Some comments were forwarded on to me, by a friend in Europe, which are an excerpt from a chapter which appeared in “Pillars of the Stud Book” a monthly feature of the Kennel Gazette.

Hood Wright observes

“I don't know that we can congratulate ourselves on any great improvement in the Deerhound, as breeders of so many other kinds can, for the Deerhound was a
finished breed long before the present generation saw the light, and when
the writer first owned one of the Apple-cross strain, over thirty years ago,
there were grand specimens then as there are to-day”.

A beautiful comment and I wonder if we, as he and his peers did, can say the same today?

Strange, no comments.

Hood Wright's Selwood Duchess by Colonel Wellesby's Krilutz out Fly.
kilbournedeerhounds.com/p....php?code=03699

Please, do not conclude that i critique Mr Hood Wright about cross-bred, it is absolutly the opposite feeling as Ardneish knows... I am favorable in parsimonious crossing about dogs as it is doing in horses world for example.
I think this post is appropriatyness to mention the part of borzoï blood modern deerhounds.

About Applecross strain:
webcache.googleuserconten...=clnk&gl=fr

webcache.googleuserconten...=clnk&gl=fr

I don't think this thread is about what is in or out of the Deerhound, Far greater authors than I have claimed and disclaimed every possible cross that, if they are even partially true then I am amazed that we even have a recognisable breed. George Cupples in "Scotch Deerhounds and Their Masters" should be read as should "British Dogs, Their Points, Selection, And Show Preparation",(Part 1) by W. D. Drury, to mentioned just two authors.

Thank you for the comment Florent and no I like you do not propose to critique or criticise but I believe the question to be asked today, is what are we passing onto future generations? 'Better or Worse Deerhounds?'

The quote you offered Ardchu says that deerhounds where wonderful specimens "then" and they are "now" (in the writer's time) and you're wondering if we can say the same today, yes?

Well, my answer is yes, our deerhounds today are wonderful examples of the breed. We pay close attention to breeding partners, offer excellent nutrition, know the benefits of physical activity, etc etc.

It's a great intellectual exercise to debate questions such as whether form follows function, and can deerhounds today fulfill the jobs for which they were intended, and is lure coursing an adequate substitue for hunting live game, and are deerhounds getting too large to take down a stag, and on and on. All good points to ponder and make interesting reading as anyone who follows the posts on this forum can attest.

But to sum it all up and pronounce whether we've stayed true to the breed and maintained the standards - I believe we have. Mind you, I may be biased in this respect since as I write this I am looking at my own deerhounds racing around my garden!

Perhaps there is bad breeding out there, but I haven't seen it. On the whole I'd say it's quite good. Maybe it has to do with the fact that deerhounds are not bred litter after litter, puppy mill fashion, but are produced instead via occasional, thoughtful pairings. Something to ponder.

There most definately bad examples of the breed out there,but is that an example of bad breeding,or just a result of the randomness of genetics?
Hood Wright states that "the deerhound was a finished breed long before the present generation saw the light" and I must totally disagree and say that no breed at any time can be "finished" as the gene pool is constantly changing as is the use that we put the animal to. This will result in a form that is more or less fluid over decades,for better or for worse...

"I don't know that we can congratulate ourselves on any great improvement in the Deerhound, as breeders of so many other kinds can, for the Deerhound was a
finished breed long before the present generation saw the light, and when
the writer first owned one of the Apple-cross strain, over thirty years ago,
there were grand specimens then as there are to-day”.

Perhaps a 120 years ago Hood Wright and others were alluding mainly to the soundness and function, and the finer points in general, it is always hard to try and cast our minds back as to the general history of the breed and then forward to the early days of dog shows when function was regarded at a premium.

Early 20th centaury breeders seemed to keep the function as a goal, along with making improvements to the finer points of the breed. I have seen some tremendous hunters of red deer and roo, but also, unfortunately, some quite woeful examples of the breed. Something that has always probably been there. My imagination would tell me that Scots being Scots, when a litter was born, the truly good hunters would be kept, and the ones that would normally have been put down were then sold on. Are we emulating this trait?

Ardchu

As we have discussed in other threads,without legal hunting in the uk,there is no longer a serious test of ability in the field,and it is therefore down to the show judges to read the standard and guess which dogs look the most suited to the job...as we know from racehorses,the best bloodlines and conformation can result in a horse best suited for dog food....

hairybeasty wrote:


I've backed a few Chappie hopefulls in my time and would agree with the above comment

hairybeasty wrote:


I am sorry but I have to disagree, judges can only judge what is placed in front of them, if the dogs being shown are mediocre, then the result will be that the best mediocre exhibit will be the winner.

Surely the judges opinion is only one of many, as a breeder/owner do you not believe that you are as good a judge of your chosen breed as the average judge? Is it not therefore your responsibility to put forward good examples of the breed, rather than mediocre ones?

What then of the dogs that never go before a judge??

Don't you judge your dogs ability when they have the opportunity to have some free play? Something that the average judge will seldom see.


Ardchu.

Ardchu wrote:
This horse is a National Pony Society winner and has sired Horse of the Year Show champions having won some of the best comps in the UK and has the bloodlines to go with it,but it does not mean it would win The Grand National..

'Surely the judges opinion is only one of many, as a breeder/owner do you not believe that you are as good a judge of your chosen breed as the average judge? Is it not therefore your responsibility to put forward good examples of the breed, rather than mediocre ones?' As written by Ardchu.

Sorry Ardchu, but had to chuckle at this. A breeder/owner as good as the average judge! I know quite a few breeders of various forms of livestock and companion animals who think all their geese are swans, as it were. There is also an expression in dogs - 'kennel blindness', which is pretty much the same as the geese/swans thing. With the best will in the world there are some breeders who will just never see the faults in their dogs. They undoubtedly think they are putting forward good examples.

Having said that, it is totally subjective anyway as to what is a good example. Also as well to remember that an animal who becomes a champion does not necessarily throw good offspring. The quality of pups being also 50% down to the other parent and the genetic background of both. A prepotent sire is a rare thing indeed.

As for the dogs which never go before a judge - who knows, they may be good bad or mediocre. As long as they satisfy the needs of their owner that's OK.

Ardchu wrote:
[quote]hairybeasty wrote:


I am sorry but I have to disagree, judges can only judge what is placed in front of them, if the dogs being shown are mediocre, then the result will be that the best mediocre exhibit will be the winner.[quote]
Excellence of form has,in my humble opinion,got nowt to do with performance,as stated above.
True,a judge can only place those forward for judgement,and yes the best mediocre will win in a class of mediocrity,but does that mean the winner is best suited to it's job?
Seeing as hunting is banned in the uk,there is no job,for good or for mediocre.

[quote]Surely the judges opinion is only one of many, as a breeder/owner do you not believe that you are as good a judge of your chosen breed as the average judge? Is it not therefore your responsibility to put forward good examples of the breed, rather than mediocre ones? [quote]
The winners of shows often go against public opinion on the day,and there have been many travesties,but that is showing..one man's meat is another's poison..there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it,but I can only speak of horses,as no dog(4)I own is KC reg..

[quote]What then of the dogs that never go before a judge??[quote]
There is nothing to say they cannot be of equal to the top show winners of the breed.

[quote]Don't you judge your dogs ability when they have the opportunity to have some free play? Something that the average judge will seldom see.[quote]
I do,but one thing I have learned is that when playing,a dog will only run as fast as it is pushed...
As far as I see it,and I am guilty of spending a lot of money showing as a breeder of horses,showing is a test of the theory behind breeding,but that is all,for a more in depth assessment of an animals attributes,one must go elsewhere..
I hope and pray that you will have a good comeback,as this is right up my street...