| Welcome to Saluki Preservation. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Interesting Sloughi discussion | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Mar 8 2009, 11:03 AM (734 Views) | |
| sloughi-r | Mar 8 2009, 11:03 AM Post #1 |
|
Advanced Member
  ![]](http://209.85.48.18/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
I occasionally go on THL forum and had a good discussion there a few months back regarding the Sloughi/Saluki debate. Thought some of you who may be interested in further articles and discussion regarding this topic Feathered North African Sloughis Terence Clark has responded and a discussion has continued on the private section of the Sloughi World Forum so to read further you will need to register Reply by Terence Clark and continued discussion |
 |
 
|
| ohiovalley | Mar 8 2009, 03:46 PM Post #2 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Wow, that was a long article. What if you looked at it another way. What if the Saluki/tazi, Sloughi, and Azawakh are not really separate breeds at all? What if they are merely variations developed over time in specific geographical locations under those conditions? How hard is it to understand that people choose what they like and perpetuate it merely by their choosing? What I don't get is the insistence that there is such a thing as pure breed, except in the context of registries. Where do people imagine these 'pure' breeds of dogs originated? It's as silly as thinking Caucasians are distinct from black Africans. This sort of discussion is really futile unless you can start to define terms and give a context for the debate...futile. And that's my 2 cents. ov |
|
|
|
| saluqi | Mar 8 2009, 05:16 PM Post #3 |
|
Advanced Member
|
The first book i ever read about salukis was owned by an eagle by Gerald Summers and was about his life after he finished in the army one of his dogs which was a feathered saluki he brought back with him from north Africa, he says in his book that it was one of the tallest registered saluki at that time ( so what was iit a saluki or a feathered Sloughi :HMMMMM: ) and a eagle |
|
|
|
| sloughi-r | Mar 8 2009, 06:38 PM Post #4 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Well since dogs are all descended from wolves of course they do all come originally from the same place. But genetic studies do prove that some of these ancient breeds are distinct breeds. Sloughi vs Saluki It depends on your view on scientific advances made over the years and what that teaches us. My own opinion is that the evidence presented is pretty conclusive that Saluki and Sloughi are different breeds. And I actually quite like that! Not just because they are different but that there are so many different breeds out there. Otherwise why even given breeds distinct names, why not call them all 'dogs'. As far as the 'long haired or feathered Sloughi' is concerned, this is pretty much covered on the Sloughi World forum so I wont repeat it all again :) |
|
|
|
| Saluqihounds | Mar 8 2009, 10:14 PM Post #5 |
Administrator
|
The problem I have with the genetic studies is how do they know differences on a genetic level actually mean that Saluki's and Sloughis are separate? I mean how do they prove what the genetic studies reveal means anything at all? It's like were dinosaurs smooth or feathered lol? How can you any truly know one way or another? It wouldn't be the first science has got it totally wrong. I am sure I've said this before but I am aware of a burr covered plant that occurs in north Africa that would seriously hinder a feather dog especially one with toe fuzz. That alone would control the occurrence of feathered dogs. The movement of livestock especially sheep can increase the spread of these burrs into areas that perhaps they were not found before and as such feathered dogs might well disapear from werethey were once found. I know one of my favourite hunting grounds became covered in puri puri burs after fleeces were imported from new Zealand. Had I nowhere else to hunt I would had to start keeping only smooth dogs. I'm getting a bit far from the original discussion but my point is these dogs are there to do a job and they will be what is needed to fulfil that purpose Edited by Saluqihounds, Mar 8 2009, 10:18 PM.
|
|
|
|
| DeviodOvTalent | Mar 9 2009, 05:05 AM Post #6 |
Queen of the Desert
|
That first link is actually quite interesting and a very plausible explanation for the lack of the recessive feathering gene in the general Sloughi population. It is possible to greatly reduce the incidence of a recessive in a relatively short time (this was done in Afghans regarding juvenile cataracts) but it does take a concentrated effort by a majority of breeders; I don't know if that would be possible in a native population. I would not find it surprising if the native breeders of Sloughi were breeding 'away' from the feathered dogs; there is a strong aesthetic component to sighthounds and there is no reason to believe that COO breeders are immune to any form of that. If the feathered dogs did not fit that aesthetic mold, they would not be considered correct to breed from. Saluki, the greatest problem with DNA studies on mitochondrial DNA is that you cannot tell if the genes from another breed or whatever are there due to a single incidence of breeding or several breedings, and you cannot tell when these breedings occur. False conclusions can be made. Most wolf populations in the US, for example, have coyote DNA; it's not known whether cross-breeding is a regular occurrence or a rarity. All of these DNA studies, like the Ancient Dog study (Ostrander) are very interesting from an intellectual standpoint but of little practical use. I think some of the emphasis on proving 'separateness' with DNA hinges on the human desire to have something 'special' and different from other things (my dog is special and different, there I am special and different); the DNA studies just reinforce that. I think it was the Ancient Dogs study that showed that Ibizan and Pharoah hounds are of much more recent origin than claimed and there are people in those breeds who will never simply accept that and move on. From a practical standpoint, either in the breeding of dogs for a specific purpose, or in preservationist breeding, the relatedness of the different breeds used is of little value, since it's basically the phenotype and the genotype that produces it that counts and not who is related to what. Anyone who reads my posts knows I am in favor of cross-breeding, whether to produce desired traits, or increase genetic diversity; cross-breeding, like line-breeding and in-breeding, is a tool that should be used intelligently. Sloughi-r, you are the one that posted the picture of the Sloughi that had been inbred on the smooth Saluki crossing on THL, yes? That would be an example of unintelligent cross-breeding; I am an inclusionist type, I like to see a wider variety of types within a breed embraced, and I am no expert on Sloughi, but that dog was lacking in breed type. Though I am fully in favor of cross-breeding I don't want to see it used to produce a homogenized, generic sighthound, whether smooth or coated. |
|
|
|
| sloughi-r | Mar 9 2009, 11:46 AM Post #7 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I dont have a problem with cross-breeding either, I do have a problem with inbreeding because of the health implications. What I also dont like is people for instance crossing the Sloughi with a Saluki and then calling it a Sloughi. It isnt, it's a longdog. And in fact the dog in the photo I posted on THL is a good example of what can go wrong if you dont really know what is going to be thrown up from inbreeding on a different breed. Some of the French Sloughis (who are the most heavily inbred on this line) dont look like Sloughis to me and dont look like they'd be up to doing anything that they were originally bred for. Carrying on in this way does mean that over time the Sloughi 'type' will disappear. I think that's a great shame. That said I've seen enough messed up Sloughis in the UK from inbreeding and lack of knowledge of the breed, there seem to be many people out there who breed without the faintest idea of what they are doing (not just Sloughis, in all breeds). As far as the 'feathered' Sloughi is concerned, I still dont buy it myself. It seems really unlikely that absolutely no feathered hounds are ever seen now. Surely you'd think that on occasion they would still turn up in litters. And if the breeders in the COO were more interested in performance than whether a dog had feathering (and I would assume that given they still work their dogs so this would be the case) then why would they care whether the dogs were feathered or not? But further research into this should give a clearer idea in the future so I guess we have to just wait and see! Is there somewhere online where I can see the article regarding the Ibizan and Pharoah hounds, I hadnt heard of this before. That does sound interesting! |
|
|
|
| saluqi | Mar 9 2009, 01:07 PM Post #8 |
|
Advanced Member
|
From what I've read most of the COO countries have their own name that covers all sight-hound types, its the west that have made the COO names now mean a breed of dog. |
|
|
|
| saluqi | Mar 9 2009, 01:57 PM Post #9 |
|
Advanced Member
|
I find history quite interesting, some countries produce things that can only be made in that country because of the lack of the raw materials or skill. When you look at how far some of these Cultural artifact traveled via the trade routes it seem imposable to me that the same didn't happen with sight-hunting types ,we know it happens now so why not then, and we know it happened with other animals. Most believe the greyhound is descended from sight-hounds from other countries brought here for hunting. Then there is DNA which has a history of red faces and back tracking when they have got it wrong, If you find it imposable like me that there has not been a a trade of sighthounds between countries from then till now then there must be a reason why its not showing up in DNA. |
|
|
|
| saluqi | Mar 9 2009, 02:20 PM Post #10 |
|
Advanced Member
|
one last thought :HMMMMM: :Laugh: , since the development of all of the so called breeds in the west there has been a history of hiding ( culling ) the fact that smooth, feathered, brindle est have been produced in litters. So why now do some have a hard time believing that some of the COO countries as they get more modernised and like to show the rest of the world how proud they are of their cultural heritage that they would not like the idea of a breed of sighthound that only came from their country. |
|
|
|
| ohiovalley | Mar 9 2009, 03:46 PM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Well, I always find it impossible to not throw in a clinker here... "well, since all dogs....from wolves" I'm not aware of any definitive true science which proves that dogs evolved from wolves. I know there are scientists and theories which would like to have that as indisputable...but sorry...it is disputable and the science against it is as valid as that on the other side. And it has nothing to do with my thinking on it, I just have a big problem with theories becoming fact. That said...fast forward...I think in terms of the major groups of dogs we have...guarding, herding, sighthound, etc., they are developed from a purpose-driven standpoint. If you like Coppinger...he will say, behavior has a shape. So I'm talking about the basic shapes which have resulted from similar work and conditions. If you have to divide them, then it would be in that way, rather than an AKC way I guess. I also know that research claiming to identify breeds is seriously flawed, and carries no weight for me at all. ov |
|
|
|
| sloughi-r | Mar 9 2009, 04:37 PM Post #12 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Maybe the reason it does not show up in the DNA is because the breeds are different breeds and always have been. I'm not sure why people find it utterly impossible that this could be the case? People in the COO have certain dogs for certain purposes, if the dogs do what they were bred to do, why would they want to change that by adding a different breed to the mix? And it still doesnt answer the question as to why you never see feathered Sloughis, why there are distinct colour differences between Sloughis and Salukis. Here is a link to the Sloughi Mouseem from last year Sloughi Mouseem 2008 Lots of pictures of lots of dogs. Do you see any Sloughis with Saluki colouring? I dont! In fact there is even a blue mantle at the bottom of the page, once a recognised colour for Sloughis although not anymore (who makes those stupid decisions!!), but I assume as all these dogs are working dogs the fact that this guy owns a colour 'not recognised by breed standards' is neither here nor there to him if the dog does the job he wants it to. I am an athiest for the reason that my brain needs proof before I can make an informed decision on what I believe. Evolution seems a much more plausible explanation as to why we are here than Creation. As I have said elsewhere recently, at one time the greatest minds thought the earth was flat. Thanks to scientific advances we now know that not to be true. There is still more evidence for me personally that the Sloughi and Saluki are two seperate breeds thanks to science - but I appreciate that others have a differing opinion as we are all wired differently. |
|
|
|
| sloughi-r | Mar 9 2009, 04:46 PM Post #13 |
|
Advanced Member
|
Where is the evidence to prove that culling took place? Isnt this another 'theory' dreamt up to back the story that these dogs are all the same breed? If you have any evidence of this I would be interested to see it. In Sloughis I would imagine the first litters out of the smooth Saluki may have had feathered pups which may have been culled but where is the evidence that it went on elsewhere, and from the smooth Afghan come to that? But that would be expected. And why would the guy at the show last year take his blue mantle if he cared what the 'rest of the world' thought. It is no longer a recognised colour in Sloughis. What you also seem to forget is that the people who own many of the Sloughis in these countries are poor people. The SFAA now partners El Wafae in Morocco and helps send medical supplies, wormers, vaccines, flea/tick treatments out there because they cant afford these things for their dogs. I think it sounds highly implausible that they would either care what anyone else thought about their dogs, let alone wasted potentially good working dogs by culling them just because they had feathering or were the incorrect colour. |
|
|
|
| saluqi | Mar 9 2009, 10:22 PM Post #14 |
|
Advanced Member
|
It is fact that COO Sloughis ( a breed to you sloughi-r ) have been sent to other COO in recent times, You can see its true by looking at T Clarks videos or at the pedigree of some salukis. So with the wide spread trading in the past, why was this not also true then as well? Smooth salukis have appeared in litters of feathered salukis from salukis with no smooth blood in them in the USA, why has it not happened in England aswell ? or has it? I've been told and read that it has happened in England and that they have culled them, including brindles. In England a smooth saluki will not do well at the shows so you hardly ever see any show blooded smooth salukis, in the US there are plenty and plenty of smooth show champions, as a lot more like them. Why do you not get feathered Sloughis in the so called pure show bred Sloughis as has happened in the show salukis ( smooths ) ? You say salukis were crossed with Sloughis in the past in some strains of Sloughis, why are there not as many feathered Sloughis as there are smooth in that strain ? or are there ? have they been culled ? if they have why would you think that the same hasn't happened in other Sloughis? and the same goes for colour. You asked us to look at the sloughi mouseem web site, and ask why there are distinct colour differences between Sloughis and Salukis, if you look at the bottom picture that you pointed out you will find out why, it says '' The only blue mantle I could see, a very rare colour once favoured for the sloughi but no longer allowed by the current standard So what happened to all these blue mantles ? and you say the sloughi owners in these countries aren't interested in colours yet what I'm reading says the opposite, so if it is right and you don't see many blue mantles as they are not allowed in the standard, why should we not think that it hasn't happened to other colours and types of coat ( feathered )? I have also read that Morocco came up with the standerd. |
|
|
|
| sloughi-r | Mar 10 2009, 11:50 AM Post #15 |
|
Advanced Member
|
It is fact that COO Sloughis ( a breed to you sloughi-r ) have been sent to other COO in recent times, You can see its true by looking at T Clarks videos or at the pedigree of some salukis. So with the wide spread trading in the past, why was this not also true then as well? ## I'm not sure what you are saying here - are there Sloughis in some Saluki pedigrees? And in this modern age of course there are dogs that are imported all over the world - the way we travel like everything else has moved on. The thing is I'm not disputing that there 'may' have been feathered Salukis at some point in North Africa, who is to say what went on? But even if that were true (and I still think it's a big 'if'), why MUST they have been crossed with smooth haired Sloughis? Again, none of this has any factual evidence to back it up. Smooth salukis have appeared in litters of feathered salukis from salukis with no smooth blood in them in the USA, why has it not happened in England aswell ? or has it? I've been told and read that it has happened in England and that they have culled them, including brindles. ## I dont know enough about Salukis to comment on this. Although you are still relying on second hand information that is based on 'what you have been told', and 'what you have read'. This doesnt give a base for factual evidence. In England a smooth saluki will not do well at the shows so you hardly ever see any show blooded smooth salukis, in the US there are plenty and plenty of smooth show champions, as a lot more like them. Why do you not get feathered Sloughis in the so called pure show bred Sloughis as has happened in the show salukis ( smooths ) ? ## Because there has never been such a thing as a feathered Sloughi - I thought that was what we were talking about! You have said you think the scientific research into this is flawed. I disagree. You say there have been feathered litters that were culled but have no concrete evidence to support this. As I tried to explain before, I need factual evidence to follow a line of thinking and this one just doesnt add up for me personally. You say salukis were crossed with Sloughis in the past in some strains of Sloughis, why are there not as many feathered Sloughis as there are smooth in that strain ? or are there ? have they been culled ? if they have why would you think that the same hasn't happened in other Sloughis? and the same goes for colour. ## Because the people who bred on the Saluki line said that the dog was a Sloughi. Of course they were going to cull feathered puppies otherwise it would be proven that they had done just that. The dog was imported and registered by John Burchard who, despite being a so called expert on Salukis, thought the dog was a Sloughi. He sired a few litters (I think it was 3 although I'd have to recheck that), when his feathered Saluki sister turned up (who I believe appears in the Tepe Gawra Salukis lines) and they realised a mistake had been made. The Swiss Kennel Club banned the dog from being used as a Sloughi stud BUT the people who bred those litters carried on breeding on those lines (and still today HEAVILY inbreed on that line). This is not only all on public record but we also have emails from John Burchard's ex-wife confirming this to be the case. The smooth Saluki is in many of the French Sloughi blood lines today hence the reason the German Sloughi Club banned any of their dogs ever being crossed with these particular dogs. Given how the people who breed these dogs have little regard for any of this I assume that culling feathered puppies means nothing to them either. The same hasnt happened in other Sloughis because they are pure Sloughis who have never been feathered. You asked us to look at the sloughi mouseem web site, and ask why there are distinct colour differences between Sloughis and Salukis, if you look at the bottom picture that you pointed out you will find out why, it says '' The only blue mantle I could see, a very rare colour once favoured for the sloughi but no longer allowed by the current standard So what happened to all these blue mantles ? and you say the sloughi owners in these countries aren't interested in colours yet what I'm reading says the opposite, so if it is right and you don't see many blue mantles as they are not allowed in the standard, why should we not think that it hasn't happened to other colours and types of coat ( feathered )? I have also read that Morocco came up with the standerd. ## From what I understand the dilute colours are rare anyway so you would not expect to see lots of these dogs with that colouring. But you'd have to talk to someone qualified to talk to you about that in more detail which I am not. I can probably find more detail on this in my archives on my old computer if you are interested in reading about it. The fact still remains that I have still seen no concrete factual evidence to support the theory that Sloughis may have been feathered. But possibly we have to agree to disagree! Caroline |
|
|
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Other · Next Topic » |
6:09 PM Jul 31
