Re: [PyrNet-L] Giant Breed?

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

Hi Brandy,
Couldn't resist adding my 2 cents to this one (have to admit that I am
way behind on reading e-mail and hope I'm not repeating something that
has already been said).  Are you by chance from England?  There is no
question but that Pyrs are taller in Britain and Europe than they are in
the U.S.  I was actually involved in measuring Great Pyrenees at a
National Specialty a number of years ago.  We measured more than 100
Pyrs and only found 3 that were 30 inches at the shoulder and none that
were taller than that.....the owners that got really angry were the ones
that had been bragging about their 33 inch dogs! .  I will probably be
talking to the person who has been measuring Pyrs at National
Specialties for the past 3-4 years and will see if I can get an estimate
of the what percentage of dogs are 27".  It is my opinion that the great
majority of males in the U.S. will be in the 27-28 1/2 inch range.  Dogs
seem to be taller in some areas of the U.S. and in some bloodlines.   In
my area, the livestock guarding dogs that I have seen (those coming from
breeders who breed primarily for LGD) are mostly on the short side of
the standard with some being noticeably under standard.  It was amazing
to measure with the wicket.  We found it very difficult to guess how
tall a dog was since balance, length of back, coat, depth of body all
make a huge difference in the appearance of size.
Charlotte

Bluebonnet wrote:

>  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.