The great ratter

I'll join you, Bubba, I used to have enough problems sorting out CCCQ rules and regs.

To me it seems like it's going to be one big on going headache. At least with most breeds you can look at them and know just what it is even if it's not up to the standard.

I vote we forget that subject and get on with gardening . Life is too short.

I'll echo that... too confusing for this old brain

Bubba Louie, the same applies to every breed. I once said to a breeder/exhibitor/judge friend of mine that my shelties didn't have lovely round feet like some others I saw - boy, that was before I really studied the standards. She said of course not, they are not supposed to. The sheltie has an oval foot. LOL. Just means that those others are still shelties and that they have bad feet. They can't be slotted into some other breed because of it. It's the parentage and pedigree that dictate what they are, then conformation and structure that dictates whether they are good specimens of their breed.

Betty wrote:

Bubba Louie, the same applies to every breed. I once said to a breeder/exhibitor/judge friend of mine that my shelties didn't have lovely round feet like some others I saw - boy, that was before I really studied the standards. She said of course not, they are not supposed to. The sheltie has an oval foot. LOL. Just means that those others are still shelties and that they have bad feet. They can't be slotted into some other breed because of it. It's the parentage and pedigree that dictate what they are, then conformation and structure that dictates whether they are good specimens of their breed.

But at least everyone knew they were Shelties. My point was more that with two breeds that SO closely resemble each other there will always be problems with identifyng who's who.
Especially seeing some MF clubs have changed their name to TT clubs.

Bubba Louie, wasn't it Don Burke's idea to just re-name the mini foxie the Tenterfield Terrier ? Are they genetically different, the two supposedly different breeds? I might have to go back and re-read what was said for the answer to that. I thought it said they weren't.

Betty wrote:

Bubba Louie, wasn't it Don Burke's idea to just re-name the mini foxie the Tenterfield Terrier ? Are they genetically different, the two supposedly different breeds? I might have to go back and re-read what was said for the answer to that. I thought it said they weren't.

So many sites, so many opinions, but I did read that in some states clubs that were formerly known as MF are now TT.

I just Googled it, Bubba Louie, because I recalled from an episode of Burke's Backyard that he just re-named the mini foxies as Tenterfield Terriers and I think it was accepted because it was a good Aussie name. I was livid at the time, I mean they'd always just been mini foxies and I strongly doubted that he would know where they were first bred. Here is the link and "history" according to Don. Oh, they would have had little luck registering them back then as Miniature Fox Terriers because, if my memory serves me correctly, the breeders of proper Fox Terriers were screaming that they were not mini's of their breed and should not have that name.

http://www.burkesbackyard.com.au/factsheets/Dogs/Tenterfield-Terrier/1927

History: Small Fox Terrier-like dogs have been known in Australia for at least 130 years. The Tenterfield terrier was first known and bred around the Tenterfield area - hence the name suggested by Don Burke. They were originally bred as farm dogs but about 10 years ago enthusiasts began to rally to develop breed standards with the long term view of applying for purebred status by canine bodies across Australia. There are about 1600 Tenterfield Terriers now registered with breed clubs.