Comitis Cleopatra

My thanks, to the Club, for the invitation to judge their Club Show and the hospitality shown to Peter and myself. Thanks, also, to my Stewards, Wendy Mooney and Denise Townsend, who valiantly coped with the paperwork in the, at times, rather blustery conditions, keeping everything going smoothly! Thank you to the exhibitors, also, who entered for my opinion. The grass, in the ring, wasn’t exactly “bowling green”, so it certainly sorted out the good from the bad, on the move! As is usual, from me, not an “everything in the garden is rosy” preamble! After 35 years, living and breathing Border Terriers, I tell it, as I see it! As with my last appointment, Crufts, it is just over a 3 year gap, since I judged the Breed in the UK. I had obviously made my point, last time, that I wouldn’t pass the excessively broad skull, almost caricature like, that had become popular, despite the Standard asking for “Head like that of an Otter. Moderately broad in skull”, as there were none I thought overdone, on the day. I think, the problem lies, possibly, that the Standard doesn’t specify, as I was taught, that it refers to English River Otter, some people, mistakenly thinking the commoner headed Sea Otter, or deeper stopped Asian Short Clawed Otter is being referred to. There is a big difference between the three! Not helped by critiques, apparently, praising “broad” skulls, which, to me, sends out the wrong signals! At Crufts, I had thought the breed had turned a corner, with regard to forehands ie. shoulder and upper arm construction…….how wrong was I?!!! I think I had the full range of faults today, upright shoulders, short upper arm, out at the elbow, sometimes all on the same exhibit! The widest part of a Border Terrier, “Essentially a working Terrier”, bred to go to ground, shouldn’t be the elbows, this fault usually being because the forehand isn’t set on the body correctly, being too far forward, due to a short, steep upper arm, usually, although not always, accompanied by an upright shoulder. These faults also affect that other line from the Standard “Capable of following a horse”, as, due to the incorrect angles, the movement is no longer efficient, being restricted to a shorter, hackneyed, step in profile, almost as though they are walking on hot coals, due to the foreleg not reaching full extension. It may look ok, coming and going, being accurate, as the shorter stride means there is less room for error, but the lack of a ground covering stride would mean the dog working twice as hard on the move, doing its job, soon becoming exhausted. This was brought home to me, discussing the stamina of various dogs with a friend, his son exercising their two Border Terrier champions chasing after him, on horseback, around a field. The accurate mover, with the shorter stride was soon exhausted, having had to work twice as hard, whereas the more angulated one, with the longer, ground covering stride, was up for more! Like, usually breeds like, good forehands being bred for. They don’t appear as if by magic! I am well aware that these faults are seemingly being passed by Judges, not just in the UK, at the very highest level, but that doesn’t mean that they are either correct or desirable and they are very difficult to breed out. I’m left wondering, having read a number of critiques, then having seen, or judged the dogs being praised, are the Seminars failing to educate the correct mechanics of economical movement, or are people just not seeing the movement faults, as long as its trots up and down, with its head and tail up, showing nicely for the Judge! Conversely, as ever, hind movement was pretty good. It was interesting to note that those I have rewarded in the past, with the correct forehands and narrow fronts, at Crufts and previous engagements, came back, having retained their virtues and have also passed the same, narrow, lithe bodylines on to the next generation. If they are made right, they last right! A working Terrier, whose front is going, or has gone, by the time it is reaching maturity, is neither use nor ornament and is a liability to itself and its owner. I would like to think, from ring side, that it was obvious that I was looking for Borders with a pattern of moderation and workmanlike construction, with sound, free, scopey movement, who also had quality and style. It wasn’t always easy, in some classes, but I thought my final line ups, in both sexes, demonstrated my priorities. On the whole, coats and pelts were good, as always my opinion being that coats are transient. I don’t expect them to be aimed specifically, time wise, for me, as I am more concerned with correct construction, but it is “the icing on the cake.” As long as there was evidence of the correct textures, no one was unduly marked down, until it came to the top honours. Most were spannable, although very few were easily spannable, slightly worrying, as my hands have a big span! This isn’t just a UK problem! Mouths were all acceptable, a few with the odd broken tooth, which is only to be expected in a working Terrier and certainly wouldn’t be penalised by me.

My thanks go to the committee for the invite to judge at this well run show, also grateful thanks go to the exhibitors for allowing me to go over their dogs and the sporting manner that they accepted my decisions. I was pleased to see overall nice typical heads. The majority of dogs were presented in a proper tweedy jacket with plenty of pelt; this is not just pleasing to see but a necessity for a working terrier. Just one level bite which is permissible, concerning was wide fronts which seemed to be the rule rather than the exception, some I had difficulty in spanning, which had a bearing on my placements.