FOOD FOR
THOUGHT
For casual consumption
only;
THE "F" WORDS
"Form follows function."
It is a term used frequently in the dog world, borrowed, I believe, from
architecture, although I am not certain of its absolute origin. With the
exception of the breeds in the toy group, nearly all of today's breeds were
developed with a purpose other than companionship in mind, a purpose that
would serve the needs of man in some very functional
way. A seriously thought-out
breed standard, as it describes the ideal form of the dog, does not lose
sight of the breed's original function, or perhaps of a purpose for which
the breed has more recently come to be
used. If these intended functions
are ignored in the standard or by the breeders and judges who shape the form
of the breed as it evolves, then the breed in question could become one of
several doing a flying trot down the road toward the loss of essential
"breediness". You will know what I mean if you have sat at ringside
during group judging over the years and noted more and more breeds moving
with amazing front and rear extension, or trying to, whether that gait would
serve them well in their particular function or not, and whether or not that
is the gait described in their standard.
And, in the pursuit of eye-catching prettiness, many of these exhibits
are trimmed and groomed in ways that would make the old-time breeders do
half-gainers in their graves. One by one, it seems, breeds are becoming more
and more like "cookie-cutter dogs" that may vary in shape, size, coat and
color, but otherwise could all have come from the same manufacturer, from
the same cookie cutter set. All
of this is true because these things so often succeed at a dog show; many
judges are, perhaps unconsciously, more impressed by prettiness and flashy
movement than by a really balanced, sound, correct example of a breed, complete
with all of the distinguishing characteristics and structural requisites
that both design its form and make it
functional. I suspect that this
state of affairs has evolved due to the enormous emphasis that is placed
on group and best-in-show competition in this country, focusing much of the
fancy's attention away from the subtleties and finer points of the various
breeds. Many breeders, being
adaptable and wanting to breed what they can win with, begin ignoring the
mandates of structure and breed specifics in their standards, and they get
away with it all too often at dog shows.
One hears many interesting things
at ringside, and I recently overheard a conversation between two Afghan
hound breeders in which one remarked that, while it was quite nice for a dog
to have all of the structural and breed-specific features outlined in the
standard, he himself felt that it was much more important to breed for a
"look". Well,
it is difficult to win without a "look", but surely a correct-looking bloodline
cannot maintain that look for more that a few generations if the breeder is
not constantly considering structural excellence during both the matchmaking
and selection phases of breeding, keeping the standard's precepts in mind
all the while. I give that
particular breeder only a few years before he loses his valued "look" entirely,
unless he wakes up to the folly and shortsightedness of his point of view.
Another overheard
conversation involved dachshunds. One exhibitor was trying to console another
who had not won that day: "Well, you know that he only likes very elegant,
flashy dogs with refined heads." And when I thought about the dogs that had
won that day, it seemed to be an accurate
statement. So, that judge was
consistent. He was not, I thought,
correct: the words "flashy" and "elegant" do not appear in our standard's
general description of the dachshund, nor is "refinement" a requisite for
the desired head. And if you
think about it for only a minute, you will probably agree with me that it
is just as well, since none of those "qualities" is going to be of service
to a dog who is meant to be able to go down a hole and battle an angry badger
in its home turf. Elegance is
not functional in the dachshund; substance
is. An overlong neck and narrow,
elegant head will not serve him well.
Better form for the dachshund's function combines a strong neck of
adequate length and a head that is in balance on a dog of the robust muscular
development called for in the standard.
That head needs brain room, enough nasal width and depth to fully
accommodate breathing under duress in tight spots where oxygen is limited,
and a really strong underjaw which provides enough bone for the attachment
of serious muscles, muscles vital for success in close encounters with a
mortal enemy. I amuse myself
by imagining a conversation with that judge who was looking for elegance
and flashiness in which he comments "I may not know much about dachshunds,
but I know what I like!"
Flashy movement alone will
not serve a dog well in the field; his movement must also be efficient,
effortless and sound. Why does
the standard ask for well-angled shoulders and a ninety-degree angle between
shoulder and upper arm? Not
only are these features absolutely essential for an animal that needs to
fold its limbs back upon themselves bone by bone in order to go to earth
and still be able to maneuver underground, that angulation and the equal
bone lengths specified in the standard are also major components of the efficient
and effortless movement that will enable a dachshund to put in a full day
of tracking or hunting without fading.
All of the movement faults that we recognize in dogs are faults not
simply because they are unsightly, but more importantly because they reduce
efficiency and require more of the dog's energy to get from point A to point
B, thereby diminishing his ability to perform his function.
A breed standard could be considered a work
in progress over the history of the breed, as is the breed
itself. Standards are altered
and updated from time to time, sometimes to clarify meaning or to improve
format, and sometimes, for better or worse, to more accurately describe the
dog that has evolved over the years since the last revision. (For example, in our own breed
standard the eye shape was recently changed from "oval" to
"almond". A tighter eye is certainly
less susceptible to damage in combat and to injury in the bush; but the eye
opening is determined largely by the skull's shape, and danger lies in going
to an extreme that creates an overly narrowed skull in an attempt through breeding
to alter the shape of the eye socket.) If the breed in question can still
be expected to function efficiently, and if the evolution it has experienced
has improved its ability to perform or has enhanced its appearance with no
detriment to function, then it is good to change the standard to reflect
that evolution. But standard
changes do a disservice to a breed when they are made in order to reflect
the taste of the show fancy while ignoring the fact that a decrease in functional
ability may result.
Our breed is a race
of dwarfs, ideally suited by that dwarfism for going to earth and for working
at ground level in a variety of difficult
terrains. Physical beauty in
the dachshund requires a fitness for work, good breed type, and a symmetry
of parts, that eye-pleasing, all-of-a-piece look while both standing and
moving that is the hallmark of any balanced and structurally sound
animal. The dachshund does not
need to aspire to an off-type elegance in the pursuit of beauty any more
than an exquisitely-formed and accomplished gymnast needs to aspire to the
willowy attenuation of a fashion model.
We are fortunate
in our breed that there are currently many dual champions, dogs whose excellence
of form makes them both functional enough to earn field championships and
beautiful enough to hold show titles.
Their breeders and owners are to be commended and encouraged, as this
reflects a balance of interest within the fancy that is probably essential
to the future of the dachshund if it is not to become one of the many
"cookie-cutter" breeds seen at today's
shows. Also essential to that
good future is that the function of the dachshund remains clearly in the
minds of those of us who breed for the show ring, and that we do not fall
into the trap of breeding to win under those judges who can say "I
may not know much about dachshunds, but I know what I like!"
Home