How does anyone live without a dog?  I can’t imagine.   Adam Gopnik  writer and regular contributor to The New Yorker

The New Yorker has long been one of my ‘must read’ magazines.  In fact, on my first visit to Manhattan, the Algonquin Hotel* was at the top of my ‘sights to see and places to go’ list.  For many years between the wars, the Algonquin was a virtual back-office for contributors to Vanity Fair and The New Yorker.  They included Dorothy Parker, Robert Benchley, George S Kaufmann and Robert Sherwood among the many top-flight writers, critics and lyricists of the East Coast of America at that time.  I sat at the famed Round Table around which they all sat for so many hours and later had supper in the Oak Room, the famous and intimate venue for some of the worlds finest singers.  I listened to Susanna McCorkle, one of the most creative, innovative and beautiful jazz singers of the last century and still have the CDs she graciously signed for me.  She was an extraordinarily intelligent woman, a linguist and writer as well as a singer.  She was educated in America and lived in London during the 70s after a spell in Paris but like so many gifted people she suffered from depression and committed suicide in 2004.

I like to think that I can express myself reasonably well but I recognise that there are many with a greater facility and quicker understanding – probably of almost everything!  One of these is Adam Gopnik.  I feel a certain rapport with him for he was bitten by a German Shepherd when he was eight years old which, although the bite was not serious, led to him to avoid dogs as far as possible.  Coincidentally, that had been exactly my experience although my change of heart came when after four years of marriage, Angela insisted that the time had come for us to get a puppy.  It would not have been my choice but you know what wives are!  Adam Gopnick knows what daughters are.  He and his wife, who was on his side for she didn’t think much of dogs either, tried to fob off their 10 year old daughter Olivia with a fish, which died, and with a singing blue parakeet which she named Skyler – to no avail.  They felt, he writes, ‘as the Queen must when meeting a new an unpleasant Prime Minister: it isn’t what you want but it’s your constitutional duty to welcome and pretend’.

Olivia wanted a Havanese and nothing else would do.  He writes, ‘with the diligence of a renegade candidate pushing for a political post, she set about organising a campaign: quietly mustering pro-dog friends as a pressure group, introducing persuasive literature (Marley and Me) and demonstrating her reliability with bird care by looking after Skyler properly’.

Adam tells the story in a recent issue of The New Yorker and I have been thrilled (I use that word advisedly) with his seven page article which has encouraged me to believe that the media and nationally recognised and successful journalists cannot be all bad.  I have seldom read a more enjoyable, positive and understanding piece of writing about dogs.  In the year since Butterscotch was purchased (from a New York pet shop) she has not just taken over their lives but has encouraged Adam to really undertake some in-depth research to try to discover what it is about dogs that makes them so close to people.  And the result is a staggeringly good read which is balanced, thoughtful and sensible.  ‘Why was it’, he asks, ‘that all the creature wanted to do was to please?  ‘Butterscotch wanted to know what she could do to make you happy…   a child starts walking away from you as soon as she begins to walk – on the way out from the very first day… Butterscotch, though, seem to be designed to please people at any cost for she… lived in and for the immediate short-term exchange: extra food for performing tricks, kisses for a walk.’.

In the article, ‘Dog Story’, Adam delves deep into the history and development of the relationship between man and dog and comes up with some extraordinary and interesting conclusions.  He has read very widely and does not take what he is told as gospel but brings a pleasing and refreshing intelligence to the evolutionary stories and speculations with which we, who have been so deeply involved with dogs for many years, are all very familiar but which, perhaps, have so insinuated themselves into our minds that we no longer question them.

As you all probably know, the Origin of the Species by Charles Dawin begins with dogs and the way in which they have developed and changed over the years.  It was fundamental to Darwin’s thesis because the fact that man could change the characteristics of an organism deliberately within a few generations was the springboard which suggested that evolutionary pressures over many years could also make such changes.  But dogs are different.  They are not only different in the enormous range of sizes and shapes that have been developed from the basic ‘wolf’ DNA, there is no really satisfactory explanation as to why they have changed into an animal which is so anxious to please its human master.  The physical evidence from fossils and paintings as yet does not match with the fundamental and immense changes in behaviours that there are between dogs and all other animals nor does it explain their unique closeness to man.  The speculation surrounding the various theories (dogs are scavengers gradually becoming closer to man; mutations which made for small amenable animals; the use of dogs for hunting along with many others) are all unsatisfactory to Adam because he feels that each has a fundamental flaw.  He is reluctant, he says, to put forward his own ideas when he has ‘the full authority of 14 months of dog ownership’ but believes the theorists and scientists have left something out of the equation.  That is that people love pets.  It is not in dogs that we should look for the explanations but in us.

In fact he says that the range of evolutionary ‘just-so’ stories and speculations is itself proof of the way dogs have burrowed into our imaginations.  But we should understand, appreciate and recognise that pet ownership is part of the human condition.  There is a marvellous science-fiction story written back in the 50s of a group of humans marooned on another planet who are rounded up and collected by the aliens, with whom they are unable to talk, and placed in a zoo where they are studied by their scientists.  There they remained until one of their number find a small animal in their cage which responds to his petting and for whom he builds a small bedding area.  Almost as soon as the scientists studying them realised what was happening they were removed from the zoo and placed in more suitable accommodation while the scientists began a serious attempt to communicate with them.  Only intelligent beings have pets.

Adam’s view is that this innate caring element of our humanity is what was important in the development of the dog.  As man developed, his instinct would have been to have pet companions just because they were ‘cute’ and even though, in the first instance, once the animals had matured they could not be kept within the domestic situation, eventually one species did have the qualities which retained their amenability into maturity.  Dogs, he says, took an evolutionary bet that they would be better off and more comfortable as a human companion being fed and looked after rather than stay in a life which was harsh, short and brutal and out in the wild world, red in tooth and claw.  He writes. ‘Where we are creatures of past and future, she lives in the minute’s joy: a little wolf racing and snorting and scaring; a small ingratiating spirit, doing anything to please.  At times, I think that I can see her turn her head and look back at the ghost of the Wolf mother she parted from long ago, saying, “see, it was good a good bet:  they are nice to me, mostly” … ‘How does anyone live without the dog?  I can’t imagine.’

*Coincidentally, I went to a concert last night featuring Sir Richard Rodney Bennett and Claire Martin.   Claire told the story about when she first performed at the Algonquin.  She had just finished her first song and the door to the supper room opened and man came in late.  She was about to give him a glare and make a sarcastic remark when she realised it was Tony Bennett!  That is the sort of place it is.  Now leaving to judge the Pastoral Group at SWKA – it’s a wonderful life.

O would some Power the gift to give us
To see ourselves as others see us!
It would from many a blunder free us
Robert Burns

Regular readers of my musings will know that I often referred to the psychological pressures to which a judge is subject when they go into the ring and I will return to this later but first I want to discuss the immediate difficulties faced by any judge at the beginning of their career.
I have used all sorts of metaphors to indicate that what looks straightforward and easy from the ringside is in fact more difficult and complex when you are on your own in the centre of the ring.  When you are giving Challenge Certificates for the first time in your own or a new breed you are faced with a whole new series of decisions which you never have to consider when you were looking in from the outside.  It is easy to be dismissive of a dog you consider to be lame and you can say so without any problem at a distance from the ring side but if you are assessing it as the judge are you confident that it is actually favouring one leg?  Might it be the markings on the dog or the uneven ground?  You have to be sure.
I have used the analogy of singing along with a song that you know well in the car or in the shower and it remains a valid comparison.  You know that you are in tune and it sounds terrific – but if you are on the stage in front of an audience and you have a live accompaniment, it is not like karaoke where the tune is part of the track and the words appear on screen at the right time.    If you listen to backing tracks they are sometimes quite unrecognisable because the ‘tune’ is not present – it is the singer that has total responsibility for the melody and has to hold it.  This is much more difficult than you might think because none of the usual cues are present.
So you, the judge, are in the ring, alone and you are concentrating on trying to do the workmanlike and quality job that you have always promised you would and at this level there is almost always a larger entry than you have had in the past.  A class of 15 or 20 requires much more concentration and although there are many experienced judges who can hold that information in their minds from the beginning of the class to the end, for most people, particularly at the beginning of their career, this is extraordinarily difficult.  Which one was it that had the level bite?  Which one had eyes that were too round?  Which one had the shallow chest?
When I have large classes I write notes as I go along but I’m always amazed how many novice judges believe they have the ability to remember everything.  They may have a marvellous memory but, given the hesitation that we so often see, I suspect the vast majority do not and this is why they must go backwards and forwards, moving the dogs again and again, while they try and make up their minds.
What happens, at its simplest, is that they play safe and put up the people or the dogs that they recognise.  And it is at this point that psychological pressures come into play.
As I have often gone into the details of this pressure in the past I do not want to repeat myself but I am delighted that other senior judges and columnists have, albeit belatedly, recognised the importance of judges understanding these issues.  I certainly made these points when we were discussing judges training back in 2000 but the concept was never embedded into the program.  This was partly because some did not believe that it was particularly important but more that the structure itself was so basic that there was little scope for more complex levels of discussion such as understanding value judgements, the mental ‘set’ required to make what are sometimes difficult decisions and the psychological pressures, both conscious and unconscious that affect the process.
I know that some people believe that I overcomplicate the issue but I do assure you that this is not the case.   The reason is that we are often far too self-confident in our own abilities and experience once we have reached a certain level of expertise.  Let me give you some examples.
Despite the fact that our top sportsmen, whatever their fitness, ability or talent and whether they are individuals or teams, all have coaches.  Have you ever asked yourself why this should be especially when although the coaches will be competent and knowledgeable they have almost never reached the pinnacle of excellence achieved by those who they coach?  The reason is that the coach can provide an external, independent analysis which the individual or team is incapable of appreciating for themselves.  Coaches do a great deal more than providing moral support and encouragement.  A very famous athlete almost at the top of his career was taken by his coach to Loughborough University which specialises in sports, and was given the opportunity of watching himself running on a treadmill.  The coach was able to point out that he was wasting energy in the way he was moving his elbows.  Clearly the most efficient movement is simply backwards and forwards along a straight line but this athlete had got into the habit of bringing his elbows back in a curve.  It took quite a lot of time and effort practising the correct movement but the result was that he was able to shave several seconds of his time in the 200 metres.
Almost all of the top musicians and singers have a teacher whatever their standard and status.  A friend of mine, an educational philosopher and one of the countries leading drummers, surprised me earlier this year by referring to his ‘teacher’:  despite his age, he is a couple of years older than me, he still has a regular three quarters of an hour ‘lesson’ every month.
One of the world’s greatest violinists, Itzhak Perlman, relied on his wife, also a concert level violinist.  In a recent interview he explains that when you are playing, it is very difficult to hear yourself and he relies on her to tell him if a passage is too fast, too slow or too ‘mechanical’.   Perlman says his wife is very tough and he appreciates that, because without that level of criticism his playing would not be as good as it is.  All the world’s great opera singers have professional coaches and they refer to them as their ‘outside ears’.
As I know from my own experience, listening to the recordings you have made makes a great deal of difference but it often needs somebody else to point out precisely where you are going wrong.  One of my favourite songs is ‘Just One of Those Things’ and I have sung it often but have never felt that I had got it exactly right to my own satisfaction.  At my annual Jazz Summer School I took the problem to that wonderful jazz singer Liane Carroll (the only jazz musician ever to win two BBC Jazz Awards in one year) and asked her to see if she could spot what was wrong.  She played the piano and I sang it through once and she pointed to the music and said ‘here’ and ‘here’.  After the verse, which is sung freely, the song goes into strict time and she pointed out that I was making a mistake, not in the speed or the rhythm but in the way I was delivering that information to her.  Later in the chorus, between one of the stanzas, I was getting the interval wrong – and if you don’t hit the right note at that point it takes to several bars to get back to the tune proper.  That evening we performed it at the Jazz Cafe concert and it worked just fine.
Now, I am not a particularly good singer but that example points out how small things make a significant difference.
In the States, coaches are beginning to be used for teachers who, by and large because we are egotistical lot, resent any interference in the classroom but now successful surgeons who have been operating at a very high level for many years are beginning to realise that they can improve their performance by coaching.
Atul Gawande felt that his technique had reached a plateau and called in his old Registrar who trained him during his residency.  Now retired, Robert Osteen was reluctant at first but said he was prepared to try and attended one of Gawande’s operations.  He was reluctant to make any criticism but he had made copious notes and under pressure, suggested that there were half a dozen small things which would improve the flow during the operation.  One of the most important, despite being deceptively simple, was the positioning of the drape over the patient which dictated not just the surgeons position but the position of his assistants which then had a knock-on effect on Gawande’s freedom of movement and his ability to manipulate his instruments.
Osteen has continued to coach his former pupil and as a result Gawande, who already had an excellent record, showed improved performance in the efficiency of his operations and the rate of recovery of his patients.
During my judging apprenticeship I was very fortunate in having a number of people who watched and advised me and I have always been greatly appreciative of the time that they took to discuss every aspect of judging.  Our current method of assessing judges in the UK is an anonymous report sent to Clarges Street on the occasion of anyone’s first CC appointment.  Can this be enough or should that person become, for a series of appointments, a mentor and coach?
If we are really going to crack the thorny question of transparency and confidence in judging this may be one of the techniques we should develop.

Many of our Judging Reports are written by judges who are very experienced and provide exhibitors with exemplary critiques that are extremely helpful and show their understanding of the breed.  This article is not for them but every year new judges are appointed who are very knowledgeable about their breeds but, despite having read many reports over the years, have not had to write their own.  We hope this short explanation of some of the things which they should consider will be helpful.

Our policy at Our Dogs is to print judges summaries prior to the report proper, not to edit reports and to allow judges to critique to third place.

Most judges follow the tradition of writing their reports in their Judging Book while the dogs standing in front of them in their placed order.  This works and it is quick but in many ways it is sensible (and you get a more legible critique) if you sit down at the judges table and write the report asking the dogs to come and stand in front of the table in order.  The important thing to remember is that you should not rush this initial stage of your critique.  If you cannot read it or it is just a few brief words it will not help your accuracy when you sit down to do the report proper unless you have a memory much better than most people.  Some judges now use tiny digital recording machines.  These are now quite inexpensive (less that £20) and come with software which enables you to play the voice files back at a slow speed on your computer so that you can type the report easily and quickly.

Judges reports have changed over the years.  Reading those of a hundred years ago is an education in itself because in those days, judges did not pull any punches.  This is a typical example: ‘This dog belonging to Mr Smith is appalling although we must applaud his courage for bringing it into the ring when it is so far removed from the breed standard.  Its neck is too short, its legs are too long and its head has more in common with a bucket than any dog I have ever seen – and he moved like an arthritic crab’ and is not an uncommon critique as printed in Our Dogs all those years ago.

There have always been good critique writers and some who are not so good.  One well-known judge of the 50s and 60s used to write: ‘1^st: Good head, good body, good legs, good feet, good movement, 2^nd: Good head, good body, good legs, 3^rd: Good head, good movement.’  Simply swapping the same phrases around at random.

As you will almost certainly agree, neither provides any satisfaction for or information to the exhibitor and it is the exhibitor who has to have priority when a report is written.

A report must be seen to be fair and must indicate that the judge knows and understands the breed.  It must inform and be constructive, pointing out failings but also provide encouragement by saying where the dog succeeds.  A critique which just concentrates on faults undermines the confidence of the exhibitor and does the judge no favours so it is always sensible to begin with those characteristics about which you can be positive.

We are very happy to print a summary of the judge’s findings in the report.  However these are most useful where the entry is such that it is good in relation to the number of dogs normally shown: there is little point in trying to generalise about the breed as a whole from an Open show entry of 10 or 12.

Reports need to deal with three main areas:

•  Conformation
• Breed Type
• Movement

Incidentally, in general, exhibitors will assume that if comments are not made about any aspect of the dog these are correct according to the breed standard.

Conformation is generally about balance.  Is the outline of the breed what you expect?  The points below are not exhaustive but if you are going to judge, these are all certainly things you must consider.

•  is the head in proportion to the body?
•  is the length of the body correct in proportion to its height?
•  is the depth of chest correct and in the correct proportion to its height?
• are the lines of back and underline correct?
• is there enough forechest?
• are the shoulders correctly placed?
•  is the hind angulation correct?
• have you considered length of rib cage, length of loin, couplings and croup?

Type.  Again, in general, exhibitors will assume that if comments are not made about any aspect of the dog – they are correct.  For instance, if the tail set, length and carriage is correct then, under normal circumstances, there is no need to mention it in the critique. On the other hand where there is often a general problem with tails, as there are in many of the Spitz breeds, it makes good sense to mention when the tail set and/or  carriage is particularly good.  The same applies to the other characteristics which are specified in the standard including the proportions of the head and skull, eyes, ears, colour and colour combination, mask, coat, feet and all the other breed points that are highlighted in the standard.

It is helpful to remember that when the breed standards were first written there was a general assumption about the ‘average’ size and shape of the dog and the standards did not precisely describe each characteristic so much as focus on those aspects of the breed which were’ different’ to what at that time was perceived as the ‘average’.

It is a truism (so should be approached with caution) but many judges will say that if anything about a dog you are judging reminds you of another breed, then it has a fundamental flaw.

Movement.  A surprising number of dogs do not move well but movement is also often a function of type so what is acceptable in one breed, Chows and Belgian Shepherds are good examples, may not be acceptable in another.  However there are certainly a number of specific faults which you should look out for and can mention.  Again, in the breed where movement is generally poor singling out good movement for a mention is sensible.  But in most breeds if you do not mention movement then the exhibitor can assume that it is good or at least acceptable.  Most movement faults are tied in with conformation but this is certainly not always the case.  However be on the lookout for

• overreaching and an uneven, jerky back line from the side
•  crabbing
• close behind and instability going away
• loose shoulders and crossing coming towards you

A good test is to send two dogs around the ring together so that you can assess their ground covering ability.  The dog with good movement will usually cover more ground in fewer strides than one whose movement is poor.  It takes a little practice to see it but it is well worth the effort.

You can get a great deal more information about Judging, particularly about conformation and movement, by clicking here.  It is the outline of a Seminar which normally takes a whole day and, of course, answers many of  the questions posed in the slides.  However, if you work your way through them thinking carefully about the information on each one it should provide some signposts which could be helpful.

The very best of luck with your assignments.

I attended a debate on this subject at the Reform Club.  The arguments by the main speakers, Lord Paul Botang and Lord Alan Watson were put forward with verve and enthusiasm.  Had I been one of them this is what I would have said:

It may seem odd to begin with a quote from Karl Marx but I think it appropriate.  He said: ‘Bureaucracy is a circle from which one cannot escape. Its hierarchy is a hierarchy of knowledge. The top entrusts the understanding of detail to the lower levels, whilst the lower levels credit the top with understanding of the general -  and so all are mutually deceived’

Like many societies we are a nation burdened with levels: levels of class, levels of expertise, levels of income and levels of political power wielded by the elected and the appointed.  That diversity is to be applauded for it is the bedrock on which our freedoms of expression, speech and action are founded.

What has this to do with the reform of the House of Lords?  It is fundamental, for it is diversity and the acceptance of diversity which gives us liberty and makes us free.  However, even a casual glance at the CVs of MPs shows that neither these levels nor the breadth of knowledge, gravitas, intellectual rigour or expertise we see in the best of the Lords results from an election.  There is therefore no doubt in my mind that while the Commons should be composed of the elected representatives of the people, the Lords, still with the right to develop and put forward legislation, should be appointed and retain its role as a revising and advising chamber.  At its best the Upper House works.

Now, how can that be achieved?

As with all societies, whether free or shackled, bureaucracy is always with us and has a tendency, indeed is designed, to stifle competition, restrict our behaviour and thrust us all into convenient pigeonholes.  I believe that this is the motivation for the current debate on reform of the Upper House.  How convenient that the main proposals by all the major parties fits in closely with what they consider to be a process that they can manage.  Whether you use our traditional voting system or some form of proportional representation, using established mechanisms is politically and administratively convenient and gives the parties, whether or not they are in power, at least some measure of control.  Of course, it doesn’t always work as the Labour Party has so recently demonstrated.  Interesting, isn’t it that Ed Milliband is suddenly so eager to turn away from an electoral system to one of appointment!

For these reasons, along with the fact that an elected House of Lords would soon challenge the rights of the Commons, I believe that in the interests of diversity we should retain the appointment mechanism for the Upper House.

This does not mean that I reject reform.  The current process, while it is being used primarily to pack the red benches with those who have served their time (or their purpose) in the Commons is clearly unacceptable and unsustainable.  At one time, it seems to me that the balance was satisfactory but that is clearly no longer the case and one wonders whether the party managers are deliberately trying to undermine the credibility of the Lords.

Be that as it may, there is no doubt in my mind that we need an appointed House of Lords and that the appointment system is the element that requires reform.

An open and transparent mechanism which draws on the best of Britain’s knowledge and expertise in every economic, social, legal and political sector is what is required.  I am tempted by the idea that the complexion of the Upper House should be dictated by trying to achieve a genuine cross-sectional representation of our nation using the well researched and recently updated National Occupational Classification.  There are 96 major groups each of which could be asked to nominate five representatives (giving a sensible sized House of just under 500) and in this way every level and facet of society would automatically be given a voice.

However, one of the great advantages of the Lords is its breadth and flexibility and such a system would be too rigid so my recommendation is that the House of Lords Appointments Commission should be fundamentally reformed with a clear brief to ensure that the Lords is genuinely representative of our society.  They could even consider the idea of advertising for specific posts or expertise.   A key element has to be that the role of the political parties through Dissolution Honours, Resignation Honours and the Political Lists should be significantly reduced so that the number of political appointments is severely restricted.

“It is better to have a relationship with someone who cheats on you than with someone who does not flush the toilet.” – Uma Thurman

“I always say – you want a man who can fix the toilet.” – Pamela Anderson

One of my favourite adverts over the past years has been that for McCains Chips where a little girl is being asked whether she prefers ‘Daddy or chips’. She is not sure but eventually, when her father steals one of chips, decides in favour of chips! I am in the same position as I write this Speaker Corner. Should I write an open letter to Professor Steve Dean about what I feel he should do as the new Chairman of the Kennel Club or should I concentrate on something rather more parochial – like toilets?
Which, I ask myself, is more important? It is a tricky conundrum because clearly Steve Dean can, and I’m sure will, have an enormous impact on the world of dogs as has Ronnie Irving over the past nine years. On the other hand, toilet facilities are rather more immediate and given our experience at Southern Counties during the show and the concerns of exhibitors, I have to say that we had marginally more conversations in the Secretary’s Office about toilets than we did about the Chairman of the Kennel Club. On the basis that this column is primarily about the practicalities of showing dogs (although I must admit into straying into philosophy occasionally) I have finally opted for toilets! I know Steve will recognise the importance of the best possible facilities for exhibitors.
Back in 1984, Pelham Books published my book All about Showing Dogs. It attempted to distilled the basics of the world of dogs and I am pleased that, looking through it now, despite the fact that my involvement had been but fifteen years, there is little in the advice and information I give that I would change. I had been Show Manager of Southern Counties Canine Association for eight years and run my first dog show in 1972, The Nordic Open Show for Spitz Breeds, so I had some experience although, I must confess, not quite so much as I have now.
The first sentence of Chapter Two says ‘Dog shows are for the exhibitor’ and you can be assured that that is still my view and, I know, the view of the vast majority of those people who are involved in organising dog shows that every level. However I want to concentrate on the chapter on Show Management for there I identify what I still call the essential elements of any show – the three ‘C’s. They are ‘conveniences’, ‘car parking’ and ‘catering’. Clearly it is important to have a good judging panel and to have the administration from beginning to end both slick and efficient, but unless you have those essential elements in place exhibitors will, quite rightly, complain bitterly.
Under the heading of ‘conveniences’ I wrote: ‘The main problem with toilets is that people all want to use them at the same time. On arrival or immediately after lunch and are not the times choose to visit the conveniences if you are female. At some events even the ‘gents’ develops a queue although it must be said that many shows do make a special effort or have particularly well served venue. The biggest problems are those outdoor shows which have to hire portable toilets, for they are expensive both in themselves and in the provision of tanks or the extensive piping required to reach the mains sewerage service.
We all tend to push the question of lavatories to the back of our minds unless we actually need one and there is a tendency to let the loos fend for themselves at a dog show. Certainly it is often impossible to increase the capacity but what is not impossible is at least to make them as civilised as possible so that if people have to wait they do find towels, toilet paper and litter bins stocked or emptied as the case may be. It is here that the show management is seen to care about the exhibitors. It is not difficult to ensure before the show that the toilets are clean, that the locks work and the smallest rooms are well ventilated. It also takes very little time to freshen up the place and top up consumables during the day, resulting in exhibitors feeling refreshed after their visit rather than frustrated. Care in this area is one which pays real dividends. Some shows are known by the quality of their toilets and this really does modify the attitude of exhibitors. Every little thing that the committee does to make the life of the exhibitor easier reduces the pressure both for themselves, the dogs and the show management.’
Remember that this was written 25 years ago when the quality of toilets at dog shows was much less sophisticated. Indeed, some will remember WELKS where scout camp latrines were still in use in the early 70s. Things had already improved by 1984 and have improved immeasurably since that date so generally speaking a visit to the toilets is no longer the rather disturbing adventure it once was.
There are always problems: flooding, broken cisterns, taps left running and consumables not replaced quickly enough for example but these are minor inconveniences these days compared with the year at Crawley when the tanker which was supposed to empty the cesspool did not turn up and it began to overflow. Many will remember the committee, equipped with buckets, flushing the toilets so that only the minimum amount of water was used.
All this comes to mind because we had a serious problem with the loos at Southern Counties this year and the foregoing paragraphs are to assure exhibitors that if things do go wrong it is not because the those responsible were thoughtless or inconsiderate. You can be absolutely certain that these things are thrashed out in committee very thoroughly – but things still occasionally do go wrong.
Southern Counties moved to Newbury seven years ago. There were a number of reasons but one was certainly that the portable toilets which we had to bring onto the Showground consistently gave exhibitors more problems than we felt were necessary. One of the distinct and important advantages of Newbury was that it had brick built toilets, with mains water. They were not in the most convenient position but it did save the expense of bringing on portable units and until last year proved more than adequate for the numbers of exhibitors and visitors to the showground.
Naturally, as things had proceeded perfectly smoothly for several years, the question of whether the toilets would be adequate in our Centenary year was never considered by the committee. It just goes to show you should not take anything for granted!
On Friday morning at about 7.30 we had our first inkling of a problem when the catering tent reported that there was no water available at their standpipe. Almost immediately afterwards we had reports from exhibitors, stewards and contractors that the toilets were becoming blocked because the cisterns were not filling up fast enough to flush the basins properly. We contacted the Showground management who said we should talk to their plumber who, they said, was responsible. He was rung immediately but was 35 miles away and said as far as he was concerned everything was in order although we should check the main stopcock to make sure that it was fully on. This was done immediately, of course, and there was a further half turn on the tap – but it did not make not make a scrap of difference.
Further discussions were held with the Showground management and with the plumber but they did not know what was wrong and did not have the facilities to find out at such short notice. We immediately put out a public address announcement to apologise and we also notified friends on Facebook and other social networking sites asking them to advise exhibitors to use the service station at the junction of the M4 and A34 to get comfortable before they came onto the Showground.
As you can imagine, the Committee was mortified, for despite all the hard work that had gone into producing what we had hoped was the perfect a dog show, this was a serious setback for exhibitors and there was simply nothing we could do. Many exhibitors were understanding but it seemed to us a shame that so many made the assumption that the problem was caused in some way by thoughtlessness or mismanagement on the part of the Association. It was suggested that we should have had portable toilets although, as the problem was caused by lack of water pressure, this would actually have made matters worse.
As with any responsible organisation we shall be discussing the matter in considerable depth, and I suspect to the discomfort, of the Newbury Showground management in the very near future to find out precisely what happened and why.
Unfortunately, there is no absolute guarantee that such a problem might not arise with any of our major outdoor championship shows. However, you can be sure that they will not have occurred because the show management’s are not concerned. They care deeply that their exhibitors have an enjoyable day and are disappointed if they are not able to fulfil those expectations.

Animal Care College - caring for people caring for animals

Complications continue to abound within the world of dog training and behaviour modification and as chairman of the Pet Education, Training and Behaviour Council I have been asked several times over the last few months for an update.  I hope that this article will answer some of the questions being posed.  He

It is many years since the family dog ran free and worked off its energy and frustrations running the streets and countryside.  Society has become more sophisticated and regulated and ‘the dog’ is now expected to ‘fit in’ after thousands of generations just ‘being’.  We should not be surprised that the transition is confusing for the dog and difficult and uncomfortable for us.

We demand much of our ‘best friend’ and are concerned and disappointed when he is found lacking in the social and personal skills we have come to expect via Fred Basset, Lassie Come Home and Lady and the Tramp.  Puppies still have enormous appeal to all ages but many are square pegs that find it difficult being forced into the convenient round holes of modern life.  When they present a problem we want an ‘expert’ to solve it as we do when a tap leaks or the lights fuse.  It is therefore not surprising that the demand for dog trainers and those who set themselves up as being able to modify canine behaviour has soared

Over the past fifteen years many hundreds of books have been written and published on training dogs and an immense amount of related material is available.  Some is very sensible and useful to dog owners but much is confusing and buried in jargon: a jumble of ideas, techniques and unproven ‘experience’ moulded into a convenient  and sometimes flashy ‘package’ of smoke and mirrors which conceal rather than illuminates

The result is that much dog training consists of a range of either vague aspirations or formulaic, prescribed  and mechanical processes delivered by those who only partly understand the basis of their techniques – and misunderstand the rest.  It is not surprising that much behaviour modification is unsuccessful.

And it is no accident that many ineffective methods wrapped and ‘spun’ with unrealistic promises of success abounds on web pages.  The result has been that over the past 15 years there has been a huge increase in dogs being dumped in rescue and being designated as un-trainable. The word ‘discipline’ is frowned upon by the theory extremists and so the number of dogs being euthanized is constantly rising. Other organisations have a more modern  balanced intelligent  training approached, have much more success and prevent hundreds of dogs from being rejected and put down.

As a result, the world of training dogs and those who are involved in the modification of their behaviour is in turmoil.  In fact, although a report in 2008 by the respected Companion Animal Welfare Council in the UK does not actually use the word ‘chaos’, even the briefest scan of its 52 pages can leave the reader in little doubt that the situation is thoroughly unsatisfactory and this is reflected throughout the western world, wherever dogs are expected to ‘conform’ to the standards set by humans and their regulatory regimes.

Current situation

Because of the wide range of ideas, theories, processes and techniques that have gained an adherence over the last 30 years, many organisations have been established which purport to represent the best methods and practitioners of dog training and behaviour modification.  Most are member organisations of like-minded people and each seeks to establish its authority through a series stated aims, objectives and ethical standards.  The situation has been complicated by the involvement of the major charities whose role is no longer to just re home dogs but to rehabilitate them as well.  Some have instituted research to help them achieve this objective but there is general agreement among dog trainers with experience that this research has not been sound which has led to even more disagreements between the varying factions.

One reason why there is so much bad blood and disinformation between groups is the decision by the pet insurance companies to accept claims regarding pet behaviour.  Understandably, the insurance companies want to ensure that claims are dealt with quickly and effectively and the mechanism that they have introduced is that of referral by a veterinary surgeon.  Vets are busy people – they do not have the time to assess the quality of practitioners so it is easier to select someone with a ‘qualification’ even if that qualification is irrelevant or spurious and the practical experience of the ‘expert’ is minimal.

In addition, the political ramifications within the competing organisations have often led to their focus being on their status and influence as an organisation rather than what is best for the dog.

The report by the Companion Animal Welfare Counsel referred to above suggested that there should be one registration organisation for practitioners and a series of meetings were held in 2009/10 to try and achieve this worthy objective.  Those present recognised that this was likely to be very difficult and probably impossible.  In practice this has proved to be the case.

Standards and accreditation

In their attempt to establish themselves as the prime group, each organisation has set themselves standards to which they expect their members to adhere.  Some are fiercely academic, insisting on a science degree for all their members and stressing their ‘clinical’ qualifications (qualifications which do not exist in dog behaviour – a fly on the wall while the definition of clinical’ was discussed at the meetings called by CAWC would have wept!)  while others emphasise their professionalism, vocational study, experience and dedication.  A perennial problem is that there is confusion between the undoubtedly important and valuable academic study of animal behaviour and that of dog training and dog specific behaviour modification for there is an assumption that a degree or postgraduate general study in animal behaviour gives some extra insight into dog behaviour/training and practical modification skills.  This is not the case, not just because dogs form no part of most animal behaviour degrees but what little is taught is only theory. This critical fact is not explained to the public by people using these general animal behaviour degrees. The Pet Education, Training and Behaviour Council promotes a more transparent and open classification of experience so the public can choose their ‘expert’ from relevant, credible and reliable information about the qualifications of any individual  rather than irrelevant ‘animal behaviour’ degrees which do not provide an appropriate  knowledge base.

Choosing a trainer or behaviourist  is not rocket science but it requires a degree of common sense which balances experience, personality and dedication.  Qualifications are relevant but it is certainly not just about academic expertise.  If a student wishes to obtain a Degree, two are available in Britain specifically in dog behaviour so solving the problem for those wishing to attain a high level of knowledge in dog behaviour.  The questions which need to be asked about anyone purporting to be a canine behaviour specialist are:

• Are they successful?
• Is their web site transparent and open about their expertise, experience and specific specialised canine qualification
• Does the owner of the dog with a problem behaviour feel confident in their ability?
• Is there a change in the behaviour of their dog when the expert is present and post consultation
• Do they use they kind, balanced and practical methods?
• Do they spend time with the owner helping them understand the circumstances (that they have often created) led to the dogs fear, distress or recalcitrance?
•  Does the expert try to blind the owner with irrelevant jargon and complex scientific concepts or do they take a common-sense, practical approach?
• In dog behaviour cases does the expert provide a report and assessment which reflects the consultation process
•  Can the expert practically handle the dog especially in aggression cases when the owner is in difficulty and in real situations not theoretical.
• Are they recommended by owners whose dogs they have successfully treated?

All groups struggle with the problem that there is no satisfactory definition, status or fully professional designation for a person who trains and/or  modifies the behaviour of dogs.  There are an increasing number of qualifications, both work-based and theoretical, that are available but until last year when the Pet Education, Training and Behaviour Council published ‘Defining roles for dog behaviour and training professionals’ there has been no common consensus of the various roles of those involved.  This was written in consultation with many organisations including the Police.  It is now the widely accepted model and standard

Most organisations have developed some form of internal accreditation system to justify the status of their members.  In fact, there is a deliberate intention to mislead by some organisations who state that they have ‘created’ an independent organisation that accredits them.  Clearly if that organisation has no history or knowledge base or has the very people on their board from the organisation they are supposed to be accrediting, their role can only be described as fraudulent.

As a result, the whole concept of the term ‘accreditation’ has become devalued.  The dictionary definition is ‘the act of granting credit or recognition (especially with respect to educational institution that maintains suitable standards)’ but the most important and key element is that the accreditation of any person or organisation should be truly separate and independent from the person or organisation accredited.  There are a number of organisations in Britain that carry out this task and you can find a full list by accessing theNational Database of Accrediting Organisations on the Internet: unless an accrediting body is a recognised University or on this list, then it will have been set up specifically to give credence to standards which are not genuinely independently audited.  Whatever the claims of separateness and independence, any accrediting body worthy of the name will be on the National Database of Accrediting Organisations.

‘Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also required to sit down and listen.’ Winston Churchill

In my New Year Message in Our Dogs back the end of December, I said that my general feeling for the future was optimistic but that I had concerns that Clarges Street was reacting too readily to the media, to veterinarians, to dog related pressure groups and charities.  Of course, these groups are entitled to their views, although we must always remember that the motivation of many is only to seek publicity and raise funds.

But we, those deeply embedded and committed to dogs, are entitled to our views too and it is becoming increasingly clear that the Kennel Club is more interested in allaying the concerns and damping the fires of these lobby groups than it is defending and supporting the breeders and exhibitors who provide their funds.  I should make it clear I am speaking of the Kennel Club as an institution here – not about individuals.  Institutions take on a life of their own as anyone who has been involved with one knows only too well.  Parkinson’s Law is the best and ultimate guide!

I should also say that the motivation for the changes which are taking place sound good.  They are: that they are necessary for the improved welfare of dogs and that if we do not move in this direction government will force this issue by bringing in further legislation.  It sounds good but I hope to show in this article that both contentions are inaccurate.

But to begin at the beginning.  I have long argued that the Kennel Club does not reflect the views of the vast majority of those who sign the declaration on entry forms and registration and club related documents but I have forced to the conclusion that it now no longer reflects the views of the majority of its own members either.  I can tell you too, that it does not reflect the thinking of many of those elected by the membership to represent them.  This is not to say that the majority is necessarily right (majorities often are not) but in this case – and for once I am of the majority – I think they are in this instance.  And I am as angry, upset and disappointed as they are.

Enormous progress has been made over the passed few years (accelerated admittedly by the furore surrounding Pedigree Dogs Exposed) in the improvement in the well being of pedigree dogs.  We have seen fantastic improvements in Chows, Shar Pei, Pugs and Bulldogs and the changes in standards and the change of emphasis on judging priorities have already and will continue to ensure further progress among those breeds which, almost all agree, have become over exaggerated.  But the time has come to step back and take stock: to wait and see if the changes already in place will lead to gradual and continual improvement.  It is not the time for a raft of unnecessary, thoughtless, knee jerk reactions which are pointless and useless.

Make no mistake, increased regulation only forces more activity underground and encourages fraud.  As always, education is better than regulation and the latest directives from Clarges Street leave me open mouthed.  If judges cannot be trusted and there is evidence that individuals are putting though dogs which are unsound then those judges must be called to account.  What is the point of having what has become a massive education and training programme for judges if it does not work.  Should it not be revised so that it does?

A meeting of all Group judges is to held shortly and this is surely on the agenda.  But what is the point of educating this minority if decisions are to be taken out of their hands anyway?  Presumably there is no problem with most breeds – why not have a conference for those breed judges in those fifteen breeds who, perhaps (I emphasise ‘perhaps’) require further explanation and enlightenment.

I have in the past criticised the Accredited Breeders’ Scheme for there is no doubt in my mind that is was conceived and launched too quickly: a good idea needs to be properly developed, evaluated and assessed before being promoted.  As a result, it took a lot longer to get on track than it need have done.  However, improvements were made  and even if a number of tweaks are still required, it has done the job of focusing the attention of breeders, selling more puppies for them and, by and large, setting sensible standards.  Why was it necessary, now that there is general acceptance of the scheme, to add to the already significant administrative and ethical load?  ABS breeders sign up to a code of ethics which emphasises the importance of welfare (which include severe restrictions on number of litters which a bitch may have and the ages within which she may be bred from) and many of us, the KC included, worked to hard to establish the Animal Welfare Act (2006) which addresses all the major animal welfare problems (should local authorities wish to apply its provisions).  Why should further and unnecessary directives be introduced?  Inventions and wheels come to mind.

Another example is the massive amount of work (and money) which is being put into the Welsh Assembly’s attempt to draft further legislation about dog breeding.  When will anyone realise that all the law required for ensuring that pets are cared for properly – and that includes breeding – is already in place.  What has not happened, does not happen and is unlikely to happen is that the law is not applied.  And making more laws will not bring the money, the staff and the expertise required to enforce it.

Let us be realistic. All the regulation being put in place is to satisfy narrowly focused lobby groups and I believe that the Kennel Club has fallen into the trap.

We can show that everything (and more) is being done that should be done and there is absolutely no point in kow-towing to veterinary surgeons, unregulated non governmental organisations or anyone else, for whatever is done they will say it is not enough and demand more.

And this does not begin to take into account the effect on the morale within the world of show dogs.

Judges are passed by the Kennel Club to award tickets and are then being told that they cannot be trusted to judge properly or fairly and that breeders are told that they cannot be trusted to look after animals properly.  There is no doubt that this may be true of a small proportion of judges and breeders but more regulations will not make a scrap of difference.  The statistics are available in the Breed Supplements to identify puppy farmers and surely the few judges involved can be re-assessed if there any concerns about their performance.

The new directives are upsetting and unnecessary and only serve to give the lobby groups a publicity opportunity and ammunition to fire back that what is being done is not enough.  They will never be satisfied and we should recognise that and stop trying.

This is not to say that we should not continue to make sensible, well thought through reforms of our structures and regulations.  There is much to be done which would not grab the headlines but would being together breeders and exhibitors and the Kennel Club rather than increasing the divisions.

For instance, one of the most serious criticisms levelled by Pedigree Dogs Exposed was about the structure of the Kennel Club itself.  The programme said  that it was unrepresentative, secretive, autocratic and elitist.  Clarges Street may argue that this is not the case but given all the time, trouble and money that has been expended on the improvement of the image of pedigree dogs one would have expected that this  misconception should also have been addressed.  But has any effort been made toward reform?  No it has not and one might wonder whether the smoke and mirrors of welfare might not have been used, in part at least, to mask this lack of attention.

Am I upset?  Yes! Am I angry?  Yes I am.  Am I right?  I do not know – you must make up your own minds.

Bob Rushdon who gives tickets in Border Collies, has set up a new group on Facebook called Lets Start A Judges Club. In the space of about a week he has attracted over 500 members many of whom are beginning to post on the page. To start things off he says in the description: ‘This is a serious proposal. I am starting this group to gain interest and then will hold a meeting if sufficient people join. The objective is to improve the standard of judging and judges education in the UK.’ I think over 500 members is enough.
An early posted by Veronica Hull says, ‘what a great idea. Let’s try for a strong team of judges that fit the description of who knows what rather than who knows who – or am I just living in a dream world?’
There are many further posts most of which agree that the idea is a good one and I should say at the outset that I am certainly not against it. I think the greater the number of ways in which ideas are circulated the better and there is no doubt that the Internet and the Message Boards have been enormously influential in developing ideas and passing them around. It must be said that not all of those ideas are useful and helpful but people are entitled to their present opinions however strange they are and however widely they differ from our own so long as they are within the law,.
Of course, all the usual ideas are being put forward on the site and I was particularly pleased to see several people supporting the idea of Student Judges. This is an idea put forward by Catherine Sutton many years ago when she was on the Judges Sub-committee. I tried to revive it six years back but it was no more successful in catching the imagination then as it was when Catherine, a much more powerful and influential figure in the world of dogs that I am ever likely to be, was promoting it.
In fact, most of the ideas being put forward have long pedigrees themselves and it is interesting to see how many people recognise that education and training are essential elements in becoming a judge. In 1980, with the help of Les Crawley, Wendy Borer, Peter Larkin, and Pamela Cross-Stern, I launched the Judging Diploma which was taken up by many of those who wished to learn more about the principles of judging. Those that took this course all believed that it improved the way in which they assessed dogs in the ring (ask Robert Kiillick – he was a candidate on the very first one) and many of those people are still judging today. It was hard work but to achieve anything worthwhile is not easy. Over the years it has been overtaken by Breed Seminars and over the last ten years by the Kennel Club’s more active and positive role. Candidates still enrol for the Diploma though the Animal Care College I am pleased to say: perhaps they realise that to be able to correspond in detail with their highly respected and experienced tutor about the important theoretical and philosophical elements of judging (which I believe to be vital in developing a positive and fair attitude in the ring) as well as being introduced to a detailed procedure for analysing standards, is worth the time and the money. Unfortunately, these concepts have been abandoned by the Kennel Club Training Board in favour of what has become a’ quick fix, tick box’ solution based on numbers, seminar attendances and the sometimes biased opinions of those who are asked to comment while little attention is given to the broader experience of judges
Unfortunately, and for the same reasons, a lot of people (many of them well known within the world of dogs) chattering online, asking questions, making points about the necessity of balance and knowledgeable judging is unlikely to solve the problems which we currently face. Voters know what needs doing and politicians find it easy to set out the objectives but it is much more difficult to develop the framework and strategy required to ensure that those objectives are achieved. In fact I think it would be true to say that everyone would agree on the objectives as far a dog judging was concerned but most people will have a different view on the best road to get there.
What I hope this group comes up with is some really sensible, thoughtful, practical approaches to the training of judges that will be acceptable and effective. If you are skimming through this article please read that sentence again – it sums up precisely what is required. There is a very interesting book written many years ago by Robert Thouless called Straight and Crooked Thinking which analyses the way in which we should approach complex issues. If we look at this statement carefully it is difficult to challenge but immensely difficult to implement. Clearly we want an approach which is sensible, which is thoughtful and which is practical and I would ask you first whether it your solutions to a training package which fulfils those basic requirements would be acceptable to everybody you know within the world of dogs. I have been studying this problem for over thirty years: I know I am right (possibly) but do you agree with me? Probably not and others, whether they are exhibitors, judges, show administrators or the Kennel Club, will all have their own favoured solutions
And this is only the first half of the statement. When we begin to approach criteria which are ‘acceptable’ and ‘effective’ it becomes much more difficult. What would be ’acceptable’ is a procedure that is: simple to administer, easy to join, delivers the accolade of being allowed to award Challenge Certificates in a reasonable time and does not have the disappointment of failure. Unfortunately, as I’m sure you will immediately realise, although it would be perfectly easy to create a system that fulfils all those demands, the likelihood of it being ‘effective’ is very remote. Easy, cheap and uncomplicated are concepts diametrically opposed to the very demands that exhibitors make of judges i.e. that they should be knowledgeable, experienced, fair and unbiased – and award them first prize!
I am not the only commentator who has put forward their ideas on this matter regularly over many years and I know that none of us are arrogant enough to believe that we have all the answers. What I do know is that most of the people who put in their half penn’th tend to focus on the detail and not give enough attention to the broad structure. This cultural structure developed over 150 years and modified marginally and occasionally with a great deal of effort is like an ocean liner changing its direction or coming to a halt – it is a long and tedious manoeuvre. To give you just two examples, you only have to look at the bizarre wall of thoughtless discrimination against changing the seventy-five year rule which prevents judges taking on new breeds with tickets. It affects very few (not me, I have to say, just in case you think that I have an agenda here), could be changed by the stroke of a pen and would have a significant effect on those who have devoted much time to their breeds over many years but just have not had the invitation to judge in time. Similarly, our hobby/profession which requires enormous dedication and knowledge is the only job of which I am aware that you can be qualified for and not be able to apply for. What on earth is the objection to somebody who is appointed to an A3 List having fulfilled all the criteria required, not being able to apply for a licence to give Challenge Certificates through the normal channels even though they may not have an invitation?
I would also warn against what Jonathan Lynn (one of the writers of Yes Minister) has described as ‘institutional hypocrisy’. He says, and I agree, that it is embedded in our national psyche at every level and as far as we are concerned in the world of dogs is demonstrated more often than I care to remember. It occurs when people make public statements from the moral high ground and who, when faced with a situation which gives them the opportunity to demonstrate their impartiality, show themselves to be biased and/or prejudiced.
If Bob’s initiative can begin to address and solve these sorts of problems as well as some of the many others which are already posted on his group then I will be delighted. Very best of luck to you all and I will be pleased to join you when you make your formal protests to the Kennel Club and camp out on the pavement in Charges Street!

Back in 1973, Joe Cartledge, Liz Cartledge, Angela, and I created the Dog Directory.  I was involved for five editions and Joe and Liz published a sixth before it was sold to Dog World who continued publication quarterly for several years.  I mention this to explain that for close to forty years I have been involved and concerned about the quality of puppies being sold and supporting efforts to improve access by the general public to good breeders.  This continues in the development of the PuppyIndex scheme of the Pet Care Trust, my support for the Kennel Club’s Accredited Breeder Scheme and of course, any other well-designed scheme which encourages breeders to breed good quality puppies and enables the general public to buy puppies that are sound and healthy.
That said, there are significant weaknesses in every approach and even if the government brought in statutory requirements either through new legislation or the development of secondary legislation in conjunction with the 2006 Animal Welfare Act, the experience of previous canine related government initiatives such as the Dangerous Dogs Act and the Breeder of Dogs Welfare Act, indicates that it would not achieve its objectives.  This is partly because many of those tasked with implementing its provisions would simply not to do so because of the cost and effort involved while many of those that should comply would find ways in which compliance could be avoided.
Given that the likelihood of legislation being introduced is very remote, we are left with what can be achieved through the good offices of those committed to the provision of quality puppies to the market.  The routes are many and varied.  Until a few years ago, Exchange and Mart, local papers and the canine press were the preferred options for direct sale to the public and thoughtful potential puppy owners would use these mechanisms.  However, the vast majority of families wanting a dog would be attracted by the puppies which had been whelped to the local stud dog in their immediate vicinity or go to an RSPCA rescue kennel, one of the major dogs homes, or to a pet shop or a trading kennel, many of which were set up in the late 60s and 70s.  Incidentally, over the last forty years the number of puppies (and kittens too) sold in high street pet shops has decreased significantly to the extent that only about 2% of such pet shops now sell puppies and kittens.  Trading kennels, on the other hand, have continued to do a roaring trade.  These are premises set up primarily to sell puppies and as they need a Pet Shop License they are sometimes confused with the responsible high street shops many of which will provide advice and lists of responsible breeders through schemes such as PuppyIndex but who do not themselves sell puppies.
In the meantime the Internet has provided a huge resource both for information about dogs, dog breeds and dog training and there are many websites which have been set up to provide puppies for the public.  Some schemes are very carefully moderated and monitored while others just provide a mechanism for puppy breeders whether they are small-scale hobby breeders or involved in the mass production of puppies to fulfil the market.  Many of the best breeders have their own websites with a great deal of information for the general public about the puppies they breed and there is no doubt that this is excellent marketing as well as providing, usually, clear and helpful information.  But how does the public know which are the responsible breeders and which source their stock from puppy farmers?  It is often very difficult to tell.
To make matters more complicated for those websites who make a real effort to only promote the best breeders, the demands made on the clients are considerable.  The more reliable the site the greater the amount of work is involved to fulfil the criteria requested.  The inevitable result is that the best sites have the fewest number of litters available.  Given that the Kennel Club registers about a quarter of a million puppies each year (probably something less than one third of the total born) you can see that there is a long way to go.  In practice, if all the best breeders moved to a larger scale and bred many more puppies so they fulfilled the demands of the market, ( as is largely the case in Scandinavia where almost all puppies born are both planned and of pedigree) then the puppy farmers would not have a market and would cease to be involved.  But while most responsible breeders are so narrowly focused this is unlikely ever to happen.
We are left therefore, with the situation as it now stands – complicated by many individuals and organisations trying to take the moral high ground by using the shortcomings of other provision in the market to boost their own credentials.  One of these is an organisation called Puppy Love which has done a great deal of excellent work bringing the publics attention to the dreadful conditions in which some puppies are bred.  They have recently issued a press release slamming the Kennel Club for being hypocritical and unethical.  Inevitably some other organisations have used these criticisms to promote their own agendas without seriously considering the implications of the ideas of what they are now helping to promote.  One of the criticisms is that the Kennel Club has in some sense ‘stolen’ material which is rightly the copyright of Puppy Love because some clips of puppy farms were used in a recent Crufts programme on More4.  On investigation, as expected, this is not the case.  Channel Five who broadcast the original programmes about puppy farming supplied the tapes to More4 legitimately so Puppy Love should address their concerns to Channel Five.  A second criticism was that the Kennel Club was behaving hypocritically in condemning puppy farms while accepting registrations from large-scale breeders.  No consideration was given to how the KC could make a distinction between ‘large-scale breeders’ who are puppy farmers and those who legitimately breed a lot of puppies in what might be excellent conditions The truth is that much of the Kennel Club’s income is derived from registrations and the vast proportion of this money is spent in research into canine diseases and in the development of its ABS.  Despite its weaknesses, the ABS has more resources devoted to it than any other similar scheme and it is by far the largest too.  As a result many more breeders are being brought into a net which makes demands on their behaviour.  It is true that some will ignore those demands but at least there is a system in place which continues to grow, is introducing face-to-face monitoring and has the resources to follow up complaints.   The conclusion drawn was that both the KC and its Accredited Breeders Scheme was unacceptable and discredited.
Where do these people come from?  As explained above, any scheme and any organisation will have its weakness and those weaknesses do not necessarily derive from the work that they do: it is much more likely that the complexity of our society and human imperfections and feelings make fulfilling the criteria which all responsible breeders would like to see in place impossible.  One would hope that everyone who has as their objective the better health and welfare of puppies would at least be able to recognise the work being is being done by others.  The Kennel Club, rightly, feels it should bring puppy farming to the attention of the general public and did so through the Craft television programme.  It is bizarre that other organisations will ‘disapprove’ of them for so doing in an attempt to promote their own agenda.
This is not to say that either the Kennel Club or any other organisation should be given uncritical support.  Where there are weaknesses these should be pointed out but criticisms should be based on shortcomings and not just used as a stick to beat an organisation or group with which you do not agree.  The world of dogs is composed of a myriad of organisations and individuals involved in protecting, promoting and encouraging dog ownership and their best possible care.  It is a great shame when some do not recognise the strengths of others and are not prepared to give them credit where it is due.
Naturally, there will be occasional serious clashes of philosophy internally and such disputes are inevitable in a democratic society, but this article focuses on the relationship between those of us involved in the world of dogs and the outside world – that of the general public whose only concern is that that their dog is sound and healthy, that it is well-behaved and that it leads a long and comfortable life.  Let’s get our act together, folks!

I was saddened by the death of Michael Foot. He was an extraordinary, passionate and Quixotic man who influenced many millions of people throughout his life including my father, who was proud to be a Tribunite, and me when I was young and politically naïve. My younger brother, who remained politically naïve through his life, wore out shoes on marches to Aldermaston, where many were given cups of tea passed through the barbed wire fences surrounding the site by those who worked at AWRE – one of whom was my brother in law, Angela’s brother, who was already a research physicist at the establishment.
Foot was one of the few people who, if his name were to be called in a debate, would attract members of parliament, whatever their party, into the chamber. He was a wonderful speaker – although those who did not agree with him called his style ‘rambling’ – who generated amazing emotional electricity when he spoke. You came away agreeing with every word even though on reflection you realised that some of the basic premises on which his philosophies were founded were often totally impractical.   I doubt he ever used the word ‘pragmatic’ in anything but a derogatory sense.
Although now best known for his failure as a spectacularly unsuccessful leader of the Labour Party this is not surprising as he was not a politician: he was a writer, speaker and journalist first and foremost. Politics, despite his commitment, was a means to an end rather than and end in itself although if we are to be fair, the manifesto for which he was responsible (and was at the time described as ‘the longest suicide note in history’) recommended that Banks should be taken into public ownership – not such a bad idea in retrospect.
But parliament was of vital importance to him and he achieved a great deal while a member of the House of Commons but being effective in the political arena is not the same as being a leader. Ideas, (and Michael Foot had plenty – mostly radical and sometimes bizarre but always grounded in his innate humanity) and negotiating skills are the stuff of politics but being a leader requires something more. It is not just about ‘taking the tough decisions’ which we hear from our current prime minister. Most choices at most levels of human activity above that of deciding whether to have fish and chips or a beef burger for supper, are tough and difficult but to be a leader you actually have an immensely strong personality: you have to be a tough person. I have reported elsewhere the view of Cesar Millan that it is only humanity that is prepared to allow itself to be subjugated by power gained for its own sake and attained through violence. Despite the fact that in the West at least, violence is not generally regarded as the route to success although the toughness required of leaders may well mean that is necessary to be something of a bully to get the things that need doing done.
I have to say this has never been my view. I am not religious but I believe that some aspects of religion (as distinct from the faith, obsession and uncritical commitment which have been so damaging to humanity) from art and architecture to philosophy and literature have immeasurably benefited mankind. One of these is the approach to decision making developed by the Quakers and I have found that to guide those involved in decision making towards a consensus is by far the best way to reach conclusions that are acceptable. Unfortunately this is a time consuming approach – and if you are going to make progress you often have to be prepared to move quickly despite the risk of repenting your decisions at leisure. Whatever you may think of the Kennel Club’s reaction to Pedigree Dogs Exposed no one can accuse the management of not acting quickly
What has all this to do with dogs? A good question. These thoughts have been brought to the surface by a number of issues which have been affected by decision making that has been too forceful, too woolly or not thought through. But before that I would like to bring a quotation to your attention from J K Galbraith the economist. He said, ‘Politics is not the art of the possible. Is consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable’. Think about that as you read the rest of this article. Here are just three of many examples:
I was notified last week that the Companion Animal Welfare Council’s initiative to develop better relations between those involved in dog training and behaviour will cease because ‘the role of CAWC continues to be publicly misrepresented’. I understand the frustration felt by those arranging the meetings and there is no doubt that many of those attending took up philosophical positions which were so deeply embedded that it was difficult to have a rational discussion with them. How different from Cesar Milan’s approach which is that if it is kind and it works the philosophy does not matter – it is the trainer that is the key – not the method. The CAWC hosted meetings did make some progress: on a code of practice which most of those present felt that they could sign up to; the original report published in 2008 led to the setting up of the Pet Education, Training and Behaviour Council (www.petbc.org.uk) and there was some sensible discussion about rationalising and trying to standardise the various letters which behaviourists and trainers are using after their names. Perhaps the work of the working party had already achieved enough in a difficult (some would say chaotic) area of canine politics. Time will tell.
I see too that there is continuing criticism of the Kennel Club’s Accredited Breeder Scheme. I have been critical too but I have to say that tremendous progress has been made over the past year. Would this and the many other vitally important initiatives over the last eighteen months, have happened had there not been strong (and tough) leadership in Clarges Street? You may feel the results have been a disaster but what if the KC had done nothing in the face of the Tsunami of the RSPCA, Dogs Trust et al? Of course, strong leadership has a downside as German Shepherd and other breed enthusiasts have discovered and it could be argued that some changes have been rushed through but you cannot have it all ways – some may be smarting psychologically but as yet, no one has been physically pushed aside or hit!
The Judges Development Programme is now ten years old and I can absolutely confirm that the decisions taken when this structure was being set up took a great deal of time – almost three years in fact. Also that it had the widest consultation of any Kennel Club initiative in its history with every breed club and general society being asked for its opinion and an open invitation to anyone else to make their comments and suggestions. As part of the group working on it, I know personally how much time staff and members of the working group spent on sifting through and considering the hundreds of replies we had. Despite all this, judging from some of the comments currently doing the rounds at least, we either got it wrong or circumstances have changed so fundamentally that the programme is not longer fit for purpose. I can absolutely assure you that it is not lack of effort on the part of those at Clarges Street or within the societies running the scheme. Everyone wants to make it work and ensure that it is effective. It is true that had my own advice been followed we would not have started from where we did – but I was one voice and the consensus was against me(you do not have to sympathise – I’m used to it!). But everyone agreed that ‘something had to be done’. What do you do under those circumstances? Walk away and let them get on with or stay involved and try to make the best of it?
Oh for decisions made with hindsight! What a wonderful world it would be.

Two very different facets of my past experience came to mind this week which were triggered by an article in Our Dogs by Malcolm Willis’s article about the current controversy in German Shepherd Dogs.  Malcolm has been a friend for many years and when the Animal Care College (www.animalcarecollege.co.uk) was running regular seminars on Judging and Breeding in the 1980/90s he was a regular speaker.  He was greatly appreciated and admired by students, many of whom have taken top awards in our Winners Supplement over the years and who are judging at the highest levels today. The thousands of hours of work Malcolm has put in, his publications, his talks, advice and his articles have been of immense value to the world of dogs and I know from personal experience that he has always been willing to listen and bring thoughtful and knowledgeable input into any problem about dogs, breeding and genetics brought to him.

In reading his article I was reminded about an important factor of these courses written for judges and breeders: that of ‘perception’.  I must first say that in the first edition of the Judging Diploma course which I wrote in 1980, I omitted this very important section and it was one of our students at the very first seminar we ran at Maidenhead who pointed out this significant oversight.   In fact, he developed his ideas in his thesis and with his permission, I used the illustrations he created in my own lectures for many years.  The key element in the discussion is that the brain ‘interprets’ what we see physically and the conclusions we come to mentally, through the filter of our experience so that our internal vision of both our ideas and surroundings may not be the same as the person next to us or with whom we are having a discussion.

At its simplest I use the example of the way in which the eye works.  You will know that at the back of the eye, not quite in the centre but close to it, the optic nerve ‘connects’ to the retina in an area called the optic nerve cup.  The retina itself is covered with the optic nerve fibres (receptors) which connect to the nerve and carry information of light, shade and colour to the optic nerve and thence to the brain where it is processed to give us a visual experience.  Despite the advertising for a well-known camera which implies that our brain collects photocopied ‘images’ as we see things around us, we do not have ‘pictures’ in our mind – if we did there would be a round blank space in the centre of each because the optic nerve cup does not have any receptors so cannot ‘see’.  The reason that we do not go around with the moving blank space in everything we look at is that our brain ‘fills in’ any gaps.  I discovered last year that I have mild glaucoma and a quadrant of my right eye has been damaged so there are very few receptors in that area.  Fortunately it was discovered and has responded well to treatment but I would not have known had not my optician recognised an anomaly during an eye test two years ago.  As far as I am concerned I see as normal because my brain ‘collects’ electro-chemical links from the rest of the receptors which give me what is ‘normal’ vision.

In an experiment carried out in the 1950’s a man was given a pair of prismatic goggles which when worn appeared to turn his world upside down.  He wore them for a few days and one morning he woke up to find that even wearing the goggles he was ‘seeing’ everything the right way up – until he took them off when his world was once again the wrong way up.  A few days later, he was back to normal.  Many people wear two different contact lenses, one for short sight and one for long sight.  Their brain quickly learns to use the correct eye for what they are looking at so they appear to have normal vision without spectacles.

Taking this a step further, you will have noticed that when you take a picture of a tall building the resulting photograph is distorted so the building looks as if it is falling over backwards.  It did not look like that when you looked up at because your brain made the necessary correction so that it looked ‘normal’ – it did what modern photo manipulation computer programmes can do automatically – in your mind.

What has this got to do with dogs? ‘ Simples’, as the Meercats would say.  If you as the judge stand in the ring and look at, say, a Border terrier on the ground a few feet in front of you it looks perfectly normal in terms of its conformation.  If you took a picture of it, it would look very short on the leg because of the inevitable distortion the camera would give to the image.  Your brain is ‘adjusting’ the image so that it looks ‘right’.  This means you have no idea whether the dog is long in back, short on the leg, has a head in proportion to its body, a tail that is at the right angle or whether it has the correct depth of chest.  You can only be sure of these proportions by either putting the dog on the table or crouching down so that you can see the proportions correctly.  A judge recent complimented me on a bitch I was showing because she was the ‘correct’ square outline.  She is not – it is one of her two obvious faults – but the judge was standing above her so was not able to assess the length of leg in relations to the length of body.
If you are looking at a dog (crouching down so you see its true proportion) against a breeze block wall – that is one where the sizes of the blocks are quite large – it will look smaller that it would against a wall of ordinary (smaller) bricks.  ‘That Whippet looks big,’ you might hear someone say.  It may not be – what is the person seeing it in relation to?

In the same way our minds interpret information through the filter of our experience.  If we are comfortable and used to the look of a breed we love, we may not be able to see what others see in terms of its outline, feature or shape and not be prepared to consider other views.  And those who believe that such an outline, feature or shape are unacceptable may not be prepared to read or seriously consider research which might, just might, undermine their view.

You might bear some of these thoughts in mind when you are next in a discussion.  You may find you have a different perspective.

In the near twenty years I have been writing articles none other than my video about Pedigree Dogs Exposed* (over 15,000 viewings and over 400 hundred comments) has generated as much heat as my recent article on German Shepherd Dogs which has been read 300 times and generated 60 comments.  This is over and above anyone who read the article when it was published in Our Dogs in early January and demonstrates not just people’s enthusiasm and commitment for breed by those deeply involved, but what can only be described as their ‘passion’.  I am great believer in passion.  Balzac said, ‘Passion is universal humanity. Without it religion, history, romance and art would be useless,’ and Anthony Robins, one of the world’s most successful motivational speakers and management gurus, said ‘Passion is the genesis of genius’.  We will return to Anthony Robbins later but first I must bring us down to earth and point out that passion may be one of the most powerful emotions which drives humanity but it cannot be denied that it does not always steer it in the right direction.

The Kennel Club is made up of people who are, mostly, passionate about dogs.  Although some might say they that many are more passionate about power, my experience is that it is the love of, and commitment to, dogs which is members’ over-riding concern and sentiment.  Unfortunately, bureaucracy tends to mask enthusiasm so the KC usually comes across as pretty soulless.  They have to cover every media, government, charity, scientific base in anything they say and do where as you and I can more or less say what we like and ignore the consequences.

The comments on my GSD article are an excellent case in point.  Many good and sensible points are made but they almost always address narrow issues and take little account of what would happen in the wider world were their ideas to be adopted wholesale.  To counter this, the KC has published a press release (as reported elsewhere in Our Dogs this week) which tries to put everything in perspective.  Unfortunately it may not help – after all everything in it has been said before to little avail.  I know how they feel because although I am occasionally deliberately provocative: ‘putting matters in perspective’ has been what I have always tried to do.   But if you try to steer a middle course there is a tendency for both ‘sides’ to make the assumption that as you are not on ‘theirs,’ you must be with the ‘others’!  This is almost never the case but there is a considerable amount of sociological research indicating that whenever one ‘takes a stand’ on an issue and particularly if you are not prepared to compromise, the consequence is to drive everyone who might have some sympathy into another, alternative corner.

The other problem with ‘passion’ is that it tends to feed off the emotional side of our brains rather the logical, reasonable and dispassionate areas.   The result is that a fog descends and it often becomes impossible to come to a rational view.  At worst this results in dictatorships and ethnic cleansing and at best rifts between those who once were friends – but there is good news.  We may be becoming more civilised

The initial discussions on GSDs on my web log took a series of what appeared to be entrenched and disparate positions but over the past week or so the tone has changed and there have genuine attempts to understand other points of view.  Jemima Harrison, John Leadbeater and David Payne have all made contributions which, although not conceding a great deal have nevertheless acknowledged that some of what the others have been saying has merit.  You will not be surprised to learn that David and Jemima have somewhat similar views on the Kennel Club and I see that fact that each can recognise that there are some points of agreement has to be a good thing.  What is just as interesting is that discussion has been conducted in a rational and reasonable manner.  The parties certainly disagree but the very fact that they and others are prepared to put their names to their views and do not hide behind ‘user names’, improves the quality of the posts.

I have been delighted at much of the discussion and this brings me back to Anthony Robins.  One of things he emphasises is that, ‘Quality questions create a quality life. Successful people ask better questions, and as a result, they get better answers’.  I hope in these articles I ask the right questions (I certainly think I did about German Shepherd Dogs) and I think Jemima, for all the distortions she edited into her programme, asked the right questions too.  Had she not done so, the damage to our world would have been very much less so we would have been allowed to remain in our comfortable cocoon.  As things stand, distasteful or not, the programme triggered an unprecedented acceleration of progress within Clarges Street’s hallowed portals.  The last eighteen months or so may have been uncomfortable and some may have felt pilloried (and threatened too) but change is uncomfortable – and progress cannot be made without change.

Be passionate – but ask the right questions. It might be more effective if the Kennel Club took part in these discussions rather than sending out more press releases.

*You can see and hear my talk at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njPsECODIBs or log onto You Tube and search for Pedigree dogs exposed Exposed!

The Kennel Club has come in for a real roasting over the last eighteen months and anyone who understands the background will long have held the view that the recent furore was an accident waiting to happen.  It is true that Pedigree Dogs Exposed has now been accepted as a valuable catalyst/crowbar for change regardless of the distorted and unfair portrayal of the Kennel Club, those representing it and many other breeders, but there can be no doubt that in some ways Clarges Street was hoist by its own petard and so allowed Ms Harrison (and many others happy to pillory those dedicated to pedigree dogs and the advantages of selective breeding) to exploit its weakness.

But all the Kennel Club has tried to do, like the Royal Society, the Institute of Architects, the Royal Society of Arts and thousands of other organisations, is to attempt to regulate.  And it has been very successful, for most institutions have alternatives while the Kennel Club has a virtual monopoly.  But this success of course, contains the seeds of its weakness: it is blamed for any failure and there is no-one else conveniently accountable.  This will remain the case while it represents but a tiny fraction of those involved.  At one time I estimated that this was about half of one percent put the rise in popularity of activities such as heelwork to music, the Young Kennel Club, Flyball, Good Citizens, Canine Club and the rest has, despite the fall in popularity of formal Obedience, means that this fraction is even smaller now than it once was.  With not many more than 1,100 members there is no chance that government, local authorities and the charities will attempt to lay the blame anywhere other than Clarges Street, even though they are not actually responsible.  Why not I hear you cry?  Let me explain.

Having said all the above let us look at the whole situation through a different window.  If you give it some thought it is difficult not to come to the conclusion that, despite all the fuss, the Kennel Club is not directly answerable for any of this because human beings delight in the extreme.  Whether it is in sport, music, building, faster cars, cooking more complicated food, bizarre artistic creation or the selective breeding of dogs, cats, birds and other animals, humanity is hard wired to strive for difference and ascendancy: it is what makes us human.  The Kennel Club does not and in fact, cannot, control what people ‘like’.

When my wife and I first got a dog, part of the compromise (another part was me going to work for three weeks in a milk bottling factory during my summer holiday to earn the money to pay for her) was that I chose the breed.  I was immediately attracted to the Spitz group and after a great deal of discussion a Finnish Spitz is the breed we selected.  In my view they should be much more popular than they are but many people do not like the style and shape of the dog.  It looks too ‘fox like,’ it can be noisy – it does not have to be – and they are not the easiest to train – doing what you want simply is not their style.  We like that, we like the independence and the smart, alert look of them, the ‘handy’ size and we are lucky to have had excellent dogs and to have subsequently bred some very good ones.

Others have different views: they want dogs to work to the gun, to train to a very high standard, to be every good with children or to be as little trouble as possible. Or, and here we come to the point, they want dogs that are very big, very long, very heavy, very brave, very strong, very delicate or with an unusual shape, head or expression.  The Kennel does not dictate these preferences – the public does and breeders, many of who are interested in their breed and want to win well and breed better dogs only reflect them.  What us more, in just the same way that they like the look of their dogs, so do others who may not want to show or but simply want a pet.  And if there is a market it will be filled – preferably by a responsible breeder who ensures that they only breed the best and take a great deal of time and trouble to feed, socialise and test their puppies.

But more than this, once there is a market, those who are not concerned about quality will come forward to fill it.  Just because we are dealing with a sentient being does not mean others may not treat it as a commodity which will make profits if it can be brought forward for sale with sufficient margin.  Again, the Kennel Club cannot be blamed for this  – and it is not Crufts or dog shows that contribute to the problem either – it is the very media which have turned so viciously on the fancy.

Let us look at the facts. When Crufts was televised it was seen by millions of people all over the world through a four-week ‘window’.  Last year it was web streamed very successfully although if you look at the figures the numbers watching was comparatively small.  But apart from that, the number of pedigree pet owners who attend dog shows as spectators at any level other than Crufts is tiny and although 50,000 plus is a very respectable figure to squeeze into the NEC, it is a small proportion of the total population and many of those are true enthusiasts coming for a second day.  So the exposure of pedigree dogs generated by the Kennel Club and its activities is actually microscopic (a smaller proportion to the population at large even than the membership of the KC is to the number of those actively involved in dogs probably).

So where is the interest in the extremes of dogs propagated?  In the media, of course! How many times does the Churchill insurance advertisement appear on TV, on posters and in newspapers and magazines every day – hundreds!  Children see that cute little Bulldog time after time after time throughout their most formative years and view it as a cuddly, adorable family friend with a sense of humour.  Why is it surprising that when they grow up they like the large head, the wrinkled skin, the turned up nose and the thick set build?  Those children will be exposed to other conformations, it is true, but nothing is telling them that one is preferable to the other.  Then they go into the toyshop and are faced with a fluffy version to take home and sleep with.  Do their parents say, ‘No – you should have this Border Collie instead – a Bulldog shows characteristics which lead to genetic disease?’  Of course they don’t.  Pedigree are currently using a Bulldog in their ads for Jumbone, Eukanuba are using a Boxer – Boxers are very popular – and the Harry Potter films have added to the popularity of the Neapolitan Mastiff.

I am surprised, now I come to think of it, that the RSPCA are not calling for legislation to prevent advertisers from using the ‘at risk’ breeds in advertisements. That sort of legislation would be easy to pass, easy to implement and, I suspect, rather more effective than lashing out at the easiest target – the Kennel Club.

Note to advertisers:  I am not complaining about you.  You are entitled to use whatever images you like to sell your products and you have to use those that will be effective but do not be surprised if the Non-governmental Organisation/Charity searchlight begins to focus on you.

I must make it clear from the outset that I am not on anyone’s ‘side’ in this debate.  My concern is solely with the health, welfare and quality of the dogs.

Some pictures came my way a few weeks ago which I would like to share with you. It caught my eye because of a column I wrote a couple of months ago about German Shepherd Dogs which led to some discussion with GSD enthusiasts. The correspondence I received at the time demonstrated, in spades, the points I was making recently in another context about closed minds. I was sent an outline of the skeleton of a GSD, the one reproduced here, and told that it was accepted by breeders in Germany and throughout the world as the ‘ideal’. My view is that although exaggerated it was well within the parameters which I have outlined in these articles about conformation and soundness in the past so it was fine by me. If you examine the drawing, you can see that it represents a relatively normal conformation. The second thigh is somewhat over long and the angles in the hind quarter are significantly at variance with those in the forehand (the expectation in a ‘normal’ construction is that they would be very similar) but nevertheless the structure is acceptable.

I was then directed to the picture of a dog and told that it had won a sheaf of awards – and that it typified the conformation demonstrated in the drawing of the skeleton.  This is the one.

Here my correspondent and I part company. Imagine the photograph overlaid on the skeleton. Does it fit? No it does not – not by any stretch of the imagination.

We are often told in no uncertain terms that we should look to Germany for our inspiration and I am therefore delighted to bring you a third illustration which was taken in Germany prior to 1957 (it must have been before 1957 as this picture was when the book was published in a German book on dogs breeds). The book is fascinating and has many lovely monochrome pictures showing quite clearly that many indigenous German breeds in the ring today including Rottweilers and Dobermanns, look very similar to those being shown fifty years ago.

As you can see, an exception is the German Shepherd Dog.

This picture shows a judges training session at a German show. You can see that the skeleton on the blackboard that the ‘live model, black German Shepherd would fit neatly over it.

My question is a simple one – why is there so much attention being paid to the modern German Shepherd Dogs from Germany when they are so very different to the type and conformation of those which were considered ideal in the 1950s? Pictures from the books in my own library from the 1950s show UK dogs very similar to the black dog here. They were taken in the late 1940s I think, before the British fashion for long backed, low to ground GSDs became prevalent, a style which provoked firstly a reaction to and then the establishment of, the ‘real’ GSDs from Germany which gave us our current ‘Germanic’ type. The problem appears to me not to have been with UK breeders but German breeders who were getting away from what was the ideal shape and conformation demonstrated by the dog in the seminar photograph.

Fortunately, there are still many breeders of ‘balanced’ and not ‘extreme’ German Shepherds and so ‘on the street’ and occasionally in the ring, you do see sound GDSs that have not been designed to pull against the lead when gaiting.

What is such a shame is that we have already seen a significant reduction in the numbers of the breed shown in recent years as breeders of the two ‘styles’ have become locked into a battle which has ego at its heart rather than the dog (though to be fair this is not very different to many breeds and breed clubs). I wonder how long it will be before sales of GSD puppies are seriously affected. This may provide more of a stimulus than pressure from the Kennel Club to put breeders back on track.

Finally, here is another picture from the same book. My German is negligible but I understand the caption indicates that this dog is considered ‘a superb example of the breed’.

I submit that the breeders in Germany are those ones who have ‘got it wrong’ and that many of those in the UK have slavishly followed their lead without thinking the consequences through.

Figures recently released by the National Health Service have shown that biting incidents by dogs have risen sharply over the last ten years. Apparently these figures only include those people admitted to hospital after reporting to Accident and Emergency and not those who are treated and sent home. This means the actual figure and percentage is likely to be much higher. The immediate reaction of those involved in re-homing dogs is that this is due to the increased number of dogs being used for fighting and as ‘protection dogs’ by individuals who want to look tough on the streets. To some extent this may be true but I believe the real reason is much more to do with society’s attitude and approach to dog training, an approach which has undergone and significant change over the last ten years. Can this be co-incidence? I think not.

Let me explain. At one time, the Barbara Woodhouse school of dog training reigned supreme. The owner had to be ‘in charge’ and the dog had to be forced into subservience by recognising its owner as its ‘pack leader’. The theory is based on what has been perceived by researchers as the behaviour of wolves in the wild, although it has since become clear that most of that research was carried out with wolves that were not truly ‘wild’ and did not have to compete for food. What was not recognised was the immense changes which had taken place in the behaviour of dogs as a result of their being domesticated. The DNA may have remained the same but the subtle changes in behaviour as a result of selective breeding had not been taken into account.

Added to this was the work by Karen Prior and many others that showed the effectiveness of what is called positive re-enforcement. That is, if you reward the behaviour you want the animal will quickly continue to behave in that way rather than behave badly. As a teacher I know that if you encourage pupils you get better results than beating them and that one of the most powerful forces in education is not punishment but the withdrawal of praise. The principle is the same although we have to recognise that there are circumstances when it is not enough – as we shall see.

Personally, I accept and use positive re-enforcement and there is no doubt that it is extremely effective as can be seen by such disciplines at Heelwork to Music where its ‘magic’ is so clearly demonstrated. If you bring a puppy up using this approach you will almost certainly have a well-behaved and well-socialised adult dog, which will be a pleasure to own.

Dogs behave well for one of two reasons: they are either selectively bred to behave in a certain way as can be seen in the Border Collie, many gundogs and the work of Guide Dogs for the Blind who have many generations of dogs bred to be ideally suited to their work, or they are well trained by their breeders and their owners using the positive re-enforcement techniques which we are speaking about and which are described in many books and used by many behaviourists.

But as always with changes in perception the pendulum tends to swing too far and this has resulted in many canine behaviourists rejecting any suggestion that a dog should be subjected to ‘negative’ re-inforcement and some believe that even raising your voice to draw a dog’s attention to its unacceptable behaviour is tantamount to ‘cruelty’.

A recent statement by an group called the Dog Welfare Organisation tends towards this view. It calls what I have referred to as ‘negative re-enforcement’, ‘aversive’ training techniques which includes choke chains – used by Guide Dogs for the Blind incidentally as well as many in the show world and Kennel Club registered trainers) among the unacceptable ‘unpleasant stimuli used to inhibit behaviour’.

I do not and would not condone any form of cruelty in ensuring a dos behaves acceptably but the thinking behind the Dog Welfare Organisation is naive and makes the assumption that all dogs and all anti-social behaviour can be treated using positive re-inforcement (what is often called ‘reward based’ training) and I am afraid that this is simply not the case.

The reason is not because positive reward based training does not work – it most certainly does – but that many, many dogs in the community become adult with ingrained bad habits because their owners have allowed them to behave in a way which is not acceptable and have not encouraged the dog to behave well through proper training. It is these dogs that cause the problems and these dogs that are mostly responsible for the rise in biting incidents and, incidentally, clogging up the re-homing system in our rescue kennels.

I think we have to recognise that any learning experience is not necessarily comfortable – ask any student preparing for examinations. Of course it better if learning is fun and the learner is highly motivated but to achieve anything worthwhile requires hard work on someone’s part and a degree of discipline, whether self or externally imposed, is essential if progress towards any skill is to be made. And if there are bad habits then the demands are inevitably increased: think of giving up smoking or dieting and remember a dog does not have that sort of personal, peer motivation and support.

This is not say that the negative equipment and procedures which include prong collars, electric shock collars and ‘pinning to the ground’, named by the Dog Welfare Organisation are acceptable but to condemn an effective trainer such as Cesar Millan (and by implication many others such as Mic Martin in the UK) who deal with dogs which have behaviours which are exceptionally difficult to modify is misleading and counter productive.

In my view it is no co-incidence that there are no DVDs showing really difficult dogs being rehabilitated by positive re-enforcement while there are many which show effective training using other techniques which, I must emphasise, are neither cruel nor unusual. The press release states that ‘a number of scientific studies have found an association between the use of aversive training techniques and the occurrence of undesired behaviours in dogs’. There are certainly some such studies but the information I have about them is that ‘scientific’ is a misnomer, that they have not been peer reviewed and there are no links to them on the organisation’s web site at www.dogwelfarecampaign.org

The answer of course, is as always, the education of breeders and pet owners to ensure dogs are properly socialised from the nest. That is where the focus of these organisations should be.

Animal Care College - caring for people caring for animals

The key components of soundness which I have stated on many occasions goes back to the Judging Diploma Course which I wrote (with a great deal of advice from Les Crawley, Pamela Cross Stern, Peter Larkin and Wendy Boorer) back in 1980.  Not that the concept was new: I wrote about the book Conformation and Soundness in Animals published in the 1960s by the Veterinary Surgeon RH Smythe recently but I think my phraseology summarising those ideas, was concise and has stood the test of time.  It is that in any species subject to selective breeding, any departure in conformation or characteristics from the ‘norm’ is acceptable so long as the animal can eat, move, breathe, mate (and whelp and suckle so far as females are concerned) naturally and effectively.   Once you have to restrict exercise, mash food, have generalised and persistent back or joint problems to give just three examples, then the exaggeration selectively bred for has exceeded what is tolerable.

Wendy Boorer used to use the example of a breed of pigeon which had such a distorted beak that it could no longer release its chicks from the egg and I know a few years ago a food company produced a specially shaped kibble which allowed very short-faced cats to pick it up easily.  This is not a criticism of the food company (they were only responding to customer demand) but is a criticism of the breeders who felt that such short-faced cats were acceptable.

Now apply the same arguments to dogs and you can see where I am coming from.

I think none of these criteria need any further explanation but in recent years I have come to the conclusion that we should add a further requirement: that a healthy dog will have a length of life within the longevity spread of the ‘bell’ curve for the species as a whole.  Let me explain for those, like me, who have forgotten all that stuff about graphs and statistics they learned at school.  A bell curve is a graph which looks just as it says – roughly the shape of the sort of bell used in church steeples or in a hand bell.  The graph expresses two factors being measured.  They can be anything but in this instance it is ‘age’ with the length of the curve (the X axis) showing the length of life in years and the height (the Y axis) showing the number that die at any given time.  In statistics it is usual for the very first and the very last readings to be omitted so this would eliminate still born puppies and those dying within a few days of birth and the exceptionally old.  What is left in this instance is an indication of the population longevity of a given species. At the beginning of the curve few die young and at the end, few become very old so the height of the curve is low at the beginning and tails right off at the end when all are dead.  The high point is when the maximum number of animals die.  There are what are called ‘normal’ curves for, say, intelligence and these look very much the correct ‘bell’ shape but those showing longevity are distorted, for the highest point will be well over half way along the X axis.  In humans that highest point is gradually moving further along as, in most populations at least, stay healthier so more of us die at an older age.  In dogs, the same applies, the curve rises until between nine and twelve it is at its highest and then drops away again as by, say, fourteen, most dogs have died and fewer and fewer live longer lives.   If we draw a graph showing the longevity of breeds we have a very different story.  Those closest to the ‘norm’ would fit neatly on the curve for dogs as whole but for some the rise and fall of the line would start earlier and fall away sooner. What we would see is the curve for breeds much larger than the ‘norm’, although approximately the same shape, is ‘shifted’ markedly towards shorter life spans.  I have not carried out any research into the specific breeds listed in the Kennels Club’s ‘fourteen highlighted breeds’ about which they have expressed particular concerns, but I suspect that they would all, whatever their size, show that ‘shift to the left’ described above.  (If breeders in those breeds can show that this is not the case, please contact me direct at mail@davidcavill.co.uk so that I can bring it the attention of readers).

However, extremes of type which affect general health and welfare (which are the result of breeders choosing certain characteristics) are dissimilar to genetic health and many people make the mistake of confusing one with the other although there are some generalised genetic conditions which are the result of extreme characteristics.  Entropion is one example and the breathing difficulties which some breeds’ exhibit is another.  However, these are not the same as, say, Progressive Retinal Atrophy, Mitral Valve Diseas or Syringomyelia which develop unseen.  These and many other conditions may certainly be the result of selective breeding but they are involuntary on the part of the breeder and for a wide variety of reasons difficult to eradicate.  However with understanding, knowledge and commitment they can be reduced and eventually eliminated.  This may require considerable investment in research, expense on the part of the breeder to run the various tests required and the involvement of other, allied breeds (cf Dalmatians) but it can be done.

Conditions directly and voluntarily caused by selective breeding such as entropion are much easier to deal with and this is why the KC is forcing changes in the Standards.  Chows have successfully greatly reduced entropion simply by focusing on breeding dogs with larger, less deeply set and therefore healthier eyes.  Breeding for a longer muzzle can eliminate breathing difficulties: if the dog’s mouth cavity has enough room for its tongue and its nasal cavity enough room for air flow then there is no need for it to ‘snuffel’.  The difference does not need to be great – Shih Tzu have relatively short muzzles but I have come across few with breathing problems.   As far as longevity is concerned, breeders can increase it simply by breeding smaller (or less extreme) dogs – none of this is rocket science once one’s head has been raised from the sand.

David Cavill

Through the Animal Care College I have, inevitably, become deeply involved in the politics of canine training, behaviour and modification.I should make it clear that I do not consider myself a dog trainer or a behaviourist other than in the sense that our own dogs are reasonably well behaved in that they are properly socialised and domestically obedient.However, in the research and development that has been necessary over the years for the programmes delivered by the College I have come to understand the basic mechanisms by which dogs and animals behave and learn.

Several things become clear very quickly:the ways in which animals can be effectively trained covers a very wide spectrum, those who do the training are usually totally convinced that they have the only solutions and that dogs are quite different to other wild and domestic animals.

I would like to examine each of these elements in some detail but I must first emphasise that I am giving an overview here.My historical summary does not mean that all trainers were cruel for many will have been, instinctively, just very good at what they were doing.For instance, shepherds, huntsmen and obedience enthusiasts training their puppies by running them with experienced trained dogs so that the responses were learned by example rather than by force is an excellent example of sensible and effective conditioning which never required force.But the general perception of the development of training techniques is at variance with these techniques.

Effective training ranges from fear to what is currently termed ‘positive reinforcement’.If an animal is frightened it will do what its trainer demands because it does not want to be hurt.At the extreme, the animal is cowed and this is a technique has been used for centuries, especially with wild animals and as far as dogs are concerned, with service dogs.I remember early in my teaching career I worked with a very good teacher who had been a dog handler in the air force during his National Service.We had just got our first Finnish Spitz so, to me, he was an expert.Fortunately, I did not put his advice into practice for we moved soon afterwards but the techniques used were those of the circus and based on ensuring the dog was too scared to do anything other than follow the handler’s instructions.The dogs were trained by regular dog training air men using a strict regime that was absolutely meticulous and structured so that every dog was trained in the same way and to the same commands.They were then handed to the national servicemen who, from what I was told, were trained in much the same way using much the same techniques.When the servicemen had competed their two year stint, the dogs were dumped in a compound with no human company for six weeks.They were so pleased to be let out that they immediately identified with their new handler and automatically took up where they left off, obeying the commands and behaving precisely in the way that they had been trained.

Real change began when Konrad Lorenz developed a number of theories and processes within the natural world and began to study imprinting and animal behaviour patterns.This gradually led to more modern approaches to dog training based on pack hierarchy.This rejects ‘fear’ (and therefore pain and misuse) as the prime trigger to force dogs to behave in specific ways for what can best be described as ‘force of personality’ typified by the Barbara Woodhouse approach.This at least stopped dogs being beaten if they did not obey the trainers’ commands and of course, it worked perfectly well (as did the ‘fear’ method, of course).

Then came Karen Prior (among others, certainly, but I believe she was the first to put the idea of ‘positive reinforcement’ into words) who discovered – in her work training killer whales and dolphins – that if you waited until the animal exhibited a behaviour you approved or wanted, you just had to reward it at the right time with a unique signal for that behaviour.. to be quickly learned and repeatedIt works with any species – and this includes animals and birds as well as fish!Karen Priors ideas were developed for dogs by her, John Rogerson, John Fisher and others and the approach was taken up by experienced trainers and obedience enthusiasts such as Mary Ray and enables the advanced training now used in Heelwork to Music and the other canine training disciplines for support dogs in a dozen areas of disability.

So far, so effective but other layers were being added to what had become the incredibly complex and competitive world of what was once, simply ‘dog training’.

This has been largely due to the fact that dogs are quite unlike other animals.Over the centuries they have become integrated into human society in a unique way that has psychologically changed their nature for most never have to fend for themselves in the natural world.The result has been an animal which although incredibly intelligent, sensitive and responsive to human society has a mentality which is in effect, stunted and juvenile compared to its wolf forebears.What is more, the increasingly complexity of modern life in the West has brought with it extra external demands which have resulted in a range of problems from separation anxiety to unstable temperaments.Suddenly there was not just a demand for dog trainers but for canine psychologists and those who could effectively modify canine behaviours so that pet dogs would ‘fit in’ to their family and environment without causing their owners any trouble.

At the same time, it became clear that some dogs had behavioural problems which stemmed from their physiology so a veterinary input was needed to ensure that the dog was not suffering from a dietary problem or a disease.

in just a few years an immense specialisation has been created and the techniques used for behaviour modification in dogs have been sliced and diced to the extent that the current landscape resembles that of the competing and often vitriolic schools of human psychology beginning with John Locke at the end of the 17th Century through Freud and the emergence of psychoanalysis at the turn of the last Century to the detailed research into the working of the human brain today.

For all these reasons, the study of canine psychology and the modification of caninebehaviour cannot be compared to other domestic animals, including the cat and, most certainly, to the behaviour of animals in the wild.This is not to denigrate the study of animal behaviour: it is an important area of science and whether the research involves animals in their natural surroundings of plain, jungle, sea or air or in zoos and wildlife parks the conclusions will have significant effects on the sustainability of the natural living world.

At the same time, the world of canine psychologists and trainers will have a significant effect on the well being of humanity in the Western world, especially if you believe, as I do, that pets in general and dogs in particular, are an important element in both the physical and mental health of our society.However, therein lies a vital feature of any work with dogs – people are an essential factor in this equation.This quite different to the study of animal behaviour in the natural world where, generally, the impact of humanity other than in an environmental sense, is insignificant.

It is therefore surprising that the Association for the Study of Animal Behaviour (ASAB) is developing such a strong (and for some, unwelcome, voice) in the discussions generated by the Council for Companion Animal Welfare (CAWC).This series of meetings has been held as a result of their report published last year into the Regulation of Companion Animal Services in Relation to Training and Behaviour Modification of Dogs.They have been fascinating in that for the first time so many differing facets of the world of dog training and behaviour have been gathered round the same table.

I have no quarrel with ASAB. They are a highly esteemed academic organisation and their magazine, newsletter and conferences are hugely influential.However, a survey of their publications, articles and conference presentations reveals that none are about dogs.This is not surprising for only a tiny proportion of their 2000 or so members are involved in the world of dogs.For instance, sixteen people are listed as being certified as ‘Clinical Animal Behaviourists’ in cat and/or dog behaviours (you can see the academic requirements for accreditation at

http://asab.nottingham.ac.uk/accred/academic.php)

and there is no doubt that the accreditation process is very thorough – as you would expect of an academic organisation.What is interesting though, is that although I understand some members of ASAB are veterinary surgeons, none are actually listed as Clinical Animal Behaviourists nor are any veterinary surgeons members of the various committees.

A further complication which worries many trainers and behaviourists is that there appears to have been a tendency that as more veterinary surgeons have become involved in this area, some conditions which would respond to normal behaviour modification techniques are being treated with ‘prozac’ type drugs, many of which have not been tested on dogs.I have discussed these difficulties (and those regarding the arrested development of the canine mind) in more detail in the past and I have republished those articles here – just scroll down.

There is no doubt that the world of animal trainers and behaviourists is a tangled mass of conflicting views and ideologies and it needs a structure if it is to be respected and effective.But the academic route, however important it is within its own narrow focus, is not about training dogs – and the vast majority of problems the ordinary pet owner faces is about dog training and there are thousands of effective, worthy and sensible dog trainers and behaviourists in the community who are more than capable of solving 95% of canine problems and training dogs without any academic qualifications (this is not to knock academia – just to put things in perspective).

What is more, the Kennel Club has, without doubt, got the most extensive and comprehensive accreditation scheme already in place.What is required is for all groups and practitioners to sign up to it.I hope that this is achievable.An agreed code of practice, an effective complaints procedure and the KC accreditation scheme is all that is required to get the whole sector working together for the benefit fo dogs and their owners – and in the long term, our society as a whole.

Yes we can!

As many of you will know, the Kennel Club has been developing an accreditation scheme for dog trainers and behaviourists for over two years.The scheme is excellent and comprehensive although it would be fair to say that is progress has not always been smooth and some feel it is much more complicated than it need be.I am not one of them – the accreditation of standards in any field is complex almost by definition – and I feel that those tasked with creating this award have done an excellent job and the first half dozen candidates have just been awarded their certification.

However, there are two issues that have to be addressed.The first appears to be almost solving itself in an entirely unexpected way.It is the question of how dogs are best trained or their behaviour modified.The problems have really arisen because I believe a false dichotomy that been created by the learning processes suggested by some (I emphasise ‘some’) research questioning pack theory.  I am not disputing the findings per se because it shows an evolution in the way in which dogs behave that sounds reasonable and has been successfully demonstrated by many trainers.However, I am saying that other research does not back it up – sometimes partially and sometime completely.  If you go to http://www.anglianwolf.com and click on ‘what is applied canine behaviour’, you will find what I think is a reasonable summary of the ‘old’ perception.

At the same time, I have no problem with the views of Donaldson (both Jean and Ian), Prior, Kerkhove and others, except that their published material is scattered with statements such as ‘if true’, ‘may’, ‘suggests’ and ‘seems’.  You could probably put all those same qualifications into the work done by Lorenz, Trummler and their followers so there is no doubt that the understanding of canine behaviour is not an exact science.

My own view is pragmatic and does not depend on a ‘vision’, ‘research’ or opinion’.  Given that any successful methods employed to train dogs are ‘reasonable’ by any humanitarian standards it does not matter what the theoretical foundation is.  The philosophy and ideas are important, interesting – even fascinating (and should certainly be understood by those involved in any behavioural work) – but they may give rise to a number of approaches to problems of behaviour.But one approach does not necessarily wipe another from the face of the earth and so you would think there is little reason to get upset if there is any disagreement.Not so: most of the proponents of each view are evangelical in their condemnation of the others’ ideas

It seems to me that we have been confused into thinking that there is an enormous gulf between the “old” (harsh and brutal) method, which embraces pack hierarchy and dominance, and the “new” (modern, progressive and gentle) method, which rejects these ideas altogether. Why should we have to choose between one and the other if (and I emphasise ‘if’) both work within those humanitarian parameters on which we all agree?

There appears to be a feeling that if you do not embrace the ‘new’ you are automatically of the ’old’ and therefore are ‘harsh and brutal’.My experience reinforces my belief that this is simply not the case.You may argue that the ‘pack’ approach may give credibility to those who might be harsh and I would take the point if overall attitudes to training had not changed.No one (well, virtually no one) would return to the Barbara Woodhouse ‘school’ despite her methods being very successful.

The reason for all this detail is that as things stand we are not yet in a position to condemn anyone would feels that pack hierarchies provide a reasonable sensible basis for CBM and in our own advanced Canine Psychology course at the Animal Care College we state that serious problems my require ‘rank reduction techniques’ i.e. those based on pack theory.

I took up the dichotomy with Sue Evans who is responsible for the Kennel Club’s accreditation programme.A slow, secretive smile and satisfied smile surfaced.She told me that one of the most interesting aspects of the assessment process was that as assessors had not been ‘screened’ for their views on dog training, many had been assessing candidates from the ‘other’ approach.She said that their faces ‘were a picture’ as they realised that an approach they themselves would not have used and in fact, rejected, worked perfectly well.

This is excellent news.Clearly, the argument is not, as some have suggested, Creationists against Darwinists.In the case of training and behaviour modification there is genuine and palpable evidence on both sides of the argument: much more like two people looking out of the window and one concluding it might rain later and the other concluding that it might clear up and be sunny.

The second may be more difficult.

A recent survey carried out by Pet Plan has revealed that one in four Vets have treated animals, generally dogs, for conditions caused by the ingestion of drugs.Regular readers will remember that I expressed my concern on this issue a month or so back.

Part of the report reads:

‘Whilst mood-enhancing drugs such as cannabis rarely prove fatal for a pet, unpleasant side effects can include dizziness, vomiting and temporary loss of movement.The effects can last up to three or four days and throughout that time; veterinary monitoring is essential to ensure major organs don’t fail. As a result vets bills can run into many hundreds of pounds.’

There was no specific indication as to whether these drugs were introduced by their owners by accident or deliberately by other vets or behaviourists and the assumption in the report surmised accidental ingestion but the possibility that these drugs may have been introduced deliberately highlights once again what is becoming an increasing problem within the world of Canine Behaviour Modification (CBM).

As Studies Co-ordinator of the Animal Care College I have naturally taken an interest in what is going on in the world of CBM and my concern is that those who use psychotropic drugs to calm down unruly dogs either while they treat them for behaviour problems more conventionally or on a permanent basis, are not prepared to listen to the concerns of many experienced trainers, vets and, indeed, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons.They have dug themselves into a trench to extent that they cannot see above the parapet (do trenches have parapets or is does it only apply to battlements?).

The Kennel Club must take a view on this matter in relation to their Accreditation Scheme because the recent culture of demanding stress free training (for some) often requires the administration of prescription drugs.

The panels set up under the Animal Welfare Bill, with its provision of a ‘duty of care’ responsibility to animals are now working on defining that duty as part of secondary legislation.I hope that this will give added impetus to the view that stress levels while dog are being trained should be kept as low as possible and that the used of prescription drugs will be seen only as a last resort rather than a catch all ‘quick fix’ solution.In the meantime, I understand that Royal College will be addressing all aspects of the psychotropic dug issue separately.

(January 2006)

This is a very difficult subject and one on which very little research has been done and, as a result, it subject to even more controversy.

The facts are these: in the mater of behaviour modification there has been an increasingly reliance on what are called psychotropic drugs.The word means ‘having an altering effect on perception, emotion, or behaviour’ and they have been developed to help in the treatment of people who have a range of physiological and psychological problems that place their general behaviour outside what society normally expects.These behaviours range from serious mental disorders to generalised depressions and anxieties.There is a great deal of controversy about the use of these drugs.They can be helpful, certainly but most have significant side effects and because they act on the delicate chemistry of the brain their effect can be unpredictable.Many psychologists and psychiatrists believe that for most minor conditions it is better to ‘work through the pain’ than take tablets, which merely suppress the condition for, when you stop taking the medication, the condition remains.

There are drugs for fear related behaviours (agoraphobia for instance), the control of anxiety and aggression and for mood stabilisation.They include buspirone, diazepam, acepromozine (ACP), lithium, carbamazepine, clomipramine and fluoxetine.They all have their place in the doctors and psychiatrists armoury but the time has long gone when doctors would dole out Vallium on demand for it was soon clear that their patients became psychologically addicted to them and their behaviour, although more stable, was still unpredictable.Nowadays, such drugs come with major health and welfare warnings for they affect the workings of the heart, the liver and the kidneys as well as the brain.There is not space to go into the detail here but a Google search will quickly reveal the long list of adverse effects of any of these drugs.

Over the past few years some canine behaviourists with the support of some veterinary surgeons have been recommending these drugs.This includes the Association of Pet behaviour Counsellors and you can see their independent report on cases where psychotropic drugs were used at http://www.apbc.org.uk/review_2003/report_03.htm.(This was compiled in 2003 and I can find no data on psychotropic drugs in the 2004 [latest] report.)

I am concerned that well educated and qualified though many of them are, most canine behaviourists only have the sketchiest understanding of mammalian metabolism and few are qualified to make a judgment any more complex than you make when you make a decision between Beecham’s Powders and Bisodol when you have a headache – either might work but the former is probably more appropriate than the latter.

I should make it clear I am not against the use of drugs.My point is that (like booster vaccines which have finally been recognised as causing some problems for otherwise healthy dogs) they need to be used with care even by qualified professionals.If a doctor puts a patient on insulin (not a psychotropic drug I know but a medication that will be continued throughout the patient’s life) the patient is properly examined, tests are made and a great deal of time is spent ensuring that they thoroughly understand what it does, how it is used and the other nutritional and lifestyle changes that need to be made in order for it to work effectively.Much the same applies to the use of psychotropic drugs.Their doctor should see the patient regularly and they should have physical tests and blood tests to ensure that the medication will not cause more harm than good – it is almost always a long, complicated process.

It seems to me that few of these safeguards are in place when psychotropic drugs are used on our dogs – and on cats too.Firstly, although they have been licensed for human use (and tested on animals) the research on whether they are actually suitable for use in the treatment of animals is minimal.Furthermore, no research has been done into the effects of any given dose.Most humans are roughly the same size – this is not true of canines and as there is no ‘standard’, who is to say at which point a dog is overdosed?

A veterinary surgeon should always do a series of tests before dogs are given any drugs and these must include psychotropic drugs.The problem I have with all this is that vets are prescribing drugs for canine behaviourists on the advice of the behaviourist.Apart from any ethical or professional considerations this is illegal for both parties.And I would ask whether it is helpful?If a dog is exhibiting an unnatural behaviour it takes the time of a professional, preferably within the dog’s home, to seek out the clues to its relationship with its owner and members of the family, and its environment: this is the work for which an experienced canine behaviourist is supposed to do.There are dozens of factors to take into consideration but it appears that sometimes both consultant and owner are tempted to go for a quick, relatively cheap ‘fix’.But if we have the welfare of the dog at the heart of the matter this can seldom be the best way.

I have incontrovertible evidence that one well known behaviourist suggested to a client on the telephone and without having seen the dog, that they see their vet and ask that a specific drug be prescribed for their dog.

I am suggesting readers should take care.Dugs have their place and there may sometimes be a good reason why a veterinary surgeon after fully appraising the situation will want to prescribe a psychotropic drug. On the other hand, the canine behaviourists knowledge of the overall effects of a drug is likely to be limited.You should also know that there are behaviourists who have no need of any sort of psychotropic drug to achieve their objective – a mentally healthy pet giving pleasure to its owner throughout its life.

If anyone suggests that drugs are the answer to a behavioural problem, my advice would be to start with your veterinary surgeon who you should expect to carry out a full physical check-up and a blood test for liver and kidney functions before being prepared to give a prescription for a psychotropic drug.If they propose that a drug may be suitable (and this should be their decision and not the decision of a behaviourist even if that person is their recommendation), your expectation should be that it is for short-term use only.

Drugs are very useful to us and to our pets too.But I believe we should always be cautious in their use and remember the problems they have caused from Thalidomide in the 60s to Vioxx* in 2004.

You might like to go to http://www.nutramed.com/brain/mind_drugs.htm for further information.

*Just as an example, I was prescribed Vioxx for a damaged joint in my toe and took it for several years.When I ricked my back last year, my physiotherapist suggested that it would help me if the dose were doubled while my discs recovered.I was understandably upset when my doctor refused for I might have been on that double dose for six months – but I am not complaining now for a friend recently had two strokes that look as if they were the result of taking that drug.

(September 2005)

In the last thirty-five years my wife and I have owned many dogs.The whole idea was hers so I take no responsibility for what has happened since.Our first was a Finnish Spitz puppy we called Kirri.Her ‘proper name was Cullabine Greta and she became a champion.As an aside I would emphasise that we were absolute novices so it just goes to show that if you have a good dog you can win – although I accept this is much more difficult in breeds such as Golden Retrievers.

Soon after, another bitch joined Kirri and since then our household always had several dogs (ten was the maximum, I think) until we downsized and only one remained.She was already five and well behaved but, sadly, died of cancer eighteen months ago when she was only eight years old.It was a great shock to both of us and we have not been able to face having another dog until now when a puppy from one of her daughters became available.

The reason for the preamble is to explain why for the first time for many years we find ourselves in the position of having to train a puppy!This is not easy – for several generations we have been able to let the older bitches take that responsibility and I can confirm that they did an excellent job.Woe betide the puppy that stepped out of line – which brings me to the subject of the month’s column – the minefield of claim and counter claim by canine trainers and behaviourists as to which approach to canine behavioural modification is ‘the best’.

Regular readers will have noticed in our Canine Behaviour Modification Supplement that we have a range of authors who use a variety of methods to achieve successful results.None, I emphasise, use the old ‘yank and yell’ technique mentioned by Debbie Berriman in her interesting contribution last month.Barbara Woodhouse who I should also emphasise, was also an incredibly successful trainer of dogs brought this approach to millions through her television series’. But we have moved on and John Fisher, John Rogerson, Mary Ray among many others have demonstrated that it is possible to make astonishing progress by working with and re-enforcing the dog’s natural behaviours.However, there are many theories out there and those who advocate them are sometimes quite abusive about any ideas that do not conform to their idea of what is ‘right’ and anyone who reads my musings will know that I am against all forms of offensive discussion.

We have to look at what we know of the facts – some of which may appear to be contradictory because the researcher is anxious to prove a point and so are based on flawed research – and try to come to conclusions and solutions that are successful while placing the welfare of our dogs at the very core of what we do.

I would not pretend to have a deep insight into canine behaviour modification but as Studies Co-ordinator of the Animal Care College an enormous amount of material passes over my desk and therefore, although I may not know the countryside in detail I might have a better appreciation of the landscape.

I think (based on my own experience and my readings of research from Konrad Lorenz, Trummler and those following their foorstps) is that few young mammals are fully equipped to survive entirely by instinct – although instinct is the most powerful survival motivator.  To be successful within their environment they need to be trained/educated about what is acceptable, not acceptable and/or dangerous.  This initial training is usually carried out by the mother until the most respected member of the family/pack is deferred to because experience has shown that he or she is the most likely to take the decisions which will ensure survival.  This seems to be the case in all mammalian communities – even in the world of domestic cats, which are generally thought to be loners but which, in a feral environment, form colonies, as do big cats in the wild.

We also now know that in any given situation the ‘leader’ is not always the same individual and that the ‘evolution’ of the domestic dog provides a much more complex psychological framework within which we must work.This has led a reconsideration of our ideas about the mechanism of the ‘pack’. This does not necessarily ‘disprove’ or undermine the original premises of the structure of wolf behaviour– but it does give us new ways of understanding canine learning processes.

There is no doubt that canines are different in that their development has been arrested by our intervention.  For this reason there are many ways in which canine behaviours can be modified that are not applicable to other pets or domestic animals.  Naturally, good, positive re-enforcement training from the nest is the ideal but many breeders and new owners are not even aware of the processes much less skilled in their use.The result is often dogs that have never been trained to be ‘good citizens’.In these cases where established behaviours are damaging to the relations between the individual dog, other dogs, its owners and other people, then we sometimes have to resort to more basic tactics and it is occasionally necessary to use what have been termed formal rank reduction techniques and negative re-enforcement – an anathema to some.

We must always ensure the welfare of the animal being trained or whose behaviour is being modified.  It should never be necessary to cow it or hurt it – but that is not to say that it cannot be put under some mental pressure or physical restraint (we put dogs on various forms of collars and leads for their own safety – this is no different in principle) to ensure a change of behaviour which it in everyone’s best interests – including the interest of the dog!

Finally, except in extreme cases we should be trying to modify the behaviour of both dog and its owner/family in such a way that improvement it behaviour is permanent.I do not believe that this is likely to be achieved by the use of drugs

(October 2006)