It was not until ballots arrived that many of us knew of the proposed changes to the Dutch Standard. Little time has been left for discussion, but fortunately it has taken place online. I have some strong opinions, which I know will come as a surprise to exactly no one who knows me! Below are my opinions and reasoning, change by change. I’m not offended if you don’t agree with me (really, I’m not) but hopefully this will at least contribute to the discussion:
1. FROM: Color is to be a bright, clean orange, blending into smoky-blue shading over the lower rump…
TO: Color is to be a bright, rich, clean orange, blending into a smoky-blue shading over the lower rump…
AGAINST. Think of a color you’d describe as rich. Now think of a color you’d describe as bright. I’m betting they are very different. These aren’t synonyms, and the addition of “rich” does nothing to further promote the correct color. The rationale includes “the word ‘rich’ would indicate something deeper in color,” but again, deep does not equal bright. (Depth of color in rabbits is another thing entirely, it refers to how far the surface color runs down the hair shaft into the undercolor. Unfortunately, this has been removed from the self colors in our Standard.) In my opinion, adding a severe fault for dark, smutty top color would be more effective.
2. FROM: Color is to be a bright, clean orange, blending into a smoky-blue shading over the lower rump…
TO: Color is to be a bright, clean orange, blending into a smoky-gray shading over the lower rump…
AGAINST. Smoky-blue is a good visual description of the correct shading color, and darker than smoky-gray. We know the shadings are to be deep and bold because the Tortoise color is to be faulted for a lack of bold shading. Gray smoke presents a much lighter color, visually, than blue (oil) smoke. The rationale indicates that this is to bring the color standard in line with other Tortoise color descriptions, however the color we require is brighter and cleaner in surface color, so I don’t believe creating similarities will help us emphasize that.
3. FROM: Surface color of the under portion of the tail, belly, and inside of the hind legs is to be as near the body color as possible
TO: Surface color of the under portion of the tail and inside of the hind legs is to be as near the belly color as possible
AGAINST. At first, this sounded like a good idea. Of course the tail and inside of the hind legs should match the belly. However, this change removes any description of belly color. All of these areas should be as near the body color as possible.
4. FROM: Ears are to be well furred, carried erect, and set close together on the head
TO: Ears are to be well furred, of good substance, carried erect, and set close together on the head
FOR. This is something we have selected for, and goes along with the well-rounded head and medium bone described in the Standard.
5. FROM: The neck is that portion of the collar behind the ears. It should be wide, wedge shaped, clean and even. Neck is to be free from drags of the ear color into the collar, or white of the collar running into the base of the ears.
TO: The neck marking is located behind the ears and is to be wide, wedge shaped, clean and even. The neck marking is to be free from drags to the ear color into the neck marking, or white of the neck marking running into the base of the ears.
FOR. This is a more modern, clean description.
6. FROM: (Foreign being a color other than is called for in that particular area.) Colored Toenail(s).
TO: (Foreign being a color other than is called for in that particular area.) Colored Toenail(s). Freckle(s).
AGAINST. What, Briony? You HATE freckles! Yes, yes, I do. I also realize that some breeders and judges alike deny this DQ with a fervor usually reserved for birthers, or somehow believe that finding one by parting the lips during the normal sequence of examination is a violation of the rabbit’s Fourth Amendment rights. Yes, this is a general DQ, however I believe “Freckle(s)” is not the best wording, and that “flesh spot(s)” would be a better descriptor.
7. FROM: An extreme amount of white hairs scattered through the colored sections. Bare spot(s). Three colors in Black, Blue and Chocolate. Distinct white spot(s) in colored section. Distinct colored spot(s) in white section. Spot or spots must be plainly visible. Any foreign colored area, other than called for in the breed standard, that is plainly visible while the animal is in a natural pose.
TO: An extreme amount of white hairs scattered through the colored sections. Bare spot(s). Distinct white spot(s) in colored section. Distinct colored spot(s) in white section. Spot or spots must be plainly visible. Any foreign colored area, other than called for in the breed standard, that is plainly visible while the animal is in a natural pose. (Three Colors DQ removed).
FOR. In 23 years of Dutch ownership and 14 years of judging, I have yet to see a self with three colors.
8. FROM: 5 points on neck
TO: 3 points on neck, 2 on bone
AGAINST, for several reasons. First, the rationale states that “the neck marking should not be worth as many points as the blaze.” Currently, each are worth 5. However, some of the most common blaze faults (narrow, wide, uneven) also involve the cheeks (correspondingly low, high or uneven) so a total of 17 points is at play. Second, breeders complain that the neck is overlooked. If an allocation of 5 points causes a part to be overlooked, it’s irrational to expect that allocating less than half of that to feet and legs would make a difference in how bone is judged or placements are made. All other things being equal, a rabbit with a neck fault would still win over one with refined bone. Third, bone is covered under general type. This is another area in which I believe adding a severe fault for fine bone would have more of an impact than a 2 point allocation.
9. FROM: The Dutch should maintain a close coupled, well rounded appearance, whether it weighs 3 ½ or 5 ½ pounds.
TO: The Dutch should maintain a close coupled, well rounded cobby appearance, whether it weighs 3 ½ or 5 ½ pounds.
AGAINST. SO AGAINST. “Cobby” is an archaic word that used to be part of our standard, however when one researches this in context of animals, the definitions found are “stout,” “stocky,” “hearty,” “headstrong,” “obstinate,” etc. The rational states that this word will create a visual picture and help reinforce “short and close-coupled.” Cobby is not in the vocabulary of most people, save longtime Dutch breeders who have assigned it the meaning of “short,” so I’m not sure to whom this is supposed to create a visual. Part of writing a good Standard is considering the audience. Most longtime Dutch breeders have a good mental picture of the ideal. New breeders, applicants, registrars, judges and simply rabbit scholars are the ones to whom we need to make this clear, and since “cobby” is not a word in the vocabulary of most, I don’t see how this helps. I’ve also heard that the ADRC has requested the ARBA add a definition of this word to the glossary. This is even more nonsensical to me, as I don’t understand what would be the benefit of creating a definition of a word for the purposes of inclusion in our Standard instead of simply using the plain language that would be found in such a definition. We removed this word for good reason, and should we care to reinforce the requirement for a short, compact body, we have plenty of more descriptive, more coherent words with which to do so.
If you’ve made it this far, thank you! Whatever your opinion, please vote. If you don’t feel informed enough, I’m sure other breeders will be more than willing to share their opinions with you as well!
Dutch by Briony 
Leave a comment