Re: [PyrNet-L] Giant Breed?

["Doug Hustins" <profitmanage@mgenerations.net>]

Hi Everyone,

I assume from your signature lines that you are from Texas or somewhere near
by.  Never having been to the area I cannot comment on the Pyrs you would be
likely to see in that area.  We are from Southern Ontario in Canada and I
have shown Pyrs across most of the Northern areas of the US from New York to
Seattle but mostly in the Great Lakes regions.  From what I have seen, there
does seem to be a great difference in size from one area to the next.  For
example I was showing a particular dog in the US a couple of years back that
was larger than usual for my bloodline.  (My average dog is between 28 and
29 inches.)  In Michigan, he dwarfed most of the dogs he was against but
when we showed the same dog 2 weeks later in New Jersey he was in turn
dwarfed by most of the competition.

From what I gather from posts over the months here, the Texas dogs would
seem to be much larger than the average seen in the middle north areas.  A
27 inch 100 pound dog would not be at all out of norm up here.  In fact, a
32 inch dog would be far more unusual here.  This is not to say they don't
exist.

Personally, I don't care if a dog is 27 inches or 32 inches as long as it
falls somewhere in that range.  The reason I own and breed Pyrs is far more
due to the qualities they have in personality and temperament than size.

Here's my logic on size.  If the range for Pyrs is 27-32, then it stands to
reason that the target and average height for a Pyr should be 29.5.  This is
dead centre for the standard in North America.  If you fault a dog for being
27 inches you must then also equally fault a 32 inch dog for being at the
other end of the standard.  Otherwise it is mearly a matter of taste or
choice (which last time I checked you are still allowed to have).  If we all
liked the same thing in dogs it would be pretty boring.

I would like to think that most of the arrogance you see in posts are lack
of writing ability (which I suffer from badly) or just writing style.
Whatever the cause, it is nice to see passion for the dogs.  Be it right or
wrong its a lot better than appathy.

Take Care,
Doug Hustins
Acroyar Great Pyrenees

----- Original Message -----
From: Bluebonnet <bluebonnet_72@yahoo.com>
To: <pyrnet-l@pyrnet.org>
Sent: December 4, 1999 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: [PyrNet-L] Giant Breed?


> I
> > think the posters comment
> > was relative guarding abilities.
>
>    How many ways can I say, that is not what I meant?
>
>
>
>     I think the
> > poster has some notion that they are reluctant to
> > give up, even in the face
> > of many of us telling them as gently as we can that
> > their information or
> > notion is not correct or at least consistent with
> > our experience.
>
>      I wasn't gonna bother with this but I really hate
> being condensend to and so I'll see if I can't
> formulate an answer.
>     Let's drop the idea of experience for a moment and
> just look at a normal curve.  If the breed standard
> says  27"  is the minimum acceptable, which it does.
> "The Standard gives the minimum weights for specimens
> of minimum height, 100 pounds for a male of 27
> inches..."  (Strang, p. 76)
>    Now lets define the term normal.  This is arbitary
> but lets say for something to be normal at least 15
> percent of a population would have to exhibit that
> trait.  Now if 15 percent of male dogs weigh in at 100
> pounds or less, then 14.99...%  would be less then 100
> pounds.   This would mean nearly 15% of dogs were
> under the size specified in the standard.
>    You said a number of people say that dogs at 27
> inches and 100 pounds are common.  In reality, what
> I've seen is a very few people say, I had 1 dog at
> that size.  One of which said specifically, that the
> dog in question was over 27 inches and was somewhat
> under ideal weight at 100 pounds.  One person, said
> they have see a lot of dogs at this weight.  One more
> made a statement I can't quite decifer but sound like
> they've shown dogs at that weight but they weren't
> quite full grown.
>    If people who have been dealing with pyrs for
> years, say "I have had one dog with X characteristic"
> that hardly makes X characteristic the norm.
>    Just evaluating from the standard, 27" and 100 lbs.
> is the smallest allowed.  You'd expect most dogs to
> fall closer to the middle.  Paul Strang's book says,
> "Larger dogs will often weigh much more, even as much
> as 150 pounds for a 32 inches male."  (Strang, p. 76)
> This would create an average of 125 pounds, we would
> expect most dogs to fall in that average, with very
> few on the outlying edges.
>
>  Healthy
> > disciplined discussion should be
> > beneficial to us all.
>
>     Certainly it should.  In order to continue this I
> would need to spend a great deal of time, pulling up
> information I've read in the past either over the net,
> or in books, and compiling lists to make solid
> statistics.  I don't have the time as work is really
> busy right now, Jake is taking an obedience class,
> Ceasar is about to start his, and unless I really get
> motivated I doubt I'll put the time and effort into
> creating a solid arguement.
>    Anyone else notice, this place has more hot buttons
> then a political chat room, and debates are handled
> with all the emotional subtext of an abortion
> discussion?
>                      Brandy
>
>
> =====
> "Bluebonnets" by Julia D. Booth
> Offical Flower Song of the State of Texas
> Chorus:
> Bluebonnets, blue lovely Bluebonnets,
> More beautiful than all the rest.
> Texas chose you for her flower,
> And we love you best, Bluebonnets.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
> Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to esquire@pyrnet.org with
> unsubscribe pyrnet-l
> as the BODY of the message.  The SUBJECT is ignored.
>