1203

THE HAIR OF THE DOG
By David Hancock

 The length and the texture of a dog’s coat can typify the breed, but the pursuit of extremes can handicap the dog immeasurably. A coat that is too long (often longer than that dog’s ancestors sported) can be a bore, both for the dog, in the heat and when vision is impaired, and its owner, who is faced with grooming challenges after a walk in the rain.  A lengthy ground-hugging coat on a breed knowingly bred with short legs, like the Skye Terrier could be the reason for its lack of popularity. We can also see hairless dogs, mainly at overseas shows, almost certainly the culmination of breeding from ‘freaks’ cropping up and then bred for. Such dogs cannot function in very cold climes and risk sunburn in warmer countries. Not many men welcome a bald head! Yet, the Mexican and the American Hairless Dogs, the Chinese Crested, the Peruvian Inca Orchid Dog and the Abyssinian Sand Dog have attracted followers for some time. Although the Mexican Hairless Dog I saw at Crufts just did not stop shivering. A nearby Afghan Hound could have helped out! The Bergamasco and the Hungarian Komondor and Puli made stark comparisons, being clothed for the demands of their climate. But genetic anomalies can appear from time to time to ‘throw’ a sport with unwanted or, conversely welcome, coat-variations. In the world of the pedigree dog, overlong coats are a bigger, more commonplace burden than no coat.

   Long coats in breeds of dog have created a mini-industry in two senses; firstly, there is the provision of special tables, combs, brushes, shampoos, hair dryers, protective clothing and even top-knot ribbons, and, secondly there is the work undertaken by fanciers at home and at shows, whose industriousness never ceases to amaze me. I am all in favour of dogs being well groomed for the show ring, a dirty unkempt dog should never win. But are we getting to the stage where it's all getting out of hand? I don't mean the cost of it all, the time it all takes and the space it demands at crowded show venues, I mean the imposition on the dog both by way of the length and weight of coat and by making the dog stand for long periods being preened.

 When dogs were valued for what they could do rather than what they looked like, excessively long coats did not feature to the degree they do now. If you look at the early show specimens of Bearded and Rough Collies and Shetland Sheepdogs, you will see jackets far shorter and less heavy than those on their counterparts today. Yet time and time again the pioneer breeders warned against this tendency. Mrs Willison, who launched the show career of the Beardie, was written to by James Garrow, the renowned sheepdog judge, and advised: "The coat should not be overlong and of a raw harsh texture. They should not require daily grooming...Have you drawn up the standard for the KC yet? You want to emphasise the rule on coat."

 Earlier this century, Henry Tilley, who contributed so much to the development of the Old English Sheepdog, wrote: "During recent years there has been an increasing tendency to over-development of the coat and especially for show purposes, but it is an adverse handicap for 'working' dogs which are exposed to all weathers, mud, and dusty roads." Is anyone out there listening to these wise old men? Once this strange obsessive lust for grooming rears its unwanted head, true type is soon replaced and then forgotten. The ultra-hirsute become the standard. The grooming addicts can then get to work but over the succeeding years so does public disinterest, unless a paint manufacturer needs a victim, sorry, emblem.

 Writing in his Dogs and I of 1928, the knowledgeable and experienced Harding Cox, gave an interesting observation on Old English Sheepdog exhibitors: “I have a heartfelt pity for those exhibitors who have adopted the breed simply for show purposes. Theirs must be, indeed, a strenuous and anxious life! To keep a Show Bobtail’s coat in order wants a lot of care and cultivation. To see these dogs being ‘made up’ before entering the Ring is a side-show greatly to be recommended to those who are curious as to the ways and means of exhibitors.” One could ask the question: does ownership of the breed bring grooming challenges or do eager groomers knowingly seek out the breed in order to practise their art?

 William G Weager, reporting in The Kennel Gazette, March, 1888 on Old English Bobtail Sheepdogs at the Kennel Club Show in February of that year, stated: “There were two distinct types, the single-coated dog carrying feather and nearly clean faces, and the double or coat all over dog, i.e. dogs that have an equal length of coat from head to foot. The latter type I much prefer and shall advocate for when the points are finally drawn up at the next meeting of the Old English Sheepdog Club, to be held at Warwick.” It is easy to see how pastoral dogs ‘dripping with coat’ came about. The Shetland Sheepdog should have an outer coat of long hair (but how long?). The Rough Collie is expected to have a coat that fits the outline of the dog's body (but doesn't!).

  In the June 1891 edition of The Kennel Gazette, the Breed Standard and Scale of Points for the breed as drawn up by DJ Thomson Gray, President of the Scottish Collie Club and acknowledged expert on Scottish dogs, was published as being adopted. Under General Appearance, the following words were used: “A lithe, active dog, with no useless timber about him, his deep chest showing strength, his sloping shoulders and well-bent hocks speed, and his ‘bawaint’ face high intelligence. As a whole, he should present an elegant and pleasing outline, quite distinct from any of our other domesticated breeds, and show great strength and activity.” Heavy-feathered legs were considered as a fault. In the KC official breed standard extant in 2012, the breed’s General Appearance had to be: “Appears as a dog of great beauty, standing with impassive dignity, with no part out of proportion to whole.”  The strictures on leg coatings included ‘front legs well feathered, hind limbs above hocks profusely feathered.’ Of these two word-pictures for the breed, which is more the likely to perpetuate a working dog with a manageable coat?

  When the Rough Collie was judged to a scale of points, easily the highest number (20 out of 100) was awarded for the coat. This appalls me; how can the coat, especially in a working breed, possibly be the dog's most important feature? But it shows how the early exhibitors rated coat above all else. Is it at all surprising therefore that the Collie is susceptible to all the dermatoses that affect the modern dog? The excessively heavy coats of the Rough Collie and the Shetland Sheepdog were not there when these breeds first emerged and cannot be good for either breed. The Rough Collie is required to have a coat that fits the outline of its body and is very abundant in the frill and mane, with profuse feathering above the hocks and a very profuse tail. I suspect that within my lifetime the Rough Collie's coat has doubled in length, which to me spoils the appearance of a distinctly handsome breed. The coat no longer fits the outline of the body, it drowns it. No dog could work with such a coat in the pastures. No shepherd would wish to own a dog with such a coat. For me this is a beautiful breed being slowly but surely ruined by its sheer weight of coat. No longer does the coat fit the outline of the body, as demanded by the breed blueprint; the physical beauty of this breed is in peril.

 A correspondent called ‘Nestor’ writing The Annual Retrospect: The Breeds in 1892, Collies, published in The Kennel Gazette of January 1893, gave the view that: “There has been, in 1892, more than in any previous year, a strong predilection on the part of the more modern judges to award prizes to dogs possessing the longest heads, narrowest skulls, smallest ears, and longest coats, legs, feet, shoulders, chest, and, in fact make and shape generally being either ignored or looked upon as merely of secondary importance…density of coat, and not length, should be aimed at, for to a working dog in snow and slush a long coat is a terrible nuisance, as any practical Collie breeder well knows. True, to a show dog who is deficient in bodily properties, shelly in make, bad in shoulders, and with no quarters, a long coat is invaluable, like charity, covering a multitude of sins.”

 The judge of Rough Collies at a 2013 Championship Show reported: “The Standard calls for a coat which fits the outline of the body but there were some Collies who had far too much coat, so much in fact that at times their eyes were buried in the coat and there was no indication of where the skull ended and the neck began. They are a working breed and would not be able to do the job they were intended to do if they were weighed down with excessive coat.” One hundred and twenty years later and the same fault is complained about; do the breed elders exert any influence for good in this breed? Or is it just a case of ‘we like them like that’ (so that’s good enough for the dogs too!)

Where will the passion for possessing dogs as grooming objects end? Are we really happy about producing breeds of dog whose coats are a physical handicap, almost a disablement? What is the point of valuing the origin of your breed and then breeding specimens of that breed with twice the coat of their ancestors? The key questions are surely these: What length of coat does a dog need to retain the type of that breed? and, what length of coat allows the dog to lead a healthy life? Seeing a working or sporting breed in bootees to keep its coat clean saddens me. It is important for us to show respect for our dogs, not just regard them as an accoutrement for a human hobby.

   In his 'Dogs of Scotland', published in 1891, Thomson Gray wrote: "The perfection to which the coat of the Skye Terrier has been brought is something wonderful. We have measured hair on the body of a Skye Terrier 12 inches long, and 8 to 10 inches is not uncommon. Only by careful selection, and constant attention to coat, can such length be obtained." I wonder if this 'attention to coat' has always been to the advantage of the Skye Terrier as a dog. Certainly, their popularity is not increasing with the years: 110 registered in 1986, 100 in 1990 and 79 in 1995 does not augur well for the breed. As recently as the 1970s, these figures were so much higher: 198 in 1970, 240 in 1973 and 237 in 1974. If 'attention to coat' translates as a great need for attention to coat-care, then this could put off a potential owner with a busy life and higher priorities than prolonged grooming of a dog.

  The extant British Breed Standard does not limit the Skye Terrier's length of coat but demands an overcoat that is long, hard and straight. The American standard specifies an outer coat that is '5½ inches long without extra credit granted for greater length'. The latter phrase is a very clear instruction to a judge and can prevent such a breed becoming one of the 'coat-breeds', whereby every other part of the anatomy gets neglected but the part you can groom. It is interesting that the Bearded Collie's standard only uses the word long, in the section on coat, in connection with the dog's beard. The Briard's coat has to be at least 3" long. Surprisingly, the Old English Sheepdog's coat is not expected to be long in its standard.

  Length and texture in a purebred dog's coat are part and parcel of the essential type of that breed. A recent critique by the judge in the Dandie Dinmont Terrier ring at a major 1996 Championship show made this point: "In my view there is no place for exaggerated top-knots, for long beards or for skirts and fringes under the body. While these things may all look flashy and may well make Dandies be noticed by those outside the breed, they do nothing to improve or even preserve true Dandie type." In far too many breeds the sheer length and mass of a dog's coat seem to mesmerise the judges. The Bedlington Terrier, a unique combination of lurcher and terrier, has a fluffy coat in today's rings because the word 'linty' is interpreted as profusely fluffy instead of its real meaning, a weather-resistant 'mattress filler' of a coat. I can remember Poodle fanciers claiming that they could balance a cup and saucer on the back of one without spilling a drop because the coat was so springy - not any more.

 The 1995 Crufts judge in Briards wrote this in the critique: "While I am very aware of the school of thought that the Briard is a working animal and as such should not be overgroomed for the show ring, I have to admit that the spectacle of a full ring of well-groomed Briards, on the green carpet, was an impressive sight." If that kind of thinking prevails in this distinguished breed then within ten years the Briard will win the Afghan Hound classes. The above quoted Dandie judge makes my point for me at the end of that critique: "Over-barbering will undoubtedly lead to a lack of ability on the part of judges to assess coats. This in its turn, will lead to poorer coats and untypical wooliness. Please don't turn Dandie Dinmonts into poodles. Moderation is what is required, otherwise the breed will turn into a different breed."   

  Pioneers in many breeds anticipated the likelihood of problems ahead in coats. The early standard of the Scottish Terrier specified a coat that "should be rather short (about 2 inches)"; today's standard omits that stipulation. The early standard of the Skye Terrier asked for an over-coat averaging 5½ inches; today's standard just specifies an outercoat that is long, with no limit mentioned. The Yorkshire Terrier was once expected to have a coat that was as long as possible. The absurdity of this was realised and it must now be (but isn't!) moderately long. The Shetland Sheepdog should have an outer coat of long hair (but how long?). The Rough Collie is expected to have a coat that fits the outline of the dog's body (but doesn't!). The Toy breeds have some over-coated breeds, watching them being endlessly groomed by dedicated fanciers for show ring demands rarely has the needs of the dogs at heart! How do they see?

 Where will the passion for possessing dogs as grooming objects end? Are we really happy about producing breeds of dog whose coats are a physical handicap, almost a disablement? What is the point of valuing the origin of your breed and then breeding specimens of that breed with twice the coat of their ancestors? The key questions are surely these: What length of coat does a dog need to retain the type of that breed? and, what length of coat allows the dog to lead a healthy life? Seeing a working or sporting breed in bootees to keep its coat clean saddens me. It is important for us to show respect for our dogs, not just regard them as an accoutrement for a human hobby.

  Take a close look at an Afghan Hound on a show bench. This is a proud breed with a proud heritage; it knows when it is being humiliated. Glance at early portrayals of the Briard, the Sheltie, the Rough Collie and the Bearded Collie, or those that still work. When are we going to stop taking advantage of dog's desire to please man and start treating dog as man's respected and valued companion, with needs of their own - and consider their ease of living? Subjecting a dog to hours and hours of washing, drying, combing and brushing is a self-centred human indulgence, never a canine choice. Whenever we indulge ourselves, we need to appreciate that it is a facet of supreme selfishness which calls for honest analysis. Cruelty to animals can be casual, thoughtless and wholly spiritual, as well as violent, nasty and physical. Indirect cruelty to animals can be quite gentle in application -- by inflicting, for example, such an excessively heavy or long coat on a dog that it is doomed to spending long periods of its life being preened or suffers skin complaints. The owners of long-coated breeds need to pose themselves this question:  Is the long coat on my dog a benefit to my dog -- or to me?