is it just me or are some breeds getting smaller and smaller, for example labs, and most of all rough collies, im finding it increasingly difficult it tell one apart from a sheltie!!!

anyone think the same, are breeds being bred smaller!??

Chlo

I have to say that when I saw the Rough Collies at Discover Dogs, I was surprised at how small they looked. Although maybe my  Rough Collie seemed bigger, because I was a young girl when we got him
It'll be interesting to hear what other people think.

liberty

It's funny you said about this I got a copy of the Crufts catalogue this morning for 1957 held at Olympia, inside there are illustration of the different breeds second day non-sporting and gundogs, some of the breeds do not bear must resembalance to the one's you see at Cruft, the Beardy has not the coat of our present day the Lhasa Apso's did not have the same coat as with the cockers, the trade adds depict dogs that you struggle to reconise the breeds.The Newfound land seems to be on breed that size is on the decline There is a picture of a Lab Champion Whatstandwell Coronet, I have not seem many Labs to match this one these days. There is an ad for Diamond Edge Ltd. for clippers 21s 6d the poolde on the ad looks very wooden, I have spent all day going through to see if I can find any track to dogs name I remember now. The Bull dog looks really scarey

You have just mentioned one of my all time favourite Labradors Britney!

It's interesting to note, Pat Chapman's "Shargleam Blackcap" 1980 Crufts BIS would be over the present Flatcoat limit today!

The Labradors breed standard on the other hand has not changed in the slightest from the first breed standard which actually defined a height, 1950, right up to the present day standard! I must admit there are some very short legged Labs around these days but if you actually take the time to measure them you will in most cases find that they are within standard! What is happening is that some bodies are so deep, dropping so far between the legs that they make the dog look short! My own Anna is actually 3 inches OVER breed standard!! (Of course the American standard is considerably different to the UK version but even that has not changed since it was first approved on the 9th of April 1957)

I must say that the Labs I remember in the 40's and 50's were much larger, but then, in those days I was much smaller!!!!

Best wishes, John

Hi John, am covered in Flatcoat kissess, dog hair etc, etc. :D
Have attemted to measure Liberty, and I'm getting 25 inches from the shoulder, give or take a slobbery kiss or two
How would that measure up to the breed standard?? I know her Sire was a big dog.

Thanks in advance

liberty :)

She is a big girl, standard is 22" to 23" at the withers.

Thanks for that Jackie H :)  Have just tried to measure her again, not easy though
Still getting 25 inches at the shoulder, but I must add, that even as a pup, she was known as the Big Girl, by her breeder :D
It matters not to me, she's my baby :)

Thanks :)

liberty

Liberty you are not taking the tape up the side and over the top are you, I find it easer to measure up my leg and then stand next to the dog.

Hi Jackie, no, I'm using a metal tape, and just trying to read it from the top of her shoulder/withers. Am I doing it wrong??

liberty

Hi Liberty, you might find it easier if you can get her side on against a wall & mark it, then measure from the floor to the mark :)

Christien, Spain.

Thanks for that Christine, She has just gone down to 22 inches... I think. :D  :D

Thanks :)

liberty

Brett (Blackcap) was 26 inches. Just about the same height as my friend's dog, Trev was before he died. (Present dog height 23 to 24 inches)

Best wishes, John

So I guess, as Liberty is a bitch, and they're usualy smaller, she is a bit of a big'un ???

liberty

John is correct, Shargleam Blackcap was 25 & three quarter inches at the shoulder. The current height standard reads, MAXIMUM height for a dog 24 inches and for bitches 22 inches. The older breed standard allowed a leeway either side and stated that the "ideal height for a dog was 24.5 inches and for a bitch 22.5 inches. Most judges then would allow a leeway of at least two inches either side.

One problem with having a "Maximum Height" in a standard is that to achieve that goal, a breeder should aim to breed a smaller dog. So for a height standard of 24 inches you would aim to breed for about 22 inches, so that if your potential champion grows on it is still not above the standard. This is partly why the breeds are shrinking. The flatcoat originally had this leeway in height, as I was told by Dr. Nancy Laughton, it was considered to be an advantage to vary size, according to the type of ground over which the dog was to be worked.

I sent in to the breed newsletter a few years ago a copy of an interview held with much respected breeders and members of the FCR Society, interviewed in 1968, which was republished in the newsletter, in that they were mostly advocating a "pincer" bite, in other words, a level bite as being the ideal.

Standards are always changing, but sometimes I do wonder if we are changing the standard to suit what is being bred now rather than for the benefit of the breed. The breed is getting narrower through the chest for example yet the standard calls for depth and breadth of chest with well defined brisket. To get that you should see a good forechest, as Joan Chester-Perks will tell you they should have a forechest like the prow of a ship!

I agree that, in many cases, a 'maximum height' regulation can be a bad thing for a breed, because an otherwise perfect example can be disqualified for being a quarter-inch too tall.

Dalmatians however seem to be going the other way, with many animals (dogs in particular) being enormous! There ideal height quoted in the standard is dogs 23"-24", and bitches 22"-23". My boy was officially measured at 24", and people tell me he's too small - and indeed, compared to others in the ring, he is small. However, size isn't everything, and overall balance is of prime importance - but we have to be careful not to let size become too extreme, because it will be very hard to get it right again.

Ditto, Large Munsterlanders where the standard calls for a "Chest, wide and with good depth of brisket", some are so narrow you could call them setters.    This breed too should have a good forechest, quickly disappearing in todays dogs too.   I wonder if people in their chosen breeds actually ever bother to read the breed standards?  The FCI standard for the LM is even more descriptive.

Thankfully the weight part of the standard has been dropped, it said 30kg.   Most LM dogs would be bordering on RSPCA cases if they weighed that & probably several bitches too.

I know what you mean about RSPCA cases as far as some weight standards go, thank goodness our larger dogs are not weighed in the ring like the mini dachs are! The only way to get a healthy dog or bitch to weigh in at the standards is to change the height standard and breed smaller dogs.
As far as disappearing fore chest and brisket goes, if you watch long enough you will start to see over extension on the back end so that your breed will stand like a setter, look flashy and before you know it you will have setters too! Why oh why is it so fashionable to over extend the hind quarters????? I was taught to judge my breed by Reed Flowers, he said always if you see a stacked dog, ask the handler to take a half step back so the dog moves into a natural position so you see the real dog and not the "stacked" perfections. If the handler would not move he said touch the lead or move around the dog so the handler and dog don't know what you are doing and will then move out of your way, and into a natural position. He was so right!
Having said that I recently judged at a show down on the south coast, in the ring was a bitch which I thought looked lovely, at a distance, but the handler had her stood so she looked like a staffordshire bull terrier at the front, and when she moved he did not do her any favours either. Try as I might I could not get this bitch to do anything other than follow her handler! When handled by her owner though outside the ring this bitch looked every bit as good as I had at first thought!

the standard for a collie is 56-66cm

the ones ive seen recently dont seem an inch over 50cm!!!

Whats happening to them!
although the standard hasnt changed, i swear i am seeing smaller than the standard ones in shows and out and about!

Chlo

That is the male, the bitch is 51 ti 56 - 20" to 22" on me that is sort of knee hight.

I said the same thing about standard poodles in another post,i went to crufts with a freind who was just as amazed at how small the rotties were compared to her own boy.

Just had a look in the 1957 shedule there is no hight for flatcoat inthe shedule just say's weight of 60 -70 lb. the dog shown if Forestholm Hawk   it looks as if the coat on his neck is very shaggy and is a grandson of ch Shot of forestholm, bring back any memories john. there are Lhasa Apso's and Tibetan Terriers which I did not think were many in the country at that time but there seemed to have a good entry as did the Tibetan spaniel and.another breed that are not one of my favorites is the chow chow how compact and they seemed longer in body than the ones shown now, give me an old book and I will waste a week of my life.But it so fasinating as I was only 5 years old when this book was issued.It had the great Joe Braddon judge all breeds of spaniel. In the st Bernards there is a write up on Ch Peldarto Orranjit owned by a mrs Walker of Leics, and a statement that at that time a St Bernard had been sold to a lady in America for the staggering sum of £1,300 how much would the work out at todays prices !!The Gamekeeper class's had one of the largest entry's. If I could find more of these books I would not surface untill after christmas

The "Gamekeepers" Ring is the oldest ring at Crufts and predates Crufts by nearly 10 years! The weight today is dogs 60 to 80lbs and bitches 55 to 70lbs. My friend's Flattie Trev that I spoke about was around 100lbs of solid muscle. Labs in the UK do not state a weight but during the summer I was in my vet's and as usual they weighed Anna. Whilst standing there in came a very big black dog Lab. The rolls of fat took minutes to stop wobbling after he stopped!! Being nosey I kept an eye on the scales. He turned the scales at 31Kg. Anna without a scrap of fat on her but in hard muscle had just turned the scales at 35Kg!!!

Without digging catalogues out I think my first year at Crufts must have been around 1965. I remember sitting on Rayners Lane station in a snow storm in shirt sleeves. The girl I was with was more concerned with fashion than practicalities until that point! She didn't refuse my jacket though!!

Best wishes, John

Trefor in hard condition at his prime tipped the scales at 112lbs! So much for the standard weights! Even my smallest dogs I have found weigh over the standard weights when in hard condition. I am glad that the fashion for sticking rigidly to these weights is dying out as I saw some flatcoats which were not in hard condition, even though their owner claimed they were. To my eye they were under fed! I think the modern foods and our advanced knowledge of nutrition make these old standard weights outdated. I'd rather tinker with these than the height standards.

I'm not arguing but so much of it is subjective. If I look at Anna sitting in a field she too looks very small. If she is in my (smallish) kitchen she looks larger. It is only when she is really close to other Labradors that I see just how big she really is. Without putting the dogs under a measuring stick or standing them side by side it is so hard to say for sure. Show people with over height dogs look for tall dogs to stand near because it does not accentuate the height of their dog!

Best wishes, John

Hi John

I've just measured Luna. She is about 52 cm - that would be about 21 inches, right?

2 weeks ago she weighed 23.5 kg. She is 8 months old. I've heard they grow untill they are 2 years old, is that correct? And would that make Luna a big or a small lab?

I've only seen her mother, and I think she is a little bigger than her. I can't really get in contact with the family I bought her from, which is pretty sad, cause I would like to see her 5 siblings.

Jeanette

I must admit, at Discover Dogs at Crufts last year, I thought exactly the same about the Rough Collies. I knew one in 1980 who was noticeably bigger than the ones I saw last year, by a good 4 inches.

Hi,

In my opinion in my breed the Goldies I feel ar e getting too small.They are incresingly becomming too short in the leg and too long in the back giving the overall appearance of unbalanced.
Dogs should be 22-24 inches
Bitches            20-22 inches

Height limits were set so the Golden Retriever could work with ease.However I feel one inch above and below the maximum and minimum figures should in the ring be faulted in exact proportion to its degree,The dog should look balanced.
Just my opinion:-)

Briony :-)

Think the height is inclined to wander a bit in all breeds. Of recent years it has been thought that smaller rather than larger was better for health and I think in some breeds this has been taken on board and is one of the things that breeders, who care, are looking at. There does seem to be a correlation between size and longevity, but not sure if this applies to every cm you take off the overall height of a particular breed. Anyone got any more info on this please.

Come round for a cuppa and let my Daisy sit on your lap, she'll soon change your mind :D

M.

    My Rough Collie Bitch is 21" at the shoulder ( breed standard for bitches 20/22" ) and she stands above a lot of bitches in the ring and is often refered to as my big bitch. I had the chance to show a dog last year, he is 23" at the shoulder (male height 22/24") he looked very big in the ring and very out of place :) I would agree Rough Collies are getting smaller.
               Sheila

In my breed, Bearded Collies, there are alot of big ones in the ring, and they get consistently high placed. Some are 3 inches over (ideal) standard. An inch either way is nothing, but 3 inches???. Our breed is a medium sized breed, and I would like to see it stay thay way. The (ideal) height for Beardies is 20-21" (Bitches), and 21-22" (dogs). One of my girls is just over 20" and is classed as little, the other (her daughter) is 21" and is also referred to as little????. Alot of all-rounder judges (and some breed judges too) put up the big ones, they become Champions, and people use them at stud etc. I would not penalise an otherwise good dog for being an inch either way, but I would for 3 inches. Judges have to take responsibility somewhere along the line, as well as breeders.
I have seen Beardies as big as some decent sized Rotties (males), and their height standard for male dogs is 25-27 inches), which is very worrying for our breed.

Kay