How Dog Shows Don’t Help Hunting Dog Breeders Obtain “Perfection of Form”

What if dog shows didn’t reward beauty and instead objectively evaluated the functional abilities of dogs using modern instruments and scientific methods?

“In all other forms of livestock, the breeder, having attained an ideal, an animal which perfectly fits its purpose, is content. He knows the best when he sees it, and is then content if he can breed to it…So the Derby winner of to-day looks pretty much the same as the Derby winner of forty years ago. The dog-breeder has not stopped because … he has not attained an ideal and never will. He cannot do so because dogs are fashionable and are subject to the dictates of fashion.” – Brian Vesey-Fitzgerald, The Sphere. August 2, 1958.

For millions of people around the world, dog shows are a fun, challenging, and educational activity. Wherever they are held, they stimulate the local economy and offer an excellent opportunity for a fun family outing. I’ve attended many dog shows as a spectator (I have a soft spot for Italian Greyhounds and Irish Water Spaniels), and I enjoyed them. I even owned a show champion, thanks to my friend Shelly, who showed him. So, I don’t have a bone to pick with dog shows—per se. However, as a hunter, owner of hunting dogs, and someone who has spent over 30 years studying hunting dogs, I have concluded that dog shows cannot help breeders “obtain…perfection of form” when it comes to hunting dogs. 

The reason is simple. Dog shows are not designed to help breeders breed good hunting dogs. They are designed to help breeders obtain beautiful animals. Some canine organizations openly admit it. In France, dog shows are called Concours de beauté (beauty contests), and in Italy, they are called Esposizioni di bellezza (beauty shows). A dog can earn a champion de beauté or campione di belleza title. Both terms mean “Beauty Champion.”

Instead of measuring beauty, wouldn’t it be more useful for breeders if a show system measuring the physical capabilities of dogs existed?

Defining “Perfection of Form”

In a sense, dog shows can help breeders “obtain near perfection of form” if their goal is to produce perfectly beautiful animals. And they can help people breed dogs that are “fit for purpose” if that purpose is beauty. So go to a dog show if you want to see some real canine eye-candy. You will see a lot of drop-dead gorgeous dogs. That’s why I go to shows. I like looking at good-looking dogs. And I’m okay with an experienced judge declaring one particular dog the best-looking of them all. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, right?

But here’s the thing: when Edward Laverack, the father of the English Setter, wrote about “perfection of form,” he was not referring to a dog’s subjective beauty—although I am sure he appreciated a good-looking dog. For Laverack and every other breeder of hunting dogs at the time, the expression “perfection of form” referred to the physical characteristics of a dog’s anatomy that influenced its ability to perform in the field. 

Eyeballing Versus Measuring

Many show folks reading this are surely saying, “But that is what we do in the show ring! We evaluate a dog’s anatomy to ensure it is built correctly.” And sure, you can evaluate certain aspects of a dog’s anatomy in a show ring. Count the legs; there should be four. Count the eyes and ears. You want to see two of each. Check the nose and tail. There should be one of each at opposite ends of the dog. One can eyeball things like height, weight, agulation, reach, and other aspects. But why not measure them with modern tools? We now have instruments that can measure almost anything instantly, even at a distance.

Yet we still judge some of a dog’s most important physical characteristics with our eyes. If you ask any magician or professional show handler, human eyes are notoriously easy to fool.

If dog shows were truly about ensuring that a dog has “perfection of form” as it applies to the field, then breed standards would include highly detailed descriptions of all the essential factors that play a role in the dog’s performance. Then, judges could use the most pertinent data collected by various instruments aimed at the dog as it stood still and moved around the ring to see how well it measured up.

Instead, we have a single set of eyeballs looking at a dog for a minute or two, and a single set of hands going over the dog for just a few seconds. And that may be why many standards for gundogs contain phrases like “conformation indicating power, endurance and agility” or “with appearance of strength, endurance, and speed.” They are tacit admissions that show-ring results are based on feelings, not facts. After all, how can we measure things like an “aristocratic” or “noble” appearance? What tool can we use to measure “soft expression of a bird dog” or the “look of intelligence and animation?” Imagine if breed standards included precise measurement ranges instead of subjective descriptors.

Flaws and Loopholes in Existing Breed Standards

Some standards also attempt to justify the usefulness of a particular feature. The American Kennel Club (AKC) standard for the Brittany contains some real gems, such as “lips dry, so that feathers will not stick.” Ignoring the fact that the word “dry” in dog standards usually refers to skin without wrinkles or looseness and has nothing to do with moisture content, as any hunter knows, feathers tend to stick to the tongue and inside the mouth far more than on the lips. So should we breed gundogs with “dry” tongues and mouths?

Another classic is “Nose-Nostrils well open to permit deep breathing of air and adequate scenting.” Who needs to be reminded that a gun dog needs to breathe?

And don’t get me started on how “Male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum.” I am sure it is there because a judge can’t just juggle the boys for a second or two and declare them normal. All he or she can say is that they are apparently normal.

Language like this leaves a giant loophole for dishonest folks to jump through. For example, problems in the testicular region can be solved by Neuticles, or testicular implants for dogs. Writing for The Guardian, Julia Stuart reported that:

One Airedale breeder was famously caught out for having a false testicle inserted into his dog’s scrotum. One of the requirements for a male dog being shown is that both its testicles have descended. Unfortunately for the owner, when the dog was being shown the other testicle made an appearance, resulting in one too many. The man was banned from showing and judging for 10 years.

If the boys have to have boys, apparently normal or not, what about females? Don’t they need to have two apparently normal ovaries? Oh, right. We can’t eyeball those. But we can certainly prove it with an ultrasound reading. 

While amusing, these loopholes highlight how dog shows reward appearance, not the field-worthy soundness hunters and breeders require.

The Need For A System That Objectively Evaluates Hunting Dogs

If purebred dog breeding were truly about improving dog breeds, the Westminster Dog Show would be a gathering of veterinarians, statisticians, and biologists dressed in whatever work wear is appropriate for their profession, putting each dog through a series of physical, medical, genetic, and performance-based tests.

Since pointing dogs are generally expected to search at a gallop, they would be judged while running at a gallop, not at a trot. And since they are expected to run at a gallop for long periods, they would undergo a VO2 max test to measure the maximum amount of oxygen their body can absorb and use during exercise. The higher the score, the better.

The results of such evaluations would be fascinating, but they may tell people what they don’t want to hear about their breed or line. Take the famous shoulder angle idea, for example. It had long been held as gospel that a dog’s ideal layback angle for a dog’s shoulder was 45 degrees. McDowell Lyon supported the idea in his 1950 book The Dog in Action. Max von Stephanitz, a famous breeder, judge, and author, also promoted the idea.

However, when Rachael Page Elliott took the time to study the idea and take detailed measurements of dogs standing still and in motion, she found that 45 degrees was way off. After conducting a study at the Harvard University Museum of Comparative Zoology using specialized x-ray and fluoroscopic equipment designed by Dr. Farish Jenkins, she concluded that “the blade sets about 30 degrees off a vertical plane—measured up the scapular ridge—is within normal limits for the average well-built dog.”

Since then, other studies have been done on canine anatomy and locomotion aspects, often revealing that what we feel is right about dog conformation conflicts with the facts. But those studies are usually ignored and forgotten. And sure, I understand we will never come up with an objective test for beauty, but we can certainly design a system that can evaluate gundogs as athletes.

What If We Measured Hunting Dogs Like Athletes?

Why not establish a “show” system that mirrors North American Versatile Hunting Dog Association or AKC hunt tests? Instead of a competitive event to select a winner, all dogs would be judged against a standard and receive a score. The evaluations would be conducted by trained judges using instruments to measure various performance aspects of each dog. When the test is over, the owner would receive a score sheet showing their dog’s results in all the categories that matter in the field. Instead of telling everyone your dog got a four in the duck search and a four in pointing, you’d say, “My dog got a four out of four for VO2 max and perfect scores in locomotion, strength, and endurance.”

If you are a breeder, you could then use those results to select dogs with good scores in hunt tests and in “fitness” tests conducted by judges using facts, not feelings. Need more speed in your line? Look for dogs with high scores in speed, locomotion, and gait. Need tougher feet or a harsher coat? Look for dogs with high scores in those categories. Whatever information you seek as a breeder would be available in the form of objective data, not just the gut feelings of a judge looking for the “appearance of strength and endurance.”

Even if full-scale implementation is ambitious, incorporating a few measurable performance traits into evaluations would already be a step forward. That, and wouldn’t it be fascinating?