Azawakh Breed Standard- Weight question

[CWNSF]

I’m hoping someone on here might be familiar with the breed, the Azawakh.

There’s been some Facebook articles floating around introducing it as one of the newest (AKC I think?) breeds and the picture used shows a rather skeletal-looking dog. Not wanting to jump to conclusions, I went to the AKC breed standards page and read that one should be able to see parts of the skeleton.

I’ve always gone by the ribs slightly visible (if at all) but easily felt. I guess my question is- is this really healthy for the dogs and if so, what’s the idea behind it? I mean, I’d rather see a dog slightly underweight than over, but some of the pictures seemed extreme.

thanks!

[anon55755751]

A guess: This is a sighthound (i.e. lean anyway) that is still probably close to its working roots. Some breeds that want to promote dual dogs (conformation and sport/working titles) make sure they have language in their standards that ensures working-condition dogs aren’t penalized for things like weight, scars, etc. A sighthound that is working fit will have very little fat cover, with visible muscles, ribs, hips, and spine. I agree the Azawakh seems predisposed to be extreme in terms of the skeletal appearance - compare to a fit whippet for example, which can get really bulky muscles.

Oh here: https://nationalpurebreddogday.com/feed-that-dog/
Looks like the thinness even relative to sighthounds is a function of the fact that they developed in a really hot climate. That makes sense. I know people with greyhounds who have experienced them overheating in summer in the US just out on regular walks.

[S1969]

![](any of the sighthounds are similar. You can’t tell by looking but the Afghan would look similar without that hair. Same for Salukis and Pharoah hounds.

They have very little body fat, so it’s not that they are underfed, they just don’t have fat and coat to cover their ribs like other breeds, especially those that were developed in cold climates or work in rugged terrain.

It’s important to consider if thinking about owning one. They NEED clothes in colder temperatures. It’s not optional. Just like people should really rethink owning Malamutes in Florida as well. They are not designed for that climate.

ETA: here is a picture of an Afghan without all the hair. [IMG]https://www.dogbreedplus.com/dog_breeds/images/Afghan-Hound-018.jpg)

[CWNSF]

Thank you both! @strangewings -That makes sense about being developed in a hot climate. I hadn’t thought of it from that angle before.

@S1969 - I agree with you on considering your climate when selecting a breed. I’m in NH, so we don’t have too extreme temperatures but even so, my bassets love the summer and the bernese loves the winter.

[HPFarmette]

@anon55755751

A guess: This is a sighthound (i.e. lean anyway) that is still probably close to its working roots. Some breeds that want to promote dual dogs (conformation and sport/working titles) make sure they have language in their standards that ensures working-condition dogs aren’t penalized for things like weight, scars, etc. A sighthound that is working fit will have very little fat cover, with visible muscles, ribs, hips, and spine. I agree the Azawakh seems predisposed to be extreme in terms of the skeletal appearance - compare to a fit whippet for example, which can get really bulky muscles.

Oh here: https://nationalpurebreddogday.com/feed-that-dog/
Looks like the thinness even relative to sighthounds is a function of the fact that they developed in a really hot climate. That makes sense. I know people with greyhounds who have experienced them overheating in summer in the US just out on regular walks.

Excellent link.