Ad Hoc Notes (8) Form, Function & Standards FORM, FUNCTION & STANDARDS WHAT HAPPENS TO FOWLS AND DOGS IN THE HANDS OF BREEDERS

Transcription

1 Ad Hoc Notes (8) Form, Function & Standards Whether you agree or disagree, this is a very interesting and educational article thanks Stephen Collier its relevance to us lies in the emphasis that we, as breeders, should always aim for a functional, healthy, energetic bulldog, the necessity for a definitive and clear standard, and the ability not to get caught up in one or two anatomical features. FORM, FUNCTION & STANDARDS WHAT HAPPENS TO FOWLS AND DOGS IN THE HANDS OF BREEDERS The following passage is from a British pamphlet published in 1872, but I know neither the title nor author.. At every dog show at Curzon Hall, when delicate young ladies and benighted young gentlemen approach the row of ugly, pug-nosed, big-headed, affectionate, slobbering brutes at the end of the gallery, just over the stage, we hear the cry Oh! Here are the fighting dogs, and etiquette bids us suffer in silence. Nothing I have read is more eloquent or revealing on the effects of the breed show, and this passage is directly applicable to an analogy in the poultry world, that of Old English Game. Fanciers who know what a fighting fowl was and is, when in the show pavilion also must suffer in silence when marvelling at the endorsements of birds which, like the bulldog, have become a parody of their functional ancestors by a process of selective breeding and crossing that has exaggerated features to satisfy ideals of conformation driven by fads and fashion. This type of breeding is by no means restricted to fighting breeds, either dog or fowl. The February/March 2000 issue of Australasian Poultry carried a photo of utility Australorps taken in the early years of the century, and the caption commented on the lack of uniform type to be seen in this productive flock. This is a true showperson s comment. For myself, every time I hear the word type I reach for my Luger. For type is a concept of conformity to an ideal which in the show animal is caut loose from the constraining bonds of function and drifts wherever the currents of fashion flow. What matters to this view is that all members of the breed look alike, that is, correct according to the current reading of the breed standard, that is, have breed type. This philosophy ignores, or perhaps is ignorant of, the fact that a breed fulfilling its function, with members selected and bred for their utility, is characterised by diversity in conformation. The diversity, however, is kept within strict limits by the requirements of utility. Features may vary among individuals, but in none is the feature so exaggerated as to compromise function. Ad Hoc Notes (8)... Page 1

2 It is no accident that any book on poultry or dog breeds will reveal the fact that almost all of them have an origin in late Victorian times, the very period when function was being discarded in many breeds and showing was in the ascendancy. This was a period when scientists and natural historians were discovering the secrets of evolution and inheritance, and when animal husbandry was becoming confident in its powers of selective breeding to dramatically improve animal productivity. It was also a period of fascination with novelty, the more grotesque the better, when anything Oriental was wildly fashionable, a time of the hen craze, the pigeon craze (Darwin himself was an avid fancier) and the dog craze. It was a time when British power was bringing home exotic livestock, everything from Pekingese dogs to Cochin fowls. These heady ingredients were combined to produce new breeds, which were soon stabilised. Significantly, it was when certain forms were selected from the variation in working animals and tightened into new breeds. It was the birth of type. How often does one read in discussions of a breed s origins how inferior the original animals were, and how much the breed has been improved over the years? Sometimes the time-scale relevant to such comments is only a decade or so, but progress seems to be constant. The only trouble is that the poor ancestors fulfilled a job of work admirably while the improved model with such sound type can do nothing but eat hearty and stand well in a show-ring or pen and some of them, deformed by fashion gone extreme, can barely do that. Breeds, however they came about, are described by a breed standard, and are supposed to conform to it. Standards can be of two types: those that describe actual specimens that are held to represent the breed; and those that set an ideal that careful breeding is aimed to achieve. The best standards are those that describe animals that have performed well at their function. A good example of this is the standard for American Pit Bull Terriers devised by the American Dog Breeders Association. Several experienced men analysed the physical characteristics of top winning pit dogs, so there was no guessing as to what conformation was functionally effective. They were looking to a time when matching dogs would be a thing of the past, and devised a standard so that our grandchildren will at least see an authentic physical reproduction of a fighting dog. As it turned out, the grandchildren can see the real thing because matching of dogs continues in America and the old breed remains unchanged. That standard was relatively loose, and allowed for variability in traits that didn t matter to function. A similar approach was taken by the compilers of the Oxford OEG standard. Several experienced cockers described what an effective pit fowl looked like. This approach is quite different from that which imagines what features a performance animal should have, yet we see this reasoning again and again, especially in dog breeds, but also in poultry. The trouble with standards is that they usually are only words, and seldom set out precise measurements or proportions. Words are all right when every fancier is experienced with the breed s function, as the standard almost goes without saying. However, when practical experience recedes, the words must be interpreted while there is no clear template to apply. Because written standards are imprecise and express themselves in such statements as short back or full breast a judgement has to be made as to what these words mean. How short is short, and relative to what? Inevitably, the tendency is towards the view that if short is desired, the shorter the better. This leads to exaggeration of features to states well beyond those tolerated by function. A classic case of this in poultry is the Indian Game, which now is so extreme in form that it cannot mate readily, and the idea of it fighting is preposterous. The great Herbert Atkinson, so influential in OEG, was scathing about the process Ad Hoc Notes (8)... Page 2

3 that turned the utterly competent Asil pit fowl into the lumbering Indian Game show-pen fowl. Exaggeration of key breed features is routine in breeds that have no functional requirement, and in the show versions of those many breeds that still do. We see Silkies which can t mate because the fluffy feathers are so profuse, Orpingtons blown up like gigantic powder-puffs, huge fluffy Australorps that don t lay an egg, Pekins that must be kept inside on sawdust lest their over-feathered legs become anchors of matted filth, OEG so heavy in the breast that they are obliged to stand horizontally. In the dog world we see similar results. Why do not the breed standards prevent these distortions? There are three obvious ways in which standards fail. The first is that they are not definitive enough for fanciers who do not understand function, so gradual exaggerations are not noticed. The second way is that standards will be amended periodically to match the conformation currently desired or fashionable. A good example of this is the half dozen or so amendments to the Budgerigar standard to catch up with the descent into monstrosity of that once beautiful and active little bird. There were examples of this strategy in the compilation of the recent Australian Poultry Standards book. The third way for standards to fail is for them to be ignored. This is more common that one would suspect, but it is closely related to the first point. An example of the feebleness of a standard s power is the case of OEG bantams. They are now (with the Australian standards) to be judged under the Oxford OEG standard, as are the large fowls. The simple fact is that the bantams come nowhere near matching that standard, yet exhibitors and judges will either pretend that they do, or ignore the standard. Indeed, the new standards book has been published for nearly two years and I have seen not one show notice in that time advising which book of standards is to operate, the traditional British or the new Australian. One doubts whether club committees, judges or exhibitors have even considered this question, and the conclusion is that OEG bantams are benched under one of two quite different standards (to one of which they conform not in the least) yet few fanciers think to wonder which standard is being applied. So how are the birds judged? The way they were always judged, by their conformity to the last winner of a Royal under an influential judge. At least poultry are spared the process by which one or a few highly successful dogs become fathers to a whole generation. Fanciers do not bring hens to mate with stud cocks far from home (as far as I know!), but certain fashionable strains are widely taken up as a fad, and they stamp their mark on the generality of other strains. The imported Stevens OEG were a case of this. One may ask what is wrong with all this. Hasn t show breeding, establishment of standards, and gradual development of conformation given the poultry, and dog, world many beautiful and elegant breeds that otherwise would not exist? Well, yes. It is also true that most fanciers wouldn t want the old functional breeds. A bulldog with the old ability, temperament and gameness is an uncomfortable fellow to manage, just as a functional herding dog makes a very poor pet in the suburbs, as its unhappy neighbours know. People may not want a game breed whose cocks must be strictly segregated, and among whom accidental fights are common. Many fanciers prefer beauty and perfection of colour, lacing etc to egg productivity. Afterall, how many eggs does anybody want? It would be foolish to deny that show varieties have a legitimate place. Objections to show animals arise in two areas. One is where exaggeration has become so extreme that normal life, never mention function, is compromised. We see this in dogs that can scarcely breathe, that die in even moderate heat, that cannot give birth other than through surgery, that must have their tails cut off or suffer fly-blowing of faecal encrustations in the absurdly developed coats; in cats with squashed in faces and breathing problems, hairless cats, faces so Ad Hoc Notes (8)... Page 3

4 long and narrow that dental occlusion is affected. Poultry also suffer, with some breeds being unable to mate, to scratch, or to fly onto roosts. These extreme exaggerations are a matter of inhumanity (cruelty to animals) and totally unethical. There should be some authority that puts limits on exaggerations to these degrees. The other objection to the improved show breed comes when its fanciers assert that their creations are the original and true variety and that they are correct. This, of course, means that surviving original and functional types must be incorrect. This is galling to those who have maintained a breed in its function and paid no heed to shows. Examples abound, but in every case where a breed has both show and functional varieties the two types have diverged considerably. Examples are working and show Springer Spaniels, Golden Retrievers, Fox Terriers, Bull Terriers, Bulldogs, Beagles, and in fowls, utility and show Australorps, OEG, Indian Game and a host of others. Where a show breed still has some ability it is because it has only recently been recognised and come into the show arena. The ability is lost quickly. Yet all breed books, for dogs at least, are full of silly rationalisations of the exaggerated features why heads must be so big, faces so short, furnishings so profuse, tails so docked while old photographs of working ancestors give the lie to these myths. The most spectacular nonsense of this sort I ve seen was in a book on Bulldogs that explained all the extraordinary features of those slobbering brutes in Curzon Hall. This same book had many paintings of earlier working Bulldogs that were utterly lacking these features, and revealed that the change was made in a mere ten years or so from the 1860s when a standard and showing came in, along with crossing with pugs! In most cases, the existence of show and functional varieties does not matter in the least to either camp. Show dogs are shown, hunting dogs hunt, and both are bred according to respective criteria of success. They do not compete in any way. Similarly, utility poultry may still compete in egg competitions (if their owners like a laying breed that actually can lay an egg), while show types are benched. Difficulties sometimes arise when both camps want to show their types but both claim to have the correct representatives of the breed. This is true of OEG. Old British game fowl have a direct and exact analogy with old British bulldogs and pit dogs. Both fowls and dogs were pitted in old England, and Ireland, and both creatures were taken by colonists to America. The dogs were of various types, and included bulldogs, bulldog terrier crosses, and terriers. In the early Nineteenth Century Britain banned blood sports, and while pitting of dogs and fowls continued at a reduced level, shows took over most interest and exaggeration began. Quite soon the show versions of pit fowl were transformed into modern game, while a fashionable and elegant white bull terrier was created by blending various breeds, and it became a recognised show animal bearing the title Bull Terrier. About this time, surviving bulldogs in Britain were transformed into a show dog, and crossed with old style pugs to hasten the process. The old versions of the pit breeds survived in odd pockets, not recognised as show animals, but towards the end of the century Herbert Atkinson and others established the fowls as a show breed and they came to be called Old English Game. There was little to stop exaggeration from beginning again, and so it did; but matching cocks continued too, so the real thing survived and does so to this day. In 1935 the surviving pit dogs were recognised as show dogs and called Staffordshire Bull Terriers. The show breeders selected a portion of the range of variability in these functional dogs and stabilised the breed around it. As for the fowls, non-show pit dogs survived and were matched illegally in Britain and Ireland. Meanwhile in America, pit dogs and fowls were matched openly in that rather anarchic new land, and bulldogs were used on farms as stock dogs. There is dispute and confusion about the distinction between bulldogs and pit dogs, usually known as pit bull terriers. Some hold that the latter are terrier-bulldog crosses, but there is no clear distinction between the types, and they all are essentially the old bulldogs selected Ad Hoc Notes (8)... Page 4

5 for size by functional requirements. Some strains of pit bulls do show signs of terrier infusions, while some of the American bulldogs probably have had Bullmastiff bred into them. The function maintained the correctness, and variety, of the breeds, and eventually these original types went back to Britain, and Australia. What was their reception by the showing fraternity? Mongorels! Cross-breeds of no type! An American creation from such and such ingredients! The funny thing was that while game fowl and dogs from America were unlike the show versions in Britain (OEG and Staffords) they were indistinguishable from the British pit fowls and dogs that had survived outside the showing fancy. They came to dominate to some degree the secret world of matching because America had vastly more people and animals involved, so the pool of talent and rigour of selection was greater. Fanciers who match their fowls (or dogs), and there still are some, or those who value the qualities of the genuine old varieties are obliged to suffer in silence through either etiquette or frustration when their specimens are denied legitimacy and their place is taken on the show bench by slobbering brutes. For the sake of the poultry fancy, which is under assault from so many directions, it would be well for both show and functional breeds to be recognised and for both to take separate but complementary roles in exhibitions, each recognised and respected for what it is. It may be that some breeds can see a moving together so that one type can meet show requirements and lay a creditable number of eggs. Other breeds would be better served by recognition of separation, with both types exhibited separately. Whatever happens, it is vital that considerations of original function constrain exaggeration so that it does not drift too far with the currents of fashion onto the rocks of grotesquery and non-viability..stephen Collier.August 06 last modified 2011 Ad Hoc Notes (8)... Page 5