THE BORDER TERRIER STANDARD

When the Midland Border Terrier Club were discussing this seminar, in a moment of weakness I foolishly agreed to give this talk on the Standard.
When considering what I was going to say, I began by reading what other people had written. In the end, the three books I used most were those of Anne Roslin-Williams, Walter Gardner and Montague Horn. With the space and time which they had in a book, they could deal first with the history of the breed and then move on to the Standard. My brief doesn't include that history, but anyone hoping to judge any breed should make themselves aware of the breed's history as this always helps you to understand the makeup of the dog, with the possible exception of some Toy breeds.
You wouldn't be here if you weren't interested in Borders and I am sure that you all know what the Standard actually says, so I am not going to stand here and just read it out. I would rather try to explain what I believe the reasoning was behind the Standard as regards a working terrier and how this can translate into the modem show ring - especially from the judge's standpoint.
In order to do this, I thought that it would be worth looking at how the Standard has developed over the years. The first sheet of my notes gives the original Standard of the B.T.C. in 1920 and their modifications in 1926 which included the points system. On the second sheet there is the Standard of the Northumberland B.T.C. also drawn up in 1920. This club contained many people opposed to Kennel Club recognition and this particular Standard was never registered. It is included here because of some of the points made. The final version on the second page is the current K.C. Standard to which all judges strictly adhere.
I will also mention things considered by most to be breed characteristics, but which are not mentioned in the Standard. During this talk, I will sometimes draw comparisons between the Border and other breeds, particularly the Fox Terrier as they were both bred for the same reason - to go to ground after their quarry and bolt it for the hunt. I am not intending to criticise the Fox Terrier in these comparisons, but to point out the differences and why they occur
It is worth bearing in mind who the people were who drew up the original Standards. Many were well known figures within the breed, but I think the real point is that many were M.F.H. or huntsmen of some standing. For example, all of the Vice-presidents of the B.T.C. were well known M.F.H. and one rule of the Club was that every hunt in the north should have a representative on the Committee.
With this background, it was second nature to them to be able to talk about livestock in terms which they all understood without going into great detail; whereas today very few of us have come here on horseback or have daily contact with a pack of hounds.
 

The late Walter Gardner, in his book, stated that he felt that a Border would, in essence, have been thought of as a miniature horse, in particular a hunter. If you bear this in mind, it helps to explain a lot of terms and concepts in the Standard.
 

If you take time later to compare these four Standards, you will see that there isn't really that much difference between them, but I would like to highlight a few points in each of them.
I should like to start with the ETC. 1920 version.
The general description and characteristics are still just the same today:- A working terrier
which combines activity with gameness. But even this I think can be interpreted in two ways -
an active terrier who is fall of spirit and courage when working as opposed to a high spirited
terrier which works.
Borders have a laid back and calm temperament which is why many can appear almost bored
in the showring. I know that this may cost us dear in variety classes but any judge who really
knows Borders should accept and appreciate this characteristic behaviour.
This original Standard is interesting in that the breed points are placed in order of their importance and, of course, what comes first is SIZE. It appears that this has always been a bone of contention for our breed, but some people think that this Standard had the added benefit of giving heights as well as weights. But then, six years later, the height clause was dropped and the weights reduced. If you look at the ratio of the heights and weights given, it is very close to the old maxim of a pound per inch.
It is interesting to note that although the weight range was higher and wider originally, the reports show that the major winners were normally at the lower end of the scale. Ivo Roisterer, for example, was recorded as being 12.5 inches tall and weighing 14.5 pounds. I doubt if there is a single mature male being shown today that is anywhere near these figures.
But the size debate has always gone on. Even before this first Standard was published articles were appearing in print, as early as 1895, with comments such as " Mr Robson likes them just a bit on the leg so they can keep up with the pack."
The next most important point was considered to be the HEAD. The head is the one characteristic which defines the Border Terrier. It has always been considered important and every definition states that it should be like that of an otter but moderately broad in the skull with a short strong muzzle.
In a recent survey of eminent breeders and judges, they all stressed that it is the head that separates the Border from other terriers. Its short strong muzzle makes it ideally suited to its work, these dogs have immense strength in their square jaws and can, if necessary, give a good account of themselves against their quarry. It is generally accepted, but nowhere laid down, that the ratio of the muzzle to the skull is one to two.
A black nose is preferred but a liver or flesh coloured nose is not considered a serious fault, a fact maybe not appreciated by all judges, probably because flesh coloured noses are not commonly seen in the ring.
Unlike the current Standard the MOUTH came under the same paragraph as the head and called for a LEVEL BITE, and an overshot or undershot jaw was a disqualifying factor; the Northumberland club was just as dogmatic. Today the Standard calls for a scissor bite where the top incisors just overlap the bottom teeth so that the lower incisors touch the back of the top teeth. Nowadays an overshot or undershot jaw is considered a serious fault but not a disqualifying factor (there are no disqualifying factors these days). A level bite is now considered acceptable.
 

 
I expect Borders to have large teeth capable of doing their job properly, but small teeth are becoming quite common these days.
Next the EYES - both the original and the latest Standards ask for a dark eye with keen expression. The Northumberland Standard did not mention eyes at all and I must say that I can see the sense in that. Perhaps a dark eye with a keen expression makes a dog look better in the showring - a light eye seems to give a foreign expression - but I cannot see what difference it makes to a dog's working ability. I could understand it more if it said a small eye, or something about the shape, but I don't understand the need for the current statement as regards a working terrier
EARS - the original Standard just said small V-drop but then, thankfully, the subsequent versions gave more details of what was required - such as thickness which is important from a working aspect. When judging, we look for ears lying close to the cheek and not raised higher than the top line of the skull, although this last point is not mentioned in the Standard.
If you ask most people, judges or exhibitors, to describe a Border's ears, somewhere in their description I am sure the word DARK would appear. I must admit that I think a small dark ear adds to a Border's expression, but in pure reds it is not uncommon to have red ears, perhaps just a shade darker than the body. Judges should be aware that dark ears are a fashion point and not a requirement of the Standard.
Similarly, when I am talking to new owners about keeping their Borders tidy, I always stress that the hair on the ears should be kept short and should feel like velvet This is something which I was taught and is almost a characteristic of Borders, but has nothing to do with the Standard or a dog's working ability.
Now we move on to the BODY - the description of which has remained fairly constant. The body should be deep, narrow and fairly long, ribs carried well back but not oversprung, as a terrier should be capable of being spanned behind the shoulder.
Mr Gardner suggested that perhaps we should use a steel tape of the correct girth but a small barrel-chested dog could have the same measurement as a correctly shaped and sized dog.
The revised 1926 Standard called for a strong loin but gave no indication about length of loin. If the loin is too short, the animal is tending towards being short coupled and will appear more square than desired - more like a fox terrier. If the loin is overlong, there will be an inherent weakness and a dip in the back.
We now move on to the FORELEGS which should be straight, not too heavy in bone. This is a clause which I think is wide open to misinterpretation and could result in fine-boned creatures totally unable to do a day's work. We do not want heavy, cloddy dogs but they must have enough bone to withstand the stress of following a horse and generally covering the ground with speed and agility.
A fine-boned dog would soon be suffering in the rugged terrain of Border country and could very soon be crippled. I just hope that breeders never read "not too heavy in bone" as meaning fine-boned.
Next we come to the FEET. These were originally supposed to be small and catlike but the Standard now reads "small with thick pads". I think this latter description is much better as a Border's front feet generally fit into what is accepted as cat feet, but their hind feet are usually more oval in shape but should still be small, not hare-footed like a Samoyed. The reason for the thick pads is obvious if you think about the terrain over which these dogs are expected to work.
The STERN, or tail's description has varied very little but most people have latched on to the idea that it should be carrot shaped, but have you seen some of the carrots on Esther Rantzen's show? Seriously, in other breeds some standards give guidance such as "the tail should reach just to the hock," but in Borders all we get is "moderately short" and of course this will mean some variation in what is acceptable from judge to judge. This particular topic is one of the most debated points around the showring but if we look at the second B.T.C. Standard, which has the points scheme, we see that the tail gets a maximum of five points out of a hundred so perhaps we shouldn't get too hung up about tail carriage or length. Suffice it to say that the tail should be straight along its length with the characteristic ring, or bump, about a third of the way along. This cannot always be seen as a coloured ring, but can usually be felt. This is another characteristic not mentioned in the Standard. From the working point of view, not many Borders approach their quarry tail first which probably explains why the tail was only worth five points.
I would now like to move on to the HINDQUARTERS. Originally these were described as "racing" but this soon changed to "racy" and that description still prevails. Again, for the novice, this is extremely brief and lacking in helpful description. What I think it means is a reasonable length of leg with a good turn of stifle and a well developed second thigh. The hock should be well let down to allow drive from the rear without the weakness that comes from a high set hock.
I am now going to consider COAT, SKIN and COLOUR together. The coat should be harsh
and dense with close undercoat. The skin must be thick. This speaks for itself but the texture
of the coat does vary - some blues have coats which are not quite as dense and some also have
little undercoat. Some reds carry really thick top coats and can be out of the showring for
quite a few weeks after they have been stripped. Others have a closer lying top coat which
with a little judicial tidying can be kept going almost indefinitely.
Most breed specialists will test along the back for thickness of skin and for looseness of pelt.
These are considered to be advantages when engaged in close combat underground and good
protection when going through dense undergrowth and in inclement weather.
From a judge's point of view, although it would be nice to see all of the exhibits in perfect
coat, it just doesn't happen so the judge must be able to appraise coats at different stages.
Provided the animal is well presented this shouldn't be a problem.
Sometimes when a dog is in full coat he may look heavier than he actually is, but surely the
judge can sort this out when handling the dog?
We pride ourselves that Borders are a natural breed, and whilst a little tidying up is acceptable,
and desirable, it should go no further.
We all know the acceptable colours - or do we? In the original Standard, the only three colours were red-wheaten, grizzle or blue-and-tan. Currently this has been expanded to red, wheaten, grizzle and tan, or blue and tan. It is best if a judge doesn't get labelled as having any colour preference.
 

 
A lot has been made recently of what is the correct colour of the tan on a blue and tan and how much "ticking" a blue should have. Neither of these points are discussed in the Standard and personally I feel that if it comes down to deciding between two dogs purely on colour then you must have some cracking dogs in front of you.
In the first Standard, the only disqualification was a bad mouth - undershot or much overshot. These days there is a fault clause but no disqualifications, the important point being that any fault should be considered in light of its effect on the terrier's ability to work.
That concludes the review of the original Standard and it still makes a good Standard, especially the revised 1926 version. However, this latter Standard contains the points system. The problem with this is that it doesn't allow enough for an individual judge's interpretation. I know one judge who thinks that a slightly "bad" mouth is enough to stop him placing a dog which may be very good in all other respects but the points system allows for a maximum of just twenty points to be docked. So a dog with a bad mouth could, in theory, get 80% of the marks and win the class. I think that slightly different interpretations or emphasis on the Standard points is beneficial, and if a dog can win under judges who look at things slightly differently then he must be a good 'un Happily the points system was soon dropped.
What I like about the Northumberland Standard which was missing from the B.T.C. Standard was the comment on the NECK. They asked for a neck of moderate length, slightly arched and sloping gracefully into the shoulder. I think that this and the point about the shoulders really helps define a good Border - a neck sloping gracefully into long, sloping shoulders. If you have that, then you can bet that the dog moves well in front.
The other note affixed to all breed standards nowadays is that male animals should have two apparently normal testicles fully descended into the scrotum. I don't know if a working terrier uses these to threaten his prey, but for a judge with a big entry you can usually assume that when you feel for these and they aren't there - you must be onto the bitch classes.

The Breed Standard Discussed
By Jayne Gillam - Orenberg

When I was invited to talk about the Breed Standard I didn’t like the idea of standing before a group of people and pontificating about the Breed Standard according to Jayne Gillam. Therefore, I gave it some thought and felt something more on the lines of a discussion about the standard between myself and the group would be more beneficial to all concerned. You are still going to get my views on the standard but hopefully I will get yours too!  

The first thing you notice about our Breed Standard is how short it is, or terse as some people have described it. Give or take a few bits and pieces over the years, it is the standard that was arrived at by those enthusiasts who wanted our breed standardised and recognised by the Kennel Club back in the 1920’s. There were other versions in the early days but all were very similar if even shorter than the present one!

I feel our standard is perfectly adequate as it is, but I do know that some judges and in particular all-rounders feel it should be more detailed. Personally, I think the secret to understanding the Breed Standard is getting your hands on plenty of dogs, having knowledge about the origins of the breed, what it was bred for and discussing it with other like-minded people.

Jotted below is an outline of the standard and some questions we should be asking each other. To understand the standard better we need to know what’s in it, what isn’t and how to read between the lines if we want to judge the breed today.

I try and imagine what the early breeders were aiming for, by reading the standard and comparing it with photographs of dogs, which were considered good specimens at the time, and talking with older and past breeders. I often wonder what they would say about how the Border has evolved from 1920 to 2005.

The Breed Standard opens with the much quoted “Essentially a working terrier” a very enlightening opening, unfortunately some people don’t read any further than that and providing the dogs work, care very little what the dog looks like. Reading the Standard I am quite convinced the early breeders wanted much more than that, or they would not have bothered adding anything more to the Standard and would merely have titled it, The Breed Standard Of The Working Terrier.

Instead, they wanted it to be recognised as a breed that was easily identifiable from any of the other terrier breeds, so firstly it was titled The Border Terrier Breed Standard, a title which is just as important as the opening words because if it doesn’t look like a Border Terrier it isn’t one, no matter how well it works! The early workers of these dogs were extremely proud of the little dog who had evolved as a very distinct type of terrier in the Border region of the country and who also gave a good account for itself in the hunting field.

The Standard goes on the reveal a very interesting blue print of how the dog should look and yes they wanted it to work and to be built to work but several requirements make it quite clear to me they also wanted them to look good too and be uniform in type. For example they wanted the eyes dark, no leeway for them to be light, they wanted the ears small and V-shaped and dropping forward, certainly not pricked, they wanted a tail moderately short carried gaily but not curled over the back, they preferred a black nose but a liver or flesh coloured one was acceptable, a white or parti-coloured dog would not be tolerated, (records show that litters with white puppies or dogs with too much white on them were drowned) with only blue & tan, wheaten, red or grizzle & tan being accepted as a Border, and the icing on the cake, they wanted a head like that of an otter, a completely different head type to any other terrier who would be doing similar type of work. All these things add to the picture of breed type but bear no relevance to their working ability as none of these requirements would make the slightest difference to a dogs working ability, I doubt if his quarry would care if his eyes were light or dark, his tail were docked or curled over his back!

Interspersed with the above points you might even call them “show” or “breed type” points are the very important, shall we say “work” points. The aforementioned, essentially a working terrier, which speaks volumes in itself, active and game, the soundness to follow a horse, scissor bite although a level bite is acceptable, neck of moderate length, forelegs straight not too heavy in bone, hindquarters to be racy, feet small with thick pads, coat to be harsh and dense with a close undercoat, the body to be deep, narrow, fairly long. Ribs carried well back but not over sprung, as a terrier should be capable of being spanned by both hands behind the shoulder. Loins strong, weight dogs 13-15½ lb, bitches 11½ -14lb. The standard may be short but for me it conjures up a picture of a very handsome and distinct terrier, on its toes, built to work and one that can cover the ground effortlessly. After reading the standard, how do you see it?

Now we have covered the things that are actually stated in the standard what about the things that are not so obvious or not even mentioned? To read between the lines as it were, you need to know something about working terriers or how will you know what is correct and what isn’t and without that knowledge how will it all be relevant.

For example the standard does not state the type of quarry or terrain the Border Terrier would be expected to work, if it had to work underground or on the surface. Only by knowing this would the coat type, weight restrictions and the spanning of the dog make sense. And what about shoulders? Not mentioned at all in the standard but it is essential that they are narrow for easy access below ground, not out at elbow and wide which would severely hinder a dog in a working situation. They should be well angulated to ensure the dog has an effortless, far reaching and economical gait as is required to follow a horse over long distances. Although hindquarters are mentioned (only just), how do we interpret the single word of racy? It always intrigues me that eighteen words are used in graphic detail to describe a far less important point like the tail, yet the hindquarters, which play such an important role in enabling the dog to follow the required horse only gets one. This is where your background knowledge stands you in good stead as you will know what type of hindquarters, angulation, muscle and bone the dog would need to cover rough terrain following a horse. One needs to understand the type of hunt the Border Terrier was expected to follow as hunting in the Northumbrian hills would be different to hunting in the shires, the pace would be slower but the terrain would be more rugged and gruelling, the type of horse would be different too.

The description of coat is fairly straight forward – Harsh and dense: with close undercoat. Skin must be thick. Yet we see a variety of coat types in the ring and anything from completely stripped out and in undercoat to full blown coats seem to be the norm and must look confusing to outsiders looking at the exhibits from out side the ring – Which is correct?. On the whole I think it is fashionable these days for dogs to be shown with not enough coat, with many people preferring the skinned out elegant outline of a dog lacking in coat. I can forgive coat to a certain extent as it is transient but it is a joy when a dog is put on the table in front of you and it has a terrific coat with good depth and texture and thick skin, and still has a good outline and doesn’t look at all stuffy. From a working point of view a good coat is essential for protection against the quarry and the elements, believe me, I have seen a thin skinned dog waiting for its turn to work on a wet, wind blown hillside and it was a very miserable dog indeed. How thick is thick? An interesting point made to me some years ago by a breeder who’s opinion I value, when discussing coats and pelts he felt that some coats could be so thick as to be hindrance underground, he asked me if I would go potholing in a thick overcoat or a rubber wetsuit?  Some food for thought there! Personally I like a thick skin with a loose pelt, a harsh topcoat and correct undercoat, I think a coat like that would suit a working terrier well. Having said that, some very overweight dogs display a very thick pelt too and certainly in a working situation that would be a hindrance.

Height is not mentioned – does it really need to be? It is often said that a 14lb dog will be 14 inches at the shoulder, in my experience they are usually a bit heavier in lb’s than they are inches tall, it never seems to equate to a lb per inch, not in Borders anyway.  The weight range is actually very wide, from an 11½lb bitch upto a 15½lb dog, so maybe the early breeders felt that the variations in height would be far too restricting, so left it out. More importantly they referred to spanning which is a much better yardstick to measure a dog, which is intended to work underground. 

What about “type”, a word often heard in the world of dogs, expressions like “breed type”, “very typey”, “not my type”, ”kennel type”, “different type”. Breed type is probably one of the most important things to have, as without it you don’t have a distinct breed – things that contribute to breed type are coat colour, head, tail and conformation. All these can then be broken down to more detailed parts like expression, stop, muzzle, tail set, coat texture, undercoat, colour, neck, pasterns and overall balance.

Kennel type is an interesting one, but not one I would let influence my judging. When I first came into the breed there were several very distinct kennel types within the breed, all fit the standard well but they had a distinct look that associated them with their bloodline. It’s not as apparent these days as most of the bigger influential kennels have gone or the bloodlines merged with other lines making them less distinct.

So much is laid at the door of peoples personal preferences or whims and when people say “not my type” or “different type” the dog may excel in breed type and be every inch a Border Terrier but it just doesn’t suit that persons likes and dislikes.  Many people favour certain points, for example dark ears, which is not a requirement in the Breed Standard, you may want dark ears on the dogs in your own kennel but when judging you have to remember that you are judging TO the Kennel Club Breed Standard and your interpretation of it, not to your whims and foibles about a certain part.

What does balance mean? It doesn’t mean holding the dog out in your hand and seeing if it tips forwards or backwards! I remember many years ago reading a show critique written by the indomitable Mary Roslin-Williams, a dog had been placed second in its class (it was a Labrador) and the critique was something like this: Superb head, neck, shoulders, nice feet with good bone, excellent tail, good coat, sound movement, unfortunately it all looked as though it had been thrown together! Only MRW could get away with a critique like that but it stuck in my mind and when I judge a dog I always look at the overall animal and think, does it all fit beautifully and look balanced or is it thrown together.

Heads are a constant source of discussion. I truly wonder what the early breeders would make of the heads today.

Some Champion Border Terrier heads from the 1920’s & 30’s, around the time or not long after the Breed Standard was written; all are Working Certificate holders too. They are recognisable as Border Terriers but would we consider these heads as otter like today?  Did the early breeders regard these dogs as having a “Head like that of an otter” or was the term a vision that they hoped to produce in the future?

What does the standard say: Under the heading Head and Skull it states the well-known lines – Head like that of an otter. Moderately broad in skull with a short strong muzzle. Black nose preferable, but a liver or flesh coloured one not a serious fault. Can we assume that the otter like part refers only to the skull and the muzzle? As the rest of components on the head, eyes, ears and mouth and teeth are given separate headings and descriptions, none of which are particularly otter like. For example the otter has a rather weak under jaw designed for killing and eating fish, eels and crustaceans and although its canine teeth are long its incisors are rather small in comparison. My interpretation of the Standard is that a Border Terrier should have large teeth so that it is well able to defend itself against its formidable underground quarry. I do think you should look at the dog overall and avoid singling out one particular point to the detriment of others but if I was pushed to say what I particularly dislike, it would be small teeth in a terrier. The eye placement may be critical as an otter has quite a width between its eyes and certainly a Border Terrier with eyes close together detracts from the otter like appearance and gives them the undesirable Lakeland Terrier expression. The ears although not like that of an otters at all, certainly frame the head and alter it drastically if they are too big or too small. The nose is an interesting point, on the otter it almost looks part of the muzzle but on some Borders it looks tacked on to the end of the muzzle, on others it looks more set in and a large broad nose leather on a short strong muzzle does overall, look more otter like.

We see a myriad of different types of head and expression these days and I feel that different judges and breeders have very differing ideas; this one topic alone could be discussed for hours without coming to a conclusion! Several years ago I put an article together for the Border Terrier Club Year Book, I asked several prominent breeders and all except one were Championship Show judges to name a dog and bitch, which they considered to be prime examples of a Border Terrier head. Out of twelve people asked, only two came up with the same dog and none with the same bitch, the others were wildly different and interestingly only two chose their own dogs. So, it seems heads are very much down to personal choice.

Certainly in my experience people have differing ideas about what an otter looks like too so it might be an idea to study their heads first? An otter has a very refined head and the proportions are about one third muzzle to two thirds skull, which is often the proportions referred to on a Borders head. There is very little stop; merely a suggestion of one and the head is quite shallow, when viewed from the side. ARW sums it up perfectly when wrote: “The head of an otter is designed to lie flat on the surface of the water when the animal swims; this means a flat, shallow head, rather like an old-fashioned tobacco pouch in shape. Tremendous depth from occiput to jaw is not otter-like more Griffon-like”.*

Certainly in my experience big is not necessarily correct and muzzles so short they appear Puggy or Griffon like with a deep stop are not correct either. Large, prominent eyes often associated with very short muzzles may look cute and appealing but would soon be damaged in a working situation.

What about whiskers! An abundance of whisker looks impressive when the owner has sculptured it into a beautiful otter like head, but it may hide a weak muzzle and jaw underneath, so the strength of muzzle should always be felt for. Some dogs don’t grow a great deal of face furnishings and what you see is what you get and working dogs may loose some of their whiskers in subterranean encounters. Certainly furnishings enhance the look, but providing the muzzle is short and strong I wouldn’t penalise a dog for lack of face furnishings.

The words moderately or moderate are used three times in this very short standard and to me this suggests exactly what it says, moderate and in no way exaggerated. Looking at the dog overall if anything looks exaggerated then it probably is!

It is interesting that when the Standard draws to a close we are again reminded of the working points and advised that: Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect on the terriers ability to work, and the welfare of the dog.

So, with all that in mind we should be now equipped to judge the Border Terrier according to the Breed Standard!

Jayne Gillam - Orenberg

* Anne Roslin - Williams The Border Terrier  -1976