Page 124 - THE SLOUGHI REVIEW Issue 15

T H E S L O U G H I R E V I E W 1 2 4

from North Africa. Unfortunately, this logical idea does not stand up to careful scrutiny of the
respective ancestral animals. The source material of the "Saluki", which originated in England
as the breed, included animals from Persia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Arabia and Egypt - the latter
short-haired and indistinguishable from today's "Sloughi". The source material of the ‘Sloughi’
created in France probably only contained short-haired representatives, but by no means all
of them from North Africa - rather, there was a considerable contingent from Syria, which
was also part of the French colonial empire. The areas of origin of these two breeds therefore
overlap considerably. Instead of racial romanticism, we therefore have the rather sober
observation that the specific characteristics of "Saluki" and "Sloughi" have come about
through the circumstances of colonial history and through a perhaps slightly different
selection from the same gene pool.

5. your presentation of my comments gives the impression that I simply disregard the
separation of "Sloughi" and "Saluki" and regard the two as one breed, as the English Kennel
Club, for example, has done up to now. The thing is not that simple. I am not a dog breeding
politician (and do not want to become one) but if I understand correctly, it is perfectly
correct and unchallengeable according to the statutes of the FCI to keep and breed these two

breeds separately. Whether it is appropriate, however, is a completely different matter.

After all, it is always permissible to create a new breed by drawing up a standard and
registering it via a competent national organisation affiliated to the FCI. I have no objection
to this. The problem in this particular case arises from the fact that the original breed "Saluqi"
still exists in the countries of origin and in a quantity that exceeds the entire offspring many
times over. It is inadmissible and incorrect to want to identify this original breed with just
one of the offspring breeds or to equate it with for the reason that it is not factually correct.
Such an identification has been made on various occasions by advocates of both offspring
breeds, mostly out of pure ignorance, but also occasionally for reasons of interest politics
and despite knowing better. For me, the latter is considered "deliberate misleading of the
(breeding) public" and should, in my opinion, be vigorously combated by the breeding
association. Quite apart from the unpleasant aspects of interest politics, such a change
leads to breeding decisions that are detrimental to the breed in question.

6. ultimately, the question remains that should have been at the heart of an objective
discussion of this topic: Does it make sense to integrate imported dogs from the countries of
origin - i.e. "Saluqi" - into one of the existing FCI breeds "Saluki" or "Sloughi"; and if so, how
should such an integration be handled?