Where is TYPICAL MOVEMENT going?
By Hans Lehtinen and Chris Lummelampi
When we look at dog shows in general and competition at group level in particular, we are often struck by an all too frequent trend towards a convergence of breed characteristics especially when it comes to movement. The question is: are we looking for an all-round show dog, flashy and sound enough, but not exactly epitomizing its breed type? Are we, as breeders and judges, tempted to ask for the same attributes on all show dogs, regardless of the breed? Movement is a measure of a dog's conformation. If we accept what might be today's barely perceptible changes in a dog's movement, we may gradually allow an alteration in the breed type. We may, in fact, contribute to a situation where an Afghan Hound moves like a Poodle and a Poodle moves like an Afghan. If this is the case, then we need a serious discussion on typical movement in today's show rings.
The original functions of many of our breeds have become obsolete as our societies have changed from agrarian into urban societies. Add to this the pressures to alter breed standards in order to breed "sounder" dogs -- as if the existing breed standards were an impediment to sound dogs -- and the emerging "green values" depreciating pure-bred dogs, and we may be distancing ourselves from true breed type.
When we look at the Poodle today, we hardly ever stop to think what the function of its long coat was as it performed its retrieving function in icy cold water: when the hair ends froze, the coat underneath formed an insulating layer keeping the dog warm; or that the Poodle clip with the hindquarters clipped short was part of maintaining the breed's ability to function just as a colorful ribbon was tied to the dog's topknot and tail to help the hunter see his dog out in the field. The Poodle's movement also contributed to its usefulness as a retrieving dog: it was expected to move with the light, effortless gait which continues -- or should continue -- to be part of the Poodle's breed type today.
No one expects the Brussels Griffon or the Yorkshire Terrier to catch rats in today's urban environment, but surely this should not be a justification to change their original breed type. Neither do we expect the Shar Pei to function as a fighting dog, but this is no reason why it should not have enough fold of skin on its shoulders to enable it to turn, if gripped by an attacker.
In some breeds, function dictates movement. In others, there does not seem much logical explanation why a breed should move in a certain way -- except when the movement is part of the breed's heritage and deserves recognition. If the Fox Terrier heritage -- or its standard, as the American one does in the case of the Smooth Fox Terrier -- calls for the dog move its front legs like a pendulum of a clock, there is no reason why we should not appreciate this movement when we see it, however rare it might be today.
In the case of the "decorative" toy and utility breeds, the consideration of typical movement should not be any less important. We think of the Japanese Chin as a dainty dog who is expected to move with a graceful gait, lifting its feet high... or the Miniature Pinscher and Italian Greyhounds with their high-stepping Hackney gait, as required by the British and American standards. For Italian Greyhounds, the continental countries of the FCI used to have the same requirement, until the breed standard was abruptly changed by its country of origin to ask for "normal" movement. You are, of course, entitled to ask how this can be accomplished without changing the front assembly of the breed -- many of us do, especially as we wonder about some of the changes in the breed standards to accommodate the whims of the "country of origin."
Although some of the breed standards drawn up by countries where the breeding of pure-bred livestock has not been a long tradition may leave a lot to be desired, in some cases comparing the British, U.S. and FCI standards is a useful exercise. Take the Maltese standard. The British standard simply calls for free movement, whereas the original Italian standard describes what we have come to expect of a typical Maltese in motion: quick, short steps giving the impression of the dog sliding forward with its feet barely skimming the ground. Or compare the Poodle standards: the French one warns against the dog covering too much ground when it moves, but the American one calls for springy action -- just as the Afghan standard does, although the movement of the two breeds could not be more different, with the Poodle waltzing around the ring in true "Poodley" fashion and the Afghan moving as if it had springs under its feet.
Variations in breed type in different continents also seem to play a role in our expectations of how a typical example of a breed should move. We see Shih Tzus in some parts of the world who would be much more at home in the Lhasa Apso ring, and vice versa. We hear a lot about the controversy surrounding their movement -- flick-up or no flick-up for Lhasa , showing full pads for Shih Tzu -- and lots of special expertise seem to be called for when assessing Lhasa's "jaunty movement" when, in fact, it is a very moderate, normally constructed dog who should move with light feet, effortlessly like a trotting horse. Not so the lower-to-the-ground, heavier bodied Shih Tzu whose conformation (if correct) alone dictates that it cannot move with the same style as the higher-legged and differently shaped Lhasa.
Ideal Dog
All too often, we seem to be using the same yardstick to measure the quality of a dog, and we are too easily impressed with flashy showmanship and clever presentation.
Someone once observed that, all too often, we believe a dog is a good mover if it covers the ground like a German Shepherd, comes and goes like a Beagle, and, to top it all, has the Setter topline, the animation of a Cocker Spaniel and the general attitude of a Poodle.
Never mind if it is a typical example of its breed, epitomizing its written and unwritten breed standard. Never mind if its attitude is that of a composite, outgoing, animated show dog of no particular breed type, as long as it meets the generally accepted criteria for soundness... It will, no doubt, keep the Council of Europe happy and avoid scare headlines of "unhealthy" or "unsound" breeds of dogs. But it should raise alarm bells among us who work to maintain true breed type and who are convinced that we do not need take the Council's at times misguided recommendations on "sound breeding principles" at face value -- and we certainly do not need to take precipitated action to change our breeds standards to the extreme where a Brussels Griffon might suddenly be transformed into a reddish rough-coated Border Terrier. (Isn't it rather that there is nothing much wrong with our breed standards from the soundness or health point of view -- but there could be something wrong with our interpretation of these breed standards if we err on the side of exaggeration?)
It might be useful to look at the Pekingese standard which states: "Slow, dignified rolling gait in front. Typical movement not to be confused with a roll caused by slackness of shoulders. Close action behind. Absolute soundness essential." A Basset Hound with a sound, crooked front (in the English standard) will move soundly - for its breed. Straighten the front legs, and you will get an unsound dog with a heavy body hanging between the front legs instead of being wrapped by them. A well-constructed but typical Chow Chow hindquarter, strong enough not to knuckle over, will allow the dog to move with its typical stilted gait, just as a typical, but sound construction will allow the Puli to move with a stride that is "not far-reaching. Gallop short. Typical movement short-stepping, very quick, in harmony with lively disposition. Movement never heavy, lethargic or lumbering."
The gait requirements of quite a number of breeds do not conform to the general conception of "sound dogs", well angulated in front and rear, moving with a ground-covering gait. There is no reason why they should, unless our aim is the identikit show dog.
The Faster the Better
It does not seem to be enough that most of our dogs move, and are often expected to move, in the same manner. They are also expected to move with the same speed regardless of the breed.
Would a Rottweiler be a better, more invincible defender of its master and his property if it were to move with the same agility as an Australian Kelpie, a shepherd, running on the backs of the sheep in tight spots if needed to perform its function? Or would the St. Bernard be a better rescue dog in the Alps if it raced around the ring with the same effortlessness as a Saluki?
In fact, many of the so-called "rolling" breeds are moved around the ring so fast that they never have the opportunity to display their characteristic gait. Again, it might be useful to take a look at some of the breed standards. The Bulldog standard states: " Peculiarly heavy and constrained (gait), appearing to skim the ground, running with one or other shoulder rather advanced." Or the Clumber Spaniel: "Rolling gait attributable to long body and short legs. " Or the Old English Sheepdog: "When walking, exhibits a bear-like roll from the rear..."
To mention a few more examples of typical gait: take a look at Cocker Spaniels and ask how often they display the typical bustling movement, or at Irish Water Spaniels whose typical movement is often described as that of a drunken sailor.
Some Poodles and Spaniels are, it is alleged, moved so fast that their hind feet never touch the ground (not to mention that, nowadays, you hardly ever see the old-fashioned Cocker Spaniel movement...) In fairness, you could say that quite a few Terriers -- and others, for that matter -- are moved on such a tight lead that their front feet never touch the ground! "Hanging" dogs on tight leads may be appropriate when there is something wrong in the dog's front and you want to reduce the weight on it, hopefully improving movement. This practice may not cause any major harm since it will certainly draw the judge's attention to the problem. But it is unfortunate when dogs with excellent front movement are never allowed to show it to their advantage. It is also unfortunate that many breeds shown on tight leads show an unnatural or an untypical head carriage as handlers forget that the Deerhound or the Borzoi does not have the same outline in profile movement as the Afghan does.
Not all breeds of dogs were developed to be fast moving dogs. Note the American standard for the Alaskan Malamute which states: "In judging Malamutes, their function as a sledge dog for heavy freighting must be given consideration above all else... He isn't intended as a racing sled dog designed to compete in speed trials with the smaller Northern breeds." Contrast this with the Siberian Husky whose required gait is quick and light on its feet. The Basset Hound, for its part, was originally bred to be a slow hunting dog to enable the hunter to follow him on foot without difficulty; therefore, a Basset with its true and deliberate movement should not be expected to compete in speed with the Sighthounds in the same group whose original function and style of working are entirely different. Again, compare it with the smaller French hound, the Basset Fauve de Bretagne, whose movement differs from the heavier, low-to-the-ground Basset Hound because it was created to work on a different terrain, in the thick undercover in Brittany.
Conditioning
All show dogs need exercise and conditioning beyond the few rounds around the show ring to keep them in top form and peak condition, and to enable them to present their typical movement to advantage. But the right exercise and proper muscle tone will never mask basic structural weaknesses or shortcomings in breed type. They will only enhance good, typical movement.
With coated breeds we, as breeders, exhibitors and judges often struggle to balance the show ring requirements of keeping the coat in top condition with the requirement to maintain the dog underneath in peak physical condition with proper exercise. Often we end up with a flabby dogs with flowing coats, or well-muscled dogs with broken coats when we, in fact, should be looking for a happy medium. (One of the ironies of life is that some of the coated dogs who are kept in wire crates and exercise pens, as they often do in America, have wonderful muscles -- could it be that they spend their days bouncing up and down in their crates?)
The same applies to other forms of technology which are being introduced into the world of show dogs. We need a happy medium between exercise machines, or treadmills, and other forms of exercise. Some blame poor front movement on the excessive use of treadmills, others tend to think that treadmill exercise, if used excessively, may constrict the dog's movement by shortening its stride, resulting in a peculiar gait behind.
Instead of condemning treadmills outright, it might be useful to see them as excellent aids in exercising dogs in adverse weather conditions when outside exercise is impossible, to be supplemented by other forms of exercise -- walking, bicycling or letting the dogs gallop in the fields. Not many of us can go as far as a famous Afghan Hound kennel in the U.S. where the dog runs include an L-shaped ring going up and down the hill, forcing the dogs to turn and stretch when they gallop. Nevertheless, versatility in exercise will ensure that the dog uses all its muscles to the full and is in peak condition.
But, to return to the point of this article, a dog, however well muscled and however well moving, is not a typical example of its breed if it does not have typical movement. And if we accept small changes in the movement of a breed, we accept small changes in conformation, proportions and overall breed type until we end up with an identikit show dog. (And talking about proportions -- have you noticed how many of today's show dogs are losing the length of leg?)
Understanding sound movement is important, but understanding typical movement is essential if we are to preserve breed type. Learning to quote the breed standard may not be enough, because, to paraphrase the late Tom Horner, any child can learn to recite the Lord's Prayer, but understanding it will take years. Therefore, we should not be in too much a hurry.
PREFERRED BREED TYPE
Why The Stand-Out Best Dog Can Be A Loser
Katie GammillE. Katie Gammill © - The Best of the Best or one that looks like the rest? Let’s be honest. Something called “preferred type” is flooding the rings today and in many breeds, it has little to do with the Breed Standard. When “current type” does not equal correctness, the best dog can lose because in many rings, the fatal flaw is being a stand-out.
“The best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you ever finish!”
A dog show friend, absent from the sport for several years, attended some local shows with me. Welcoming the opportunity to view dogs in general after her sabbatical, she became visually distressed. Her despair increased when a “less than average” class dog received BOB. The waning quality in her beautiful breed breaks her heart. She stated it would be wasted effort to show a dog correct to the standard today, as some judges feel compelled to award dogs conforming to the majority of the entries.
Observing other breeds, she remarks on the lack of neck, restricted front movement and the lack of rear follow through; we discuss “gay tails” and breed type variances. We watch faulty movement and see coats dragging the ground. Weak pasterns and sickle hocks complete the picture. She wonders what causes this to happen to functional dogs in such a short time. It seems the correct dogs have fallen victim to what one may refer to as the “Perfection of Mediocrity”.
Today, many breeders and owners turn to performance, choosing not to participate in a “crap shoot” where such variety in type confuses both judges and ringside. I make this statement at the expense of being tarred and feathered but increasingly, the best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you will ever finish. It will be the “odd man out” and look different from the majority of dogs represented in the ring. Why? Some judges, insecure in a breed and therefore lacking courage, choose to walk “different” dogs rather than stick their neck out. Understandable, but should those lacking confidence be passing judgment on another’s dog?
My old mentor said, “The pendulum of type swings to and fro, but those remaining true to the standard triumph in the end.” Those dedicated breeders have the knowledge to restore a breed to its initial form once it hits bottom.
Should a judge reward a dog to suggest it could possibly assist in correcting breed faults? NO! It is a breeder’s responsibility to incorporate such animals into their programs, regardless of success in the show ring. Judges are to judge to the written standard to the best of their ability, fairly and efficiently. They avoid awarding “drags of a breed” when possible but judges have little insight into the Pandora’s Box of breeding.
A respected dog person of long standing approached me with this statement while at a seminar. “A judge CAN NOT GO WRONG by putting up winners conforming to the majority of the type of dogs in the ring on a given day.” My response was “Surely not!” Well, I believe it now! After observing an all breed judge from ringside, I watched two outstanding individuals “walk” because they looked different from the rest of the short neck, sickle hock, smaller than average dogs lacking side gait that toddled around the ring like fuzzy little caricatures of the breed.
This strange “look alike” perspective takes over in many breed rings and not just among judges. Asking a breeder what their standard said about head planes, the response was: “What are parallel planes?” We discussed the occipital bone, short and medium muzzles, balanced heads, etc. Reading a standard and applying it can be two different things.
Judges should have the ability to articulate why one dog wins over another. So is that why they make terminology common among standards - to make it easier for judges? If anyone can describe a bulldog and an afghan using the same language, please step forward. Removing the “point system” from the old standards has had a negative affect. In a final decision between two comparable individuals, one has an idea where to hang their hat regarding prioritizing.
Should we just BREED TO WIN or should we BREED TO THE STANDARD and expect judges to judge to the Standard?
It is a "Judas Kiss" to any breed when a judge puts up a dog simply because it looks like the majority in the ring. It encourages people to breed to “winners” rather than to a breed standard. In judge’s education, they address soundness but type takes priority. Educators assume that new applicants understand structure and corresponding movement. Type without soundness is as detrimental to a breed as soundness without type. A bad front and bad rear working in sequence produces “balance”. Do two wrongs make a right? The goal is “a balance between type and soundness”. A breed must be able to walk to the water bowl without falling over its own feet!
This brings us to the next question. Are not judges “protectors of the breed standards?” Judges education is NOT at fault. Perhaps the problem is what some judging applicants do NOT bring to the table! It is a privilege to pass judgment on a breed but one has the responsibility of understanding “Basic Dog 101”. The AKC’s required anatomy test neither assures someone’s knowledge nor is it any guarantee a judge has the ability to analyze structure and movement.
Some breeder judges today send dogs with a handler giving little thought as to their quality or future effect on a breed. Shouldn’t breeder judges be especially careful to send correct dogs for public observation? Breeders have a responsibility to put out “the best of the best” rather than a dog that wins simply because it “looks like the rest.” By so doing, they are sending false signals to both ringside and new judges.
When judges say, “This must be what the breeders want as the ring is flooded with this type” it is detrimental to any breed. It IS NOT about “what breeders want.” Breeders and judges have a responsibility to breed and judge to standard.
Should handlers show dogs for clients when they KNOW the dog or bitch is not a good representative of the breed? Breeders and exhibitors have a responsibility to promote only dogs that DO represent their breed standard and to sell as pets those who do not! A good handler should make every effort to finish a dog but they too are responsible and should be more selective regarding client dogs. Handlers who read the standard and who have the courage to turn down an inferior dog are to be admired.
Advertisement does not always mean a dog represents “breed excellence”. Handlers do not always present “good dogs”. Advertising carries some influence and if a judge selects winners on advertising alone, they do a disservice to the breed and it reflects on their ability as a judge.
“Priority judging” can be detrimental to breeds as Judges become caught up in selecting for individual virtues be it eye, ear set, feet, or coat color. That is why some specialty judges “put up pieces” rather than the whole package. Virtues are important, but a dog should “fill the eye”. A single virtue cannot take precedence over a plethora of faults! Priority judging explains why many judges take so long to judge a class.
Dismayed exhibitors approach me with serious concerns regarding the direction of our sport. Time and effort is required to understand what makes a breed “breed specific”, and what constitutes “breed excellence”. There is no short cut. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, it should be a knowledgeable opinion. Personal preference only enters in when two dogs are equal according to the breed standard.
Another issue is “spot entering”. Granted, today people enter under specific judges where they feel there is a chance of winning. However, why on a four-day weekend, do we see one point on Thursday, a major on Friday, one point on Saturday, and a major on Sunday? Should not one support the person who supports them by entering all four days? If there is a major, don’t break it by not attending. Don’t bump up a bitch or dog to BOB without first asking the other exhibitors their preference. Many people drive miles only to find someone failed to show up ringside or” bumped up” a new champion and broke the major. This co-operation is something we used to be able to count on. Today it is “iffy” at best. This is “sportsmanship”!
Watch dogs go around the ring. Some are structurally inefficient. Some shoulders do not open up, the dog reaches from the elbow. Ask yourself why one dog out-moves another. Go analyze short coated dogs. Take this knowledge to your own breed ring and “look beneath the coat”. Understand top lines, body shape, breed specific movement and toy/moderate/ giant. Do some study and then some soul searching. Ringside observers and breed enthusiasts look on in dismay today, wondering where the functional dogs of the past have gone. Sadly, some faults are so prevalent today they are viewed as “virtues”.
"Winning because of an exceptional breeding program takes the breed and breeders toward breed excellence. That should be the goal yesterday, and today."
Requested to address this issue, I decided to take time to sit back and see the “big picture.” The “big picture” is upon us, folks, and it is not pretty! My reason to become a judge was the challenge to select the best of the best according to a written standard. I love dogs! I love SOUND dogs with BREED TYPE! Both virtues, believe it or not, can be present in the same animal! Through combined efforts and a willingness to call “a spade a spade”, our breeds WILL survive. Breeding for the sake of winning is a downhill slide. This alone assures the future of our breeds. Turning things around will take dedicated breeders and judges, critical handler selection, and educated exhibitors. Our sport deserves nothing less than the best of our intentions.
ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS.
Why do breeder judges “put dogs with handlers when they know the animal does not represent breed excellence?
Why do handlers accept such dogs knowing once they finish, they will be “petted out”?
Are you kennel blind and do you breed to standard?
Should breeders and newcomers read the standard prior to stud and bitch selection?
When will more mentors open up to newcomers?
And lastly, are “gas money” and “filler” dogs destroying our sport?
Putting a breed back on track requires ETHICAL HANDLERS, DEDICATED BREEDERS, AN UNDERSTANDING OF BREED STANDARDS and KNOWLEDGEABLE JUDGES WITH THE COURAGE TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE SELECTIONS. Being a judge is not for the faint of heart. Sending the best dog to the next level and being a part of its journey to the pinnacle of success is a thrill of a lifetime.
There is but ONE standard. “Preferred breed type” is like a flavor of the month, very fleeting! BREEDERS, JUDGES AND EXHIBITORS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THEIR BREED STANDARDS. CURRENT FADS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE FLEETING AND DESTRUCTIVE.
ARE WE HELPING OR HURTING PUREBRED DOGS?
Tam Cordingley ©
How many times have we, as purebred dog fanciers, heard someone say “ mutts are smarter”, or “mutts are healthier”? We scoff and disregard such comments, but there may be a kernel of truth to them.
TAM CORDINGLEY KNOWS DOGS! - In dog training we teach something every time we handle a dog, it may be something good or it may be something bad, but we teach something. There is a cause and effect for every action. The purebred dog world, and dog shows, focus on the physical. It is necessary to have numbers of animals to breed and improve the physical appearance. It can’t be done with one dog. Therefore we must keep numbers. In keeping numbers, manageability becomes important. Quiet in the kennel. Good eaters. Clean in the kennel. Not destructive.
In breeding for easy manageability are we sacrificing brains? Think about the social lives of dogs. They were supposed to live in a pack. We take them and put one, or at the most two, in a separate pen. This becomes their territory. We expect them to not bark to guard their territory, not bark to warn off other dogs, not bark out of boredom, definitely not to bite the kennel help if we are lucky enough to have such a thing.
We expect an animal who is programmed by God to hunt for food and run great distances for that food, to be quiet, not pace, not tear up the kennel. At best we give them a toy or two, at worst they are to live peacefully in a concrete jail living out a life sentence.
Most don’t even have a patch of dirt in which to dig, dirt looks messy don’t you know. We expect them to act like cows. Existing quietly with bovine stoicism rather than canine intelligence. Only a dumb or terminally dull dog will live like this. A really smart dog either has to have activity and human input or it will go crazy. There are many Terriers and Border Collies who indulge in endless circling or weaving. Interestingly enough these same behavior traits are found in Thoroughbred and Arabian horses, never in Coldbloods, draft horses, or Warmbloods. Only in the so-called hot blooded horses. The best part of this dog’s day is the food bowl.
Another thing we expect our dogs to do is to show well. By show well, most mean to gait easily and to stack and bait. Let’s think about stack and bait for a second. Of course a dog should be able to stand still to be examined but why would any reasonable dog stand stock still and at attention with his object of attention being a piece of liver? Dogs are hunters. If the dog stood and stared at his food source he wouldn’t live long. The food source would run off, as prey animals do, and the dog would starve to death.
This mindless attention to a piece of liver sickens me. As a quick attention getter, sure, do what you must, but the minutes long focus on a dead piece of meat? Please! You will notice in the activities where a dog must think and be intelligent to function, drugs, police, guide, handicapped assistance, the dog is rewarded with fun. A ball, towel, rag, or whatever the active mind and body really wants, not on a dead piece of meat.
I like to show my Terriers with a squirrel tail, or a piece of rabbit fur. They don’t gaze endlessly and mindlessly at it, in a motionless trance, but they do stack and show beautifully with light in their eyes, for a little while. Usually terminating by either me popping the tail back in my pocket for another quick peep later or the dog jumping and grabbing it to “kill” it over again. Either way this is the embodiment of the Terrier, the essence of the breed, the quick, lively, and active hunter. If I wanted statues I would have them, no expense feeding them, no picking up, no barking, no fences. Maybe that is what I’ll have in my next life, but in this one I have live dogs to enjoy.
What is breeding better dogs about? Is it for the ribbons? Surely not, anyone can buy all the ribbon they want much cheaper than showing dogs to get it? Is it about Championship Certificates? Well, they are pretty, and satisfy the ego by saying our dogs are better than someone else’s. One hopes, at least this one does, that we breed dogs, hopefully better dogs, for the love of the breed.
Certainly it follows that you can’t improve a breed by creating dogs that can’t breed yet modern science has given us methods to do so. If God intended them to breed they would be able to do so. Have you ever noticed that if a bitch can’t or won’t breed, she usually also has trouble whelping, often won’t mother the pups, and her pups have the same problems. What difference does it make if she is pretty if she cannot perform the most basic function of a brood bitch, breeding? How can any of us found a line on animals that can’t breed. This doesn’t only apply to females. If a male won’t breed he isn’t worthy of breeding. End of story. I don’t care how many Best in Shows he has won or who owns him, if he can’t breed he shouldn’t be bred. This is not to say we can’t try diet, exercise, or stress reduction techniques, but the bottom line is the same ---if they can’t breed naturally they shouldn’t be bred.
In our county there is a man who breeds Boston Terriers. Most of us would look down on him as a puppy factory, backyard breeder, or worse. He has two bitches and breeds each bitch once a year. He has never shown a dog or won a point. He has, however, enriched the lives of many people with his wonderful and healthy Bostons. They breed naturally, free whelp, raise their puppies, breathe normally, and he has never had one returned for health or temperament. Now then, I ask you, are the show dogs better?. They must be forced to breed, held and restrained, often have caesarian sections, often won’t or can’t raise the pups, are prone to breathing and stifle problems. I have, in my home, a dog from this man. He is one of the nicest looking Bostons I have ever seen. Strong, healthy, pretty, and, of course, neutered. When I go to a show I always look at the Bostons because they are so neat, I’ve yet to see one I like as well as “Bounce.” He shows the character of the breed to a T.
And then there are the overprotective breeders. Not just concerned about the welfare of their dogs but so obsessed with control that they can’t sell or place a dog. Everything must have strings. A breeding animal, with papers, can’t be bought, they must be co-owned. These people feel that only they, and a select few friends, are good enough to own a purebred Whiffle Hound. Purebred Whiffle hounds are so special that the common person could never understand them. If these concerned owners do not “protect” the breed it will go to hell in a handbasket, propelled by the common rabble that might want to own one.
Well I hate to break it to you folks, but if no one is allowed to own a breeding Wiffle Hound, the breed will become extinct when the controlling ones die, or a breed specific problem requiring an outcross occurs. Where are the next generation of Whiffle Hound fanciers to come from if one can’t be bought? And where will the pet buyer go when he reads about a Whiffle Hound and would like to have one? He will go to one or two of these holier than thou breeders, who preach from every car bumper about buying from a breeder, and he will be grilled and insulted. He will give up and go to a backyard breeder or pet store, where he can buy a dog and not marry the breeder.
This is not to say every breeder should sell to every buyer. Far from it, BUT if we, as breeders, refuse to sell to anyone we are writing our own death knell. Yes, screen buyers and homes, be sure your pups go to good homes, but let some of them go. No breeder has 100% show pups, everyone has some pets, spay or neuter if necessary, but let them go. Educate, educate, educate but let them go.
In My Opinion the current crop of show breeders aren’t doing any great favors for the breeds they profess to love. They are, in the main, creating dogs who couldn’t begin to do the job for which they were intended. Many are procreating weaklings and dogs with poor survival instincts. I implore you to remember always that almost all breeds of dogs have a function. The generic showdog is pretty but seldom correct.
If you truly care about the breed you love, concentrate on producing a healthy, typical, and sound specimen first. Winning comes second. The dog should be the object of a breeding program, not our ego.
~ THC 2001
