Proposed changes to the breed standard
1. Adding the word practically in front of square. To me square needs no elaboration, it is a word with a specific meaning. What does practically square mean? It doesn't mean square, so does it mean oval or rectangle? Was this added because breeders can't/aren't producing square dogs? If this is the case then doesn't it folllow that breeders aren't breeding to the standard but wording the standard to fit their breeding? 2. Adding a "preferred size" of 22"-26" for dogs and 21"-25" for bitches. Who prefers this? Also included is the phrase "slightly more or less not to be penalized", who determines how much slightly is? I have a boy who measures 27.5 at the withers, is that slight? 3. Regarding tails "it is preferable that there be none. However, it must never exceed 2" in adult dogs. A tail that exceeds 2" in length must be so severely penalized as to eliminate the dog from competition." Then under rationale for change "this wordage does not mean the dog would be disqualified from competition. It means a dog with a tail cannot place first or second in a class regardless of the number of dogs competing in that class. This would assure that a dog with a tail cannot be advanced to the winners class to compete for winners or reserve." HUH  This doesn't even make sense regardless of your personal feelings about tails. I think it's kind of insulting to say we'll take your entry fees but we aren't sure if you can actually enter the ring with your tailed dog. Make it clear: dogs with tails are allowed to compete or they're not; period. PLEASE- I am not trying to reopen the tail debate!
I have no agenda here, these were just things that bothered me. If anyone has more insight on this than I have I'd love to hear it. Some of this just doesn't make sense to me. |
|
|
I know very little about the breed standard, so am probably the least qualified person to comment. But I do think that if its a "Standard" then it should be concise. Do you think they are softening the language using words like "practically" or "preferred" because we are seeing less and less dogs that meet the concise requirements of the standard? And if so; why is this? Is it possible that due to the limited gene pool, we are seeing breed changes; evolutionary alterations to what we deemed to be "standard" happening right before our eyes? I know it sounds dramatic and silly, but I did say I was uneducated in this matter. 
As for tail docking; I don't see how it can be a breed standard. A docked tail isn't about how the dog was bred; its about how good or not good a job was done by whoever did the docking. So does the breed standard refer to the actual breeding of the dog; the bloodlines that were used to produce the dog, or does it refer to a combination of how well the dog has been surgically altered to meet that standard AND the breeding of the dog? Again; not trying to cause a fight, I'm actually curious and have never had the chance to hear about these sorts of things. I didn't even know breed standards could be changed!!!! |
Practically square  My dog is very square, so will he be penalized because of it? Would he have to be practically square and not square like he is now? Jazzy is 24 by 24 now and I have been told by a few breeders that he is small, so why does standard read for dogs 22 and upward ? All of this continues to baffle and p#ss me off. I won't even go on about the tail thing. No wonder why there are not alot of people who show in our breed  |
Quote: I know very little about the breed standard, so am probably the least qualified person to comment.
Scootch over... me too 
Wow... it sounds rather wishy-washy... "lacking in decisiveness". I'm clueless about what makes a good OES but shouldn't a breed standard be clear if people are to strive to reach it? |
loried wrote: I have been told by a few breeders that he is small, so why does standard read for dogs 22 and upward ? All of this continues to baffle and p#ss me off. I won't even go on about the tail thing.
I've been told by other breeders that Zach is too big, Jonah is too skinny, and Gabe is too small. Breeders other than your own are generally not your friend; and since Jazz and my boys are all champions someone thought they are worthy  |
| Re "practically square" and the not-imposed height restrictions... we've always had a general guideline for height, a minimum that has never been enforced. Re square, that has always been part of most standards but seems to be something people/breeders are paying far more attention to in say the last 5 years.
I just don't want to see our breed turned into a miniature version of itself. Have any of you ever seen a full grown OES under 22"??? I haven't, even my tiny Dancer is 23" and I have not seen a smaller sheepdog. She's perfectly square too, and structurally fits all the appropriate "measurements" but no way would I call her show quality, nor would I aim to produce anything like her. Also, with emphasis on "square" I hear a lot of breeders focusing now on "cobby, boxy" puppies, which is great and they look wonderful but what happens in a few generations when our dogs are so short backed they no longer have the balance to perform the job they were bred to? |
| Question for those in the 'KNOW"....
Does the AKC set the breed standards..??? OR Does OESCA set the breed standard and then forward them to AKC??? Can the AKC challenge any of the new wording or changes? Then, does the AKC give the new standards to ALL of the judges, who then have to study the changes and IF after reviewing these changes, the judges have questions, do they contact OESCA or AKC? IMHO...these changes are so vague, how would you argue some of these 'faults'>>>??? |
Willowsprite wrote: I just don't want to see our breed turned into a miniature version of itself. Have any of you ever seen a full grown OES under 22"???
Yes, darlin'. 
Meet: Am/Can CH Coco RN ROM - 21.5" Am/Can Ch Belle CD RA AX AXJ 21.5" Ch Mad Dog NJC NGC O-TN ROM- 21.75" Sybil NA - 22" All official wicketed by the AKC, by the way, to get their height card for agility, except Coco, who never competed. She produced Mad who in turn produced Sybil, with Belle being Coco's sister. That's three generations, with size gradually creeping UP, which I'm NOT happy about as my ideal bitch is no more than 22" for working puposes. That's just a personal preference. Not something I need to impose on anyone else. I don't want miniature OES either, but in my experience that's not happening. To the contrary. The American standard as it stands reads: Dogs: 22 inches (55.8 cm) and upward. Bitches: 21 inches (53.3 cm) and upward. The American breed standard used to contain a MAX height of 26". That was removed to accomodate the increasing size of the dogs, and especially one in particular (though he was never bred, because his breeder did not want to contribute to this shift). Now having said all that, I have my own opinion on any attempts to turn back the clock at this stage of the game. Those proposed revisions are just that - PROPOSED. Not a personal insult aimed at any of our dogs
Val - OESCA - that would be us, the membership, ultimately -determines the breed standard, though there are certain AKC guidelines that prevent us from revising it willy-nilly. Kristine |
loried wrote: Practically square
My dog is very square, so will he be penalized because of it? Would he have to be practically square and not square like he is now? Jazzy is 24 by 24 now and I have been told by a few breeders that he is small, so why does standard read for dogs 22 and upward ? All of this continues to baffle and p#ss me off. I won't even go on about the tail thing. No wonder why there are not alot of people who show in our breed LOL. Too square-- you're out! Where are you reading the proposed changes? I feel like I'm missing a lot of correspondence from the breed club... |
| We just got a letter (real mail) from OESCA with the proposed changes. Ours came on Saturday, I think.
Chewie is my shortest OES (all males), and I must say, I really like it. Todd agrees, his size makes him very agile and still big enough to get the job done - whatever that job may be. He was recently (unofficially) wicketed by the agility judge at a trial we were volunteering at - and he measured 23 1/2". I had him at about 24" in previous measurements at home - so I was close.
Not that I care if others have larger/smaller ones, just chalk it up to personal preference being an option still (thank goodness). I find being the size he is, is perfect for all the things we like to do 
Martha is about 22" - by rough measuring - sister to Chewie, Sybil, Macy, et al.  |
| I can certainly understand wanting a dog at the smaller end of the scale for agility etc.... and I've seen some smaller dogs in the show ring too who are very nice indeed, just my personal preference that no matter the height I like to see balance, bone, substance.
I just worry that if breeders focus on one aspect of the dogs anatomy we'll see unintended changes or loss of balance in other areas.... |
Willowsprite wrote: I can certainly understand wanting a dog at the smaller end of the scale for agility etc.... and I've seen some smaller dogs in the show ring too who are very nice indeed, just my personal preference that no matter the height I like to see balance, bone, substance.
I just worry that if breeders focus on one aspect of the dogs anatomy we'll see unintended changes or loss of balance in other areas.... For clarity I probably should have copied the entire section on size, proportions etc from the American breed standard: Size, Proportion, Substance Type, character and balance are of greater importance and are on no account to be sacrificed to size alone. [my emphasis] Size-- Height (measured from top of withers to the ground), Dogs: 22 inches (55.8 cm) and upward. Bitches: 21 inches (53.3 cm) and upward. Proportion-- Length (measured from point of shoulder to point of ischium [tuberosity]) practically the same as the height. Absolutely free from legginess or weaselness. Substance-- Well muscled with plenty of bone. When you strive to breed for both, bench & working, you have to put structure first and nothing, believe me, NOTHING in terms of structure is more important in a working dog than balance. Without that, a dog is either inefficient at best, or can't get out of its own way at worst. So to paraphrase the standard, size doesn't matter (hey, where have I heard that before?  ) as long as everything fits together as it should. There's no reason to believe a dog or bitch on the smaller end of the spectrum would be any less balanced or in proportion than a bigger dog or bitch.
Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: So to paraphrase the standard, size doesn't matter (hey, where have I heard that before?
) .....
Thanks for the comic relief on a serious subject. 
Good comments and questions all of you. I know nothing about all of this so I am just sitting on the sidelines trying to learn something. |
| Jill, I would die laughing now if a judge said that to Rick in the ring , "you're outta here, he's way too square, and Don't come back." Also,"He's too small, you need one the size of a Trojan Horse." No matter what size, the dog has to be balanced in order for it to do the job it was actually bred to do. I have not received anything either from the club about this, maybe because Jazzy is too small and to square, only joking |
loried wrote: Jill, I would die laughing now if a judge said that to Rick in the ring , "you're outta here, he's way too square, and Don't come back."
Also,"He's too small, you need one the size of a Trojan Horse." No matter what size, the dog has to be balanced in order for it to do the job it was actually bred to do. I have not received anything either from the club about this, maybe because Jazzy is too small and to square, only joking That makes perfect sense since Owen and Jazz are nearly the same size and squareness. We're preemptively being phased out.  |
| Here once again a club is changing the standard to suit the moods or preferences of today, the standard was created to protect the breed and although it has been changed over the years this has been partly evolution but mainly through breeding types. Maybe its time people got back to breeding Old English Sheepdog's and something that has to change with the actual fashion of today, furthermore I would love to know how many Judges actually know todays standard and are judging by it, not many I think. |
Now when I go to get another puppy, should I ask the breeder how square the pup will be ? Because I may only need practically square now. And just how square is practically square anyways ? Talk about vague  Maybe I should bring Elliott back out, he is practically square, and tall. |
loried wrote: No matter what size, the dog has to be balanced in order for it to do the job it was actually bred to do.
Exactly, and having one who is under 23" (female) and one who may be well over 26" (not oficially measured) I can tell you which one can move more quickly in the agility ring AND the sheep pen. |
| Ok, I have a serious question I need answered, Is it harder to have a balanced dog if you are breeding bigger? And how much does it affect movement? Wouldn't a more square dog, not necessarily small, but compact, be able to move the sheep with more ease? |
| That nhass been my experience. My larger dog gets tired more quickly - could be the hypothyroid_ and has to actually work harder with the sheep. My smaller girl moves more easily and actually has more precense with the sheep.
(But Morgan had much more fun at the beach today ) |
loried wrote: Wouldn't a more square dog, not necessarily small, but compact, be able to move the sheep with more ease?
Not necessarily. It depends on how much bone they carry. |
| Could someone post all the proposed changes? I didn't get the mailing and I'm not sure if I will but I'd like to read it. If you aren't comfortable posting, I'd happily take an e-mail. |
| It's quite lengthly. |
| Why don't you contact Carol Cooke at oes.lady@cox.net? She sent the mailing and is chairman of the committee. She should be able to get a copy to you.
You might also ask her to post the document on the OESCA website. |
| Jill, I'll scan it and send it to you. That little word "practically" is causing a mini uproar. |
bestdogsx4 wrote: Jill, I'll scan it and send it to you. That little word "practically" is causing a mini uproar.
I'm not an expert on the breed standard or a writer but "practically" just sounds off. Funny that it was the one word that stood out when I read the proposed standard. If square is the ideal, say that. Making the standard more vague isn't an improvement, IMHO. |
| DITTO |
| There are many different changes that will need to be voted upon. The breed standard committee has worked very hard on this revision. A little background in this is that the last revision was rushed thru with the membership not having any input into the standard. This one the club wants all members to know what is up. It is time this is addressed. I may not be in the club still, Norm is however, and this affects everyone that breeds or shows OES>
The word "practically' square is willy nilly. Either a dog is square or it isn't. Yes, I have had a bitch that was a bit longer than tall. She finished, and produced beautiful puppies, but in hindsight, she wasn't the standard! As to the tail revision........ we cannot DQ a tail but this is the next BEST thing we CAN do. And this is after talking to many a breeder. Maybe in Europe you didn't have the chance to be able to do this, but this is OUR way of making sure WE have the right to say WE don't want tails in our show rings. The Animal Rights Activists are passing laws left and right and this is the best we can come up with to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS to dock. I totally agree with the height standard additions and changes. Let's face it, we are seeing some MOOSES in the ring . There HAS to be a limit on the top size put in. At one show i was at I could have put a saddle on the dog and ridden him. An OES should be of medium size in proportions, square and balanced. (And THIS was IN the USA) I have also just seen the smallest OES I have ever seen. They are very popular down here in Mexico. This dog was way below the height minimum. I was even more surprised to find out this girl was 9 years old! I thought she was a puppy............ Angela and Larry Stein of Tolkien OES have one of the most thorough websites with ALL of the breed standards on it. Here is what she has recently wrote and I am passing on. I whole heartedly agree with what she says..........we should ALL read them before voting! Before people get a little carried away...........people new to the breed need to read all the previous standards. I would also like to state 1990 was forced on us. There was practically zero time for input and turnaround and just like that, it was over in a matter of months. The then AKC delegate told the club that we "had" to do this per AKC, and that was NOT true. People need to be informed about what went down. In actuality, we should still have 1953, period. Another thing about 1990, the AKC was very specific that NO changes were to be made, and several major changes were made, but yet it was pushed on us. I was 1 of only 2 people who actually wrote the AKC delegate then to tell him that we should not be doing this-he totally ignored it. At any rate here are all the standards-you should read ALL of them. http://www.tolkienoes.com/Development_o ... andard.htm |
| This whole issue confuses me in Europe we comply to the FCI standard which was (if I am not mistaken) written by representatives from the land where the breed originated in this case United Kingdom and there standard goes back many years with revisions taking place from time to time. Can you explain to me why in America you feel you need a different standard from the homeland of this breed, then the dog is called an "OLD ENGLISH SHEEPDOG", that you are fighting to keep the right to dock your dogs is fine but unless I am mistake with the new regulation it will be impossible for someone from Europe to show in the states as the dog could be disqualified. In most countries today a docking ban is effective and we have now got used to OES with tails, at the beginning it was strange but now it is just natural, my dogs can show when they are happy, they can turn better when running and although it has changed the gait a little the general apperance is still there. When my Misty or Zorro are in a show pose you would never know they had a tail as it is tucked between their legs and you can see by the way they carry their tail as to the mood they are in. As far as I am concerned keep your right to dock but do not shut the door on other countries who leave the tails on the dogs by banning them from showing or having the right to import or export a dog which is not docked, you are using an excuse that these dogs are giving the animal rights group ammunition, or are you afraid of the competition from countries outside the USA and Canada whose dogs carry their tail with pride? |
| I think the part of the proposed standard about tails is bad, too. It makes us look like total cowards afraid of competition from abroad. It's embarrassing.
We're shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and I don't see how that can be a good thing for the breed. And since when is 2 inches considered a proper docking job? That's what you see in rescue dogs from BYB's from West Virginia! Can you imagine paying $1800 for an OES with a 2 inch stub? I'd rather have an OES with a beautiful full tail than one that looks like a Rottie. |
| I havn't read all the standards, but I must say I do not think saying we don't want tails makes us look afraid of the competition of tailed dogs, it does make us look like we are aware of the fact that we want docked dogs and are in a fight for the survival of that practice with the AR people.
I too thought the wording was off on the tail part though. And Stewart with the existence of the American Cocker and the English Cocker, I wonder why you feel the need to ask why we think we needd to have a different standard? We did after all win that battle with England in 1776 |
kerry wrote: And Stewart with the existence of the American Cocker and the English Cocker, I wonder why you feel the need to ask why we think we needd to have a different standard? We did after all win that battle with England in 1776
Actually, that independence is a godsend right now given what's happening to the KC in the UK. I'm glad we cannot be directly impacted by whatever lunacy they see fit to come up with. 
Those of you who are OESCA members will note that the chair of the standard committee solicited comments on the proposed standard revisions. It would probably be most contructive to voice your concerns and comments directly to her for the committee's consideration. And, Stewart, honestly, how many European countries remain that permit people to show their docked dogs? Hm?
Kristine |
| Kerry / Kristine, I am not going to get into slanging match with you about winning battles against England or not and as far as cocker spaniels are concerned they to do not interest me. But for people who live in the so called free world may I quote a verse from your very own Star Spangled Banner "O'er the land of the free" how does this apply when you are taking the rights away from someone who owns or may want to own and show an OES with a tail. It seems you are hiding behind a banner regarding your freedom to dock but forgetting the rights of the freedom to leave the tail on the dog and yes I think it has a lot to do with the attempt to stop competition from outside your cosy little world. We are talking here about leaving the tail on an OES and not about politics but maybe you should be using Obama's slogen "Yes we can" |
| Steward, I repeat:
Where in Europe may I still show my docked dogs? And I'm not saying one way or another how I feel about this proposed revision. though I understand the underlying dilemma. I just want to know where in Europe competion from my docked dogs will be welcomed? Thanks! Kristine |
| Kristine, there are still some countries in Europe which allow you to show a docked dog, in some cases when the country you live in still allows to dock and in other cases when the dog has been docked before the ban was introduced to that land. We have discussed the reclining gene pool in the breed many times are these changes going to help matters, the further away you get from the British standard the harder you are making it for people to use your stock. Kerry, correct me if I am wrong but the American and English Cockers are two different breeds is this what you want with the OES, that we will have an Old English Sheepdog and an American version with a complete different standard, I do not think this will help the breed. |
dairymaid wrote: Kerry / Kristine, I am not going to get into slanging match with you about winning battles against England or not and as far as cocker spaniels are concerned they to do not interest me.
But for people who live in the so called free world may I quote a verse from your very own Star Spangled Banner "O'er the land of the free" how does this apply when you are taking the rights away from someone who owns or may want to own and show an OES with a tail. It seems you are hiding behind a banner regarding your freedom to dock but forgetting the rights of the freedom to leave the tail on the dog and yes I think it has a lot to do with the attempt to stop competition from outside your cosy little world. We are talking here about leaving the tail on an OES and not about politics but maybe you should be using Obama's slogen "Yes we can" Yes we can, ignore the attempts of the AR people and end up without the right to dock our dogs. Sorry - anyone here can own an OES with a tail, but if one wants to participate in an AKC show (a not for profit private organization) than they have to play by the rules. This is not a political issue and obviously I was being tongue in cheek about the revolutionary war. |
| Stewart, whether a dog is docked or not does not affect its ability to contribute to the gene pool.
Does anyone have a copy of the ORIGINAL UK standard by chance? It would be very interesting to see how far the American standard has strayed from THAT. Given that American dogs continue to win abroad, where they are permitted to be shown, and their get the same, in spades, in fact, and vice versa, I doubt there are any great differences. Recall that I bred to a European dog. I ended up with 4 breed champions (so far) from that litter, so I'm pretty sure I did not end up with a mix between two disparate breeds.
The biggest difference I can think of off the top of my head is permitting splashes or not (we do, you don't) From a health point of view I believe excessive white should be discouraged. Nonetheless I would not want to see that change imposed upon the North American gene pool at this point in time or it would be decimated, and many worthwhile genes along with it. Kristine |
| Kristine, here is a link to the OES Breed Council Standards
http://www.oesbreedcouncil.org.uk/indexbs.html |
| Stewart, no I don't think they should be two different breeds with huge variations in type and standard, but I also don't think you can expect Americans to accept standards from other countries - its not in our make up. |
kerry wrote: Stewart, no I don't think they should be two different breeds with huge variations in type and standard, but I also don't think you can expect Americans to accept standards from other countries - its not in our make up.
You are mistaken in the above, you are not accepting standards from other countries, instead obeying the standard as laid down by the country of origen. Why should you be different in the states from the rest of the world when it comes to the OES standard. |
dairymaid wrote: Why should you be different in the states from the rest of the world when it comes to the OES standard.[/color]
Because even though we have sheepdogs, we're not SHEEP.
Thank you so much for the link to the origninal standard, Stewart. I still love reading it and wish we had all left it as is. To my mind it describes the dog so vividly, poetically, almost. I see that the American standard is much closer to the original in regards to size. Effectively unchanged, as it stands. Whereas the current standard in the country of origin has raised the minimum heights and effectively calls for a larger dog than was intended. Maybe those Americans aren't as dumb as they look... <baaaah>
OUCH! Did I say that out loud? 
Kristine |
| ^^^
I believe you did |
| Ali, I read the breed standard history on the Steins website and it was very informative. Also I agree with you that "practically" is willy nilly Has anyone ever thought that if the standard is so vague that puppy mills and b.y.b would have an easier time selling our breed as show quality? If something is square it is square. So if we are throwing out square, why don't we throw out compact too, that way we could breed any size and call it standard. We would probably never ever have to revise it again because it is all soooo vague. And who will teach the judges how to judge? The word practically can have a different meaning to every judge, but which one would have the right meaning of "practically"? So if all the breeders have been breeding correctly, how will they change there lines? Will some of them have to go to a b.y.b to get a longer dog who is probably not square? Why do people find the need to change the standard? Is it because they have not been able to breed a correct dog and think"lets just change it?" I ABSOLUTELY have no intention of offending anyone here with my questions, I was hoping here someone , could help me with the answers. As for the tail thing, we dock tails in this country and and I think the majority of us would like to keep it that way. |
| P.S. My slogan is different, than Obama's, Mine is "We don't want to." |
| We here have just had changes in our Breed standard for OES, nothing drastic if you open this link and read the standard, still similar to the UK breed standard. If you click on the PDF file in the top right hand corner it takes you into a more indepth Breed Exstention on the standard. That's new, more indepth to help people to understand the basic breed standard, especially up and coming judges for the breed.
http://www.ankc.org.au/home/breeds_details.asp?bid=21 An OES should always be square so I dont understand why they are wanting to change that. That is height at shoulder equals length of body. You either have an oes in proportions or you dont, too long in loin not enough leg underneath to make the dog from viewing from the side not Square. No amount of changing wording will alieviate incorrect conformation on an OES. Maximum height should not be addressed in any change to the standard, if a dog is overall "balanced & SQUARE" height or being smaller does not matter. You can have a tiny oes of 21" looking long and not enough leg underneath or the same size all "Square" correct length of leg underneath and in proportion. Same with a moose a dog over 26" as long as not looking all legs, long in loin, all in proportion, square from the side view, moving around the ring effortlessly, with lovely reach and drive then as per most standards around the world for the breed, no height maximum should be mentioned. Balance & right proportions regardless of size is more important then wether 22" and upwards for dog or slightly less for bitches!!
Sorry for the long post, but I think this is worth seeing it is from "H.A. Tilleys book", one of the original standards provided on OES, the uk followed this standard with a few revisions later on, noting no "In reverse" on the back coat later on in the current UK standard. Well worth the read and hopefully not too many changes to suit incorrect conformation on an OES in the future of the breed or any variance away from what OES should be.
Tails I wont get into that, but I have to say I have a boy tailed in NZ doing well in the Showring, so proud of him and NZ has just passed docking still permitted, with tail or not, if they are put together well then that should really not be an issue with that wagging thing hanging off the butt or not NZ as well as here both are allowed, provided here in Australia a younger docked OES is imported from a country where docking is still allowed and the appropriate paperwork is correct for re-registering here and showing. At the moment since the ban in 2004 half and half are in the ring as far as showing goes. Either way, with or without a tail if there good enough either way they will win and be awarded.
... The Old English Sheep Dog. "...It may be asked, What are the various Components of the perfect Sheepdog? The Old English Sheepdog Club gives the following description and scale of points, which I venture to say cannot be questioned or improved upon. In order to assist some readers to take a broader view of their meaning, I will enlarge upon the descriptions given. You will note the scale of points number 100, and that no points are actually recorded for character, type quality, and expression. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance to beginners to study and re-read “Description,” because it is assumed by the old and experienced breeders and judges that all animals must have these attributes before they commence to allot the points. Skull: Capacious, and rather squarely formed, giving plenty of room for brain power. The parts over the eyes should be well arched and the whole well covered with hair. Jaw: Fairly long, strong, square and truncated; the stop should be defined to avoid a Deerhound face. (The attention of judges is particularly called to the above properties, as a long, narrow head is a deformity.) Eyes: Dark or “wall” eyes are to be preferred. Nose: Always black, large and capacious. Teeth: Strong and large, evenly placed, and level in opposition. Ears: Small and carried flat to side of head, coated moderately. Legs: The forelegs should be dead straight, with plenty of bone, removing the body a medium height from the ground, without approaching legginess; well coated all round. Feet: Small, round; toes well arched, and pads thick and round. Tail: Puppies requiring docking should have the operation performed within a week from birth, preferably within four days. Neck and Shoulders: The neck should be fairly long, arched gracefully and well coated with hair; the shoulders sloping and narrow at the points, the dog standing lower at the shoulders than at the loin. Body: Rather short and very compact, ribs well sprung, and brisket deep and capacious. The loin should be very stout and gently arched, while the hindquarters should be round and muscular, and with well let down hocks, and the hams densely coated with a thick, long jacket in excess of any other part. Coat: Profuse, and of good, hard texture; not straight, but shaggy and free from curl. The undercoat should be a waterproof pile when not removed by grooming, or the season of the year. Colour: Any shade of grey, grizzle, blue or blue merle, with or without white markings, or in reverse; any shade of brown or sable to be considered distinctly objectionable and therefore to be avoided. Height: Twenty-two inches and upwards for dogs, slightly less for bitches. Type, symmetry, and character of the greatest importance, and on no account to be sacrificed to size alone. General Appearance: A strong, compact-looking dog of great symmetry, absolutely free of legginess or weaselness, profusely coated all over, very elastic in its gallop, but in walking or trotting he has a characteristic ambling or pacing movement, and his bark should be loud, with a peculiar potcasse ring in it. Taking him all round, he is a thick-set, muscular, able-bodied dog, with a most intelligent expression, free from all Poodle or Dearhound character. I have added here the Scale of Points printed in H.A. Tilley's book. Scale of Points. Head ---------------------------------------------------- 5 Eyes ---------------------------------------------------- 5 Colour -------------------------------------------------- 10 Ears ---------------------------------------------------- 5 Body, Loins and Hindquarters ----------------------- 20 Jaw ---------------------------------------------------- 10 Nose ---------------------------------------------------- 5 Teeth --------------------------------------------------- 5 Legs ---------------------------------------------------- 10 Neck and Shoulders ---------------------------------- 10 Coat ---------------------------------------------------- 15 This detailed description given by Mr Tilley is very long but very interesting and is definitely worth a read Detailed Description Weight: The average weight of an adult dog is approximately seventy pounds. Bone: Must be strong, but excessive bone is useless. It is as valueless for a light-bodied dog to have huge bone as for a heavy-bodied dog to have light bone; ample bone to carry the body is the requisite. You can estimate the strength of the animal’s bone by handling its front legs. Skull: This should be broad and square, with plenty of brain space; always avoid a narrow or Setter-like head. Jaw: Avoid a long jaw, or the animal will appear ‘houndy,’ or again, if too short, will appear monkey-faced; see that the jaws are level, as an uneven mouth is very detrimental and in many cases is hereditary. Eyes: These should be dark, and the darker the better, but bright and clear, and a ‘wall’ or ‘china eye’ is much appreciated, because it is one of the characteristics of the breed. “wall-eyed Bob’ was one of the earlier giants of the breed – eg; The eye should be rather small for the size of the animal, and well placed in the head, not too close together, and not too high or low, or too forward or backward. Avoid a full or dull eye or blood-shot eye. A light saspy eye is also a serious handicap, is often hereditary, and should be penalized in the ring, not on account of its being detrimental to seeing or the sight lasting, but by reason of its spoiling the expression. A good many animals, particularly those with the white head and wall eye, have a pink or flesh-coloured skin round the eye. Try to avoid this in your breeding. Nose: Avoid a spotted, flesh-coloured or ‘Roman” nose, and also a narrow, small nose. A large, wet, jet black nose is desirable. Puppies very often have a spotted nose but as they grow older it usually becomes totally black. I find quite 99 per cent, of such are satisfactory as adults. Teeth: These must be even and engage when the mouth is closed. This point is important, as they occasionally use their teeth in their work, both with cattle and sheep. Pyorrhoea is common in domesticated animals, and is a rather serious matter and must be treated as such. Discoloured teeth are often the result of distemper rather than age, so that close observation and consideration must be given to this when judging or purchasing. Ears: should be small and V-shaped, carried flat to the side of the head; pricked ears, or heavy, course ears are to be avoided, while buckled ears are a common fault. It is essential that the ears be placed not too high or too low on the head. Legs: Avoid a cow-hocked, splay-footed, bow-legged, or a low-legged animal. The reason why cow hocks are objectionable and are a serious fault is that they give an ungainly appearance to the hind legs; the action cannot be satisfactory either in walking or running (a dog is called cow-hocked when the hocks or the heels of the back legs turn inward). Feet: The pads of an adult should be hard. The ‘dew-claws’ should be removed at the same time as the animal is docked. The instep should be low. It is very important that the feet should be round and nicely arched; a large, flat-footed animal is very undesirable. The legs and feet are of paramount importance, for on them are built your ideal specimen. Tail: Very few of the present-day show specimens have a bobtail, but many are born with one which is removed when they are four or five days old. It is very little detriment if your animal has a natural bobtail when in the show ring. If an attempt has been made to remove it, and it has not been properly done, then a note should be made of the fact. The bobtail is inclined to make the animal look perhaps a little longer in the back then it would if it had been removed. I usually defer the removal of the tail or bobtail of weak or delicate puppies until they are fully ten days old, because the shock to the system may be too great to admit of its being done earlier. The dew-claws should be removed at the same time as this operation on the tail is performed. It will seem scarcely credible that some forty years ago it was customary for puppies to have their tails bitten off by men who had a local reputation for performing the operation quickly and satisfactorily. Neck and Shoulders: Avoid a short- or cloddy-necked animal, or one that is thick or clumsy about the shoulders. If worked consistently the muscles get stronger, and this may give an animal the appearance of being thick or coarse about the shoulders. Hence care must be taken, when judging, not to expect so clean and fine a shoulder on a working animal as on those not used for work.. Any thickness in the shoulder must not be taken for some malformation of bone. It is most essential for the Sheepdog to have a well-arched neck, because when they are ‘down’ they are better able to observe what signals are given by hand, and particularly so if the grass be long. Body: This should be well sprung. A flat-sided dog must be avoided at all costs, also one which appears short of a rib or half a rib, or one that looks all forequarters or hindquarters. The brisket should be deep with plenty of heart room, not round like a barrel. A long-backed dog is objectionable, and particular attention must be given to this in the ring, for with a long-backed animal the coat can be so skillfully rasped and groomed as to minimize considerable the appearance of this defect. If the animal does not possess a short back, look for a tucked-up stomach and then weak constitution, or even unsoundness. A stout, gently arched loin is most essential. After legs and feet the body proportions are of the greatest importance. The animal must retain its compactness and then it will not lose its characteristic movement. Coat: Dense undercoat is essential and the outer coat should be hard or wiry; the straight, curly, silky, goaty coat is to be guarded against. A nice break and wave in the coat is desirable. Colour: Sky blue is the most desirable, with even white markings on neck, chest and feet. A star on the head, or even a whole white head, is favoured by many. Height: This includes size. I think a dog 24 or 25 inches high and a bitch 22 ½ to 23 ½ inches are the ideal sizes for show specimens, and one or two inches less for working purposes. It is well to remember that a compact animal does not show his height like a houndy-built one. In measuring a dog you place him on level ground and bring the tape from the ground to the top of the shoulder blade. Bear in mind that the bigger the animal the more exaggerated will be its faults, and, therefore, it will be more difficult to breed a good big one than a good little one, though the former is usually more successful in the show ring. Quality As in most other things, one of the great essentials in this breed is quality. I think that in no other breed is quality more appreciated than in the Old English Sheepdog. Quality is a matter of breeding, and, as in human beings, it is easily discernible. The animal that does not possess quality is undesirable, and for breeding purposes, at any rate, is almost worthless. One can, by judicious feeding, grooming and exercising, produce a bloom on the animal’s coat, thereby to a certain extent minimize this defect on a course animal. Expression Expression is another characteristic of the Old English Sheepdog, and this, naturally, differs in male and female. In the male it is somewhat hard, but very intelligent; in the female, to these characteristics are added softer and more gentle-looking eyes. Much has been said in prose and poetry about the beauty of a dog’s eyes, and the eyes of the Sheepdog bear witness to this, being wise eyes, full of intelligence and trust. The eye can make or mar an expression, hence the value of a dark eye, for with a light or waspy eye one may get a wild or a foreign expression. The long hair upon the head may cover the eye to a certain extent, so when judging pay special attention to the animal with a true Sheepdog expression, which is a great essential. However much one may differ on other points, there should be no hesitation regarding this particular point. Expression, like character, can be easily lost in a breed through in-breeding and other causes. On the other hand, it can easily be encouraged by judicious mating, etc. Type One is often asked the meaning of the word ‘type,’ and for a beginner it is a rather difficult problem to solve. Type is really another word for lines or contour. It is, therefore, important to all who seek fame with this breed that they should make a close and careful study of the various champions, past and present, and get firmly fixed in his or her mind the size and build of the animal they favour, and which it will be their aim to develop. One constantly encounters enthusiasts who differ in their views as to which is the correct type, and opinions will vary in the same way as they differ over the perfect human specimen. You must come to a decision before embarking on any extensive breeding operations or you will be working in the dark – eg., there is a full sized animal, the smaller one, the thick-set one, something built on the lines of a cart-horse, or of a hunter, or that still more narrow type like a race-horse, with finer bone and more racily built. You must get a mental picture of your ideal dog, and then proceed to build up to this standard of perfection. Bear in mind that those who imprint their ideals on breeds in the fashioning of type are performing a service to posterity. Character I can best open my remarks by saying that the greatest trait in the human race is character, and that the same applies to the Old English Sheepdog. Character is undoubtedly the Sheepdog’s greatest asset; he is a dignified animal and faithful to the core. According to the Club Book standard, symmetry and character are of the greatest importance, and are on no account to be sacrificed to size alone. The breed has a noble bearing, although there are some people who question the detection of it in the ring. It takes time, but it is easy to recognize, and care should be taken that the animals judged should receive their just reward for this great quality. On several occasions when judging, I have been requested, by word or by manner to make haste, but such injunctions only betray ignorance. The hidden virtues of this particular breed require diligent search, and it is a great mistake to hurry over the judging. The character of a dog is apparent in its manner and general bearing; the nervous, lazy, or bad-tempered dog requires very careful handling if one is to arrive at a just decision. The expert judge rarely makes a mistake, but for a beginner it is a deadly trap to enter the ring armed only with the Club’s scale of points; it is practical experience that counts more than anything. Great responsibility rests on breeders, as their chief aim should be to do their best to perfect the breed beyond what it is at the present time. I would impress on readers that the character of the breed is all-important for, after all, it is more his nobility and sagacity than “points” that have made the Sheepdog one of the best-known and loved of all dogs. As to the method of developing character, I allow some of my young bitches and dogs to go for a few months with a shepherd because I find this helps more than anything to enlarge their intelligence and develop their natural characteristics. The twenty main defects to be guarded against are: A big course dog, long back, cow hocks, splay feet, bow legs, shallow brisket, eneven mouth, flat side, buckled ears, weak loin, soft coat, light waspy eye, narrow head and long foreface, short neck, course ears, silky or goaty coat, small or Roman nose, weak expression, nervous or bad tempered, thick shoulders. If the Old English Sheepdog could speak, I feel sure it would ask us to give greater consideration to the breed rather than to the individual animal. Many of us know that animals which probably have hereditary failings are placed over animals with defects less detrimental to the breed. For instance, one with course ears placed above one with a small nose, or one with cow hocks above one not in coat, etc., etc. It is well that opinions differ and that from show to show one sees decisions reversed (which rather baffles the beginner), but he or she will realize when they visit the shows that our aim and the goal we are striving to reach is the perfect specimen. I hope these remarks cover generally the points you need to remember, and, if they should seem too many, I think with a little care and thought the information can easily be digested. The beginner today has far fewer difficulties to face than existed thirty or forty years ago, and this he will realize before he has finished reading this book. Today there are expert judges and handlers and expert breeders whom you can watch. You have also the numerous firms which sell dog foods and medicines and send out leaflets and booklets with detailed information as to rearing and care of your animals. From all such sources you should gain valuable knowledge. |
| Lisa, Thank you for that Very informative |
Guest wrote: I think the part of the proposed standard about tails is bad, too. It makes us look like total cowards afraid of competition from abroad. It's embarrassing.
We're shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world and I don't see how that can be a good thing for the breed. There is not ONE THING being 'cowardly' about this. WE **CANNOT** take our docked dogs over to Europe to be shown anylonger. So if you feel it is 'cowardly' for us to limit them in not being placed, no one is saying they cannot bring them here to be shown, they just cannot be PLACED in a winning position......... then it is COWARDLY for us to not be able to take our dogs to the EU to be shown. It is NOT Embarrassing, it is being PRACTICAL in our own rights. |
| Isn't the tail docking revision going to discourage quality OES from being imported into the US?
Will European breeders be willing to sell an outstanding specimen to someone in the US when it will either not be shown (no chance of winning because it has a tail) or it will have its tail amputated when it gets to the US when it is 12 weeks old or more so it can be shown? A few might, but I suspect most won't. How is that good for the breed? Isn't that what the discussion is supposed to about? |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|