The impact of dogshows

One of our member has contributed an article about the development of the dog show business and the impact on our working arctic dogs. This article is written from a European perspective where negative show breeding is extremely widespread. It is also written from the FCI standard perspective.In other parts of the world, the problem is less widespread. for example, in the USA, you can still exhibit some of our arctic breeds of the old classic type and get a fair assessment of them. We are grateful for the article and have freely translated it, the article is originally written in Swedish. The article has already been published in the member's magazine (Polarhunden) for the Swedish club for polar dogs which is part of the Swedish Kennel Club.

For those of you who prefer to read it in Swedish, you can download it here.

Why do we exhibit our dogs? 

How has over 100 years of exhibition activity affected our breeds? From a population and conservation perspective.

When I was a kid, I thought dog shows were super fun because there were so many dogs to look at. For a long time I thought it was fun to show dogs and meet dog people. I was also active for a period in junior handling. But over the years I have re-evaluated a lot of the dog shows as a phenomenon and how they affect our breeds and dogs as individuals. There are so many impressions that remain when you have visited a dog show or studied the results after assessments and you think about what you experience. What is bad and wrong naturally occupies the mind because it hurts and affects so many breeds. 

This article is based on my own experiences and what others have shared with me. When I write articles, I always ask around and hear what people think and think about the subject. This is to create a breadth of content and not just start from my own thoughts.

Above: Alaskan malamute. On the left a more athletically designed dog in line with the breed standard's requirements for function and on the right a show type dog. The show dog lacks resilience, has a poorly developed hindquarters and short limbs. The show types of this breed also tend to be very broad, heavy and coarse, the skulls also heavy and coarse. Even if the malamute is a freight hauler, it must not become too heavy or unathletic in body.

What has over 15,000 years of interaction with humans done to our dogs? 

Right up until perhaps 100 years ago, there were plenty of healthy dogs around the world. Dogs that were bred for function and not for the opinion of its appearance by a single judge. Or stray dogs that bred based on the principle "Fit for function". How is it then that so many of our breeds have lost a lot in the physical conditions for function in barely 100 years? A physique suitable for hard physical work at good speed and sustained over a long period of time? Why have so many breeds become so unhealthy in both body and health? Why does the classic breed type of our working breeds today collide with the possibility of winning at a dog show?

By studying a large amount of archival images from the time when our breeds were established in the Western world and the breed standard was written, we get a conclusion on what type of dog the breed standard basically asks for. We also get a picture of what can be considered part of the natural variation in breed type and what falls outside the scope of the natural variation in appearance. It also becomes clear what part of the modern occurrence of types within the breed is caused by breeding linked to the dog show business and subjective opinion. It also becomes clear how details important to function have degenerated in the show ring. Almost all show models of our breeds have been given a poorly developed rear frame with short femurs, which means that they can no longer generate the power exchange that is important in a working dog. Dogs that win in the rings often also show signs of generally shortened bone parts of the body.

Above: Siberian Husky. On the left a historical picture of dogs that worked in practical use and for survival. The middle is a functional modern husky of the right breed type for work in the harness, following the standard's requirements for function. On the right, a show model that lacks many of the functional attributes, a less developed hindquarters, shorter limbs, thicker skull and body. The show model is rarely athletically built, which requires more energy to move itself in relation to the work ability. The latter a regular winner in the show rings but with poorer conditions for physical performance.

All our working breeds were originally athletically designed. We can compare with runners. The best runners have athletic relatively light bodies because it provides the most power in relation to the amount of energy. Dogs that must work hard and for a long time must not be heavy, rough and set. If the judges wish to contribute to breed management, the physical hardness and survivability of the origin must be clearly discernible in the left turn, even in today's cleaner and safer existence.

Above: The image on the left and the following quote are taken from the RAS (Breed Specific Breeding Strategy) for the Samoyed 2021. "This is a male dog who is SEUCH and has won a lot in the show rings but unfortunately had to end his life too soon as his body construction caused him stress/wear and tear injuries in the hinge joints due to his build/construction, an overly large, wide, deep and angled chest was the cause of the problems according to the attending vet. The vet also said that these types of injuries were common in dogs with this type of chest construction. The vet compared this to Rottweilers who often suffer from these injuries due to their large and heavy chests. In addition to the excessively large and over-angulated chest, this dog also exhibits an overly compact and low-set appearance, which is detrimental to the dog's function. Both show judges and breeders need to be better at affirming the attributes that the dog benefits from in an animal welfare perspective rather than what the individual human think it's beautiful to look at".

The basic purpose of dog shows 

No dog type or breed is created for show purposes, least of all our ancient spitz breeds. Our Arctic breeds are a variant of the original Arctic dogs and have ended up in the show rings since they came to the Western world, something that has not always benefited the breeds. Dog shows have been organized since the mid-1800s. There were some hunting dog owners who wanted to judge their dogs and compete for who had the most well-built (to be able to work for a long time in the forest) dog which was the beginning to the dog show. At the time, it was believed that the construction of the show judgments would provide a shortcut to an exceptionally well-built dog to cope with the physical work of the woods.

The basic purpose of dog shows was to support the exterior part of the breeding work. All dog breeds have been bred for a specific task, for example herding livestock, various types of hunting or as draft dogs in the Arctic regions. The breed standard establishes how a dog should look in order to best perform the tasks for the breed's traditional area of ​​use. Well, that's what it was meant to be anyway. But do today's dog shows fulfill this purpose?

The basic idea, thought and purpose of exterior judging dogs and letting them compete against each other is far from how we know the exhibition business today. As the shows grew in popularity, the need for rules to adhere to for participants and judges arose. Fashion trends arose and in modern times this so-called "sport" has come to be more about taste, glitz and glamor and the show itself instead of the breeding evaluation it was once intended to be.

Above: The original idea of ​​dog shows was to find a shortcut to anatomically functional dogs that could work physically hour after hour and day after day in the woods. But how did it actually turn out after more than a hundred years of show breeding?

A judgmental sport

It should be noted that dog shows are a subjective judging sport whose results rest on the personal opinions of the individual judge. Not necessarily on a deeper knowledge of the breed, its history, traditional area of ​​use or the breed type that the breed standard was written for. Nor is it unusual that a type of dog that responds poorly to function and durability is what is given high prices in the rings, this at the expense of those with typical and healthy specimens who have to stand back and are therefore less often chosen for breeding. How can a sport where the dogs are judged subjectively and arbitrarily have such a big impact on the welfare and survival of our breeds?

Is the breed standard clear? 

The breed standard is the document that describes the breed, its history and traditional area of ​​use and the appearance that should support the possibility of performing the traditional area of ​​use is also described in detail part by part. In other words, the detailed description is a more detailed description of the dog's suitability and function in the exterior. The detailed description has a purpose, to support the function for the traditional work, for the polar dogs it is the pulling-/sleddog. The detailed description cannot be taken out of context and interpreted according to one's own opinion. For our ancient breeds, there is also a conclusion about the type of breed they describe, we get an answer to this by studying a larger number of archival images from the time when the breed was established in the Western world. Regardless of the breed, it is the physical attributes with significance for function and durability that should be ranked highest. The physical attributes should be clearly formulated in the standard to prevent exaggerations and typos. Despite this basic knowledge of how a breed standard should be handled, it is difficult to impossible to slice it so clearly that it is not possible to abuse its use. Our standards are relatively clear, but still both judges and breeders choose to override the functional requirements of the breed standard if it does not fit their own opinion of what is cute and sweet, which is the reason why today we have a so-called show type and a so-called utility type within our working breeds.

To follow the breed standard 

It is important to remember that there is a record for our ancient breeds (existing dogtypes we have taken taken care of), there is for several breeds a solid image archive from the time when the breed came to the Western world which makes it clear which type of dog stood as a model for the establishment of the breed standard. If we study these image archives, it also becomes clear how wide the natural variation in appearance really was and what variation in appearance is part of the breed's origin. We also see clearly how many of the new types we see today in the show rings are not part of the natural basic variation and fall outside the scope of the natural variation the breed exhibited when it was established in the Western world. It is clearly stated in our breed standard (at least for the Samoyed) that the dog's faults must be assessed in relation to how they affect the dog's ability to perform its traditional work. The breed's physical details must be in line with the dog's ability to perform the tasks they did historically. How well are we following the breed standard if we create new types of dogs that win in the ring and that are different from the natural variation the breed exhibited in the beginning when the breed standard was established?

Although the older classic breed type is often more accurate and close to the breed standard, you often meet people who speak disparagingly of the older classic breed type and claim that it lacks breed-typical details. The reason is probably that when they first came into contact with the breed, they were presented with a more overtyped show model and constantly surround themselves with dogs from a specific family group that often behave and look a certain way. If I limit my field of vision in this way, I cannot be considered to have enough experience to judge the individual against his standard. It is no understatement to say that in some breeds breeding has drifted away from the classic breed type described by the standard.

Above: This is what over 100 years in the show ring have done with the Chow Chow. It has gone from a healthy and functional typical spitz with a wedge-shaped head to a type of dog that today suffers from its exterior construction. Today, the Chow Chow is one of the breeds with breathing problems etc. How well have you succeeded in following the breed standard when it ends like this? We must remember that the Chow Chow is perhaps 50 years ahead of our polar breeds in developing more and more extreme due to exhibition breeding. This as they were shown earlier at shows than our polar breeds did, they have been exposed to show breeding for another number of decades. How bad will it be for our polar breeds in another 50 years if we don't slow down the influence of exhibitions on our breed and breeding work already now?

Do you know your breed standard? 

Together we take responsibility Studies in how a breed came about and its development historically are a must for the serious breeder. After all, it is only with insight into which characteristics are necessary and therefore distinguish one breed from another that we can move the breed forward and preserve its many thousand-year history.

We must all take responsibility for how the breed standard is used. When the view of a breed and its breed type has changed, i.e. when the change becomes considered standard, then we have crossed the limit of what the breed can tolerate. Then there are obvious risks of the breed type being completely lost. The risk of losing the breed type is particularly great if the connection to the breed's traditional work is neglected. For the majority of our polar breeds, this is already a fact, despite the fact that the judges must always have cover for their claims in the breed standard. When an actual malfunction is perceived as "right", then it becomes common for that fault to be seen on the dogs we see in the rings. Who is led behind the light by whom, the judges by the breeders or the other way around?

Regardless of the type we reward, it is not breed-typical if it does not meet all criteria of the breed standard in a sound build for function and durability in physical work and suitability to perform the breed's traditional work. If there is a type trend, a type drift that moves away from the original breed type in an already narrow breeding base, changes can occur all too quickly that will be difficult to restore. This has already happened to large parts of our polar dog breed populations, which is why a clear plan for restoration work should be established so that we can get the population as a whole to once again exhibit the breed type that the breed standard basically describes. This is the main purpose of breed and specialty clubs, to work on the preservation of our breeds at the population level and take the necessary steps to keep them original and fit for purpose. The SKK should also demand that the judges also contribute to this work.

Are there risks with exhibitions and trends? 

Yes, unfortunately there are great risks with the exhibition business linked to the future and preservation status of our breeds. It affects our breeding work and breed management many times negatively. It is, for example, the breed deviations from the standard that are rewarded and that the tolerance among the judges is constantly increasing when the presented material looks a certain way

When the judges are surrounded both nationally and internationally by dogs that are current for the fashion trends of their time (often see that type of dogs in the rings), it naturally means a risk that the judges' interpretation of the breed standard is adjusted to the prevailing trend and becomes an unofficial standard among the judges, which leads to the breed losing its breed-typical appearance among the show winners. This means that the judge, without a broader perspective, can easily drift away from a correct interpretation of the breed-typical advantages or shortcomings of the presented dogs. That then less experienced breeders (often without objectivity) believe that an individual's own success is the same as the dog being an asset for breeding work. Yes, then we've got problems. It is unfortunately quite soon done to have contributed to a breed, in whole or in part, losing its classic breed type. The greatest danger of creating local/regional/national distinctiveness is among the numerically small breeds. But it may just as well be breeds where many puppies are in demand and are born where the production of puppies is done with a financial gain perspective without safeguarding the breed's preservation that we have great risks.

As the judges reward extremes and type changes, the breeders will breed on it and the material presented in the ring becomes normalized in the eyes of the judges. In this way, various trends in the breed are consolidated where the breeders indiscriminately breed for success in the show ring and over time we get a stronger and stronger type shift among the show winners. Although the judges influence the breeders through their judgments in the ring, it is the breeder who ultimately chooses which dogs will form the parent generation and the building blocks for further work with the generations in a breed-typical breeding. The serious breeder excludes overtyped dogs and dogs that have lost the breed type from their breeding, even though this leads to him having difficulty winning at a show.

Another big risk are breeds such as the Yakutian Laika and the Samoyed which are way too cute for their own good and attract the wrong people who choose them for their looks rather than their ability as a working polar dog. This type of owner who chooses a dog only for a cute appearance tends to quickly follow negative trends in the rings that contribute to us losing the breed type as the important thing for these owners/breeders is only a beautiful appearance in their eyes (a cute dog to look at ) and to win at a show. They rarely or never have an interest in following the breed standard's requirements for a durable and functional working dog of classic breed type as they never intend to work with their dog.

The desire to win and be in the limelight has unfortunately become so strong for many that they easily bend to breed what the judges want to see in the ring instead of following the breed standard. An old breeder told me that he had friends in Finland who at a certain time clearly changed the direction of their breeding. They suddenly showed a completely different type of dog. When asked directly by the Swedish breeder, the well-known Finnish breeder replied that "You have to keep up with the fashion and the temporary trend if you still want to win". And another great breeder has said repeatedly that "If it's teddy bears the judges want, it's teddy bears they'll get", then the breeder changed his breeding and deliberately started breeding a different type of dog. Has the will to win and stand in the limelight become more important than managing the breed and following the breed standard?

This with fashion trends in breeds that can lead to overtyping and type drift can be seen in details such as increasingly shorter muzzles, increasingly larger and more abundant coats, less leg length in the extremities in relation to the body, more mass and weight in the dog (thicker bone structure), increasingly large forechest , etc., attributes that disadvantage speed and endurance. In some of our polar breeds there are now more round and forward-directed eyes, sometimes combined with steep stops and other inaccuracies in the head that are individually at odds with intended function.

Above: Examples of how deviations from the standard after a few generations affect the dog's entire appearance and breed type. On the left we see how the dachshund's leg parts have become even more extremely short instead of just enough so they follow the function of getting into the pot but still have a body that can work in the forest, which the dachshund at the bottom does not have. And if we look at the bull terrier on the right, it's scary what type drift and show breeding have done to the breed. From being an athletically built dog, they are today severely deformed. They have prized an appearance in the rings that the dog himself absolutely does not benefit from in terms of welfare.

Another thing that is worrying when it comes to the show business is that there seems to be a growing number of dogs with greater and greater needs for extreme amounts of fur care and/or owners who use the dog as a model to satisfy their own need to tinker with fur. Is it the fur care itself that you are interested in or the dog as an individual? Of course, we must take care of our dogs, but we must not overdo it.

Recently, we read in the dog sports exhibition supplement that a Samoyed, even if it is not exhibited, must be bathed once a month and brushed and blow-dried. And when it is show season, it must be bathed every week, before every show, if it is to be exhibited on the weekends. It is unfortunate that this is written in such a large magazine as dog sports as it could easily scare off active outdoorspeople into thinking that all Samoyeds require this amount of grooming. Likewise, it is unfortunate that the Samoyed is highlighted as a show breed in such a large dog magazine. Samoyeds with correct polar fur are often quite easy to care for. Many dogs rarely need to be bathed if you brush them a little at regular intervals. Some owners usually give their dogs a bath a year whether they need it or not, others less often. You don't usually need to use the hair dryer until shedding (if you want to minimize the amount of dog hair inside) or if the dog has gotten wet and dirty and you don't want a dirty dog ​​in the home and the dog likes to dig, it can be good to dust off the little sometimes with the dog blow dryer.

The article also stated that the fur around the paws is usually cut, which is actually not allowed. If you go to larger SKK shows, you also unfortunately see how many dogs are clipped, not only around the paws but often also under the stomach, in the pants and ear tips, something that is not allowed but the judges turn a blind eye to it and reward trimmed dogs.

A risk is also that a breeder who may have dogs of a good type but are not awarded by the judges in the ring, instead of keeping his correct breed type that follows the standard, instead buys dogs of the type the judge awards when it has become important for the breeder to win in the ring. This leads to fewer and fewer breeders continuing to breed breed-typical dogs with the classic look as these dogs can no longer win in the ring because the judges think the trendy show model is "nicer" than the functional dog.

Another unfortunate scenario is the new owner with no knowledge of the breed who shows his dog and is told that it has too long a nose, too narrow a muzzle, too little fur, lacks mass in the body, etc. and thinks this is the truth. They easily rely on the judge and assume that they have an atypical dog. Perhaps this owner then develops a desire to next acquire a dog with the opposite appearance. This is because they perceive the judges as experts and that what they say is the right thing. When they get a more show model dog and start winning in the ring, their belief that this look is the right and breed-typical one is reinforced. Then this individual may become interested in breeding and start looking for breeding animals with the appearance that the judges reward in the rings instead of looking for breeding animals that follow the standard and contribute to the preservation of the breed type.

In this way, the change in a breed can go very quickly. An appearance is easily changed via selective breeding in just a few generations. Eventually, the genetic variation within the part of the population that exhibits the older classical breed type becomes so few in number that it dies out and the breed is lost. The only thing that remains is the breed name but not the correct type of dog.

Peer pressure and external influence among the judges 

It is clear that the environment (trends in type drift) unfortunately affects the judgment of many judges. We see this among some of the older judges who previously judged really well but now more adapted to the international show model in their judgement. We also often see how judges who are newly qualified in the breed choose to reward the dogs they have previously seen win for other fellow judges without asking themselves the question if these dogs are really breed typical just because they won for other fellow judges. The judges among themselves influence each other. If a new judge joins the corps who owns dogs of a more modern show type, they will influence their colleagues to adjust their approach to that breed and which type of dog should be awarded.

When one of my old mentors and I were at the dog show in Stockholm a few years ago and watched the judging, we were confused as to why the best dog didn't win in the end. My mentor, who knew the judge from a long time ago, asked after the judging how come he placed best dog second? The judge then answered honestly and sincerely that he agreed that the best dog was second. He defended this by saying that he must be able to defend his assessment in the group finals in front of his fellow judges, who will otherwise come down hard on him. He also said that if it had been a smaller show, he would have moved forward the better dog. It is sad that the judges do not dare to follow the breed standard just because the judging colleagues influence each other to follow trends and reward dogs that no longer follow the classic breed type and the standard's requirements for function.

Another occasion when the judges can be influenced in the wrong direction is at the so-called judges' dinners at the larger SKK shows where the organizers (often breeders with show interests) take the right to unofficially sit down with the judges and influence their view of their own breed. It is clearly noticeable how the trend in the judgments among the judges changes in pace with which individuals (owners and breeders) enter circles where they can unofficially influence the judges' way of judging a certain breed. I myself have heard breeders involved in the SKK organization complain about the few judges who usually decline these judges' dinners, they think it is unsocial and bad of them as they want to be able to talk to them and discuss their assessment of the breed. Some even go so far as to say that the special club should not invite certain judges as they are so unsocial and do not come to judges' dinners at SKK shows. Probably then because they themselves could not influence that particular judge.

The judging conferences that are conducted with the breed standard as a basis and information on the breed's development take place only between the representatives of the breed club and the exterior judging team. So the quality of these conferences depends on who/which individuals are currently on the board. If the board consists mostly of show breeders, these conferences are unfortunately very wrong for our working breeds. It then easily becomes another forum for individuals uninterested in the classic breed type. to influence the judging panel where they risk starting to judge on collision with the functional requirements of the breed standard. After the last exterior judging conference SPHK (swedish polar dog club) held, we suddenly started hearing comments from the judges that were not common before, for example that "yes, but the Samoyed should be slow and not so fast", where did the judges get this from? Did someone from the special club mistakenly tell the referees this? (I have written an article encome about speed and speed before which I refer to for those who are interested in reading more about how I reasoned there.)

Another serious shortcoming is that conformation judges do not have a natural channel of communication and direct dialogue with those who really work with their dogs on a daily basis, regularly work with those in harness and breed for function. An exchange of knowledge where the functional requirements of the breed standard versus reality are rarely or never discussed. This means that the judges easily end up far from reality and what makes a good dog in practice.

Does the judge have the right knowledge of the breed? 

How deep is the knowledge of the judges about each breed they are judging? How many breeds are they authorized for? Do they have time to do in-depth studies in all the breeds they judge? Have the judges themselves worked with the breed they are judging in practical use for several seasons?

It is unfortunate that several judges can talk about function and polar characteristics and then still judge dogs of a type that has developed in the show ring that lacks the important attributes of the classic breed type and the functional requirements described by the breed standard. It is a bit sad that many judges adopted polar characteristics in words and expressions but still did not understand what it means in reality. How does this happen? Is it a reluctance to help the breed on the right path or is it ignorance as they do not know our breed well enough and find it difficult to translate theory into practice?

Above: A clear example of what just 50 years in the show ring has done to the Labrador. If we go back another 50 years, the breed was even healthier and more athletically built. Fortunately, the old type of the breed still exists, but today cannot be exhibited and is often called a hunting labrador. How the judges can think the healthy type is ugly is a mystery to me. It is equally difficult for me to understand that the judges can think that the dog on the right corresponds to a healthy and physically enduring hunting dog. Beauty and function should go hand in hand, not on a collision course like today.

There are risks with a judge liking and awarding e.g. a road-winning trot without power unless the breed standard calls for it, a deviation from the standard can ultimately affect the whole breed type. There is a difference between a dog that just moves its paws forward in a long extended motion and a dog that really puts power into the step and pushes the power down into the ground and back. Many show winners lack the really powerful working trot. Despite this, it was not long ago that a Samoyed with an exceptionally good movement pattern and strong working trot received criticism from the judge that she had an unnecessarily strong push. How is it even possible that a judge can express himself like that when he is judging a working breed that in the show ring often shows a lack of precisely the power of the push in the movements?

An excessively long stride can be caused by the dog being too angled in front or rear stance, which is quite common among show winners today, the stride looks long and extended but lacks power and push in the rear. An over-angled hindquarter that appears in combination with a steep croup is not unusual, and that in working breed dogs. The instability in the hindquarters that can occur with overangulation in the hindquarters can cause cruciate ligament damage, wear and tear of various kinds, osteoarthritis, etc. You sometimes see in these dogs a hardening of the hock joints. It is equally dangerous for the breed type if the judge does not pay sufficient attention to the function of the head shape. In some of our polar breeds there are now more round and forward-directed eyes, sometimes combined with steep stops and other inaccuracies in the head that are individually at odds with intended function.

How is it that a judge completely disregards the breed standard and even somewhat disparagingly tells a girl with a working Siberian Husky who chose to exhibit at an SKK show that her type of dog does not belong at a dog show. The judge is said to have said: "O Dear if you like to go to a dog show go and get yourself a show dog. Please go home and take care of your dogs". How is it possible to treat an exhibitor with standard dogs in this way? How is it possible that SKK invites a judge with that view of a working breed?

Unfortunately, we often hear judges who do not understand why we should have working classes and think it is unimportant whether the dog can work or not, which is also often reflected in the breed type and non-functional attributes they reward in their assessment.

Nor are the utility tests linked to the show merits a guarantee as they are not designed to really evaluate our dogs, but are only at a minimum level that most dogs with little training can handle. Approved function test/use test as a requirement to be able to compete for certificates or championships is important to ensure that our dogs have a minimum of the breed's uniqueness preserved. This minimizes the risk that dogs without a minimum level of the necessary breed-typical working capacity are found in an animal that is rewarded with titles and probably with its title attracts breeders to take them for breeding. The link between function test/use test also gives a good signal that our breeds are working polar dogs and with that the risk is lower that those who want a show dog choose a breed that is created for work and performance.

During the work before the previous judges' conference (not the last one), the breed club for the Samoyed wanted to emphasize the polar characteristics in the compendium, but the responsible judge replied annoyed that she is so tired of the nagging about polar characteristics and there was no reason to write about it in a judges' compendium. Something that shocked the breed club that a judge can express himself like that. We can be happy that the latest judge's compendium, for which Annica Uppström was the responsible judge, highlights to a much greater extent the function and the polar characteristics, a gift to the breed before she left us. It's a shame, though, that some important pictures were dropped and replaced with worse choices after Annica left it and until it went to print.

The judge's free interpretation

SKK has given the judges something they call "free interpretation" = the judge's room for personal interpretation of the breed standard. This seems all too often used to the advantage of the judge's ability to stretch the breed standard and deviate from the basic breed type. In most cases when an exhibitor reports a judgment that has been deemed not to comply with the breed standard, the response from the SKK is often that no measures are taken as the judge's discretion to interpret the breed standard applies. This is devastating to our breeds preservation.

As an example, an occasion can be given when a judge gave a Samoyed with a correctly bisquie color CERT and a couple of months later gave it a VG (worse quality assessment) in quality with reference to that they should it be only white (the standard allows both colors). When the judge was reminded that she had given the dog a certificate just a couple of months before, the judge replied that "yes, but then it was white" to which the owner said "no, it was heavily colored even then, do you want to see pictures from the exhibition?" The judge absolutely did not want to see any pictures and just answered, "Yes yes, are you satisfied if you get an excellent then?". The judge also had a student judge with her and taught his student to judge against the breed standard. This is appealed as the breed standard allows both colors without rank, but skk only answers that the judge is given the right with reference to "free interpretation".

Another example of how the judges do not take breed responsibility when they judge is the Samoyed with the  fantastic working trot with power and drive where the judge gives the criticism that the bitch in question has an unnecessarily strong push. HOW can you say that about a working breed? Or the judge who says that a Samoyed bitch he is judging looks like a postcard from the 1930s but that it no longer fits in today's show business. And the judge who tells the breed club that she is so tired of all the fuss about polar traits and thinks it is both ridiculous and unnecessary to emphasize the importance of it. The examples can be made many of how judges adversely affect the preservation of our breeds as working polar dogs.

Something that is also very common is that the same dog at a so-called double show, two shows on the same weekend, is judged as if it were two different dogs that the judges had in front of them. A dog can then get a certificate one day and the next day it gets a "good" from another judge. Of course there may be dogs who have a really bad day and lose themselves in the ring one day which could explain this. But this is so common that it can almost be assumed that the judges judge so differently that they do not even agree on the quality assessment of the same dog in relation to the breed standard. Even one and the same dog can be given a completely different assessment by the same judge from one time to a later occasion, assuming that the dog has not changed much. Do the judges really follow the breed standard?

Why are there not higher demands from SKK that the judging panel should judge our working breeds based on the breed standard's requirements for function instead of, as today, based on show and glamor as well as personal taste? Why doesn't SKK put an end to this? Why does the SKK allow the judges to judge as they do at a show when it adversely affects our ability to preserve ancient working dogs? How is it that the so-called working type of various working dogs (polar dogs, hunting dogs, herding dogs, etc.) cannot be exhibited as the judges see them as ugly and incorrect when the truth is actually the opposite, that they actually comply with the requirements of the breed standard on function and durability? There are of course exceptions, a few judges who still appreciate a functional working dog.

Is the judge's free interpretation of breed details more important than function and health? 

A tragic downside of the show business is not only that so many working breeds have lost function in their exterior construction. But also that it has gone so far in some breeds that they have become physically ill due to exhibition breeding which has created extreme dogs to the point that they suffer physically from their appearance, for example German shepherds and blunt noses, and more.

Above: What the exhibition business has done with the German Shepherd on the left and Boxer on the right. The German shepherd is deformed in large parts of the body, it hurts just to look at it. The Boxer's blunt nose creates lots of problems. The nose has not only become shorter, but also turned upwards. Just like all blunt noses, the boxer has difficulty with temperature regulation. Is this healthy? Why is something like this prized in the rings? How is it that the type slip could be normalized and accepted by the judges in this way.

In 2008, the BBC broadcast the interesting but gut-wrenching documentary "pedigree dogs exposed", you can still see it if you google the name of the documentary, about the problem surrounding show-bred purebred dogs. There it was shown above all how our dogs have changed in terms of appearance to the advantage because the judges want more and more extreme dogs, modern types of our breeds that are beginning to suffer from the appearance they need to show in order to win at dog shows. Soon after (2009), the SKK produced special judge-specific instructions where the most seriously affected breeds were addressed and the judges were asked not to reward dogs that could not move naturally or had difficulty breathing. Despite this input from SKK, we can see now almost 15 years later that it has not made a very big difference for our dogs.

Link to the documentary:    https://documentaryheaven.com/bbc-pedigree-dogs-exposed/ .

As recently as the other day, a Swedish veterinarian on Instagram showed a video clip of an American Staffordshire bull terrier that she cared for and that suffered a lot from not being able to breathe properly and oxygenate its body, the dog had to be operated on. What was really heartbreaking was to see that even the breeds and dogs that people generally perceive as having a little nose length left are actually too short and fleshy in build to be healthy, resulting in them suffering from its appearance. Caused by the judgments in the show rings that the breeders then bred according to. Is it more important to win at a dog show than that the dogs are 100% well?

When it comes to our polar dogs, dogs that lack the right physical attributes for a purposeful, durable and functional anatomy in relation to what supports the breed's traditional work are often rewarded. The physical attributes that are rewarded are also often on a collision course with what a healthy active working dog should exhibit. This despite the fact that our breed standards describe a hard-working Arctic dog. Why don't the judges think that the dogs that show a functional body and are of an older, more classic type are "handsome", why do the judges judge these dogs in favor of changed dogs with poorer physical capacity? Do the judges follow the breed standard when they do this? Although our polar dogs today do not suffer from life-sustaining problems such as breathing etc., they have degenerated in function.

Above: Samoyed dog. On the far left, a dog from 1939 in England with maintained breed type that is athletically shaped and gives the impression of a rugged toughness that is important for a working dog. In the middle, a modern Samoyed of correct original breed type (follows the standard breed type and physical function requirements). These two dogs have a more athletic appearance that favors physical performance. On the right, a misconstructed breed not typical Samoyed (international modern show type), an appearance and construction that inhibits the dog's physical performance in both power, speed and endurance. What if we continue to breed this modern show type? Will the Samoyed end up like the Chow Chow? The Samoyed is a Siberian breed and should be medium-sized and light in body, more in line with a husky than the heavier freight breeds. Although the dog on the right does not suffer so much that it is physically ill, it still has a reduced bodily function compared to the more athletically built dogs. Is it ethically correct to breed an appearance that is not natural and from which the dog does not profit? What does the dog gain from having a physique that limits it in capacity and full range of motion?

Why do we show our dogs when the results lead to functionally worse dogs and for some breeds even unhealthy dogs?

Does it matter which dog wins? 

For the sake of the breed, it is important that the type of dog is rewarded which is still close to the breed standard, i.e. the older classic appearance of the breed. If these dogs are not awarded at the show, we will never have united breeds. As long as the judges judge against the breed standard and on a collision course with what is important in a working dog, we will see more and more divisions within breeds with a working background. Nowadays, it is rare that the dogs that win at shows are also the dogs that can work. There are often big differences between the show and utility types within different breeds. Why do we exhibit our dogs if it does not lead to us being able to preserve the original and purposeful breed?

Above: Here we clearly see how, over time, the acceptance of the breed type has been pushed in a more and more unhealthy direction. Even the Golden Retriever is a breed that today is divided into a hunting and an exhibition variety, this as today's show type cannot work sustainably in the forest anymore. Today's hunting golden still looks very much like the dog of 1920, a well-preserved breed type in line with the breed standard. When we see it like this in a picture, it becomes clear how important it is which dog wins, even if the dog that wins only marginally thinks about the limit in type difference for its era, it becomes a domino effect that eventually lands in our show winners not longer are capable of what the breed standard asks for. And for some breeds even health-wise unhealthy.

What do we pay for? 

It is expensive to exhibit dogs First, there is the registration fee of upwards of SEK 600 per dog. Then SEK 25 is added x the number of kilometer we have to drive round trip to the exhibition area and any accommodation costs for overnight stays. We often talk about thousands of SEK to go and exhibit our dog. But what are we actually paying for? A judge's opinion of our dog? A single individual's subjective interpretation of the breedstandard? We often pay for an opinion about our dog by someone who may know less about the breed than we do ourselves. We often pay to be told that our dog (of working type), which is healthy and functional in body and has an older, more classic appearance, should be considered incorrect even though our dog exhibits the breed type that is basically the closest to the breed standard.

Personally, I always ask myself the question, is the judge knowledgeable enough about the breed that it is worth buying their product, an anatomical assessment of my dog? Does this judge know more about the breed than I do? Can the judge add anything to my understanding of my dog's wrong and right? For my own part, I believe that there are hardly a handful of judges in Europe that I would put money on. I think there are more people with me who think this way, which means that it is important that we are selective with our judge choices for our breed and special club shows. It is important that we use judges who reward the utility type of our breeds.

Above: On the left Basset (basically a working hunting dog) and on the right English Bulldog, It is clear how they have changed since they ended up in the show ring. Even these dogs have become very unhealthy built. Today, the bulldog is so sick that most of them have to be operated on to even be able to breathe due to the judges wanted blunter and blunter muzzles. This is what we benefit with our registration fees.

Summation 

Despite the fact that many today claim that showing is just a fun thing and you shouldn't take it so seriously, we still see how the results and merits control the breeding of many breeders. This is a problem as the judges in their assessments often reward dogs that do not comply with the breed standard's requirements for a functional working polar dog. As long as the judges lean towards the expression "freely interpretation", to interpret the breed standard according to personal taste leads to overriding the breed standard and continues to reward overtyped dogs and dogs with faults and deficiencies that affect their ability to perform at their peak in their traditional work. And we will have increased problems with split breeds.

The way dog ​​shows are conducted today, I want to argue without a doubt that the results and titles have long since lost their value in breeding work. Today, it is unfortunately the case that the best dogs usually do not have a chance to win at a dog show. It is important to educate yourself. Do your homework in the history of the breed, the breed standard and the breed's traditional area of ​​use, work with many different individuals in regular practical work. One should study quantities with dogs in motion and long-term physical work. It is only then that you will see differences in construction, the dog's exterior, and how it affects the dog's ability to move smoothly, tirelessly and injury-free for a long time at a good pace.

We can easily state that the dogshows today are not what they were once meant to be. It is clear that the dogshows adversely affected breed management and the possibility of preserving the breed type. This can be remedied if more people in the future clearly distance themselves from the fact that there is a connection between show results and dog breeding. Or if the judging panel changes their mind and goes back to awarding the functional dog that exhibits the breed type that the breed standard was based on. A dog that wins in the ring today is not necessarily the dog you should breed with.

The judges does not always agree on how the breed standard should be interpreted, nor do the breeders within the breed club, therefore it is important that we constantly work with the factual basis we have access to and keep the debate going so that the future does not become historyless and thus also lack knowledge about what truths the historical archive can substantiate. It is also important that we do not lose the practical experiential knowledge of our dogs' anatomy in relation to its breed standard.

Today, in many breeds, it is impossible to exhibit a classic type dog and get a correct and fair assessment of the dog based on the breed standard's requirements for function. It is a tragic development and unfortunately we all contribute to allowing it to continue by continuing to put money into the business through participation fees etc.

There are very few judges who have really done their homework and studied the breed in depth. And unfortunately very few judges who respect breed management and take responsibility for the fact that their judgments in the ring actually influence a large number of breeders' selection of breeding animals. It may be difficult to impossible to preserve our working breeds if the judges do not help us by judging according to the performance requirements of the breed standard and the breed type that our old photo archives testify to.

We should bear in mind that the number for a certain breed type at a current exhibition must not be decisive, it may happen that there are only a few or a single dog with the correct breed type in the ring. Then breeders and judges need civil courage and dare to stand up for the correct breed type.

Contributing to breeding in a certain direction in a breed, regardless of whether it concerns exterior or behavior, places great demands on the breeder who chooses breeding animals for the next generation. Requirements for insight and understanding of any impact/influence of the breed must be set high. Something that can only be fulfilled if we clearly distinguish the show results from the breeding work. There's nothing wrong with thinking it's fun to go to an exhibition, if you think so, you should do it. But for the sake of the breed, we must stop mixing show results and titles into our breeding work.

The fact that our working breeds today exist in different variants, a show type and an original functional type is a clear sign of how exhibition activities have adversely affected the preservation of our breeds. Had the judges judged in line with the breed standard and the purpose of the function, we would never have had a new modern show type with an appearance foreign to the breed. Nor would we have had divided breeds.

The day the judges actually reward the same type of dog that the owner who works with their dogs in practical use is looking for, maybe we can have a uniform breed that is slowly rehabilitating back to the type of dog that the breed standard was established by.