Okay... see, I get that most people in the furry fandom draw canines. A lot of canines. There are a lot of artists who draw mostly canines. A lot of them draw canines really well.

But you know what bothers me? When people draw other animals and make them look like canines.

I find I can usually tell when I see a picture of an animal, whether the artist draws a lot of dogs. The muzzle shape is often a giveaway, but the worst is always the paws. A bunch of canine artists give dog paws to every animal under the sun.

So... I love GotG. Rocket is adorable and fun. But most of the art that comes up of him is basically a dog painted like a raccoon. Some of it is even nice quality which is all the more frustrating. See... raccoons are not digitigrade.

Look at the picture: http://images.starpulse.com/news/bl.....et-raccoon.jpg

Rocket stands flat on the ground just like a human. So any picture with digitigrade legs and huge canine paws (because again, look at the feet. Raccoons have very distinct paws) is just a complete mess anatomically speaking.

It takes like 2 seconds to look up a reference of raccoon feet, even if you can't find a good full-body reference of Rocket. Why is this so hard for people?