I doubt I would fault a dog, or a bitch for being too big. Remember we had
Patriot for a while. I also don't know if I would put up an undersized bitch,
but I have seen some small males I would go for.
In the end, for me, size isn't a big thing. If they match the standard, I don't
mind a bit big or a bit small.
If you don't agree with me, don't show under me. I also try not to get hung up
on faults at all. But, I do hate a roached back.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: Kathy Martin <foxtrotgsd@xxxxxxxxx>
To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Fri, Jun 26, 2015 10:58 am
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Discussion topics
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.
