This publication came in the mail yesterday.
I had not heard of this one before, but I vaguely recall green-lighting the reprint of an old piece from the main web site on how to train dogs to do go-to-ground.
I like the title -- TYPE is what terriers and all working dogs should be. Where the world went wrong, in my opinion, is in the creation of breeds which are simply too fine a point on the pencil.
Maintaining a breed within a narrow morphological "standard" requires too much emphasis on looks, which means too little attention is paid to health and work.
Pointers and Setters are a type.
Molosser or "butcher dogs" are a type.
Herding dogs are a type, as are stock-guarding dogs, running dogs, and sled dogs.
Sure there's a lot of variation within these types -- variation in color, coat, size, head shape, and even working traits.
But that's the point.
In the preservation of variation, you tend to preserve the long-term health of the breed, and you also preserve the variety needed to work different things in different locations and for different purposes.
I am not saying that breeding has to be random within a type, but I am saying that when the world started splitting Norfolk and Norwich terriers into two "breeds" simply because one terrier had an ear up, and the other had an ear down, bad things were just around the corner.
I had not heard of this one before, but I vaguely recall green-lighting the reprint of an old piece from the main web site on how to train dogs to do go-to-ground.
I like the title -- TYPE is what terriers and all working dogs should be. Where the world went wrong, in my opinion, is in the creation of breeds which are simply too fine a point on the pencil.
Maintaining a breed within a narrow morphological "standard" requires too much emphasis on looks, which means too little attention is paid to health and work.
Pointers and Setters are a type.
Molosser or "butcher dogs" are a type.
Herding dogs are a type, as are stock-guarding dogs, running dogs, and sled dogs.
Sure there's a lot of variation within these types -- variation in color, coat, size, head shape, and even working traits.
But that's the point.
In the preservation of variation, you tend to preserve the long-term health of the breed, and you also preserve the variety needed to work different things in different locations and for different purposes.
I am not saying that breeding has to be random within a type, but I am saying that when the world started splitting Norfolk and Norwich terriers into two "breeds" simply because one terrier had an ear up, and the other had an ear down, bad things were just around the corner.
1 comment:
Dear Patrick,
“Herding” dogs are not a type because the term is a misnomer. Shepherds - aka “herds” -work with their charges: They move them from place to place, guard them against predators, doctor them, pull lambs, shear, etc . . .
Dogs can move or protect sheep but I’ve yet to meet the dog that can pull a lamb. They are not “herds” nor do they perform herds’ work.
“Herding” except as an arbitrary classification of dog breeds to produce “groups” for dog show judges is meaningless. “Herding” includes” nipping inoffensive children’s heels, irritating the family cat or being taken into a small ring with sheep to frighten them. For this last, the dog’s owner gets a certificate though not, alas, for the children’s shredded legs.
Some dogs which can move sheep, like the Great Pyrenees, are excluded from the dog show “herding group”. Others – like the English Shepherd and Navaho Dog are ignored.
None of the AKC dogs in the herding group would ever be chosen by any herd who needed a dog to help him make his living.
Donald McCaig
Post a Comment