I realize that breed standards can have many different formats. In many ways this format is easier to read; the body parts being discussed are clearly outlined and it's easy to find a specific one.
I strongly disagree, however, with the inclusion of the 'Unimproved' and 'Improved' categories. A breed standard should define the 'ideal' of a breed, not show the progression from the 'old' style. The 'Unimproved' and 'Improved' categories are great as teaching tools for newbies, but I don't think they belong here.
I would like to see the faults or negative traits reintroduced to the document. If this is the purpose of the 'Unimproved' column, then it could be relabeled as 'Faults' for clarity.
Finally, I would love to have the drawings of legs, head, etc that were in the old standard be placed into another document as a reference document. That way they are available to anyone, like me, who does better with pictures rather than words.
Thank you for the hard work of committee members in an attempt to revise the breed standard for suris. Although, My initial response was that our 2006 breed standard is pretty good and at least we have one so I felt it might not be the necessary yet to spend the time and resources on a revision but that is a mute point now.
The format is radically different from the original and it appears that there is an attempt to match up with the S.H.I.P. classification criteria. This could provide more consistency. It seems to lean more toward AOBA Show criteria as well. I understand that AOA is trying to develop a Breed Standard for huacayas. Is this new (extremely condensed format) intended to make our Suri Breed Standard format similar to what will be proposed in a format for the Huacaya Breed Standard? I truly hope that AOA members do vote positively for a Huacaya Breed Standard but do not know if Suri breeders need to align with the same format.
I rather like the old format where there were ideal traits and then negative traits since negative traits can vary considerably. I also like the pictures of skeletal conformation as it gives those of us who are visually oriented another way to see the "ideal".
In conclusion, I guess I would have liked to see more of the original format included in the revision.
And... Shame on me! I should have thanked the committee as well. This is an enormous task that involves many calls and editorial work. Thanks to the committee for taking on this huge task. You have not only served the members of the Suri Network well, but also the industry as a whole. Following your example, and as a result of the priorities set by members at last year's AOA Strategic Planning Conference, a huacaya standard is also being developed. So thank you!
One other comment is that I think it is important to keep an eye on using the singular form of a noun since the standard is to be applied one individual at a time. For instance instead of saying "dams exhibit longevity...", I feel it should say "dam exhibits longevity...". Likewise under density, it should refer to "the fleece" as opposed to "fleeces".
I also think it best to separate male and female when talking about genitalia.
I really like this new formatting and how it is streamlined and yet informative. It provides the "ideal" and yet also informs the breeder what they need to avoid. I think this is a great improvement over the previous standard.