This Site Chosen By Microsoft As THE Afghan Web Link for Encarta
Afghan Hound Database and Breed Information Exchange
(Afghan Hound Debate- preserve the original Afghan Hound?)AFGHAN HOUND DEBATE
Response 004
Date: 27 Jan 1997
From:Dennis Smith samit@inetnebr.com
To: Jhickie
Subj: What should clubs, judges, & breeders be doing to preserve the original Afghan Hound?
Jim,
The single thing that clubs, judges and breeders can do to preserve the Afghan Hound of The standard is to examine, test and judge the whole dog. To give more credence to supporting the standard, in addition to the show ring, particularly the clubs must begin to demand that the whole dog be tested.In your 8 January comment you are so right in noting that a majority of the comment received to date is rather one sided. While many in the breed throughout the world, continue to wring hands and gnash teeth over "the state of the breed", two problems come to mind. The first is the "mindset" found amongst a majority of those involved with the breed. That mindset is probably best summarized by Mr. Gareth Hawkes in his 20 December comment "But the Afghan is for showing..." Your own 8 January comment referencing the perception that we are breeding for the show ring, wide open side gaits, and , of course, coat, adds support to this. This show-dominated mindset deals only the ascetic aspects of the dog. Which leads to the second problem. Examining and judging the whole dog. Afghan Hounds are a breed whose very essence is physical. Descriptive physical attributes such as agility, powerful, endurance, punishing bite, and forelegs straight & strong, are part of The Standard and every written description I have seen to date. The show ring concentration on the aesthetic side of this wonderful hound, however, has resulted in violations of the standard only two of which are straight fronts and sloping toplines. As the impact of these alterations on physical performance is never critically examined, it becomes easier and easier for judges to allow them to pass, particularly if it is decided that such things contribute to the image of that creature Steve Tillotson was informed of on his recent visit to the U.S., "The Modern Afghan".
While Sandy noted in her 20 December comments that more Afghan Hounds are shown, as a proportion of their registered numbers, than any other breed, the numbers of Afghan Hounds participating in Lure Coursing in the U.S. is declining rapidly and the numbers participating in Open Field Coursing are so minuscule that Afghans now race in the "Rare Breed" category. We must ask ourselves why this is the case for a hound which possesses such incredible natural ability. Besides the issue of personal convenience or perference of the exhibitor, the answer lies with the three groups of persons in the subject of this debate. Clubs, judges and breeders seem to have made an arbitrary decision not to support the physical side of the Afghan Hound. The Standard describes a physical conformation which provides the Afghan Hound the tools to perform it's traditional task of taking game in the wild. Currently acknowledged deviations from the standard would not exist if all show winners were additionally required to prove themselves in the field. Straight fronts break down in the double suspension gallop. Sloping toplines and the resultant reduced hind quarters will not provide the strength or endurance required for a long course. Small feet will not support the hound over rough terrain. Finally, excessive coat hinders efficient hunting as it gather debris to the point of restricting movement. It returns to the age old "form vs. function" argument that all of us who participate on the various "lists" on The Internet have been through again and again ad nauseum.
The continuing debate on "interpretation" of the standard has it's merits, as aesthetics are and always have been subject to individual judgement. This will, and should, result in different judges putting up different dogs. Measures of physical performance are much less open to interpretation and could easily act as the leveler in restraining faddish trends and new looks in our dogs, not to say also, deviations from The Standard. To place "Champion" before the name of an Afghan Hound which has only proven itself ascetically pleasing is to ignore the intent of the standard and therefore, to perpetuate a half truth. An Afghan Hound which can't or won't pursue and take prey (even if that prey is a lure) is not worthy of the name.
28 Jan 1997 -- (The following is follow up to response 004 and in which Jim Hickie and Dennis Smith further discuss the debate topic)
Dennis,
Q. Thank you for your input to the debate. You have raised some interesting questions. Are you expecting more of the judges and the showring than they were ever expected to do ? JimA. I think, and perhaps did not express it forcefully enough that I was addressing my concern for both conformance AND field performance testing to The Clubs. As you know, in the US it is the Parent Club (in our case the Afghan Hound Club of America) which is responsible for maintenance of and supposedly for enforcement of the standard through the judges it appoints. should the judges put up dogs not in conformance the Parent Club must deal with judge, as the AKC will not. Based on the discussion going on throughout the country about straight fronts, sloping toplines, etc, etc, I would appear that the Club is not actively policing the judges.
Q. Originally the showring and judges were expected to assess the potential of working breeds - particilarly gundogs (sporting) and the sigthounds, usually greyhounds and whippets etc. entered by their breeders, but as more and more breeds entered the showrings the aesthetic became the criteria by which they were judged.
A. You've hit the hard point. Why aesthetic only? The Standard certainly addresses the aesthetic, and certainly, we should take seriously the fact that our Afghan Hounds are the most attractive of the sighthounds, but what about the REST of the standard? "Front legs well set under" leaves little room for interpretation. They either are or they aren't, and so on with low set tails, and the other aspects which are well described. It is these aspect which are required to permit the dog to function in it's intended. If that role is not being tested, the straight front (or other fault) now gets gauged on how it looks, not how it detracts from the dogs ability to pursue and take game.
Q In more recent times dogs are now shown largely by exhibitors rather than breeders and as a consequence their sole purpose in competing is to win. This has resulted in a changing attitude (in the showring) over the past fifty years or so and of course we now have judges who have come up through that system !
A. Agreed. do not misunderstand me, I believe in the showring and conformance testing. I just also believe that it is logical to then test that conformance in the field, giving both venues equal weight. As I said, judging over to varying events (ring and field) to decide who rates the title Champion might do some leveling and eliminate the extremes of both aesthetics and function only with no regard to the standard. I realize this would radically change the show world, require fewer events and require more open mind on the part of both the show and field obsessed. I'm searching here for a mechanism to eliminate the extremes and fads which we find more and more of in both venues.
Q. There are very few breeds like the Afghan where the breeder is supposed to be maintaining an established breed. Most breeds (and maybe even Afghans too) have been developed by man to do particular tasks and at some stage a blueprint (standard) was written down as a guide to breeders in their development of the breed.
A Again you've identified a problem area precisely. The Standard is the blueprint for a particular structure which supports the performance of an identified task. If breeders breed to conform to this blueprint, the resultant dogs will have the tools necessary to perform that task. If breeders ignore it and judges fail to penalize this lack of conformance, then The Standard loses all relevance and "type", ability to perform and possibly the breed begin to disappear (i.e. German Shepherd).
Q Maybe we need to decide what we are trying to do DEVELOP a breed or MAINTAIN a breed.
A Breeding and judging in conformance with The Standard will ensure that we MAINTAIN a breed. Ignoring The Standard will permit breeders to DEVELOP a breed which judges can then either accept or reject. When it comes to The Standard, again, the judges (in the US anyway) work for the Parent Club, whose job is MAINTENANCE of The Standard. This is not to say that the Standard cannot be reviewed and altered on periodic review. After all, but the US and the UK did so at least once between the 1920's and 1948. Nothing done by man is sacrosanct. The Standard can, and has been changed before. If in the opinion of those members of the Parent Club, change is needed, so be it. But please, if we're going to pay lip service to The Standard, then we MUST practice what we preach and the Parent Club MUST show the leadership to say no to fads and extremes, simply because they are attention-getters in the ring. In light of the Machiavellian politics of breeding, judging and exhibiting I realize this may sound naive, but as a newcomer to the breed, well read on the subject but with little experience in the breed, that remains my privilege.
Many thanks for taking the time to pose these follow-ups. From one of your experience, it demands that a novice such as myself, with what I think are reasonably rational positions, constantly reexamine these positions to ensure the opinions I'm forming are not irrelevant and without foundation. Best regards, Dennis