Does the dog meet standard?

There are several Collie heads out there, but overall, I really like Ptd. Spiritwind Sangria. I love her structure and her head. I also really like Ch. Byluc's Speak of the Devil. Sorry, I didn't want to hotlink, and I can't add pictures from my phone.

I really, really dislike the Collie heads in Europe. Maybe they are the Russian ones someone else was mentioning. They have dished faces, and gigantic amounts of hair. Just don't like them at all.

I noticed on Shelties there seems to be so many different faces, and it varies by line. I have no idea what is 'correct' for them. But I have oneos that I find attractive. I'm afraid to post their names because now that I look that them, I see that the more Collie the head is (or at least ny preference in Collie heads) the more I like the Sheltie

The one thing I did notice is that Sheltie's seem to be extremely fine boned. Is that how it is supposed to be? Some of them seemed like if you blew on them they would snap in half.

Also? I REALLY HATE the amount of hair on an American Cocker. There is no way that hair would not get tangled in the field. Unless they changed the standard, I am almost 90% sure that it said that the coat should not be excessive. This is in no way a moderately coated dog.

I agree. I don't like that the spaniels as a whole have tended towards big exaggerated coats, when most of the standards call for "moderate".

I think the OP was generally asking what about the dog(s) in the show ring does not conform to standard, right?

For me, I puzzle that the AmStaff standard clearly states that uncropped ears are preferred to cropped, but I have no doubt a cropped dog will be in Group tonight, and if I watched BIB, almost (if not) all will have cropped ears as well. I've known several people who had UKC pit bulls and/or AKC AmStaffs they intended to show, and everyone told them if they wanted to have a shot, they had to have their ears done. So much for the standard.

I think there's always going to be a huge issue with the difference in coat between show-bred and field-bred dogs - sporting breeds like spaniels and setters especially.

I generally prefer the look of breeds a hundred years ago, before there was such a huge split in type. I'd take one of Albert Payson Terhune's collies any day, but I really have very little interest in the collies in the show ring.

That's because while the standard says natural preferred, they have to be correct natural ears. The vast majority of Amstaffs wouldn't have correct natural ears because breeders don't breed for them since 95% of people crop. Not worth the risk for most people.

That and, a well done crop looks amazing. I'm a little biased though

I wish there was not the breed split that there is in labs. I just like a nice, moderate, athletic, sane, healthy lab, and that is not super easy to find anymore.

Jack is just above the lower limit for weight for males. I think he's an extremely handsome lab, but standardwise, his is a bit narrow in the chest and slab sided.

Yeah, I do understand that cropping negates the need for correct ear set, and since ears need to be cropped before a certain age, it's hard to know for sure if the ears are going to end up setting nicely, so cropping is the safer route. I do get it, but I can't help but feel it's cheating. I think a well done crop looks amazing, too, although I'm really fond of rose ears. Reasons aside, I think it's a great example for the original question lol.

Honestly, I think a lot of heavily coated breeds are flipping off their standard in favor of flashy winning dogs.

American Cocker:



Old English Sheepdog:



Bearded Collie:



Pekingese:



etc, etc.

In Brittanys, there are some dogs that are really waify, like if the wind was strong enough they might get blown away. The standard says this:

I don't care for this look, although I think it is technically within standard:



I much prefer a dog like this:



Still obviously athletic and agile, but with a little more substance. Personal preference though I guess. I actually tend toward the more strictly field bred dogs aesthetically, but that's definitely personal preference.

But shouldn't breeders at least be trying to breed for decent ears, since the standard specifically states that uncropped is preferred? Cropping because ears are crappy seems like a cop out.

Thisssss. I don't care for.


Thus far I am happy with Shelby. She doesn't have much coat thus far (not a show quality coat) which doesn't bother me at all. She's pretty moderate overall. Larger eyes, her head is refined but not extremely narrow.

Oh god that's awful :yikes:

Yes and no. If ears are the only thing wrong in your breed, by all means breed for ears and count yourself lucky. But usually there are more pressing matters. In my breed, most dogs have CEA to some degree. Most dogs are MDR1 mutants. There are also other genetic health issues in the breed, in addition to structure and all that fun stuff. Those, to me, are more important than having perfect naturally tipped ears (and ears are a BIG DEAL in my breed. Most collies, at least in the US, have their ears taped and/or glued at some point, and some people apparently think it's cruel. WTF. Those are the same people who breed houndy-looking ugly-headed European collies, though, too.)

Omg, those Russian collies.



WHAT

Yeah, that makes sense. But I also feel like there's a difference between there being more pressing matters/health issues to focus on before ears, and cropping because nobody breeds for correct ears because everyone just crops anyway, when the standard says otherwise. I could be interpreting Kady's post incorrectly, too.

I didn't realize how bad the Russian Roughs looked. Compared to those, the smoothies look amazing (I was actually referring to the smooths when I mentioned Russians the first time)

Czech smoothies, not my cup of tea either

Waht.

That rough too. Part of what really bothers me about European collies is the heads on the smooths and roughs are totally different from each other because they don't interbreed them. That's weird. They're supposed to be the same breed!

Woah....confession time, those Czech smooths are GORGEOUS to me! I would actually consider getting a smooth that looked like that (not a big fan of Collies, rough or smooth, generally). The one on the left in particular...just breathtaking.

That collie looking at the camera looks like a chow chow.


I have yet to see a Shiba inu with a proper tail in ANY ring in North America, loose single curl or sickle parallel to the back were the only acceptable tails, when I had mine and Tonka lost because of his tail (to a miss marked dog no less) now they have added double curl and sickle tail pointing up, so basically any.single.tail...awesome.

I would also love to see more colours in the ring, it's always just clear red, no love for the Black and Tan .

This is NOT an acceptable shiba inu colour http://www.calgaryshibas.com/dogs/3 (interestingly he was a half sibling to my female shiba, ruffian)

Overall paps aren't too bad. There's a variety in the breed but I do think the big name specials are going a certain direction for sure.

Coats are definitely getting more profuse, which is annoying. Too much emphasis on ears and not enough on structure.

I also greatly dislike some paps I'm seeing where the breeder is taking the phrase 'slightly longer than tall' to create some weirdly proportioned dogs that have stubby little legs. There's some weird ones out there showing. If it looks like a dachshund x pap, it's not show quality, imo. Show BCs seem to go the same way and a lot look like corgi mixes. They're missing the 'slightly' part of slightly longer than tall.

I also hate chi faces on papillons but that's more subjective as head type in the standard is pretty loose. I just want my paps to look like paps and have more refined features than chis. I don't like overly domed heads and overly short muzzles on papillons. If you want that look, get a chi.

I dislike the lineages I see more than anything. Breeding on Kirby repeatedly until you get a dog who has all their grandparents either being him or sired by/grandsired by him is disgusting. /rant/

I mean.. while the standard says that natural ears are preferred, for many, many years, cropped have been "in". And everyone knows that just because the standard says so, doesn't mean that's what the dogs are going to look like. Maybe one day natural ears will make a comeback, but until then, I don't have a problem with breeders not really worrying about ears. We have other issues we need to worry about, ears are a "simple" fix.

I see this a lot in the "slightly longer than tall" breeds. If it's not supposed to be square, it's going to be bred too long by somebody. I have the same complaint about Welshies, and I know a husky person who has the same problem with her breed. It's weird how it happens across breeds. I wonder if the square breed people have a similar complaint (or the opposite with backs being too short)?

Incidentally, some spaniels in the late 1800s became very long and low (basically like the sussex is now) because it was the trend, though they weren't functional at all. The Field Spaniel particularly was redeveloped into a moderate functional dog after going down that road. Funny how that sort of thing is relevant over a hundred years later.

Totally agree with you on that. I don't like the super racy Brittanies at all. I love the second dog. Some Welshies are too stocky with too much coat for me, and some brittanies are too skinny and racy, but that dog sort of hits the nice mark between both of them.

I looked at Britts before Welshies and if I had seen more dogs like that, I may have ended up with one.

GSDs, I am not a fan of ASL (American Show Lines), they do not look like a breed that is going to be able to do the demanding physical things I want...and I don't personally care for the temperament. WGSL (West German Show Line) is the route I would go if I *had* to get a show line dog. Although again, the temperament in general is not what I like.

Working line GSD = love. Kastle is a pretty good representation of a WL dog, and gets very good critiques when I show him against WGSL dogs. Unfortunately, he's a long coat, which many dislike...and he has some other...issues. But, physically looking at him, he's quite nice. Moderate, he's got good secondary sex characteristics, excellent movement. He could be a touch heavier but with his coat, he looks like he is and he may fill out more as he ages.



Real crappy stack but you get the picture...


I adore the look of that dog!