I believe the controversy
about the smooth chow stems mainly
from
a lack of understanding of the hereditary make-up of both
varieties
resulting in an unfounded fear that crossing them would
lead
to impurity of the genotype. I we can set aside the romantic
illusion that our Chows are somehow a species
apart from all others,
some
have even suggested them to be an evolutionary derivative
of
a now extinct bear, than we can perhaps approach the issue
logically
and with pragmatism. Believe it or not chows are just
another
man made (purebred) variety of dog, and all dogs have
the
wolf as a common ancestor. In the case of our chows it most
likely
was the Canis Lupus Chanco variety. The point is that all
300
recognized purebred breeds through selective breeding and
crossings
of phenotypes were created by men for a specific
purpose
or function. It has been postulated by Professor Dr.
Holmer
many years ago that our modern chow was obtained
through
the crossing of the black Chinese Spitz and the red
Tibetan
Mastiff. Therefore the term "purebred" is not an absolute
and
only relevant to identifying a species whose ancestors were
of
unmixed decent since the recognition of the breed
(A.K.C.
definition). In the case of our chows this means only
since
1895.
Historians tell us that early importations of chows from the
Orient consisted of about 50% smooths and
indeed the first
chow ever
exhibited in England was the smooth bitch Chinese
Puzzle
who won a silver medal at the Crystal Palace Show of
1880.
Miss Ella Casella around the turn of the century bred and
showed
a number of smooths, and the more contemporary
Ukwong
Kennels always had at least one smooth bitch in their
kennels.
Since all our chows are related, and a quick perusal
of
all bloodlines show a fair number of smooths
being
used over the years it is safe to say that all our roughs
carry
the smooth gene. It is therefore not a matter of rough
versus
smooth but all of us learning to deal with this variety,
hopefully
in an objective and constructive way. Personal
prejudice
only serves to subtract from the breed total.
One
may dislike cinnamons, or blacks, big dogs or curly tails,
the
solution simply lies in avoiding them in one's breeding
program
rather than trying to legislate them out of the standard
as
has been the case with the smooth variety in the U.S. and
Canada
until 1986. In tackling the question of a separate variety
we
first have to deal with the ambiguity of the term in AKC
parlance.
We note that 13 breeds are subdivided in two to eight
varieties
which are each individually represented at group level.
They
include Collies, Poodles, Beagles, Bull Terriers,
Chihuahuas,
Dachshunds, Fox Terriers, Schnauzers, Pointers,
Retrievers,
Setters, Spaniels and Welsh Corgis. On the other
hand
we have Chows (Rough Smooth), St. Bernards
(Longhaired
& Shorthaired), and Newfoundlands (Black &
Landseer)
with two distinct varieties which are not individually
represented
at Group Level. To make matters even more
confusing
we note that the three varieties of Dachshunds
represented
at Group Level are further subdivided into the
standards
and miniatures who, unlike the Beagles, Poodles,
and
Schnauzers, are not individually represented at Group
Level
and thus fall into the same category as the Chows,
St.
Bernards and Newfoundlands
Since AKC objects to further increasing the number of dogs
competing
at Group Level by subdivision of breeds in separate
varieties,
it is safe to assume that any effort to that effect will
be
unsuccessful, until such time that a determined effort to
standardize
characteristics and improve the quality of the smooths
has
been achieved. As this presents a formidable challenge it can
only
be achieved if enough hardcore fanciers can be found, ready to
take
up the gauntlet. At this stage it would be counterproductive
to
split the breed into two distinct and separate varieties, as the
gene
pool for smooths is still too limited. But down the road it
would
indeed be necessary to do exactly that, if fine tuning of the
variety
distinction is desired! An excellent case study can be
found
in the approach of Kennel Clubs outside the U.S. to
progressively
purify the different varieties of the Dachshund.
Whereas
the longhaired variety was obtained by crossing with
longhaired
Spaniels, the smooth and longhaired coats were
separated
by selective breeding long before recorded registrations.
The
wire haired variety was obtained more recently (1890) by
crossing
with harsh wire terrier coats. Originally crosses between
all
varieties was permitted to obtain sufficient breeding stock.
However,
unlike in the U.S. where these crossings still continue,
Kennel
Clubs elsewhere learned that these crossings did more
harm
than good, with the inevitable production of intermediate
coats,
conforming to neither coat standard, and uncertainty of
coat
texture for several generations. Does this not sound familiar?
There
certainly is controversy about the desired length of coat of
the
smooth. Indeed the 1933 edition of "The Dog Owner's Guide"
offers
the following: "In the Smooth Chow the coat, instead of
being
long and open, is short and lies smooth and flat to the
body."
I cannot agree more, but this type is exceedingly hard to
find
these days.
In conclusion I would suggest that separation of the varieties in
competition
at breed level should be targeted in order to promote
graduation
of individuals, to establish their quality within their
respective
varieties. Strict separation should be avoided, at least
until
sufficient numbers of smooths have been obtained. Only at
that
stage, will strict separation be required to benefit both
varieties
and eliminate the present intermediate coat types. Waterdown,
Ontario
June 18, 1990
|
Mail Us at chows@mipao.com
