Spin Off: Breed Standards

[lanabanana]

EDIT: Edited to add that this is not a breed bashing thread (as thought by someone). Any breeds mentioned are just examples and the example may even just be a generalisation. They are merely there to provide examples of what I am "questioning" I guess.

This thread is a spin off from the "who should breed" thread. And it is also something I was talking about on another (non-dog) forum the other day.

Obviously breed standards are there for a reason, but how much of the standards are cosmetic only? How many are really needed for the dog to be fit for the function it was bred for? And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

For example, I have seen show labradors and working labradors who look quite different, e.g. The working labs being generally leaner with longer legs. Or another example would be the ridge on a ridegback.

And, how many of those cosmetic standards should really be changed to "better" the breed, perhaps this most suits breeds like bulldogs where normal breeding/births isn't always able to occur or their flat faces etc (just using them as an example, not saying that is necessarily the case).

Edited July 9, 2010 by lanabanana

[HeavyPaws]

I'm no expert on breed standards, I can reel some off, but I have my favourite "types"

Regarding Danes, in this picture I much prefer the harley's look to the Danes behind him.

The others are very Dane-typical, and the harley isn't, but I much, much prefer the solid build, the strong legs, the pronounced chest, the general overall thickness.

Also, this is a friend's Dane, so no calling nasties, I'd appreciate it.

It is my DREAM to find an Australian breeder who breeds Danes that look like the harley.

{anyone?}

[lanabanana]

I prefer the Harleys build also, but the colour of the other two lol

[Parkeyre]

I'm no expert on breed standards, I can reel some off, but I have my favourite "types"

Regarding Danes, in this picture I much prefer the harley's look to the Danes behind him.

The others are very Dane-typical, and the harley isn't, but I much, much prefer the solid build, the strong legs, the pronounced chest, the general overall thickness.

Also, this is a friend's Dane, so no calling nasties, I'd appreciate it.

It is my DREAM to find an Australian breeder who breeds Danes that look like the harley.

{anyone?}

I actually really agree with you. There is a merle great dane here in town who is a purebred and she's thin and flimsy for a great dane..

She's build like a dobermann. Growing up; my boyfriend had a fawn great dane Horse; who was just like your friend's harley.

[Parkeyre]

This thread is a spin off from the "who should breed" thread. And it is also something I was talking about on another (non-dog) forum the other day.

Obviously breed standards are there for a reason, but how much of the standards are cosmetic only? How many are really needed for the dog to be fit for the function it was bred for? And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

For example, I have seen show labradors and working labradors who look quite different, e.g. The working labs being generally leaner with longer legs. Or another example would be the ridge on a ridegback.

And, how many of those cosmetic standards should really be changed to "better" the breed, perhaps this most suits breeds like bulldogs where normal breeding/births isn't always able to occur or their flat faces etc (just using them as an example, not saying that is necessarily the case).

but how much of the standards are cosmetic only?

- The Australian Shepherd Standard still calls for a docked tail.

And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

- I don't follow. Nonsporting breeds are designed to be companions to the best of my knowledge?

[lanabanana]

This thread is a spin off from the "who should breed" thread. And it is also something I was talking about on another (non-dog) forum the other day.

Obviously breed standards are there for a reason, but how much of the standards are cosmetic only? How many are really needed for the dog to be fit for the function it was bred for? And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

For example, I have seen show labradors and working labradors who look quite different, e.g. The working labs being generally leaner with longer legs. Or another example would be the ridge on a ridegback.

And, how many of those cosmetic standards should really be changed to "better" the breed, perhaps this most suits breeds like bulldogs where normal breeding/births isn't always able to occur or their flat faces etc (just using them as an example, not saying that is necessarily the case).

but how much of the standards are cosmetic only?

- The Australian Shepherd Standard still calls for a docked tail.

And what about breeds who appear to serve no function (not sure about this but maybe a pug - what are they meant to do?)?

- I don't follow. Nonsporting breeds are designed to be companions to the best of my knowledge?

True! Good blimmin point. In my early hour daze I forgot about that bit, so disregard that LOL

What I am truly asking, is how many of the standards are really bettering the breed and how many are purely cosmetic I guess. Maybe the pug would come into the case where perhaps the spine bends a little to get a tight corkscrew???? Not sure, but hopefully that explains what I am asking a little better.

[Parkeyre]

Is the point of this thread to bash individual breeds?

I cant see that going down well.

[lanabanana]

Is the point of this thread to bash individual breeds?

I cant see that going down well.

No, all breeds meantioned are ones I like LOL.

The purpose of the thread is I am interested in the "bettering" of a breed and the cosmetic aspect of standards. I only mentioned the pug again as I couldn't think of another example that might explain what I was meaning.

Do we assume I am a troll because I am posting in the wee hours (I just cannot sleep and am having an all round horrid night)?

Edited July 9, 2010 by lanabanana

[Parkeyre]

Is the point of this thread to bash individual breeds?

I cant see that going down well.

No, all breeds meantioned are ones I like LOL.

The purpose of the thread is I am interested in the "bettering" of a breed and the cosmetic aspect of standards. I only mentioned the pug again as I couldn't think of another example that might explain what I was meaning.

Do we assume I am a troll because I am posting in the wee hours (I just cannot sleep and am having an all round horrid night)?

No no no. I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to do?

the only cosmetic thing in my breed would be the docked tail.

Coat length helps with heat/cold/rain..

Coat colours are genetic

Eye colours are not a requirement, blue, brown or hazel doesnt matter.

Height restrictions aren't cosmetic.. it's not really even a restriction, just a preference.

[lanabanana]

Is the point of this thread to bash individual breeds?

I cant see that going down well.

No, all breeds meantioned are ones I like LOL.

The purpose of the thread is I am interested in the "bettering" of a breed and the cosmetic aspect of standards. I only mentioned the pug again as I couldn't think of another example that might explain what I was meaning.

Do we assume I am a troll because I am posting in the wee hours (I just cannot sleep and am having an all round horrid night)?

No no no. I'm just trying to understand what you are trying to do?

the only cosmetic thing in my breed would be the docked tail.

Coat length helps with heat/cold/rain..

Coat colours are genetic

Eye colours are not a requirement, blue, brown or hazel doesnt matter.

Height restrictions aren't cosmetic.. it's not really even a restriction, just a preference.

Just wanna hear some information really about standards, cosmetics, bettering the breed etc. I do find it a tad tricky to put words the right way sometimes to get my point across. I guess, how sometimes one thing may be sacrificed in place of another in order to meet standards or something....words still arent right.

When words fail to express properly, change topic LOL: I am reasonably new to Australia and in NZ tail docking is still legal. I thought it wasn't in Australia or is that only certain states?

[Parkeyre]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

[lanabanana]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

I thought so.

Does that mean the breed standards are updated at the Aussie kennel club to reflect the law? How does that work?

[Shaar]

Perfect example would be the poodle.

There aren't many other breeds that require as much grooming and cosmetic perfection, yet every aspect of a poodles trim was designed for a specific purpose.

The back legs are shaved to allow for ease of movement in the water, the bracelets are left on the keep the joints warm, the balls on the hips to keep the kidneys warm etc etc etc

Some breeds require a sturdier structure to do heavy jobs (Rotties pulling carts) While others are bred taller and leaner for speed (Greyhounds for example)

Others like the Great Dane should be neither too heavy, nor too fine. They require the strength to hold down a Boar, but the speed to be able to catch one.

There is also a big difference between breed standard and breed type. I believe that a dog should look like it could go out and do the job it was bred for, but that is just my opinion.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Shaar

[Parkeyre]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

I thought so.

Does that mean the breed standards are updated at the Aussie kennel club to reflect the law? How does that work?

It means that we are no longer able to dock.

atleast aussie shepherds have a natural bob tail gene, and it doesnt affect their conformation.

full tailed aussies can still be shown, - but i couldn't really see them being exported with tails.

[lanabanana]

Perfect example would be the poodle.

There aren't many other breeds that require as much grooming and cosmetic perfection, yet every aspect of a poodles trim was designed for a specific purpose.

The back legs are shaved to allow for ease of movement in the water, the bracelets are left on the keep the joints warm, the balls on the hips to keep the kidneys warm etc etc etc

Some breeds require a sturdier structure to do heavy jobs (Rotties pulling carts) While others are bred taller and leaner for speed (Greyhounds for example)

Others like the Great Dane should be neither too heavy, nor too fine. They require the strength to hold down a Boar, but the speed to be able to catch one.

There is also a big difference between breed standard and breed type. I believe that a dog should look like it could go out and do the job it was bred for.

Excellent, thank you.

Could you give me a bit of information around the difference between breed standard and breed type as I am not 100% sure what that means. Does this mean you can have a breed type that does not necessarily meet the breed standard?

[lanabanana]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

I thought so.

Does that mean the breed standards are updated at the Aussie kennel club to reflect the law? How does that work?

It means that we are no longer able to dock.

atleast aussie shepherds have a natural bob tail gene, and it doesnt affect their conformation.

full tailed aussies can still be shown, - but i couldn't really see them being exported with tails.

Ok get ya.

Understand about them perhaps not beng exported with tails. Docking is done very young isn't it - like 3 or 4 days old?

[Parkeyre]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

I thought so.

Does that mean the breed standards are updated at the Aussie kennel club to reflect the law? How does that work?

It means that we are no longer able to dock.

atleast aussie shepherds have a natural bob tail gene, and it doesnt affect their conformation.

full tailed aussies can still be shown, - but i couldn't really see them being exported with tails.

Ok get ya.

Understand about them perhaps not beng exported with tails. Docking is done very young isn't it - like 3 or 4 days old?

Yep very young. also dewclaws are done then (if they have any)

[lanabanana]

Tail docking is now illegal in every state and territory of Australia.

I thought so.

Does that mean the breed standards are updated at the Aussie kennel club to reflect the law? How does that work?

It means that we are no longer able to dock.

atleast aussie shepherds have a natural bob tail gene, and it doesnt affect their conformation.

full tailed aussies can still be shown, - but i couldn't really see them being exported with tails.

Ok get ya.

Understand about them perhaps not beng exported with tails. Docking is done very young isn't it - like 3 or 4 days old?

Yep very young. also dewclaws are done then (if they have any)

Oh really? Do some dogs not have dew claws? You really do learn something new everyday, I thought all dogs had them (all my dogs have).

[Shaar]

Perfect example would be the poodle.

There aren't many other breeds that require as much grooming and cosmetic perfection, yet every aspect of a poodles trim was designed for a specific purpose.

The back legs are shaved to allow for ease of movement in the water, the bracelets are left on the keep the joints warm, the balls on the hips to keep the kidneys warm etc etc etc

Some breeds require a sturdier structure to do heavy jobs (Rotties pulling carts) While others are bred taller and leaner for speed (Greyhounds for example)

Others like the Great Dane should be neither too heavy, nor too fine. They require the strength to hold down a Boar, but the speed to be able to catch one.

There is also a big difference between breed standard and breed type. I believe that a dog should look like it could go out and do the job it was bred for.

Excellent, thank you.

Could you give me a bit of information around the difference between breed standard and breed type as I am not 100% sure what that means. Does this mean you can have a breed type that does not necessarily meet the breed standard?

A dog can conform to the standard perfectly, but look different than the others.

There are some small things that the standard doesn't state or is broad that can be changed by the individual breeder.

I'll use Chinese Cresteds as an example, the standard states that they should be medium to fine boned. Some are bred medium boned, some are bred fine boned. They will look different, but they are both still right by the standard.

Standard also states that angulation is only severe enough as to produce a level back. Meaning some dogs will have more angle than others, but yet again, neither is wrong.

[lanabanana]

Perfect example would be the poodle.

There aren't many other breeds that require as much grooming and cosmetic perfection, yet every aspect of a poodles trim was designed for a specific purpose.

The back legs are shaved to allow for ease of movement in the water, the bracelets are left on the keep the joints warm, the balls on the hips to keep the kidneys warm etc etc etc

Some breeds require a sturdier structure to do heavy jobs (Rotties pulling carts) While others are bred taller and leaner for speed (Greyhounds for example)

Others like the Great Dane should be neither too heavy, nor too fine. They require the strength to hold down a Boar, but the speed to be able to catch one.

There is also a big difference between breed standard and breed type. I believe that a dog should look like it could go out and do the job it was bred for.

Excellent, thank you.

Could you give me a bit of information around the difference between breed standard and breed type as I am not 100% sure what that means. Does this mean you can have a breed type that does not necessarily meet the breed standard?

A dog can conform to the standard perfectly, but look different than the others.

There are some small things that the standard doesn't state or is broad that can be changed by the individual breeder.

I'll use Chinese Cresteds as an example, the standard states that they should be medium to fine boned. Some are bred medium boned, some are bred fine boned. They will look different, but they are both still right by the standard.

Standard also states that angulation is only severe enough as to produce a level back. Meaning some dogs will have more angle than others, but yet again, neither is wrong.

Ok cool, so while they are bred to standard, they are of a different type?

And would you also get different types in one litter, or usually just the one type (obviously you would generally breed true to type eh?)?