The AKC standard General Description section contains 193 words. Of these, only 38 are relevant to the actual description of the breed.

Compare this to the more recent (2009)British standard that only uses 22 words to give a much more useful physical description.
The three "distinguishing characteristics" statement is from the writings of Mary Roslin-Williams. Even though MRW lived in England, only the US standards use her comments as part of the description. CKC uses the 22 words from the UK standard and a slightly different set of characteristics. Of these three choices, I like the 39 words of the Canadian standard the best.

The AKC standard also has a sentence that is not really descriptive, but clearly establishes the priority by which the rest of the standard should be evaluated. This simple comment informs the reader how to interpret the balance of the descriptions based on function. I would add these 19 words to the 39 from the CKC standard to establish an overall impression of the breed for the General Description.

Any attempt to develop an accepted standard must start from a general description that is not wordy, vague, or editorially loaded. Anything that is NOT structurally descriptive or trait specific is superfluous and can even be confusing for owners and judges alike.

Would you add something about water retrieving?

I agree with the need for a standard being direct and simple, especially within the general description.

[quote}Would you add something about water retrieving?[/quote]
I have not suggested ANY changes of wording to the standards, only that a lot of the words be left out! If I had my personal druthers, I would incorporate a bit about the history in the GD section. Perhaps the statement you highlighted could read:

or something similar. It would let us picture our breed back in the water

I wholeheartedly agree! I think the word "primarily" is key.

I have not suggested ANY changes of wording to the standards, only that a lot of the words be left out! If I had my personal druthers, I would incorporate a bit about the history in the GD section. Perhaps the statement you highlighted could read:or something similar. It would let us picture our breed back in the water [/quote]

Is seems that you and I are the only ones interested, so we might as well take it private or end the discussion.

Maybe. But the original thread had over 1,500 reads. Your next thread has over 350. This one already has over 75. We should not think that just because there aren't posters, that people are not intently reading and thinking. Besides, I am perfectly happy to have the same discussion as we would have privately whether others are interested or not. I am going to learn and have fun just the same anyway. I have to assume uninterested people will ignore us (and we sure are not bothering them) and there may be interested people who disagree or agree, but will get something out of our discussion.

I won't be posting for the next couple of hours. The work thing ya know... and then there is the family and dog thing later. But that does not mean that I am not interested!

Maybe tomorrow we can analyze the size section.

Maybe temperament would be a good one for you Maureen.

Anonymous jabs are not an indicator of strong temperament.

I have mixed feelings about the AKC size description. I like the way the FCI does it though. I don't like the height disqualification part of the AKC but love how the FCI gives some generic discretion to the judge. The FCI does not give specific weight but generally mentions in a couple places how excessive body weight is to be avoided. I like a shorter but properly proportioned dog. Also reference to "traditional work" is important.

Also, loaded question...Are the weight ranges the AKC gives more reasonable if you use the shorter heights the FCI uses?

FCI:

General Appearance
Strongly built, short-coupled, very active; broad in skull; broad and deep through chest and ribs; broad and strong over loins and hindquarters.

Characteristics
Good-tempered, very agile (which precludes excessive body weight or excessive substance). Excellent nose, soft mouth; keen love of water. Adaptable, devoted companion.

Body
Chest of good width and depth, with well sprung barrel ribs - this effect not to be produced by carrying excessive weight. Level topline. Loins wide, short-coupled and strong.

Size
Ideal height at withers: dogs: 56-57 cms (22-221/2 ins); bitches: 55-56 cms (211/2-22 ins).

Faults
Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog, and on the dog’s ability to perform its traditional work.