that few could stand foursquare on the table for examination with hocks held upright; they were instead invariably cowhocked. Some seemed almost ready to keel over behind. It was that bad and I’m not kidding. All of the dogs were in spectacular condition and groomed to perfection but yet underneath the glorious coats were bodies that were a far cry for what is called for in the breed standard.
Let me elaborate by mentioning the requirements. In this breed hind legs which are strongly boned and muscled with moderate angulation at the stifle are essential in order for it to be able to perform its function. Likewise, the possession of powerful, clearly defined thighs. Note the word moderate; it’s there in the description! So how come that dogs with disproportionately long, lighter bones (the tibia and fibula in particular), with inadequate musculature, are being bred and exhibited? Why are breeders intent on selecting for extremes? The stifle should be, according to the standard, and I quote, ‘strong and there is no slippage of it in motion or when standing’. The hocks are strong and well let down. I do not need to tell the reader how the dogs shown to me moved? They careened around the ring at great speed, discernably swaying from side to side, with coats flying and the hyper-extended rears dragging along somehow, totally out of balance with the fronts. Not a pretty picture. I kept asking myself, is all the breed like this or are these dogs an exception? I’ll probably find the answer to this question as I judge this breed some more in different parts of the country during the coming next year. Should be interesting!
In the process of selectively breeding pedigreed dogs our aim has always been to improve on what has gone before. We ostensibly breed to the standard of each breed but it is surely fair to ask, on occasion, whether or not we are all always as conscientious about this as we should be. How much liberty do we take? This was the first thought which entered my head in the situation described above. The question becomes: what do we mean by improvement? We are essentially attempting to achieve betterment of the hereditary qualities of the breeds with which we are involved but oftentimes we seemingly strive for something more than just this. We seem to be obsessively aiming for the extreme. Why does the excessive always have to become something aimed at to an unreasonable degree? More of something or other, whether it be length of neck or degree of rear angulation or reach and drive or whatever, seems to almost automatically be viewed as improvement. Collectively we are intent on changing the conformation of breeds for particular purposes and they move on, so to speak. There is a directional dynamic at play, if you will. Thus a particular entity today might be quite different in make and shape from the condition which it might have been in, say, twenty or thirty years ago. Many breeds are now appreciably removed from the form which they possessed in their original condition. I am referring here, of course, to dogs bred specifically for conformation competition. We pay lip service to the form and function factor, sometimes disingenuously to justify what we are doing in terms of selection decisions, but in reality there often seems to be a disconnect in this regard. So what exactly are we talking about when we discuss the development of breeds? How have changes come about and why? The fundamental basis for this, of course, is the occurrence of variation. This is where the selection options originate and lie. That’s what makes it all possible. A breeder purposefully selects for certain traits which he or she deems desirable to consolidate and perpetuate. The process may be gradual over time, but certainly deliberate. A cumulative effect comes into play. There has always been a tendency among breeders to prefer the extreme and some make no bones about it. That’s when the challenge of pushing the limits kicks in. There is a certain satisfaction to be be gained from being at the cutting edge. The opportunity to be creative has its attraction; playing the role of creator is a temptation which is hard to resist. The problem is, if this is taken too far everything breaks down. Witness the condition of the dogs described above. The essential characteristics of a breed can be so readily lost by over-indulgence. In nature, survival of the fittest ensures natural selection. When man gets involved, this is taken out of the equation and there are consequences and pitfalls which we should all be aware of.
So where does this leave us? Most would agree that our breeds are in fairly good shape, some more so than others. Some are relatively uniform in those characteristics by which they are typified while others show considerable diversity. So it is difficult to generalize about this subject. What can be said is that structural and morphological characteristics do differ appreciably and it is ultimately up to the conscientious breeder to avoid trying to unduly push the limits and selecting for those things that are fundamental to the make and shape of a breed. Go outside of this mold and there’s often trouble. The challenge is to maintain breed-specific characteristics whilst at the time producing dogs that are competitive in their day, allowing for changes. If the focus is solely on the conformation show ring, however, the temptation is always there to try to exceed the typical extent of one feature or other. Ultimately this ends up badly and amounts to promoting and championing exaggeration. Selecting for more rear angulation is always seemingly enticing. The option is out there but the responsible breeder exercises caution and restraint. Overdoing things in this regard can lead to a breakdown.
When considering this subject it is important to try to understand how changes have occurred over the years and why. To do so requires thorough familiarity with the breeds and a comprehension of what breeders have been trying to achieve. Moreover, this has to be placed in a meaningful and realistic perspective. Within this context the recognition of how things can go astray has to be kept in mind. As I have suggested in previous articles, there are causes and effects at play here. In many breeds it is perfectly possible to trace their development. Some entities have changed very little over time, others more so. Evenness of form is not something which breeds necessarily possess at any one time but it is not too difficult to come to a realization of the existence of undesirable trends. When exaggerated features become commonplace and are there for all to see, presumably responsible breeders will step back and say to themselves enough is enough. Judges also, hopefully, play a pivotal role in combating the ruination of breeds. I trust that I did so myself on the occasion which stimulated the writing of this essay. Rewarding dogs that exemplify extremes, particularly if this amounts to an inability to perform a function, is ultimately a disservice. So what sort of shape is your breed in?
ABOUT THE AUTHOR Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, six Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. |