Much of the discussion at dogs shows now is centred around the demise of dog show numbers in recent times and what has caused this rather sudden and drastic drop in numbers? Some say it is a change in modern society, others that the cost of dog showing and breeding is becoming prohibitive in this modern age where the cost of living is ever rising. Yet others hypothesise a popular belief that dropping numbers has more to do with the sinister idea that Dog Shows have become the arena for an elite group of close knit comrades that do each other favours by awarding each others dogs. Has the world of dog showing become so corrupt, that only the elite inner sanctum of dog enthusiasts have the chance to continually be placed 1st, over the apparent quality seen elsewhere by many of the accusers?
Whilst I from first hand experience know that corruption in any arena does take place (particularly in the All-Breeds ring), it is my firm belief that it does not take place as often as one may think, especially in the Specialty ring.
I will endeavor to explain why I believe this to be the case, but also how we can possibly change this false perception that only the select few get chosen.
Firstly I would like to point out that as a Specialist Judge of Bernese myself, I have had my ethics challenged on more than one occasion and yet every appointment taken, it is with utmost vigilance that I endeavour to choose the best specimen in any class. With a clear conscience I walk away from every show knowing I have done my utmost to choose dogs on the day that reflect the standard as best they can in my opinion. Does it really make sense that any judge would do less? Think for a second how much pressure there is on a judge walking in the ring. Half of the exhibitors will think the judge did an ordinary job irrespective of how he places the dogs. Bizaarly all the first place getters think the judge did an OK job and was doing an honest job, yet the other half think the judge has no idea or is just putting up friends or handlers. How is it that such vastly differing opinions of the same judge could come to be? From personal experience, I want to walk away from every judging experience hoping that my expressed opinion is valued and respected for just that.... MY opinion!
On reflection the reason for my writing this blog has come about when looking back on the dogs that I have awarded highly in the past. On several occasions I have awarded dogs highly in non English speaking foreign countries that happen to be bred by close friends or colleague breeders, but without my prior knowledge. Many would argue, how could this be coincidental? Surely it must have been set up prior for these dogs to win? NO, not once has this been the case. But I have thought many times, how could this be the case, because it does seem awfully coincidental.
OK, this is when the penny dropped for me.....
With whom do we associate and spend countless valuable hours talking to within our breed or outside? Who do we respect the opinion of when it comes to puppy evaluations? Which person do we turn to when we want to scrutinise the results of the latest show, share in our wins or sulk with in our losses?
Isn't it those with whom we share similar values and traits with in breeding programs. Aren't we drawn to other breeders who have the same passion for characteristics such as forechest and front angulation.... or perhaps it is a shared appreciation for correct temperaments or pleasing heads. Disapproval for poor tail carriage? No tolerance for anything but clean movement coming and going? This list is long and is varied.
Don't we tend to be friends with and respect the opinion of those that share our own opinions on dogs and share the same "eye" for a dog whether it be our own breed or completely different. As much as we think we can be objective, we will always be drawn to dogs that whilst meeting the standard well in our own eye,  will display characteristics we think favourably upon or negatively of based on our own previous breeding experience.
I for one tend to place a fair amount of importance on a well proportioned profile for the Bernese. I want a well temperamented dog that has good reach and drive. Because of my experience breeding Bernese, I will look favourably upon a correctly angulated front, with good forechest and a correct moderate neck length. I will penalise shy dogs and poor tail carriage. When I find these characteristics and many more, is it nor reasonable to conclude that the breeder of such a dog is likely to be a friend of mine already or an aquaintance that holds the same high principles and values in breeding. There is no corruption at hand, we just share the same values in dogs.
It is very hard to keep friends with someone in the dogs world, if you do not share common goals and values in breeding. Nor share the same eye for a dog. Try sitting with someone ringside and talking dogs if you don't...colourful discussions are surely to ensue! Someone who can forgive a poor tail carriage because it is not a health issue (which is a valid argument!) is highly unlikely going to agree with a judge should he penalise this fault. They see things very differently and have equally valid but opposing arguments.
So how is it that the same people seem to be awarded regularly and it is usually those on committee of hosting clubs. Surely this must indicate corruption at even the lowest form. Again think of what I have said above.... when it comes time to suggest Judges for a future show. Never have I heard a committee member say "I suggest Mr Smith, he hates my style of dog and none of my friends have won under him, however I think he is a really honest well respected judge and will do a wonderful job of judging because he knows our breed so well". As if that would ever happen!!! Lol :) Don't we all tend to offer up names of judges that we have won under or we respect their decisions because we would have made similar choices? Very often, committees of clubs are made up of very few 'show people' and therefore the offered suggestions are made by very few people. Likely these people will do well at the show because they have made suggestions of respected judges in their opinions based on their shared appreciation of the canine form.
So where does this leave us and how do we stop the trend of what appears to be an ever increasing small circle of corrupt people winning?
Join a club and have some input! Don't leave it too the elite few hard core show enthusiasts to make all the choices for future judges. If you are passionate and know your breed/s well, have a say and volunteer your time. Often it seems those that bitch and moan about judges choices and the apparent corruption are those that don't offer up their time and get involved in their clubs activities.
Perhaps clubs need to come up with an alternate way of selecting judges. Don't rely so heavily on personal opinions and those offering them. Make the decision more objective and at arms length. Let the selection of the nominees be made by those outside of the club, who have no vested interest in selections other than to choose an appropriate judge just based on merit alone.
Perhaps create an extensive list of judges and just go through the list chronologically rather than by subjective committee voting.
I hope to have shed some light on why 'friends put up friends' at dogs shows. I really think it has very little to do with corruption and more to do with shared values in dogs attributes and faults. It is really up to everyone of us to appreciate that differing judges will sometimes just not like the style of dog we have on offer. Yes, some judges don't have an eye for a good dog by anyone's standards, but these are few and far between. Remember...very often the judges we hold in high esteem will be poorly regarded by the other 50% that did so poorly at the same show and visa versa!
Anyway, food for thought...

Forget for a moment any of the quality dogs you have seen in your lifetime or for that matter what you imagine the ultimate Bernese Mountain Dog to be.... put behind you the wealth of knowledge you have accumulated from years of breeding and showing. Listening to mentors over countless years and trying to apply their guidance in our breeding. Let us all imagine for a moment that we are invited to an inaugural worldwide extravaganza for Bernese and all the top winning dogs from around the world are invited. Our guest judge is Professor Albert Heim (the progenitor of our breed) to the amazement of all the exhibitors!
What would he see and how would he react? Would he be proud of how the breed has evolved or would he be shocked at how poorly the generations of breeders have interpreted the breed description he wrote down over 100 years ago?
These are all questions we really need to consider if we are to control how the breed develops in the future.
All those years ago, when Proff. Heim essentially locked in a description for the breed we now know as the Bernese Mountain Dog, he wrote it with a mindset to describe as best he could the regional dogs brought before him that were similar in style, which were then entered into the official stud book for our breed. Some dogs were not included because they strayed too far from the median and did not display the phenotype he was trying to describe. (with this in mind I wonder how many of our modern dogs he would have denied into the stud book for being off-type and too exaggerated!)
Proff. Heim did not write the descriptions of the dogs before him to establish new exaggerated traits within the breed in future generations. He essentially wrote a standard that was trying to describe the dogs he saw before him so as to preserve it for future generations. He used language that at the time reflected what he saw in comparison to language that had been used for generations within horse breeding and other canine breeds. He wrote descriptions using terms that were relative to all other standards at the time.
Why is this point important?
Take for example the phrase "stifles well bent". Did Proff. Heim mean for future generations to breed a dog that has such exaggeration it deems it unsound, unbalanced and so far from how he meant for the description to be interpreted? When he likely penned these words, he was likely comparing it to other dogs of the time, including the other sennenhund breeds in Switzerland as well as other local breeds at the time, which displayed much straighter stifles and rear angulation. In comparison to these other breeds a Bernese was to have "well bent stifles".
Another phrase that springs to mind is "Well Boned" that crept into Standards in the mid/late century. It was never the intention I am sure for BMD's to have bone the size of my arms! We all often get swept up into the momentum of "bigger is better!"
I could list many descriptions from the standard that have now become exaggerated and have crept into our breed over the years. Length of body, length of leg, substance, head shape, colour temperament. None of which describe our breed in their exaggerated form yet get rewarded consistently.
Never in my wildest dreams am I saying we need to breed dogs that look like the dogs that Proff. Heim saw in the early 20th century. We have strayed too far from that, but I think it is important for us to take stock and evaluate whether we are breeding to extremes to fulfil a quick win in the ring. What is admired in the ring as a desirable quality because it has not been seen before, doesn't mean it is correct, nor the best way forward for the breed.
I often wonder whether it would be beneficial for a worldwide committee to be formed to try and put together a 3D caricature/ illustration of what is the "ideal" Bernese according to the current standards we have and use. This would give us all a reference point to compare to and it may slow the trends that will alter the breed for future generations.
I think a pertinent point in our breeds history was Alex V Angstorf. He really changed the way our breed looked in the modern era and gave a reference point of how the breed should look for many generations. In the same way, why not let us create a fictional representation of a BMD that changes the breed for the better and creates a style of dog that permeates for generations to come.
Some would say that a singular illustration would stifle individual opinion and interpretation, but I think this is short sighted. The benefits would far outweigh the negative points. Consider this... Every breeder has a vision of what the perfect Bernese looks like. They will spend a lifetime trying to attain this 'minds eye' of the breed. Will they attain the exact representation that is portrayed in their mind... NO, not ever.
Likewise a singular illustrated representation of our breed would guide the current/ future generations of what the ultimate Bernese should look like. It will provide a consistent singular goal for us all to breed towards and keep consistency for generations to come. None of us will attain breeding an exact representation of this illustration, but at least the vision will be consistent for many generations to come on a world wide scale. (If the Pure-breed world still exists then, but that is for another discussion.)
Additionally it would make judges training much easier. Whilst examples of the breed can be shown in judges training it is often biased by the mentor giving the lecture. A singular representation would lock into the judges mind a reference point to which they can judge. Judges worldwide would all be on the same page when it comes to what a Bernese should look like. Gradings would become more consistent because all judges would be comparing to a singular representation. The Breed Standard would not add confusion by being non precise, open to interpretation and vague but rather help a judge weigh up and prioritise the required attributes of the dog before him/ her compared to the illustration they have at the forefront of their mind.
Food for thought, don't you think? What are your thoughts?

Take for example the photo here. At first glance one would say that she is displaying the correct "M" in movement and I don't mind saying that many years ago I used this photo, thinking it was a great example of how movement should be.  A good friend of mine and mentor had the sense to tell me that this wasn't an ideal movement shot of my dog. It took me a while to understand why?

• Notice that the Front left paw is above the ground, yet the rear right paw is still in contact with the ground?

Now I hear some of you say..."if the dog could lower it's head, it would allow the front paw to be in contact with the ground." Sometimes this is the case, however this brings me to my second point... Notice you can see that the Front right pastern is still straight (not flexing) and the paw is still in solid contact with the ground whilst the left rear paw has finished it's extension and left the ground altogether. Therefore the opposing legs are not displaying correct foot timing either.
This photo whilst displaying a good top-line and some other good attributes of what was a great example of the breed for her time, does not display correct Bernese movement and certainly doesn't show correct foot timing.
At a trot, a Bernese should display a two beat rhythm in it's movement. Each opposing paw on the dog (Front-Right together with Rear-Left and Front-Left together with Rear-Right) should strike the ground at the same time. This is true for a Bernese moving at a slow trot or at a faster paced Flying trot.​

Very few references are made as to the proportions of the Bernese Mountain Dog in any of the Standards compared to other breeds. Yet two references are made that inherently affect the overall silhouette of the Dog and therefore affect ones ability to easily recognise a dog as a Bernese.

• One refers to the height at withers of the dog verses body length (from point of shoulder to buttock), which should be at a ratio of 9:10.
• The other is the length of leg (ground to the elbow) vs the height at withers. This should be at a ratio of 1:2. Notice I didn't say that body depth is equal to the length of leg, as this in some cases is not true. The depth of body at brisket must be equal to OR GREATER than the length of leg.

What does this all mean and what impact does it have for our breed...?
The body proportions of 9:10 are important as it differentiates our breed from others such as the Newfoundland (which can be longer in body). It is a signature of our breed and has been widely ignored in many peoples breeding over the years.
This could be due to alternative priorities in breeding, such as trying to lessen the incidence of health issues such as cancer.
Or perhaps another explanation is this... have you ever heard it said "it is OK for bitches to be a little longer, allows for more puppies etc". In my mind this is an 'old wives tale' and is far from the truth. No where in any standard does it give this allowance. Also, does it not make sense that longer bitches will breed longer dogs. The cycle is self perpetuating and hence the reason why many of our quality dogs are longer in body or shorter in leg than is ideal.
Another plausible explanation as to why Bernese are becoming longer in body and shorter in leg, is the modern trend within the dog show world for a dog that can race around the ring with an extended gait. Bernese should be shown at a 'Slow Trot". This is for good reason. A squarer dog is unable to move at an overly fast pace without crabbing or altering the movement in some negative way. Please breeders, only breed true to type and resist the trends which will pass in time.
Apart from being a defining part of our breed (adding to 'Type') there is also a very practical reason for our breed to have squarer body proportions. When looking at draft breeds in Horses (such as the Clydesdale), they are required to be shorter coupled and therefore squarer in body proportions for the reasons of strength when pulling large loads. Bernese are a general purpose farm dog, their job was one of varying capacities on the farm. Their demeanour was not to be cumbersome and they had to have a sensible working mentality. Whilst they weren't a dedicated draft breed, they were regularly used for this purpose and any weakness that would have inhibited it's usefulness as a draft breed, would have been bred against. Overly long bodied dogs would not have served its purpose as a draft breed.
Once you are governed by these body proportions with a draft purpose for the breed, it makes sense to then to breed within this framework, a dog that is moderate in angulation with well let down hocks. I will leave this for a separate discussion as I could write paragraphs on this also.
(Please note... any photos being used are to display the points being made in that blog only. In no way are my comments to be reflection of the dog overall, or the breeders efforts to improve the breed.)

In summary...​

Who would have ever thought I would be doing this? Writing to cyberspace hoping that maybe I can impart some of the knowledge I have learnt over the years about Bernese and perhaps even learn some more from people who are willing to voice their opinions and ideas also.
Remember everyone, this is only my opinion as it stands at the time of writing the blog, it's not scientific fact. I welcome criticism and I am willing to change my mind if someone can voice a valid alternative. I welcome constructive discussion.
On this forum I hope to talk about things that are passionate to me and may be of interest to others... perhaps even be taboo subjects that no one wants to talk about. Correct Proportions, how important are they? What is Breed Type and is it different to "Breed Styles"? What is going through a judges mind when they are in the ring? Why have Bernese changed so much since the beginning of the 20th Century, and which is correct? What is correct movement for a Bernese? What anatomical traits make up a good front on a Bernese? Should trimming be allowed?
I hope to talk about all of these topics and more. I welcome anyone to throw me a question for me to answer. I will always have an opinion, it may not be the correct one, but perhaps it will stimulate more thought provoking discussions that we can all learn from.