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 001-007 - See Below
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 008-009
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 010 onward
- We welcome your views, please send your comments to -
- Guest Editor - Jim Hickie at (jhickie@fastlink.com.au).
Response 001(Original Topic) Subject: Afghan Monthly Topic Date: 20 Dec 1996 09:55:04 EDT From: 101646.1403@compuserve.com To: JhickieDear Editor,
I was interested to read about the monthly debate and have decided to send you this contribution.
I think that there can be little debate as to the important factors used when breeding afghans. Breeders obviously are concerned about the health of dogs, but there is little, if any guidelines, save a few obvious bad practices, on how breeding and health are related.
"Look at the number of champions in the pedigree" is the main selling point when describing an afghan.
I am also interested in the term "UNIQUE VARIETY OF DOG". How many different Breed Standards for the Afghan Hound are currently accepted somewhere in the world. Is the American Afghan related to the British Afghan? Just how well would a British Show dog fair in the USA and visa versa. There have also been several Breed standards over the years. This indicates that the standard, and can we also assume, the afghan is changing. The history books tell us that there were several different standards fighting to become that accepted standard. So just where does the afghan come from. It would appear to have come from at least two different types that have been mixed together ever since resulting in quite a variance in shape and size.
If I had three dogs, CH SIRDAR OF GHAZNI, CH TAJ MAHAL OF KAF and ZARDIN (original) and exhibited then in various countries, how well would they perform? And would the results differ from country to country?
But the afghan is for showing, and showing is about winning, and winning is about having a dog that conforms to the current trends rather than the breed standard. Think how boring it would be if they were all the same.
Yours truly, Gareth Hawkes
Response 002 (Original Topic) Subject: AFGHAN DEBATE Date: 20 Dec 1996 13:52:30 EDT From: 101657.3343@compuserve.com To: JhickieDear Mr Hickie
What an interesting question you pose!
The first description of the Afghan was one in the Indian Kennel Gazette of the Afghan Zardin. The first "breed standard" (1926) described a plains type afghan, the next "breed standard" (1927) described a mountain type afghan. The current "breed standard" was drawn up by a group of people who were either mountain, plains or "blended" type followers - as such they developed a "hybrid breed standard" - ie they developed "one" standard that covered "several different" types of afghans. This standard was based not on WHAT THE AFGHAN WAS ORIGINALLY (ie - in the 1920's) but on WHAT THE AFGHAN HAD BECOME by the late 1940's. Do you doubt this statement? Well, in the early 80's a Mrs Kench Owen wrote in a glossy afghan magazine about the "negotiations" that occured within the US standard making committee. Mrs K Owen states that the US standard for descripton of coat was changed from "long and silky" to "long, thick and silky" and goes on to explain that this was because Leah McConah , a member of the committee, owned a dog called Aly Khyber which had a "thick stand off coat". Similarly Marjorie Lapthorp argued for size to be less than the 28" because here line of dogs were arouhnd 27". Eventually Leah McConah won his point on coat and Marjorie Lapthorp won her point on size. I think we call this horse trading dont we? The point is, todays reference point (the US/UK breed standards), are based on what the breeders of the late 1940's agreed the Afghan should be, at that time - 1947/8. Well... todays dogs look nothing like they did 50 years ago do they! So are breeders failing to preserve??
When people breed a litter, what criteria do they base it on? Do they assess all the pros and cons of the parents, grandparents, great grandparents , assisted with a knowledge of genetics, dominance, recessive traits etc?. Here's a test for your breeders - look at your favorite dogs pedigree and describe in some meaningful detail the eight grandparents - points such colour, height, eye colour, eye shape, proportions etc etc. If your breeders cant do this, how then can they breed with any confidence of how the litter will turn out? Are all the attributes of the ancestors in the pedigree, considered against the points of the breed standard and the best choice of matings then decided?
Breeders breed dogs for a variety of reasons, but in one respect the Afghan is a bit unique. In the UK the Afghan is about 80th in a list of 180 breeds in terms of number of dogs registered each year. For example, there may be 16,000 GSD's registered each year compared to 800 Afghans - yet the Afghan always has more entries at shows than GSD's. At championship shows the Afghan is always one of the highest entries, usually within the top 6 breeds. As a proportion of their registrations, more afghans are shown than most other breeds. The Afghan is first and foremost a show dog - and that is what breeders breed!
Mr Hickie, I think you have posed an excellent question, and to me, the anwer is quite clear. Breeders are breeding and "developing" a show dog, increasingly so. This raises a fundamental question - whats the point of breed standards if they are no longer influencing the development and/or preservation of the breed?
I look forward to following your debate, thank you for initiating it.
Sandy Barnett (UK)
Response 003 (Original Topic) Subject: AFGHAN DEBATE Date: 19 Dec 1996 From: Via Fax (t/f No not known) To: Afghan Hound DebateI am not on the Internet but a friend posted me the Debate pages.I reply by fax and hope you receive it ok.
Here in Japan the American Afghan is imported. We used to have English Afghan but now we have more American and Scandinavian. I only see Afghans sometimes but the American is different to English. Perhaps English breeders have done excellent preserving the breed and Americans have done excellent a show dog?
Response 004 Subject: hello Date: 26 Jan 1997 11:31:28 EDT From: ASaia30225@aol.com To: JhickieHi Jim, I hope that you and the family are OK, we are Ok here.. Winter is alright not much snow..snow that you are running the debate, how great.
Our feelings about your subject that today most good breeders are too much concerned about winning. In the USA we have gone to the extreme, all the advertizing, all the parties this is what is important not breeding genetic (bad) free offsprings, good structure and good movement....and most of all good tempermants.
Today we have big breeders allowing their dogs to breed bitches, and these dogs are consistent in producing bad bad hips and bad bad tempermants...this has to stop if we are going to progress...
The money has over taken us here in the USA....
Our standard is a blueprint as one of our countryman just stated, we need to stick to this........
ASaia30225@aol.com
Response 005 Subject: Afghan Hound Database Page Monthly Debate Date: 27 Jan 1997 21:15:14 EDT From: samit@ksc9.th.com To: JhickieSubj: 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.
Response 006 Subject: Further response/feedback Date: 28 Jan 1997 02:30:46 EDT From: samit@ksc9.th.com To: Jhickie(The following is follow up to response 005 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
Response 007 Subject: Outsiders Perspective Date: 28 Jan 1997 10:00 PST From: From AHDBIE Research (101451.505@compuserve.com) To: JhickieThe following extract is taken from an interview with Herb and Anita Wells (Tallahamra Salukis) published in the Jan/Feb 1982 edition of "The Sighthound" (not to be confused with the Sightound Review, a later publication) and is reproduced here with permission of the Publisher of "The Sighthound" - Sara Whittington. Herb Wells started with Afghans in 1957 before moving into Saluki's. Herb Wells had a CD Afghan out of Coaswind Patchouli and also a very pretty bitch he describes as "a cup and saucer short of a full set of dishes". He also owned Crown Crest Apache Belle bred by Kay Finch.
Sighthound Q: What areyou trying to do with your breeding program with the Arab Dogs?
Herb A: What we're trying to do is to breed Saudi Arab dogs. There are Salukis from all parts of the Middle East but I like the Saudi type and feel like they may be more like the original Salukis. Theyre small cream or sandy coloured dogs, fine boned, and we are trying to breed the type of dogs that we feel Salukis originally were before we bred them in the US. There were size increases, and we bred them to win in the shows, and not how the Arabs did for 8,000 years.
Anita A: Without trying to "improve" the breed.
Herb A: Yes. We're trying to preserve, not improve, the breed. Most of the old breeds I've seen people try to improve have ended up being ruined. The Afghan Hound is a case in point.
I think people have improved too much. You now have a long-headed hair-growing machine, unlike the original Afghan with a little wider head and a little more stop, a natural saddle and a nice curl on the tail. I think thats one breed that may have been improved too much. Afghans are very different when I got my first one in 1957. They were springy-bouncy. You'd go out in the woods and they'd lose the game and bounce around. They'd look like a spring looking for it. Visitors would come to the door, and they'd jkump straight up and down, and in THOSE days could kill jack rabbits. I've not seen an Afghan Hound in a long time that could catch jack rabbits.
Ed: The article continues with a disussion about hunting and running down rabbits etc and then concludes the preserve/develop theme with the following comments from Anita.
Anita A: I don't like to see non-functional Sighthounds. Theyre hunting running dogs, and thats what they should be. Regardless of what they do in the show ring, they should be able to function in the field. In order for our dogs to be bred, they must prove ability in open field. I dont care how many other titles they have. THEY HAVE TO FUNCTION OR WE ARE NOT GOING TO BREED THEM.
(end of extract). From AHDBIE Research. (101451.505@compuserve.com)
Debate/Responses 001-007 - See Above
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 008-009
Click Here To Go To Debate/Responses 010-onwardClick here for DEBATE FAQ Click here for MAIN MENU