Läsarna får försöka ha överseende med att mitt gamla excentriska skrivprogram skämtar med mig och byter färg på texten lite som det känner för och dessutom förskjuter marginaler. Här kommer den engelska versionen av gårdagens inlägg - på väg till FCI. Inte för att jag tror att det påverkar den organisationens ledning på minsta vis, utan bara för att Tamás Jakkels uttalande inte bör få stå oemotsagt. Vi är många, som inte håller med.
"Smoke and mirrors"is the way the English language describes attempts to trick people using misleading information and embellishment.The point is to make the unreal appear real.The phrase comes from old-time stage magicians who used mirrors and puffs of smoke to deflect the audience´s attention from the tricks of their trade, like making an object appear to levitate in the air. In reality, of course, it stays put; the only things moving are the smoke and the hands of the robed magician, waving the wand. They were known as illusionists, those magicians, because creating illusions was their job.
I just came upon an imaginative piece of work using smoke and mirrors. Sadly, the illusionist this time is Tamás Jakkel, President of the FCI.
Tamás Jakkel is Hungarian. He is a medical doctor with oncology as his specialty and holds a teaching professor post at a medical university. He also has another career, a breeder of several breeds and a member of the Hungarian KC with various board positions over the years, and later in the FCI. As a judge, he has travelled all over the world, ”including the most prestigious shows”, as he put it in his self-presentation ahead of the Wolrld Dog Show in Moscow in 2016. Today, he is President of the FCI itself. From anyone with this background and experience, one would expect factfulness and reason.
Last week, Dr. Jakkel wrote an open letter to be found at the FCI website. You can read it for yourself here and form your own opinion as to who the intended recipients are, and the amount of factfulness and reason delivered in it.
Dr. Jakkel is not happy about the action on extreme brachy breeding taken by the Dutch government. In fact, he’s quite upset. Apparently,it has all been done behind the back of the FCI, as the Dutch KC did not turn to the FCI for ”professional help and guidance”, but instead went cap-in-hand to the government of their country trusting it would listen to their point of view - a tactic that appears to have failed rather spectacularly.Now, a meeting is to be held between the FCI and the Dutch KC to discuss what is being seen by the dog fancy as a crisis. What measures might the Dutch KC put forward?
As far as is known, the Dutch national government is legally instituted and Holland not yet a colony under the FCI, so it is not easy to see exactly what the Dutch KC could have done differently. But it will certainly be interesting to see which side will back down on a matter of national rules for dog breeding.
Information from Holland says the FCI did know as far back as the spring of 2019 what measures the government was considering. Nevertheless, Dr. Jakkel claims the FCI has been caught unaware. Here they were, ”proactively” and together with none less than the KC striving for a ”cooperative frame for implementing a new system of functional tests” - one surmises that the string of multisyllabic words refer to things like dogs being able to complete a half-mile walk without struggling for their breath – and to bring about ”even more professional metods”, whatever they may be, for the health of the bracycephalic breeds. But alas! The corona pandemic got in the way of it all and the introduction of the new programmes had to be put off.
Lockdown has possibly warped Dr. Jakkel´s concept of time a little. The corona pandemic is but a few months old. For decades, both individual vets and their professional organizations in many countries - as well as organizations for the protection of animals and many ordinary people with an interest in dogs - have pointed to the fact that dogs with no muzzles fare badly. For a considerable time also, research and studies have explained why: they lack normal airways, they lack thermoregulation, and their teeth have not enough space in their shortened mouths – among other things.What exactly did the FCI do during the years when protests against the breeding of extremely brachycephalic dogs grew loud? Was it seated in proactive conference rooms shielding its ears with its hands?
Now for Dr. Jakkel´s main assertion: that the Dutch government’s decision to protect animal welfare in this way is an affront to national culture.The FCI feels deeply for the endangered brachy breeds that are all National Heritages – in capital letters:
”Our priority is the preservation of these endangered brachycephalic breeds which all are National Heritages, and the protection of the interests of responsible breeders (vs individual puppy-producers, who are not falling under any regulations in the country).”'
Yes, you read that right. Dr. Jakkel seems to suggest that the French bulldog is as iconic to the French as the Versailles. Then he hurries to add that the FCI also wishes to ”protect responsible breeders versus individual puppy producers" who are not subjected to any rules. Dr. Jakkel must have misunderstood something here, as the rules of the Dutch government will apply to all dogs born within the country; it is the length of the muzzle that makes their breeders responsible or otherwise – not breed club affiliation. Somehow I find it easier to believe the second half of that sentence, about the protection of affiliated breeders, because the first half does not stand up to questions. Is the French bulldog a national cultural heritage? If so, what nation would have the first claim to that heritage? Here is the AKC French Bulldog Club of America on the matter:
”In discussing the history of the French Bulldog, we should note the importance of three countries: England, France and America. England provided the foundation for our modern Frenchie: the old bulldog. Breeders in France developed the smaller bulldogs into a distinctly “French” type and American breeders set the standard that prescribed the all-important “bat ears.”
Perhaps a FrEnglican National Heritage, then? An old British type of dog was miniaturized by the French who are said to have crossbred with ratting terriers to bring the body size down, and finally the Americans added the bat ears, which carried the day after a rebellion against rose ears on a famous show held in 1897. Actually, it was in the aftermath of that battle over ears that the American French Bulldog Club came to be. There is nothing unusual or peculiar about that and surely, the FCI President must be aware of it – many of the breeds we know today were created in a similar manner at the time; the history of the Boston terrier , for instance, is roughly the same. But depicting the French bulldog as an endangered national heritage is indeed rather odd. The breed is neither – not particularly national, and definitely not endangered. On the contrary, it is one of the greatest commercial hits seen in the dog world for a long time. It is easy to understand why breeders would want to be left alone to keep on doing what they are doing – there is money to be made from it- but putting that plainly would not spark the fires of righteousness in the hearts of the breed clubs in the way words like ”endangered” do.
This is when a national heritage or two comes in very handy as smoke puffs and mirrors. The illusionist waves his wand and the facts of the case disappear. A matter of commerce becomes culture.
I confess I am deeply disappointed by Dr. Jakkel´s performance.
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar