THE KENNEL.

Otago Witness, Issue 2292, 3 February 1898, Page 34

THE KENNEL.

[Fanciers and breeders of dogs are cordially invited to contribute items to this column. ■'Terror" will endeav«.-ur to make his de ; .ai-tmenfc as interesting and up-to-date as possible, but in «rder to do this he must have the co operation of his readers ; hence he trusts this invitation will be cheerfully respou^ed^on - RE JUDGING BY POINTS. Bib. — I sei by the papers the Danedin, Fanciers' Club held their antmtl meeting last xreek, when Mr Myers, vice-president, occut*ied the chair, and delivered, from his view, an interesting address on judgksg by pefnto as carried out in America. I would like to have • & Hfetle to say on th« 3 uas.£ter, as it would very materially affect the fancy sb<suM this mode of judging become the rul« ia this colony. First, I would like to ask Mr Myers whether he bas oarefaily thoaghfc ont au<2, as it were, g-oj'.e through the form of jadgiag in this way. If hs has not, I would earnestly inaplore h'm to do so before again attessapliKg lo lead the fancy in this particnlar. Before showing the abBurdity of the system I must inform Mr Myera and his seconder that ci r ice the otrrt Byctern of judging came into force in America er.triVs to their shows have fa'len nearly 50 pic cent., snd are stiU btiog redused where this Billy pysfcem ia still in use. Many societies in America who ha-ve disregarded the uso of the card are regaining their old position. Ii th'S gresfcly improved sya'em is the success that Mr Myera wishes us to b-.-Jitve it is, why hawtpot the leading shows in England taken^pr in baud and arranged the judging on the same lin?s ? I wculd like to ask Mr Myers and those ■who believe in this splendid system a few questions. With your permission, Sir, I will give a rather lei gthy idea of judging by this system. I will first commence with collies. Authorities do not advocate poiiat judging. They give a scale of points lo show ih« comparative value attached to the different proportions. ' We will say there are two dogs to be Judged t No. 1. No. 2. Ht-ad and expression 15 Head and expression 12 Ears ... ... 30 Ears 6 JN-eck and shouldeis 10 Keck and thouiders 10 3Te-t and legs ... 9 Feet &?.d leg 3 ... 35 Hii dquarters ... 6 Hindquarters ... 10 Back and loins „. 6 B*ck and loins ... 10 Bush _. 5 Bush „, 5 Coat and frill ... 20 Coat and frill .. 10 Size ... ~. ... 5 Size _ ... ... JS £6 53 By the foregoing you cau see that No. 1 wins by the card syfctein because he scores three points more than No. 2. Would any fancier or breeder say that No. 1 ia the better dog of the two ? Which of the two dogs could do the workbspfc? Why, No. 2 wou'd simply kill No. lin a very short time. Yet No. lis placed fitfct by this rotten system. Tni=i is only one example of many. N«xfe week I wiil give an *x?.mple from a poultry and pigeon view — I am, &•■., Breeder. [I refrain from making length} remark upon "Breedet's" opposition to the idea of judging — which I have advocated so consistently — until Mr Myers aad others who aho favour the system have r<?p'ied. In the meantime I win content myself with Eay'Dg that Imaginary sample cases, such s.s those advanced by my correspondent, are not satisfactory evidence. It is the old, old catechism style of the one side furnishing both queatiou and answer. It is just posrible, for instance, that a judge giving 15 points to dog No. 2 for feet would give not c at sll to dog No. 1, who, with all bis fine coat, expression, &c., could eearcely be expected to carry No. 9's under such a weedy back and loins. — Teheob.]