The Sealyham terrier is a breed on the brink of extinction. Adelaide Now reports that the Kennel Club registered only 49 puppies last year:
Sealyham Terriers, which were initially bred for pest control, are now rarer than endangered species like giant pandas and tigers.
Their popularity soared in the 1920s, when the Kennel Club – the UK’s largest dog organisation – registered more than 2000 puppies every year.
The dogs, often described as intelligent and loyal, were favorites with celebrities like Elizabeth Taylor, Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock.
Their gregarious personalities and boundless energy, meant they remained sought after for decades, and in 1959 a Sunday newspaper reported, “A notice has been posted in Clarence House and Windsor Castle giving explicit instructions that when Princess Margaret has breakfast in bed, her two Sealyhams must be brought to the room along with her breakfast tray.”
But last year only 49 were bred in the UK, putting them on the Kennel Club’s top three most endangered native breeds list.
The dramatic change is attributed to new fashions, the availability of a greater number of breeds and the decline of ratting as a form of vermin control.
Sealyham Terriers are believed to be a mix of the now extinct English White Terrier combined with Dandie Dinmont, the Fox Terrier, the West Highland and the Corgi.
I don’t know how many are registered within the United States, but it’s far from a common breed.
There are so-called terrier experts who jump up and down about why this breed went extinct– and that there are no “working forms” of this breed left.
The show breeders hold onto this breed’s purity, and they don’t give a straight answer about its origins. Note the discussion about the origins are “believed to be.” This breed was supposedly founded from stock that was kept by a Captain John Edwardes who owned Sealyham House in Pembrokeshire, Wales. The dogs were used to kill rabbits and rats, and they were also used to flush pheasants.
However, I don’t think that this breed was entirely derived from established breeds.
Throughout the British Isles, especially in southern England and Wales, there were always small predominantly white terriers. Some of these dogs had short legs, and some had long legs. The long-legged ones became the fox terriers and the JRTCA/Parson Jack Rusell-type. The Jack Russell with the long legs is actually the old fox terrier. Jack Russell didn’t found them. It was just that an early fox terrier fancier named the Rev. John Russell preferred these dogs. Russell used his dogs to drive foxes from dens during mounted fox hunts, and according to story, the dogs needed long legs to keep up with the hounds, even though I think most of these terriers were actually carried on horseback to the dens. A little dog will have a very hard time keeping up with a pack of foxhounds, whether its legs are long or not.
And the short-legged ones, which the so-called terrier experts hate, even though they will often write about how wonderful worked dachshunds are, became short-legged Jack Russells– also known as puddin’s. In some quarters, these puddin’ dogs are hated with an almost religious fervor. A so-called terrier expert hates puddin’ JRT, but will write wonderful things about working dachshunds and breeding experiments that cross terriers and dachshunds. The dwarfism in these terriers and dachshunds is dominant, so you will produce dogs with short legs. My dad had a standard dachshund that could hunt anything, but this dog was often laid up with slipped discs. I have never heard of puddin’ JRT having any problems with its back. (And no, I don’t know the origin of the term “puddin’.”
But I think the puddin’ JRT’s are something important.
As I implied earlier, I’m a bit skeptical of the traditional theory on the Sealyham’s origins.
I think that it isn’t derive from a mixture of “improved” Kennel Club breeds.
I think it is an “improved” puddin’ Jack Russell.
Now, this is a bit controversial, but as I noted earlier, these short-legged dogs are very common. When most British people think of Jack Russells, they think of these dogs.
I think that all Captain Edwardes did was improve the short-legged Jack Russell into something a bit fancier. At the time, his dogs were probably not called Jack Russells. They were probably called “English white terriers,” which is not be confused with a dog with the same name that resembled the white Manchester terrier and was the ancestor of the Hinks’s strain of bull terrier.
The so-called terrier expert thinks that there are no working forms of Sealyhams and even laments Sir Jocelyn Lucas’s attempt to create a working form of Sealyham, but because he’s in the puddin’ haters camp, he can’t see that the working Sealyham might have some connection to these dogs.
I think the dog that led most led me to this possibility is Willie’s predecessor.
Willie’s predecessor was Timmy. Timmy was born to long-legged JRTCA mother and a puddin’ father. I wish I had a good photo of him for the blog, but he resembled a smooth-coated Sealyham. He had the same legs and body shape as Sealyham, and he was roughly the same size. He was all white, except for some tan on his head and ears. (I don’t have a photo of him for the computer.)
Now it”s possible that some of these short-legged Jack Russells derive from crossing Sealyhams with the short-legged Jack Russell-type, but I think it would have been quite bizarre if these short-legged dogs didn’t exist prior to the popularity surge that the Sealyham terrier experience during the 1920’s.
In either scenario, the working form of Sealyham would be within the short-legged Jack Russell type.
And if we are willing to accept this possibility, saving the Sealyham and creating a working form is actually quite simple.
Outcross to short-legged Jack Russells.
It’s that simple.
The two dogs share so many traits in terms of phenotype, and if one wanted to produce smaller ones for going to ground, there are small, short-legged Jack Russells all over the British Isles that can do the job.
It would be very easy to selectively breed for a dog that more strongly resembled Sealyham.
This isn’t my idea. It’s actually been done– at least in part.
As I noted earlier, Jocelyn Lucas did create his own form of working Sealyham, but he used a simple outcross to the Norfolk terrier. Then Brian Plummer, the old breeding maven, decided to cross the Lucas terriers with his own version of the working fox/Jack Russell terrier. The result was the sporting Lucas terrier. There is a major cleavage between Lucas terrier and sporting Lucas terrier people, which just as bad as the cleavage between the short-legged and long-legged Jack Russell people.
A dog like a sporting Lucas terrier could also be used in a Sealyham preservation program.
Of course, this would require some relaxation of the closed registries that exist for this breed.
Sealyham terriers are essentially doomed.
However, the short-legged Jack Russells are more popular than ever. They are much more common than the other form of Jack Russell, and yes, although it is far from universal, they have been bred for a more docile temperament.
Cammie's kind could help save the Sealyham terrier.
The Sealyham terrier could be saved if we go back to the root stock that produced it or the stock that eventually absorbed it.
Whatever the Sealyham terrier’s relationship to the puddin’ Jack Russell, I don’t think it takes much imagination to see that the breeds are definitely related.
But the long-legged Jack Russell zealots and the show Sealyham people aren’t likely to see it. The show people want to keep the Sealyham pure at all costs, and the long-legged Jack Russell zealots just hate puddin’s.
Once again, the truth is caught between two dogmas, and a reasonable way of solving the Sealyham terrier’s problems cannot be considered.
This is an idea after my own heart. The Sealyham in the photo really looks all overbred and longhaired. Maybe it is endangered because it is now nothing but coat?
My impression is that many (most?) show breeders just want animated teddy bears, not functional partners. How long do you figure it would take for this dog to bog down in the mud?
[…] How to save the Sealyham terrier […]
A video for you:
The Working Sealyham Club of Great Britain used to have an awesome website at http://www.workingsealyhams.com, which unfortunately seems to have expired. The chap in the video has been very active around the UK gamefairs over the last couple of years, and also put together a great book. You can read another article here http://www.countrylife.co.uk/countryside/article/529284/Country-Life-says-Save-our-Sealyhams.html
The idea of crossing Sealyhams to JRTs to preserve the breed as a working terrier is not new. From an article in the ’89 Working Terrier Yearbook (‘Working with the Sealyham’ by Morris Richardson)
“We have a couple of terriers now that are recent outcrosses wher we have had to use some Russell blood but these resemble the old fashioned Sealyham. In the twenty-five years we have kept the strain we have outcrossed only twice and both were for two reasons. First, and most important, they were first-class workers and second, they were of the same general type as our terriers. Both outcrosses were a success and the resulting terriers were bred back into the strain.”
In the ’91 Yearbook there is an impassioned article speaking out against Sealy/Russell crosses. I will type it for you in its entirety later today. The main problem the (anonymous) author has with the cross is that working Sealys were, at that time, badger dogs. There is a big difference between terriers bred for badgers and those, like russells, bred for fox. Those sealy/russells the author had observed working in the field did not make the grade.
Plummer, writing in 1992, offers five suggestions to preserve the working Sealyham
“a. Refining white bodied F2 Lucas terriers
b. Breeding from white sports that appear from time to time in certain strains of Cesky terrier – these white sports would breed true if mated together
c. Mating F2 Lucas terriers to Cesky terriers and mating F2 Cesky Lucas terriers together
d. Mating Sealyhams to Russell-types (suggested by Bob Lawrence) and breeding from Sealyham-type progeny
e. Mating rough-coated fellXPlummer hybrids to Lucas terriers and breeeing out the blanket-marked terriers.”
It was an earlier plan by Plummer to embark on a project such as d. that prompted the previously mentioned outraged article in the yearbook.
A much more recent sealy/russell breeding project is being carried out by Harry and Gail Parsons, mentioned above. You can see their progeny here
To distinguish from the ‘pure’ Sealy lines they are being called Ilmer terriers. I believe they are used in a tracking/picking up capacity, but not below ground.
I’ve more to write on this subject, and will be back later :)
I did mention Plummer’s attempt, and that it had already been done several times before. I don’t think there was ever a clear understanding of what a Sealyham terrier’s history actually was.
But what amazes me is how much denial there is about what a Sealyham actually is. It’s an “improved” farm terrier of the type we’d call a puddin’ Jack Russell today.
In the United States, there is open hostility towards short-legged Jack Russells from people who claim to be on the side of breed diversity. The Rev. John Russell used fox terriers. He never called them Jack Russells. The dogs we normally call Jack Russells in the United States are just the old form of fox terrier. Less informed writers call every photo of these old fox terriers “Jack Russells.” The only reason why this form of fox terrier is called a Jack Russell is because the Rev. John Russell preferred this type of fox terrier over the wedge-headed ones.
I’d like to know how the short-legged dogs became known as Jack Russells. To me, they are another form of fox terrier, just with dwarfism, but they are so similar to the original Sealyhams that they have to be related.
These dogs look very much like some short-legged JRT’s I’ve known!
The pastor who taught my confirmation classes had a Jack Russell that looked very much like these dogs.
Just realised you already mentioned the Plummer project in your own post!
To save the Sealyham and carry out ANY “sealy/russell breeding project”, those that are looking to save the breed (by breeding back on the Russell) are going to need others to help/assist. …And I am not talking about finding a wealthy enthusiast that will throw tons of money at the project (like some think is going to happen) but rather allegiances with others who share the love for the breed(s) too and want to assist in furthering the Sealyham.
As Retrieverman mentions JRT and Sealy breeders can’t seem to come together on this for various reasons. Add to that the paranoia that runs rampant amongst breeders, the misguided idea that only certain people can save it and the selfish reasons why some want to do it ($$$ or notoriety) and I fear the Sealyham of old is doomed.
Power in numbers – the Sealyham doesn’t have this in his favor.
S.W are you based in the U.S or the UK?
Dogs described as Sealyham/russell mixes pop up with some regularity on the UK working terrier scene. I have seen some which definitely resemble the old Sealyham type, and their owners allege that they perform well below ground. There are also multiple accounts of old working lines still being maintained by a handful of breeders in the North East and Wales. The working terrier community does not rely on closed registries and most would not blink at the idea of breeding related breeds into lines which are dwindling in health and number. In fact, this is how the current strain of working bedlington terrier was recently revived – through outcrosses to fell types and glen of imaals.
The key question is, in what form do we want the Sealyham to survive? Do we want only to produce dogs who look like Charmin? Do we want to introduce UK working terriers, who are described as Sealyhams or Sealyham types but who have no papers, into A/KC show lines? Do we outcross only only to JRTs and lucas terriers who belong to some formalised registry? Do we care if the dogs we breed from have proved themselves underground against toothed quarry, or do they just need to look the part? Do we care about chest size? Weight? If Russell and Sealyham lines are crossed, what percentage off the pedigree should be verifiably ‘Sealyham’ for the offspring to retain the moniker?
I’m not saying there is a correct answer here; I am just saying that we are dealing with such vastly different priorities and perspectives that we can’t really talk about ‘shared love for the breed’ in any meaningful sense. As a rule, enthusiasts of pedigreed show Sealyhams do not recognise the non-registered Sealyham types as part of the breed. Enthusiasts of working Sealyham types, in turn, do not recognise the show strains as anything to do with their own terriers. The factions cannot ‘share’ love for a breed when they do not even share definitions of the breed.
Personally, I am only interested in the preservation of the Sealyham as a genuine working terrier. The show Sealyhams are just too far diverged from the original working lines for me to care passionately if they sink or swim at their current level of drive. I do support Harry Parson’s efforts and would support them wholeheartedly if he did not charge a reported £800-£1000 for a pup and £600 for stud fees. This seems a price structure deliberately designed to exclude the working terrier community, who are working class as a rule. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on that front.
As for definitions – to me if it looks like a Sealy and quacks like a Sealy I am willing to accept the various ‘Sealy/russells’ that you do encounter in the working community as, at very least, ‘of Sealyham type’. These are the dogs I’d like to see preserved, but they exist outside of formal registries. I recognise, though, that this is a rather outlier view beyond the British lurcher & terrier community – elsewhere, even those who advocate opening A/KC stud books do not typically recommend throwing the books away altogether! I appreciate that others would not subscribe to this view, and that there is no way to prove that my definition of the modern Sealyham is more objectively correct than that of the AKC judge who awarded Charmin BIS at Westminster.
(I should note that I am not voraciously anti-show; I accept that breeds necessarily adapt as they intersect with modern lifestyles. My /own/ interests, though, lie overwhelmingly with the preservation of historical working function – or as close as we can come to it.)
Another long ramble. To finish though – to save the Sealyham terrier, we must first define it. Those who are following the discussion; how do you define the Sealyham terrier? Specifically; what percentage of AKC registered STs (from 0% to 100%) must be present in a dog’s pedigree for you to accept it as a Sealyham?
Susie, Great conversation we have now as you bring up some valid points and questions.
I would start by saying that I do not believe any extreme is good – in dogs, politics or otherwise. Many of the “show Sealy’s” I have seen are too large and are of extreme type and their breeders like them that way for various reasons. One told me recently that they NEED to be big so they can hunt Badgers… I tried not to laugh as I am certain she has never been hunting nor would recognize a badger if it bit her. And as for the “working strains”; Some I have seen barely resemble a modern day Sealy OR pictures we see in history.
I would argue neither one is correct. If you outcross a Sealy with something else that results in curly coated dogs, or an apricot like color with odd shaped heads… but it works – then I say great, you have a nice working terrier. But you no longer have a Sealyham as it has now lost a handful of characteristics and is barely recognizable as one. Would you agree?
It isn’t my choice, as I am only one person. If it were, I would like to see the Sealyham go back to when it first had a definite recognizable type (maybe 1910-1920). To do this, it would have to be crossed back on a breed such as the Jack Russell. This would widen the gene pool and if done right, within 3-4 generations, we would have that look again and as well have healthy dogs that would both work and show.
Are you familiar with the Dalmatian/Pointer backcross project started in 1973 by Dr. Robert Schaible – in an effort to rid the Dal of genetic health issues? It is quite interesting. The same could be done for the Sealyham. The F-1 Hybrid offspring could be used to cross back on a Sealy and so on. My best guess is that by generation #4 that would be a good place to begin registering them. As well I agree with you in that the ST has to be defined first… which might be a problem as you have noted.
As I said in my original post but I will be more clear;
All of the recent news written about “Saving the Sealyham” seams to have a motivation and feel behind it – to get funding to save the breed as a working ST. …But funding to one particular breeder of the working ST. I don’t believe that is going to happen (someone drop a bag of loot in a breeders lap so they can build a kennel, buy dogs or whatever else needed) and I believe it is a terribly misguided attempt at trying to do something good for the breed. There doesn’t appear to be an organized effort or push to get a group together to start a thought out, planned out, backcross project.
Thanks for the great discussion. I live in the US but frequent the UK.
Probably the best thing to do is let hunting enthusiasts do the out-crossing until they achieve a stable land race, ala many of the unregistered US/ Canadian/Australian strains of working hounds, shepherds, bull dogs and terriers, and then go from there.
I should also add that such dogs could eventually duplicate the old form Sealyham, and if purists balk at calling them Sealyhams, then you could call them something else. The breeders/hunting enthusiasts associated with the breeding of these dogs won’t care–and neither will the dogs (LOL).
If Captain Edwardes could see what the show fraternity have done to his Sealyham Terrier he would surely turn in his grave. In my opinion I believe he would rather see the breed become exitnct than see them continue in their current form.
As for resurrecting the breed, I did indeed try to produce some ‘Working Type Sealyhams’ back in the nineties. Not to satisfy any fancy project or for any financial gain but purely because I liked the type and all that the Sealyham stood for. To a certain extent I succeded, using a small pedigree Sealyham and mating her to a ‘sealyham type / russell’ terrier dog. That dog I had bred from two excellent working short legged ‘sealyham / russell types, one of which was David Harcombes legendary ‘Mick’ an outstanding dog to both badger and fox.
I produced a further two generation by mating a bitch to the Lucas terrier Polo and then line breeding back to the grandfather..
These terriers went on to work quite succesfully below ground, not exceptional but certainly worth the effort and worth persevering with..
The original Sealyhams were bred to hunt badger otter and fox. Ratting and rabitting were just minor asides for the breed. Working badger otter and, to all intents and purposes, fox is now illegal in the UK so I gave up the dogs and hunting in general. What is the point of trying to revive a breed when the very reason for its original existence is now gone?
It may be commendable to suggest that the future of the breed be placed in hunting peoples hands but eventually the show fraternity will ruin it again. The Parson Jack Russell is an obvious case in point. John Russell bred his own type of terrier simply because he believed the Kennel Club show fraternity had ruined the Fox Terrier. Now those same show idiots have admitted the breed to the Kennel Club….. THE VERY SAME INSTITUTION HE SO DESPISED !!!!!!! (if he is in heaven with Captain Edwardes they must both be crying into their beer!). When Kennel Club breeders get involved in a breed it is for three reasons only – rosettes, fame and money!
So as I said, the breed is probably better off going extinct.
Bob Lawrence