NBC 2005 BOB Ch. Windkist A Walk In The Park

Honey Pot Hounds · Post by **Honey Pot Hounds** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:04 am

blunder wrote:So are you advocating 16 inch Beagles like those in the painting???? (that is the standard over there)
tom

No, because if we had a height limit of 16" here then next you'd see dogs creeping up over that size

I think 15" is big enough.

FWIW, I don't really think the best hunting dogs are naturally that pretty anyway and that is probably why there is so much discontent btwn the show & field folk...probably the best hunters are scrappy little 13's with long, pointy noses and hare feet and the best 15's would be lanky and tough looking with lower tailsets.....or something along that line if you get my meaning.....to pick on our side, well, just re-read Dans post, I think he does make some valid points...so anyway, when someone breeds a beautiful conformation specimen that is also a champion in the field (or vice versa) my hat is off to them.

Lefgren-Lane · Post by **Lefgren-Lane** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:53 am

No I am not advocating changing the size here to 16 inch. (I do not know where that came from. There is nothing in any of my posts that advocates doing that.) Do not get the hounds registered with The Kennel Club and the packs that are registered with the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles confused. (The Kennel Club, UK version of AKC, 16 is just a suggestion for them, over 16 is allowed and is supposed to be faulted ??? Under 13 is also a fault. They are really screwed up and about as far removed from anything useful to hunt as you can get. That is also FCI Standard.) The pictures I posted are of pack beagles (AMHB). It would be a violation of AMHB rules to even register or show one of these in a Kennel Club event. The AMHB Studbook limit is 16 inches. (There has never been a conformation standard adopted by AMHB except for 16 inch max for events and studbook.) However virtually all of the packs breed to keep thier packs below that limit and many try to maintain packs that are 15 or less. About the only ones that would keep packs over 16 would be those few packs that run fox and usually they are followed on horseback. (There were only 2 out of 77 in the Hunt Directory I saw) To enter one of the hound shows they must be studbook size or under. They look tall because they are built different than most of the beagles we see in North America. A lot less body and bone. Far more moderate. Better endurance and speed. The problem in North America is that we are so used to seeing bad beagles that we are unable to recognize a good one when it is presented to us. There is a terrible lack of knowlege when it comes to breed history, function, conformation etc..

Pete Ch Stallion Hound (Beagle)

blunder · Post by **blunder** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:12 pm

They look tall because they are built different than most of the beagles we see in North America. A lot less body and bone

What I said

The major structure change that I have noticed over the years is that Beagles today are far heavier boned (esp in 15 inch)

The structure of our dogs (IMHO of course) isn't that far off, but our predisposission for heavier dogs (look at the Labs in the show ring) has been leading us in a bad direction.

tom

Honey Pot Hounds · Post by **Honey Pot Hounds** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:57 pm

Interesting discussion...I don't doubt that the dog pictured above, "Pete," can run fast but he does look awfully straight in stifle in this picture...

Name of dog critiqued by Dan below removed to protect the innocent

Lefgren-Lane · Post by **Lefgren-Lane** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:13 pm

"Pete" is my shorthand for Peterborough. The Stallion hound is not posed very well. His stifle would be just fine if he was posed with his rear hocks vertical.

Sorry Cindy, but I'll pass on the dog you mentioned. Why? I really should not do this but here goes. Short flewie muzzle, too much forechest, overdone ears, bad top line, straight and slopes to rear (no arch over loin, short crop, bad tailset (too high), tail appears to be overly straight), from pic looks like he may be a bit over at knee(not sure ??), front feet (pigeon toed ??), overangulated in rear, better than most but still too much body depth for length of leg below ( looks to be only about a .9 ratio). Needs a bit more air under him. Depending on what age he is, as he matures and chest fills it will get worse. Like to see a bit more of an angle at pastern. Depending on Judge will do just fine in showring. Would not be suprised if he wasn't narrow at the point of hips, A-frame in rear?? Pictures are not always fair way to look at hounds. Much easier when they are in front of you. In person I might like him better, might not. I will agree that he is appears to be better than much of what is out there. A look through a few Show Beagle Quarterly's will pretty much verify that.

To make a Dual it is not a question of conformation. With the exception of AKC Large Pack on Hare, in most cases the hounds are not run long enough to actually test for endurance and in too many trials fast hounds or those running too much rabbit are picked up. Conformation (good or bad) is not normally a factor in determinng the outcome of a field trial. Pretty much the same can be said for gundogs used on cottontail. The trials are designed to simulate gun hunting situations, not to simulate the function and purpose the breed was created for, which is to run down and kill its quarry. (No guns needed)

In truth the beagle in North America has been modified, selected, bred to perform in some very different situations compared to the historical. Along with the change has come change in conformation from the from the pack hound roots. Still, if we are to claim that we are breeding and exhibiting beagles that meet the actual historical requirements that define the breed then there needs tobe some very very serious changes made in what is out there.

A valid case could be made that conditions etc. in North America are so different from the original breed function that there are very good reasons to basically consider beagles here as varieties of the original breed or in at least one case as "new breeds" that were developed from beagles. There could be valid reasons to modify or write separate "conformation standards" for at least 4 varieties or maybe 3 "new" breeds. The four varieties might be called 1. Traditional, Hare Hound or Pack Beagle (current NBC Standard pretty much OK, would add items of body proportions, leg length to body etc. that indicate a hound built as a galloper.) 2. Show Beagle, (Allow straight topline, rear slope, more angulation in rear, heads with flews etc. etc., body proportions of trotter. Describe a crowd pleasing over actioned trotter and/or flying trotter) 3. Rabbit or Cottotail Beagle (The type most on here are very familiar with, describe a balanced hound with leg to body ratios of about 1 to 1 or slightly less, length of body (point of shoulder to rear point of pelvis) of 110 to 120 percent. Emphasis on balance between fornt and rear. Moderate angulation. A hound while capable of a gallop is better suited and built for endurance trotting) and 4. Brace Beagle (Walkie-Talkie) (Describe a nose down built hound often with point of hips higher than withers, leg to body ratio of .6 or shorter, length to height ratios of 120 percent or more, a hound built to be virtually incapable of any gate other than a slow walk or (sic) waddle).

The 13 and 15 sizes could be sub-varieties or varieties if there was a split into 4 different breeds. Possibly Show Beagle (maybe International Beagle for a name) might consider adopting items or sizes etc. from the FCI (UK) Standard thus making them more compatible at dog shows in other countries. The Traditional Beagle or Pack Beagle might consider adopting the 16 AMHB Studbook size limit. Oh well, the world goes on warts and all. Too many have too much invested (money, emotionally etc.) to ever see much change in the status-quo. The most any of us will ever be able to do is at least explain "what the heck the breed actually is and what it is for". It will not make any or much difference in judging in the ring or at trials etc. but hopefully it might cut down on the numbr of people claiming they breed "to meet the standard", "better the breed' etc. etc. Most are doing just like a very very longtime and well known breeder of show beagles (also heard much the same from a Brace Beagler) quote "I do not really pay much attention to the standard. Have not read it in quite sometime. I want to be breeding the type that is winning and better yet I want to breed what will be winning as judging changes." Be careful out there. How long is the "over angulation style" going to last? What is the next "hot item" to over do? Anybody seeing any "trends"? How about a reversion to late 80's excessively "cobby" and compact? More bone? Less bone? Level toplines? Balance front and rear? Longer necks? Looking for input. Want to stay ahead of the curve. Heck, I hear there are even Brace Beagles that can win from the front. For a long time being in front was the "kiss of death". Normally the only way you could win was if your hound was put down second on the line and pray they would not pass the one in front.

blunder · Post by **blunder** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:35 pm

I hate to say it,,,,,,,, but,,,,,,,,,, you find so mush wrong with Beagles that maybe you should try a different breed since you dislike them so much.

tom

Lefgren-Lane · Post by **Lefgren-Lane** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:09 pm

I hate to say it,,,,,,,, but,,,,,,,,,, you find so mush wrong with Beagles that maybe you should try a different breed since you dislike them so much.

tom

In fact it is just the oppisite. I care about the "Breed" so much that it saddens me greatly when I see what has happened and what has been done to it. As far as other breeds, outside of a passing interest in some and dogs in general, Beagles, American Foxhounds (Triggs, Walkers, Julys, Goodman's), are my primary interest, English Foxhounds (Modern, Old English, Hill, Fell, Welsh) and Harriers, West Country Harriers, Kerry Beagles are of interest because of thier relatioship to Beagles and Am Foxhounds

blunder · Post by **blunder** » Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:28 pm

So are you advocating 16 inch Beagles like those in the painting????

(I do not know where that came from. There is nothing in any of my posts that advocates doing that.)

Here is where I keep having a problem.
Compair the highth of the withers of these dogs with the knees of the person standing behind them, and tell me that they are not 16+ inches tall.
Your information keeps contridicting itself

tom

Honey Pot Hounds · Post by **Honey Pot Hounds** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:55 pm

Guys, as the author of this thread I have asked Bev to remove it. There's just too much negative BS on here now and personally I think the Beagle breed is in fine shape whether it be hunt or show...nothings ever perfect but we all know some dogs that we consider darn close.
Sheesh, the human race should look so good...have you taken a look around your local Walmart lately?

S.R.Patch · Post by **S.R.Patch** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:17 pm

Don't know if I remember, but I'll try this(fingers crossed)...

This (if it works), is the CMV beagles of the UK. They breed for a 14 1/2" pack. The nearest red hound is one of the last old ChristChurch hounds the Master had left, he is to large and heavy a stamp hound than what they breed for today.
Size is the easiest to select for...

ps. don't quit a useful thread just because you become frustrated. What have you gained for it but points on your blood pressure...

pss. the painting of the "Merry Beaglers" is just that, a painting. You must allow for the artist eye and stroke.
I saw the painting in the Master's home and each person represented in the painting had signed it below, absolutely amazing...

Honey Pot Hounds · Post by **Honey Pot Hounds** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:42 pm

I would just LOVE to get my hands on that big, gorgeous hound!!! What a nice neck for such a substantial dog..and his coat looks like..like I could snuggle right into it face first

S.R.Patch · Post by **S.R.Patch** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:03 pm

Yes, and as you can see by the "flying beagle", they are built to go under fence and over stone walls...lol...amazing jumping ability...

They are different in that, they are not "in your face type hounds. They are very attentive on the ground and make good eye contact but, when you get in their face close, they will pull to turn their face from you, as if, they don't want to challenge your authority by nose to nose eye contact.

blunder · Post by **blunder** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 7:30 pm

Several of those would fair just fine as a show hound any day.
I'll take the one in the lower right

, now that's structure!!

tom

Windkist · Post by **Windkist** » Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:25 pm

[quote="blunder"]Several of those would fair just fine in as a show hound any day.
I'll take the one in the lower right

, now that's structure!!

I agree.. they all look as though they could hunt and compete in a "trotter" contest to me and they have nice turn of stifle rather than those stick straight rears which are not proper conformation or useful in the field and good toplines as well. I'd own the nice big hound on the right as well.

Leah

S.R.Patch · Post by **S.R.Patch** » Sun Mar 12, 2006 9:40 pm

Somehow my picture got removed from hunt101 and now it won't let me reload it without "errors"...
How does this happen and what to do to fix it?...