Change to the style of the OESD
This is from the AKC Profuse, but not so excessive as to give the impression of the dog being overly fat, and of a good hard texture: not straight, but shaggy and free from curl. Quality and texture of coat to be considered above mere profuseness. Softness or flatness of coat to be considered a fault. The undercoat is a waterproof pile when not removed by grooming or season. Ears coated moderately. The whole skull well covered with hair. The neck well coated with hair. The forelegs well coated all around. The hams densely coated with a thick, long jacket in excess of any other part. Neither the natural outline nor the natural texture of the coat may be changed by any artificial means except that the feet and rear may be trimmed for cleanliness. So why do the British KC want to go the American way & too make up a poor excuse about the dogs health with its coat. I think they should spend their efforts; time & money into introducing a DNA database for all dogs in the UK also look at the issues in PCD |
|
|
Oh dear, not give the impression on overly fat? Seriously?! So if a dog LOOKS fat but is NOT fat, that's a fault? Hmm. And does this mean the undercoat CAN be removed by grooming?  I think the last sentence rules out trimming similar to the American style? Anyways.....  |
| Cassie, it does. It also rules out teasing and hairspray... Vance |
I'm sorry  There are a few of us here on the forum from the U.S. that would love to show our oes without any sculpting.....and I am one. I can tell you that the AKC standard and the actual oes in the show ring are two very different things.  Profuse, but not so excessive as to give the impression of the dog being overly fat, and of a good hard texture: not straight, but shaggy and free from curl. Quality and texture of coat to be considered above mere profuseness. Softness or flatness of coat to be considered a fault. In my experience, this is not the way our dogs are judged. Winning oes are very profusely coated and trimmed back so much that little guard coat is there for the judging. As you know, the undercoat is soft.......so????? I guess at least the hair isn't flat!!!! Neither the natural outline nor the natural texture of the coat may be changed by any artificial means except that the feet and rear may be trimmed for cleanliness. I don't even know how to respond to this statement in regards to what actually happens to a conformation oes.   I know my statements in this post will not help me to become very popular on this site, but I've always been a brutally honest person and see no reason to change now.  Sorry if I've stepped on any toes, but I have seen all of this first hand at many shows with many oes from several different breeders.I hope you all in the UK can get it right. The standard sounds great, if only it were followed. |
Parwaz wrote: So why do the British KC want to go the American way & too make up a poor excuse about the dogs health with its coat. I think they should spend their efforts; time & money into introducing a DNA database for all dogs in the UK also look at the issues in PCD As I've mentioned before PCD is not a problem in the breed in so much as there is a DNA test so all a breeder has to do is test both dogs and make sure you aren't breeding carrier to carrier. I don't mean to trivialize the issue, but in the grand scheme of things this is probably one of the least of the breed's issues at this time. I saw the hair as a health issue coming a mile away in the UK, I just didn't think it would be this soon. Thank your spineless Kennel Club for caving to the animal rights extremists in the first place. Give those nut cases an inch... I would tell the KC to demand scientific EVIDENCE, for a nice change of pace, that having hair is a detriment to the breed in your part of the world Sheesh.Mind you, the breed DOES have more hair than what was originally intended. No self-respecting working dog should as much hair as what you see in the ring in your part of the world, especially. But, let's face it, how many self-respecting working OES are there in reality? Not many. And none that I've heard of in the UK, though who knows? I would cheerfully tell the KC to stuff it Kristine |
Mad Dog wrote: Parwaz wrote: So why do the British KC want to go the American way & too make up a poor excuse about the dogs health with its coat. I think they should spend their efforts; time & money into introducing a DNA database for all dogs in the UK also look at the issues in PCD As I've mentioned before PCD is not a problem in the breed in so much as there is a DNA test so all a breeder has to do is test both dogs and make sure you aren't breeding carrier to carrier. I don't mean to trivialize the issue, but in the grand scheme of things this is probably one of the least of the breed's issues at this time. I saw the hair as a health issue coming a mile away in the UK, I just didn't think it would be this soon. Thank your spineless Kennel Club for caving to the animal rights extremists in the first place. Give those nut cases an inch... I would tell the KC to demand scientific EVIDENCE, for a nice change of pace, that having hair is a detriment to the breed in your part of the world Sheesh.Mind you, the breed DOES have more hair than what was originally intended. No self-respecting working dog should as much hair as what you see in the ring in your part of the world, especially. But, let's face it, how many self-respecting working OES are there in reality? Not many. And none that I've heard of in the UK, though who knows? I would cheerfully tell the KC to stuff it Kristine  |
Didn't find exactly what you're looking for? Search again here:
Custom Search
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|