|
|
|
Written by Benito Vila and reprinted with permission from the author On why it is better to breed to a good dog with a glaring fault, than a mediocre dog without a glaring fault. The first thing a novice exhibitor learns is to spot problems, i.e., faults. Among the most obvious in Dalmatians are lack of pigment in the nose or eye trim, a poor spotting pattern, a snipey muzzle, black ears, high tail carriage and cow hocks. Later, if the exhibitor is very persistent, he or she might learn to discern lack of reach in front, perhaps a shallow brisket, a straight shoulder, a short forearm, "bad feet," light eye color, a sloping topline. Finally, after a lot of exposure, some people are able to spot incorrect front movement, loose fronts, dogs where the front and the rear seem to belong to different specimens, improper length of loin, over-reaching, and certain type problems. As exhibitors are learning these things, one often hears discussions of which fault is really worse than another, as if the whole purpose was to limit those faults considered the worst in one's stock. Rationales are developed and shared, e.g., a high tail "isn't that bad" because there's more than a tail to a dog. Type becomes what you and your friends have - in this day and age, usually a dog or bitch with a square, boxy head, well defined stop, very dark eyes, ears spotted on the heavy side, medium to heavy spotting overall, a little short in leg and a little long in loin, carrying its tail a little high, moderate angulation front and back (more than a 90 degree angle), and moderately let down hocks. New judges encourage this type of learning by emphasizing their ability to identify faults, and, among new breeder judges, quite taken by the results of their labors, dogs that look like what they're used to versus dogs that don't Unfortunately, none of the above ever does much to "improve the breed," even if it's relatively harmless vs. other more sinister pastimes like politicking judges and treating winning opponents shabbily. First, it leaves a lot out, like what is truly correct for a breed developed to fulfill quite specific functions, like ours is. Second, it sets discouragingly low standards. One of the saddest comments I've ever heard came from sporting and hound group handlers, upon seeing correct Dalmatian rear movement, "I didn't know a Dalmatian could do that." Dennis McCoy, whose winnings are legendary in the non-sporting group, once explained to me, after watching a good Dalmatian rear, "Ben, if that's the way they're supposed to be, there really isn't that big a difference between one BIS bitch regarded as sound, and another with a horrible rear and shoulders - they're both wrong." Third, it trivializes really good dogs as nothing more than "exactly what I already have" with more reach, or more drive behind, or better they might otherwise see, promoting ignorance, and condemning the reproduction of the breed into the hands of people with no eye for quality, just faults. Absent Divine intervention, which can produce a good dog in the most unlikely places, and the continuing ability of a small minority of judges to recognize quality when they see it, a breed can degenerate quite rapidly, as it has in other countries, into a motley collection of animals that look kind of alike, yet utterly lack quality, elegance, endurance, substance or true breed type, despite an equal lack of glaringly noticeable "faults." The word most often applied to these animals is "mediocre", although I've also heard "common" quite a lot. Frankly, I don't care how many tests they may or may not have passed for hearing, sight, etc., to further eliminate "faults" - if you just breed them to each other, all you can get is more of the same, without an act of God that results in a throwback to one of the several famous ancestors common to most of our dogs. In any pedigree there are so many ancestors of the other, mediocre common kind that the opportunity to come up with something truly spectacular is virtually non-existent, with so-called spectacular specimens resulting with disproportionate frequency from so-called out crosses (a relatively small percentage of matings) where you simply close your eyes, cross your fingers and hope. To become a breeder, the first thing one must do is seek out uncommon dogs, and make sure you can see the difference, can understand why they are so much better than anything else you've ever seen, and discern why they grew up to be the way they are. Occasionally, some of these uncommon dogs may be top winners, but that's not necessarily the case (eg., neither Ch. Zodiac's Snoopy nor Ch. Buffrey Jobee ever appeared at the top in the Spotter). Once you've found them, talk to professional handlers about them relative to their broad exposure to many different types of structure. Some, like Bobby Barlow, have breed specific information, but all experienced handlers have worthwhile things to teach you. Then, talk to judges, not about your dogs, but the dogs they like, and why, making sure you talk only to capable judges. (The handlers can tell you who they are.) My antennae perk up when Jim Smith, our AKC delegate, or Edd Bivin do something original, particularly if they both do it, as I've never been disappointed in their findings, but there are many others. (Actually good judges talk to each other quite a lot and love to share their delight at finding a new good dog.) Then go see these dogs, study their pedigrees, meet as many relatives as possible. I believe you are more likely to retain quality if you breed to these specimens (or their littermates or their offspring), regardless of the presence of a couple of visible faults, than if you're guided in your selection only by the absence of faults. To avoid having to do a lot of hard thinking, many people take the position that there are several correct breed types. Logically, this is clearly impossible. There is one correct type, very very hard to define, which all top knowledgeable people put up when they run across it. I've heard experienced people from "rival" families, who concur on a specific Dalmatian, wonder, out loud, how their rivals could possible agree ("since they never had anything like that"). If you're very very lucky, you'll focus on Dalmatians all or most knowledgeable people pick out as most representative (not what you have, nor your friends, nor the new breeder judge down the road), regardless of faults, and stick to those dogs. When you've had several yourself, then you can go a-hunting for some highly desirable qualities you lack, or may want more of - you won't be reduced to worrying about relatively unimportant faults - relative to the total quality required of a good dog. If you ever do decide to breed a litter, one of the first things I'd recommend is to get a copy of Alfred and Esmeralda Treen's book, The New Dalmatian, and look at some of the pictures. By consensus, the greatest Dalmatian of all time is Ch. Snow Leopard, bottom photo on page 196. The dog with the best show record of all time was Ch. Four in Hand Mischief, top photo on page 131. One of the most influential ancestors of all time, and my favorite picture in the book, is Ch. Reigate's Bold Venture, top photo on page 134, who sired Ch. Tally Ho Sirius, top photo on page 128 (this "family" lives on today in dogs like Ch. Green Starr's Colonel Joe, inside front cover). Look also at Ch. Roadcoach Roadster, on page 74, his grandson, Ch. Colonial Coach Chesire (top picture page 146) and great grand son, Ch. Panore of Watseka (top picture page 151). Finally, look at both pictures on page 157, at Ch. The Lash on page 202 (all three happen to be liver dogs). Chances are, if you started in the mid to late 1980's, you've never seen anything looking remotely like any of the above, and that your newly minted breeder judge down the road wouldn't know what to do if one suddenly walked into the ring unannounced. Well, that's what Dalmatians look like (along with Ch. Fireman's Freckled Friend on page 226, whose progeny are still very much with us), and that is the type of dog really worth breeding to, regardless of faults. The reason you don't see dogs like this around very often is generations of breeders without a clear target, focusing on faults, and bypassing descendants of the above for dogs that look more like what everyone else is showing, until one of a handful of serious breeders comes up with something, has the luck to start out under knowledgeable judges, and then, suddenly, you start hearing, "gee, I didn't know Green Starr, or Watseka, or Coachman was still breeding," or, " I don't know what XYZ sees in that dog (he's so different from what I've got)." So far I've asked you to look at pictures, talk to handlers about dogs in general (George Alston about sporting breed type, Peter Green on terriers, Carol Petruzzo on Doberman structure), and a few select judges about their favorite dogs. Breeders are often among the hardest people to talk to, particularly if your opening remarks are, like they usually are, directed at getting their opinion of your dogs (they are unlikely to criticize anything not of their own family) and the current crop of top winners (which requires you to know their ancestry as well as the breeder does). Here are two alternative ways that could produce better results: first, ask them to tell you what they are trying to accomplish, why, and their methodology (this will take several sessions with lots of time to look at pictures and/or examine dogs). Then, ask them to tell you what they like the most about each of the several dogs they have (you'll get an earful on what's important). If you and the breeder(s) hit it off, you're likely to start learning about an art form far more important than fault avoidance, i.e., someone's dedicated attempt to actually breed better dogs. In summary: breed positively, to an absolute (it exists even if you don't see it very often). Only breed dogs who, by type, pedigree, or previous performance, are likely to produce offspring in the direction of the absolute (even if they're patched, hear only out of one ear, come from a litter with lots of lemon siblings, have a blue eye, a deformed foot, a pink nose, or what not). Seek out the absolute by asking knowledgeable people the right questions (questions they are able and eager to answer). Avoid mediocrity as entailing so many little problems you really don't know where to start. Give a preference to tight pedigrees that look deliberate (not just convenient) to avoid mediocre genes. Look at your produce not on the basis of cuteness, or lack of glaring faults (open marking, open ears, nice thick muzzles) but on whether or not you are getting closer to the elements making up a good dog. Don't believe that what you see around you today represents the best and the brightest. Don't seek advice from anyone on a specific crusade (that Dalmatians should be leggier or less leggy, shorter or longer backed, with more or less substance) unless they are able to come up with a reasonable explanation (high tails indicate bad hip placement and structure) and/or have demonstrated they can objectively assess where they stand vs. the pictures in the Treens' book mentioned above. About the author - Mr. Vila has owned Dalmatians since 1965, has been showing since 1969, and breeding, mostly under the Montjuic suffix, since 1971. This article was written in 1992, and is as true today as it was then. |
