Nice girl you have there Beagled1!Beagled1 wrote:Before leaving this post completely I'd like to add the following (quoted verbatim from the AKC's offically accepted Beagle breed stand) under the heading General Appearance:
"A miniature Foxhound, solid and big for his inches, with the wear-and-tear look of the hound that can last in the chase and follow his quarry to the death."
From my point of view, I have yet to see any Foxhound that could be descibed as square in any way, shape or form, nor am I likely to ever do so.
Glad to see someone bringing attention to this particular reference in the Standard. This is the look I prefer, and am trying to breed for. This is my foundation bitch who is not going to win any shows anytime soon, but typy, correct? Yeah, I think so.
And this is, I think, the main difference between the show/field "types". From what I've seen, personally, it seems though the show lines are beginning to lengthen out and are, to a small extent at least IMHO, are abandoning that cobby, square, overdone look. Ch. Scentini Million Dollar Baby, to me is a great example of this - tell me at least conformation wise, he does not embody the miniature foxhound aspect of the standard & that his conformation wouldn't allow him endurance, stamina, foot. http://www.dynomitebeagles.com/
I likewise think I see the beginning of some moderation in style in AKC show stock, at least in some lines, and personally hope that it continues. If we accept that the standard was originally written as a guide to producing dogs with a conformation best suited for the work destined to be performed, we then essentially must also accepted that it describes the essence of what that breed is, how it should perform, look, etc., etc. In other words, is a beagle that can’t trail it’s own scent let alone a rabbit really a Beagle or just something that kind of looks like one?