Pekingese Standard

                                    Pekingese Standards- 1986

                                                                             Joyce Shipley

In 1986 when Joyce Shipley judged the PCA Winter Specialty, she gave the following presentation to The Potomac Valley Pekingese Club.  Because of all the interest in “Standards” today, I thought it would be of interest to the members of The Pekingese Association.  Many of you already know Joyce since she has judged over here many times.  However, for those of you who do not know her, here are some things to introduce her to you.  Joyce is a well-known Championship judge of Pekingese who has judged among many others, Crufts, The Pekingese Club and The United Kingdom Toydog Society.  She judges all toy dogs.  She has judged the PCA Winter Specialty in New York and the Roving Specialty in Seattle as well as several regional club specialties.  She is a second-generation Pekingese breeder having been a partner with her Mother who was also a Championship judge.  After her Mother’s death in 1981, Joyce continued to breed and show Pekingese.  The kennel was founded in 1954, is called Kettlemere and has produced many champions in England and worldwide.  The most famous export was English and American Champion Mathilda of Kettlemere who was owned by Mrs. Gilma Blauvelt-Moss of Ho Dynasty Pekingese in New Jersey. 

                        Carol Kniebusch Noe----The Pekingese Association Education Committee

I was asked to choose my own subject and after a lot of thought I chose to talk about standards---about standards in general and not surprisingly about Pekingese standards in particular.  I expect when you saw the title of my talk there were those among you who groaned and said, “Not again.”……and those who said, “I wonder what her pet likes and dislikes are?”….and some who actually looked forward to it?

For those of you in the last group, I thank you in advance for your moral support.  I chose “standards” because recently, I believe, in fact I know there have been many articles trying to quantify and qualify the Pekingese standard.  They have attempted to elucidate some of the show points of the Pekingese standard.  Whilst this can only be applauded, there are some writers who have expounded such far-fetched ideas to be incredible not to mention, in my opinion, inaccurate.

Standards mean different things to different people.  Over the centuries the quality and purity of all domestic animals has been improved out of all recognition as a result of the efforts of interested and enlightened breeders.  Where the aim is fairly simple and easily measured, such as milk or egg production, speed, endurance or herding ability, the achievements have been reached with relatively little disagreement between parties.

With specific reference to dogs---Talk to a farmer or a shepherd about his standards for a working dog and in all probability he will say, “a good herding instinct, obedience, energy, endurance, good vision and hearing, intelligence, and health.”  Talk to a hunter and he will probably say of his gundog, “obedience, energy, intelligence, fearlessness, sensitivity, good vision and scent instinct, and health.”  Talk to a group of breeders of no matter what breed of dog and you will get as many different lists of points as there are breeders present.  In very few fields do experts always agree.  So there will always be room for idiosyncratic ideas.  This is particularly true of dog breeding where breed standards have been modified over the years in order to make breeds more distinctive.

The purpose of standards is not just to describe the characteristics of a particular breed but also to perpetuate and improve a distinctive breed.  We should not lose sight however of the fact that we and those before us, have over the centuries created these distinctive breeds.  They are man made.  We have decided what the animal should look like.  We are engineering living creatures and we have to answer for what we are doing to them.  What a responsibility!

Before I came away I saw a pre Crufts show on television.  It was very enlightening.  It not only illustrated those rare examples of almost perfection that one finds in a supreme Best In Show at our most famous of dog shows, it also illustrated the disasters that some breeds are now experiencing.  Shar Peis who facial skin is so distorted that it is causing horrific eye problems and blindness.  Bloodhounds who jowls are so exaggerated that facial skin being so heavy is pulling the lower part of the eye down resulting in a diamond shaped formation of the eyelids and exposing the complete lower eyeball.  English Bulldogs where large heads have now become the larger, the better….and which are completely out of proportion with the rest of the body…to mention but three.

Has the time now come when everyone should face up to their responsibility and seek to breed animals, that regardless of finer show points are above all healthy animals and in being the word, healthy, I really mean sound in every respect?

Interestingly enough when preparing for this talk, I read some old textbooks on Pekingese---some are better than others.  One of the most practical in my opinion is Mrs. Ashton Cross’s excellent book, “The Pekingese Dog”---hard to find these days.  My mother was fortunate to be given a copy by Miss Margerie Ashton Cross many years ago.  She begins her chapter of advice to would be owners as follows:  “In buying a dog whether it is to be a pet, for breeding or for exhibition, the first and most vital consideration is health and by this is meant not the rather negative kind of health that consists merely of an absence of unhealthy symptoms, but real buoyant, super abundant bodily vigor and well being.  Next in importance after health comes the question of points.”

And again, in the same chapter the writer may seem to stress health over much, but it is a factor too frequently ignored today.  In the eagerness for a win, and a win at any price, with too many breeders both health and temperament have gone by the board; and these breeders have left their mark not merely in “tail trailers,” “nearly dogs,” and listless showers, dogs coming into coat, just out of coat but never quite top show form but behind the scenes with far more damaging effect, in a trail of missing bitches, indifferent stud dogs, puppies still born, and others that pine away unaccountably in the first few weeks of life.”  Could she be writing about the breed today?

Do we breed from animals that pass on traits that lead to less than full health?.....narrow bodies, pinched noses, slipping joints, ingrown eyelashes?  If we are completely honest, there are very few who hand on heart could say, “No.”  …..and yet we all know that the best general approach to breeding is always to use only animals which do not possess any abnormalities.  And many of us have had bitter disappointments---the outstanding specimen that has light eyes, a roach back or slipping patellas.

However, as Mrs. Ashton Cross says after health points, and in this instance Pekingese points in particular.  The beginnings of the breed are shrouded in mystery.  This is part of its fascination.  However, it is certain that it has been a recognizable and distinctive breed since the time of Confucius and was described in the first century as, “a very small short headed, short legged dog with flowing tail and ears.”  It was not until the time of the dowager, Empress Tzu His, herself known as the “Old Buddha” that for political reasons the little lion dog or Pekingese was more closely associated with the stylized dogs illustrated in Chinese literature and art.  She sought to emphasize the likeness to the Lamaism Buddha in order to gain prestige and to add the awe of the supernatural to her power.  She surrounded herself with the diminutive dogs and insisted that their resemblance to the conventionalized images of the Buddhist lions should be as close as possible.  There is a school of thought which claims the opposite---that those ugly and even grotesque figures which surround representations of Buddha are really modeled as a Pekingese and that we should strive to achieve that grotesqueness in the breed now.  If they are modeled as Pekingese, then I believe they as much resemble a Peke as some of Picasso’s portraits resemble a human being and that some of these figures could come straight out of a Salvador Dali.

Currently in the U.K. the standards of many breeds including that of the Pekingese are being revised by The Kennel Club and Breed councils.  Have you read your breed standard lately?  How long since you studied photographs of early champions?  In the beginning when standards were drawn up eve the breed clubs could not agree.

The Pekin Palace Dog Association being formed by The Pekingese Club because they could not agree on weight requirements?.....The Pekingese Club standard admitting dogs up to 18 pounds.  The PPDA was formed to perpetuate the Palace type of dog.  Its weight limitations allowing a maximum of 10 pounds and a minimum of 5 pounds.  It is not hard to understand what a diversity of type existed in the early 1900’s and this from early descendants of the dogs which came out of China and which were supposedly the results of very careful and selective breeding.

CH Tai Yang of Newham in the 20’s and CH Caversham Ku Ku of Yam of the 50’s could be almost of different breeds….yet both of them are considered to conform to the standard.  It was not until 1949 that the U.K. Kennel Club insisted that breed Clubs should agree on a standard.  Even then there was a wide difference in interpretation and it is this interpretation, which remains largely subjective that causes problems.

The guardians of the standard are not only breeders but perhaps more so, judges, who are in the long term the people who allow changes to take place.  Both groups must constantly be aware of the tremendous influence they exert on the breed.  Insisting on certain show points in isolation we should all be aware of the possible consequences.  For instance, the over emphasis that is currently being placed on the work, “massive” in relation to heads.  Should we really insist so forcibly on this if ultimately as in English Bulldog puppies are rarely born any other way than by Caesarean section?

Judges in particular should be more aware of the influences that critiques have on breeders, exhibitors, and yes, future judges.  You have all read, I am sure, the following in reports: “nose less, Negroid, glamorous, shortest of short back, grotesque.”  The standard requires more of these….it asks for a short, black nose, broad leather, flowing coat, coarse in texture with long fringes.  It asks for a short body---the word, grotesque is never mentioned.  The American standard, I believe asks that it suggest its Chinese origin in quaintness and individuality---what does that really mean?

We go through phases of nose less wonder, coats so luxuriant they completely hide body shape, and bodies so short that the dog struts in the ring rather like a Pomeranian and its vital organs compressed to an even greater degree into a chest which is often narrow.  In drawing up our standard, I believe we should endeavor to make them more explicit and to

Give more direction about proportion.  Only one writer that I know of has attempted to do this---Dr. Vlasto---one out of so many.  But is it so difficult to draw up acceptable ratios of height to length?  Head to body?  Width of head to depth?  Without these guidelines what are indeed short legs, and how long is a short back and what is a shallow head?  Should a miniature be defined by weight only?  (In U.K. under 7 pounds)  But I have judged so called miniatures under 7 pounds which are really natural sized dogs who should weigh more and I have judged well bodied small exhibits who were really over the weight miniatures.  We are back to personal interpretations once again.  I suppose a good argument can be made for retaining the element of personal interpretation.  Without it we would be heading for a stereotype which would be quite out of keeping with our beloved little Orientals whose charm lied in their individuality.

There are those who insist that there is only one type---that true to the standard.  Yet whilst Vlasto defines type as agreement with points of the show standard, he accepts, “that even among show dogs of acknowledged excellence even within the limits of the standard there exists a very wide diversity of type.”  Within certain limits it gives a spice of variety of Pekingese.  You can win the highest honors with a Pekingese which fits into the standard but at the same time, retain the marked individuality of your own strain.  Our aim should be to strive to breed Pekingese which are healthy, of correct type, balance and quality with a fearless happy temperament.  We should insist on a standard which excludes ambiguity and gives more positive guidance to breeders and judges.  If we can do this then we can truly say that we have helped to improve our breed.