Standard Changes

[Avalonia]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Just read the Standard in "Le Club Français du Whippet" which must be the FCI standard. Height is given as in the K.C. standard and as far as I can understand the expression "desireable" is not present. However, apparently there is a comment that  a dog is outside the standard where its height is less than 45cms. and more than 53 cms. For bitches the heights are 42 cms. and  49 cms.One inch = 2.54 cms. ( I thought the U.K. went metric years ago ) At the big Madrid show last week a dog imported from France and of mainly British bloodlines was thrown out of the ring by the Slovenian judge. Best of Breed was Superlook du Manoir de la Grenouillère. Perhaps Morgan can expand on this. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Stephen, I too am mystified as to why the English standard is set in cms since England has not converted to metric and is still stuck with the US on inches and feet and pounds and ounces while the rest of the world, including Canada (which converted 35 years ago because it was told America and England were converting so we better do so too!) are working in metric. I have no doubt the English "standard" -- best to put it in quote marks -- was set in metric for that brief moment that Great Britain flirted, then rejected the metric conversion. No doubt the fact that most UK breedrers haven't got a drift what a cm is equal to provides enough of an out of touch reality that they truly have no genuine idea of what the English "standard" is imposing on them. If you live and work in inches, then perhaps the English standard should be in inches, and not in a metric system that the typical English breeder obviously does not understand. Perhaps then there will be an understanding of exactly what the English standard is demanding versus the reality of whippets today.

As one who has lived in inches and feet and pounds before Canada converted to metric in my teen years, I can still do the conversions that make sense of the differences between the two systems. Why is the English system in metric when the nation is still operating in a system all but America has long since rejected.

Is ignorance really bliss, perchance?

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

 

[stephen mason]

Sorry but I am confused. I left England´s green and pleasant land in 1960 or there abouts but only to work in France, Algeria and Spain where we settled for family reasons. Enjoy going back to South Yorkshire (what was the West Riding) and North Derbyshire about once every 2 years. I thought the United Kingdom had accepted the metric system way back in the 1970,s abolishing pounds, shillings and pence and ran a double system with gallons and litres although thinking about it I believe the road signs are still in miles. When we visited Australia and N.Z. in 1997 it was all metric. So now my question is : Is the U.K. metric or not? Beer of course must continue in pints. Please help complete my education. Regards, Stephen

 

[dawn]

Beer of course must continue in pints. Please help complete my education. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sorry Stephen but since we became European the insidious (?sp) input of the decimal system has become so ingrained that I forgpt to type in (the bit in brackets) about Imperial equivalents.

So Yes the 'new' standard does have Imperial measurements but they are downgraded to an adjunct and appear in ( ) alongside the metric.

The actual SIZE paragraph reads:

Desirable height - dogs 47-51 cms(18 1/2 - 20 ins); bitches 44-47 (17 1/2 - 18 1/2 ins)

 

[Millie]

It's because old timers like me :- " Can visulize size in feet and inches but when it comes to cms :wacko: :teehee: :lol:

 

[JAX]

Same here :- "

 

[Millie]

I personnally would like to see a max height disqualification phased in over say 10 years, you see the breeders would have those heights down in a generation or two easy.
I think it would be madness to increase the height in the standard this would just allow a few people to show even bigger dogs than they do now.

Can anyone tell me with all this better nutrition why, Greyhounds, Great Danes, Chow chow, Rough Collies, and too many to list here breeds are getting smaller and smaller.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I can tell you how the Rough Collie got smaller :rant: It was because everybody was suddenly after a certain pretty head type, we suddenly got very bitchy looking males, who were also no bigger than bitches, getting used left right and center. Hardly any one could look beyond a pretty head with tiny eyes ! We lost size, comformaion and movement was terrible.

Thank fully things are turning again for the better :thumbsup:

But breeders have to be carefull YOU GAIN ONE THING - YOU LOSE ANOTHER !!

As for the feeding thing ! Who knows, all my collies (18yrs) and my whippets have been fed the same food. My collies have never been small, as for the Whippets !!! :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But it does illustrate how quick a size change can happen, in the Rough Collie it was perhaps not what was wanted but quite easily done.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Thats very true Karen !

 

[Seraphina]

With all respect you are wrong about inheritance being the sole determinant of height.  In humans, and in animals, genetics and nutrition ultimately determine size.  There are so many studies that demonstrate this in humans, and the studies of wild animal populations in areas where they can feast on abundant fodder, and in areas where they are stressed by famine or overpopulation is well documented by scientists and biologists worldwide.   

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

EVERY trait is part of the geneome, it is not a simple inherited triat, no doubt it depends on whole array of genes, As I said height/size can be be stunted by severe malnutrition, however that is not going to pass on next , well fed, generation. So if you then compare this generation you can say their avarege size is bigger.

Of-course, there are other factors and fast maturing and reproducing animals are affected in a different way than humans. Animals which grow up and reproduce in one period of insufficient food availability, would;

1- fail to reach their full potential of size

2- more likely to survive if they were little and needed less food

So during this time many would not survive, and as this time favoured the small specimens, not only would this species not reach their full genetic potential, only the small survivors would reproduce. While in times of plenty, when there is enough food for everybody, it would be the large males that would get the most females. So it depends if the natural sellection favours for you to be small or big. Of-course, in reality things are even more complicated.

The European Middle Ages was an era of tallness with men of above six feet (1.83 m) considered unremarkable. In Europe human height reached its nadir at the start of the nineteenth century. Until the general rise in human health, as urbanization increased, the accompanying trend was a height decline.

Yes but you are talking about 1 or 2 cm out of 1.8m = about 1% fluctuation. As we do not know the average height of the world population of Whippets it is not possible to establish by how much exactly has this breed grown. My only way to judge is the fact that 16 years ago, when i bought my first Whippet she grew up to be 46.5cm and did not look small in the ring. Now, my 47.5cm bitch looks like a midget. The 2 rescue girls i had her couple of months ago were 54 and 55cm respectively. I think about 50cm bitches are the norm. That makes it somewhere betwen 9% and 19% in mere 15 years! So if we continue like that in another 15 years gaining another 10% in height we will have 55cm - 60cm bitches (

Diet (in addition to needed nutrients; such things as junk food and attendant health problems such as obesity), exercise, fitness, pollution exposure, sleep patterns, climate (see Allen's rule and Bergmann's Rule for example), and even happiness (psychological well-being) are other factors that can affect growth and final height."

Yes but only within the genetic margins

This seems to me to be imminently better than having a height "standard" hardly any of you can meet. If you are afraid of big dogs, then isn't the sensible solution to to set a reasonable standard that disqualifies over a certain height -- dogs 22 inches or taller, bitches 20 inches or taller -- instead of having a standard that sets a range so low it calls for field mouse sized bitches and that sets a limit for dogs that is being met pretty well only by your bitches right now.

Yes, I could live with the standard being increased slightly. Or it could be left with the proviso to disqualify dogs which exceed the ideal by certain amount.

 

[stephen mason]

I`m an old timer too. Putting desireable height and then a maximum and minimum as the U.S. and apparently the FCI makes sense. Regards, Stephen

 

[Avalonia]

I`m an old timer too. Putting desireable height and then a maximum and minimum as the U.S. and apparently the FCI makes sense. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You noted in an earlier posting that a Slovenian judge disqualified a whippet in the ring in Spain because it was too big. For all the fears of American bred dogs being too big (and I have to note that though we live by the elephant we don't personally have any American-bred dogs in our breeding program because of our personal decision to breed as close to the UK and FCI standards as possible) I have to say I have seen an awful lot of American dogs wicketed out in championship shows for being too big over the past decade. The consequence of this public wicketing is that breeders and exhibitors have pretty quickly learned they should not push the upper limits of their standard -- which is different from everyone else's -- so that over the past decade there has been an evident reduction in the number of obviously over standard dogs shown in the American ring. Sadly this doesn't necessarily mean they are conformed any better -- their shoulder sets and fronts are still largely awful -- but at least you no longer wonder when you see a dog walking ahead of you towards the ring whether it is a greyhound puppy or a whippet.

Lanny

 

[Karen]

I`m an old timer too. Putting desireable height and then a maximum and minimum as the U.S. and apparently the FCI makes sense. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You noted in an earlier posting that a Slovenian judge disqualified a whippet in the ring in Spain because it was too big. For all the fears of American bred dogs being too big (and I have to note that though we live by the elephant we don't personally have any American-bred dogs in our breeding program because of our personal decision to breed as close to the UK and FCI standards as possible) I have to say I have seen an awful lot of American dogs wicketed out in championship shows for being too big over the past decade. The consequence of this public wicketing is that breeders and exhibitors have pretty quickly learned they should not push the upper limits of their standard -- which is different from everyone else's -- so that over the past decade there has been an evident reduction in the number of obviously over standard dogs shown in the American ring. Sadly this doesn't necessarily mean they are conformed any better -- their shoulder sets and fronts are still largely awful -- but at least you no longer wonder when you see a dog walking ahead of you towards the ring whether it is a greyhound puppy or a whippet.

Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you want to keep to UK and FCI standard why all the anti comments about English breeders being unable to bring themselves up to date with the standard or metrication. IMO I would like to see the breed as 'that dog' that made me want a Whippet in the first place not some alien Greywhip sort of dog. Are you having trouble keeping the size down in your line? When people talk about improving the breed unhappily most of the time they mean changing it. A change is not nessesarily an improvement as anyone who has tried New Improved anything in the supermarket will tell you :thumbsup:

 

[Avalonia]

Are you having trouble keeping the size down in your line?

Actually, the tallest Avalonia bred whippet male on our premises -- we have 15 of them -- is 20.5 inches tall -- 52 cms. We also own a dog from Denmark bred out of Nevedith lines (Veefa Vagabond) who is 19.5 inches tall and he is the same size as our male Avalonia Trick or Treat, an 18-month old son of Eng.Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely. Most of our males are 51 cms (20 inches).

We also have 9 females, varying in height from 17.5 inches (all Nevedith breeding) who is too small to show because judges expect her to be a puppy at that height, and our tallest female being 19.5 inches. One of our bitches -- Int.Belg.Cdn.Ch. Avalonia Macallan (a daughter of Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Local Lancer) x Ch. Nevedith Wotta Wispa) just makes 18 inches. Though she did extraordinarily well in the show rings of Europe where she was shown by a Belgian friend for a year and a half -- she began and ended her European show career with BOB and BIG wins in the Netherlands and Belgium, when she was shown at Crufts a couple of years ago but did not even place. If recollection serves me well, the judge commented that she was very small... she was the smallest bitch in the large open class.

So no, we have no size issues. In fact, breeding to the FCI standard has opened the doors of many fine homes for our whippets iacross Europe, something that has made us extremely proud.

Lanny

 

[Karen]

Are you having trouble keeping the size down in your line?

Actually, the tallest Avalonia bred whippet male on our premises -- we have 15 of them -- is 20.5 inches tall -- 52 cms. We also own a dog from Denmark bred out of Nevedith lines (Veefa Vagabond) who is 19.5 inches tall and he is the same size as our male Avalonia Trick or Treat, an 18-month old son of Eng.Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely. Most of our males are 51 cms (20 inches).

We also have 9 females, varying in height from 17.5 inches (all Nevedith breeding) who is too small to show because judges expect her to be a puppy at that height, and our tallest female being 19.5 inches. One of our bitches -- Int.Belg.Cdn.Ch. Avalonia Macallan (a daughter of Cdn.Ch. Nevedith Local Lancer) x Ch. Nevedith Wotta Wispa) just makes 18 inches. Though she did extraordinarily well in the show rings of Europe where she was shown by a Belgian friend for a year and a half -- she began and ended her European show career with BOB and BIG wins in the Netherlands and Belgium, when she was shown at Crufts a couple of years ago but did not even place. If recollection serves me well, the judge commented that she was very small... she was the smallest bitch in the large open class.

So no, we have no size issues. In fact, breeding to the FCI standard has opened the doors of many fine homes for our whippets iacross Europe, something that has made us extremely proud.

Lanny

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You have some lovely sized dogs and of course I know the breeding well so, why would you want us to change the height.

 

[Avalonia]

You have some lovely sized dogs and of course I know the breeding well so, why would you want us to change the height.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I am not trying to change the height. Don't get me wrong, I love the size we have. But according to the KC standard even our very moderate sized bitches and dogs are pushing the upper limits of the standard or slightly exceeding it -- as for instance our males who for the most part are 20.5 inches despite every effort we have made to keep size below that. For many years we relied on our number one stud dog. a son of the remarkable N. Justa Jesta, Cdn. Ch. Nevedith Local Lancer who stood 19.75 wonderful inches tall and who produced the most remarkably compact bitches all within the standard, and males at his height or slightly above -- up to 20.5 inches to give us what we wanted. To be honest, I often regret the fact I did not leave Lancer in England for others to use this wonderful dog, but when Nev gave us the chance to own him there was no going back and there is certainly no regret on our part that we stole him from the English breeding program and greedily incorporated him into our own. Lancer certainly provided the basis of our breeding program for the forseeable future. Regretfully he only delivered gold for us in his short 11.5 years of life (he died last September of a fast moving sarcoma we tried desperately, but ultimately failed, to beat).

I know a lot of people could care less about whippet size, but we do. We also owned and showed greyhounds and we are acutely aware of the line you can cross between whippets and greyhounds when you allow your whippets to go up on leg, and long and flat on topline. We also acknowledge that, sadly, most judges will simply accept what they see in the ring. I believe a whippet loses its essence if it gets much bigger than what we provude -- the males coarsen and the bitches become a lot more doggy -- but I do think the standard should, at the least, reflect the reality of the truly moderate sized dogs that are out there and not pretend that all whippets as a general rule meet the criteria of the standard which is decades old.

I see common links between our dogs and those of some of those participating in this thread. Molecat, for instance, owned Nevedith Evening Class a litter sister of N. Evening Dusk, owned by us and picked for us by Edith and our friend Pip Campbell, and bred to the wonderful Lancer -- to produce many of the moderate sized whippets who are the dams and sires of our current population. It is a small world, really.

Lanny

 

[Karen]

I must admit to being really cross that Lancer left this country without at least siring a few litters. I had definatly planned to use him as I thought he would really give so much and he was for me spot on for size.

I still think people do try not to show anything too big and I know it does worry them, no one goes in the ring over here with a oversized dog and feel that its the right thing to do. I just think those 'ideal' sizes are always keeping us slightly in check and as soon as you increase them people will feel better about showing the big ones they have now, and then we will just have another set of people showing EVEN bigger ones.

I also am never keen on worrying over much about any one thing. Give me a good big dog anyday over a badly constructed right sized one.

 

[mikadene]

Ive raised this point on more than one occaision & been ridiculed. It is a very valid point. However size does not disqualify in this country & in fact doesn't stop a good big dog being placed. Keeping the height standard at the bottom end will (hopefully) keep breeders mindful of the fact that Whippets are  small sighthounds.

Terry Smith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I totally agree,

Perhaps it may be, we can't breed to the standard so lets change it so it fits what we do breed. It has happened in many breeds wheere they want a bigger dog, What is it with this mine is bigger so it is best.

In the Breed Clubs defense , if we can breed longer/shorter, more/less angulated, dark eye, light eye, more coat, less coat, dogs with natural bob tails and dogs with masses of wrinkles all over there body Im fairly sure we can breed a smaller dog with all the attributes of the big ones we are seeing now. So nutrition is a very weak argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

 

[Sarsanet]

I don't mind any of the changes to the Standard because they are just tinkering with words BUT the change to the height of bitches has got me seething mad. How can you possibly keep the overall height down if a bitch is now allowed to be the same height as a dog? Is it too late to contact the KC over this? Will they listen to anyone who isn't on the UK Breed Council anyway? Why don't they just raise the height to the American Standard & be done with it because that's where we are heading. If you compare some American dogs to the English bred dogs they don't even look to be the same breed even though, yes I know, they have the same ancestors in many cases. I've seen smaller greyhounds. Once you get up to those heights, breed type goes out the window. Yes, modern nutrition plays a part in size but if breeders fed good quality natural food & not that dreadful all-in-one, one-size-fits-all kibble that costs the earth the size can be kept down. Other breeds can do it, why can't we? We are feeding dogs not store bullocks or 2yo racehorses who would also benefit from a more natural diet.

Gail Knightbridge.

 

[chelynnah]

I don't mind any of the changes to the Standard because they are just tinkering with words BUT the change to the height of bitches has got me seething mad. How can you possibly keep the overall height down if a bitch is now allowed to be the same height as a dog? Is it too late to contact the KC over this? Will they listen to anyone who isn't on the UK Breed Council anyway? Why don't they just raise the height to the American Standard & be done with it because that's where we are heading. If you compare some American dogs to the English bred dogs they don't even look to be the same breed even though, yes I know, they have the same ancestors in many cases. I've seen smaller greyhounds. Once you get up to those heights, breed type goes out the window. Yes, modern nutrition plays a part in size but if breeders fed good quality natural food & not that dreadful all-in-one, one-size-fits-all kibble that costs the earth the size can be kept down. Other breeds can do it, why can't we? We are feeding dogs not store bullocks or 2yo racehorses who would also benefit from a more natural diet.
Gail Knightbridge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What change in bitch height?? Tallest is 47cm (18.5 inches). That's not changed. There was a proposed change, but it wasn't accepted, so all they changed under height was the word 'DESIRABLE'

Wendy

 

[bardmand]

Any other comments about the revisions? From what I can see, it just clarifies a few points, and adds some details that people always look for and comment on anyway (front fill, keeping the topline on the move). Not sure it was needed, but I cannot see the harm.

As for size: Unless the size of rabbits have increased dramatically, I do not see any reason why the whippet standard should be revised with regards to size (even though that would perhaps benefit my oversized bitch).

 

[alfie]

I meant to post on this thread ages ago and never got round to it :- "

I noticed that it says nose colour black, or liver bla bla, well my fawn bitch has blue pigment, so she has a dark blue/grey nose, eye rims and lips.

I have seen lots of other blue pigmented fawns, partis etc- wonder if this now means we will all be penalised? Surely not... or at least I hope not :- "

Liz and the Monellis

 

[Seraphina]

My personal little whinge; I have a problem with the "dog able to stand over lot of ground", which some people interpret that the longer the better. While others stands their dogs with their hind leggs so far back they loose all shape and rear angulation. 8)

I would like to see it clearly stated what proportions we should be aiming for; lets say the height should be 9/10 of the body length, aproximately - allowing for bitches being slightly longer than males.