Food for
Thought
For casual consumption only; not to be ingested without the proverbial grain
Lisa Warren
SEPARATION ANXIETY
Separation for Our Miniatures? Some Points to Consider
.
I
have recently learned
of a new
movement to
have our miniatures
recognized as separate varieties or
breeds. As I
understand
it,
a
thoughtful approach to
the matter has been proposed: that DCA form a committee to look into the
whole idea, with an eye toward petitioning AKC for its position on the issue
and initiating a revision of the breed standard that would take the evolving
global nature of breeding and judging into consideration.
I do not intend to address the issue of changing the standard beret it is
a weighty issue on its own, and a revision of the standard is probably not
an absolutely essential element to our miniature varieties garnering separate
status at dog shows.
"The
Dachshund
Review" recently
published
an
article I submitted on
the subject of separation for minis,
an article written before I was aware of this latest effort to move
things in that direction. Most
of the thoughts that were in that article are presented below, along with
some additional ideas on the subject.
Andrew and I lived for some time in Australia, a country
where the miniature and standard dachshunds are separate, as are the
three
coats,
giving
a
total
of
six dachshund
breeds, (not
varieties, breeds) in
the Hound Group. This
means separate registries in
the stud book and therefore no cross-coat or intersize breeding, and
it puts six dachshunds into the group at dog
shows. Being exhibitors of both
standard and miniature longhairs, we found the system to our advantage at
dog shows for obvious reasons, including our own dogs of different sizes
not competing with each other in the breed ring, and points being available
for each size at a given show. All
well and good. I bring this
up to emphasize my experience with the reality of such a system and my
appreciation of the benefits before I explain why I am against the separation
of miniatures to varieties (or breeds) unto themselves.
My main objection, and once everything sifts down,
my only one, is what I fear will be an inevitable loss of soundness and
type. That will occur for two
reasons, both of them due to the fact that the American Kennel Club is currently
dead set against six dachshunds in the group, and would insist on the movement
of miniatures to another group, possibly Non-Sporting, I suppose, but almost
certainly Toys. Either group
would remove them from their proper place in the Hound Group, the group where
they are at home with other dogs who perform functions based on the location
of prey by sight or scent. Hounds differ from dogs in the Sporting Group,
that group of dogs that hunt by scent and are designated as "Gundogs" in
some other lands, in that hounds ultimately bring down the game, something
gundogs are not meant to do.
The Toy Group is the home of breeds that are meant
to be small and appealing and
pretty. (If there are
breeds there that you personally do not consider particularly attractive
or easy on the eye, remember that sometimes beauty truly is in the eye of
the beholder, and that there are actually a few clinically sane human beings
who do not find dachshunds beautiful.)
Unlike dogs from all of the other groups, toy breeds are meant to
satisfy only one need of mankind, that of companionship; no other function
is required by the dogs who are grouped as
Toys. Now please consider this:
many toy breed judges are quite candid about the fact that they consider
soundness less that necessary in breeds whose sole function in life is to
offer companionship. I am aware
of one well-known Toy Group judge who is known to feel that if a toy can
move well enough to get from the couch to the food bowl and back again, well,
that's well enough. So, putting
miniature dachshunds into such a category is bound to impact the soundness
factor. Type is also almost
certain to deteriorate in an overall atmosphere where diminutive size and
daintiness are sought, both
of these being desirable qualities in most of the toy
breeds. I fear that the influence
of the toy judges would outweigh that of the breed specialists, creating
a "type gap" that might never be
closed. Because if miniature
dachshunds are moved to another group they might then be classified as separate
breeds in the stud registry, eliminating our very essential, indispensable
practice of breeding down.
Now, even if we could continue to breed down, with
weight of such paramount importance in a breed where every
exhibit from puppy
class through specials, is subject to disqualification, few breeders would
be game. Under our
current system, a
proper dachshund (and an improper one as well!) who happens to be a few ounces
over the limit on the day can be exhibited in a class other than "Open
Miniature." With separation,
all exhibits, class dogs and specials alike, would be subject to weight
disqualification. Between the desire to breed dogs that are certain to weigh
in and look at home in the Toy Group, and the loss of the option to
"top up" type by breeding down
from small standards, I shudder
to contemplate the future that would befall our
miniatures. The compact
robustness that makes the dachshund, mini and standard alike, so suited to
the specific tasks for which he is utilized would surely not survive the
first decade of residence in the Toy
Group. I sorrowfully envision
a race of mincing, slab-sided,
narrow-fronted dogs with weak hindquarters and perhaps even poor toplines
evolving. (If you think I exaggerate, sit at toy ringside during the class
judging someday; you will probably be able to observe several exhibits flawed
with the faults to which I refer.) The sound, free-moving, balanced animal
that we all hope to see in a miniature dachshund will be a rarity, and type
will deteriorate; it will happen
gradually, and perhaps few will
notice, since miniatures will
not be in the same ring with standards for the comparison of type to be
made. As for soundness, alas,
I fear that too few exhibitors and judges will value it much in a group where
functionality is at the bottom of the list of things considered. We all must
accept that breed evolution is a fact of nature that we hope to enhance by
our involvement; sending miniatures into the Toy Group would be almost certain
to influence that evolution in an undesirable direction.
We have several problems in miniature dachshunds that
are encountered more often than they are in
standards. Progressive
retinal
atrophy, bad
mouths,
hydrocephalus, and megaesophagus
spring
to mind
as
problems
more
prevalent
in
the miniature
varieties. Without an
ability to breed down and introduce new blood likely to be free of these
disorders, our mini varieties could be painted into a genetic
corner. And of course, with
our miniatures
as
separate
breeds
rather than
varieties,
in all likelihood there
would be no cross-coat breeding allowed either. And then there is the "law
of unintended consequences" which might (may the gods forbid
it) find AKC deciding that the
standard varieties should be separated into breeds as
well, eliminating their privilege
of cross-coat breeding! As other
breeds, one after another, find
themselves in truly dangerous territory regarding genetic diseases, it becomes
apparent that serious out-crossing, and actual cross-breeding in some cases,
will become necessary to preserve them at
all. Our genetic pool in dachshunds
is a bit deeper than most others due to our several varieties and also, I
suspect, to a higher frequency of imports than many other breeds have
experienced. Separation
into breeds would eliminate our ability to exploit this genetic
advantage, and I am seriously
against any official moves that will limit our ability to maintain
a healthy genetic
viability
in our
hearty,
truly functional
dachshund
Now, having said all of that, I would like to suggest
that if the separation is bound to occur, there may be a way to satisfy
the folks who hanker for separate sets of points for standards and miniatures
at dog shows while' keeping the AKC happy; this approach would also have
the benefit of not hampering dachshund breeders' freedom to tap into the
virtues of other varieties from time to
time. Suppose that within
the Hound Group our dogs had six recognized varieties at shows, with each
variety competing for Winners Dog, Winners Bitch, Best of Variety and Best
of Opposite Sex awards. Suppose
that, upon the completion of the judging of the miniature and standard wirehaired
varieties, the judge makes a Best Wirehaired Dachshund award, thereby designating
only one wire, and by extension of the process only one long and one smooth
which may go on to compete in the Hound Group that
day. AKC would maintain
its "only three dachshunds in group competition" policy, and we miniature
exhibitors would gain separate competition for points and variety
awards. As to the "intra-coat,
standard versus mini" competition, well, we've always had to defeat the big
boys to get into the group anyway.
By keeping the miniatures in the Hound Group we could maintain status
as Hound varieties and thereby protect the privilege of all dachshund breeders
to breed freely among the coats and between the
sizes. Don't forget, though,
that we would lose one very handy privilege: unless the standard
is altered to eliminate the weight
disqualification, we would no
longer be able to show any miniature, class dog or champion, that
is
even
half
and
ounce
over
the
limit,
without
fear of
disqualification.
A move to separation for our miniature dachshunds
would be a very significant development in the breed's U.S.
history. If it is to happen during this century or ever, let us
carefully consider all of the approaches open to us; let us look ahead and
be very certain that the choices made will actually serve the long-term future
of the breed, not only the short-term whims and egos of today's fanciers.
© Lisa and Andrew Warren, all rights reserved