A History Lesson — Part II
by Gretchen Bernardi
The subject of last month’s article, A History Lesson—Part I, was a change in mood that was sweeping the AKC in 1986 and 1987, beginning with the Delegate Advisory Committee that recommended changes to the rules governing championships. Those recommendations were initially met with reserved approval, but that approval, upon closer reflection and argument, quickly turned to disapproval and those rules were defeated.
In that same spirit of change, another committee was working in a different area of purebred dogs. In 1986, the board appointed the Delegate Advisory Committee to AKC’s Board Committee on Judging Research and Development, charged with addressing the holiest of holies: the breed standards.
Dr. Bernard McGivern chaired the committee, which, like the one referenced earlier, consisted of well-known, experienced members of the fancy: Patrick Baymiller, Mary Ann Deines, Patricia Laurans, Alan J. Stern, Judith Daniels, Roger Hartinger, John Lawreck, Eleanor Rotman and Dorothy Welsh.
In retrospect and with the benefit of hindsight, I think it is fair to say that the AKC—both board and staff—was honestly responding to increasing complaints about breed judging and having recently introduced mandatory testing for prospective judges, wanted to make it easier for judges to understand the various breeds through their standards, expecting that this understanding would lead to better judging. Armed with what they perceived as (and most probably were) perfectly good intentions, I don’t think they were prepared for the reaction of some clubs and the strength and the variety of those reactions, both in favor and in opposition, are the most interesting aspects of this particular part of our past.
The committee contacted all parent clubs and asked their opinions on making all standards conform to a standardized format for order and content using standardized terminology. In August of 1987, the committee reported that 84 parent clubs responded and 65 expressed clear support for the program and only one “expressed disagreement with the concept.” Because that number, out of all parent clubs, doesn’t seem all that promising to me, the committee should probably have seen hard times ahead.
The committee recommended “that a program be undertaken to remedy shortcomings in the breed standards.” The committee further wrote: “We want to emphasize we are not recommending changing standards. However, we will be evaluating your standard and where we think greater clarity is required, whether it is because of missing description, incomplete or insufficient description, incorrect or ambiguous terminology or poor sentence construction, such shortcomings will be cited.” Who could believe that such requirements would not involve change? The concept of “reformatting” became suspect to some clubs.
I was a new delegate in 1987 and was serving on the board of directors of the Irish Wolfhound Club of America and that particular club did not take kindly to accusations that the standard written by the man who had actually created our standard in the time of the breed’s resurrection was incomplete, insufficient, incorrect or ambiguous. It had served the breed well with very little alteration and was, besides, a historical document. Soon, surprisingly, we learned that, in fact, several clubs had serious objections. We were not alone.
From the Saluki Club of America: “We are on record in June and September 1987 following the SCOA’s meetings of the Board of Directors as not favoring their recommendation and they have been informed of our position by letters.” The secretary of the Saluki club continued: “The Board’s position was taken for very much the same reasons as you present with the added reasons (1) that we felt that ‘formatted’ standards make for deadly dull reading and (2) the AKC Saluki video is available to all who wish additional information than is addressed in the standard.”
From the Irish Terrier Club of America: “Our Judges Education Committee reviewed the AKC materials in depth and voted unanimously to oppose the program. Their recommendation was forwarded to the ITCA Board of Governors. The ITCA Board voted to oppose the program.” The letter continues: “The consensus was that the standardization would trivialize the differences between the breeds. This program might assist judges with minimal abilities to increase their range of activities by focusing on the similarities of breeds rather than the differences.”
The Scottish Deerhound Club of America, which, surprisingly, polled both its board of directors and its membership, joined the wolfhound club by “firmly declining to participate in this program. Breed standards are written as a guideline for breeders,” the club president wrote. “We believe that our standard has admirably served that purpose for many years. We do not believe that standards should be modified principally to enhance their quality as an educational tool for judges.” The Borzoi Club of America also declined to participate in the program and they were particularly opposed to the book the AKC said should be used for terminology, arguing that the Australian author often used terms not familiar to Americans.
The Greyhound Club of America’s response gave a possible explanation why so many of the clubs in opposition to the plan were hounds. The president wrote that he had “the most concern for certain of the hound breeds where the working abilities are set forth in words which are not visible for the eyeball test. This makes the working hound breeds impossible to judge on general appearance.” He was further reminded, he wrote, “that the future of the breeds does not lie with the ladies and gentlemen who successfully administer the affairs of the American Kennel Club and who are not necessarily dog people.”
One of the most outraged responses came from the Harrier Club of America. Perhaps because this club, representing a low-number breed, was reasonably inactive, AKC took its standard as an example of what the AKC intended: Harrier Standard—Before and After. “Is it possible, “ asked the club’s president in response, “that those who don’t know what a stern is, shouldn’t breed or judge hounds or sporting breeds? … Sir, I am amazed that a ‘classic’ standard of 21 concise, accurate and descriptive lines can become a 119 line mutant colossus full of redundancies, untruths and inaccuracies, changed in both content and intent.”
In a letter expressing his personal opinion prior to the club’s official vote, the late James Edward Clark, the then-delegate from the Greyhound Club of America, wrote, in his customary elegant style:
“A breed standard must remain the domain of the parent club of that breed. It is assumed that a person endeavoring to comprehend a breed standard has some background in dogs. It is further assumed that a breed standard will contain certain nuances, to better describe that dog. If an aspiring judge is unable to comprehend those nuances in the written word, his ability to recognize them in an animal brought under his hand must be questioned.”
Although there were then far fewer publications dedicated exclusively to dogs, the standardization program was a popular topic for the columnists of the day. Richard Meen, M.D., president of the Canadian Kennel Club, wrote that, “Perhaps it has been forgotten, or perhaps never even known, that the ‘breed standards’ were never written for judges, but as ‘blueprints’ for breeders.”
Bo Bengston wrote that, although involved in a breed, “whose standard has been changed in 1944, 1955, 1971, 1976 and 1983, I find the current trend of ‘streamlining’ the breed standards totally unacceptable. If a judge doesn’t want to learn the standard in its traditional form, he should not be judging that breed in the first place, and he would do both himself and the rest of us a great favor if he refrained from doing so.”
An individual who remains unknown to me wrote, “If a breed fails correctly or incorrectly to mention bite, jaw, dentition or gait it is not within the Board’s power to mandate that these items be added. AKC may recommend, they may suggest, they may implore, they may plead—they may not authorize nor may they change these Standards by denial.”
Of course, the truth is that most clubs went right along with the program, driven primarily, I believe, by the belief that there really would only be a little reformatting, a slight rearrangement, a few changes in terminology. The most interesting letter in my files came from a club that stated that it was in favor of the program because its standard was “terribly outdated,” having been written in 1890. How interesting that some clubs fiercely protected their standards for the reason that they were so old and historic and here is one that wanted to shed it for that same reason.
In reviewing the documents and letters on this subject and thinking back on those times, I am struck by two things: the fiery refusal by the clubs that objected to the program and the AKC’s calm and usually polite and solicitous behavior in trying to change their minds. Letter after letter requests face-to-face meetings or written input. One AKC staffer was particularly eager to come to terms with a club’s objection: “What can we do at this time to more fully communicate our goals and means of attaining them? …We are ready to do whatever is feasible to continue the dialogue.”
I have no way of knowing how many clubs changed their standards or to what degree or how readily. And I would really like to know if members of these clubs who did change their standards feel now that it was a wise thing to have done and whether or not doing so increased the quality of judging in their respective breeds.
One of the common criticisms of the delegates is a general resistance to change, any change. Was resistance to change the primary reason behind the very recent defeat of the Group Realignment Proposal? Was this refusal to change the number of groups yet another display of clinging to an outdated past, or like the standardization of the standards proposal, a reasoned and passionate desire to protect the sport and the breeds?
Gretchen Bernardi
Short URL: https://caninechronicle.com/?p=2955
Posted by admin
on Apr 12 2012. Filed under Current Articles, Featured.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments are closed
