Many people believe that a formal standard should describe the vision of the originators of the breed. Is that the same as to describe the dogs the originators had? Did the originators describe the dogs they had or the vision that they were trying to achieve?

Breed standards are meant to describe the "ideal" for the breed. Many are not as specific as our updated one, but more like our old standard which leaves some room for interpretation. As a side note I heard a story of how the original standard was written that is kind of amusing. The group of people who wrote it were enjoying dinner, and more than a few drinks while writing the standard. They ventured down to the kennel and looking at the dogs there took a guess at the height and weight which was put in the standard. Not sure if the story is true or not. Perhaps someone who knows can fill us in. For my taste I would like to see a standard that tells you what the dog should look like and not what it shouldn't.

I had heard the same story.

I asked the questions I did because even though it is obviously important to look at pictures of dogs of yesteryear, I am not sure we are supposed to be copying them.

I am sure the originators of the breed were starting with the great dogs they had but envisioned changes over time. Maybe not the changes that have happened in many cases since, but they certainly intended to improve on what they had.

I would tend to agree but it is interesting to see the FCI add language like "not to be achieved by excessive body weight or substance". I guess sometimes we need to be told "NO!".

That particular addition was the result of the Kennel Club (UK) crack down a few years ago. There was much hullabaloo that breed standards reinforced health problems. The short faces of some of the toy breeds and similar traits that were considered important to breed type were criticized by the AR media until the KC demanded that health issues be addressed in the standards. The Lab standard was not much of a problem, except that the KC felt it could lead to unhealthy overweight. The small change was made to accommodate their wishes. There is also a phrase in faults that is common to all UK standards - "...its effect on the health and welfare of the dog." This was an earlier attempt to make standards more PC. Even a vision has to get a stamp of approval from the official censors.

So, should we breed for dogs that look like the dogs of yesteryear?

Oldtimer

That particular addition was the result of the Kennel Club (UK) crack down a few years ago. There was much hullabaloo that breed standards reinforced health problems. The short faces of some of the toy breeds and similar traits that were considered important to breed type were criticized by the AR media until the KC demanded that health issues be addressed in the standards. The Lab standard was not much of a problem, except that the KC felt it could lead to unhealthy overweight. The small change was made to accommodate their wishes. There is also a phrase in faults that is common to all UK standards - "...its effect on the health and welfare of the dog." This was an earlier attempt to make standards more PC. Even a vision has to get a stamp of approval from the official censors.