I have tried to write my critiques using the language from your standard.  There is a great deal of detail regarding heads and while I have mentioned various properties that relate to the standard, in judging sighthounds, I put less weight on these requirements than the requirement for strong legs, feet, balance and muscling.  As a breeder, cosmetic qualities (heads, color, eye color etc) are usually much easier to improve than structural properties.

The sloughi standard has some dichotomies.  The one that particularly bothers me is the requirement asking for strength and muscle and then stating muscles should be flat.  If muscles are well developed, they are by definition “round and protruding” which is listed as a fault.

Because this was a photographic judgment, some parts of the standard had to be ignored – coat and skin quality, size, temperament, bite.  I also found it more difficult to assess some colors/patterns than others without being able to use my hands.

Some dogs are just more photogenic than others though in person they may have qualities that will outshine the photogenic ones.  Photos show us one small moment in time & it may not be to a particular dogs advantage.  So I shall ask forgiveness if I have mentioned strengths or weaknesses on the dogs that in reality are not there.

I also place a good deal of importance on movement which is just not possible with the photos.  In many cases I would have handlers re-moving or re-stacking dogs to allow the dogs a better opportunity to show their positive qualities. 

I appreciate the educational opportunity you have given me and hope I will have the opportunity to view many more sloughis in the years to come.   Good luck to all of you and enjoy your hounds.
 

Lindan Scanlon, 2005