Spin Off: Breed Standards

[Shaar]

Generally the pups would be the same yes.

My 8 month old is the spitting image of his sister, it is quite scary! I sent the photo to my mother with no title on it and she thought it WAS him.

The breeder I got mine from has a very distinct type she breeds for.

[lanabanana]

So that would explain the difference between, for example, a working lab and a show lab - though technically both could meet the standards?

Thansk for the info.

[Shaar]

Can't help you with Labs lol, I only know Danes, Poodles and Cresteds but if you study the breed standard you will probably notice that both types are true to standard.

If they aren't... well, you can draw your own conclusions.

Here's the Lab standard:

ANKC Labrador Breed Standard

[lanabanana]

Can't help you with Labs lol, I only know Danes, Poodles and Cresteds but if you study the breed standard you will probably notice that both types are true to standard.

If they aren't... well, you can draw your own conclusions.

Here's the Lab standard:

ANKC Labrador Breed Standard

Thanks, I will def have a look at that, though I don't know much about labs per say either. We do have a lab x here but the extent of my knowledge would be being able to identify one, and knowing about some of their traits lol

[Shaar]

It's a good way to familiarize yourself.

I wouldn't recommend googling Lab pictures, lord only knows what you would end up with, but browsing though the breed pages on DOL should give you a feel for the breed.

[becks]

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?

There is no reason why full tailed dogs wouldn't be exported, there are many coutries that have a ban on docking and there are other countries who will happily dock an adult dog.

[Nevafollo]

Will only reply to the pug bits!

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).

Pugs are bred to be companions and companions only! They tend to serve their fuction pretty dam well I think.

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.

The pug standard was changed a smidge not to long back to stop people breeding to the exteme. Things like nose and eye rolls were getting to big. No idea what your on about with bent spines I have one here with a straight tail (obvious fault) and one with a double twist there is no different in how they move or in their spines...ones tails just curls the other doesnt. Can you expand on that at all?

[Dame Aussie]

Will only reply to the pug bits!

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).

Pugs are bred to be companions and companions only! They tend to serve their fuction pretty dam well I think.

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.

The pug standard was changed a smidge not to long back to stop people breeding to the exteme. Things like nose and eye rolls were getting to big. No idea what your on about with bent spines I have one here with a straight tail (obvious fault) and one with a double twist there is no different in how they move or in their spines...ones tails just curls the other doesnt. Can you expand on that at all?

I know there was one of those Pedigree Dogs Exposed shows a while ago which talked about Pugs having bent spines, maybe that is what the OP is talking about? I know little about Pugs, except that they're greedy and cute as buttons

[Starkehre]

"Type" is defined by breed and/or Breed Standard

"Style" is the word that describe a taste or variation within the breed or Breed Standard. Hence, within a breed all conforming to Breed Standard there can be differing styles, not types.

Or at least that is how understand it

[Nevafollo]

Will only reply to the pug bits!

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).

Pugs are bred to be companions and companions only! They tend to serve their fuction pretty dam well I think.

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.

The pug standard was changed a smidge not to long back to stop people breeding to the exteme. Things like nose and eye rolls were getting to big. No idea what your on about with bent spines I have one here with a straight tail (obvious fault) and one with a double twist there is no different in how they move or in their spines...ones tails just curls the other doesnt. Can you expand on that at all?

I know there was one of those Pedigree Dogs Exposed shows a while ago which talked about Pugs having bent spines, maybe that is what the OP is talking about? I know little about Pugs, except that they're greedy and cute as buttons

Ah yes and wasnt that a brilliant show

[Danois]

Neither the harle or the black/ blue are great examples of the breed IMO

The ones in the back are very fine and too greyhoundish especially with the gay tail. I have not see any danes like that in Australia (its obviously an overseas pic because of the cropped ears).

The harle - appears to be overweight to start with - there is no spring of the ribs I can see. Water could be deceiving but also seems short in the leg and does not seem to have a lot of bone in the front legs. Would love to see a standing pic as it may just be bad angles etc.

[JulesP]

There are some things in my breed's standard that I just don't agree with - colour and ear set. These are obviously cosmetic things. If a colour is genetically possible and doesn't cause health issues then it should be in the standard IMO. Thinking about it there are some colours that are allowed that can cause health issues (skin issues)!

[SpikesPuppy]

The Border Terrier standard (Kennel Club/country of origin and what we follow here NOT the different US standard) is very basic and to the point, and IMO the bulk of it is based on working ability and not show (down to flesh colored noses not being a fault, along with the bite being scissor but a level bite equally as acceptable which is part and parcel of the dogs required head shape and proportions.

Nothing is really cosmetic about the breed standard. Black and tan is a fault and this is because it lacks undercoat and thus does not offer any protection from the harsh undergrowth or weather conditions.

[Red Fox]

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).

There is a history behind that ridge, it is part of the breed and IMO not something that should ever be lost.

http://www.macumazahn.com/rrhistory.html

*Taken from the above link:

"The Rhodesian Ridgeback originated in Southern Africa where the early European settlers mated their sporting breeds with the small, fierce, hunting dogs, owned by the Hottentots, in order to produce a guard/hunting dog ideally suited to the local conditions."

In the early days it was found that the ridged dogs were better hunters than the non ridged dogs, thus they were the ones that were bred from. It was not cosmetic at all. The standard for the breed was simply developed to preserve the breed:

"During the late 19th Century, the reputation of "Ridgebacks" in the hunting field became established by the exploits of these dogs. Van Rooyen's dogs were very similar to today's Rhodesian Ridgebacks. By the 1920's, when the days of big game hunting on a grand scale were drawing to a close, it became apparent that "Ridgebacks" might disappear if the breeds were not standardized and breeders encouraged to strive to conform.The standard of the breed, which borrowed much from the Dalmatian Standard, was drawn up by a Mr. F.R. Barnes after he called a meeting of "Ridgeback" owners in Bulawayo in 1922. This Standard was accepted by the South African Kennel Union (now the Kennel Union of Southern Africa) in 1924."

PDE twisted that information to make it sound like the ridged dogs were unhealthy mutants, and that breeders callously culled any dogs born without the "cosmetic" ridge.

The truth is that yes, there are a small percentage of dogs who are born ridgeless, and yes they are "culled" from the lines. But more often than not "culled" means not bred from or shown - or in other words placed in pet homes. It is true that some breeders will still pts, but they are in the minority.

Ridgebacks can be born with a condition called Dermoid Sinus.

http://www.htmlspinners.com/CalicoRidge/Ri...ack/Dermoid.htm

Puppies are checked at birth (and usually weekly thereafter) for this condition. A pup with DS is usually put to sleep, though depending on the severity it can be operated on.

DS occurs in both ridges and ridgeless puppies

"The D.S. is generally found on the midline of the neck, back, and tail along the spinal column. Although rarely found in the ridge there have been several cases noted. Dermoid sinuses have also been noted on ridgeless puppies."

Though the ridge may be cosmetic in a sense it is a major part of the breeds history, and as it does not affect the health of the breed I see no reason why it should ever be bred out.

[Starkehre]

Neither the harle or the black/ blue are great examples of the breed IMO

The ones in the back are very fine and too greyhoundish especially with the gay tail. I have not see any danes like that in Australia (its obviously an overseas pic because of the cropped ears).

The harle - appears to be overweight to start with - there is no spring of the ribs I can see. Water could be deceiving but also seems short in the leg and does not seem to have a lot of bone in the front legs. Would love to see a standing pic as it may just be bad angles etc.

Wasn't going to say, but now that you have Danois ... I agree, this dog looks overweight, quite considerably to me, but it could just be the photo,

[Lyla]

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).

This is also something I had been thinking about due to some points brought up in the other thread. My point is in reference to Labs, and what I say are OBSERVATIONS only. I don't consider myself an expert, but I SEE different "styles" of Lab who are both lovely specimens, have been titled, so therefore must conform to the breed standard.

Style 1:

This dog is more heavyset (for lack of a better word), has a lot of bone, and his tail is very thick and otter like (B.S. term). He is also internationally titled in several countries, has an enormous list of successful offspring, and I would think is thought very highly of world wide. I will not mention names tho Lab people will know him, sorry for using the pic off the owners website, but couldn't make my point in words alone.

Style 2:

Please refer to the breed pages of DOL and look at pics of Aust Ch Labs (so I don't offend people or steal pics). Generally they have a bit of a different look, not quite as thick and heavy, tails not as thick, of course not all Ch Labs fit the description. All I am saying is that Labs in Australia as an overall picture tend to be a bit finer than the dog in pic 1.

My point is though that there are many judges who have all thought that these dogs had something to offer, were good examples of the breed, and accumulated enough points to get their titles. One would assume that they all fit into the breed standard in some way as well, despite looking very different.

As for performance, I can't comment there except in reference to my own dogs. My girl is the daughter of a show titled dog with a string of show titles behind him. Would she win in the ring? No, BUT I think she would be a whizz in agility due to the fact that she clears fences with ease, and is known for escaping 7 foot high enclosures. Yesterday her 8 month old daughter exhibited the same thing, shocking me that she escaped over a 5 foot fence. She did it twice, as now she knows she can do it. These dogs were not bred from working lines, but I think they would be better suited to sporting. My other pup was bred from dogs who were trained to retrieve game from water. I see this trait in her, I think she thinks she's a duck sometimes the way she dives under water, and she is much more scent oriented and independent than the others. They still act and look like labs despite their differences.

Edited July 10, 2010 by je2910

[BJean]

As for performance, I can't comment there except in reference to my own dogs. My girl is the daughter of a show titled dog with a string of show titles behind him. Would she win in the ring? No, BUT I think she would be a whizz in agility due to the fact that she clears fences with ease, and is known for escaping 7 foot high enclosures. Yesterday her 8 month old daughter exhibited the same thing, shocking me that she escaped over a 5 foot fence. She did it twice, as now she knows she can do it. These dogs were not bred from working lines, but I think they would be better suited to sporting. My other pup was bred from dogs who were trained to retrieve game from water. I see this trait in her, I think she thinks she's a duck sometimes the way she dives under water, and she is much more scent oriented and independent than the others. They still act and look like labs despite their differences.

from my perspective, familial escape artists as you describe is the result of a temperament problem; ie nervy, anxious, excess hyperactivity.

In my breed(s) I believe dogs prone to be escape artisits is a familial trait born from incorrect temperament.

Edited July 10, 2010 by lilli

[Lyla]

from my perspective, familial escape artists as you describe is the result of a temperament problem; ie nervy, anxious, excess hyperactivity.

In my breed(s) I believe dogs prone to be escape artisits is a familial trait born from incorrect temperament.

They are not continual houdini's. All of the dogs live together, and if 1 of the dogs is taken away then this has happened. The mother of the pup has been living inside as she had stitches, so pup escaped to try and see mum. I had been allowing them some time together, but generally kept them separated to avoid the usual zoomies until mum had stitches out. Mum has not jumped the fence for a long while, and when she was doing it it was because of a similar reason. So I do not consider that loving playful labs have temperament problems because they have the ABILITY to jump the fence when they want to see what's going on with a family member.

Anyway the point of mentioning this was more to do with a dog from show lines can have a sporting potential (in this case).

This may be the case in other circumstances.

[Lyla]

Forgot to add:

I have heard (I think from the lab thread), that Guide dogs prefer the finer style of lab, because they need to be able to fit on the floor space in the front of a car when they are companion / work dogs.

[dancinbcs]

There are some things in my breed's standard that I just don't agree with - colour and ear set. These are obviously cosmetic things. If a colour is genetically possible and doesn't cause health issues then it should be in the standard IMO. Thinking about it there are some colours that are allowed that can cause health issues (skin issues)!

Like a lot of breeds the Border Collie standard is a mess with colours. The problem is it was written by people who didn't understand colour genetics and many breeders still don't understand them either. Getting everyone to agree to including all genetically possible colours has proved impossible. The dilute gene does not seem to cause skin problems in BCs like it does in some other breeds.

At least the Border Collie standard does NOT have prescribed markings. The requirement for white to not predominate is a precaution against deafness that is more common in dogs that are mostly white. I am totally mystified when breeders of some breeds becomes so pedantic about markings. How the hell do markings make any difference to a dog performing any task.

With the ears, the set is important because it is affected by the head shape but the ear carriage really shouldn't matter. Our standard used to say semi-erect or rose, but at some time the rose disappeared. There was a vote to return it to the standard but no idea where that is up to at the moment. Unfortunately a lot of judges take semi-erect to mean tipped ears like a Collie, but semi-erect is actually anything from slightly lifted at the base to just tipped and anything in between.

Other than that there is nothing cosmetic in the standard. Some of the current dead straight, profuse, spitz like coats seen in the ring, are not in fact correct to the standard but a current fashion that judges seem to prefer. Traditionally BCs have a mixture of flat to wavy coats that should fit the outline of the dog.

Substance wise, there is a wide variety that are correct to the standard. So long as they are neither heavy or fine, they fit the breed standard. All the other points of conformation should lead to a dog that has the ability to move with stealth and a minimum lift of the feet. This is only possible with correct angulation, body length and balance, all of which are important for a working dog.

There are many different types of Border Collie, depending on the breeders priority and there is quite a bit of cross over in what types can perform what tasks. There are show types, agility types and working types but most of the soundly constructed ones do actually conform to the most important parts of the standard that describes a pretty basic medium size dog. The variations are mostly in the things not specified in the standard like amount of substance and bone, leg length to body depth ratio and coat length.