Standards

The great value of Standards is the stability they give to breeds. They remain the same no matter what whims o fashions breeders and judges at any time develop and ry to popularize. The very fact that the Standard is there, the bedrock upon which the breeds rest, acts as a brake on breeders individual interpretations of its meaning. If one breeder or group of breeders sets to “improve” a breed in a particular point, another will se this “improvement” as an exaggeration and possibly a danger and will take steps to prevent it being developed to the detriment of the breed. When the Bull Terrier’s downface was being developed, some extremely badly made and unsound dogs became champions simply because they had downfaced heads. Happily, other breeders recognized the danger and set out to correct the breed’s conformation and to ensure its continuance as a functional variety.

Such is the value of this stability of the Standards that it is only after the most serious consideration that they may be changed. Their clarification and expansion are often desirable; in fact the majority of them would be improved by being stated in more explicit terms, But that is a very different matter from changing them to suit a particular breed as it is at any given moment. This is nothing less than expediency aimed at turning throw-outs into winners.

Nevertheless, there is some justification for changing the Standards of those breeds that have been developed from somewhat primitive types into more sophisticated ones. It is sometimes necessary to add essential points immured earlier, or to correct errors in standards of new breeds (often drawn up by people not particularly well versed in dogs and their anatomy). And those of foreign breeds (often wrongly translated). But to change breeds to comply with the fashion of the moment there can be no justification. This applies particularly in the mater of size. Because in many breeds it is easier to breed a dog larger, or smaller, than stipulated in the Standards, there is tendency to alter the Standards to fit these more easily achieved dimensions; a few years later this is done again and so it goes on spreading dissatisfaction and distrust in the path of each change, and ending with a breed no longer in accord with its original function.

The Breed Standards must be regarded as inviolable – tamper about with the foundations and the whole edifice becomes unstable .To improve, clarify and expand is one thing, but to alter the type or dimensions of the dog is an altogether more serious matter and must be permitted only after the most careful consideration involving all bodies concerned with the breed’s welfare at any time.

Not every aspect of the breed is covered and there is much left unsaid in all Standards – and more again to be read between the lines. Many authors of breed books have written more explicit descriptions and explanations of various points and problems concerning their breeds and these should all be read and studied.

Standards describe the breeds piecemeal , point by point, but judges must consider each dog as a whole, a consideration that limits the value of Standards as an aid to judgement. One foremost judge recently stated that she had never in a lifetime of judging dogs read a Breed Standard; her very considerable knowledge had been gained by studying actual dogs and by talking to breeders and judges. But for most judges Standards are an invaluable guide, philosopher and friend, without which their task would be infinitely more difficult, their status as judges of repute less tenable; the authority of the Standards provides the justification for there decisions in any question of doubt.