Understanding Breed Standards

[Trisven13]

I'd really love a chance to pick everyone's brain if I could when it comes to breed standards, but specifically the Basset Fauve De Bretagne standard which is not very wordy at all. I've had loads of time on my hands this week and have been thinking on the huge variation in Fauves worldwide.

One of the questions I regularly get asked is why one of my bitches has a much shorter coat than the other - it is not a coat that is every likely to win in the ring but, from my reading of the standard it is still correct BUT the standard does leave an awful lot up to interpretation.

For coat the standard says:

Skin: Rather thick, supple.

Coat: Very rough, harsh, rather short, never woolly or curly. The face shouldn't be too bushy.

How short is rather short? Can it be too short? If so how do you know what is too short? How bushy is "too bushy" for the face - I assume it allows for some eyebrows & whiskers?

A severe fault is

Coat - Sparse, smooth, fine, soft

and an eliminating fault is

Long woolly coat. Any coat other than that defined by the standard.

Is a coat that sits very flatly smooth or does smooth mean softer to the touch, like a smooth Griffon? Sparse I would imagine means a coat that is very thin showing skin, fine would be each individual hair being fine and soft is obvious. Is it an eliminating fault if the coat is long AND woolly or is it an eliminating fault if it is simply one of those? If so how long is too long?

Then we have tail carriage. The standard says

Carried slightly sickle-fashioned, of medium length, large at the base, often bristly and well tapered at the end. In action, the tail is carried above the top line and makes regular movements from side to side.

with a severe fault being

Tail- Out of line.

and an eliminating fault being

Tail- Kinked

.

When I first began I was told that the tail was carried out from the body and that a "gay tail" was a fault and I've even argued with my fellow Fauve enthusiasts that a gay tail was wrong BUT my thinking this week has made me question that as the standard simply says "above the top line". Wouldn't that mean that at any point above the top line is correct?

I've had loads of time this week because my work's computer has crashed so I've googled loads of video of Fauves and I've seen tails held at what I thought was the correct angle (approx 90 degrees) but a number held much higher or "gay". I've also seen a large number of Fauves with coats like my bitches and an equally large number of Fauves with a coat with a reasonable amount of length.

Are these things that will get expanded on with time as a "type" becomes more prevalent OR with such a small standard and such variation within the breed will it always be almost impossible to call something incorrect? Do other breed standards allow for such variation or did they and have since been expanded on? When we're breeding how do we choose which way to go? Do we only go with what wins in the ring (staying within standard of course) or do we continue to have a bit of everything because it is allowed? I'm after a real discussion here - yes I still have too much time on my hands

[Steve]

Does this help?

http://artepfauves.co.uk/Analysis-of-the-Breed-Standard.php

[Trisven13]

That is awesome!!! Answers a lot of our questions, particularly the one about tails. Doesn't help out overly much on coat still but its a great start and also possibly a person to go back to.

You rock Steve!!! :thumbsup:

[espinay2]

To understand your standard, you need to understand the breeds history and development and how the standard came to be written. Can you go back are read about how the standard came to be written? Are there any articles or books which explains who first put the standard together and what they were aiming for at the time? In my breed we have some good information in this regard and you can follow a lot of their thought processes on the whys and wherefores of some of the finer points. It helps demystify a lot of things in the standard.

In relation to variation, remember in any breed there can be different 'styles' or 'strains'. They can be equally correct within a standard but still have a slightly different 'look' about them.

[Trisven13]

There wasn't that I was aware of but what Steve has found does shed some more light and talks about a document produced by the French Fauve Club which clarifies many points of the standard so I'm going to email the people who put together that website as they received permission to translate it.

What Steve has found has great information because it includes photos but I'd love to see the full document.

[becks]

How short is rather short? Can it be too short? If so how do you know what is too short? How bushy is "too bushy" for the face - I assume it allows for some eyebrows & whiskers?

I would say that a coat is to short when it becomes sparse and you can see the skin through it or is to short to feel the true texture. 'Rather short' I would think of as being about an inch or slightly less, however having spoken with breeders, they say this coat isn't one that can be rolled so longer coats are often seen in the ring. For me, the texture and openess of the coat would be my guide for when that dogs coat was the right length or not.

Is a coat that sits very flatly smooth or does smooth mean softer to the touch, like a smooth Griffon? Sparse I would imagine means a coat that is very thin showing skin, fine would be each individual hair being fine and soft is obvious. Is it an eliminating fault if the coat is long AND woolly or is it an eliminating fault if it is simply one of those? If so how long is too long?

A hard coat tends to sit at a bit of an angle to the body, so a flat coat my not be the right length or texture. Smooth would be like any smooth coated breed. There is no comma to separate woolly and long, so to me it reads as a long and woolly coat.

When I first began I was told that the tail was carried out from the body and that a "gay tail" was a fault and I've even argued with my fellow Fauve enthusiasts that a gay tail was wrong BUT my thinking this week has made me question that as the standard simply says "above the top line". Wouldn't that mean that at any point above the top line is correct?

Above the topline to me says the tail is carried above a continuation of the topline (if you drew that line out further behind the dog) and the tail be carried with a curve towards the tip, if the tail was any higher, I would expect the standard to say the tail is carried OVER the topline (ie over the back/ gay tail). Shame there is no mention of tail set in the standard.

It is good to look at old photos of the breed of dogs who were around at the time they were writting the standard as well as thinking about the dogs job and what benefit there would be to having each part of the dog as described. eg thinking about the coat - what sort of weather and terrain were the dogs hunted in? Did they need protection from cold, wet weather or hot weather? Were they working in open ground or in rough terrain with dense planting that could damage their skin?

[Trisven13]

Thanks Becks - was really hoping you would weigh in!!

I've actually found some great footage of Fauves hunting pigs in France which shows some real variation in coat length so I'm going to get some breed knowledgeable people to look at it and advise which ones they feel are more correct or if they all appear correct.

My idea of rather short would also tie in with yours of an inch or less BUT most in the show ring appear to have a longer coat. Interestingly the video footage of the hunting Fauves show them, more often, with the shorter coat. Being that we're so early in the breed here in Australia (as well as world-wide really from a showing perspective) I want to really make sure that I'm keeping with what is intended by the standard.

[Dogsfevr]

Looking at the coat aspect it has key words that stand out .

The faults Coat - Sparse, smooth, fine, soft & the word woolley all define in correct texture.

BUT i guess it also comes down to whether the coat is blown & then how a judge understands this.

When blown a perfectly correct coat can start to look long & wavy ,we have shown the occasional blown coat when needing those last points .

I would imagine the Fauve coat to be similar to a Wire Haired Viszla style .

The coat should be protective & workman like without being underdone or over done

I have to ask it has a variation in the colour have you found the coat texture can vary

[Trisven13]

Sorry Showdog - do you mean does a variation in colour change the texture?

[Dogsfevr]

Sorry Showdog - do you mean does a variation in colour change the texture?

Yes,when i look at some of the photos you can see some variation in coat .

Now obviously this can be due to coat care & many other factors but was wondering if the shades seem to have better textures??

[Trisven13]

In the dogs I've actually had my hands on I don't think that the shades make for a different texture BUT I think the lengths do.

Marie has a very short coat in the whole with longer hair on her legs & neck but her coat is incredibly harsh - my sister hates it because its not at all soft. Daphne's coat is still very harsh and coarse but it is softer than Marie's - Daphne has a more visually appealing length to her coat. The longer coats here in Australia are lighter in colour but I think that is simply a fluke as I've seen photos of very, very red dogs with a longer coat than Marie has in the UK (most of those are born, apparently, with black in their coat but the black hairs fall out leaving a brick-red coat). I was once told it should feel like a coir mat and my girls' coats do feel like that, Marie's in particular - people are always surprised by how harsh the coat is to the touch.

I just need to win lotto so I can fly over to the UK & Europe and get my hands on lots of Fauves I think

I've not felt a soft coat yet in any Fauve in Australia - the biggest difference in coat that we have here in length of coat with Marie being naked by comparison to the other Fauves.

I've attached a link to quite a brutal video of a pack of Fauves on a pig in France (don't look at it if you don't cope with those sort of images, there isn't blood but they are holding it for the hunters). You can see a slight variation in coat between these dogs - Marie looks very much like those with a short coat (in fact it looks like a pack of Marie & Daphne's attacking a pig ). These dogs are obviously very much hunting dogs and bred purely for that purpose and their coat is obviously not hindering them in the snow or the rough conditions so does that mean the harsh but quite short coat is just as correct? Do you see my confusion?

[becks]

The short coats i that video look like the ones I have seen who have been stripped and are waiting to grow in new coat. There are a couple of dogs in the vid who have longer coats.

If you look at the conditions the dogs are working in, very muddy, wet and some deep undergrowth, that all points to a shorter coat (long, dead coats being pulled out when pushing through the undergrowth), shorter coat is going to dry quicker, not hold balls of mud or snow, dense undercoat will keep them warm while the topcoat should be long enough and thick enough to keep out the weather as much as possible while also protecting them while hunting.

[Trisven13]

Thanks Becks - you've given us more to think about

[puglvr]

We have discussions in the Pugs about the "correct" coat, especially if a single coat is correct and a dog with an undercoat is faulty - in regard to the wording- "fine, smooth, short and glossy"

When it comes to short, I tend to try to imagine what the writers of the breed standard wanted to convey. I think they probably were trying to distinguish between the short coat of a pug and the long coat of the Peke, simple as that.