Countervailing Intentions

by Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones

“A breeder can be at cross-purposes unless he or she is very careful”

As a result of attending a number, six to be exact, of Sporting breed National Specialties in recent weeks, this writer has again had occasion to ponder upon the question of how far certain entities can be taken before we begin to lose some of their traditional, inherent characteristics. In the practice of selectively breeding the pedigreed dog for conformation competition there is seemingly always that temptation to stretch things to the limits, to take things beyond that which one would consider typical. It is probably true to say that this ever-present option has played a role in the development of breeds but yet there surely comes a time and situation where the practice of selecting for extremes, for that which is clearly exaggerated, becomes counter-productive. In all of this there would appear to exist what might be called cross-purposes or, in a manner of speaking, countervailing intentions. Whilst the central aim and objective is primarily breed preservation, attained through closely following the dictates contained within standards, we still oftentimes appear to be intent on unduly pushing the boundaries and sometimes, thereby, neutralize intrinsic distinctiveness. And so a purpose can readily, even unintentionally, become contrary to that which might be considered responsible in the context of maintaining a breed’s integrity. Hence we enter the sphere of that which is generic rather than breed-specific and fail to realize that the elusive and hard-to-define virtue which we call quality has usually nothing whatsoever to do with any extreme feature but rather with exemplary conformity and with such things as being well-made, moderate and balanced, as well as exuding what we refer to as ideal breed ‘type’ in all of its subtle nuances. This sometime disconnect between what might be thought to be essentially typical, and that which is not, must surely be recognized by both breeders and judges. This is certainly something with which we have to constantly contend; otherwise our breeds will inevitably randomly drift away from their traditional form. The problem with all of this is that as attention is increasingly focused on what we might believe to be breed improvement, what might make our dogs ever more competitive, rightly or wrongly, correctly or incorrectly, chances are that there is a likelihood and probability of breed integrity, in some respects at least, being to various extents compromised. Herein surely lies a certain irony.

“In a sense each breeder preserves and safeguards a legacy.”

As I have suggested previously in several articles, the subject of responsibly breeding pedigreed dogs is one in which many complex challenges have to be considered and met. To be successful requires a certain awareness of underlying biological realities and parameters, as well as the fundamental vicissitudes of the inheritance process. There is also that vital need to work meaningfully within a historical context and not in the abstract. In a sense, each breeder preserves and safeguards a legacy. A whole lot has to be factored in. It is also essential to practice selection wisely and with discernment, always bearing in mind the limits within which one should be working. Not doing so amounts to lack of accountability; which is where judges have a role to play. Disregard and, more seriously, disrespect for that which is authoritatively prescribed within breed standards does not a satisfactory situation make. When a given size is specified, for example, quite obviously this has to be adhered to but yet we currently see exhibits in many breeds that exceed the bounds of appropriateness and propriety in this regard. How come? When viewed in the context of function, in some instances, the purpose for which the breed was developed is compromised by an increase in height. I am thinking of some Sporting breeds in particular here. Hence the perceived need for the inclusion of a disqualification. This is the one sure way of effectively disciplining the breeders! Some breeds have such; others, including some that probably could do with one, don’t. Interesting situation, to say the least. When a mentor specifies size as being the biggest problem within a breed, one knows that things are not exactly as they should be.

In the process of breeding the purebred dog there are, of course, a whole lot of intangibles at play, over which a breeder never has absolute, total control. But yet when consciously making selections with a particular aim and goal in mind, a certain framework has to be present, a certain foundation has to be laid and certain boundaries have to be respected. This is something which every breeder has to realize from the very beginning if a meaningful and respected program is to be developed. Anchoring thoughts have to be present, adequately complemented and supported by background knowledge, instinct and intuition. And, very importantly, there has to be awareness of, and respect for, the parameters within which one is working. This should never be some wild, out-of-context, individual indulgence. As has been suggested before, there has to be a particular context and a certain discipline being practiced. A breeder works within a breed-specific characteristic constant which has been developed and settled upon through numerous generations, oftentimes in large part by others, by predecessors. And there has to be an understanding of what constitutes quality, even though this may not always be readily or easily defined. It might even border on being in the mythological, providential order of things: you recognize it when you see it but it is hard to precisely describe. Once again, let it be said that this superiority in kind, this degree of excellence, this distinguishing attribute, rarely, if ever, necessarily has to do with merely possessing more of something; whether it be an exceedingly refined head, a longer neck, a more sloping topline from withers to base of tail, a greater bend of stifle and hence exaggerated rear angulation, a more extrovert temperament, or excessive side-gait reach and drive with accompanying aft extension of the kicking-out-backwards variety. The latter action might appear somewhat spectacular but it is surely not correct. Wasted motion is wasted motion. This would hardly be functional in the field. On the contrary, these aberrations, for this is surely what they really often are, may very well not be typical and hence we get to the realm of the caricature. If, with overly-done cranial refinement, for instance, so much underjaw is lost that a Sporting dog cannot effectively pick up a bird, where are we? What are we left with? A breed can surely only be taken so far without beginning to lose it. The central emphasis should concern required structure, balance and harmony of parts, rather than pushing the limits.

The conscientious, intelligent, responsible breeder aims primarily to breed specifically to a particular standard. If the dictate contained within it calls for a moderate amount of something, whether it be such features as substance, spring of rib, coat length, angulation, or whatever, this is obviously how it should be. To select for something other than this is unquestionably a grave disservice to the breed in question. This word moderate has, after all, a long-standing, well-understood meaning, even though, admittedly, there is no exact quantification implied by its use. If a standard calls for medium, oval bone and raciness without weediness, power without lumber, although there may be some latitude for interpretation, it means more or less exactly what it says. So why should breeders be selecting for that which is round-boned, heavy, coarse, and cloddish? When a standard specifically calls for slightly off-square proportions, why is it that breeders come up with distinctly rectangular, lowish-on-leg dogs? Is it because the old breed drag is being allowed to do its thing, giving rise to an untypical silhouette? To be a good breeder an individual must cultivate a certain ‘feel’ for a particular entity, must fully comprehend and understand that which is contained in a standard, even beyond the written word. This is obviously best done with the breed’s history and purpose always in mind. Again, we are talking context. A certain image of that which is deemed perfection becomes a frame of reference, a guiding mantra, so to speak. Likewise, in the case of judges; to reach an adequate level of comfort to pass on a breed competently and well there has to be present a certain sophistication and a particular degree of experience. Within the framework that is provided by each.

Click here to read the complete article from the Canine Chronicle November/December 2013 Issue, Vol. 38 Number 11.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. Now retired, he carries the title of Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he was a member of the faculty for thirty-eight years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, sixteen Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=40466

Posted by Alex on Dec 28 2013. Filed under Current Articles, Editorial, Featured. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.