Hi everyone, I just have an idle query, don't want to seem stupid but I wondered if anyone can shed some light. When breed standards are drawn up originally, what are the criteria used to make them? Obviously some standards date back a long way (I don't know if they are ever updated) but the thread on working or show dogs just got me wondering (I'm thinking with Labradors in mind) - if the breed standard is an indication of what the breed "should" look like then wouldn't that appearance be founded in the purpose of the breed? In which case are todays working labs more like the original dogs on which the breed standards were based? If that is the case, why are dogs bred for showing, where the aim is to be as close to the standard as poss, markedly different in build?

Sorry if the answer to this should be obvious :o it is just my idle curiosity;). Obviously I understand why over generations dogs bred for different lifestyles should evolve differently, but I wondered how this worked in terms of the breed standard.

:)

Standards are drawn up by breed committees so I supose we are lucky all our dogs don't look like camels. You do have a good point but I don't supose we will ever know what those drawing up the standards for ancient breeds had in mind, you only have to speak to those working on current breeds to know it gets no easier.

It is up to judges, if you are talking Show dogs, to put up the dogs they think are nearest to the breed standard. But if they consistently put up dogs that differ from the standard new comers to the breed come to think that this is a good example of the breed and as you know it take a lot to change someones perception of what is correct.
Ja:)kie

The way I understand breed standards, they should represent the ideal in looks temperament, and working/Mental abilities, based on the purpose of the breed.

Obviously some aspects are open to Opinion.

In the showring only the physical attributes, and to a certain extent temperament can be ascertained by a physical examination, and soundness of body when having the dog move.

In the working Arena, I would guess that some breeders do not care one jot what the dog looks like, as long as it could work, and for those doing trials, work at the highest level.

In my breed in Scandinavia a working elkhound and a show one are one and the same. The keen sportsman cannot make his dog a hunting champion unless it conforms to the breed standard markedly in looks and temperament. It has to gain a First Quality grading at a show, in order to get its working tiltle. the same goes for show dogs, they must prove themselves in the field also, before they can be awarded champion qualifying awards, and if the best dog does not have his hunting Qualification, then the CC goes to the highest placed dog.bitch that does.

For the purist this is all quite correct, but as a result of this my breed lost a lot of fanciers who are not primarily interested in hunting but showing and breeding.

One can see what happened in America (less so here) for example, where the breed was developed into a glamourous dog, many oversize, and early maturing, resulting in overdone at maturity. Breeders have worked hard to correct this exageration, and the standard calls for a dog that is not cumbersome, so it can do a days work.

I would imagine that the ideal Labrador lies somewhere between the show and working type, and there are undoubtedly handsome working labs, that wouldn't be disgraced in the showring, and show dogs of a suitable build to work. Both extremes are incorrect.

That would make sense Brainless, I did wonder if the 'happy medium' scenario would be the case.

Thank you and Jackie for humouring my musings :) It's one of those Friday afternoons when it probably isn't healthy to ponder on these things for too long