{"id":18927,"date":"2014-10-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2014-10-10T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/tvaryny.com\/?p=18927"},"modified":"2026-09-02T13:35:13","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T10:35:13","slug":"wetterhoun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/tvaryny.com\/en\/breed-wetterhoun","title":{"rendered":"Wetterhoun"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

The Wetterhoun<\/strong>, or Frisian Water Dog<\/strong>, is a rare Dutch breed with a curly, all but waterproof coat. It was developed in Friesland to hunt otter and other small predators and to guard the yard, and that work shaped its character: self-willed, reserved with strangers, able to decide for itself far from the hunter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most interesting thing about this breed, though, is not its looks. The Wetterhoun is one of very few breeds whose population bottleneck is not described in vague terms but measured in numbers and treated under a plan with a stated end date<\/strong>. The Dutch breed association publishes kinship coefficients, the share of failed matings and the list of breeds used to widen the gene pool. What follows rests on those documents. Find out more at Tvaryny<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wetterhoun: key breed information<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Wetterhoun\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Name<\/strong><\/td>Wetterhoun, Frisian Water Dog<\/td><\/tr>
Origin<\/strong><\/td>Friesland, the Netherlands<\/td><\/tr>
FCI recognition<\/strong><\/td>Standard No. 221, Group 8 (retrievers, flushing dogs, water dogs), Section 3 (water dogs), with working trial<\/td><\/tr>
Use per the standard<\/strong><\/td>Hunting dog and water dog, traditionally otter hunting; guarding the yard<\/td><\/tr>
Height at withers (ideal)<\/strong><\/td>Males 59 cm, females 55 cm \u2014 the standard gives two single figures, not a range<\/td><\/tr>
Weight<\/strong><\/td>Males approximately 34 kg, females approximately 28 kg<\/td><\/tr>
Life expectancy<\/strong><\/td>13 years, per the AKC breed page<\/td><\/tr>
World population<\/strong><\/td>About 1000 dogs \u2014 the estimate given in the FCI standard<\/td><\/tr>
Temperament per the standard<\/strong><\/td>Self-willed by nature; affectionate as a family dog; watchful in the house; may be reserved with strangers but should not be fearful<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Origin and history of the breed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The early history of the Wetterhoun deserves caution, and the Dutch breed association puts it most honestly: the origin of a dog that “has occurred in Friesland for centuries” it calls unclear<\/strong>. The FCI standard does not assert either, it supposes: the dogs were supposedly<\/em> brought by gypsies and\/or sailors from countries around the Baltic Sea. That is the registry’s position, not an established fact, and the word “supposedly” is in the standard itself.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is firmly documented begins later. In the 19th and 20th centuries Wetterhounen were used to pull dog carts, but mostly as hunting dogs on otter and other small predators. The breed held on in the water-rich districts of Friesland, the northern province of the Netherlands. The Frisian word wetter<\/em> means “water”, and the name points straight at the dog’s job.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the early 20th century came the event that decided the fate of both Frisian breeds: the Wetterhoun and the Stabijhoun were regularly crossbred with each other<\/strong>, which threatened to erase what was distinctive about each. In 1938<\/strong> a group of enthusiasts from the “Kynologenclub Frysl\u00e2n” set out to separate and purify the breeds. In 1942<\/strong> both Frisian breeds were officially recognised, and the first standard is dated 10 February 1944<\/strong>. The FCI standard names four people connected with that process: J. Bos, T. van Dijk, B. de Graaf and W. Hoeksema<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Note the order of events: the clean-up of the breed began before<\/em> the Second World War, and recognition came during<\/em> it. The common retelling in which the breed was rescued after the war does not fit that chronology.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Breed standard and appearance<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"Wetterhoun<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Wetterhoun is a square-built dog, compact and powerful without being heavy. The standard sets the ratio of height at withers to body length at 1:1, and the distance from withers to elbow equal to the distance from elbow to ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Size.<\/strong> Here lies a detail that breed cards distort on a massive scale. The standard gives no height range: it names an ideal size of 59 cm for males and 55 cm for females<\/strong>. Those are two separate targets for two sexes. Merge them into “55\u201359 cm” and you get a range found in no document at all<\/em>: the lower bound is taken from bitches, the upper from dogs, and the breed is made to look uniform in size, which it is not. The same goes for weight: the standard says approximately 34 kg for males and approximately 28 kg for females<\/strong>, and the word “approximately” is in the text itself, not a hedge of ours.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The coat<\/strong> is the breed’s signature: dense, firm curls made of bundles of hair, the hair itself rather coarse and greasy to the touch. Head and legs are covered with short hair. The standard singles out the hair of the ear<\/strong> and calls it a typical characteristic of the breed: curled, rather long at the base of the ear and decreasing in length downwards, with the lower third of the ear covered in short hair.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The colour<\/strong> list in the standard is wider than usually reported: solid black or solid brown with white markings on the chest and\/or toes, and in addition black patches, brown patches, ticking and roan are allowed<\/strong>. Nose and eyes match the base colour: black-coated dogs have a black nose and dark brown eyes, brown-coated dogs a brown nose and brown eyes. The slightly oblique oval eyes are what create the “grim” expression the standard mentions explicitly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tail<\/strong> is long and rolled into a spiral, carried over or alongside the croup. On the move the Wetterhoun tends to pace<\/strong>, which the standard calls less desirable but acceptable \u2014 a rare case of a registry explicitly permitting a gait other breeds are penalised for. Among severe faults the standard lists lack of sexual dimorphism<\/strong> and any colour other than those defined; disqualifications include aggression or excessive shyness, under- or overbite, and insufficient breed type.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Two editions of one standard disagree \u2014 and it is worth knowing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Standard No. 221 has a feature that is unusual at the FCI: its official language is English<\/strong>, and on the federation’s site the breed pages in English, French, German and Spanish all lead to the same<\/em> English file. The FCI publishes no other language edition of it. By comparison, the neighbouring Stabijhoun has four such editions \u2014 so the single-language status of the Wetterhoun standard is a property of the document, not an accident.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Dutch translation of the standard is published by the breed association itself, and comparing the two texts turns up a discrepancy not in dates but in a number<\/strong>. Both editions give the same estimate of the world population \u2014 about 1000 dogs \u2014 but the English one dates it to 2013<\/strong> and the Dutch one to 2023<\/strong>, even though both belong to the same edition with a publication date of 08.06.2023. The difference is not cosmetic: “a thousand dogs in 2013” and “a thousand dogs in 2023” are two different claims about whether the population grew over a decade of work. We give the estimate itself and do not choose between the years, because neither document outranks the other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What “66 % kinship” actually means<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is often written of the Wetterhoun that every dog in the breed is related “more closely than brother and sister”, with the figure 66 %<\/strong> attached. The figure is real, but on its own it means nothing until you are told relative to what<\/em> it was calculated. This is the single most useful thing to understand about the genetics of rare breeds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kinship and inbreeding coefficients are always counted from some reference population<\/strong> \u2014 a notional set of ancestors treated as unrelated. Change that base and the very same dogs yield a completely different number. In the Wetterhoun this is plain to see, because the breed’s own documents count in different ways and say so openly:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Measure<\/strong><\/td>Value<\/strong><\/td>Counted from<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Inbreeding of any permitted combination<\/td>at least 32 %<\/strong><\/td>all available generations of pedigree, which is 14\u201316 generations<\/td><\/tr>
Inbreeding across the whole population per year<\/td>31.88 % in 2000 \u2192 35.53 %<\/strong> in 2011<\/td>pedigree at full depth<\/td><\/tr>
Genomic inbreeding coefficient (Embark DNA test)<\/td>about 36 %<\/strong><\/td>DNA itself, no pedigree<\/td><\/tr>
Kinship between animals<\/td>about 66 %<\/strong><\/td>comparison with a brother-and-sister pair<\/td><\/tr>
Ceiling allowed by the breeding rules<\/td>no more than 10 %<\/strong><\/td>only four<\/strong> generations<\/td><\/tr>
Expected coefficient of the Laika outcross pair<\/td>under 1 %<\/strong><\/td>DNA, cross-breed pair<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Look closely at the first and fifth rows. The same dogs, the same population, the same year \u2014 and simultaneously “at least 32 %” and “no more than 10 %”. There is no contradiction: the first number is counted from the entire known depth of the pedigree, the second only over four generations. The shorter the memory of the calculation, the fewer shared ancestors it manages to see and the lower the result. The breeding rule uses the short base deliberately, because on the long base no pair in the breed would pass at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By the same logic you cannot set 66 % against 36 % as if it were a contradiction: the first is kinship between two animals, the second an inbreeding coefficient, and they are different quantities on different scales. Whereas 32 % from the pedigree and 36 % from a DNA test are two independent<\/em> methods that landed close together, which is precisely why the estimate can be trusted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The practical conclusion for a buyer is simple: if a breeder quotes you an inbreeding percentage for a puppy, ask over how many generations it was calculated<\/strong>. Without that qualifier the number is comparable to nothing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How the narrow gene pool showed up in fertility<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Inbreeding in the Wetterhoun stopped being an abstraction the moment it became visible in matings. The association reviewed every mating from 2005 to 2011<\/strong>: 249<\/strong> attempts under 236<\/strong> issued permits, involving 78<\/strong> different stud dogs. On average it took 2.25<\/strong> attempts per litter, and only 47 %<\/strong> of matings produced one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To see how low that is you need a benchmark, and the association supplies it: the reproduction department of the Utrecht veterinary faculty works on the assumption that in dogs at least 80 %<\/strong> of intended matings should end in a litter. The breed was running at roughly half the expected rate. Over the same period 24 %<\/strong> of stud dogs produced no litter at all, and of 102 bitches that produced 116 litters, 27 %<\/strong> of the bitches offered never conceived.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The decline shows in the yearly snapshots the association compiled while preparing the programme:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/td>2005<\/strong><\/td>2008<\/strong><\/td>2010<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Bitches offered for breeding<\/td>28<\/td>36<\/td>45<\/td><\/tr>
Of those, mated that year<\/td>26<\/td>29<\/td>43<\/td><\/tr>
Litters obtained<\/td>15<\/td>9<\/td>21<\/td><\/tr>
Puppies born<\/td>140<\/td>89<\/td>107<\/td><\/tr>
Registered in the studbook<\/td>113<\/td>82<\/td>94<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The association itself lists the signs by which this is recognised: in bitches, irregular and split seasons, reduced sexual drive, failure to conceive after mating and interrupted pregnancies; in males, reduced willingness to mate and poorer semen quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The inbreeding management programme, 2013\u20132028<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The answer was a document with a name, dates and a deadline: the “Beleidsplan Fokkerij Wetterhounen 2013\u20132028”<\/strong>, a breeding policy plan running 15 years, to 31 December 2028<\/strong>. The road to it was long: the breeding advisory committee raised the alarm in 2008<\/strong>, at the end of 2009<\/strong> obtained permission from the Dutch kennel authority to prepare a plan, held four breeders’ councils from January 2010<\/strong> onwards, and the plan was adopted on 19 March 2012<\/strong>. The work drew on the foundation for rare domestic breeds, the bureau for preserving living heritage, and staff of the universities of Wageningen and Utrecht<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The design of the plan is worked out in detail, and every restriction has a reason:<\/p>\n\n\n\n