误判以及其他怪现状

晨光

作者：Gay Dunlap

假设你站在赛环外观看你所熟知的犬种的审查，事实上，你已经跟这个犬种打交道打了四十多年了。你注意到一只极其优秀的犬只，它简直就是该犬种标准的集合体。它的存在使得与它同场竞技的其他犬只黯然失色。你注视着它出色的步态，强大的驱动力。出乎意料的是，审查员却将手指向了别的狗…某一只毫不起眼的狗。好吧，你也许会解释说自己没有亲自审查过那只狗…可能乍看之下它的缺陷不容易发现。但是真给你机会去亲自审查呢？要是你对犬只优劣了如指掌呢？就算你知道这条狗拥有完美的咬合、正确的眼睛颜色、被毛之下的被线犹如桌面般平直、肋骨充满张力；即使你了解犬只腰部过短、脚趾过于紧密，那又能怎样呢？



这样的情节换作是谁都不可否认，审查员并没有做好准备功课，他并不熟悉该犬种而导致误判。站在多数人这边总不会错的想法致使审查员做出了错误的判断。那么作为站在赛换外观战的我们又该如何作想？我们中的很多人头顶着两个头衔…甚至三个或更多…我们可能是繁殖者、参展者、临时被邀请的审查员、资深审查员。有时我们拥有多重头衔。那么我们是否会根据自己的头衔做出不同的选择呢？答案当然是否定的。我们的观点是对于所审查犬种知识的认知所决定的。如果是作为参赛者的话，我们的观点还会被能否获胜的心情所左右。可惜的是，很多参赛者不能客观地看待比赛。要是见到一个参赛者赞赏对手说：“你的母狗一入场我就知道它会赢！”这样由衷赞美的场景令人舒爽，不过却不多见。

最近有四场巡回赛，光是周末就排了无数场单独展，临时请来的审查员不得不面对数量庞大的参赛犬只。这样的情况下自然少不了人们的质疑声，无论是之前参赛的还是周末参展的都在讨论不该请非本犬种的审查员来审查数量如此众多的犬赛。周末就有个审查员只审了三只狗；而他的第二场却要审一百只狗。更多的人开始议论这样的局面下不该请临时审查员。还有个别细心人士发现审查员没有做任何记录或是系统地将犬组排序。除非审查员拥有非比寻常的记忆力，不然他怎么做得到在众多犬只中间准确地选出最终冠军呢？

关于这一点有许多不同看法。本人身为一名临时审查员，十分感激犬赛承办方主席邀请临时审查员的体贴考量。尽管如此，一位犬种审查同事还是提出在国家展的时候邀请临时审查员不那么妥当。另一边，其他犬种审查员却持有相反意见，他们都觉得邀请临时审查是个不赖的主意。根据往年的经验，当犬展参赛犬只相当大的时候，犬赛主席就该有所意识。在发出犬赛邀请函之前，他第一个要考虑的问题就是聘请的审查员能否承受如此大数量的犬只评审工作？不过话又说回来，也许这个问题只有审查员自己才能解答。要是有谁觉得审查为数众多的犬只会令他觉得不适应的话，他的回答可以是很简单的：“Gee，你看，要是我知道这回有那么大数量要审，之前我宁可少签几场。”不过事实上，人内心的想法总是先于理智。受邀评审声望如此卓著的犬赛是多么令人激动啊。因此，我们也就不难理解为何即使审查员会在对自己是否能够胜任还存有疑虑的情况下还是毅然签下好几场比赛了。参赛者总是期望所参加的犬展能够邀请资质过硬的审查员前来评判，这个期望也并不过分。毕竟他们都是大老远地不辞辛劳从各地甚至是各国赶来参赛的。

现在我们来换个话题，还是与秀场有关。还在周末的犬赛上，五只狗的犬组赛中只有三只狗获得了奖花，第四名的位置被审查员取消了。虽然取消颁发第四名的奖花并不会影响比赛的最终积分，但是却会给参赛者造成那两只狗失格的想法。审查员之所以做出这样的判断是根据该犬种手册中指出“需截尾”的要求，而那两只狗却并无截尾。事实上，其中一只狗确实没有截尾（来自瑞典的那只），但是另外一只只不过是截尾剩下的部分过长而已。那天比赛中也有没截尾的狗，但是由于同场竞技的犬只过多而被早早淘汰。确实，一名审查员若是认为参赛犬只质量过低或是不符合犬种标准，他/她有权利保留奖花。这里我想说的是，尽管审查员可能是在履行她的职责，该犬种的标准手册中并没有提到不截尾算为失格。结果还是出乱子了！几乎是第一时间，一位资深前梗犬指导手对我说：“你该改改犬种守则了！”接下去的几天，国家俱乐部的论坛上就此问题开始了喋喋不休的争论。修改标准，不能修改标准，绝口不提标准，写信给所有审查员，大伙儿众说纷纭！有趣的是，在这个事件之前和之后的几天比赛中，未截尾的犬只发挥出彩：一天内夺得获胜公犬和获胜母犬头衔，另一天又赢得犬种赛。然而人们还是表现得如此紧张，就像一位审查员的误判会永远改变犬种的发展方向似的。是反应过度吗？我想是的。
显而易见的，当天的审查员并不喜欢不截尾的犬只，尽管这并不是缺陷。该犬种的标准里还记载着“犬只必须呈正方形轮廓”，我认为审查员大可以淘汰那些不符合这一点的犬只，而事实上确实有很多狗存在这个缺陷。明显的，不截尾的狗并不讨他的喜欢，而超长的狗却得以轻松过关。

不过还是让我们换个立场来看待这个问题。为什么不截尾的犬只就过不了关呢？该犬种的标准里明确标注了缺陷内容，而不截尾并不在其中，标准中也并没有写出不截尾要受到处罚。另外，一些严重缺陷的特征也常常被允许。比如说公犬在18英寸以下或19英寸以上；母犬在17英寸以下或18英寸以上；天包地或是地包天；过于胆小或过分好斗；犬毛色不能为全白，或者除了耳朵和吻部其余部分带有灰色。犬只在移动过程中尾部不能保持竖立的、犬只有纵倾情况的、猎犬似的耳朵都被视为要被严重扣分的特征。那么问题到底在哪里呢？未截尾的犬只并非问题关键，那些被忽略的严重缺陷才是症结所在。

再一次，我们把问题的关键抛向繁殖者。为什么总有那么多严重缺陷的狗出现在赛环之内？难道这不是在向审查员传递这些有缺陷的狗其实是符合标准的信息吗？诚然，审查员需要做好他们的功课；当没有犬只大小标准特别说明的时候他们要想出一个正确判定犬只大小是否正确的方法。他们还要清楚知道什么颜色是被允许的。他们必须更加留意标准手册中列出的各项缺陷内容，而不是仅仅匆匆忙忙扫上几眼看看是否有什么特别说明。但是更为重要的是，我们的繁殖者和犬赛参加者们请停止把一切带有四条腿的东西带进赛环。这样的话或许优秀的犬只并非如此出色，而那些“独树一帜”的犬只也不会再出现了。

晨光

原文：
You stand ringside watching the judging of a breed in which you are more than just little familiar. In fact, let’s say you have been involved with this breed for some forty years. You notice an absolute standout. It appears to be the epitome of its standard. Furthermore, it is so much so that the others in its class pale to the point of insignificance. You watch it move fluidly down and back. You note the lovely reach and drive as it gaits around. Then, you watch as the judge points to something else… one of the insignificant ones. Okay, you might say. I haven’t put my hands on the dog …maybe there is something wrong with it that I can’t see. But what if you have put your hands on the dog? What if you are familiar with all the qualities that can’t be seen from ringside? What if you know that the bite is perfect, the eyes are the correct color, the topline is like a tabletop under that coat and that the ribs are well sprung; you know that it is short in loin and that the feet are compact? What would be your assumption then?

This scenario is one in which the obvious can little be denied. The judge simply has not done his homework and is not familiar enough with the standard to know that this one dog is more correct than the others. He is more comfortable in his assumption that the majority is more correct and thus his choices reflect the all-too-familiar “odd man out” syndrome.

How do we, standing ringside, view this scenario? Many of us wear two hats…perhaps even three…we may wear the hat of a breeder…and/or an exhibitor…one of a provisional judge… or an approved judge. Sometimes we wear all of these. Does our viewpoint change depending on which hat we are wearing? It certainly shouldn’t. Unquestionably, however, our viewpoint is colored by the knowledge we hold regarding the standard of the breed being judged. As an exhibitor, it may also be colored by whether or not we win. Sadly, many exhibitors have a hard time viewing an entry objectively. It is an exhilarating event, however rare, when one exhibitor says to another, “The moment I saw your bitch enter the ring I knew she would be the winner!”

Recently, during a four-show circuit where innumerable specialties were the order of the weekend, provisional judges were judging some huge entries. There was considerable mumbling, both prior to the weekend and during it, questioning the wisdom of hiring them for such large entries, that is, unless they qualified as breed experts. One of the judges came into the weekend having judged his assigned breed only once, with an entry of three dogs. For this, his second assignment, he was required to pass judgment on over one hundred. Talk ensued among many in attendance that provisional judges perhaps should not be hired under such conditions. Several noted that the judge did not take notes nor did he appear to be systematically putting the classes in any sort of order. It was therefore assumed that he must have astonishing memory acumen to sift through so large an entry and successfully pull out his final choices.

There are several ways of looking at this. As a provisional judge myself, I greatly appreciate the show chairman who cares enough to hire provisional judges. Be that as it may, a fellow breeder-judge suggested it might not be appropriate to hire provisionals over a national specialty weekend. On the other hand, another breeder-judge had the opposite reaction, and thought it was great. Certainly a show chairman is aware, by looking at past years, when an entry will be sizeable. Should a show chairman, before issuing an invitation, first question the prospective judge about his comfort level with so large an entry? But, perhaps the ball needs to be bounced back to the judge himself. If one does not as yet feel comfortable enough with a breed to judge it in huge numbers, the response could easily be, “Gee, you know, I would really like to get a few more assignments under my belt before tackling such a large entry.” But in truth, our egos often speak before our brains take hold. What a thrill it is to be asked to judge at such a prestigious show. And it is easy to understand the acceptance of such an assignment even though the judge may have a few qualms about his ability to adjudicate effectively. Exhibitors expect well-qualified judges to be chosen on so important a weekend and this is not an unreasonable expectation. They have, after all, come from all corners of the country and from other countries, as well, to compete in this event.

On another subject, though still related to the show ring, there was an occurrence over this same weekend, in which fourth place was withheld in a class of five, only three dogs receiving ribbons. First of all, many exhibitors had to be set straight in their thinking that the dogs had been excused …granted this is a technicality with the same ultimate consequence, the exception being that withholding ribbons does not affect the point count. The judge’s decision was based upon the fact that two dogs were perceived as having undocked tails in a breed wherein the standard states, “Tail is docked.” In point of fact, one dog’s tail was undocked (a dog from Sweden) but the other was simply docked long. There were other natural-tailed dogs being shown that day, but the classes were large enough that they were simply left out of the ribbons. Certainly a judge has the right to withhold ribbons if for any reason he/she deems an entry to be of poor quality or is offended by a fault, as stipulated in the standard. So what I am saying here is that, whereas the judge may have been within her bounds, there is no mention of an undocked tail being a fault in this breed’s standard. But, oh my, the ruckus it caused! Immediately following, a long-time former terrier handler said to me, “You have to change your standard!” Discussion on the national club’s web list continued for days. Change the standard, don’t change the standard, don’t open the standard for any reason, send a letter to all judges, and so on! An interesting addendum to this is that, on the days prior and on the one following, dogs with undocked tails did extremely well; Winners Dog and Winners Bitch one day, winning their classes on another. Still, it was as if this one judge’s action would change the course of the breed for all time. Overreaction? I think so.

Obviously, the judge on this day did not like undocked tails, regardless of the fact that it is not a fault. The standard for this breed also calls for the dog to be “Square in outline.” I suppose this judge could have legitimately withheld on dogs that were off-square and there were plenty of those. Obviously undocked tails were vexing and long backs were not!

But let’s look at it from another perspective. Why would an undocked tail be regarded as anathema? The standard for this breed clearly states both Faults and Major Faults and an undocked tail is not among them. It does not list it as a trait “to be severely penalized” either. Meanwhile, traits clearly identified as Major Faults are often regarded as acceptable. Among these are, Dogs under 18 inches or over 19 inches; bitches under 17 inches or over 18 inches. Undershot or overshot. Timid or overly aggressive dogs. The coat must never be white or carry gray other than on ears and muzzle. Under the Severely Penalized traits we find dogs who fail to keep their tails erect when moving, dogs that are overly trimmed, and those that sport hound ears. So what’s the deal here? It would appear that an undocked tail should not be an issue but what of the major faults that are being ignored?

Here again, just as we bounced the provisional judge situation away from the show chairman and back to the judge, perhaps we want to bounce this major fault business back to the breeder. Why are so many dogs with major faults in the ring to begin with? Doesn’t this send a message to our judges that they are really okay after all? Yes, judges need to do their homework; they need to develop a method for determining correct size in a breed when there is no size DQ. They need to know what constitutes correct color. They need to make themselves aware of the listed faults, not simply give the standard a cursory look to see if there are any DQs. But more importantly, our breeders and exhibitors need to stop putting everything with four legs in the show ring. Then perhaps the standout won’t be such a standout and there will be no “odd man out.”