|
|
|
|
New [and under construction] click below
The
History of the Bulldog Breed Standard
************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Current position with the Bulldog Breed Standard October 2009 AT THE BULLDOG BREED COUNCIL MEETING HELD THIS MORNING 29.09.09 ATTENDED BY 16 OF THE MEMBER CLUBS TO DISCUSS THE INTENDED PUBLICATION ON OCTOBER 1.2009 BY THE KENNEL CLUB OF ITS REVISED BULLDOG BREED STANDARD THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE DOG PRESS;
"THE BREED COUNCIL IS DISAPPOINTED WITH THE RESULT OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE KENNEL CLUB REGARDING THE STANDARD. WE ARE PARTICULARLY DISAPPOINTED BY
THE STATEMENT EMANATING FROM THE KENNEL CLUB THAT THE HEALTH OF THE BREED HAS
DETERIORATED WHEN IN FACT THE OPPOSITE IS CLEARLY THE CASE AS EVIDENCED BY THE
SUCCESS OF THE BREED IN GROUP AND BEST IN SHOW COMPETITION AND THE HUGE RISE
IN POPULARITY OF THE NATIONAL BREED.
CONTRARY TO THE RUMOURS, THE BREED COUNCIL WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE KENNEL CLUB TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH OF THE BULLDOG" ************************************************************************************************
PRESS RELEASE March 2009
Four delegates from the Breed Council, Vicky Collins-Nattrass, Peter Janes MRCVS, Norman Davis and Chris Thomas, met with representatives of the Kennel Club on Tuesday 17th March to discuss the proposed changes to the Bulldog breed standard. The sub-committee we met consisted of Dr. Ruth Barbour (chair), Prof. Crispin, Dr. Jeff. Sampson, Mr. Frank Cain, Mr. Bill Lambert and Mrs. Meg Purnell-Carpenter. Before the meeting convened the chairman explained that no final decision would be made at this meeting regarding changes to the standard but this meeting was to give us an opportunity to put forward our case for reinstating wording to the standard that we felt to be fundamental. The chairman also stated that as a result of our meeting their sub-committee would be better placed to explain our point if view to ‘the powers that be’. I believe we were all a little surprised by this, as we had erroneously believed that the final decision regarding the standard would be made by the sub-committee we were meeting. We had hoped to have some indication, by the end of the meeting, what amendments to the interim standard would be acceptable, but this was not to be the case. We proceeded with the meeting as planned and went through the standard item by item, discussing each of the changes made by the KC with a detailed explanation as to why we felt these unnecessary and how they would have no impact on the health of the bulldog. The panel listened to our reasoning for the reinstatement of wording we felt imperative to the description of the bulldog and during the 2 ½ hour meeting the sub-committee asked questions on all aspects of the breed, especially health. They wanted to know in depth how many bulldogs had gone through the health scheme and, of course, Vicky had all of these facts and figures at her fingertips, (I believe it is currently around 500). The chairman congratulated the Breed Council on its work in this area and this was seconded by the other panel members. Peter dispelled some of the myths surrounding the breed and its supposed health problems and Vicky was able to give the results of our own health survey which supported Peter’s comments, which helped enormously. Norman and I spoke on behalf of the alterations to the standard and we explained in detail why we felt it imperative that essential wording that has been removed from the standard be reinstated. At the end of the meeting Dr Barbour thanked us for attending and also for the packs we had supplied for each member of the sub-committee containing line drawings, copies of the standard before and after change, etc. which we hope assisted in trying to explain why bulldoggers are so passionate when it comes to our breed standard.
Chris Thomas. Press Officer Bulldog Breed Council. [now retired]
OCTOBER 1st 2009 T he Kennel Club have now published their new standard for the bulldog which can be viewed on their website.Bulldoggers worldwide have asked what were the proposals put forward to the Kennel Club by the delegates compared to what the Kennel Club have now decided to confirm and we give below an analysis of how much the sub committee tried to meet the Kennel Clubs proposals while protecting the fundamental characteristics of the breed. The comments in red show what the breed council delegates requested and the result Kennel Club Review of Breed Standard – Bulldog
General Appearance Smooth-coated, fairly thick
set, rather low in stature, broad, powerful and compact. Head, fairly large in
proportion to size but no point so much in excess of others as to destroy the
general symmetry, or make the dog appear deformed, or interfere with its powers
of motion. Face relatively ( we asked for the removal
of ‘relatively’. (rejected) short, muzzle broad, blunt and inclined
upwards (interim standard said ‘slightly’ upwards. They
have removed slightly as requested and added-
although not excessively so.
Dogs showing respiratory distress highly undesirable. Body fairly short, well
knit, limbs stout, well muscled and in hard condition with no tendency towards
obesity. Hindquarters high and strong. Bitches not so grand or well developed as
dogs.
Head and Skull Skull relatively large in
circumference. Viewed from front appears high from corner of lower jaw to apex
of skull; also broad and square. Cheeks well rounded and extended sideways
beyond eyes. Viewed from side, head appears very high and moderately short from
back to point of nose. Forehead flat with skin on and about head slightly loose
and finely wrinkled -took out ‘may be’ slightly
wrinkled, as requested, added - without
excess, neither prominent nor overhanging face.
Here we asked for the reinstatement of ‘Projections of
frontal bones prominent, broad, square and high, deep, wide indentation between
eyes.’ (rejected). From defined stop, a furrow
(asked to include ‘distinct’ furrow (rejected) extending to middle of
skull being traceable to apex. Face from front of cheek bone to nose, relatively
short, skin may be slightly wrinkled. Muzzle short, broad, turned upwards and
deep from corner of eye to corner of mouth. Nose and nostrils large, broad and
black, under no circumstances liver colour, red or brown;(asked
to reinstate ‘top set back towards eyes’ (rejected) Distance from
inner corner of eye (or from centre of stop between eyes) to extreme tip of nose
should not be less than distance from tip of the nose to edge of the
underlip. Although this measurement had been removed
from the interim standard we asked for it to be reinstated. The KC have altered
the wording so as instead of the length given being the maximum length of the
muzzle it is now the minimum with no length of muzzle limit. Nostrils
large, wide and open, with well defined vertical straight line between. Flews
(chops) thick, broad, and deep, covering lower jaws at sides
asked to reinstate ‘not in front’ (rejected),
but joining underlip in front (asked to reinstate ‘and
quite covering teeth (rejected) Replaced with.
‘Teeth not visible’. Jaws broad, strong and square, lower jaw slightly
(asked for ‘slightly’ to be removed (rejected)
projecting in front of upper, with moderate turn up
(asked to reinstate ‘and turning up’ as ‘moderate’ not appropriate (rejected).
Over nose wrinkle (asked to change wrinkle to roll
(rejected), if present, whole or broken, must never adversely affect or
obscure eyes or nose. Pinched nostrils and heavy over nose roll are
unacceptable and should be heavily penalised. Viewed from front, the various
properties of the face must be equally balanced on either side of an imaginary
line down centre.
Eyes Seen from front, situated low down in
skull, well away from ears. Eyes and stop in same straight line, at right angles
to furrow. Wide apart, but outer corners within the outline of cheeks. Round, of
moderate size, neither sunken nor prominent, in colour very dark – almost black
– showing no white when looking directly forward. Free from obvious eye
problems.
Neck Moderate in length, thick, deep and
strong. Well arched at back, with some (asked
to remove ‘some’ rejected) loose skin about throat, forming slight
(asked to remove ‘slight’ rejected) dewlap on
each side. Asked to reinstate ‘from lower jaw to chest’
(rejected)
Forequarters Shoulders broad, sloping and deep,
very powerful and muscular giving appearance of being ’tacked on‘ body. Brisket,
(asked to reinstate ‘capacious’ rejected) round
and deep. Well let down between forelegs. Ribs not flat-sided but
well rounded. Forelegs very stout and strong, well developed, set wide apart,
thick, muscular and straight, bones of legs large and straight, not bandy nor
curved and short in proportion to hindlegs, but not so short as to make back
appear long, or detract from dog’s activity. Elbows low and standing well away
from ribs. Pasterns short, straight and strong.
Body Chest wide, prominent and deep. Back
short, strong, broad at shoulders (asked to reinstate ‘
comparatively narrower at loins (rejected). Slight fall to back close
behind shoulders (lowest part) whence spine should rise to loins (top higher
than top of shoulder), curving again more suddenly to tail, forming slight
arch Asked to reinstate ‘termed roach back’ – a
distinctive characteristic of the breed (rejected). Body well ribbed up
behind with belly tucked up and not
pendulous.
Hindquarters Legs large and muscular,
slightly longer in proportion than forelegs. Hocks slightly bent, well let
down; legs long and muscular from loins to hock. Stifles turned very
slightly outwards away from body. Asked in include
‘hocks thereby made to approach each other and hind feet to turn very slightly
outwards’ (rejected)
Gait/Movement
Requested ‘Controlled gait’ This term was suggested as an alternative to
‘Peculiarly heavy and constrained’ by a member of the committee we met at the KC
(it was still rejected) Appearing to walk with short, quick steps on tips
of toes, hind feet not lifted high, appearing to skim ground, running with one
or other shoulder rather advanced. Soundness of movement of the utmost
importance.
We asked for ‘Absent, inverted or
extremely tight tails to be heavily penalised’ to be added to the faults section
at the end of the standard. Although applauded by the KC in several articles it
was rejected.
The amendments to the standard will be effective from
The modified Standard which the Breed Council delegates stated would meet the Breed Council 's approval reads as follows:General Appearance Characteristics Temperament Head and Skull Eyes Ears Mouth Neck Forequarters
Chest wide, prominent and deep. Back short, strong, broad at shoulders
comparatively narrower at loins. Slight fall to back close behind shoulders
(lowest part) whence spine should rise to loins (top higher than top of
shoulder), curving again more suddenly to tail, forming slight arch(termed a
roach back) – a distinctive characteristic of breed. Body well ribbed up behind
with belly tucked up and not pendulous. Hindquarters Feet Tail Gait/Movement Coat Colour Size Faults Note NOTE :This is not the Bulldog Breed Standard that has been published as the Standard on the Kennel Clubs Website ************************************************************************************************************
The new wording as per the Kennel Clubs revision of Breed Standards is now in place. as from 1st October 2009. Kennel Clubs website and their New Breed Standard ****************************************************************************************************************
Bulldog Breed Council
The Bulldog Standard as revised in 2003 General Appearance Dogs showing respiratory distress highly undesirable. Body short, well knit, limbs stout, well muscled and in hard condition with no tendency towards obesity. Hindquarters high and strong but somewhat lighter in comparison with heavy foreparts. Bitches not so grand or well developed as dogs. Characteristics Temperament Head and Skull Eyes Ears Mouth Neck Forequarters Body Hindquarters Feet Tail Gait/Movement Soundness of movement of the utmost importance. Coat
Colour Whole or smut, (i.e. whole colour with black mask or muzzle). Only whole colours (which should be brilliant and pure of their sort) viz., brindles, reds with their various shades, fawns, fallows etc., white and pied (i.e. combination of white with any of the foregoing colours). Dudley, black and black with tan highly undesirable. Size Faults Note September 2003 (#) – removed ‘massive’ (##) – removed ‘considerably’ (###) – removed ‘rather short than long’ |
|
Copyright Reserved Genie in Box Productions 2005
|
