Diana A Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I found this link in a Facebook discussion page. It's about Salukis, and a bit of a long read, but the author makes some really good observations regarding form vs function that I thought members of this group might find interesting. http://webcanine.com/2013/the-functional-saluki-lessons-from-the-coursing-field/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Thank you, Diana, that is a very interesting article that makes a very great number of good points. Here are a few that leapt out at me. "This leads to another major idea I’d like you to remember when you leave here today: breeding to the standard will not preserve function. All it can preserve is appearance. That is rather obvious when you stop and think about it, because the qualities that make the dog good at its job are by and large not those described in the standard. Most breed standards were drawn up from dogs that were bred for function. What people did, and this is true for other breeds as well as sighthounds, was to obtain dogs from people who had bred them to do some particular thing. They looked at them and said ‘This is what they should look like if they perform this function,’ and drew up a standard accordingly; sometimes very precise, sometimes not. Then they bred dogs to look like those which did that thing, instead of breeding them to do it. That’s fine if all they wanted was dogs with that look. But, if they expect those dogs to do what resulted in that look they are going to be disappointed." "It’s a bit unfortunate that it says (__________) because that makes some breeders think the (more) the better, and we get some hideous (______) in the show ring." (my changes in parentheses) "The standard says nothing whatsoever about the most important aspect of the head: what’s inside it." And there was a long discussion on how much of standards involving the structure (in this case, the legs) were not based on dogs and performance but actually extrapolated from horse structure and performance, and it was fascinating. Of course, just how many show ring breeders really want a dog that can "do that thing" versus dogs that they simply adamantly believe can "do that thing"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maja Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Very good article, and I love salukkis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alligande Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Thanks Diana, intresting read with coffee this morning. Articles like this always leave me wondering how many breeds have been damaged by the show ring, and how many other groups of owners are passionate about protecting their breed from the show ring. Most of us on these boards know about jack russels and GSDs and the fact that labs have split, I had never thought about Salukis or other sightshounds, and that article is 20 years old. As a random thought, how much more powerful would people with working dogs be against the AKC if their where in it together rather than each breed going it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon's girl Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I was showing a Saluki a little more than 20 years ago and there was definitely a heated split between breeders who felt that making sure your Saluki could at least course, at a minimum, was a necessary thing before breeding, and those who thought their dogs were just fine because they looked fine. I had the high scoring Saluki in the country for obedience for a long time, don't know if I still hold that honor or not. It was extremely rare to see a Saluki breeder or owner who bothered to train their dogs anything at all beyond what was required to show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetlander Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I didn't read the article, but the comments quoted certainly make a lot of sense. There is such a disconnect in the conformation world. Not to mention, often a devaluing of the function the dog was originally bred for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I didn't read the article either, because I have to head out, but I'd bet it's by John Burchard, who is an active poster on Tick-L. He has some very interesting stories about his salukis. J. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76 Bar Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 John Burchard's web site. Fascinating and enlightening. http://saluqi.home.netcom.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gideon's girl Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Dan Belkin PhD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gcv-border Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 I think the author made his primary point in the first sentence: "... things you can not SEE are more important than things you can." (emphasis added) I like it, simple and direct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simba Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 That is a really interesting article. I was really surprised by this: "Depth of chest has very little to do with endurance." and "A Saluki, particularly when it is in good condition, has a very low heart rate because each beat pumps so much blood... Apparently there is always enough room for the heart, regardless of the shape of the chest." Gideon's girl- just in relation to what you said about obedience: sometimes I wonder how many dogs there are out there who could do very well if trained, but don't get trained because bassets/salukis/terriers etc 'don't do that'. Like the Pygmalion/golem effects, where students perform somewhat like teachers expect them to, even if the expectation has no basis in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TEC Posted February 2, 2014 Report Share Posted February 2, 2014 Another point Belkin makes is that, for Salukis, there is not one single standard of function. He frequently commented about some of his dogs who work better in particular practical field circumstances than his contest dogs, yet aren't competitive in coursing/hunting trials. Function depended in large part on the consistency of ground, length of the chase, the prey, and other factors. Lots of food for thought. -- TEC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diana A Posted February 3, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Exactly. There is no one type of "ideal" working dog in salukis and I think not for border collies either. You need to maintain a wide range of variation due to the need to have the type of dog for the type of job. The idea of achieving uniformity should never be the ideal. I thought the beginning part about the dog who was really good at spotting hares was interesting. We check for eye defects in our dogs but is an innate ability to see sheep at a distance anything that's noted in certain lines? I also loved the part about the one who always knew where the hare would be or where it would turn. "Stock sense" in a sight hound - who knew? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentleLake Posted February 3, 2014 Report Share Posted February 3, 2014 Exactly. There is no one type of "ideal" working dog in salukis and I think not for border collies either. You need to maintain a wide range of variation due to the need to have the type of dog for the type of job. The idea of achieving uniformity should never be the ideal. I thought the beginning part about the dog who was really good at spotting hares was interesting. We check for eye defects in our dogs but is an innate ability to see sheep at a distance anything that's noted in certain lines? I also loved the part about the one who always knew where the hare would be or where it would turn. "Stock sense" in a sight hound - who knew? There were so many really great points made in this article that are parallel to our experience with working stock dogs. Thanks for posting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 Breeding a working dog is a lot like chemistry, change one ingredient and you have a totally different product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSnappy Posted February 26, 2014 Report Share Posted February 26, 2014 I lure course with the local sighthound group that welcomes mixed and all breeds to practices and even fun matches. The salukis are, by and large, the worst of the bunch except for the afghans. They are easily distracted and the lose the lure more often than most of the other sighthounds. RDM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roanhorse Posted March 7, 2014 Report Share Posted March 7, 2014 Very good! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.