AKC Gazette Articles

August 2001

ADVICE TO JUDGES AND BREEDERS

            This issue’s column is excerpted from a letter written by the late Constance O. Miller in Saluki Heritage, issue 15, Autumn 1988.  The letter referred to an ongoing discussion concerning the British Saluki standard, in particular the section referring to gait.  Mrs. Miller authored a series of articles, “The Search for Truth in Gazehounds” which were collected into a book now considered required reading by those studying sighthounds.

            “. . . But no words in the world could stop the avalanche of breeds over here who are now expected to move like the lower pictures (in issue number 14) -- cuz it’s faster and flashier and pays off in the group rings.  Had the AKC attacked the problem of speed in the rings, by advising the judges to slow down all dogs to where their gaits could be properly assessed, much of the problem could have been nipped.” [section concerning judging procedures cut due to lack of space.] 

            “I see two major problems.  One: the judges, especially the newer ones, don’t want to know what breeds were meant to do, and what sort of conditions they did it under.  For that would force them to think -- rather than believe they need no more than ‘an eye for a dog’ and the ability to memorize a piece of paper (Standard) to be a competent judge of everything.  The Kennel Clubs are doing them a big favor.

            “Two: the fancy is of the impression -- very much abetted by the Kennel Clubs -- that Standards came first (like Moses’ Ten Commandments) and dogs somehow sprang to imperfect life afterwards, with their alleged ‘sins’ meant to be continually measured not against performance but against the Commandments.  At that point the cart has been put before the horse and only disaster can follow.  Standards originated as descriptions of existing successful (by someone’s criteria) specimens, along with mention of some points that would be untypical of that breed.  They were not meant to foretell the Messiah.

            The fact is that the same adjectives and adverbs have not, will not, and cannot mean the same thing in all breeds because the primary points of perspective were entirely different.  The ‘narrow’ gazehound is a far cry from the ‘narrow’ mastiff.  Terms like ‘wide’, ‘short’, long’, or ‘medium’, are not meaningful from one breed to another, one age to another, nor from one ‘family’ to another.  There will always be arguments about just how much is ‘much’, and how little is ‘a little’.  It all depends upon what is being compared to what, and here the possibilities are endless.  Words are very imperfect tools, and their limitations must be respected.

            I would like to see clubs forget about ‘words’ for a while and encourage everyone to engage in the humble (and fun) study of moving dogs of all proportions, switching form one gait to another, and over different types of terrain -- in life and on both slow motion and regular film -- until we humans get the ‘feel’ of what is going on under the dog’s skin.  In this way, the ‘live horse’ can slowly be moved around to the front of the cart.  Not until after the dog fancy accepts the fact that the ‘cart’ (Standard) is inanimate and lifeless, can its details for construction become relevant.  Sound knowledge of the living horses and the road will dictate what sort of repairs should be made to the wagon.”

Monica Henderson Stoner
All rights reserved by the author.