It would be most interesting to read different peoples 'order of priority' for things and the point at which it doesn't matter anymore.
As - is out at elbow a worse fault than too tall?
is lack of rear angulation better than cow hocks?
(before any think I am trying to 'get at' any judge this post is in response to the new direction another thread is taking, I thought I had better start a new topic) _________________ Guy; Ellie Topaz Catja. http://www.epagneulbreton.org.uk
To be honest Guy it doesn't matter too much to me. If a dog works well then I am likely to like it. By work well I mean a dog that wants to and which can run on and on - work on and on. If it can do that then whether its hocks are conforming to some breed standard or other hardly matters at all.
Bill T. _________________ Breed for the best - train for the rest.
Having had a dog out at elbow, a dog with lax pasterns and a dog who is too tall I know which I prefer.
Freddy the WSS struggled after he was 5 to maintain his activity as he was out at elbow and also he had arthritic feet, possible due to early nurture (or lack of) and it was sad to see.
Brice the deeriehound has lax pasterns that so far don't seem to be giving him problems BUT he is a large and athletic dog who will be 5 on sunday, he may well have problems down the line and I will manage him to keep him fit and active as long as possible. He isn't worked but he is from an active live so as much as a pet can exercise with an owner who wants to keep a sofa hog active he will be forced to run .
Now Chase is on top of breed standard and over if he is on his toes , otherwise he is very soundly made and can run and run - no contest, my rather large breton is the one I prefer to own as he is in proportion and as such is unlikely to overstrain any specific area of his body. Yesterday he spent 2 hours running in full sun even if it was unproductive (dam trail bikes on private land) and would have carried on but he was getting frustrated not finding anything so we called a halt.
Moo was a sturdy, sound dog who aged 12.5 and having a touch of arthritis was still working as his desire outweighed any physical reason to rest. But had he been like Fred I can't imagine will would have outweighed pain.
Aesthetics in one sense don't matter to me but construction and what it can cost does - can you tell I was an orthopaedic nurse in the past ? _________________ Sue, Brice, Chase and Piper
never forgetting Mugi and Freddy - happy hunting boys!
Bill - I was thinking more on the lines Sue has come back with not conforming to a standard - i meant dogs in the big picture.
I think in a hunting dog the ability to find game has to be a given - much like an airplane has to be safe. _________________ Guy; Ellie Topaz Catja. http://www.epagneulbreton.org.uk
All of those are faults but one doesn't judge by faults alone. IMO A dog that is out at the elbow is incorrect, a dog that is cow hocked is incorrect. Angulation in our breed is specific - a dog that is over or under 140 degree angulation at the rear or 120 degree at the front is incorrect. A dog with equal angulation front and rear is incorrect. These dogs are all likely to be moving unsoundly and /or atypically.
A dog that is above 52 cms is also incorrect as being above standard but may not be unsound, nor incorrect in any of the above ways. Therefore, in a ring where all dogs present have such faults the tall dog would be placed before the others. Size is actually fairly easy to control - mate a large dog to a small one and you will get a variety of sizes. Mate a medium dog to a medium dog and you will get (mostly) medium dogs. _________________ Aberdon HPR's. Good-looking AND Intelligent.
Not sure my contribution will be worth it, as articulating the finer points of conformation isn't my thing I know the basics but at the end of the day when I cast my eye over a dog I tend to evaluate it as an complete package, especially on the move. Now I know some will be able to say the reason a dog moves a particular way will be due to a specific `slope of shoulder' or `turn of stifle', but to me it will either move right or not and it will either catch my eye or send it elsewhere
I must admit to not being a fan of `stacking' a dog in the show ring, as it plays into the hands of those hiding faults, a dog standing loose is much more inclined to show its natural `balance', I will be interested in others views on this
I also have to admit I have a real bug about `moving close behind!' and I would love to be educated. In all the years I've watched dogs trotting around a ring, I've never been convinced that a dog trotting square looks right or even comfortable/natural. At the same time I've studied video of wild dogs wolves and even foxes and they all move `close behind' and look right when they do it, so has nature got it wrong
I think endurance is very important in our breeds, after all there is nothing worse than training a dog for five years only to find at seven its joints are worn out due to it not being made right, and the best way to see that is not in a show ring where a dog is `veteran ' at seven but watching `grand parents' of ten or more still running about a field
Peter
I think it is all a matter of degree and the root cause. Heavily muscled dogs can be out at elbow and still go flat out all day (thinking of the heavily roaded American Field trial dogs)
Moderate angulation at the rear has surely got to be better for the long term working ability of a dog (thinking of the bloody awful GSDs who seem to have absurd rear angulation and bugger all stability, surely the worst of all worlds) but I would think more important is a good balance front to rear?
Cow hocked may not look great but IIRC is in moderation a desireable feature in working sheep dogs and as peoples livelihoods used to depend on them I am pretty sure it is there for a reason...
As for to tall, I guess it isn't a problem in smaller breeds but I really hate the modern trend towards bigger and bigger dogs, whilst I am no great fan of the fine detail of breed standards I really do think that size is important on a number of fronts, not least in helping to define a breed but also bigger dogs suffer more wear and tear to the joints over the years, they have to shift more weight around which means they can tire quicker, they can make more noise, it is harder for them to jump obstacles etc. etc. Obviously there are exceptions but it stands to reason that bigger isn't necessarily better.
I prefer my dogs to be medium to bottom end of breed standard (but still inside )
Must admit I have changed my mind about slightly roached backs, which whilst I don't like the look of them do seem to offer the dog plenty of advantage in terms of "springiness" in the mid section and seems to reduce the required effort for movement at speed and improve reach at speed.
I guess it all comes down to what you want to do with your dog and for how many years! _________________ Fi 1 year old Weimaraner
Grace Weimaraner. Gone but not forgotten.
Harley Weimaraner. Much loved and sorely missed.
I know just about nothing about conformation but a bit like Peter I know what I am looking for when a I see a dog "getting about the place."
I've never had to retire a dog due to bone or muscle problems. Nearly every dog I've had has succumbed to one filthy form of cancer or another. How I hate that disease !
Bill T. _________________ Breed for the best - train for the rest.
You won't find cow hocks, roach backs, lack of rear angulation and elbows out in racing greyhounds , foxhounds and racehorses.
May be Huntsmen are true dog breeders, looking at the conformation in a modern pack one can see genuine breeding " fit for function ", they are realistic about conformation faults and working faults such as when a hound pays too much attention to deer. Perhaps we accept a far lower standard in gundogs.
Is a beautiful head with a body containing minor faults preferable to a "workmanlike " head with a body with no faults? _________________ Home of pure German Longhairs ,Ch HV's and Ch GSP's.
You won't find cow hocks, roach backs, lack of rear angulation and elbows out in racing greyhounds , foxhounds and racehorses.
May be Huntsmen are true dog breeders, looking at the conformation in a modern pack one can see genuine breeding " fit for function ", they are realistic about conformation faults and working faults such as when a hound pays too much attention to deer. Perhaps we accept a far lower standard in gundogs.
Is a beautiful head with a body containing minor faults preferable to a "workmanlike " head with a body with no faults?
I have spent many many years in hunt kennels.Most,not all,huntsman and/or masters are true "hound" men/women.Hounds have got to perform in the field before being even considered in the breeding plans.A hound that can hunt maybe 50-60 miles a day,at least twice a week,is built for the job."out at the elbow" or "incorrect angulation of hock" makes the hound unable to do such a punishing job so they are culled.I would say the biggest advantage hound breeding as got over gundog/any breed of dog breeding is NO MONEY IS INVOLVED in breeding hounds
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Next
Page 1 of 7
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
he will be forced to run 
.
?
I know the basics but at the end of the day when I cast my eye over a dog I tend to evaluate it as an complete package, especially on the move. Now I know some will be able to say the reason a dog moves a particular way will be due to a specific `slope of shoulder' or `turn of stifle', but to me it will either move right or not and it will either catch my eye or send it elsewhere 
