Official breed standards have been hotly debated for years. The American Plott Association (APA) and the American Kennel Club (AKC) both recognize the buckskin color in their breed standard, while the National Plott Hound Association (NPHA) and the United Kennel Club (UKC) do not.
We’ll save the color debate for another column. Let’s focus instead on the size issue. All four organizations have similar size standards – yet they seldom enforce them.
A quick look around any field trial, bench show or hunting camp will provide examples of mammoth sized Plott dogs. Some of these hounds stand over 3 feet tall and weigh 100 pounds or more – all far exceeding normal breed standards. Yet this is deemed acceptable by the governing bodies of the above mentioned organizations.
Apparently as long as the dog is properly registered, it can be as a big as a horse. Advocates of these jumbo sized canines maintain that the Plott hound of today should be bigger than those of the past. They believe that improved medical care, diets and better breeders have resulted in a new super-sized Plott dog.
Others further argue that the old-time Plott would have died out were it not for modern day breeders who refined and bulked up the breed.
I respectfully disagree. Certainly modern improvements have contributed to a larger, healthier dog – maybe 10 to 15 percent bigger. But to attribute a 50 percent increase in overall size to these advances is absurd. Look at other breeds. Is there any pure bred canine today 50% bigger than they were forty years ago? No. So why is it acceptable for the Plott breed?
Ira and Clay Jones have raised Plott hounds in western N.C. for more than half a century. In my opinion their dogs are classic examples of a Plott hound – and they meet the breed standard. Ira summed it up best: “If it’s not broken, why fix it? We consider ourselves to be stewards of the breed. It’s our responsibility to maintain and perpetuate what the old-timers started – not change it. It was near perfect to start with. It’s our job to keep it that way.” I totally agree.
Recently I reviewed Von Plott’s 1939 dog vaccination records. They were fascinating. What’s so interesting about rabies vaccination records? They provide a clear snapshot of the size and color of every Plott dog that he owned during that year – a time that many breed historians feel the breed was in their prime.
Yet his records clearly indicate that he did not have a dog – male or female – bigger than 55 pounds during that time.
What does this prove? Maybe nothing. But with substantial amounts of this type of data to use as a benchmark, it is hard for me to believe that the physical size of our dogs has doubled in 71 years. I can understand the occasional big dog. But these are exceptions – not the norm.
Consider any species –animal or human. Have we seen that sort of across the board size increase? No. In my opinion, when you see disproportionate size increases of this nature, something genetically or medically has changed. That’s not good for the breed. And that’s why I don’t believe the size standards should be changed—though I strongly advocate having the UKC and NPHA to revise their color standards to accept the buckskin Plott. But that’s a story for another day.
Hi Bob,
I see you have a program scheduled at the UKC in January. What will the program be about? In reading your blog about Plott breed standards I was wondering if you were going to address some of these topics about size and color? Or is a show not the suitable time to bring attention to these subjects?
I don’t know a lot about the Plott Breed…I am quit the novice, but it seems to me that a dog (any breed of dog) should not double in it’s size, no matter our technologies and advancements of today. I would agree with you that it is not good for the breed and would go as far as to say, it’s “not the breed” when it goes outside the perimeters of it’s original origins. Like you said, there hasn’t been an increase in size across the board in any species. When a dog is in a competition, isn’t there standards/restrictions that have to be met to make that dog a winner for it’s breed?
Perhaps I shouldn’t say a lot about this subject though…as I said I am a novice about the Plott breed. I’m simply looking at it from my understanding of what gives any species it’s definition…it’s truth…it’s certainty. Know what I mean?
Actually Sona, you hit the nail squarely on the head–very well said, my friend. It does not require a breed expert to possess common sense–and that is all that we are talking about here.
The kennel clubs all too often are ruled by politics as opposed to the breed standards that they are supposed to not only adhere too, but also to enforce. They seldom do their job anymore and don’t like being told this by anyone.
It is funny that the article that you are replying too was actually originally scheduled and approved by the AKC Gazette magazine for a monthly column I was writing for them as APA delegate. However, the AKC and the APA had a falling out and the AKC is no longer the parent club for the APA. They (the AKC) in turn no longer publish articles about the Plott hound, and to the best of my knowledge now no longer recognize a breed that they have registered since 1987–and a breed that has been in America almost 300 years.
I don’t want to get into the details about the APA-AKC break-up. I see both sides of it and either way, it is a done deal now. But regardless of anyone’s opinion on the break-up, that should have nothing to do with formal recognition of the breed–or at least that’s my opinion. I made it clear to them that my concern was only for the breed and that I was willing to continue to do the article to support the breed–though I would not quit the APA or disrespect them either–but the AKC refused my offer.
And I am not just picking on the AKC either. The UKC is no better. They refuse to register and recognize the buckskin color in a Plott–and have not since the 1950s. I think that is absurd as well.
As far as your question about programs–these appearances at club gatherings are just book signings and are not official programs like I do other places. So they don’t want anything like that there.
I don’t want to sound overly negative either. The Kennel Clubs have done some great things and proper registration records are integral to the suuccess of any breed–but so too are the adherence and enforcement of correct breed standards. When this lack of enforcement and/or adherence occurs– it is exactly as you described it: “it’s NOT the breed.” Thanks for your insightful comment.
Bob,
I just recently began exploring your website and blog here. I find it interesting of how you feel on the buckskin issue. It seems that we are in agreement on it and on the political aspects of breed clubs. I also find it disturbing that AKC has taken their stance as they did. Not against the actions of the APA but against promotion of the breed through the articles. It just seems many, all around, have dropped the ball when it comes to betterment and promotion of our breed. Things would be so much better with a united front all across the hound world and Kennel Clubs and Breed Clubs, but we aren’t there yet. The leadership on all accounts could and should do better in my opinion. Good day!
Thanks for your post and for your superb insight. I totally agree. Thanks again