Does the dog meet standard?
- Thread starter krissy
- Start date
There's variety in the ring in AKC in the Belgians. I like that and think its good for breeds to have variety. UKC though... There's definitely a trend of extremely refined heads, squareness and not enough concern with movement or trkperament with some of the judging. And to answer the squareness question - You do see some lines tending to be almost taller than long. But sometimes a "square" look is achieved by breeding dogs with too little angles.
Pyrsheps - the only thing I don't like is seeing more grooming being "needed" in the specials. I love the variety in the breed and that natural, cropped, docked/bobbed are all equally acceptable. I personally think it's sort of funny to allow cropped and uncropped equally but be picky about what the ears should look like. According to who and why? The ears are historically cropped for functional reasons, if they're not I think they shouldn't really be a huge concern in judging. Same with docking. I know that's not a popular opinion though
Those Russian rough collies are interesting. It's like they never bred for the show type head but have tons and tons of coat. The overly tiny eyes on some show collies bothers me, as does the emphasis on head type over everything else. Although being a "head breed" or a whatever one trait breed isn't only an issue in the collie breed.
Pyrsheps - the only thing I don't like is seeing more grooming being "needed" in the specials. I love the variety in the breed and that natural, cropped, docked/bobbed are all equally acceptable. I personally think it's sort of funny to allow cropped and uncropped equally but be picky about what the ears should look like. According to who and why? The ears are historically cropped for functional reasons, if they're not I think they shouldn't really be a huge concern in judging. Same with docking. I know that's not a popular opinion though
Those Russian rough collies are interesting. It's like they never bred for the show type head but have tons and tons of coat. The overly tiny eyes on some show collies bothers me, as does the emphasis on head type over everything else. Although being a "head breed" or a whatever one trait breed isn't only an issue in the collie breed.
The Russian smooth collies are interesting to me... I think the tri looks like a collie (I kind of like that one), but definitely not the sable.
I guess that's my problem with it, overall, and definitely not just in AmStaffs. At that point why even bother with a standard if people are going to breed whatever they want/what's in fashion/etc anyway?
Show BCs are interesting to me. Some I can't stand, but some I love. Depends on the lines and goals in breeding I guess. I didn't like the overdone (IMO) BC at Westminster:
...which seems to be the popular show look.
but I love Brigadoon's dogs. I mean, Fiona is beautiful. She has British/Scottish lined dogs though. Honestly I kind of disliked show BCs too until I found out that there are dogs like Pirate out there too. I guess I'm kind of a broken record on moderation, lol. I also see how someone who is hardline working BCs only might dislike them, either for what they are or just because there are show BCs at all.
I guess that's my problem with it, overall, and definitely not just in AmStaffs. At that point why even bother with a standard if people are going to breed whatever they want/what's in fashion/etc anyway?
Show BCs are interesting to me. Some I can't stand, but some I love. Depends on the lines and goals in breeding I guess. I didn't like the overdone (IMO) BC at Westminster:
...which seems to be the popular show look.
but I love Brigadoon's dogs. I mean, Fiona is beautiful. She has British/Scottish lined dogs though. Honestly I kind of disliked show BCs too until I found out that there are dogs like Pirate out there too. I guess I'm kind of a broken record on moderation, lol. I also see how someone who is hardline working BCs only might dislike them, either for what they are or just because there are show BCs at all.
Show BCs are interesting to me. Some I can't stand, but some I love. Depends on the lines and goals in breeding I guess. I didn't like the overdone (IMO) BC at Westminster:
...which seems to be the popular show look.
...which seems to be the popular show look.
Not to be a fuddy duddy... but let's maybe try to remember that even if they aren't members, these are peoples loved dogs you are talking about. (and people on this board, myself included, own show line dogs)
No personally liking the way they look or the route their breeder took (I don't like the coat, too much slope, etc..) is one thing but perhaps a little sensitivity? Not saying anyone has said anything but seems to be the general direction this is headed.
Just maybe perhaps think what it would feel like to find a bunch of people posting a picture of your very loved dog like "EW THAT IS GROSS!"
No personally liking the way they look or the route their breeder took (I don't like the coat, too much slope, etc..) is one thing but perhaps a little sensitivity? Not saying anyone has said anything but seems to be the general direction this is headed.
Just maybe perhaps think what it would feel like to find a bunch of people posting a picture of your very loved dog like "EW THAT IS GROSS!"
All my issues are directed at the breeding practices, not the dogs themselves - but that's a good point, I definitely don't want to be insensitive. It can be a fine line criticizing breeding practices since the products are all beloved family members.
I'm also commenting strictly on appearance, not temperament, which I think is often where it gets nasty, especially when discussing show vs working lines.
I know it's not directed at me specifically but I admit I *have* been getting a little worked up the past few days about these issues. Hopefully I haven't been outright nasty about the dogs. They're... dogs. They're not at fault in any way, and I'm sure they're all great companions.
But I do maintain that often, breeding *specifically* for the show ring - not including conformation as part of a breeding program, but specifically breeding toward trends for wins and ribbons - is a bad thing and results in dogs that aren't correct for their breed.
(My next dog will almost definitely come from a breeder who shows!)
I'm also commenting strictly on appearance, not temperament, which I think is often where it gets nasty, especially when discussing show vs working lines.
I know it's not directed at me specifically but I admit I *have* been getting a little worked up the past few days about these issues. Hopefully I haven't been outright nasty about the dogs. They're... dogs. They're not at fault in any way, and I'm sure they're all great companions.
But I do maintain that often, breeding *specifically* for the show ring - not including conformation as part of a breeding program, but specifically breeding toward trends for wins and ribbons - is a bad thing and results in dogs that aren't correct for their breed.
(My next dog will almost definitely come from a breeder who shows!)
Let's just get the Brigadoon/Gladwyn/Brittish and Scottish lines of BC's out of the way. And that isn't even breeder bias. I have ALWAYS ADORED the look of those dogs and their versatility. *swoon* I'm not getting into the politics any further than that. Everyone has a preference, and that is a breed that is heavily divided.
Now, Sibes I have some strong opinions and preferences on, and it's also a breed that I'm more comfortable with since it's a breed I've been involved with for a long time. But, it still comes down to purpose. AKC Conformation dogs are getting heavier and stockier, with more puppyish faces. I don't particularly like it. I feel like they might be leaning towards Malamutes and Klee Kai's too much. I kinda tend to ignore the idea that AKC Sibes exist at all, unless they have been outcrossed recently and frequently.
I much prefer Canadian KC and UKC lines. You tend to find more dogs there that excel in working AND conformation. Also breeders that are more apt to health test.
As far as breed TYPES, I just tend to link people here:
http://www.vargevass.com/websiberian/engels/breed/breedtypes.html
Now, Sibes I have some strong opinions and preferences on, and it's also a breed that I'm more comfortable with since it's a breed I've been involved with for a long time. But, it still comes down to purpose. AKC Conformation dogs are getting heavier and stockier, with more puppyish faces. I don't particularly like it. I feel like they might be leaning towards Malamutes and Klee Kai's too much. I kinda tend to ignore the idea that AKC Sibes exist at all, unless they have been outcrossed recently and frequently.
I much prefer Canadian KC and UKC lines. You tend to find more dogs there that excel in working AND conformation. Also breeders that are more apt to health test.
As far as breed TYPES, I just tend to link people here:
http://www.vargevass.com/websiberian/engels/breed/breedtypes.html
Just because it's my currently owned colour of BC...
A little bit closer to the Golden Retriever
It's the snubbed in snout, thick nose, over pronounced stop and massive coat that get to me.
NONE of which are within the written standard for the breed.
I'll say again, I like the look of a Border Collie that *fits the standard* but some judges seem to be picking the most bizarre traits to favour in excess.
Oh and just to add those little legged ones apparently they're popping up in this breed too
A little bit closer to the Golden Retriever
It's the snubbed in snout, thick nose, over pronounced stop and massive coat that get to me.
NONE of which are within the written standard for the breed.
I'll say again, I like the look of a Border Collie that *fits the standard* but some judges seem to be picking the most bizarre traits to favour in excess.
Oh and just to add those little legged ones apparently they're popping up in this breed too
Well I didn't see anyone calling dogs ugly even, they pretty much just said "This is what I don't like and here's why." I don't think anything about that is rude or unfair. Unless I missed a really nasty post.
I don't care for type on most showline BCs or Aussies. It doesn't mean I think they're disgusting, it just means... I don't care for that type. I like the rougher cut, slightly scruffy working type dogs.
Not everybody will like your dog, especially their appearance. Who cares? I hope we haven't reached the point of warm n' fuzzy where we can't even calmly discuss our preferences in type.
Somebody on here said that field line English Cockers were too ugly to even consider. I lol'd, same person has American Cockers which aren't my cup of tea at all. Nothing worth getting upset over.
I don't like seeing people bash lines especially if it's coming from ignorance, but I didn't see any bashing unless it's the Golden Retriever comment we're referencing?
I don't care for type on most showline BCs or Aussies. It doesn't mean I think they're disgusting, it just means... I don't care for that type. I like the rougher cut, slightly scruffy working type dogs.
Not everybody will like your dog, especially their appearance. Who cares? I hope we haven't reached the point of warm n' fuzzy where we can't even calmly discuss our preferences in type.
Somebody on here said that field line English Cockers were too ugly to even consider. I lol'd, same person has American Cockers which aren't my cup of tea at all. Nothing worth getting upset over.
I don't like seeing people bash lines especially if it's coming from ignorance, but I didn't see any bashing unless it's the Golden Retriever comment we're referencing?
I own a show dog. Not just show lines, but a dog I'm actively showing. I wouldn't have any issue with someone putting his picture up here and pointing out his faults, or things they disliked about him. I generally know his faults anyway! I also don't see an issue with showing types of dogs you like and don't like and I think it's been pretty respectful so far. I agree with whoever said that nobody is bashing temperament either, which is where things tend to get heated.
Being in the dog show environment, it's normal for people to talk about the dogs they see in the ring. It's not nice to just bash dogs, or say personal things about the breeders/owners, but everybody stands around and talks about which types of dogs they like or don't like, and what specific aspect of a dog they like or don't like. If you're going to put a dog out there for critique by a judge, then you have to be open to having people judge your dog. It doesn't mean your dog isn't a fabulous pet and companion, and I don't think anybody means it that way.
Being in the dog show environment, it's normal for people to talk about the dogs they see in the ring. It's not nice to just bash dogs, or say personal things about the breeders/owners, but everybody stands around and talks about which types of dogs they like or don't like, and what specific aspect of a dog they like or don't like. If you're going to put a dog out there for critique by a judge, then you have to be open to having people judge your dog. It doesn't mean your dog isn't a fabulous pet and companion, and I don't think anybody means it that way.
Wouldn't that only be "bashing" if someone has a hate on for Goldens? (I don't...). I'm sorry if it offended someone but it wasn't meant to be a bash, just as a comparison - Goldens do not look like BCs and I do not think that BCs should look like Goldens. It's nothing against that particular dog, who definitely isn't ugly, but I just don't see how making what is generally a thin, athletic, and agile breed, stockier accomplishes. Really... what the point of having a breed standard is if the judging doesn't follow it?
I have real issues with show breeders not breeding for temperament traits or working abilities that the breed was originally developed. I mean, I'm not going to say that to win BIS the dog should also be the absolute best at its job, but I just don't understand actively breeding towards traits that may negatively impact a breed's ability to do its job.
In Eskies, at least around here... so much focus has been put on coat colour and size that breeders are not considering temperament, and it is resulting in dogs that are overly fearful and outright aggressive, which IMO goes way beyond the "wariness of strangers" allowed for in the breed standard.
I have real issues with show breeders not breeding for temperament traits or working abilities that the breed was originally developed. I mean, I'm not going to say that to win BIS the dog should also be the absolute best at its job, but I just don't understand actively breeding towards traits that may negatively impact a breed's ability to do its job.
In Eskies, at least around here... so much focus has been put on coat colour and size that breeders are not considering temperament, and it is resulting in dogs that are overly fearful and outright aggressive, which IMO goes way beyond the "wariness of strangers" allowed for in the breed standard.
I've just seen these threads unravel before and they don't end up in the best place. It's a sensitive issue *shrug* just saying to maybe tread lightlyish?
For the record, I don't care if people don't think my dog is well bred/"good looking", I obviously went to his breeder for a reason but that doesn't mean that somebody else might not be more sensitive to hear that their dog is "doing a disservice to their breed!" "Shouldn't even be called a ______" ,"Can't work and is useless"...which is where these threads usually end up lol
Not even saying this thread is going there, just saying, this is where these threads usually end up because they quickly go from
"That dog has a lot of coat, it's not what I prefer..."
"SHOW BREEDERS ARE USELESS SO THERE ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS COAT! THAT DOG ISN'T EVEN A ________"
For the record, I don't care if people don't think my dog is well bred/"good looking", I obviously went to his breeder for a reason but that doesn't mean that somebody else might not be more sensitive to hear that their dog is "doing a disservice to their breed!" "Shouldn't even be called a ______" ,"Can't work and is useless"...which is where these threads usually end up lol
Not even saying this thread is going there, just saying, this is where these threads usually end up because they quickly go from
"That dog has a lot of coat, it's not what I prefer..."
"SHOW BREEDERS ARE USELESS SO THERE ALL THEY CARE ABOUT IS COAT! THAT DOG ISN'T EVEN A ________"
I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I too have seen threads head that ugly way.
However, while I may not be the best judge considering my short time here, from what I've seen most (if not every) Chaz user I've interacted with has appeared to be a mature and rational person.
I do think it's good to have that reminder there though. Just to ensure we do remember to monitor ourselves before clicking that "submit" button.
However, while I may not be the best judge considering my short time here, from what I've seen most (if not every) Chaz user I've interacted with has appeared to be a mature and rational person.
I do think it's good to have that reminder there though. Just to ensure we do remember to monitor ourselves before clicking that "submit" button.
I'd be a little bit upset if someone came on here and said 'Man, I can't stand Beau (our show champion). He's ugly and a useless foo foo dog!'
I DON'T mind people saying things like: I don't like his type. Or I don't like his ears. Or his head is too coarse. His coat is too poofy, etc.
So way it's stated matters.
I DON'T mind people saying things like: I don't like his type. Or I don't like his ears. Or his head is too coarse. His coat is too poofy, etc.
So way it's stated matters.