|
| [ Home || FC/UKI Breed Standard || About Us || Helpful Tips || Photo Gallery || Friends || Favorite Links || Contact Us ] |
| [ News & Updates || Boys || Girls || Puppies || Guarantee Policy || Fair Prices || Outside Litters || Stud Service Policy ] |
 |
 |
|
Chapter VII - The Top Breeder and Judge Because this book is on advanced breeding I am now only concerned with Path Three and those on the top one-third of the pyramid, the good and the top breeders. The buyers who have taken Path One will have reached as far as their judgement, their powers of persuasion and their purse will have allowed, while those on Path Two will still be grading up slowly and steadily and again will be nearing the height that the goodness of their bitches, and also the competence of the judge of the day in selecting the top dogs, will take them. Any of these breeders may have graduated into the 'good' category, but now we take Path Three to go to the very top. Which leads me to try and define exactly what I mean by top breeder and where and why he differs from the good breeder. The very first thing that springs to mind is that you yourself will know immediately you become a top breeder because your world suddenly turns upside down. Up to now you have been on the side of the pyramid clambering up and getting by hook or by crook nearer the summit and suddenly there you are at the top, looking down. Now you will find that when choosing your puppies, very few of them, even those you have bred so carefully yourself will stand up to your kennel of Champions and near-Champions. And when selecting the stud-dog for one of your bitches you are no longer looking for a dog to grade her up, but will find that you are desperately discarding even the top Championship dogs one by one because with each one you feel that they will let your bitch down and that you will lose some point you have spent several years carefully establishing. This may sound arrogant and kennel-blind, but I can assure you that it is what happens when you become a top breeder because you will know you have a line of gorgeous bitches of your own making and very few dogs stand up to their quality. And this mention of a line of your own leads me further on in defining the difference between top breeder and the good one. I have given careful thought as to where to draw this dividing line and believe that to be the top breeder, you must yourself have bred three Champions in different litters from homebred bitches after you have been in the breed for at least nine years, and must also made them up yourself. This may seem an odd definition but I have method in my seeming madness. If you have started with a superior bitch from an expert's kennel and mated her well, very often with the advise of the seller, you may breed a Champion straight away because you are cashing in on the cleverness of the original breeders of both stud-dogs and brood-bitch. You may even breed a Champion in your second generation, still under the influence of the original strains, or even by chance. But if you breed three Champions and have been in nine years so that you are probably three generations down, then it is not luck. You are using your stuff right and at least nine Championship judges will have ratified this by signing at least nine CCs for you. That is why I specify three homebred Championship from three different litters and the reason I say you must have made them up yourself is that you wouldn't be up to much where you to sell your best three products to date, thus cutting your own throat. You must at least be able to recognise your own good products. I always feel very sorry for the 'lucky' breeder who starts off with too good a buy as a foundation bitch. He or she may make her up and so feel he or she has 'arrived' whereas in reality he or she knows nothing. Some may learn from their initial super bitch, but nothing can put a novice more wrong than breeding several Champions from their foundation bitch, so getting too far up the ladder without having to work for it. The pressure on anyone who is exhibiting Champions is always very great because learners and novices ask your advice, people rush to use your dog, show secretaries ask you to judge and all these before you learned anything and you just don't know how to cope with it, although you may think you do. You have been landed on the top of the pyramid by helicopter instead of having had to climb up the hard way, so have missed out on your schooling and you have no real experience of your own. When the time comes when you can no longer cash in on the excellent work of the breeders behind your super bitch you are lost and great is the fall from the very top to the bottom. It may take you all your Labrador life to climb up back again, if ever you do. But when you have been in your nine years or more and have bred your own three Champions then you really can claim to be the top breeder and will have laid the foundation that will last you all your life. You will never again be satisfied with mediocrity. I am quite sure that to stay up at the giddy pinnacle the very first essential is to have a fixed and clear idea. It sees to help enormously if you are or have been connected with horses because you will not only have learnt conformation, but also by riding will have felt just what happens to your own joints, not to mention those of the wretched horse if its conformation is wrong. To work a dog is also extremely useful for the same reason. You actually find out what happens to a dog with faulty conformation and the struggle it has to compensate for wrong angulation and balance, especially when coming down a steep bank or negotiating an obstacle with heavy bird or a hare in its mouth. The third great help in breeding for excellence is to be able to draw, because you will be able to see exactly what a shape or an angle should be and you will be able to evaluate those elusive things, line, quality and balance. Symmetry and beauty are also points that the top breeders get on their stock. All these are abstracts that many of the good and well-known breeders who were all of Championship judge status. I was not surprised when all three of these judges told me that they did not take into consideration "beauty" in a Labrador when judging. It explained to me why none of these three were top breeders or judges, but only run-of-the-mill good ones, because they were missing out on something that the top breeders and judges do put on their dogs. All three had a blind spot and if they hadn't realized this point by now they never would. All thre bred good workmanlike stock which do fairly well at Championship show level, all three are competent and respected judges, but they all lack the flair to become top breeders and will I'm afraid stay at their present level for ever. How can you point out beauty and balance and symmetry if their 'eye' cannot see these things themselves? This is why I have a feeling that the true top breeders are born and not made. These don't learn by example and rote, they have inborn flair and artistry and can see abstracts for themselves. Granted education in their chosen breed helps because one must know the specialist requirement for any breed, but I fear that the eye and flair must be born in you and can never be acquired. To become a good breeder one must have learned by experience and hard work what is required in a Labrador and why, but to be a top breeder one has to go further than this and add the extras that raise a dog from the competence of a good one into the category of a lovely one. So now we come to what is required in a Labrador. Just as in the antique market there are three values, one for insurance purposes, one for the saleroom, and one how you value the object yourself, so in Labradors there are three criteria. The first is what the Standard requires, the second is what one is asked for when judging and third is what you yourself want in your own kennel. Their severity rises steeply in that order. I tis easy to say that all you have to do is know and understand the Standard and stick to it when judging, but there is so much more to it than that. Were you to take the Standard to a Field Trial it would be possible that half the competitors would answer the Standard, by no stretch of the imagination would they be show dogs. The Standard is just a blue-print telling you the general requirement, i.e. the sort of coat that is required, the general build and the pattern that divides the Labrador from, say, the Flatcoat. But when you judge at a class at a Championship show there will be perhaps twenty Labradors which exactly follow the Standard and yet there will be moderate specimens, good ones and outstanding ones, and you have to sort them. Also it must be remebered that there are very few faults mentioned in the Standard so that the division between bad, better and good has to be in your own mind, gained from knowledge and experience. No dog is perfect and even in those that are very, very hard to fault there is always something that divides them. Indeed you may not be able to find any real faults, only the odd failing, of which all exhibits will have one or two, so that you now have to look for virtues and evaluate them against the failings that makes a top judge. Any beginner can spot a faults, some can spot failings, although few know how to evaluate them if they are only slight, but very very few can spot positive virtues. This is always a very discouraging thing to a top exhibitor who feels rightly that they might just as well not bothered carefully to breed in that extra virtue when even a Championship show judge does not realise it is there. So the first thing necessary in a good judge is to be able to go right into a dog from nose-tip to heel-end, and to know the difference between faults and failings, necessities and bonus qualities. As a general rule, I count wrong points of construction as faults and little 'ifs' as failings. For example I know from experience of working on steep ground and also from riding experience that a short steep shoulder causes an animal to somersault when coming down with an extra weight either on its back or in its mouth. The weight comes too far forwards for the dog or horse to be able to save itself, the fore-leg acting as a vaulting pole. Only if the lay-back and elbow angulation are correct and the shoulder long can the concertina-springs come into action and cushion the impact. so when judging, a bad shoulder is a major fault for me and is penalised heavily. I never again respect a judge who once said to me that a bad shoulder was 'Just one of those things', because I knew she did not really know the full consequences of such a fault. To me she should not have been judging. Straight elbows cause a thud right down to the foot when the dog is carrying a weight, thus laying in bone-trouble for the future, while straight stifles not only do the same but cause wrong pressure on the spine. Only if a dog is correctly angulated is the impact of its own weight when carrying a bird at the gallop or over a jump protected against the jarring and the resulting tiredness from incorrect action. Certainly a dog can work with bad conformation, although this is one thing that the Field Trial dogs seldom have, but remember that working in spite of being wrongly made, not because of it, and that extra unnecessary strain and stress is being placed not only on the joints and heads of the bones, but on muscles, tendons and ligaments as well. So when judging I rate wrong conformation, including thin bone and feet, weak pasterns and back lines as faults and penalise them heavily. Other points which to me constitute faults are over-short muzzles, short necks (both cause difficulty in retrieving) and thin single coats, also what I call half-coats, i.e. those that have a strip of hard top-coat along the back reaching only to the top of the ribs and a short fluff down the sides and under the body. In other words when judging I divide the points that will in my opinion affect the dog's work and well being adversely into faults and consider anything else as failings. Into the latter category come such things as big heavy ears, eyes too light or too dark, particularly the latter, tails carried slightly wrong, or a little long or perhaps over-short. Even the coat may be slightly wrong length or texture, so long as it is not so wrong as to affect the dog in water. There are a host of slight and really slight and really rather unimportant minor faults which one could carp about, but if the dog is decent sort otherwise, I would never penalize a dog too heavily for minor failings. It is just bad luck that one's otherwise lovely dog should have a lowish tail carriage, or even a high one, or that the eye is a shade light or dark, but it will not affect the work. But a wrong mouth, bad conformation or a lack of coat are actually dangerous to the dog in the long run, so should be stamped out. Now we come to a difficult point when judging and that is temperament, and here we are not all in agreement. Seeing that to me a Labrador is a shooting dog and a friendly, willing servant, and for me that is its only job, I look for that sort of temperament. I do not approve of guards or of arrogance, neither do I like the over-boisterous, the rowdy, the over-shy or the very nervous dog. I am speaking now of adults because a degree of happy abandon in a puppy or even perhaps a little diffidence is very forgivable. The rowdy puppy will usually settle down and the diffident gain confidence. But as for any trace of temper, aggressiveness, jealousy or even sulkiness, then I hate them and in the case of temper or aggressiveness would send them right out of the ring. It is easier to describe the right temperament in a Labrador than the various wrong ones, so what I look for is a happy, cheerful, willing dog that will look you straight in the face, coming up freely to your hand and not pulling away from it. A willingness to stand when the handler asks and to move freely when they set off down the ring. I like a nice waving tail carried well and not slashing the sides. A bad fault as anyone who had a broken artery at the tip will know. In other words I look in general for an attractive, happy, well-made Labrador without constructional faults, with a good head and expression, nice reach of neck and long sloping, clean shoulders, a strong body and loin, strong hindquarters with both front and rear correctly angulated, a strong thick-based tail and a good double-coat clothing the dog all-over, even under the body and inside the thighs. And I like good strong bone, with clean sharp hock with no crumbly spongy excrescences, the dog well balanced on good legs and feet and standing over its hind legs with the bone from hock to ground when standing naturally. I penalise anything that I think will affect the work. Few of these things I have mentioned actually appeared in the Standard, but the good dogs owned by the top breeders never go far wrong in any of these points. They are considered sine qua non in a top Labrador. If the dog is made right the movement is usually passable too, although Labradors are not noted for excellent hind-action. But this is usually wrong hindquarters and if you get these right, the movement should not be bad. If it is then examine the quarters again because there will be a reason even if you have not spotted it before. Funnily enough I believe this only applies to hind movement, because I have found that attitude of mind can affect front-movement. The self-conscious bitch that swaggers down the ring may pin-toe for no reason at all and over-excitement may cause her to throw her legs at all angles. A check with the lead and a sharp 'No' will often cause her to revert to perfect action in front. It can also be seen that a Labrador that carries its own lead when moving in the ring will adopt a very curious stilted front-movement, again with nothing wrong in conformation. The attitude of mind affect the front action, but does not seem to reach the backlegs. If they are wrong then there will be a constitutional fault, either in the set of the pelvis or the angulation, the hip, the hock or the stifle. And when moving I like a dog to cover the ground without undue exaggeration of movement, always remembering that in a long day's shooting every unnecessary flourish wastes much needed muscular energy and will cause the dog to be unduly tired at the end of the day. Long smooth, easy movement, yes, but florid exaggeration is a waste of energy, as is 'bicycling' or throwing the legs up in front. The English method of judging is very different from the Continental or American ideas. We look to see that the "Forest" is all right, i.e. the general idea of the Labrador, noting its outline, balance, stamp and style. Then we look at the individual 'trees' and judge them according to what we learnt over the years, never forgetting the Standard, or the fact that the dog must have nothing to stop him working. Then we sum up all these things and place accordingly. Other countries do not bother overmuch about the forest, but pay the greatest attention to the actual trees, penalising the slightest failing very heavily. We judge on the general likeliness and idea, they fault-judge as a general rule. The consequence is that we go for the best dog even if there is an obvious failing, whereas abroad the same failing will put it right out. Our method produces high class stock, theirs mediocrities with nothing whatsoever actually wrong with them. This is Path Two and Path Three all over again, the steady plod or leaps of brilliance. When judging I prefer the English method and so do the majority of the English judges. The top judges add the recognition of exotic values such as quality, finish, beauty and balance. When judging I have a very clear idea of exactly what I want in every part of a Labrador. I must emphasise that my requirements may not be the same as other judges, but are entirely my own personal opinion. To analyse my particular viewpoint, when judging I look for a strongly built active dog neither too ponderous nor lightly got-up. I like a clean but generous head, with a fairly long, very broad muzzle carrying the wide nose-bone right to the end with a big wide nose, and good wide open nostrils. Enough depth of muzzle, though not too deep, with lot's of work in it such as nice bulbous lips. Big white teeth of correct scissors bite, although I couldn't care less about missing pre-molars, unless I am judging abroad when I have to follow their standards. A good pronounced stop with well set diamonds shaped eyes, neither too big, too small, nor slit nor almond shaped. These must contrast with the coat colour and must look at you with no furtiveness or arrogance. I like a broad fluted brow rising into a broad skull of beautiful curving lines, neither flat nor domed. No trace of frown or scowl but with good brows and stop. Ears neither too big nor too small, but neat and well-carried. I like them just to reach the inner edge of the same eye, so as to be able to wipe away tear-drop, but not more. The neck for me must be long and set right back into good shoulders. A virtue is the long crested neckline with the short throat, not the other way up. Surely this is only common-sense yet is completely ignored by most judges. The neck should be strong and fairly clean, though not 'dry' which to me is untypical. Shoulders are terribly important to me and must be long, oblique and clean. The shoulder blade (Scapula) laid right back, the shoulder-joint virtually at the right-angle with the upper arm (Humerus). Then a definite angle at the elbow, of approximately 145 degrees. The fore-leg dropping vertically to the ground with good strong pasterns, the excellent bone carrying right down into the feet, so that there is no weak-wristed effect. Neat round feet neither too small nor too large, neither cat nor hare, but sensible Labrador feet, not splayed or spread but with well arched toes, making a neat finish to the leg-bone. A strong back with good big ribs in both dog and bitch, with plenty of room both in width and length, though meeting a very strong loin (short-coupled, the loin not the ribcage being the coupling). The chest neither wide nor narrow. Good depth of brisket with legs neither over long nor too short, but balanced to the length of the body. Ribs carried well back so that the dog is not too cut up but has a good level underline. Wide strong loin and haunches with no trace of haunchbones showing. Good length of rump, measured from hips to point of buttock. Well-set, well-carried tail, of balanced length, to me short being preferable to long, with very thick almost oval root in both dog and bitch, rounding off down the length and tapering to a point. When judging I always feel for the point of tail as I have come across Labradors with the last joint removed at birth which was once quite a usual trick amongst gamekeepers, but one seldom meets it now I am glad to say. I am very particular about the coat of a Labrador and like it exactly as the Standard lays down. I look for good strong, round quarters with well developed thighs and also good second thighs, clean sharp hocks, a good strong cannonbone running vertically to the ground and the dog standing correctly on its pads, neither too much on the toenails nor back on the heels. I like strong bone all round, and I am also very keen on quality and both sorts of balance, i.e. symmetry and also the sort known to horsemen, which is correct distribution of weight around the point of gravity at all paces. To sum up, a beautiful head, a long neck with good shoulders, a good dense double coat, a true otter tail, good bone, quality, balance in two senses and added to this I love beauty of the line. |
|
|