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 - 1/1997

*TOPIC 1/1997*

"WHAT SHOULD CLUBS, JUDGES AND BREEDERS BE DOING ( IF ANYTHING) TO PRESERVE THE ORIGINAL AFGHAN HOUND ?"

 Debate/Responses 008-009 - See Below
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 001-007
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 010-onward

THE DEBATE..(responses 008-009)

Response 008

Subject: 

        Afghan Debate

  Date: 

        28 Jan 1997 10:00 PST

  From: 

        calsight@s054.aone.net.au

    To: 

        Jhickie

I have read with interest the submissions to the debate and must say that I found the change of direction in the topic more than a little confusing. Originally we were asked if breeders had "bred to preserve an unique variety of dog or have they bred to develop a show dog?"

Personally I doubt if most breeders even give such a question serious thought, although no doubt the early ones found a breed of many unique characteristics to which they were enormously attracted and set out producing more specimens, hopefuly of the highest quality they could achieve from the basically unknown gene pool with which they were working.

No matter how much we are attracted to something, it is human nature to want to improve on certain aspects, and so as soon as people begin to "breed" a species, they start to change (develop?) it. In most cases this initial alteration is understandable, and certainly so with regards to making a primitive canine breed such as the Afghan Hound more generally acceptable to the new society in which it is going to live and hopefully thrive.

The great danger is that such changes (developments?) can be both addictive ("why breed to the standard when you can improve on it?)" and in the long term pose a direct threat to the very characteristics which first attracted people to the breed in question.

The topic for debate now asks us to decide "What should clubs, judges and breeders be doing (if anything) to preserve the ORIGINAL Afghan Hound"? The emphasis is mine and it means that this question actually speers off in a different direction to that whch was first posed.

For the reasons stated above, of course the Afghan Hound as we know it has EVOLVED since the days of the original imports who came from the Khyber Pass with members of the British Army and we also know that those early dogs could no longer win.

My response to the topic for debate is "Haven't we "evolved" the Afghan Hound enough and isn't it now time to stop? " Fortunately many people now feel the same way and it is time now to take serious stock of what is happening to those unique charcteristics.

In my opinion, very few would believe it possible in this day and age, working with those lines which are well established throughout the Western world, to re-create "the ORIGINAL Afghan Hound "

.

The genes which would be required to do so simply do not exist any more, and if we did happen to be successful, the original fierceness and very hard-to-control self sufficient temperament would probably make these hounds well-nigh impossible to live with, unless they were USED for their original purpose and could live in a suitable environment. They would need to be kept extremely busy both mentally and physically.

Through the wonders of the internet and publications such as Afghan Hound Review we are now aware of those dedicated people in areas such as Poland and Russia who have sourced very authentic bloodlines and are breeding Afghan Hounds which they have interestingly enough termed "Aboriginal" in the literal translation of that word.

These hounds are obviously athletic, their proportions appear to be correct, they look both "foreign" and "special", their heads and expressions look marvellous and they are no doubt capable of doing their original work, as I believe many of them do. However, even in those countries where they are bred, my understanding is that separate show ring classes are held for them from those conducted for Afghan Hounds of the type now generally accepted.

We all know that if we were to try to breed these hounds with ours, the resultant progeny would not be competitive in today's show rings. It would be a marvellous exercise however, to see some of these Aboriginal Afghan Hounds in Open Field competition with other sighthounds - and I believe it is more than probable that they would run the other breeds into the ground, with the possible exception of the Salukis who are the acknowledged "coursers par excellence".

Following their introduction to the Western world, Afghan Hounds rapidly became the premier show breed throughout the world and have always won more than their share of major wins at premier events, including Royal Shows in Australia, Crufts, Westminster and The World Show..

Immediately upon being introduced to the Western World, our breed was eagerly sought for the very features which made it "unique" - Oxford Dictionary ..." unmatched, unequalled, having no like or equal or parallel" .

The problem being currently addressed by so many concerned people these days is that it is the very "uniqueness" that is disappearing. Afghan Hounds are becoming more and more like "other" breeds in construction, shape and temperament and - yes - it is because of the desire to win (even more!) in the show ring. On the other hand, they are becoming less like other breeds in the continuing pursuit to make them appear more and more elegant, more and more extreme, and less and less sound and functional.

In order to win more, the following criteria seem to have become necessary:

To incorrectly apply the word "speed" to the show ring trot and not to the gallop, where it belongs when referred to in the standard.... "The whole appearance of the dog should give the impression of strength and dignity combining speed and power". In the erroneous belief of the meaning of this paragraph, and the incorrect interpretation that somewhere, in some version of the standard, the words "open side gait" actually appear in print, some people have decided this means that Afghan Hounds must move faster and faster around the ring, and this despite the fact that those who do trot in this fashion will have very little chance of performing the double suspension gallop unique to sighthounds.

To shorten the legs in order to increase this ability to trot very fast. It is also much easier to breed the desired fore and hindquarter angulation on an animal with less length of leg than that required by a correct Afghan Hound.

Of course Nature will see to it that the bodies soon become longer and the breed then ceases to be square, but that special Afghan Hound outline of long legs combined with a square dogs is very hard to breed anyway, so why keep trying?

To straighten the shoulders and alter the construction of the withers of a hunting animal in order to make the neck appear (ridiculously!) long, either by flattening the area between the withers and dropping the point of shoulder lower, or by moving the shoulder blade up on to the sides of the neck so there is no area of wither to distract your eye from what will then appar to be an extreme distance from the top of the head to where the neck "springs" straight up from the back.

To slope the toplines away because this is eye-catching and looks streamlined, and to justify this by wrongly interpreting that wording with reference to the back "falls away slightly to the stern", thinking this applies to the whole topline and not to the area of the croup as it is meant to do. Mind you, Nature will make this happen anyway because of the over-long necks and the desire for the top of the head to stand directly above the front foot in the mistaken idea that this creates "elegance".

To flatten out the croups because the requisite "set on low, raised in action" tail is very hard to breed, so it is easier to concentrate on making sure that the tail is raised at all times and if it is set high on a flat croup with no fall away, it is almost sure to stay that way, especially if it one of those which flops over the back as well. or points straight up in the air like the tail of an Irish Setter.

To cease trying to breed for naturally ringed tails or at the very least a "curve" or "hook" in order to conform to the wording of the American standard. Proper Afghan Hound tails are, after all, only one of the most unique features - required in this breed and no other - and straight tails win anyhow.

The same applies to naturally-occurring saddle texture and neck patches. Clever people can clip them in so that they are almost indistiguishable from the real thing and even if less clever people make an obvious botch of it, judges will seldom penalise them, especially if the handler is well known.

To overangulate the rears in order to compensate for the straight shoulders, or alternatively train him from a very young age to stand on his rear tippy toes. The object of both "developments" is to still give an incorrectly constructed dog the appearance of standing over a lot of ground and make it possible for him to perform the "flying trot". He can no longer perform "the double suspension gallop" but how often is he going to have the chance to chase a snow leopard anway?

And still on rears, what happened to the "slightly bowed from hock to crutch" and "bear that poohed its pants" requirements? Of course they don't lend themselves to those great sweeping hindquarters or cleverly trimmed ones that look that way, as dogs with this characeristic "bowing" actually have their weight evenly distributed and carried where it should be, so that they can move off immediately IN ANY DIRECTION without having to spend time bringing their exaggerated rears up into position. How often have you had a "judge" reset your dog's correct rear and try to drag the legs back so that they are absolutely parallel to each other? Annoying, isn't it?

To have nice, tight, neat, little cat feet which give an attractive finish to those short, upright pasterns. Big, spreading feet with long toes let right down on the ground from long, springy, shock-absorbing pasterns look a bit strange, especially if they turn out slightly as they are allowed to do according to the standard. And big, spreading feet look a bit untidy, especially if the hair is allowed to develop naturally and is not trimmed like that on an American Cocker. Probably, however, most serious of all, is that big, spreading feet make it very hard to trot fast.

To totally change the heads from those which are capable of pulling down and killing fast moving prey and have instead pretty little "ice cream cones" - again, so elegant. After all, long and punishing forefaces are seen by many to be "coarse", parallel head planes are not actually specified, and who needs a skull of equal length and strength - it is only providing brain room after all. And what is an occiput? And who cares if you cannot tell from a distance whether you are looking at a dog or a bitch?

To breed round eyes which look so responsive, bright and appealing, especially when a judge makes noises to "alert" them, instead of the now rarely seen correct triangular ones - or at least those that are almond shaped - which might frighten the judge by looking at him and through him while "gazing into the distance in memory of ages past"? And of course these modern day Afghan Hounds do not have to squint into the burning sun while they try to focus on the hawks hovering overhead of the game being pursued, and they are not oustide in howling sandstorms either, so if triangular or almond eyes no longer have a purpose, why preserve them?

To continue the development of "temperament" into a totally dependent "human being oriented" state of mind which begs for bait in the ring. No one wants to see the "difficult" temperaments most of us knew when we first started in the breed - they WERE hard to live with and they HAD to become more civilised and more stable if they were to be suitable for the family environment in which the majority live - but they did not have to turn into cocker spaniels or poodles. Is it really necessary to remove the Afghan Hound's INTEGRITY ? To dominate him and make him dependent on you ? To have him show like a clockwork toy?

There is so much that clubs, judges and breeders should be doing in relation to "preserving" the Afghan Hound - not to preserve the ORIGINAL per se, because we all agree that in the breed as most of us know it today, we have already gone way beyond those earliest specimens and in doing so have created a magnificent "current" and highly competitive breed with many wonderful attributes.

The crucial thing now is to "preserve" the stage that has been reached in our "evolution/development" of this breed, in essence "to stop the clock". This means not allowing "normality" as it equates to "commonplace, usual or just plain boring" to gain any further acceptance. Equally to call a halt to the rapidly escalating pursuit of elegance and the increasing emphasis on the "art deco" style which "breed" is still unfortunately accorded the wording "Afghan Hound".

We need to pay special attention to retaining all the unique characteristics which made Afghan Hounds so special in the first place. At the same time we must keep them in the mix that "civilising" the breed dictated was necessary in order for him to gain sufficient popularity to have a place in Western dogdom, both as a much-valued family member and a show dog of extraordinary appeal.

For every top show winner, there are literally dozens of Afghan Hounds in non show-oriented home environments. Sadly - from the breed's point of view - their unique and sometimes difficult-to-live with characteristics are more often than not appreciated to a greater degree by those who love and value him as their family pet, than they are by those who seek him out as a show ring status symbol and top contender.

Clubs, judges, breeders - what can - and should - you do? BE DETERMINED TO KEEP THE HOUND IN THE AFGHAN !!

Wendye and Stuart Slatyer, Sydney, Australia.

Response 009

Subject: 

        Afghan Debate

  Date: 

        30-Jan 1997 10:00 PST

  From: 

        calsight@s054.aone.net.au

    To: 

        Jhickie

(The following is follow up to response 008 and in which Jim Hickie and Wendye and Stuart Slatyer further discuss the debate topic)

From Jim To Wendye and Stuart, Firstly a word of explanation regarding the change in direction of the debate which you mention in the first and fifth paragraphs of your article. The alteration was made because the previous topic failed to generate any debate (everybody was on the same side) and of the limited number of replies we did get most did not want their comments published. Hence I made the suggestion to Steve for change and he ran with it.

From Wendye and Stuart To Jim, I had read the few responses and fully understood that very little interest had been generated in the original topic.I must confess to being amazed that people would bother to reply but not wish to have their comments published - what possible reason could there be for this reticence? Surely if one has an opinion on a topic such as this, it should be made available to other interested people, otherwise why bother to comment at all?

My point regarding the change of topic was that the new wording actually poses a different question in that there is a distinct difference in "breeding to preserve an unique variety of dog" as opposed to preserving the ORIGINAL Afghan Hound.

I sincerely believe that Afghan Hounds are required to possess MORE unique characteristics than do any other breed - they are different in so many areas, including those mentioned in Marion Florsheim's excellent article written in 1956 "The Magnificent Afghan" where she cites evidence put forward in 1942 by Jackson K. Stanford claiming that Afghan Hounds "are the most primitive in form, and at the same time, the most highly specialised of the existing canine varieties" and stating that Stanford's research claimed that even a casual comparison of anatomical structure demonstrates the Afghan Hound as representing a more primitive stage of evolution than does any other of our domestic breeds, this apparent antiquity being linked with the retention of specialised attributes, in which respect he stands alone among dogs.

To quote just a few areas where Afghan Hounds are different ..... What other breed requires a ring at the end of its incongruously skinny, sparsely feathered tail, which just happens also to be set on low but raised in action?

Which other breed has a coat which is "Long and very fine texture on the ribs, fore and hindquarters and flanks.From the shoulder backwards and along the saddle the hair should be short and close in mature dogs. Hair long from the forehead backwards, with a distinct silky topknot. On the foreface the hair is short as on the back.Ears and legs well coated.Pasterns may be bare. Coat must be allowed to develop naturally." And which breed - American standard - "gives the impression of an exaggerated bend in stifle due to profuse trouserings"

.

How many breeds require the forefeet to be "strong and very large both in length and breadth and covered with long thick hair, toes arched, with hindfeet also long but not quite so broad, and also covered with long thick hair". Does any other breed ask for the pasterns to be "long and springy, espsecially in front, and pads well down on the ground." These would be considered BAD feet and pasterns in any other breed, but they are CORRECT for the Afghan Hound.

And how about "Hipbones rather prominent and wide apart"? coupled with "The back falling slightly away to the stern" which permits the requisite low set tail.

And then there's the American wording "slightly bowed from hock to crutch" and the many references to the Afghan Hound as "the monkey faced or baboon-faced dog".

Constant references to these and many other Afghan Hound specific characteristics are found everywhere. So it is an unique variety of dog and those breeders who attempt to do justice to the breed standard by adhering to its requirements as near as possible are obviously at the same time doing their best to preserve such uniqueness.

This is different to attempting to preserve the ORIGINAL Afghan Hound in 1997, as I tried to make clear.

From Jim To Wendye and Stuart , Regarding the substance of your article I am confident that many would find this in your third paragraph where you acknowledge that the natural instinct of people is to try to change( improve ?) on what they already have.

Wendye and Stuart to Jim, Unfortunately I must take issue with you on this quite amazing statement.Firstly however it is necessary to correctly state my wording.... "as soon as people begin to "breed" (note the quotation marks, they have significance) a species, they start to change (develop?) it. You have quoted me as saying ...change (improve?) it". That may be your definition of "change", but it is certainly not mine.

Secondly, my third paragraph is so far from being the substance of my article that it took me a few re-reads to comprehend what you were saying and I cannot really believe that "many would find" (the substance of my article here. It is to be found in my closing paragraphs, commencing with: "There is so much that clubs, judges and breeders should be doing in relation to "preserving" the Afghan Hound" ...... and closing with .... "BE DETERMINED TO KEEP THE HOUND IN THE AFGHAN!!"

To Wendye and Sturart from Jim, Is not then the problem that (1) nobody can agree when to stop the development - or even if they should,

To Jim from Wendye and Stuart, This has been the situation for many years certainly but I am heartened by the fact that more and more people are writing more and more articles expressing their deep concern that "evolution" of the Afghan Hound has finally gone too far for even many of those who formerly espoused the "new look" Afghan Hound or at least turned a blind eye to what was happening.

To Wendye and Stuart from Jim, and (2) the breed gets handed on from one generation of exhibitors or breeders to the next without the current ones ever really understanding the breed before they plunge into breeding

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, Whose fault is that? Surely the responsibility for making sure each new generation of exhibitors and breeders thoroughly understands and RESPECTS the breed standard lies with those who are the "leaders" of the current, reigning generation, be they individuals or clubs? We certainly did not know much when we bred our first litter, but the marvellous lady from whom we bought our foundation bitch was an unending font of information which she was happy to share with us.I'll take that one step further - she expected us to become thoroughly educated in the breed, helped us on our stumbling way, and basked in the sunshine of our subsequent success in the years which followed. Too many breeders today will NOT educate their new puppy buyers, will NOT share their knowledge and expertise, will NOT shoulder the responsibility of overseeing those early years and encouraging serious participation - and many will NOT sell a promising puppy to a potential show home, in case the apprentice turns around and beats the master.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, and (3) how do you persuade judges to stop putting up "show dogs' in the showrings?

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, Stop entering "show dogs" and try taking along Afghan Hounds instead.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, History would indicate that from the 1940's onward there have always been people advocating that NOW is the time to stop development. It would appear that they have all been unsuccessful in stopping change - nobody has yet "stopped the clock" in any breed.

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, No, they have not and more is the pity if you look at the state of many breeds today which were once magnificent examples of distinct breeds and now move like German Shepherds, stack like Irish Setters, and show like Poodles.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, In response to your fourth paragraph it might be suggested that the Standard(s) were and are written efforts to improve or develop the breed and that modern variations are merely individual interpretations.

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, It might be suggested, yes, but it might also be suggested that as breeds were introduced or stabilised to the stage where they were breeding "true", the standards were drawn up by knowledgeable stockpeople with first hand experience of those breeds, as a means of recording the outstanding characteristics - the hallmarks - so that they could be perpetuated by generations of breeders to come.There is a phrase which springs to mind .... "Observe the standards" ..... It is the motto of one of the companies of The Royal Military College, Duntroon, Australia.The name of the company is Long Tan which commemorates the most outstanding battle in the history of the Australian Army. An alternative translation could be "Don't compromise".

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, In the absence of some sort of proof your comments about relative performance in Open Field competition are at least somewhat speculative.

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, Sure, but here is an interesting exerpt from an address given by Connie Miller, at the 2nd Northern California All Hounds Judging Seminar, January 1976 .... "In sighthounds, we tend to accept the greyhound as the prototype - or at least the most SPECIALISED of the running breeds, and make comaprisons from that point. It is not enough to know "greyhounds" to be able to judge AFGHAN HOUNDS sensibly! The most usesful written comparison I have found appears in Sporting Dogs by A. Croxton Smith ("Eastern and Russian Greyhounds" chapter. pub.1938) in which Mr (Major) Amps. importer of the "Ghazni" hounds that proved to be the cornerstone of Afghan imports into England, wrote that he had recently attended a coursing meet in India where ... "The Maharajah of Patiala kindly asked me to stay for the coursing, so I took four dogs down with me. His Highness was particularly keen to see what the Afghan Hounds could do in coursing with his greyhounds, and he arranged some special heats for these.

The coursing was held on a large OPEN GRASSED PARADE GROUNDS AS FLAT AS A BILLIARD TABLE. This was a very different set of conditions from what the Afghan Hounds were accustomed to. IN THEIR OWN COUNTRY, THEY AR USED TO ROUGH, STONY PLAINS AND ROCKY CRAGS, AND I HARDLY EXPECTED THEY WOULD DO THEMSELVES JUSTICE ON THIS SMOOTHLY CUT TURF.The results, however, were much better than I had anticipated. The greyhouns were, of course, faster on the straight, but the Afghans were EXTRAORDINARILY QUICK ON TRHE TURNS. I am not an expert on coursing matters, myself, but those that are keen on the sport were most impressed by their performance. The Afghan Hounds ran with a KEENESS and ZEST which surprised them. Had a test taken place over a rough country of Afghanistan, there is no doubt that they would have had the advantage. THEIR WHOLE CONFORMATION IS INTENDED TO GIVE THEM THE MAXIMUM OF STAYING POWER UNDER THE MOST ARDUOUS CONDITIONS and they are frequently out the WHOLE DAY after hares and foxes and are as fit at the end of the day as they were in the beginning..." (all capitals are Connie Miller's, for emphasis.)

And maybe we might hear more from those Polish and Russian owners about what their Aboriginal Afghah Hounds can do in the field.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, If we bred for field performance only would it not be likely that breeders would introduce other exaggerations in an effort to improve ? "Straight up in the air like the tail of an Irish Setter" ?

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, Yes, but I have never even vaguely suggested breeding for field performance only.I am talking about breeding Afghan Hounds which LOOK like Afghan Hounds but hopefully could also PERFORM like Afghan Hounds should they ever be given the opportunity. This is as much a mental attribute as a physical one - a point all too often overlooked when "form follows function" discussions lose their perspective.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, It is difficult to comment on those matters under your heading IN ORDER TO WIN MORE, THE FOLLOWING CRIRTERIA SEEM TO HAVE BECOME NECESSARY: without being frequently negative to your point of view (not the function of a moderator) but it will be interesting to see what sort of response you generate.

From Wendye and Stuart to Jim, I am sorry I have created a quandary for you in your function as a moderator, but as you say, it IS my point of view and one I have reached after judging, and watching many, many dog shows in many parts of the world and competing in even more in my own country.

From Jim to Wendye and Stuart, I doubt that there will be many who disagree with your conclusions - it is interpretations where the differences will arise. Jim.

Thanks, Jim, for creating further discussion on a topic to which I am so deeply committed. It is also one on which we have usually avoided holding previous conversations with each other!! Now back to trying to catch up with all the work I have not done while getting so deeply involved in this debate. Hope your next subject doesn't interst me as much. Best regards Wendye and Stuart

Debate/Responses 008-009 - See Above
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 001-007
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 010  onward

Click here for DEBATE FAQ

Click here for MAIN MENU