Breed Standards are they too strict?

After comments on a couple of other threads I partook in I am concerned about some of the comments made concerning breed standards.
One said ''a breed standard is not a blueprint''
Others along the lined of ''they are too strict''

Now a breed standard IS a blue print for the perfect dog of the breed it is written about.Every dog of the breed is judged against that standard.I breed standard CANNOT be too strict since it is the description as I said for the perfect dog...which we know has never been bred (well apart from mine)
If a breed standard allows a great variation then breeds will diversify.Now I know some of you might think thats not a bad idea but when you look at say a cavalier or a staffy do you not want your puppy to grow up happy and healthy and LOOK like the breed you purchased.
We all have a choice....some of us like cross breeds or mongrels...some of us choose to buy a specific breed.Thats the choice we have but in buying a well bred pedigree dog then I can buy a dog that will look the way I expect it to look.....too say a breed standard is too strict is silly.It is the aim of all responsible breeders to breed happy healthy puppies that will grow up to be a perfect reproduction of that dogs breed standard!!

Nikki, Im all for producing dogs which measure up to the breed standard, but i do feel they are too strict, JMHO. For example, their might be a stunning , beautifully tempered, healthy labrador, that may be 3/4 cms over the standard, if that dog was shown, it would be penilised for being too big, this is what i have a problem with, dogs not making 'show standards' because they are a little too big, or the wrong colour, thats what i find so wrong. again JMO.

I for one wouldnt give a flying monkeys if my dog looked good enough for the show ring, as long as it was healthy and happy, but many people rehome or sell their dogs if they dont make the grade, i find that unbelivably sad.
What happened to the comment, beauty comes from within......

Of course im not saying there should be no breed standards, because like you said their must be guidelines.

i agree with u archer. If you arent strict with breed standards then your poodle may vary from lookin the way a poodle should look, to a cross between a yorkshire terrier for example. ok bad example, but i dont think any breed should vary so much that u cannot even tell if some of them are part of that breed.
If u go out and buy a pedigree dog, then u expect it to look like the breed u chose.

agree with u aswell gems u posted while i was typing. I think some things are a bit silly, but i guess if u allow dogs to get above the set height then u may well eventually change the breed if people breed together 2 dogs that are too tall. I think eventually u would end up with the whole breed varying quite alot, some being really short and some being really tall. I guess if u are going to buy a pedigree u expect it to look like that breed without the standard varying too widely. erm.. wot i mean is, if the standard isnt strict enough, then some examples of the breed may only closely resemble the breed.
Dont think its fair that people take showin so seriously that they rehome any dog that doesnt come up to scratch

HAve to agree with Gems, i think the standards are to strict, IMO a dog is a dog, regardless. I do not understand why colour comes into it at all, why arent black and tan staffies with/without white markings permitted to be shown etc, or white boxers, white schnauzers etc
Also height is another thing that annoys me, but one of the biggest things that gets on my nerves is cosmetic faults e.g kinks in tail and cots, white hair patterns, a revers hair growth pattern etc
IMO a dog is a dog, why should they be meausered to something that was once written about them, and don't even get me started on things like ey colour!!!!!!!!!

If we aren't at least a lttle strict with height we wil end up with staffs the size og mastiffs and cockers the size of labradors....they then are not suitable for the job they were berd to do

Sorry but how many show bred breeds these days can do the job they were originally bred to do, and for another matter how many breeds today look like they originally did .....

COuldnt agree more, could a basset hound follow a hare over harsh land for many hours?
Could a scottie, westie, cairn or skye terrier cope with the harshenss of working in Scotland dealing with vermin?
Could a workie tackle stable rats?
IMo none of the above and many more breeds could not cope with what they were bred to do, certain breeds e.g the Border terrier, border collie, PJRT, JRT, Foxhounds, Greyhounds could and do easily keep with their original purpose, but many of todays breeds wouldnt stand a chance

but gems, when u bought tj, im sure u expected him to look like a collie. Im sure u put alot of research into his parents etc. If his parents vaguley resembled a collie im sure u would not have bought from that breeder.

A quick trawl of the KC standards yesterday gave the following standards, which I think are very loose indeed.


Tibetan Mastiff:

A minimum height of 66cms (26ins) in dogs and 61 cms (24ins) in bitches is desirable, but on no account should type be sacrificed to size alone.
No mention of maximum height.


Basset Hound: (No mention of male or female)
Height: 33-38 cms (13-15 ins) at withers.

Canadian Eskimo Dog:
dogs 58-70 cms (22-27½ ins), bitches 50-60 cms (19½-23½ ins).

5.5 inches for the dog and 4 for the bitch.


Pyrenean Mountain Dog

Minimum shoulder height: dogs: 70 cms (27½ ins); bitches: 65 cms (25½ ins). Most will considerably exceed this, great size is essential provided type and character are retained.

Again, no maximum height and note the final statement.
Most will greatly exceed this - by how much?
Great size is essential - what does 'great' mean - how big?


Poodles (Standard): over 38 cms (15 ins).

What? 16 inches? 20? 25?