|
Comments in the Border Terrier Breed Notes
(29th
February 2008) |
|
Ronnie Irving writes: “A number of people have directed me to Mrs Sneddon’s notes of Feb 15th where she remarks that it has been reported to her that ‘a judge had recently appeared to suggest in their report that an overseas Standard was more correct than the Kennel Club one’ People appear to think she was referring to my report on my Manchester judging though I didn’t say such a thing in it. “I did make reference there, however, to the American KC’s Border Terrier Standard so as to explain my view of our Standard’s requirement for the body (not the back) to be ‘fairly long’. It would have been more helpful if Mrs Sneddon had named the judge, but just in case my informants are right and it is in fact my report to which she refers, I thought I had better clarify my position on this. “Mrs Sneddon say ‘the Standard was originally written by people who knew about working Border Terriers and the terrain in which they were originally intended to undertake that work.” I agree with that and since it is the area from which the whole Irving family originates, I am very familiar with that terrain. “Mrs Sneddon says that Border Terriers, therefore, need ‘a reasonable length of back’. Since the Standard refers to ‘body’ not ‘back’ I might have agreed with that if only she had quoted accurately- though I have to say I think the lengths of the backs of Border District Foxhounds has about as much relevance to the length of Border Terriers’ bodies as does the length of Border District grass. “Mrs Sneddon says ‘a Border with a short back would be unable to turn in a tight space underground’. I think I even agree with that as well. Mrs Sneddon also says to be able to work, Border Terriers need ‘drive from the hindquarters.’ I certainly agree with that, Mrs Sneddon. “So Mrs Sneddon will be pleased that I agree with pretty well everything she says in her piece. “The point I was making, however, in the introduction to my report on Borders at Manchester was a different one from that taken by Mrs Sneddon. My point was that some of the dogs being shown these days have bodies which are ‘long’ rather than ‘fairly long’ as required by the KC Standard. I referred to the American Standard as a means of explaining this issue. “One thing of which Mrs Sneddon may not be aware is that when the Standard was written in 1920 by contemporaries of my grandfather who came into the breed three years later, the main terrier Standard used as a template was that of the Fox Terrier. It had been the second breed Standard ever written-I believe in 1875 or 1876. A number of terms were lifted directly from that Standard. But those members of the Border Terrier Club, who wrote down the Standard at its meeting in Hawick in 1920, wanted to clarify that a Border should be longer than a Fox Terrier-which is why the term ‘fairly long’ came about. “Jacob Robson, who was master of the Border Foxhounds on the English side of the border, is on record as having at one time asked for Border Terriers to be ‘short backed’. John Dodd, master of the Liddesdale pack on the Scottish side, was one of those instrumental in formulating the short-lived Northumberland BTC’s breed Standard. It asked for the body to be ‘not too long’. “The BTC people were writing in 1920 in the context of all those varied and influential views. They did not want a Border to be ‘short’ as required in the Fox Terrier Standard, neither did they ask for it to be ‘long’. So they went in the end for the words ‘fairly long’. “Let me make my view clear as I tried to do in my report. I believe that the KC Standard is quite right in asking for Border Terriers to be ‘fairly long’ as opposed to either ‘short’ or ‘long’. Manchester this year was the 24th time I had awarded CCs to Border Terriers in this country, but on the last several occasions I have judged the breed, I have felt that too many were too long in the loin. I am quite prepared to debate that point with anyone at any time-including Mrs Sneddon.” |
![]()
©2008 The content of
this web site is copyright of the MBTC unless separately assigned.
No part may be reproduced without written permission from the copyright owner.