The wording of AKC standard for the Keeshond is quite specific, “TRIMMING OTHER THAN AS DESCRIBED TO BE SEVERELY PENALIZED” , written in upper case to show emphasis. So, yes, those who choose to trim are going against this standard. They are risking heavy penalties by the officiating judge. Why were these words put into the American Standard? Why have other countries not followed this example?
Perhaps, there was/is no need. Perhaps, in days gone by it was the norm to have naturally self-fitting, easily cared for coats. Perhaps, there was never a need to trim to make the dog look like it was supposed to. Perhaps, breeders would have laughed if you had even suggested that trimming would become necessary and should be penalized.
So, what has happened to the Keeshonden coat of old, the “wash and wear” coat, as my husband calls it? My belief is that the ever increasing desire to win, to produce the prettiest dog possible has become an obsession. Many have found that a well groomed, fully coated (perhaps overabundance of soft, woolly undercoat) is very appealing to look at. Most of us will agree. But should breeders be breeding for it? That is the question!
Can you name each of the breeds from the silhouettes above, even though their size has been altered? Answers at the bottom of the page.
As a puppy buyer of a companion dog, what would you hope for in terms of coat? Yes, it is true that you buy with hopes of getting a dog with a beautiful coat. But if the adorable fluffy puppy that you bought becomes a nightmare to groom, you may decide that this is not really what a companion dog should be. You are forced to make the decision on what should be done. Should you spend a lot of extra money to send the dog to a groomer on a regular basis? Should you shave the dog off every time the coat becomes too matted to groom out? Or should you give up and look for a different breed of dog? Some will take on the responsibility of daily or weekly grooming, but many will not. Could this be one of the reasons that so many Keeshonden are ending up in animal shelters and rescue situations?
Perhaps we need to give serious thought to what a proper coat should be and the importance of breeders trying to achieve this. Let’s go back to the days when the Keeshond lived on barges. His primary purpose was to be a companion to his owner, remembering he also worked on farms doing a variety of other chores. His coat was “abundantly covered with long, straight, harsh hair standing well out from his thick, downy undercoat”. When he got wet, he could give himself a shake and most of the water would shake off. He would be dry very quickly without the aid of hair dryers. Dirt that was picked up in the coat could be easily brushed out. Regular bathing was not a necessity. Brushing was a relatively simple chore.
I believe that one can have a dog with a correct coat, as described above, without scissoring to get that desired outline; without having to spend many hours every week to keep it looking good. We breeders can breed for hard, self-fitting coats that only need a good grooming once a month, and they will remain looking good in between. We can make it easier on our puppy buyers and ourselves by doing so. But how many of us will? How many of us feel strongly enough about this issue, to go the extra mile, especially if it means that our dogs are not as competitive in the show ring?
Perhaps, other than coat length, there are more important issues to be addressed here – ones that may also lead an individual to take scissors in hand. What has happened to the correct structure underneath the coat? By trimming, aren’t some people also trying to deceive others by trying to improve upon:
- · larger ears,
· improper muzzle colour,
· poor spectacle markings and shading
· poor toplines,
· longer backs,
· poor tuckups,
· lower set tails, and
· lack of “profusely feathered” trousers?
There may be a lot more at stake here than just incorrect coat length, texture and fullness. By trimming, aren’t the exhibitors saying, “My dog is not perfect and I am trying to make it look better by artificial means?” This appears to be so much easier than the real challenge of breeding the perfect dog?
Isn’t that what we all should be striving for? We should breed for a dog that fits the standard and therefore does not need to have his appearance altered by trimming, dyeing, bleaching, adding sprays/texturizers, etc. In a perfect world breeders would be able to do this.
| Wrocky of Wistonia’s picture has frequently been used in the U.S.A. and other countries to illustrate an almost perfect Keeshond. While I never saw him in the flesh, I have been told by a reliable source that Wrocky, in life, had ideal coat length, hardness and thickness. It did not need to be trimmed. He was a dramatically marked dog. He was properly balanced and had the correct length of neck. He had the correct topline. His belly was moderately tucked up. He had a correct tail set and curl. His pants were full and thick. His silhouette was impressive. There was no need to alter his appearance by trimming. He fit the standard. | 
|
If we as breeders and exhibitors feel strongly enough about this issue, then I would like to suggest that the Severe Penalty in the AKC Standard should be changed to a disqualification, then judges might be able to help the breeders do their jobs. But again, the onus would be on the judges to decide who has been trimmed and who has not. Errors in judgement could be made, and dogs could be falsely disqualified. Do we, as breeders, really want others to define the attributes of our breed? I say, “no way.”