A Challenge

It would be wrong of me to even begin to claim that I was not more than a little peeved, to put it mildly, when, after 20 years as a member of the Tibetan Mastiff Club of Great Britain and a Founder Member to boot, I was informed at the 2007 AGM, that my name had been removed from the Judges' List. This was not as a result of something I had said or written, and I made sure of that by enquiring accordingly of the Committee. No, it was purely due to me being associated with Peter Rees-Jones and because, apparently, of something he had written in his Our Dogs Breed Notes some five years ago. As a result, both he and I have been stricken from the Judges' List by a decision of an unknown number of Committee members at a Committee Meeting presumably some time after an AGM when the Judges List was discussed.

In case someone does not know what led up to this, what Peter wrote was to the effect that he found some of the dogs at Crufts one particular year, to be not as typical as he would have expected and that they did not compare too favourably, in his opinion, with two of the dogs we had living with us at that time. Those two dogs were two of the top winners in their day and so perhaps this was something which anyone might do with a breed which they had lived with, bred, judged and loved for 15 years.

Allegedly what Peter wrote incensed so many people, both in the UK and abroad, that letters flooded in and the then Committee, or whomever of them chose to attend the Committee meeting on the particular day when this was decided upon, felt that they just had to address the matter and presumably punish, the perpetrator of such a dastardly crime.

The result was, as announced at the AGM, the then Committee had made a decision that in view of what Peter had written, he had made it clear he would no longer be interested in judging TMs and had no interest in the breed. Moreover his comments had, again allegedly, but now proven to be untrue, nearly resulted in our breed classes being taken from us at National Working and Pastoral Breeds Championship Show, which Peter happened to be judging that same year. It was therefore seemingly decided, Peter's, and my, names should be stricken from the Judges' List for all time without recourse to ever being allowed back on it, nor presumably, ever to be able to judge our breed again. At least that seemed to be the plan. It is entirely ironic that Peter will be judging at Championship Show level again this year.Talk about the best laid plans of mice and men and dog club Committees.

There are means available under the Club Rules to resolve contentious situations but it is not, surely, without relevance that a more surreptitious means was adopted to address any issues involved without involving the membership of the Club. I rather doubt that the Kennel Club ever intended Judges' Lists to be used as weapons. Doubtless though the KC themselves would be the body to comment on this. And, since anyone who fails to get on a Club's Judges' List or is removed from it, does not have to be informed why, which we were informed is how it is, it simply beggers belief that this can be allowed. Surely common courtesy dictates otherwise?

Strangely, not one of the people who complained to the Club Committee, nor anyone on that Committee, contacted Peter to ask him to justify or otherwise explain why he said what he did. Have they not got tongues in their heads or the ability to put pen to paper or finger to keyboard and contact him? And, believe it or not, a number of people are still asking us about the different types of TM being shown today. Hard to credit, I know.

I would have thought that, Peter, or anyone else for that matter, who had, at the time, dedicated much of the previous 15 years of his life to the breed, judging it here at Crufts and at numerous Championship shows, in Europe and in America, being involved with the rewriting of the Standard and being a Mentor on two occasions at Club seminars, after the abovementioned event I should add, might have been treated with a little bit of respect by the Committee by them asking him to comment or explain or even elaborate on what he had written, before taking the totally disproportionate action they did. Did they seek advice from a higher authority I wonder and who were these people? But no, apparently such was their desire and need to do something that at no time in the intervening five years has a single soul mentioned what had happened at that Committee meeting. This is all the more surprising as at the AGM this year, Peter was nominated by that self same Committee as one of three Vice Presidents to be elected. OK yes, I had reminded them that the Club was 20 years old this year and that Peter was the first Chairman and that we had no Vice Presidents, but of course that had nothing to do with his nomination.  I was told that my views and those of the Committee coincided quite a lot when it comes to the future of the Club: really? The vote was unanimous in electing Peter and making him an Honorary Member of the Club into the bargain. Surprisingly, perhaps not though, some of those people must have been the same as those who were so incensed by what he had written five years ago. Is this a case of forgive and forget? I rather doubt that judging by the looks on a few faces when what had taken place five years ago came out into the open, and the fact that there was no expression of any regrets about what had happened. Judges' Lists are no longer published in the Club's Newsletter so any changes would not be easily noticeable.

At this point I expect everyone is waiting to see why I have been penalised for what Peter wrote but I am afraid I have to leave you in the dark about this. All I got from the three Committee members sitting at the head table during the AGM like some triumvirate of righteousness, or perhaps more aptly, like the three witches from a well known play, was either a shrug of the shoulders or a downcast gaze so that they did not have to look me in the eye. Such is life I suppose in these days of discourtesy and rudeness. Maybe jealousy also played its part in what happened. Who knows? I could not possibly comment about this.

As for me, the innocent party in this saga, I decided a while ago that I would probably not accept any more judging appointments and have already turned down a couple. I feel that younger judges should be coming along now although I have to say that from what I've seen so far of recent efforts at judging our breed, I am not filled with joy. Does anyone know, or care, what the Standard says or feel any degree of concern about what poor judging does to a breed?

The KC Advisory document about Judges' Lists, says that of those who decide who should be accepted onto a Club's Judges' List, 75% should award CC's in the breed. Clearly this is impossible with a non-CC breed like the TM, but surely the intention is to ensure that a lot of thought is given by experienced judges, to anyone seeking to be recommended to judge our breed. Can it really be the case that a Committee which now has a Quorum when only two Officers and two Committee members are present, truly reflects the intention behind the KC's requirement? Is this protecting the real interest of the breed when it comes to who should be allowed to judge it? Does actual hands-on experience of owning and judging a breed count for nothing now?

Of course I understand that those who stand for election as Officers of a dog club, do so out of pure magnanimity and expect no reward other than to know they are serving the interests of the members and the breed; that they all deserve every ounce of praise which can be mustered and such praise heaped on them at every possible opportunity but is it just possible that sometimes the true purpose of serving on a dog club committee is lost sight of?

So, what for the future? A look at the current Judges' List contains names of people who have absolutely no judging experience at all. It does not differentiate between breed specialist and non specialist and I do know that not all of the names on it have undertaken and passed the new regulatory requirements imposed by the KC. Nor is there a Judges' List Sub-Committee, as far as I know. I appreciate with a Club of our size this might not be feasible but if there was, maybe a greater degree of independent thought would have been in evidence.

I was not aware that free speech is no longer allowed in this country and for the life of me, cannot understand why someone speaking their mind should cause offence, unless that is, the statements touch a nerve, are too near to the truth to be palatable or, of course, are not true. Just image, someone has the temerity to express an opinion, that's like heresy, isn't it? Let's find a latter day Torquemada, I say, to root out anyone else who is likely to behave in this way. Whatever next!! Dare to defend the breed? Correct ignorant remarks about UK dogs? Will both of these be wrong? Oh, I forgot, they are already. Now will only the foolhardy speak out?

In a breed like ours, the fact is that speaking out is something to be encouraged not frowned on. I wonder just how many of those who sat in judgement on Peter, and me, have actually contributed anything of worth to the better understanding of the breed? What shows have they judged? What superb TMs have they bred? How many years of dedication have they given to the breed? Speak out, let us all know by what right you sat in judgement on us, other than by dint of sitting on a Committee. And this is my challenge. Those incensed souls mentioned above, should come out, even at this late stage, and have the courage to express their opinions in public and in that way allow full and detailed responses to be made. Only those with something to be afraid of should have a fear of doing this. Likewise, I should be very interested to know exactly how anything I have said or done has harmed the breed. This is what I was told by a Committee member I had done but he was a bit short on specifics.

I am though, afraid that the future does not look too rosy for anyone who has the nerve to speak out about our breed unless there is a sea change in attitude towards those who hold differing views from those who sit on the Committee.

Do we really need this sort of thing to be happening in this day and age? It was pointed out at the AGM, unnecessarily and with some malice I thought, that in the early days after the Club was formed in 1987 there were problems. Yes, there were a number of people who did not see eye to eye about the TM, mostly whether it had more in common with a Rottweiler than other Tibetan breeds, or about the way a Club should be run and who should run it, and there were a number of other things which needed resolving including an underlying pique at not being elected onto the very first Committee. Only those who were there at the time can possibly understand what, in truth, was going on and no good comes of raking over the past as if it somehow benefits the present. Indeed, although I certainly held views which were different from some others in the Club at that time, I was then and still am, strongly in favour of everyone being given a chance to argue their case. I made this clear at every Committee meeting I attended. I am no great fan of authority and dislike seeing it abused, especially when the sole reason in taking punitive action is to cause personal hurt. We are all entitled to some respect and consideration for our opinions. I am also resolutely of the opinion that a Club should be run for the benefit of its members and in the case of a dog club, the breed too.

There are however, always glimmers of hope in situations such as these and reasonable people will see through what was behind the steps taken and often the end result will not be not the one anticipated.

Things have changed in the intervening years. Dogs have been imported and now, surely, more than ever, attention should be directed at continuing any improvement there has been in the breed. Does anyone really want to see the breed degenerate into a mix of types again? Clearly there are some problems with construction and movement but burying our heads in the sand, allowing petty jealousies to impinge on common sense and ignoring what is blatently obvious, is not going to secure a rosy future for the breed.

In addition to our own problems here in the UK, there is also the important matter of the TM worldwide. We are not unconnected with what is going on in other countries. Should we not be addressing the talk of Tsang Khyi and the alleged Giant TMs? The recent colour discussions over Sable or Sabling now have relevance to us here; the future importing of dogs and the search for new bloodlines should also play a large part in our thoughts about the future of the breed in this country. But what has the Club Committee done to lead any such discussions or even facilitate such discussion? Nothing whatsoever. And worse, it was blithely admitted at the AGM that 2006 was a quiet year for the Club. It did not have to be. Given everything which is going on in the TM world, does this indicate a Committee which is forward thinking and on the ball? I don't think so. Does one not think it is relevant that apparently the Club's membership has fallen? Come on you lot, get your act together, work with the members of the Club not against them and actively for the breed.  Money can't be a problem, the Club funds, whatever the true amount is, are enormous in comparison with the size of the Club.

Oh yes, if you've stuck with me, please do not mention to anyone that you have read this, some people don't like to have their dirty linen washed in public. Remember this is just between you and me.

Written in April 2007 but held back pending any developments.