Hi all,

Gail Goodman has just sent me a link to a new article on her site.

It would good to have some feedback and here your thoughts after reading.

I'm off to have a look myself.

Very interesting article, I did like seeing the old pictures juxtaposed with the 'younger' ones. The AKC Saluki standard is a good one, as standards go, it is neither too specific or not descriptive enough. It seems untainted by breed club politics. I'm just going to comment on a couple things.

"Not knowing what the breed looked like when the standard was written will not only not
preserve function, it will not preserve the breed in western countries at all!

This is so, so important, not just to the Saluki but to all breeds. Most breeds have changed a great deal in the last hundred years and in some breeds the standard has actually been changed to reflect the current trend in the dogs. What is the point of a standard, then, if it can be changed so easily? The AKC Afghan hound standard was changed in 1948, adding a section stating that white markings, particularly on the head, are undesirable. Gee, could it have been that there were some dogs with white facial blazes winning big in the forties (there were), and some breed bigwig didn't like that? How am I supposed to take the standard seriously as a breeding guideline when I know stupid stuff like that is in there? And don't even get me started on the preference for a 'level bite.'

"Angulation, according to Dr. Belkin, “is a matter of posture, not structure”

I will disagree with this. I have read Dr. Belkin's article many times and agree with most of it, but on this point we differ. A dog with very long hind legs will typically stand with those legs stretched out behind him, with the stifle and hock at a greater angle than a dog with shorter hind legs. This is exactly what I mean when I say over-angulated in a post. I see this all the time in Afghans, and it correlates, I think, in Salukis. A dog that is more moderate will stand more comfortably with the legs underneath it, and such a dog will have a better takeoff posture than it's long legged brother, who has to take a step forward with the hind legs before 'launching.' In the PDF, the bitch 'Egyptian Princess' illustrates this pretty well (long hind legs on her), and in the PDF on judging Salukis on the the SCOA web site. On the front end, yes, angulation will change according to how the dog stands, sometimes looking straight, sometimes not. The 'look' of angulation will also change with the entire front end assembly, how the neck is joined onto the body, how high the scapula are 'set' on the body when the dog is standing, etc.

"This peculiar preference for long bodied coursing hounds has become a generally held western dog show preference."

This can't be laid entirely at the feet of the poor British fanciers as stated in the article. You see it often over here, and in Afghans also, and it can be laid at the feet of 'long side gait.' A great long exaggerated side gait, where when the dog trots the legs move a great distance, very dramatic-looking, is extremely popular in the show ring. It look flashy, especially on a coated dog. This is also related to the trend of running the dog around the ring very fast; it also looks flashy. If you film these rectangular dogs with the very long hind legs and slow it down, you can see that they are actually side-winding, the dog hinking it's rear end to the side a little bit so it doesn't step on it's front feet with it's hind ones. That sort of movement is incorrect in any breed. Also related is 'reach' in the front; for the dog to extend the front legs very far forward, it must have relatively loose ligaments that connect the shoulder to the body, and you cannot breed for a loose front with great 'reach' without getting a loose rear, which will then lose drive. A moderate dog can have both; an extreme dog will not. But an extreme dog does look very flashy.

The ease with which a judge can get approved to judge a breed is another subject entirely, but still related. Is a win under a judge that doesn't own or breed your breed a 'worthy' win? If a judge sees nothing but incorrect dogs, how is he/she going to tell a correct one? Is it worth the gas money and entry fees to 'educate' judges by entering correct dogs? Who knows?

Which all goes to say that using show ring wins to dictate whether a dog is 'worthy' of breeding or breeding to win in the ring is frankly stupid. Sorry, got off on a bit of a tangent there with all that conformation show talk.

Good article, though. Worth the download just for the pictures. For the life of me, I can't imagine what the sighthound club in Germany was thinking, rejecting those Iranian Salukis. Gorgeous dogs.

These Iranian/Kurdish and the Central Asian dogs really interest, I for one would love to bring in some dogs of these type. The sighthound club probably think the dogs they already have are better than the COO dogs

It seems a shame to me that there is 'new' blood available and it's not taken advantage of. In the US, the Saluki is the only AKC breed with a mechanism in place for import dogs to contribute to the gene pool. I did think most of the European countries were easier in that regard, but maybe I was wrong.

Breeding for the show ring is fine if that's what one wants to do, but I think you can't kid yourself. A Champion title tells you nothing about the dogs health, temperament (unless it goes after a judge), or actual physicality (you cannot tell if a dog can run by looking at it while trotting around a ring.) I don't sit in any one 'world' in dogs; I have shown in conformation and have contact with many people who are very into that, I have a little familiarity with the working dog world, and know many people whose main interest is in breeding good tempered, healthy pet dogs. I don't think you can draw a line that says 'this is the only way to properly breed dogs' or 'only these dogs are worthy of breeding.' It depends on what you want the dog for, and a championship does not even tell you that the dog will make a good pet, which is as much of a job as most dogs will ever do. A 'working' dog person will have even less interest in conformation titles as a measure of worthiness.

I have dogs here that have champion sire and dam, and that was not of interest to me at all. I have a specific conformation that I like and that's what one of the big things I've looked for in my dogs. I've had about enough of people who think that you MUST compete with your dogs in some venue in order to prove them worthy of breeding. Not every one has enough of their own ego invested in their dogs to 'compete' with them. I can take my dogs out in the brush to chase rabbits and they will tell me what I need to know about them.

two very good posts boys

Last time I checked I was not a boy, but the compliment is appreciated :P

:hehe: :rofl:

Devoid

Did you see cruft on tv where you are?

Crufts on BBC I-Player

Its disgusting how some of the breeds have changed due to poor standards and selection to those standards.

Some like the border terrier for example have safe guarded their athletic abilties simply by saying in the standard must be be able keep up with horse and hounds.

Others include "must be able to work all day long"

Were this to be included in the bassets standard would see bassets like we see in todays show rings?

I did not watch Crufts this year; that player won't work for me since I'm not in the UK. I did go to YouTube, there is a lot of Crufts 2008 stuff there, but I couldn't get past the Labrador retrievers. OH MY GOD THOSE DOGS WERE FAT! Like barrels with legs. Eeww.

I didn't even watch all of Westminster this year, though I did watch the breed judging online for Salukis and Afghan hounds last year. The Salukis were all right, there were a couple that I quite liked, but the Afghans, no. I think there were only three or four that had what I would call proper movement, not that it was easy to tell at the speed they were going, but there was dog that I was quite sure was LAME and should have been dismissed.

I don't think you can lay the problems with purebred dogs today at the feet of the standards. Yes, there are some standards that call for things physiologically bad for the dogs (squished in faces, for example), but even calling for athleticism in the standard will do nothing if 1) breeders are not breeding for it, and 2) judges don't reward it.

You basically have several things coming together in a screwed up sort of way that contributes to the poor breeding of purebred dogs:

1. The vast majority of dogs in the Western world don't work. Kept as pets, they don't need to, so breeders do not attempt to preserve those working qualities. Some qualities may actually preclude a dog from being a good pet, so except for working lines, those qualities may actually be bred away from on purpose. The average pet owner has no interest in working traits, so they don't even count.

2. Human aesthetics and breeding to win consistently in the show ring go a long way towards producing the extreme looking dogs you see at shows (German Shepherds come to mind.) Breeding to WIN instead of breeding to PRESERVE can make otherwise rational people into idiots (human ego is a terrible thing.) Aesthetically, when presented with a lineup of dogs, the eye tends to gravitate towards the dog that stands out, via longer coat, it's bigger, has longer legs, flashier markings, etc, so extreme dogs that stand out tend to win more, thus be bred more. If all that is entered are flashy, incorrect dogs, judges do not have an opportunity to see correct dogs, thus incorrect dogs continue to be rewarded.

3. Disrespect for the origins of the breed. I have seen way too many breeders who are so into the fallacy of 'breed improvement' that they have no respect for breed origins or the jobs the dogs were bred to do. Changing the way a breed looks is NOT improvement, it is just change. (Selective breeding to improve health is a different kettle of fish.) Breeding to win in the ring also falls under this category, as so far I have not found a breed that was originally bred to be a show dog, instead of for some other purpose.

There are other things that belong in the mix, like judges education, the fact that judges don't like to dismiss dogs that obviously don't meet the standard because it causes a big stink, infighting and nastiness amongst breeders, etc. Looking at the big shows like Westminster and Crufts is somewhat distorting, since these are big money shows that basically reward the most extreme sort of show breeder tendencies. You will see a lot more variety of types at smaller regional shows and at specialties.

I think the trick for any breeder who wants to 'breed to the standard' is to know the where the standard works, and where it descends into bullshit. Most standards have sections that fall into the bullshit category. A lot of them were written at a time when purebred dogs were owned either by rich people or people who actually worked them. The working people had no need for standards, and so the wealthy, who had a weakness for romantic stories about their chosen breeds and things of that sort, wrote the standards.

Or you can disregard the standard completely and breed only for function. This works too, and will get you dogs that look pretty much of a type, which is how breeds originated in the first place. (I think the show people forget this, much of the time.) Most people have no will or way to work their dogs, though, so 'breeding to the standard' is a way to have some kind of guidelines.

See, you've got me nattering on and on again. :rolleyes:

This is what I just can't get my head around, why do they do it? The working labs are stunning animals why do they have to do that to them, why do they think these show labs look better? :chair:

We have a little dog grooming shop and we do a lot of Cocker (english) and Springer spaniels both show type and working type and I defy anyone to tell me the show type looks or moves better than the working types.


^Working cocker sporting natural coats strong broad head strong muscular body, bred purely for function.


^Show Cocker, huge coat even when groomed for showing, narrow dome head huge ear leathers, lack muscle, narrow chest, overly long and thin legs.

Salukis do seem to be holding out well for the most part and long may it continue.

I think all saluki/afghan/sloughi etc owners/breeders/judges should being watching these COO hunting videos at breed seminars see the terrain the quarry and what it takes to catch and kill, then they can apply this knowledge with the standard and better understand what they should be looking for in the breed.

Have you seen American cockers with their huge coats? They look like mop dogs, take a Shih Tzu and stick a cocker head on it, chop off the tail and there you go. I was reading something recently, I don't remember what it was, and it stated the extreme stop that American cockers have actually deforms their brains. I don't know if that's true or not.

I was looking at dog books on eBay yesterday and ran across an old one called Kennel Secrets, that had pictures of different breeds in it, published in 1922, and the listing had scans of some of the pictures. The only dog that actually looked like the current versions of the breeds was a Saint Bernard. The Great Dane was recognizable, but more heavily built, with tighter lips and less flews, very impressive looking dogs, quite scary actually. The Scottish terrier was unrecognizable. Very interesting. You can see the influence of a purely human (read: not practical) aesthetic in how the breeds change. There is actually an article about it in the judges educational material on the Afghan hound, you can download the pdf on the Afghan hound Club of America's web site; very interesting article on how the breed's representation in art has become very stylized and extreme. I think your comment 'do they think they look better' hits the nail on the head: they DO think they look better. It's an odd sort of aesthetic. Like coats on Afghans, I hate those big long coats. I don't like the way it looks and it's totally non-functional. A long coat hides and confuses the dog's movement, and the outline of the dog; plus a dog that has so much coat it looks like it has no feet just creeps me out. You can't even compete with a heavily patterned dog in the US, it would take forever to put a championship on such a dog and frankly I can thinks of lots better ways to spend time and money.

On fat dogs, I hate to see working breeds in the show ring. They all have a layer of blubber on them. Maybe people think the smooth fat layer makes the dog look more muscular. Maybe they are trying to hide the fact that the dog has no muscle, under a layer of fat. I have seen some sighthounds in the ring that looked fat to me, but mostly they lack muscle, you can tell they do not get to run around much. My dogs, if you poke them, are hard, even the ones that do not carry bunchy muscles. I think we have only dogs our vet ever sees that are not fat :D

Crufts Hound Group Best of Breeds

The whippet has that layer of blubber going on, obviously does not do much running.

Not overly impressed with the Sloughi, either. And that Dachshund is so long I'm surprised it's belly doesn't drag. That doesn't look healthy.

Show Basset BOB crufts 2008



Working Basset (Present Day)



Basset Griffon Vendeen (Grand) BOB Cruft 2008

Still new to the show scene, give them time they will go the same way as the Basset.

Crufts 2008 Best of Breed Dachshund, smooth.




Working Dachshund.

Its clear for us to see but do the breeders of these extreme looking and from the looks of it winning dogs see it?







A few Sloughis I saw at the first Championship Show I went to.

A great thread im a believer in work for working dogs too many breeds have been ruined by not breeding for abillity but going for looks instead.
The sloughi looks a strong example a breed id very much like to see in the field ive heard that they are very clever sorts.

The prince of Sloughis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP9tL5jMfjQ&feature=related

I've often wondered why Azawakhs, Sloughis, Agfhans etc were never used for coursing in the western as the Saluki has been. :HMMMMM:

I have the The Prince Of Sloughis DVD in full some real smart looking dogs on it but it's very romanticised. The video does show how much these Sloughis mean to them. :Good:

There were at least two show kennels, Del Desierto and another one I can never remember, think it started with a K, in New Mexico that also coursed their dogs, during the forties and fifties IIRC. Racing was also very popular at one time.

There was a male Afghan used recently on some long dogs in Nebraska, I think, read about it on a mailing list I was on.

And, I think it is in the New Complete Afghan Hound, there is a critique of Afghans as coursing dogs by some guy in first half of the last century, that struck me as a load of hooey at the time I read it.

There are some people in the US who do OFC with their Afghans.

I was suprised at the size of some of the sloughis only ever heard of one litter and that was out of an old sloughi bitch to a lurcher[f holmes dog charlie] some of the pups were huge 29 inch but more than capable.

I'm pretty sure that was one of Sager,s smooth saluki,s that Zimmerman got <_<
People call em sloughi,s because there smooth :HMMMMM:
Some good animals in that litter ;)

If its the same bitch she was a good age eight yrs old or more.
Know what you mean about folks calling the smooths sloughis in the U.K have you ever seen a proper sloughi run over here i would have thought they would be well suited :Good:

See smooth saluki,s running all the time, only seen sloughi,s at shows. These looked to " heavy" except for an import i saw a Lowther the other year when Paul Sager was running the coursing demo.
It looked like a English match dog, but, again my opinion is that they are just another regional variation of the saluki "type".
Talking to Sir Terrance C (NAME DROPPER! :lol: ) at a meet one day and he told me the Moroccans and the saudis regularly exchange dogs ;)

P.S Juckler mate , do you know about the saluki in your Avatar? :D

They are definitely another variation but a tall one at that if the pics are anything to go by they do look typey enough.
I dont know about the dog in the avatar i saw the pic on the net and loved the look of it reminded me of the little dog i had in the eighties would love to know more cheers . :Good: