Un des buts primordiaux d’un club est d’assurer le progrès des qualités des races, ou au moins leur maintien si, par hasard, la perfection est atteinte déjà, la concurrence étant le meilleur stimulant. Sans doute, au sein d’un club, la concurrence existe entre les éleveurs, chacun de ces derniers nourrissant l’ambition de produire mieux que les autres. Mais l’éleveur subit la tendance du club, et celui-ci par son action et ses directives, peut faire évoluer la race dans un sens ou dans l’autre, bon ou mauvais, ou jugé tel. Il peut aussi la confiner dans une stagnation préjudiciable à tout progrès. La personnalité d’un dirigeant de club peut amener d’excellents éleveurs à se retirer du club, de même des querelles, peut être mesquines, mais hélas, fréquentes. Un secrétaire de club qui reçoit de nombreuses demandes de chiots..vente de chiots. .tandis que d’autres éleveurs, produisant mieux, ne trouvant pas le placement de leurs chiots, sont amenés à laisser d’excellentes lices vides., ce qui peut porter préjudice à l’avenir de la race… Supposons que des dirigeants du club, par une habile propagande, fassent admettre par la majorité de ses adhérents ou par seulement les plus influents, l’opportunité de faire évoluer la race dont ils “s’occupent” au point d’en arriver à la modifier tellement qu’une révision du standard s’impose. Par exemple, un chien qui faisait 45cms soit monté à 55 et plus.Tout le squelette sera modifié, ainsi que ses aptitudes et même son moral. On substituera peu à peu non seulement un type différent à l’ancien, peut être même plus qu’une variété. Un jour après plusieurs années, en comparant avec le type évolué à celui du départ, on aura “presque une ” race nouvelle. Ces utilisateurs, gens effacés , subiront la loi du plus fort..Ils assisteront impuissants à l’assassinat d’une race qui leur donnait satisfaction.
A year ago, we decided to expand our pack and a acquire a second Barbet. It was not easy to decide from which litter we would want a dog. When choosing, it was important to us that our future dog would have just as much drive as our ﬁrst Barbet Bluna du Bois des Buis. Also this time it should be a black dog, preferably with white markings. In various visits to the Netherlands and to Switzerland, we met descendants of the English-bred male Novaforesta Dudley and really liked their temperament. We heard that the stud would be used for the last time by the breeder Wendy Preston in her kennel and so we got into contact with her. The female dog was supposed to be Reed’s Fowling Alexia, daughter of Quaciëndas Alex Gauche Unique, who is also an ancestor of Bluna. Mid February 2015 five females and a male were born and so my hopes rose that one of the girls could be for us. Five weeks later I flew to Britain for a short weekend’s visit to see the puppies and to discuss my plans with the breeder. I was the only one who was interested in showing the dog at dog shows and maybe breeding, so Wendy was choosing a girl for me, whose physique and expression was the best. After two weeks I got the OK, that I could get Novaforesta Lily of the Valley (called Pepsi). Now the planning began. The earliest date that Pepsi was allowed to be exported from the UK was 11 April. However, it was only possible to export her into countries that still allow young dogs that have not yet been vaccinated against rabies to be imported, if they own a pet passport and the vet signs a paper that the dog is healthy. Croatia is one of the few countries in the EU that gives permission. As we wanted to spend the Easter holidays with our families in Northern Germany anyway, we decided that I would make a small detour on our way back to Zagreb. I booked a flight for Saturday evening, 11 April from Leipzig to London and from there a direct flight to Zagreb for the following morning, on which I would take Pepsi. In the morning before departure, Wendy sent me a message that the vet in the UK was not willing to issue a pet passport, if she would not get a written document by the government of Croatia saying that Pepsi is allowed to enter the country. She would not accept any general document that I had submitted in advance, because the dog was neither mentioned by name nor was the chip number noted down. Nervously, I sat by the phone and called several authorities in Croatia who each refered me to another office. The authorities were a bit puzzled, because on the official website there is a declaration in Croatian and English that in Croatia, the ”12-week regulation” is still valid, so that an entry permit is not necessary for dogs. At the tenth (it felt like the hundredth) phone call we finally succeeded and spoke with a dog enthusiastic associate of the Department of Agriculture, who sent a detailed e-mail to the British vet. The next day we went on our way, which meant a long sleepless night for me at Heathrow Airport. The next morning at 8 o’ clock, Wendy and her husband Julian arrived with Pepsi at the airport and so the adventure could continue. Pepsi had to be taken through security in an approved pet-carrier. Having passed security, we were accompanied by a security officer of the airport and brought into a separate room where the pet-carrier was examined. After that we awaited our departure in a quiet corner of the airport and Pepsi fell asleep at once on her blanket. Luckily, the seats next to me on the plane were empty and I could put the bag with Pepsi beside me on the seat during the flight. We were all glad when we were all united in Zagreb at the airport again. Pepsi grows and prospers, we go to a puppy training class in our local dog school. The dogs are socialized and we learn focussing, sit, stay, stand. I could take Pepsi to my school a couple of times and we hope that she can continue to be used as a school dog. We hope that Pepsi continues to develop well and that we can soon present her at dog shows in order to make the Barbet better known.
This article may come as total suprise for You. Leendert Bosman have written an article about Barbet roots. Given the knowledge of the author and the depth analysis of sources may this article be the first (of series to come) that deals with all myths and misinterpretation of breed’s history. Good reading The early tracks of the Barbet by Leendert Bosman
“hipoallergenic, hypoallergenic “cosmetics: does not stir up allergies” – PWN Polish Dictionary That’s right, “cosmetics”. More and more children and even adults suffer from various kinds of allergies, it is estimated that more than 20% of the population in developed countries has allergies of some sort. And as we know, demand creates supply, so the number of breeds of dogs (or cats) that supposedly are “hypoallergenic” soon will be counted in tens. In fact, there is no such thing as a hypoallergenic dog breed, no matter if this term means the complete lack of an allergic reaction or lesser strength of such reaction. Fortunately, where myths are created quickly science occurs. In 2011, the American Kennel Club, commissioned researchers to conduct studies on the “hypoallergenic” dog breeds. Researchers examined samples from 190 homes, and amongst dogs deemed non-allergenic there was a Barbet. The result was obvious, “Hypoallergenic classification schemes yielded no statistically significant differences between reportedly hypoallergenic and nonhypoallergenic dogs when considered as either the percentage of homes with detectable dog allergen levels or as the level of dog allergen in homes where it was measurable” (1) On our side of the ocean, the most extensive study was conducted by Danish researchers in 2012. In the prestigious “Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology”, they had published the results of studies in which researchers took a closer look at samples of 356 dogs including: Labradoodle (114 samples), Labrador (54) Poodle (45), Spanish Water Dog (13), Airedelie (24) in comparison with a control group of 106 samples from non-hypoallergenic breeds. Labradors, of course, included a non-hypoallergenic dogs. “(2) The samples were tested for concentrations of can f1, which is the most common dog-allergen. Conclusion of research:: „ So-called hypoallergenic dogs had higher Can f1 levels in hair and coat samples than did control breeds.These differences did not lead to higher levels of environmental exposure to dog allergens. There is no evidence for the classification of certain dog breeds as being ‘‘hypoallergenic.”. Summary of research on the so-called “hypoallergenic dogs and cats,” was done by Dr. Richard Lockey in the article under the title “The Myth of hypoallergenic dogs and cats”: „The concept of a hypoallergenic animal, in this case a dog, is not supported by scientific evidence, just as there is no evidence to support the concept of hypoallergenic cats.”(3) When finally breeders internalize this message, a natural question arises – why some dogs cause allergies and others do not? The answer lies in the very question – “some dogs” and not a breeds of dogs may not cause allergic reactions. Thus, the essence lies in the differences between individual dogs and not between races. Sweden, which has pioneered research on the analysis dog-allergens, lead to some very interesting discoveries (4). At present, the existence of six groups of allergens, named respectively can f1, f2 can, can f3 f4 can, can f5 and f6 can (can as canidae) has been proved. From the group of proteins called lipocalins – are responsible for can f1, can f2, can f4 and can f6, albumin for can f3 and kallikreins for can f5. What is particularly important is that allergens can be present in any combination, and none of them is dominant. The dog can release all allergens and can also release only a few of them or even none. The first allergens to be discovered were can f1 and can f2. Particularly high concentrations of those allergens are present in saliva and dander. From 50 to 70% percent of people with allergies to dogs (the statistics are provided in relation to persons with allergies to dogs), are allergic to can f1, about 25% to can f2 Can f3 is a protein presented in virtually every coat. An estimated 15 to 35% of people have allergies to this particular allergen. Can f4, is structurally similar to an allergen … that can be found in the milk. The allergen is found in saliva and dander. An estimated 15 to 35% of people have allergies to this particular allergen. Can f5, is very interesting. Discovered as a result of studies over an allergic reaction of females to semen. Researchers found that females tend to have an allergic reaction to the so-called PSA (prostate antigen). This means that the allergen is present only in the urine of uncastrated male. 70% is allergic to the allergen. However, its occurrence is strongly limited by the above reasons. Can f6 was discovered in 2010. It causes the allergic reaction of 40% people. Can f6, is almost identical to the cats fel d4 and horses Equ c1. Which may explain why people are often allergic to all three animals. Swedes are trying to find a solution. Fully aware of the unreality of the “hypoallergenic concept” while they also know that the immunosuppressive treatment is extremely difficult, cause side reactions and can not guarantee improvement. The solution they propose is to test certain dog for presence of allergens. This allows you to compare the results with the results of a dog and check whether You both match. Hypoallergenic dog breeds do not exist. It can happen that a man may fit to individual dog. It is a pure luck. Think about the trauma done to the family but also a shock to small puppy that has to be replaced, because he is not “hypoallergenic” as breeder declared. Sources : 1. Dog allergen levels in homes with hypoallergenic compared with nonhypoallergenic dogs 2. Can f 1 levels in hair and homes of different dog breeds Lack of evidence to describe any dog breed as hypoallergenic 3. The myth of hypoallergenic dogs (and cats) 4. Nilsson, OB, M. van Hage, and H. Gronlund, Mammalian-derived respiratory allergens – Implications for diagnosis and therapy of individuals allergic to furry animals. Methods, 2014, 66 (1): p. 86-95. http://www.medi-tec.se/medi-tec/verksamhet-vision
Courtesy of FCI NEWSLETTER (articles were rearragned by date of their creation) When the FCI Newsletter’s Editorial Committee contacted him (Prof. Raymond Triquet) about the preparation of the current FCI Breeds Nomenclature, Prof. Raymond Triquet, former member and President of the FCI Standards Commission, was happy to explain the circumstances in which he prepared this nomenclature and the criteria he used to achieve this extremely important work, an almost universal classification system which has been applied and duplicated around the world, to the extent that it is now THE benchmark on the subject. It therefore gives us great pleasure to pass on to you in a few lines the thoughts of Raymond Triquet, together with those of Doctor Yves Surget, a major figure on the French and international dog scene. Yves De Clercq FCI Executive Director Concerning a componential definition of groups, breeds and varieties (Proposal from Mr Raymond Triquet to the Zootechnics Commission) The definition of the word “breed” given in my dictionary of cynophilia is short and to the point, as is traditional in this type of work: “a group within a species, generally maintained by humans and having distinctive transmissible common characteristics”. So as not to confuse breeds with the “groups” of breeds known to cynophiles within the framework of the FCI and the SCC, let us specify that the breed forms a sub-class included in the class represented by the species. The excellent study presented by Professor Theret in the Revue officielle de la Cynophilie Française provides a definition of the extended breed, as it refers to the morphological, physiological and psychological characteristics which are included in the hereditary type. My definition is made with this in mind. It relates to the entirety of distinctive transmissible common characteristics. These characteristics are common to members of the same breed and they are distinctive within the meaning given to this word in phonology, i.e. that they are opposable to the distinctive characteristics of other breeds. In this definition I have included “maintained by humans” because I was thinking of breeds of dog or other domestic animals and not the human races [translator’s note: this explanation is necessary in French, because the French word for “breed” is “race”]. While the species is derived from nature, the breed is derived from culture, at least within the context of cynophilia. Now let us look at the principle of phonological analysis. /k/ is an occlusive consonant, but it is distinct from other occlusives such as /p/, for example, in that it is velar and not bilabial. /k/ is distinct from /s/ by at least two traits; /s/ is neither a velar nor an occlusive. /k/ and /s/ are nevertheless both consonants. /p/ and /b/ are consonants. Both are occlusive, oral and bilabial. They can be distinguished by a single trait: the former is unvoiced, while the latter is voiced. It could be said that /p/ and /b/ are two “varieties” of a single “breed” of bilabial oral occlusive consonants. /k/ and /s/ belong to different “breeds” and different “groups” because they differ by too many traits. However, they belong to the same “species” of consonants. In the same way, the chihuahua is different from the mastiff by more than one trait. They are, however, both dogs because they have traits common to all dogs: “mammals, carnivores, domestic, members of the species canis familiaris, genus canis, and the family Canidae (digitigrade, non-retractable claws, 42 teeth, etc.)”. They belong to two different breeds and different groups. The mastiff and the dogue de Bordeaux are different, but they have more traits in common than the mastiff and the chihuahua. We can say that they belong to the same group of Molossoids. All of the breeds which have the same series of traits in common belong to the group. It is necessary to identify these traits in order to provide each group with a definition. Any dog which lacks one or more of these pertinent traits does not belong to the group. Hence the definition of group which I will suggest: “a class of breeds with a certain number of distinctive transmissible characteristics in common”. If we use the same componential method for the definition of the breed, we will identify the traits of each breed distinguishing it from other breeds within a single group and/or a single species. A breed will be different if one or more pertinent traits are different. As long as the distinctive transmissible common traits are present, we are talking about the same breed. Let us take a breed for which we have identified a specific number of distinctive traits. Any animal which does not possess these traits belongs to another breed (or even to another group or species). Any animal which possesses these traits belongs to the breed. Any animal which possesses these traits plus one more which is only common to a sub-class included in the class of the breed belongs to a variety. The variety, which has a narrower range of traits, has a linguistically richer understanding than the breed, which is more extended. For this reason, I suggest as a definition of variety: “a subdivision within a breed whose members (possessing the distinctive characteristics of this breed) all also possess a common transmissible characteristic which distinguishes them from other members of the breed (size, colour or texture of coat, carriage of the ears, etc.) For example, the long-haired St. Bernard and the short-haired St. Bernard have all the traits (characteristics) of the St. Bernard, but each has an additional pertinent trait, i.e. one has long hair and the other short, thus representing two varieties of the same breed. Any member of the sub-class “variety” included in the class that is a “breed” belongs to this class. All long-haired St. Bernards and all short-haired St. Bernards belong to the “St. Bernard” class. This method should allow the establishment of a more scientific nomenclature and enable some breeds to be reclassified in the group to which they belong, no longer using the word “breed” to describe what is actually no more than a variety and avoiding groups which are more or less whimsical, even though they have proved useful in administrative terms. Revue Officielle de la Cynophilie Française no. 38, 2nd quarter 1982, Société Centrale Canine. The personal, but not short, account of the breeds nomenclature The SCC (French canine organisation) originally entrusted the task of updating the breeds nomenclature to Doctor Roche. He passed the task on to me in 1981, with the agreement of the Zootechnics Commission of the SCC. Before Doctor Roche, Doctor Luquet had often criticised the famous “yellow sheet”, in other words the list of breeds of the FCI. I quickly realised that there was no point in simply updating the list, but that it had to be completely rewritten from scratch. I believed that it was necessary to sort the different breeds into groups and sub-groups using the distinctive traits that characterise them. The purpose and nationality of each breed are no longer the only criteria. Each breed has become what it is due to a range of distinctive traits. This system was inspired by the phonetic classification of consonants. I submitted an initial article, written in November 1981, to the Zootechnics Commission of the SCC on 3 February 1982 (published in the Revue Officielle de la Cynophilie Française no. 38, 2nd quarter of 1982): “Concerning a componential definition of groups, breeds and varieties”. This article was preceded by a few thoughts on the “revision of the nomenclature of dog breeds” (R.O.C.F., same number, page 16). I then wrote a report for the Zootechnics Commission of 20 April 1983 on a “draft breeds nomenclature”, which appeared in the R.O.C.F. no. 42, in the 3rd quarter of 1983 (distributed to the clubs by the SCC). After receiving feedback that was “sometimes receptive, but always constructive”, I submitted the draft on 23 November 1983 (appeared in R.O.C.F. no. 44 of the 1st quarter of 1984). I then pointed out that, using this method of distinctive traits, “this nomenclature is not inflexible. Any dog not featured in it can find a place. Any breed that appears to need removing can be removed. The only condition is that the arguments should be based on more than passion alone.” I went to Brussels to present my draft. It was rejected by the FCI General Assembly in Amsterdam, and then discussed further. Its development was to continue through 1985, 1986 and 1987. I went to Vienna in May 1986 to explain its principles and organisation. Through the good offices of the President and the SCC Committee, some of the leading figures of the FCI offered their support. The FCI Standards Commission discussed it further in Paris on 8 November 1986. After a number of email exchanges, the draft submitted in Jerusalem on 24 June 1987 by Doctor Paschoud, President of the Standards Commission, and by me was adopted by the General Assembly of the FCI. The Société Centrale Canine then published it, but this was done without taking account of the final modifications of the FCI. Some details had to be explored again at Winterthur initially, then at Vienna on 5 and 6 October 1987. It was finally given the seal of approval. The SCC published the nomenclature in January 1988 in the “Règlements généraux de la Cynophilie Française” and decided that it would come into effect at the latest on 1 June 1988 at all French dog shows. It will be implemented in all FCI member countries on 31 December 1989 at the latest. I hope that, through the sub-groups, it will provide dog shows with a fresh element of competition. After designating the best dogs of each breed, we should be able to have them compete with the best of other breeds within the sub-group. Of course, I can already hear the objections: “we need more time and more judges”. Yes, but what a spectacle to see truly excellent dogs competing with their “near cousins” or “virtual lookalikes” in sub-groups or homogeneous sections rather than seeing dogs slumped in cages for the entire afternoon. And the “Best in Show” would be the perfect example of this. This “new idea” will perhaps catch on. I have sent it to the SCC Committee, who have done me the honour of receiving me. Raymond Triquet Club du Bouledogue Anglais (English Bulldog Club), no. 3, 1988 Breeds Nomenclature As we announced in these columns (SCC Informations), a new breeds nomenclature was adopted by the Fédération Cynologique Internationale at its General Assembly in Israel on 23 and 24 June 1987. The former nomenclature, which my colleagues might vaguely recall skimming through during the first year of their zootechnics studies had effectively become obsolete and contained too many inaccuracies for the leaders of the Sociéte Centrale Canine. Also, in 1979, the Zootechnics Commission was required by the Committee to update the nomenclature in force at that time. Claude Roche was appointed a rapporteur within the Commission. He very quickly appreciated the size of the task he had been given and stated that it was not simply a question of making a few changes, but rather of completely overhauling the classification of the breeds. However, his trade union activities took up a considerable amount of his time and, therefore, due to the significant amount of time and thought that would have to be devoted to the successful completion of this task, Claude Roche requested that another rapporteur be appointed. The Zootechnics Commission then turned to Professor Raymond Triquet of the University of Lille III, the author of the indispensible and accomplished “Dictionnaire de la Cynophilie – Dictionnaire anglo-français du Monde du Chien” to carry out the task of reforming the nomenclature. The former nomenclature included ten groups of breeds. The first group comprised working and non-working sheepdogs and cattle dogs. The second group was composed of guard and protection dogs (Molossoids, Bouviers, various Spitz breeds), both working and non-working. The third group contained the […]