Old and new breed...

There have been interesting comments on another blog (Psalm 23 Farm). I've participated in those comments, so if you are interested in reading them, please click that farm's blog on the side of the page here.

I've been aware that there are differences in how people think of Shetland sheep here in the Midwest of the USA. There seem to be two ways of thinking:

1. That Shetland sheep are a primitive, unimproved beautiful breed that produces colorful, diverse fleeces which are easy to handspin and knit. Those fleeces can be used in a range of wool products (because fineness and staple length vary head to tail, as well as "lock structure" if you will. This is well documented in museums, archives, ship logs, and the historical content found in many countries, as the Shetland Islands are frequently passed by ships, and those passengers wrote about their purchases (or longing for those purchases!). For hundreds of years, stockings (socks with leggings) were the fame, and believe it or not, nightcaps! Then, after the women of eastern Europe made ring shawls out of the cashmere goat fiber they had, the Shetland Islands became known for wedding ring shawls made with Shetland wool. Later, the fair isle knitting technique, as well as some distinct patterns, and tams (hats) were the fame. Since most of the shearers, spinners, and knitters were primarily women living in poverty (men had to fish in summer to pay for their presence on their croft...American word here...rent. I think it was called their tithe? to have their family on a croft.) Therefore, every ounce of wool was worth something, and diversity meant more "income" (coins for hundreds of years, then "trade" when new rules, taxes, and inspections clamped down on the crofters, their sheep, and their wool products.)

OR

2. That Shetland sheep were famous for only ultrafine, super short stapled, single-coated fleeces (a goal they themselves admit seems elusive), and that the sheep looked more like merinos with American corn-fed rump bumps. This group insists this is the wool that created all those famous Shetland wool products.

Really???

Ok. So here are more of my thoughts. The people of times past on the Shetland Islands had ponies and dogs (among other animals, of course). The ponies were/are long maned and had/have a real bushiness in their hair. (Forelocks, manes, feathering, bushy tails, thick haircoats, delayed shedding out, etc.) The dogs, Shetland Sheep dogs (Shelties), were/are double-coated dogs, with bushy, thick fur head to tail. Obviously, many crofters loved hairy, bushy, furry, thick fill in the blank (fur, hair, wool), and found these traits to be useful in their climate, and pleasing in their eyes. So if they loved those characteristics on horses and dogs, why would they breed sheep to be the opposite (single coat/short staple)? Especially when more fiber meant more basic needs being met by making more money? (Staple growth = good, desired) So if single and short is recessive (not my term), how could economically challenged people afford to cull so much and be so choosy (getting rid of long and varied to keep short and single)??? How would economically challenged people afford to jacket (and maintain) all their short, single fleeces if those fleeces are harder to keep clean? (while the sheep lounged on sandy beaches, slept against grainy rocks, or brushed past low, bushy vegetation?) Or take the time to pick VM-embedded fleeces clean?

It just doesn't add up....................

Ok. So if those Merinoey-looking "Shetland" sheep of today are the "real" Shetland sheep we need to "return" to, then WHY do those new sheep look sooooo different from the Shetland sheep pictured in the archives?

If those ultrafine single coat fleeces are the real deal, why are they so "recessive" (not my term). And why are the old garments in museums made from long stapled fiber? (Gunnister man's gloves are an example) If short stapled fleeces are the "real deal", why aren't the old garments made from that kind of wool?

I think if a group (above number 2) wants to create a new breed, why not? "Classic" (the word they've chosen to describe their sheep) could mean 20th Century Shetlands crossed with something else (Merino?), under the guise of the Shetland standard, to produce fine, short-stapled yarn for delicate wool products or blended yarns. They admit they blend in mohair or something else for strength in a garment. These yarns can be very nice, but that's not genuine Shetland sheep yarn. This group of breeders highly desires a meaty American-type carcass as well, and crossbreeding. There is nothing wrong with selective breeding to create more sheep with characteristics you desire.

OR

If a group wants to maintain a diverse, primitive, historically documented breed, why not? Genuine, historic, Shetlands mean the unimproved Shetlands known for many centuries, which are written about in many countries' museum archives in obscure ship's logs, passenger diaries, household accounts, parish records, estate records and letters, and of which old garments are carefully kept, with long fibers in them. These sheep were known (and documented) to produce the famed stockings (popular for centuries), nightcaps (best-sellers), jumpers (pullover sweaters), caps and tams, mittens and gloves, ring shawls, working woman's shawls, rugs, and items for the home. All of these things were made from fiber easily spun either inside, or while walking. The fiber required little or no processing or separating before spinning. Blending for strength is not needed. Good Shetland yarn is just that, Shetland fiber... soft, long, strong. If a group wants to raise a breed that doesn't require high rates of discard (culling), why not? Why go to so much work, just to get rid of so much of what you reap? I don't want a breed like that. I desire a breed that produces good lambs nearly every time. That's a real Shetland sheep. We have that right now, today. But some chose to not see them.

I know there is a group of people here in the USA that truly believe the short stapled, ultrafine fleeces are the real Shetland sheep, and that those are the sheep we should all be striving for, and the rest "disqualified" or "removed from the gene pool". Who am I to be the expert? I just raise, train, keep, shear, wash, spin, knit/crochet, sell, show, and wear the wool from my Shetlands in my own humble flock (Dailley and UK), in between a passion for reading everything I can find on the history of these sheep, both within Shetland Island archives, and outside. I've owned a Border collie, a rough coated collie, and a Sheltie over 23 years. I've worked with horses and ponies (including Shetland ponies) for three decades; used to get paid for it. My education emphasized science, a subject I love. Who am I to ponder these things?

The Shetland Islands and the sheep we received from there are so special, unique, and treasured. I want to preserve them, not change them. Why is group 2 hiding behind people like me? Why are they trying to discredit the real Shetland sheep? Why are they the only ones who insist longer fibers are trash? Why are they destroying so many beautiful lambs? Why are they trying to take a natural thing and turn it into a hard thing? Why are they afraid to claim the new breed they are longing and striving for?