Re: [PyrNet-L] Breed Standard

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/5/99 4:29:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
carol@NaturalDogFood.com writes:

<< she reiterated the need to take size and balance 
 and type into consideration when breeding. >>

Yes the three together.  One component is not more important than the others.

<< And in the dim
recesses of my mind, I remember her saying that if all things are
truly equal, "the larger dog is preferred.">>

Clearly, the operative words are "truly equal."

<<If the reports coming back from the French National are accurate,
the French took Mary Crane's advice better than we did.>>

There really should be no debate on this just as there should be no debate 
that the soundness here in North America is miles ahead of the French.  The 
French also have better type overall, but we must quickly say that there have 
always been those breeders who recognized and insisted on proper type here in 
North America.  So it depends on where you look.

The word changes taken in 1935 took some "liberties" with the preceding 
standards from France.  Whit Coombs did a series of articles where he 
articulates the specifics really well.  Just know that there is little 
historical or breed precedence for the word changes and quite American in 
that Mrs. Crane had been associated with the breed since 1931 only.  Be that 
as it may, the debate rages on.  Since Mrs. Crane indicated her preference 
many times over the years for balance by being partial too and recommending 
such dogs as Glacier, Bonnie, Nero, Captivator, Sonny, and many others that 
would be on the small size by French Standards, we must assume she did 
evaluate the three components critically.  Also notice where Mrs. Crane went, 
in the last breeding(s) she did, for a Stud.  To the "small dog" kennel 
breeders.

Joe