By paladinbrt, Apr 25 2012 08:13PM
I KNEW IT!!!!! Finally a copy of the letter sent to judges about our breed has come our way. I find the decision to leave out part of the whole text regarding size to be completely inappropriate!
This is the text as is should have been presented:
Size: The height for males at maturity (over 18 months of age) is between 27″ and 30″ with the desired height being between 27″ and 29″.The height for females at maturity (over 18 months of age) is between 26″ and 29″ with the desired height being between 26″ and 28″. Any height deviation is a serious fault. Height consideration should not outweigh that of type, proportion, movement and other functional attributes. GENERAL BALANCE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ABSOLUTE SIZE.
They conveniently left out the all caps last sentence.
This next very important part was not included at all....and we have very long dogs turning out!
Proportion: The desired height to length ratio of the Black Russian Terrier is approximately 9.5 to 10.
Now I am going to say it before anyone else does...after all this is my page and I can rant if I like. MY DOG IS TALL!
However... My dog is the exact 9.5:10 ratio! My dog's long action is beauty in motion! He is the proper type! Proper coat, ears, tail, angulation, perfect bite, and eyes. He has the proper temperament!
Given all the variations in this breed still showing up...height which is addressed as being a lesser factor than balance...should be the last thing held against my dog. Again as this sentence states: GENERAL BALANCE IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN ABSOLUTE SIZE.
The conflicting language of the Size description (serious fault, but height cannot out weigh balance) has from day one, even before my dog got tall...been a huge conflict for me.
Really?....contradictory language in the Standard! And even though it is there...and even though it was rumored to be put in to help the short dogs, the BRTCA CAN'T just drop it off when educating judges! The standard was written with that sentence in it because it had value, it influences the statements before it. I consider it being dropped off, an intended action to push the education in a specific direction!
Additionally, there is a statement that this breed is not a giant breed in the standard. However, Wikipedia sites that often dogs over 100lbs are deemed giants (our males are supposed to be over 100lbs!). Wikipedia also lists these breeds as commonly considered giants:
Anatolian Shepherd Dog Borzoi English Mastiff Great Dane Great Pyrenees Irish Wolfhound Kangal Dog Leonberger Neapolitan Mastiff Newfoundland Saint Bernard Scottish Deerhound Tibetan Mastiff Pyrenean Mastiff
Hmmm...I don't see BRT. So since the term "Giant" is so ambiguous why ever is it in our standard at all?
Why haven't all these things been addressed, taken care of, made logical...long before I got here! Do I feel like I am fighting subterfuge, and underhandedness at every turn...I do! I read the standard, re-read it often. I put my dog in shows knowing that the standard as it is written gives me, with my balanced dog, a fighting chance despite his height. Or it would be a fighting chance if a certain additional education letter, presented every sentence as it should have been!
var _gaq = _gaq || ;
ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js';
var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script'); s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s);
</script>Insert body text here ...