有时这对我们这些纯种犬行内人士和自称的纯种犬保护者来说，无疑是一种恰当有益的锻炼方式，我们要从长远和多方位的角度来慎重考虑犬类所应具备的普遍特征。这样做的目的也许会被认为是种潜在的补救措施，甚至可能是治疗手段。或者可以说是仅仅让自己安心的一种方式，告诉自己我们仍然走在正确的路上。如果只是为了满足自己，那么定期的评论和复审始终是一个行之有效的途径，至少或多或少都是好的方式。所有这些，我们都必须要抱着客观，诚实和理性的态度去对待。我们是否尽力并合理地在努力保护每一个犬种被认为是犬型典范的这些个性特征？我们有否坚持关注纯种犬的生理健康和整体的心理状况？有时出现的故意极端繁殖，进而对犬福利产生危害，我们是不是难辞其咎？出现这种行为，我们有没有对此负起相应的责任，甚或得到被关押自省的惩罚？这些发散性问题一直流传于犬业文化圈中，让我们能不断认清自己。这些犬种繁殖者和犬赛参展者见证着这个古老国家在纯种犬业上所经历的改变，他们正接受日益严苛的审查，从某种程度上说，他们的压力是非常大的。不幸的是，其中有一部分已经偏离了方向，特性变化无常，且极其不合理。如果适得其反该怎么办？这个世界已经不再是个人有权自由放任地去做他们所希望和追求个人所有的目标了；显然，这个世界也不是互相尊重和实质性探讨就会达成共识这个规律在关键问题的决策中会起到至关重要的作用。
在很多方面，最近在英国发生的几桩事件可以说是对尊重和理性，对传奇过去，对伟大传统，以及对光荣历史一次又一次的莫大侮辱；更不用说是当着时下致力于繁殖的人们一次毫无根据的侮辱。对于今年早些时候在克鲁夫茨犬展上进行的所谓健康测试，我只想用“荒诞可笑"的字眼来形容。如果说是“愚蠢的"，会不会用词太过激烈了？也许不会！长期以来建立的和惯有的信仰、思想、行动和行为的模式似乎已经被摈弃了。犬界文化的连续性和平稳性已经被打破了。先前留下来的文化遗产也已遭践踏。毫无疑问，现在存在着一些违背或者超出游戏规则的问题，这直接导致了这些可预测的不良结果。此外，还有草率的，肤浅的，过分简单化的因素正在蠢蠢欲动。显然，我们想要努力尝试将有力信息传承延续，但这历史的滚滚车轮已经散了架。这就是我们的经商之道吗？这就是我们对待原本雄心勃勃的犬业运动参与者的方式？从一个恰当的历史角度上，回顾过去，看起来一定会有十分盲目、疯狂和错位的时期。让我们衷心希望，终有一天，更加明智和开放的思想将成为主导，至少能将一部分补救回来。这一份宝贵的遗产正在生死存亡间，危如累卵！想象一下，是什么让一些像佛罗伦斯·纳格尔和阿纳斯塔西亚·诺博这样的犬种支柱手里还会出现这样的情况。要是泉下有知，他们肯定不答应。时过境迁，那些根深蒂固的精神亦是如此。信仰的指导性显然已经失去了它的作用，如今，许多人都停留在完全不同于其他的层面上。这简直糟透了！
每当我们想要有意义地、明智地去看待单个犬种的各方面条件，以反映出我们赛犬的特殊性，或者想要将它们的现状摆到某个合适的角度上去看，都应当考虑到它们自身的遗传因素和基因影响。这个犬种特有的来龙去脉必须被大家所认知。我们不能想当然的把犬从它的历史中孤立开来。我之前的文章曾经涉及到这个问题，但是还没有像这里表述得这么直观。我们迫切需要思考一些实质性的，深层次的东西。这绝不能是下意识的，目光短浅的一些普通的外在情绪或观念。带目的性的吹毛求疵不是我们该做的。肯定不是这样的。那我们要怎么实现目标呢？首先，就我们所了解的，以及在人为干预下的历史演变而来犬种，从某种意义上讲，在多数情况下都是相当复杂的一个过程。当然，这其中也会存在一些问题，但让我们先用正确的观点来看待。长久以来，我们都根据特定的目的来对犬的特性进行选择，我们也无法轻易的破坏或消除这些经过常年基金结合的特性。你不可能在一夜之间恢复到之前的形态。事情远没有这么简单；简直太复杂了！举个例子，优生遗传的现象一直在纯种犬繁殖中起着关键性的影响。
从历史角度来看，犬种的发展方向很大程度上是受到某些重要犬只的遗传因素影响，它们能将自己的能力通过基因传输给后代以特定的性能。某一个积累沉淀的作用力一直在犬种的发展和完善中扮演着极为重要的角色。这个能力的内在价值一直被有责任感的繁殖者所认可，正是这些繁殖者通过多年不断的挑选，将犬种朝着健康，精炼的方向发展。因此，我们总是将强势的种犬进行整合。事实上，正如我在先前这里发表的一篇文章里所建议的，我们也许可以这么说，我们犬种许多现在的状态（并不一定是大多数），在各自不同的喜爱情况，都是受一小部分强势犬遗传影响的结果。我在这里所指出的，当然，是针对这些专业从事犬类繁殖，参加需要评选“犬型"的结构展的繁殖者们，对他们来说，所有这些都是至关重要的。他们要服务于犬种，对稳定性的保留多加练习，否则就会发生不可避免的改变。这样一来这些部分特性相互抵触的犬，就会对原有的施加压力，这就是我们称之为的犬种繁殖中的“阻力"；这个奇特的生物学趋势又会带回到原来的状态。没有这些伟大的繁殖者（制造者）将这些基因保留遗传下来，现在我们所看到的犬种又将会是怎样的一番景象？我，包括巴吉度猎犬，克伦伯猎犬，北京犬（它是我最喜爱的，现在已经十三岁了，我写这篇文章的时候，它正趴在我边上休息）都不会是现在这个样子了！那么我们又走到哪一步了？我们是不是要摈弃那些先前累积下来的宝贵财富，仅仅因为环节中观念的错误，让犬有了所谓“不健康"的表现。有谁可以告诉我，这一切的意义又何在？
有关犬种繁殖谱系的一个不容置疑的事实是，并非所有动物都一定将它们自身的能力平等地遗传到它们的后代，以至保留这些人们认为值得永存的优势和特性。这一直都被看作是一种碰巧的事情，这就是为什么当有一天它们确实发生，为繁殖者所认可之后，它会有这么大的价值性意义。因此，种犬的重要性日渐加深，这样就能在一定程度上确保其优秀的特性一代一代地延续下去。这是有关巩固和连续性的内容。试想，如果一名兽医或者其他在它们身上诊断出了不健康的因素，无法由于过去负伤所留下的角膜结痂而无法继续参加比赛，我们该怎么办？不觉得这个问题很可笑吗？一个犬种的出色卓越通常是直接表现于其有限数量的祖先所代表的自然且未受影响的，通过过去几十年许多代犬的繁殖而呈现的主导优势。这就是纯种犬的一个不断发展的过程。换句话说，先前的遗留很少是广泛而基础的，但是它依赖于个别而并不是很多的遗传基因。一般水平上的后代繁殖是优秀制造者的职责，不过它们的数量在任何时期都是相对较少的。每一位繁殖者对此都了如指掌。如果我们逐一对各个犬种的历史进程进行下回顾的话，很容易就能发现，有大量证据表明，我们正在不断地进步和发展，通过一小部分具备特别强势的犬的持续遗传而提高了整体的质量。多年来，高度敏感和睿智的繁殖者还结合了犬自身的影响能力，并有效地加以利用。
那么，我又应该何去何从呢？当然，可以尝试文中提到的，对犬进行健康评估。我们都很关心谱系保留的完整性。在我们国家，养犬俱乐部的道德标准是要求将犬的身心健康放在首要位置，且理应如此。没有人能就这个方面来怀疑繁殖者的承诺。然而，很显然，还是有一个非常危险的信号存在，人们失去了基准，因此冒险扔掉了那些我们继承于先前执着奉献的繁殖者的繁殖活动。正如我所说的，某一个的遗留是存在潜在危害的。克鲁夫茨展事件（文章第二段所提及的所谓健康测试）最糟糕的部分就是，权威机构在尊重方面的可怕缺失，以及对参加此次比赛的个体（尤其是裁判）一定程度的不敬和损害。这就是你们所说的缺乏敏感性。这么做目的何在？会出成果，进而成功吗？表面上说，是为了维护纯种犬身心健康。这些照本宣科，成词滥调的理由在当时看来简直就是对人类智慧的侮辱。这是在一个根深蒂固的官僚政治体系下招摇卖弄的个例吗？养犬俱乐部一定会对此产生厌恶，并成功地予以了公开谴责。接下来，犬业联盟着手处理了此次事件的后续。事态如何发展，我们将持续关注。
作者：Gareth Morgan-Jones博士
作者简介：
Gareth Morgan-Jones是英国诺丁汉大学的哲学博士，同时也是威尔士大学科学博士的学位。他在奥本大学任职肠道三十八年，退休时获杰出大学教授的荣誉。他获有AKC比赛大赏的审查资质，此外还包括玩具犬组，十六个运动犬组和彭布罗克威尔士柯基犬的审查资质。更多详情请登录morgangj@charter.net进行查阅。
Hereditary Legacies
Dr. Gareth Morgan-Jones
On occasion it is surely an appropriate and salutary exercise for us, as connoisseurs and self-appointed guardians of the pedigreed dog, to reflect upon the prevailing condition of our animals from a long-term and multidimensional perspective. The aim in doing so may be viewed as potentially remedial and possibly even curative. Or it may be considered merely as a means of reassuring ourselves that we remain on the right track, so to speak. A periodic review of the state of things in this regard is always an useful undertaking if only to satisfy ourselves that all is more or less well. In all of this we have to be objective, honest and rational. How well are we preserving those characteristics which are deemed typical of each breed? How well are we protecting the ongoing health and overall well-being of our purebred dogs? How guilty are we of sometimes purposefully breeding for extremes and thereby possibly jeopardizing their welfare? Are we being held sufficiently accountable for our actions in these regards? These are some of the seminal questions doing the rounds in the culture in which we now find ourselves. Witness what is currently going on in the old country, where those who breed and exhibit dogs are under much-increased scrutiny and, thereby, in some cases, considerable duress. Some of this has, unfortunately, been absurdly capricious and highly irrational. How about counterproductive? It is no longer a world in which individuals have the freedom to do as they wish and pursue particular, personally-held, goals; it is apparently no longer a world in which mutual respect and substantive discussion, resulting in consensus building, plays a role in critical decision making.
In many ways the recent turn of events in the United Kingdom amounts to an abject insult to decency and reason, to the legacy of the past, to a great tradition, to a glorious history; let alone an unwarranted slap in the face to present-day breeders. Of the so-called health testing conducted earlier this year at Crufts, the word ‘ridiculous’ readily comes to mind. Might ‘idiotic’, I wonder, be too strong a word to use? Probably not! A long-established and customary pattern of belief, thought, action, and behavior has seemingly been abandoned. Cultural continuity and equanimity has been broken. An inheritance has been trodden upon. There has undoubtedly been a serious betrayal and overkill in play and this has led to predictable reactions. Moreover, it has to be said, there has been an element of that which is cursory, simplistic and superficial in what has happened. In an attempt to deliver some sort of strong message, the proverbial wheels clearly came off. Is this the way to conduct business? Is this the way to treat participants in the sport? Viewed in the light of the past, in a properly historical perspective, it certainly all seems so utterly mindless, off-the-wall and out-of-sync. Let us all hope that, ultimately, wiser, more-enlightened heads and minds will prevail and some class will return. A precious legacy is at stake! Just imagine what those pillars of their breeds, Florence Nagle or Anastasia Noble would, or might, make of it all. They could well be turning over in their graves. The times have surely changed and so has the underlying ethos. Guiding beliefs have apparently gone haywire, with lots of folks now ending up on radically different pages. Not at all good!
Whenever we attempt to meaningfully and intelligently look upon the condition of individual breeds, as reflected specifically in our show dogs, and attempt to place their present state in some sort of appropriate perspective, account has to be surely taken of hereditary legacies and genetic influences. There is a particular context in which all of this has to be viewed. One cannot reasonably divorce a breed from its past history. I have written about this previously but it has never been more relevant than presently. We desperately need some substantive, in-depth thinking here. It cannot all be about knee-jerk, short-sighted reacting to some prevailing outside sentiment. Setting about to purposefully find eye blemishes isn’t exactly what we should be doing. This surely is not what it should be all about. What does that achieve? For a start our breeds, as we know them today, and their man-induced evolutionary history are, in a sense, in many instances, a cauldron of complexities. Certainly there are problems but let us keep everything in proper perspective. Selections have been made over many years with particular purposes in mind and one cannot easily, necessarily and summarily undo that which has been genetically consolidated over time, over very many years. You cannot revert to a prior form overnight. It’s not at all that simple; far from it! Take, for instance, the critical role which the phenomenon of prepotency has traditionally played in the breeding of pedigreed dogs.
Historically, the directions which breeds have taken have in large part been dictated by the genetic influence of certain important dogs noted for their ability to consistently transmit particular characteristics to their offspring. A certain cumulative force has always played a significant role in breed development and refinement. The intrinsic value of this capacity has long been recognized among the responsible breeders who have moved breeds forward by selection, and kept them healthy whilst refining their form through the years. Hence the consolidation which invariably accompanies the frequent and intelligent use of such sires. In fact, as I suggested in an article published in this magazine some time ago, it is probably true to say that the present-day condition of many, if not most, of our breeds is a direct result of the influence, in each respective case, of a relatively small number of prepotent dogs. I am referring here, of course, to dogs bred specifically for purposes of competing in conformation competition where ‘type’, in all of its aspects, is paramount. They have served to anchor breeds and exercise some stability in what otherwise has inevitably been a sort of drift. These are the dogs which have countervailed, have exerted a force against that phenomenon which we sometimes refer to as breed ‘drag’; that peculiar biological tendency to revert to a prior state. Without the great producers, the hereditary pillars, where would each of our breeds be today? I’m including Basset Hounds, Clumber Spaniels, and Pekingese (of which I have a much beloved thirteen-year-old at my feet as I write this) here! So now where are we with all of this? Are we to throw out this cumulative hereditary legacy because of the false notion doing the rounds that these breeds are currently ‘unhealthy’? Where is the sense in all of this, pray tell?
One of the fundamental truths about breeding pedigreed dogs is that not all animals are necessarily created equal in terms of their ability to transmit to their offspring those virtues and characteristics which are deemed worthy of perpetuation. This has always been seemingly something of a hit and miss activity, which is why prepotency becomes such a valuable commodity if and when it occurs and is recognized by the astute breeder. Hence the increased importance of sires that can consistently transfer to their progeny a certain level of quality which can perpetuate on through the generations. This is all about consolidation and continuity. So what happens when some such animal is declared unhealthy by one veterinarian or other, and unworthy of even competing because of corneal scarring due to a past injury? How ridiculous is this? Excellence in a breed is oftentimes a direct reflection of the dominating prepotency of a highly limited number of ancestors whilst it stands relatively unaffected and unimpacted by many of the dogs bred and exhibited over the course of decades. This is how the history of the purebred dog had progressed. In other words, the legacy is rarely broadly based but is dependent upon the genetic contribution made by the few rather than the many. The procreation of offspring which can be considered above average is the province of the great producers and they are comparatively few in number at any one time. Every breeder of consequence surely knows this. If we look at this in a historical context, breed by breed, we readily see plenty of evidence that development has been advanced, and increased quality has been subsequently sustained by numerically small numbers of exceptionally prepotent dogs. Hand in hand with the influencing capacity of the dogs themselves has been the acuity and perspicacity of the breeders who have, over the years, recognized potential and made very good use of it.
So where am I going with all of this? An attempt is, of course, being made herein to put this business of dog health evaluation in appropriate context. We are all very concerned with maintaining the well-being of pedigreed dogs. In this country the Codes of Ethics of our parent clubs require that this be given paramount attention and rightly so. No one can doubt the commitment of our breeders in this regard. There is clearly a very real danger out there, however, that people lose perspective and thereby risk throwing away that which we have inherited from the activity of generations upon generations of conscientious breeders. As I say, a certain legacy is potentially jeopardized. The worst part of the Crufts debacle was the horrid lack of respect on the part of those in authority and the considerable insult which was rendered a number of individuals of stature (particularly judges) within the sport. You talk about a lack of sensitivity. To what purpose? Was anything achieved? To safeguard the health and well-being of purebred dogs, ostensibly. The scripted, platitudinous justification which was offered seemed at the time an insult to one’s intelligence. Was this a case of an entrenched bureaucracy gone recklessly berserk and ostentatiously showboating? The Kennel Club certainly succeeded in generating much disgust and overt condemnation. But then The Canine Alliance got on its case. It will be interesting to see where things go from here.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Gareth Morgan-Jones holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Nottingham, England, and a Doctor of Science degree from his alma mater, the University of Wales. Now retired, he carries the title of Distinguished University Professor Emeritus at Auburn University, where he was a member of the faculty for thirty-eight years. He is approved by the AKC to judge Best in Show, the Hound and Toy Groups, sixteen Sporting breeds, and Pembroke Welsh Corgis. He can be reached at morgangj@charter.net.