This Page Is For Breed Notes And Information. Could You Contribute?
Email Me:
tonymanning@terrierworld.co.uk
Comments on the proposal to change the height in the Lakeland Terrier Standard.
From Ron Punter
The proposal to change the height in the Lakeland Terrier standard has been withdrawn for the moment but I would like to make it clear from the start that I for one am totally opposed to the proposed change. To alter the current “maximum” size to become the “average” would potentially sanction a huge upward shift in size, destroying breed type and taking the breed far away from it’s origins as the little working fell terriers of the Lake District. Dogs over 15 inches have generally drawn a lot of adverse comments as really by no stretch of the imagination could such a dog be considered “fit for purpose”
As most Lakelands are currently below the maximum size why would the owners support a proposal that would make their dogs less than “ideal”?
I think the problem is that it has not been properly explained that the “average” weights apply to the maximum size stated - the standard doesn’t give an “average” size so to the people who wrote the standard that was obvious.
Unless you know the history the present standard is unclear when it says “average” weight 17lb dog 15lb bitch. Originally these were stated as maximum weights (to be precise it was 16lb for a bitch) but when the standards were revised in the 1950’s the argument would have been that these were average weights for the maximum size stated. Actually these weights might be rather heavy as they originally applied as maximum weights when the standard allowed up to 15 inches. In my “Antecedents” booklet there is a facsimile reproduction of the original Lakeland Terrier Association standard (the first) and the first book to feature Lakelands is Croxton Smiths “About our Dogs” published 1931 and he quotes from the first standard “They are small, the dogs not supposed to exceed 17lb and bitches a pound less”.
When unified standards were produced by the KC in the 1950’s (before then each breed club made it’s own standard) 15 inches was agreed unanimously at the AGM’s of both the LTA and the LTC (the only clubs at that time) to be too big, I did have a scan of the LTC minutes about this but can’t lay my hand on it –don’t say I will have to go through those blessed minutes books again! Perhaps the KC changed “maximum” weight to “average” on the grounds that the Canine Defence League (Dogs Trust nowadays) accuses us of starving the dogs to keep them under the weight. It does occur to me that the weights might be a bit low on current nutrition standards –compared to an old working terrier ours are, as they say in Cumbria, “fat as butter”.
Of course we don’t measure the dogs, there’s no disqualification and judges have discretion so the present standard has not stopped dogs over 14 ½ inches becoming champions. One top champion dog that was kept in my kennel in the 1980’s and we showed for a friend was over 15 inches and he won a lot of CC’s - how big might they get if the average is set at 141/2 inches?
If we were to go along with the average size idea then clearly that can’t be the current maximum, it would have to be something less – Most show Lakelands have been between 13 and 15 inches so being realistic the average is 14 inches and perhaps on that basis the standard might say “average size 14 inches with about 1 inch variation. Dogs tending to be slightly larger than bitches.” but then the average weight would have to be reduced in proportion, even 14 inches average is a shift upwards from the present standard.
It’s surprising that the proposal to effectively increase the size came from the Joint Judges Sub committee as the KC have made it clear to them that breed standards are not part of the remit of such committees. In my opinion the Judges Sub committee has a responsibility to promote judging in accordance with the breed standard and not seek fundamental changes.
Attendance at AGM’s tends to be very poor - a tiny fraction of the membership so a vote in favour of a major change to the standard would hardly be of any significance and the KC are not likely to change the fundamentals of a standard that has stood for nearly 50 years except when they do it on their own terms (supposed health grounds.)
I have tried to keep to facts rather than opinion but as aspiring judges often ask how small can a Lakeland be I will say that I know of Bitches that have won at the highest level that are 12 ½ inches. Some bitches currently in the show ring look to be about 12 inches which might be getting too small for some judges as that’s the interface with Toy Terriers.
One last thought -what harm is the current standard doing? If it’s not broken why meddle with it? But if the standard is to be clarified it should be to say :
“Size Height not exceeding 37 cms (14 1/2 ins) at shoulder: Average weight at maximum height:
dogs: 8 kgs (17 lbs); bitches: 7 kgs (15 lbs) ”.
I will propose this amendment if someone will second it.
MIDLAND LAKELAND TERRIER CLUB
Judge Roger Crooks (Crooksmoor) judging an entry of 30
Dog CC, his third and BIS went to Saredon Flashback (Ch Brocolitia Reality at Saredon X Devils Red Van Foliny Home)
who was handled by his breeder Judy Averis
Bitch CC went to Philip Greenway’s owner bred and handledCh Rayfos Night Shadow
(Ch Firecracker at Rayfos X Ch Rayfos Fire Flower).
Res Dog CC went to Vickers, Browbank and Clark’s Eskwyre Back In The Red
(Ch Sonorra Spellcatcher X Eskwyre Brassed Off) Bred by Ron Runter and Mike and handled by Mike Vickers
Res Bitch CC was a first for Margaret Whitehead’s Stanstead Try This One
(Ch Big Lady’s Micro Napoleon X Brownlou Aoife at Wyndam) Bred by Debbie Graham
Best Puppy in Show was awarded to my owner handled and bred Kebulak Swing On A Star
(Ch Saredon Flashback X Ch Saredon Unreachable Star at Arkama).
