my lovely bride, with over 30 years of experience in Borzoi, be able to tell better whether a provisional judge knows his stuff rather than an AKC field rep with far less knowledge of the breed? Breed standards are set by the national clubs; they should be the ultimate guarantors of them as well.
On the whole, I'd give conformation dog shows a solid "B" but no better. From what my lovely bride says, they're no better or worse than they were 30 years ago, though what's wrong with them may have changed. Some breeds are in bad shape. Others have improved themselves immensely. It's a hopeful sign that the AKC and breed clubs are looking at health issues more closely, trying to understand the causes of some genetic problems.
The sport has become more democratic over the last fifty years, more open to the exhibitor of modest means. But practiced at the highest levels, showing dogs requires not just money, but time, insight and, above all, love of dogs and a determination for perfection.