12/17/04
Danelinks,
Hi, I just checked in to see if there was anything
new at Danelinks and noticed the article written by
Gina Jaeblon. I have always been of the belief that
discussion and apposing opinions may do more than
merely state ones views, but also may be useful
tools to teach newcomers and invoke terrific lines
of discussion. To that end, I would like to
contribute my ideas on the subjects within this
particular article.
First off, I
believe the standard of the Great Dane is
beautifully written and in need of no alterations.
The standard builds within it's words a beautiful
animal, true to it's title, "The Apollo of Dogs".
How is it that anything in life can be riddled with
detail? All things in life, intentional or
otherwise, owe their recognition to the attention to
refinement and detail. One might consider the
analogy between automobiles, much the same as
comparing differences in dogs. A Ford Pinto can get
you to all the same destinations that a Jaguar can,
BUT if you had the choice, which ride would you
choose? Which car would stimulate both your
visual and inner senses? Yes, the difference lies
in the style, the attention to detail. Not
unlike dogs and standards, we all expect dogs to be
functional, four legged and have the "generic"
virtues shared by most four legged creatures,
conventional equipment, however it is in the detail
where each is set apart from another. A Great Dane
is recognized as a Dane greatly impart to his
incredible headpiece, unlike any other breed.
To argue that the head detail and the extreme
refined qualities surrounding it are of little
consequence and full of small "details" does
nothing but to place our breed into a category of
insignificance and mediocrity.
The dog at the
end of the competition that is standing "pretty" at
least must possess enough quality attributes to
qualify as pretty, however the sound dog that runs
the best might never have one moment of brilliance
or breed integrity in his stature, is it then
correct to say because he moves the best he should
win? Should the dog that at least can "look
the part" so readily be passed over? I think
not!
I believe that
many new judges educate themselves, sometimes far
too much, but where they fail is in the
interpretation and recognition of a standard's
desire through those very details to set themselves
apart from the rest of the pack. There are standards
that speak more to "soundness" than to "type" and
vice versa, but all standards speak to the
necessities and needs of a dog to be functional, but
not all guide us to a dog of extraordinary beauty.
The Great Dane standard makes it very clear in it's
priorities and assignment of importance to features
and details, where it stands. The standard indeed
serves us well, clearly defining and emphasizing in
detail the importance of true Dane type, guiding us
as breeders and judges alike in the selection
process.
It would be
ridiculous to ever make the statement that the true
quality of a Dane rests solely on the correctness of
his head, but on the other hand, it would be far
more outrageous and irresponsible to make such a
claim that his correctness of movement should ever
define him as a Great Dane...it never has and it
never will! "A thing of beauty shall never
pass into nothingness." It's always about the
details, small or large, especially so when you
refer to the Great Dane, truly an artistic
masterpiece!
As a judge, I
believe it is the desire of most all others to serve
the breeds well and do a good job, bringing to the
table a blend of education , experience and
certainly a natural eye for correctness. When one
finds fault in the judging of another, it has little
or nothing to do with the shortcomings of the
standard. Some judges develop an eye for judging ,
some never do, only time will tell. As in any
other field, an individual's desire to rise above
and be a good dog judge depends on what he is
willing to contribute. To separate judges into
categories such a breeders and all-rounders does not
automatically define their ability to fully
understand any particular breed better than another.
There are those of us who have
successfully committed their lives to this sport
24-7 as groomers , professional handlers, breeders
and now judges. Why is it that such a broad
spectrum of experience in the sport, often times
labels one as an "all-rounder", all too often known
not to be aware of breed specific requirements!
I can say with absolute certainty, with
that investment in our sport, I have had more hands
on experience than most any so called "Breeder
Judge" could ever acquire.
Tradition is
indeed a part of our standard and also an required
unseen element; how else could we ever be
certain that the integrity of our breed would be
protected! Rarely is failure the fault of the
blueprint, but rather the fault of the builder.
A breeder needs to rise to the challenge of breeding
better dogs, according to the standard, rather
than to ignore it's details and desire to make
changes to suit the shortcomings of their efforts,
always bearing in mind that the standard and our
breed finds no place for the ordinary.
Dana Cline
danacline@danelinks.com