Let’s bring the outcrossing debate of the Plummer Terrier to a conclusion
by Trevor Simcock.
I HAD originally intended to reply to Phil Kettle’s letter, In it for the long haul! (16/1/19), in The Countryman’s Weekly soon after it was published. However, time flies and since then additional and misleading comments on this and other matters have been made. I wish to include these and offer my reply on behalf of the Plummer Terrier Club of Great Britain (PTCGB) to inform members and readers of the facts.
While I have some sympathy with the comments made by Phil Kettle regarding John Glover and his article, I think it’s fair to say that John and his Irish associates have a greater understanding of the problems that exist in the Plummer Terrier breed than either the Plummer Terrier Club (PTC) or the European Plummer Terrier Society (EPTS) are willing to admit.
The outcrossing debate
First, we need to look at the proposed outcross we have been advised to embark on by well-respected scientific bodies and the adverse comments which have been made on this subject. In July 2015, John Glover wrote an article on this very subject in The Countryman’s Weekly, where he says: “He believes now is the time for another outcross.”
This question was put to the then Plummer Terrier Association (PTA) registrar. Her reply to this question was given on the EPTS forum on July 7, 2015, and was as follows: “Personally, I look at my dogs and think do they need an outcross to improve them? The answer is NO.”
BUY THIS WEEK’S ISSUE TO CONTINUE READING THIS ARTICLE.
