Re: [PyrNet-L] size

[Charlotte & Jack Perry <pyreau@erols.com>]

Cindy, Barb & Jan.  This thread on the size of Pyrs and their function
as livestock guardian dogs is an interesting one.  As I understand it,
Pyrs are primarily white so that they will blend in with the sheep.  The
desire to chase, herd or nip has been bred out of these dogs so that
they can be left alone with the flock and will not spook, chase or nip
at their livestock as herding dogs do. I remember long conversations in
the past about how active they should be (relative to the length of
hocks desired).  Some say that they should be able to move slowly for
hours to go along with the herd, others think they should be able to put
on short bursts of speed to chase the predators but mostly lie around
the rest of the time (I think I agree more with the second). It does
make sense to me that the height should not be too tall for the
livestock they are guarding.  I agree with Barb that agility seems to be
more related to bulk than to height. Our standard does call for medium
bone rather than large (like Newfoundland and Sts) I have seen some very
tall Pyrs that are very agile, but they are usually the ones that are
tall, lean and lighter boned.  I must say that very, very few of the
very large, heavy Pyrs I have seen are very sound movers. This does not
necessarily mean that they could not guard livestock, but they would not
do well in the show ring. If you think about it, Newfies and Saints that
are heavier than Pyrs do have shorter livespans and many more orthopedic
problems. Those of us that do show our Pyrs in the US tend to put a lot
of stock in movement and soundness and quite often have to give up
something in movement to get more size.
Charlotte
 
clhenke@juno.com wrote:
> 
> Actually Barb I very much agree with you.  But in the past discussions on
> size, everyone seems to rule out large size, even if they are
> structurally strong.  Almost saying that they can't be sound at their
> upper limits?  Also, everyone seems to say that the Pyrs. are larger in
> France and europe than here, yet keep saying that our standard here is
> absolutely correct, like there is some awful taboo in questioning it or
> comparing it to other places?  Also, do those Pyrs. really have heavier
> bone structure, or just the appearance of bone mass due to more hair (
> feathering too ) on their legs?  I do agree with you on bone types and
> strengths.
> 
> Tracy,  there is differences in the size of sheep, of course, but some of
> them are actually quite large and could easily accommodate quite large
> dogs in their flock.  I would have thought that Australia would actually
> have more of the large normal size sheep than we do here?  In our area of
> Texas we have a lot of the smaller, Angora types.  Of course the Pyrs.,
> Anatolians, Akbash, and some Merema are on duty here.
> 
> Jan, there is not enough of them here to give me a good idea, but overall
> I find the Akbash and Anatolians to have a rangier leggier lighter look
> than the Pyrs.  But can be large, heavier dogs at their top end, (
> although very similar in many respects ) and I understand from their
> standards that they have several coat types, although  the long coats
> would probably not be as heavy as the Pyrs.  Can anyone shed more light
> on this?  Cindy.
> 
> Cindy Henke
> clhenke@juno.com
> Ennis, Texas
> 
> "All knowledge, the totality of all questions and answers, is contained
> in the dog."  ~ Franz Kafka
> 
> ___________________________________________________________________
> Get the Internet just the way you want it.
> Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
> Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
> 
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
>         unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.