OK.....I'm sure I would agree with you on that one VBG. However, does that
mean we should look to change the standard? If the size/weight listed in
the standard are simply the "desirable" traits, does that mean that
under/over are "undesirable" traits? If we choose to ignore the
size/weights specified, does that mean we can pick and choose which parts
of the standard we adhere to?
If it's OK for a dog to be an inch over size, does that mean being an inch
under the desired size is also OK? In reality I doubt there are many judges
that would put up the "under" size. Let's hear from some of those judges
out there!
Just throwing these thoughts out there for purpose of
discussion.....remember, it's all FB's fault. He asked for discussion
topics!
For the record, I'm the first to admit I love a big boned "hunky" masculine
male dog.
Kathy Martin
foxtrotgsd@xxxxxxxxx
On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Redacted sender ELG440@xxxxxxx
Before we listen to someone, we should look at their dogs. I doubt I
would even keep Max's dogs as pets.
