Отправлено: 05.12.14 23:41. Заголовок: ссылки на журналы про борзых

надеюсь, вам будет интересно полистать журналы про уиппетов и других борзых он-лайн. и почитать! хотя бы по диагонали - все равно интересно имхо ))

http://issuu.com/sighthound-ezine/docs/sighthound_ezine_issue_1

http://issuu.com/greyhoundshow.de/docs/donaueschingen_2011

http://issuu.com/dwzrv.com/docs/broschuere_dwzrv

http://issuu.com/dwzrv.com/docs/broschuere_donaueschingen_gesamt

http://issuu.com/dwzrv.com/docs/broschuere_2014_klein

и вот эта брошюра мне очень понравилась (пролистала, еще не читала, оставила на сладкое - на новогодние коматозно-лениво-медленные каникулы)

http://issuu.com/quillerpublishing/docs/worldoflurcher

 Отправлено: 06.12.14 01:19. Заголовок: и еще вот набрела на..

и еще вот набрела на издательство, которое специализируется на собаколитературе http://www.dogwise.com/
у них можно заказать про уиппетов вот такие книги
http://www.dogwise.com/search.cfm
первая в списке особенно заинтересовала - эксперт Роберт Коул пишет о том, как расценивать уиппета в ринге
п.с. товарищи дорогие! может, организуем совместную закупку? или , может, стоит купить электронную версию этих книжек и самим размножить?

 Отправлено: 06.12.14 02:17. Заголовок: А я купила вот такой..

А я купила вот такой журнал "ДРУГ"

 Отправлено: 06.12.14 23:52. Заголовок: :sm33: смотрю, 54 р..

смотрю, 54 раза в тему заглянули, а ответик только один.
может, у кого-нибудь есть что-то почитать и из британских авторов-уиппетологов? пусть даже не очень свежее - все равно очень интересно было бы почитать.

 Отправлено: 08.12.14 00:58. Заголовок: Большое спасибо мсье..

Большое спасибо мсье Камертону за скан вот этой брошюры ! http://issuu.com/quillerpublishing/docs/worldoflurcher
читаем-просвещаемся, товарищи! картинки подсматриваем по ссылке , а гугль-перевод доосмысливаем! (если он пишет КРУГ или КОЛЬЦО - то это "РИНГ" и т.п.) )))

Скрытый текст

For a thousand years in Britain, the humbler hunters have had their own special dog, with pride in its performance rather than its purity of breeding, yet purpose-bred in the pursuit of hunting excellence just as shrewdly as any Foxhound or gundog. Forever associated with gypsies, poachers and country characters, the lowly lurcher has survived die campaigns of rural police forces, watchful gamekeepers and wary landowners, and to this day, still keeps the pot filled for many a working class household. Yet nowadays the lurcher fancier is classless; blazers and cavalry twill feature as much at lurcher shows as moleskin and mufflers. The phenomenal rise in lurcher shows in the last forty years demonstrates the awareness of interest in these extraordinary hunting dogs of mixed parentage. But it has also brought, at times, a tendency to breed a type that will win ‘on the flags’ rather than a ‘chase, catch and kill’ champion. But what is a lurcher? If you look around at a lurcher show it is soon apparent that the event would be better labelled ‘any variety, sporting dog’, for the height, weight, coat and colour are essentially anything but uniform. For a lurcher must be a cross-bred dog - fast enough to take all legal quarry, crafty enough not to get detected when used by the poacher, and able to withstand the cold and the wet, as well as the odd encounter with barbed wire. Purists might say it should really be a Collie X Greyhound to be truly a lurcher; but Deerhound, Whippet, Saluki, Bedlington Terrier and Beardie blood have all been used over the years to instil dash, greater stamina or a more protective coat. It is common to find the less diligent researchers linking the ‘tumbler’, quaintly described by a number of 16th century writers, with the lurcher. Correspondents contributing to country sports magazines on the subject of lurchers often sign themselves Tumbler’. But the tumbler was the decoy dog, a very different animal. Dr Caius, for all his learning, knew little about dogs, and yet has over the years become much quoted as some form of authority. But even he mentioned the ‘Thevishe Dog or Stealer, that is a poaching dog’. His lengthy and extraordinary description of the ‘tumbler’ is in effect an exaggerated account of the antics of the decoy dog. I know of no lurcher which hunts by ‘dissembling friendship and pretending favour’ as he describes. The decoy dog of England has been lost but the blood lives on in the Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever and the Kooikerhondje of Holland. The first named luring the inquisitive ducks to within range of the hunters’ rifles; the second enticing them along ever-narrowing little waterways until they are netted. We have lost the ‘ginger ’coy dog’ of East Anglia, referred to by such rural affairs writers as James Wentworth Day. But whereas the red decoy dog is perpetuated in distinct breeds, the lurcher was and ever shall be a nondescript dog. As ‘Stonehenge’ described them a century and a half ago: ‘A poacher possessing such an animal seldom keeps him long, every keeper being on the look out, and putting a charge of shot into him on the first opportunity... the poacher does not often attempt to rear the dog which would suit him best, but contents himself with one which will not so much attract the notice of those who watch him.’ A farm labourer’s dog is not so easily researched as that of the squire, but ‘Stonehenge’ has managed to convey the vital ordinariness, the essential anonymity and the fundamental disregard for type in what has long been a cross-bred purely functional hound, used for illegal hunting. A minority prize the Smithfield blood from the old drovers’ dogs and there are usually the more bizarre crosses, such as Airedale X Whippet or Bearded Collie X Dobermann Pinscher. The normal combination however is that of sighthound with herding dog, with more recently, Kelpie and Malinois blood utilised. Judges at Kennel Club dog shows have scoffed at the whole business of even attempting to judge such a wide variation of type in one lurcher ring, but, of course, that is exactly what they do when judging ‘Best-in-Show’ when all the winners in each breed competition come together to compete with one another. Lurcher show judges are not conformist anyway, having included such diverse characters as Moses Aaron-Smith, a gamekeeper from Derbyshire, born in a gypsy waggon of pure Romany stock, Ted Walsh, a retired Army Colonel and expert on coursing, and Martin Knoweldon, a commercial artist specialising in the depiction of sighthounds in full stride. The lurcher world, despite the establishment of the National Lurcher Racing Club, with regional branches, has never needed an infrastructure, a tight organisational body. Overseas, a number of breed-types act as lurchers: the Banjara Greyhound, the Cretan Hound, the Portuguese Podengo and the Ibizan Hound. But our lurchers can possess a wide range of skills, toeing not just fast running dogs, but able to use ground and air scent and track quarry as well as course it. The lurcher of Britain can be a combination of coursing Greyhound, retriever, tracker, pointer and watchdog. It would be more correct to describe the word lurcher itself as indicating a role, rather than a distinct type of dog. For it doesn’t matter if a lurcher is 20 or 26 inches at the shoulder, rough-coated or smooth, black and tan or buckskin, prick-eared or dropeared, provided it is biddable and can run. Uniformity of conformation matters little, but composition matters a great deal: good feet with strong toes, plenty of lung room, a flexible back, well-angled shoulders and immense power from the hindquarters are essential. The lurcher has to look like a hunting dog. ‘No dog in Britain ever drew more fire than the lurcher, not even the sheep-worrier.The gamekeeper hero of a novel by G Christopher Davies, Peter Penniless, lies in wait for some poachers who are about to gate-net a field, having stopped the meuses. As the poachers approach, accompanied by their lurcher dog, which has been trained to drive the hares directly towards the gates..., Peter asks his employer what he should do if the dog scents them. The employer, elderly gamekeeper Quadling, replies, ‘Shoot it.That’s why I brought my gun.The men may be too quick for us, but I thought we might have a shot at the dog .’ Carson Ritchie, I be British Dog, Robert Hale, 1981 ‘...the Black Act of 1723 restored the death penalty for the stealing of deer... a host of other activities connected with deer stealing - the possession of traps, trespassing at night, or trespassing in the company of a lurcher - were made capital offences by the same act...’ Emma Griffin, Blood Sport, Yale University Press, 2007 It is a strange irony that now that hunting with dogs is so restricted there are more lurchers in the land than ever before. Sadly there are more too in rescue centres than ever before. There are too many being bred - and too many poor specimens being over-praised, and probably then bred from. A few years ago I stood ring-side at a lurcher class during a country show and heard one handler singing the praises of his dog. His words told me more about him than they did about his dog, which wholly lacked the build of an effective hunting dog. It was a not a good lurcher and he was not a good judge of one. A lurcher doesn’t have to look statuesque but it has to have the anatomy of a running dog. Historically, if it looked too like a sighthound then the village constable was alerted. But if it couldn’t perform like a sighthound then nobody was interested. ‘Stonehenge’ referred to lurchers well over a hundred years ago with these words: ‘A poacher possessing such an animal seldom keeps him long, every keeper being on the look-out, and putting a charge into him on the first opportunity; and as these must occur of necessity, the poacher does not often attempt to rear the dog which would suit him best, but contents himself with one which will not so much attract the notice of those who watch him’. Strictly speaking, on this evidence, a judge at a lurcher show should automatically disqualify any dog which would appear to a gamekeeper like a coursing dog! That would thin out the class sizes in no small way! ‘Stonehenge’ has managed however to convey the essential ordinariness, the vital anonymity and the lack of type if a lurcher is to survive. Variety was not just the spice of life, it almost assured a life! This variation in type manifests itself at lurcher shows today, with classes for rough and smooth¬haired dogs and those under or over 23 (or 26) inches at the withers. Some breeders swear by the Saluki cross and others by Bedlington blood; some fanciers favour a rough or harsh-haired dog and others the smooth variety. A minority prize the ‘Smithfield’ blood from the old drovers’ dogs and there are often more bizarre crosses such as Beardie Dobermann and Airedale Whippet. The concept, as always with a hunting dog, is to find the ideal match between quarry, country and conditions on one hand and speed, determination and hunting instinct on the other. The best judge of a lurcher is a man who has hunted one himself, a man who visualises the dog before him in the ring in the chase. But he has to possess some basic knowledge of the fundaments of hunting dog anatomy or he has no right to be in the ring as a judge. I see judges at shows who never look at the feet, never test the hardness of the loin, don’t examine the bite, and reward entrants with weak loins, upright shoulders and ribcages which lack lung room. That can only reward bad breeding, leading to a production-line of mediocre dogs; winning dogs get bred from! Firstly, why are so many lurchers so big? It is worth remembering that the main reason why show Deerhounds tend to be huge is not need but origin. Deer hunters found that dogs over 28 inches at the withers lacked performance and quickly passed them on to the early show breeders. No Waterloo Cup winner has ever been 30 inches high. I regularly see lurchers at shows which stand 30 inches and which must weigh over 80lb. I would have thought that even on Salisbury Plain or around Newmarket, 60 to 701b was easily big enough. The famous coursing Greyhound Master M’Grath, three times winner of the Waterloo Cup, believed by many to have no equal for pace, cleverness and killing power, weighed 52 to 541b. Wild Mint weighed 451b and Coomassie only 42; both were superbly effective coursing dogs. But whatever their size it is possible to judge these admirable dogs more effectively. If we are going to judge them, let’s do it properly. A hound which hunts using its speed must have the anatomy to do so. Immense keenness for work will always come first but the physique to exploit that mental asset comes close second. A lurcher must have a long strong muzzle with powerful jaws and a level bite, with strength right to the nose-end of the muzzle. How else can it catch and retrieve its quarry? The nose should be good-sized with well-opened nostrils, for, despite some old-fashioned theories, sighthounds hunt using scent as well as sight. For any sighthound to succeed, its eyes should be fairly prominent and be set slightly oblique, to the side of the head. One eye should look away to the right and one to the left so that, like any good rangefinder, both eyes can be used for long distance marking. It is likely however that at close range only one eye is used at a time. The neck should be long but symmetrically so, muscular and firm. Length of neck does not im¬prove ‘pick up’; flexibility in the ‘swoop’ comes from the placement of the shoulder blades. A lurcher must have well laid back sloping shoul¬ders; I always apply the ‘two fingers width’ test to the space between the shoulder blades of a stooping dog. Many show Greyhounds have to spread their feet to drink from a bowl of water on the ground because of excessive narrowness in the set of their shoulder blades. The lurcher’s back should hint at suppleness and power, be slightly arched in the lumbar region, yet have a mainly level topline. A judge should know the difference between a long back and a long body; a short-bodied long-backed hound is a handicapped one. Smooth-coated lurchers are sometimes handi¬capped by too thin a coat, lacking protection from wire and chill winds. Whilst not advocating a shaggy wolfhound coat, T can see operational merit in a stiff¬haired, wire-haired or linty coat. The jacket of any sporting dog should shed the wet not hold the wet. Waterproofing comes from hair density and texture not profusion of coat; if you look at the originally imported Afghan hounds and then compare their coats to today’s specimens, you can see how function has been forfeited to fashion. Far too many exhibitors at country shows expect the judge to see merit in their entry when they them¬selves have done little to prepare the exhibit for the ring. Some dogs are natural showmen, most are not. Dogs need to be schooled for the ring - not slavishly prepared, God forbid! but trained to walk briskly on the lead and stand still during closer scrutiny. A future judge’s examination of the bite is made easier by previous rehearsal. Why should your dog unques- tioningly allow a complete stranger to look inside its mouth? But jaw construction really does matter and a competent judge will always want to check this important feature of a sporting dog. The judge can better apply his judging technique if the exhibitor’s ring technique has been practised and the exhibit rehearsed. This can significantly affect placings. Fault judging is no help to anyone, breeder, owner, the status of the show, the sport of showing itself. Overseas they often list faults according to their seriousness, i.e. disqualifying ones down to merely undesirable ones. No lurcher should ever win in the ring if it features upright shoulders, short upper arms, a weak neck or loins, poor feet, a short body (espe¬cially with a long back) or shoulder blades which touch when the dog stoops to put its nose to the ground. There is no such thing as the perfect dog; it’s vital to judge the whole dog, not descending on the animal, oozing praise just because it’s in superla¬tive condition, has powerful hindquarters or a superb head. The sporting dog needs every part of its body to be sound! In КС show rings far too many breeds are judged solely on their heads or their coats or their flashy gait. Movement demonstrates soundness, or reveals flawed physiques; the initial overall appraisal can reveal symmetry and allow assessment of the whole dog. The closer hands-on examination allows the slope of shoulder, the strength of loin, the muscular development, the skeletal frame and the construction of the jaw to be checked. But the sequence of the examination is crucial. For me, it is logical to view the whole dog standing and moving before a closer look is given. And by moving I mean three dimen-sional: going away, going across and then heading directly for me. I am seeking effortless locomotion, a balanced harmonious economical gait and no excessive action, either to the side or off the ground. Does the dog look as though it could go on like this for miles? Any closer examination has, for me, to follow a set sequence: head, jaw, eyes and ears, neck and shoulders together, back and loins together, set of tail and pelvic slope together. Then to the lower case: spread and elbows together, front legs AND feet, thorax and tuck-up, hindlimbs AND feet then coat and character. Judging character isn’t straightforward; I go for the look in the eye, the tail action and the confident body language. We all surely want keen willing up-on-their-toes sporting dogs. Without a set sequence I’d be worried I’d miss something. I am always willing to converse with an exhibitor in the ring but am aware of crafty attempts to influence me. I was once told by the owner of a splay-footed, wry-mouthed, surprisingly flabby lurcher that his dog regularly caught hares ‘single-handed’. ‘But never with his mouth!’ was my response! I am always prepared to discuss my placings with exhibitors at the end of the show; I am always willing to give a view on the ‘state of the entry’ so that some idea is provided on the overall standard of the dogs shown under me. An average dog winning from a tiny entry should not become overrated. In the end, of course, what the dog can do will always be more important than what it looks like. But sound construction will always allow a sporting dog to excel and that is the task of the lurcher judge: to reward soundness, not showiness. Winning dogs get bred from; who wants a kennel full of useless show- offs? But the best physique is squandered without a well-developed desire to hunt, backed by immense determination; an alert eager expression in the eye indicates this and is essential. A judge has to ask himself: will this dog hunt? Can this dog hunt with this anatomy? Better judging, based on a more measured assessment, should lead to the production of better dogs. Fieldsports folk have too much sense to allow such a concept to degenerate into the ‘pretty Polly’ state prevalent in the pedigree dog show rings. Lurcher shows are an enjoyable day out; the only real test for such a dog is in the field. But that enjoy¬able day out can raise standards too if the judges’ criteria are sound. Who wants to win with an unworthy dog?

 Отправлено: 08.12.14 00:59. Заголовок: ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ SELECT..

ПРОДОЛЖЕНИЕ

Скрытый текст

SELECTING THE BLOOD Over a century ago, a Gloucestershire breeder, Capt Graham, decided to re-create the real Irish Wolfhound, and, from the skilful use of blended blood, produced the modern breed. He and his knowledgeable fellow-breeder, Major Gamier, established a number of rules for cross-breeding in the pursuit of a fixed type. These are surely of value to any serious lurcher breeder and can be listed as follows. Quality is much more dependent on the dam than the sire. Muscular development and conformation comes mainly from the dam. Bone and size are more dependent on the sire than the dam. Colour is almost wholly dependent on the sire but coat texture is almost wholly independent of the sire. They considered too that all these attributes became modi¬fied by any impurity of blood, or, in other words, a lack of line-breeding to ‘fix’ traits. With hunting so lim-ited nowadays, I do hope that performance won’t gradually be relegated and false reputation accepted. Down the long years of dog breeders seeking better dogs, some breeders have succeeded and some have not. It is important to learn from those successful breeders and benefit from their hard- earned knowledge. It is vital to learn from the very best breeders not those with the best brag or the loudest voices. Raymond Oppenheimer owned the Ormandy Bull Terriers, the most successful kennel of its time, raising the quality level of the whole breed. Unlike so many show breeders he was happy to share his extensive knowledge of breeding with his peers, his twenty key points for success being: Don't make use of indiscriminate outcrosses, an injudicious one can produce an aggregation of every imaginable fault in the breed. Only line breed to complementary types, a suc¬cessful combination could bring great rewards. Don’t take advice from unsuccessful breeders; if their opinions were worth having, they would have Don’t be kennel-blind; self-deceit is a stepping stone to failure. Don't breed from mediocrities; the absence of fault does not in any way signify the presence of its corresponding virtue. Don’t try to line breed to two dogs at the same time, you will end up line breeding to neither. Don’t assess the worth of a stud dog by his infe¬rior progeny, all dogs sire a proportionately large percentage of rubbish; what matters is how good their best efforts are. Don’t allow personal feelings to influence your choice of a stud dog, the right dog for your bitch is the right dog, no matter who owns it. Don’t allow admiration of a stud dog to blind you to his faults. Don’t mate animals which share the same fault, or you are asking for trouble. Don’t forget that it is the whole dog that counts; if you forget one virtue whilst searching for another you will pay for it. Don’t search for the perfect dog as a mate for your bitch, it doesn’t exist. Don’t be frightened of breeding from animals that have obvious faults, so long as they have compen¬sating virtues. A lack of virtue is by far the greatest fault of all! Don't mate together non-complementary types, an ability to recognise type at a glance is a breeder’s greatest gift. Don’t forget the necessity to presen e head qual¬ity, it will vanish like a dream if you do. Don’t forget that substance, plus quality, should lx* one of your aims; anyone can breed one without the other. A great head plus soundness should lx* your aim. Don't ever try to decry a great dog... a great dog sltould be a source ot' aesiltetic pride and pleasure to all true lovers of tire breed. Don't be satisfied with anything but the best, second best is never good enough. Oppenheimer was a show-dog man but his Bull Terriers triumphed and Ills breeding methods are reflected in his lasting contribution to the breed. He was Itclped by having an outstanding kennel man. the great Tout Horner, but he was very much the guiding light. Can lurchcnncn learn from his words? There is no slrortage of lurdx-rs nowadays, the spotting press is full of notices advertising their sale-, my local Blue Cross rescue kennel is full of unwanted ones! There are most definitely too many Ix’ing bred and if there are so many unwanted ones, too many Ixang disposed of too. Are the ones lx*ing bred any good? Breeding sporting dogs is not just a production line, the ingredx’nts of the product really do matter. Temperament in most family-owned dogs is all too often downgraded or overlooked. Biddability is quite often not actively sought in breeding stock, hut for the novice sportsman the dogs ability to respond to commands can mean tlx difference between retaining or disposing. Л giant lurcher might suit tlic braggers but. in tliesc times, who wants to feed a dog which doesn't fill the pot? Bull blood can bring determina¬tion. persistence and pluck; unwisely chosen, it can bring with it dog-aggression and great stubbornness. Saluki blood can bring considerable handsomeness but docs it produce ralibit-catchers? Decrliound blood can bestow stature but does that suit your country, your quarry, your needs? In his informative book, lurchers ami Lottgdogs (Standfast Press. 1977). Ted Walsh has written: ‘Tile lurcher must liave speed, stamina, brains, courage, nose, soundness and a weatherproof coat. Tlie speed need not lx* quite that of tlx- Grevliouncl-. indeed, it is the pure speed tlwt tires out the Greyhound so quickly. Stamina is essential to tlx’ dog that has to run down Ins game and repeat tl>e exercise as soon as lie has got Ills tongue in again. Without intelli¬gence tlx lurcher cannot be trained in obedience; be must have courage to face thorn licdgcs. wire, rough going and water-, lie must have sufficient nose to follow up and retrieve wounded game.’ Whether your lurcher is rough or smooth coated. 50 or 22 incites, from Collie. Saluki. Deexhound or Whippet Wood, live blend of blood has to meet Ted Walsh’s criteria. As always in Weeding livestock, tlx: shrewd selection of breeding material brings success; the dog will always lx- more important tlum its birth certificate! A stud dog is not good |ust because he is good looking. He must be bred right and not be chance got', or his good points will not force themselves on his progeny. ’ Jocelyn Lucas, Pedigree Dog Breeding, Simpkin, 1025 ‘The breeder who returns from each show with a new rather than an improved ideal rarely accomplishes anything worthwhile, for vacillation in standards is the direct road to confusion of types and to absolute lailurv The rolling stone gathers nothing hut hard knocks.' R E Nicholas, Principles of Dog Brwding, Tixigoixl, 1950 ‘Some men show pedigrees; I show dogs and take the pri2cs.‘ William Graham, Irish Terrier breeder, 1905 ‘The first step in any breeding project is the selection of the female that is to produce one’s future stock. That is one of the most important, if not the most important, clement in any breeding project is beyond dispute. It lias become almost a trite and commonplace saying that the would-be breeder should begin with the best ... The tact that the mating of two champions, which has been tried on numerous occasions, has had particularly disappointing results only goes to prove that the conception of ‘best’ in a breeding and hereditary concept differs from die best in a racing and coursing sense I I Edwards Clarke, The Greyhound, Pri|xilar Dogs, 1965 '. . in the choice of a sine it is necessary to avoid any great and sodden «flange; that is to say, that it seldom answers to pot a little, compact, short working hitch to a great., loose, last and wide-running tlog, unless she is of a much crossed breed, and lie is of the reverse, when the result will he that the progeny will follow his mould, and very few of them will resemble the dam.’ J< Jin Henry Walsh, 7 he Pursuit of Wild Animals for Sport, 1856 GENETICS AND HYBRIDS 'Lord Orford took a lot of trouble over tbe breeding of bis Greyhounds. He tried every sort of cross, including Italian Greyhounds and English lurchers - tbe latter of tbe same type as you still find in use as 'warren dogs' on tbe big Ijeatbs around Tbetford He even tried a bulldog cross. Finally, after seven generations of breeding, begot what were acknowledged to be tbe best Greyhounds of tbe time. They iMd small ears, rat tails, and skins almost without Ijair. together with that innate courage... rather to die than relinquish tbe chase.' James Wentworth Day. the Dog in Sport. Hanap. 1938 It is not unusual to see lurchers advertised for sale with a description of their breeding indicated by percentages. In this way for sale notices announce that a litter is on offer as: dam lA Deerhound Ул Bedlington, sire Vi Greyhound '/> Bcardic. There is a hint behind such an advertisement that the pups will reflect, each and every one of them, those percent¬ages. But genes don't work like that. Such percent¬ages are of interest but not directly of value to the future owner of one of these pups. The pioneer Bullmastiff breeder, S F. Moseley, recorded his formula for breeding as: Taking a mastiff bitch and a bulldog I produce a 50/50. A bitch of these I mate to a mastiff dog and give me a 75% mastiff 25% bullbitch, which I mate to a 50/50 dog. A bitch from this litter is 62‘/2% mastiff 37‘/2% bulldog. I mate this to a 50/50 dog, and a bitch from this litter I put to a 62VM mastiff 37‘/2% bulldog which gives me approximately my ideal 60% mastiff 40% bulldog.’ Now read the words of Bateson in his The Progress of Genetic Research as long ago as 1906: ‘...dogs, for example, derived from a cross a few generations back have been spoken of as 1/8 bulldog, or 1/32 pointer blood, and so forth. Such expressions are quite uncritical, for they neglect the fact that the characters may be transmitted separately and that an animal may have only 1/32 of the ‘blood’ of some progenitor, and yet be pure in one or more of its traits.’ Moseley was rather better at percentages than he was at genetics. It is absurd to expect an individual dog from mixed breeding to reflect in looks and performance the percentages of blood in its genetic composition. It is ridiculous to expect each pup in a litter from mixed breeding to look and perform like its litter- mates. It is scientific nonsense to expect in a litter created by a mating in which 25% of the genes are Bedlington Terrier all the pups resulting to be 25% Bedlington either in looks or performance. There is a random nature to genes which must be taken into account. Tf you breed from good stock you stand a better chance of getting good offspring but it does not rule out the chance of getting the odd duffer. It is difficult too to judge the success rate of a litter once mature. A potentially brilliant working dog can go to a completely useless trainer/handler. A much more limited dog can go to a really gifted trainer/ handler and excel. Which represents the better breeding option? Both dogs come from the same genes. I am suspicious of claims made about one particular sire, one particular dam or one particular mating. We hear about successes not failures; most racehorses mated to big-time winners produce progeny which do not match their deeds. There is however a greater chance of producing winning horses from winning stock; bad luck if you get the one without the winning combination of genes’! The hound expert Newton Rycroft made some interesting observations on heredity. He listed what he called genetic facts’ which included: Light colours in the modern orthodox foxhound have more quality than the dark; the blue descendants of Carmartlxn Nimrod 24 bid better noses than tlx non-blue: the black hounds in die high quality’ Dumfriesshire kennel generally have more quality than the ones with more tan; a Greyhound-Bloodhound mating produced four pups, three looked like the Grey¬hound and had p<x>r noses and tlx one that looked like a Bloodhound had an excellent nose: although black and yellow Labradors occur in tlx same litter, it is tlx blacks which have proved tlxmselves much more successful in field trials. When discussing these items he posed more questions than lx gave answers. But geneticists have linked coat colour with certain skills and head shape is connected with scenting prowess. The American vet Whitney probably cross-bred more dogs titan any other person, and produced more data as a result. One of his aims was to identify what was dominant genetically in the various inherited factors. He found (as did Stockard quite separately) that short legs are dominant over long. He showed that the presence of dew-claw's on the hindlegs was dominant over their absence. He found that Greyhounds have a larger heart and liver than other breeds and pass this on. Whitney found that a cross between the Blood¬hound and the Bull Terrier had a far far greater resistance to distemper than either tlx Blotxlliounds or the Bloodhound X Great Danes in his kennel. His first and second crosses between breeds sliowed bet- ter disease resistance than the pure-bred dogs in his kennel. He recorded that the narrow pointed lxad of the sheepdog is dominant over the broader dished head of tlx Pointer, tliat the elongated head of the Greyhound was dominant over the short-faced Bulldog but that tlx latter was dominant over the Dobermann-type and usually dominant over the Basset hound head. He stated that a narrow' clxst is dominant over a broad clxst. that a screw tail is not linked to tlx Bulldog lxad - as many believe still - and that the compact foot is usually dominant over the more open hare foot. Against that background it would lx a great Ixnefit to our bank of knowledge if lurcher breeders were to keep detailed records of tlxir breeding results, not just performance records but facts of genetic interest too. You don't have to be a highly qualified scientist to notice genetic facts; Mendel, the father of modem genetics was not a scientist, but lie observed what they could not. Someone like my namesake, the highly successful lurcher breeder, must have noted any manner of valuable points which no scientific experiment would have revealed. Cross-breeding dogs can lie much more informative than merely perpetuating a pure breed with a closed gene pool. Cross-breeding to aid a pure breed, or outcrossing as it is known, is becoming less unthinkable for the mote enlightened pedigree dog breeders. It is easy to overlook (IK- fact that all our recognised breeds came to us from cross-breeding. It is often over-looked that live dog insurance companies charge a lower premium for cross-bred dogs than for pure¬bred dogs, based on medical cost research. It is nearly always overlooked tlwt covert cross-breeding gave the Rough Collie the Borzoi head and the show Border Collie its more profuse coat from the Rough Collie. It is conveniently forgotten tlwt outcrosscs to the Greyhound revitalised tlx; Deerhound and those to the springer helped the Field Spaniel. Now further outcrosses are being condoned. SOUK- years ago an outcross from IIK- Boxer to a Spitz breed was tried in order to produce erect cars. More recently Boxers have been crossed with corgis to obtain naturally docked (ails. In Finland. Pinschers and Schnauzcrs are being crossed to widen (IK- gene- pool. They share common ancestors anyway. КС- registered Otterhounds however are unlikely to be outcrossed to the Welsh Hound as they might have been as pack members. In the USA. purpose-bred Assistance Dogs produce a 40% success rate from cross-bred dogs against 33% for pure-breds. In-breeding is coming under greater scientific scrutiny as inheritable defects in pedigree dogs in¬crease. Professional breeders of production animals such as cows. pigs, goats, slreep and horses consider that a coefficient of in-breeding of around 9% is risky. One researcher in America found tliat in dog breeds tltcre is a decline in the average life span of around 7% lor every 10% increase in in-breeding.

 Отправлено: 27.04.15 00:41. Заголовок: вот какой мне сегодн..

вот какой мне сегодня подарок преподнесли: сотый номер журнала "Друг"
а все потому, что там статья Ларисы Чиковой про уиппетов! вот сканы статьи.(если это уже есть на форуме, то все равно пусть будет, да? повторение же мать учения!)))

 Отправлено: 27.04.15 01:14. Заголовок: olmerk, Оля, неужели..

olmerk, Оля, неужели он где-то еще остался? Это журнал сентября 1997 г. Я, в свое время, выкупила у редакции штук 20 и давала в качестве приданого щенкам.

 Отправлено: 27.04.15 01:36. Заголовок: shark :sm36: Лариса..

shark Лариса! да, это и правда раритет!
мне его сегодня на вечерней прогулке с трепетом вручала знакомая владелица девятилетней боксерки. Она симпатизирует нашей породе, присматривается сейчас, к слову, к тигровым чебоксарским уиппетам. Вот и оторвала от сердца!
... я сама , едва пробежав по диагонали, - скорее бросилась сканировать. такие статьи, считаю, надо сохранять для истории! Спасибо Вам за статью!