Interview with Gerrit Vlieghuis

“Some Judges are only ever consistent in one thing: their consistent refusal to be consistent”

You make a definite distinction between judging and breeding; you always refer to Puck as the breeder, and to yourself as the judge. Is it possible to divide these areas so precisely?

I don’t mean, when I refer to Puck as the breeder, that I don’t think of myself as a breeder. But I do think that you should make a distinction between being a breeder and giving direction to the general breeding of Afghans. I think that one of the disadvantages of having both, a breeder and a judge, in the same family is that the actual breeder, and in my case is this Puck, can, if you’re not careful, get pushed into the background.

You are well known as a disciple of Eta Pauptit. How important is she for you ?

Very important, but not singularly important. Every newcomer in pedigree dogs lets himself be influenced – at least initially – by the breeder from whom he bought his first dog. And the result is that the novice generally prefers that breeder’s type of dog. Then they go to shows themselves, see other dogs, get to know other types, and then the novice makes his own choice. And that may remain the same – it may change. We started, as you know, with St. Bernard’s, and visited the shows with them. So when Puck decided to go into Afghan Hounds, that was in 1968 or thereabouts, we looked at the catalogues we had collected at the shows. We soon saw that the vdOM Afghan Hounds seemed to win almost everything. Not only that, we actually felt that they were Afghan Hounds as they were meant to be. Obviously, therefore, when we decided to start in Afghan Hounds, we went to Eta for our fist dog, a bitch, Ambra el Thani, by Topper out of Eschghi’s Cedes. We later visited other kennels. We started discussing about Afghan Hounds with friends from the dog world (we were, after all, already active with our St. Bernard’s) and then we realized that it might be possible to become judges. We followed an AKK course, then the course Exterior and Movement – which we both passed – and then we did very little. In fact, more than two years passed before I took a judging examination. The reason was that I kept asking myself whether I really wanted to become a judge. And if I did become a judge, what the consequences would be for us. How would we enjoy this new aspect of our hobby. Finally, I decided that I would become a judge and Puck decided that she would not. The reasons for my decision were that I felt that I could make some contribution towards the breed, help keeping it up to standard, if you like. I started by taking the examination for St. Barnard’s, after all, that was the breed I knew the best at that time. In the meantime, I had applied for an examination for Afghan Hounds. That was, I think, in 1975. So, then you are a judge …

The first time you enter the ring as a judge, you have to make a decision, and this applies to any new judge. You have to decide how you are going to put your ideas into practice, or in other words, what sort of judge you are going to be. After all, once you have become a judge, and the Dutch system is, I think, a very good one, then you already have a very good idea about the standard and so on. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the mental picture is complete, but you do have enough background to see you through your first judging appointments, and show the exhibitors and the people round the ring what your ideas are. Whether they are right or wrong isn’t the point at the moment. But you should be able to show exhibitors what type you prefer, and what your main ideas about the breed are. I have always maintained that at the end of the day, everybody should understand what a judge has done. It should be obvious for everybody. This is difficult, I know, when you only have two or three dogs entered, but in Afghan Hounds, with entries of 50 and more, any judge should be able to make his intentions clear.

And this brings us to one of the less pleasant sides of the show world. The fact that some judges are consistent in only one thing: their consistent refusal to be consistent.

I should like to mention a remark made by Toepel in his dog encyclopedia under the article of the Afghan Hound. He warns the breeders not to bring in the Trojan Horses. What I think he means by that is that some breeders produce dogs that have little to do with the Afghan Hound and show them under selected judges, who then approve these novelties. And that remark of Toepel is just as valid today, after all those years. Some judges still haven’t learnt the lesson intended.

Why do you think this is true?

I think that most judges follow the breeders rather than show them the way. They do not give any direction to the breed or to the breeders. I think there are several reasons for this. First, some judges just don’t understand the fine points of all the breeds they judge. Then there are judges who judge to norms that they should not take into consideration. I’m not talking about judging who is on the other end of the line. But I think some judges take the importance of certain exhibitors into consideration when judging. In other words, if a judge doesn’t really have a 100 % understanding of the breed he is judging, and this is particularly true for those breeds that a judge gathers on the side, as it were (and if you take on too many breeds, then you don’t have enough time to get to know them well) then he could be tempted to judge according to the relative importance of the exhibitor. He is tempted to assume that a relatively well known exhibitor has a good dog, and is tempted either to place that dog first, or to use that particularly dog as his “ideal” for the day.

I think any judge must have a mental picture of the breed he judges, which he develops from his knowledge of the standard, something every judge will say this is true. And when he is judging, he must compare very dog individually against this mental picture. Now there are judges who do not have this mental picture firmly in their mind, and so, when they start judging, they must first of all build up that picture for themselves. And so they use the dog of an important exhibitor as the starting point. Perhaps this is why so many people say that a good judge can see a good dog straight away. And that’s true of course. Anybody with any feeling for dogs can pick out a good one from a group in the ring. And generally, that good one will do well in the class. But that’s not really the point: if that particular dog happens to have a number of things which are less desirable within the breed, and the judge uses that dog as his “standard” for the day, then he is applying the wrong norms.

The first time you judged Afghan Hounds at a large show was at a NVOW Club match. Most people were surprised that you were very strict in your qualifications. I don’t believe that you have ever been so strict since. What were your reasons then?

That’s a very good question, but first, of course, we have to see whether, in fact, I did judge so harshly, or whether I have never judged so strictly since. I think you would have to compare the class then and the same class now.

If I look back on it, however, I think that it is very possible that I was very strict. And I can easily explain why. I have always forced myself, right from my very first judging assignment, to give each dog a qualification straight away. By that I mean that when I judge a dog, I give it the qualification I think it deserves at the very moment I write my judging report. And I have the qualification written straight up on the board. I don’t wait until I have judged the whole class. I think, in this way, the exhibitor, the public, and anybody else who may be interested is kept up to date.

I think this system has a number of advantages:
• you avoid the temptation of changing qualifications later on during the show (that’s no longer possible with the system I adopt)
• you avoid exhibitors having to wait a long time in the ring
• you avoid the excitement and/or disappointment, something inherent in our qualification system, which might affect all the exhibitors at the same time.
Everything is spread out over the length of the judging, and I personally think this is far more pleasant for everybody. It helps avoiding the whole day being spoilt.

But back to that “strict” judging. I think that’s possible. The system I have just described forces me to qualify at once, and if you start by being too strict, or rather, by trying to avoid being too generous, you could end up giving a dog at the beginning of a class a lower qualification than he might deserve. But then you can’t give dogs of a similar quality later in the class a higher qualification, because that would not be fair to the previous dogs.

My first few judging appointments always left me with questions marks. Driving home after the show, I would start thinking “Perhaps that qualification could have been a little bit higher”, and on other occasions I would wonder whether I hadn’t been too generous. There are times when I am sure this has been the case. And as far as I’m concerned, being to generous is worse than being to strict.

But what happens, or at least what happened to me, I believe, is that after four or five judging sessions, you begin to grow more stable in the qualifications you give to dogs. And that is one of the reasons why I feel that criticism of judges on their first few appearances is wrong. I think that you should follow the judging of a new judge for three or four times, take an average from these appearances, and the form your opinion about his abilities, but not immediately after his first appearance. A judge must be given the right to make an appearance. He must be given the opportunity of perfecting his mental image of the breed. And to do that, he must be given the chance of judging more than once.

Do you think that judges are invited to appear at important shows too quickly?

No, I don’t. I think any organizing committee has the right to take that risk. My first judging appointment was at the NVOW Club match, where I judged the Junior Class. My second appearance was at the Amsterdam Winner. That was pretty scary, believe me. But I’m not a believer in learning judging “in stages”, as it were.

You know, this is a dangerous question, because it touched on one of the negative sides of our show system, and that is, placing a different value on different shows. And that’s complete nonsense, because very time there is a show, no matter how big or small, or every time we get together with dogs, we are engaged in a form of selection. We no longer have the natural selection of nature. We have developed a new form of selection, and we call it a dog show. But people start applying degrees within that selection system. And that is one of the most appalling features of our show system. Nature doesn’t make any distinction in degrees of selection. A weak animal will die or be killed whether it’s Monday, Wednesday or Saturday. But we say, let a judge appear first at a Club match before he starts on International Shows, the implication being that some shows are different to others. An implication, I believe, to be completely wrong.

But there is another point here, and that is that some judges think they have to apply different norms at different levels of shows. And that is equally as stupid. We have convinced ourselves, exhibitors, breeders and judges, that this difference exists. And it doesn’t. We are involved in a process of selection. And that is always the same, no matter where it is applied. At least, that’s my opinion, as a judge.

But do you think it is wrong for exhibitors to consider some shows more important than others?

The difference is in the importance of the competition, not of the selection process, I have mentioned above. And of course exhibitors will recognize that some shows are more important, because there is more to be won. I wouldn’t disagree with that at all. What I do oppose very strongly is the fact that people think that there is also a difference in the selection process. And there shouldn’t be any difference. But we still carry on trying to convince ourselves that that difference actually exists. I even hear judges say that at Club Matches, they give higher qualifications than at other shows, because they don’t want to scare people away from the big shows.

I’d like to give you an illustration, and I’m sure that we all have our own similar story. Some years ago, friends of mine attended a small show with a Pekinese. The all-rounder gave the dog an excellent, and made it best of breed (BOB). It was a qualification that the dog just didn’t deserve, in fact, it didn’t even look like a Pekinese. Anyway, the owners were so enthusiastic because of their success, that they entered the dog at an International Show. There a breed specialist gave it a good. And that was the last time my friends ever entered a show, because, as they said, the big shows were for the “important” people and everything was arranged beforehand.

Now, tell me, who was in the wrong? The owners, novices – don’t forget, the breed specialist, or that judge at the little tiny show?

You’ve spoken a lot about selection. But what do you mean by that?

I need to go back to the beginning, and by that I mean the beginning of everything. We have learnt more and more about Nature. There are circles that intersect each other. And life means surviving in order to live. The struggle is for existence, and the reason for the struggle is existence itself, and the continuation and improvement of the species. When we talk about “selection”, we almost automatically think of the hunter, who needs to be quick enough to catch his prey, because otherwise he will die from starvation. But being hunted is also a form of selection, because the prey has to be intelligent enough to get away from the hunter. And if it does that well, then that species can continue to exist, and breed more of its own kind who are intelligent enough to avoid the grasp of the intelligent hunter. Selection means everything to do with life.

Now when man began keeping animals, selection in its natural form disappeared. But in its place came a selection according to use, because in days gone by, animals which were kept by man had to have some sort of use, whether as food, or for hunting, or for pulling carts, you name it. And this demanded a certain build or a certain character. Animals that were kept by man were bred for these qualities or characteristics. And any animal, which didn’t fulfill these demands, was not kept alive; in fact, they were frequently used as food for the other animals. Just think of the Eskimo’s and their sled dogs. And this wasn’t surprising, because keeping a dog alive which had no use whatsoever was just not possible for most people.

But even that form of selection has disappeared. And, I believe, that is one of the main reasons why we developed the idea of dog shows. I do not believe the idea of a dog show arose because people thought it might be a good idea to have a competition with each other and win prizes. No, I believe that some people saw the need for some form of selection, and thought that comparing dogs with each other could be a good form of selection in itself. But first, they realized that you needed something to compare each dog to, and they developed a description of the breed as they thought it should be: the standard. And the standard offered the possibility of comparing dogs to an ideal and to each other, and this resulted in the concept of a dog show. But the competition was never the main reason, the main reason was to provide a form of selection, so that breeds could be continued and maintained in their most perfect form.

And if people think that this is just my own theory, then that is their good right. But it is a theory that I believe in, and from which I work, and will continue to work as both, breeder and judge.

You say that the show is where selection takes place. But doesn’t the actual selection take place far earlier, with the breeders, who try to produce dogs that will win at shows?

Of course it is a combination of things. People are creative, or at least want to think of themselves as creative. And this is both, an advantage and a disadvantage. There are more than enough examples of the advantages of man’s creativity, the constant striving for new technologies, new medicines, and so on. But if we think of non-static things, a building is static, it can’t be changed, but a living creature, a breed, is far from static, then man’s creativity can be a handicap. Because we are all too eager to change things. We cannot leave them alone. And any change which takes place – or which is made to take place by a breeder, is always defended as an “improvement”. Anything a breeder does which result in changing the original is called “improvement”. And if we later decide that it wasn’t really an improvement at all, then it doesn’t really matter, because the creative breeder is already involved in new improvements.

I should like to turn to another point for the moment: you have mentioned quite frequently a “mental picture” for judges. What exactly is your mental picture?

That is simply my idea of the Mountain Afghan Hound that I have built up in discussions with other people, and with my close contacts with Eta Pauptit over the years. It isn’t based on the very first imports, because I wasn’t around at that time. But it is based on everything I have learned in my time in Afghan Hounds about that mountain type. I would like to give a little example of how my mental image was not formed. A few weeks ago I was talking to a German breeder. He told me that his breeding was based on the vdOM line. And he said that you could see that, because some of his dogs had the same receding hairline that Barukhzy’s Khan had. Now Khan is, in my opinion, not a vdOM dog, but rather one of the dogs that helped settle the vdOM type.

So you see how people use arguments to defend their position, without knowing really what they are talking about.

So, in your opinion, the Mountain Afghan is synonymous with the vdOM type?

Yes, certainly if you consider the stabilized vdOM type. Because you should not forget the vdOM type is recognized wherever you go in the world. I remember talking to a Dutch judge about a visit to South Africa. He told me that he had seen some “Dutch Type” Afghan Hounds there, and when we looked at the catalogue together, we discovered that the dogs in question had either been imported from Eta Pauptit’s kennel, or had been bred from imports from her kennel. The same is true in Denmark and occasionally in Great Britain.

You say “occasionally in Great Britain”. Why?

This is because of the present situation within our breed. Unfortunately, some of the types, if I may use that word, have been given the name of a country. This is true, particularly, of America and Great Britain. We talk of an American type and an English type. I should like to add a third type to that, and that is the “van de Oranje Manege” type. Now I know some people, including the NVOW, have tried to give another name to this type, they call it the West European type. Which is nonsense, because everybody, throughout the world, refers to it as the vdOM type. And I shall continue doing so as well. What’s more, the vdOM kennel as such no longer exists, so I do not believe it is promotion for that kennel as some people imply.

I should like to consider the three types I have mentioned here as main groups within the total Afghan Hound population. Of course there are a lot of transient forms. But basically I believe that we can consider the three groups I have mentioned as “main” groups.

Let me start here with the American type. And I should stress once again that I do not mean here “Afghan Hounds bred in America” but the sort of Afghan Hound which most breeders and experts would consider “American”. Let me tell you how I see this group.

Americans are creative people, with a tendency towards exaggeration. Their country is full of things that are “the biggest”, “the tallest”, “the largest”, and so on. And in my opinion this exaggeration can be seen in the dogs they breed. If we consider the “American Afghan Hound” then we see that it has the “longest” neck within the breed, it has the “longest” hindquarters, which are generally pulled back even farther by the exhibitor, causing the back to slope, and thus do away with the horizontal plane called for in the standard. Its head is long and its skull is narrow, always with that touch of exaggeration, which makes, in my opinion, an American Afghan Hound little more than a caricature of the breed. I honestly believe that if you were to ask somebody who was impressed with and Afghan Hound to draw it some two or three years afterwards (assuming that that person had not seen an Afghan Hound in the meantime, he would come up with something approaching an American type of Afghan Hound. In his mind he would remember the long neck and he would draw it even longer. He would do the same with the hindquarters, and with the coat. He would remember the Afghan Hound as square, and end up drawing a back that is too short. And his impression of an Afghan Hound, even if the one he had seen was a pure vdOM, would turn out something like a caricature, it would look like an American Afghan Hound. And the same is true of sculptors. They exaggerate the things that they consider the most typical for something. That is their good right as a sculptor, a breeder on the other hand has a different task. And that, in my opinion, is to maintain a breed in the form in which they have received it. I don’t, of course, mean in the form shown by their first dog, no, I mean the true original form of the breed.

Now I can understand that some people with Afghan Hounds from American can get very annoyed with people who automatically dismiss them as “American” Afghan Hounds. Because I am quite aware that there are American Afghan Hounds which do not fir in with the general image of the “American Afghan Hounds”. People lump things together. I try not to do that. A dog bred in America can very well for me be an English Afghan Hound, or even a vdOM Afghan Hound. My definition has nothing to do with the place of birth, but with the type that predominates in a particular country.

I have mentioned that my mental picture of an Afghan Hound has been conceived during talks with other people. And I believe this is essential. But I believe such talks are just as essential with people who prefer the exaggeration of an American Afghan Hound. I know that I have often asked people why they particularly like this sort of Afghan Hound. They have generally not been able to give any concrete arguments for their ideas. They say things such as: they like that sort of dog, it appeals to them more, and it is more spectacular. But they never refer to the standard. They have little supporting evidence for their preference.

So what supporting arguments do you have for your preference of the vdOM type?

A Mountain Afghan Hound should not be too large, because any dog, animal, that is too large is less mobile, les agile. And an Afghan Hound must be agile if he is to do his work in the mountains. It must have hindquarters under the body, because, if it is a mountain dog, it will have to spring sometimes, and this can be done better with shorter hindquarters, which can be more easily placed under the body. Long hindquarters will be a hindrance rather than a help. A Mountain Afghan Hound must have a reasonable angulated shoulder, not 45 degrees, but something approaching that, because this improves the agility. A dog needing speed will be more upright in shoulder, but be careful here, because people tend to make too many assumptions. If I say that a dog built for speed generally requires a more upright shoulder, then some people will say: “I breed for speed, therefore the more upright, the better”, and that’s not completely true. I think that a fast dog may very well have a more upright shoulder than we generally like in afghan Hounds, but that doesn’t mean “the more upright the shoulder, the faster the dog”.

To return to the English Afghan Hound, as far as I’ve experienced (and I am talking about seeing English Afghan Hounds at shows in Great Britain but also throughout the continent, because there are many Afghan Hounds imported to Europe from Great Britain), I consider it somewhat degenerated. It is no longer the sort of powerful dog I imagine the Mountain Afghan Hound to be. It is somewhat less impressive. It is often somewhat longer in back, longer in foreface than the Mountain Afghan Hound. Its head is less powerful than what I think a Mountain Afghan Hound would need. After all, an Afghan Hound was originally bred to hunt large game, gazelles and so, and for that it would need a powerful bite. In nature it is often true that strength diminished with length. A long muzzle is less powerful than a shorter muzzle. But don’t think that I think that an Afghan Hound with as short a muzzle as possible is right. That is called exaggeration.

On the other hand, I often hear people saying the vdOM dogs have heavier heads than the English Afghan Hounds, and that is true. Only I would prefer to say that the English Afghan Hounds have finer heads than the vdOM dogs. The only question is what would it be.

Do you believe that type is dependent on the breeders, or on the environment in which they are operating?

I think it is a combination of the two. Certainly the environment is largely responsible for what we call breeds today. It makes its demands on the activities of the animals. A breeder within a certain environment will notice this, and take this into account when developing a breed. But that is not what we are talking about here, because the breed has already been developed by people elsewhere. We cannot let environment play any role in our breeding programs.

On the other hand, I realize that “environment” in the modern sense of the word plays a very large role in the breeding of dogs. If I look at the south of France, then I must admit I see very few Afghan Hounds there which I would call good Afghan Hounds. But then, if you are living in a situation in which little attention is paid to the true facets of the breed, then it is hardly surprising that these are non-existent. And then you get the typical fashion-oriented idea “you grow to like what you see”. When the mini skirt was first introduced, everybody thought it was strange. After a few months we were all enjoying it. And then the maxi skirt came into fashion. We thought that was strange, until we got used to it. With the result that if you saw somebody in a mini skirt you would say she looked silly. The danger in breeding dogs is getting used to what you see around you, rather than looking at what is really good.

You have said that judges are inconsistent. Do you think the same applies for breeders?

I think breeders in general are more consistent than judges. They have to be. If they have planned their breeding program, they cannot change it overnight. They generally have a certain amount of stock in their kennels, and you can’t just get rid of everything and begin again.

On the other hand, there are people who are breeders only because they produce puppies. They have all the various varieties of Afghan Hounds in their kennel and are able to produce the right dog for the right judge. But they, in my opinion, are not breeders; they are exhibitors, and exhibitors who have to win. They are not interested in the breed as such, but in the possibilities of winning in the competition. I prefer breeders who are prepared to stand behind the type they breed, whatever that may be, than breeders who have everything. Inconsistent breeders do as much damage for the breed as inconsistent judges.

I remember a German breeder visiting us for a stud service from one of our dogs. He had an album of photographs with him, showing all his dogs. I looked at them carefully, and told him that he seemed to have every imaginable type in his kennel. He agreed, and told me that he was planning to produce his own type, using the various dogs he had at home. He had no clear mental picture of the Afghan Hound contained in the standard and seemed to me a typical example of the “creative” breeder at its worst.

Do you think it is possible to combine the functions of breeder and judge?

Yes, I do. First, I think that somebody who breeds is better aware of a breed than somebody who is not breeding. I notice this myself when I have to judge breeds that I do not, or have never bred. There is only one breed, and that is the "Berner Sennenhond". I have more difficulty in establishing my mental image of that breed. Of course, a lot of people say that if you are both, breeder and judge, then you have to judge dogs in the ring you have bred yourself, or that you prefer your own type of dog when judging. And that is something I have never been able to understand. If, as a breeder, you are convinced that you have developed the right sort of image for your breeding program, then it would seem to me impossible to change that image when you step into the ring. I’m always amazed at breeders and/or judges who claim that what they breed has no influence on them in the ring. That would imply to me that they have no definitive mental image in their minds of the Afghan Hound, which they consider nearest to the standard. You cannot breed one type and put up another when judging. At least, I can’t.

You are quoted as being an advocate for introducing two standards within the Afghan Hound. Why?

If we go back in time, say fifty to sixty years, to the period when the first real imports came to Great Britain, those of Major Bell Murray and Mrs. Amps, then I think we can assume that they were fairly typical f the original breeds they represented. And let me hereby state that I consider these two “groups” as varieties within the Afghan Hound population. They are not separate breeds, but rather varieties within a single breed. And that is what I shall call them from now on.

Why do you call them two varieties, rather than breeds? After all, Han Jungeling, for example, was convinced that there were originally two separate breeds.

If you talk about the Plain and the Mountain Afghan Hounds, as the two main distinctions, then you are talking about dogs that have been bred by people living under certain circumstances. And this is what I said earlier when talking about selection. People use animals for certain purposes, and the animals attain the sort of form and show the sort of character qualities which are best suited for the purpose in question. And so you arrive at differences in external types, namely the Plain and the Mountain Afghan Hounds. Of course, in all breeds, you will be able to find transient forms, because breeds do not occur spontaneously. Instead you have a gradual progression towards animals, which are well adapted to their living circumstances, and to the purpose for which they are being bred. Now if Mrs. Amps happened to come into contact with people breeding Afghan Hounds in the mountains, while Major Bell Murray happened to meet people who were living in the plains, then, when they both arrived with their Afghan Hounds in Great Britain, you could have considered both groups fairly good representatives of a type. But people, it would seem, are unable to consider types separately, whether as a breed or (as I would prefer under today’s circumstances) as a variety, and so they start mixing them together. Now, if at that time, both “varieties” had been bred separately, then we would still have had those two varieties today.

But that didn’t happen, so why two standards now?

I think you first have to state that it is not because of racing. We have seen that people who have bred pure racing stock, getting closer and closer to the Plains type, still need the occasional input of Mountain blood to help the characters.

On the other hand, there are serious breeders; I personally know one in Switzerland, who has imported the Plain type of Afghan Hounds from her native Poland, who are seriously interested in breeding this variety. But they are obstructed by our present show system. As a judge, you have to follow the standard, and that standard is basically written for the Mountain type of Afghan Hound. So you have little choice but to give low qualifications to the Plain type of Afghan Hound.

I believe that a solution is, indeed, possible. But it isn’t one that will take place overnight. It will need a lot of effort, and a lot of patience. I believe that those people interested in breeding the Plain type of Afghan Hound should get together, and apply to Great Britain, for that is the country which is responsible for the standard of the Afghan Hound, for a new standard specially for the Plain Type of Afghan Hound. I believe that this will imply that the present standard would have to be rewritten towards a stronger idea of the Mountain type of afghan Hound. For there are certain points in our present standard which are the result of a compromise many years ago when the first standard was written.

I believe this would be a good step. But, and I can hear people saying this already, this would not mean that all American and English Afghan Hounds would automatically be classified as Plain Afghan Hounds. That would be stupid. Because, although many of them do not fit in with my picture of what a mountain Afghan Hound should look like, there is no denying that most are nearer the mountain type than the plain type.

I would suggest a transition period, during which judges would be required to state whether the dog should be classified as a Mountain or as a Plain type Afghan Hound. A majority would be required, perhaps over a given number of shows. Then, we could have separate entries for both varieties and we could avoid the unpleasant situation we now have, in which somebody with considerable interest for a breed is penalized because of a political struggle, which took place fifty years ago.

And if this were to happen, what do you consider the future of the vdOM type?

I believe it will continue as strongly as it does today, throughout the world.

In this time of “modernization” maintaining the vdOM type has become even more important. The vdOM members can most certainly make a valuable contribution to the continuation of the vdOM type. Them I wish lots of success.

Gerrit Vlieghuis

Thanks to the following supporters for their contributions:
Eta Pauptit, Lila Wadsworth and Mieke Engelbos
Special thanks to Puck Vlieghuis-Wykstra