Jump to content

Category talk:Rare dog breeds

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What makes a "rare breed"?

[edit]

OK, I'm puzzled at the inclusion of some of the breeds in this list. Presumably if the breed has existed long enough and provided enough offspring to be recognized by (for example) the AKC, it's not so rare. Can anyone provide a definition here, either yours or the group's or some well-specified definition in some resource somewhere?

For example, in the AKC list of breeds by registered quantity, Foxhounds are at the bottom of the list at #156 in registrations but aren't included here as rare; Havenese are #36 among AKC-registered dogs but ARE listed here. Half of the 15 lowest-ranking AKC dogs aren't listed here, but Toy Fox Terriers (#86) are. (Note that I'm not saying that the AKC is the definitive word on dog rarity; I'm just using it as an example as to why this doesn't seem to make sense.)

And one more thing: What the AKC considers to be rare might be those in its FSS breeds--breeds that don't have enough dogs or history yet to be granted full membership. See the current list. Elf | Talk 23:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely with this. I just added the Entlebucher Sennenhund and Appenzeller Sennenhund to this category, since Bernese Mountain Dogs and Greater Swiss Mountain Dogs were both included -- and are far more common (Berners are #39, according to the AKC's 2010 ranking). I suppose the definition could be something along the lines of "AKC: FSS breeds and breeds in the lower fourth of the rankings; other: breeds not accepted", but I feel that's rather specific to the US. Most of these breeds are at least somewhat common somewhere in the world.
I'm too new to feel I have any authority in deciding upon the final definition, but I am going to go through and add the FSS breeds to this category, as well as the breeds ranking in the bottom 20. If the Leonberger is included at #33, surely the English Foxhound can also be included at #167. Definitely needs some clarification, regardless. If someone disagrees with these additions, please let me know. -- Anndelion (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]