Big Brittany?

Karen · Post by **Karen** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 7:20 am

All I can say is that I'm grateful the ABC has adopted DNA testing requirements going forward. I'm hoping the new measures are just a first step. Would LOVE to see MARS testing required for ALL national championship placers (AA, GD and show).

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:10 am

The interesting thing about the big push for DNA and the supposed "cheating" that goes on, is that most of the top togs have been getting DNA'd for years to run in the AF Championships, but it's recorded with AF and not AKC. I know of a dog that has been accused of being a setter, yet they have DNA going back nearly five generations on it. And let's face it, if we go back far enough with DNA, every single Brittany has Setter and Pointer in them. Don't get me wrong, we need to DNA to keep cheating out, but what happens when we do that and we still get oversized white dogs because that's what some people want and breed for?

RK. Artie is not that big, either is the dog that took 4th at the AKC NC at Ames.

Karen · Post by **Karen** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:38 am

I'm betting there are several field trial brittanys that would tragically disappear if MARS testing was made mandatory.

Chukar12 · Post by **Chukar12** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:08 am

Karen wrote:I'm betting there are several field trial brittanys that would tragically disappear if MARS testing was made mandatory

I was asked to and participated in MARS testing, my Sonny dog is now part of their genetic base for Brittanys. There are a couple of purposes for the testing; establishing heterozygosity/homozygosity percentages for possible genetic defects, and the less perfected genetic map to determine breed. Every one of these companies that maps a dogs ancestry through DNA has a disclaimer that informs you that while they are confident enough to tell you what your dog is, they would not defend it legally. Until that changes, the ABC, AKC or whomever probably would not chance basing their breed restrictions on the science.

Competition brings out the best and worst in people to the extremes and on all ends of the spectrum. There are those that will win at all costs on one end, and those that are quick to justify their loss by the unfair advantage of another on the other; and throughout humanity without regard to the game someone has exploited the unfair advantages. I for one don't care how big somebody's dog is, but I don't like cheating. I am in this for fun and when the arguments break out over the size of dogs and what their breeding may have been it harshes my mellow...and I do blame those that willfully cheat, not those who are upset by it. By the way, I don't begrudge gamesmanship...I see that differently than cheating.

Over time, either establishing parentage through a data base, or improved genetic mapping through a larger data base, or newer science...whatever... we will solve this problem. Then, soon enough a new one will arise. The shame in it all is not that someone wins and someone else loses; that's going to happen, fair or unfair. The shame is what it does to the game when the layers are peeled back...baseball, cycling, college football, etc... Think of the stains and all for the sake of something in the realm of entertainment and far less important than food, shelter, love or life and death. You can win by cheating, but you are not a winner...or a leader and those who know they have done wrong are punishing themselves more than any of the organizations ever will. In the mean time, I will run with whatever you bring to the line...now prepare for your whuppin...

Karen · Post by **Karen** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:01 am

We're in it for the fun too. When it stops being fun, we stop doing it. That right there is why the 4th place dog at the ABC NGDC is not pictured. It stopped being fun, so we packed up and went home. Not sure I'll be going back either.

mask · Post by **mask** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:46 am

How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:30 pm

mask wrote:How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?

The same amount as every other breed.

Ezzy

KwikIrish · Post by **KwikIrish** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:01 pm

ezzy333 wrote:
mask wrote:How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?
The same amount as every other breed.

Ezzy

That doesn't answer the question.

Chukar12 · Post by **Chukar12** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:08 pm

That's because there is no practical answer because there is no critical way of knowing. The technical immeasurable answer if I am not mistaken is 5 generations...if you are truly interested it can be found in the masses of AKC information.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:19 pm

If it would make it clearer the answer is none. We will continue to hear the argument that those dogs were used years ago to form the breeds of today. But everyone forgets that they were aware of that and just like today they had to wait till those dogs would breed true before they were pure. At that point they are considered purebred since they now have their own characteristics due to the genetics bred in,and have become completely integrated into a homogeneous new breed.

Ezzy

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:38 pm

Back to bigger is always better, were that true Lester, House, et al would be breeding 100 pound dogs, and if they were still better, we would see 150 pound ones. Soon they would be the size of horses.

It is just not true.

Saddle · Post by **Saddle** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:47 pm

Neil why aren't those guys running 40 lb dogs then? They could and don't. Why not?

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:43 pm

Saddle wrote:Neil why aren't those guys running 40 lb dogs then? They could and don't. Why not?

You were the one that said bigger is always better, so why aren't they running 100 pounders? The good ones are closer to 40, than 100.

Saddle · Post by **Saddle** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 6:56 pm

65 lbs is about right for a big all age pointer. Some are a tad smaller but not much. You can argue the point all you want Neil. Why don't you head over to the Hobart Ames. That's where they are all at now. The last championship I rode was the Missouri and those dogs were all pretty stout made. The proof is in the pudding Neil. Go watch em. You won't find a 40 lb dog there. Unless its a bitch being bred to one of the big boys.

I'll just use Randy Andersons string is an example Neil
Prairieland pride close to 70 pounds
millers happy jack 60 lbs plus
white dollar 60 lbs
Three ten to yuma 55 lbs plus
cash the check 55 lbs plus as a derby
Sanders buckshot 55 lbs plus
the smallest derby he has came out of my bitch and Rodney is 55 lbs easy. All of them are big bodied long legged dogs.

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:45 pm

Saddle wrote:65 lbs is about right for a big all age pointer. Some are a tad smaller but not much. You can argue the point all you want Neil. Why don't you head over to the Hobart Ames. That's where they are all at now. The last championship I rode was the Missouri and those dogs were all pretty stout made. The proof is in the pudding Neil. Go watch em. You won't find a 40 lb dog there. Unless its a bitch being bred to one of the big boys.

I'll just use Randy Andersons string is an example Neil
Prairieland pride close to 70 pounds
millers happy jack 60 lbs plus
white dollar 60 lbs
Three ten to yuma 55 lbs plus
cash the check 55 lbs plus as a derby
Sanders buckshot 55 lbs plus
the smallest derby he has came out of my bitch and Rodney is 55 lbs easy. All of them are big bodied long legged dogs.

You are not answering the question. Why aren't they running 100 pounders. Maybe run a good St. Benard, they would be sure to win.

Ezzy

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:29 pm

I think a better question is "Why are the "best all around" all age pointers in that weight range (55lbs-65lbs)?" What is it about the physiological "design" of that particular hunting athlete fit into that weight range?? Or I should say why do the "best" fit into that weight range?

This may be part of the answer from Chukar12 "A long dog with long legs and a floating gait will generally look more impressive than short quick and snappy in an all age race...if all other things are equal ... (and that's a mouth full ) I believe the bigger dog gets the nod"

Another question might be, is there ever a reason to change the parameters of the Standard? Or is that thought blasphemy?? Speaking of Brittanys here.

Steve

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:45 pm

I personally think the reason the all age pointers aren't 100lbs or more is a locomotion issue. As far as the few brittany's I've seen, either in or out of the standard, their locomotion appears the same, generally speaking. The only really big pointer (75lbs) I've seen was very gangly and clumsy looking compared to pointers 15-25lbs lighter.

I may be biased and wrong, but I'd put my 32lb pointer bitch up against any 60lb pointer for 3 hours. I know that won't happen, but hopefully when she's 2 or 3 years old I'll at least have her in a competition for an hour stake with a big dog.

Steve

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:49 am

Steve, your point has been proven, there have been many of the smaller bitches win the NC, at a much higher percentage than entered. The only 3 time winners were both females.

The optimum size for a female pointer seems to be 40 to 45 pounds, for a male 55, anyone that thinks that a big dog, needs to come pet my great Pyrenees.

I tire of this meaningless argument, the big dogs (70 pounds +), rarely win. So bigger isn't better, at least not at the extremes, not in dogs, horses, or people.

Saddle · Post by **Saddle** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 6:38 am

Ezzy I havent answered the 100 pound question because it's a silly question and doesn't deserve an answer.

Neil it's funny you brought up the horse thing. Most of the big pros are riding big 16 + hand horses. Why? Oh I don't know because they're bigger better stronger they can cover the ground better and they don't wear out easy. How many 15 hand race horses do you see? Not many.

Sct I'm sure you have a really nice dog there. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the big boy all age dogs would eat your dogs lunch. Sorry. Facts are what they are though. I hear that same quote from everyone who doesn't run an all age dog. heck I used to think the same thing until I started going to watch them. Those are different dogs then what anybody else in the country has. If she's that nice get her qualified go run her at Ames. That's the only true way you'll know.

This is a fun group.

JKP · Post by **JKP** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:46 am

Here is the perfect example of why we have oversized Britts. So many put their own satisfaction ahead of the breed, in other words anything is alright if it wins

I was ripped a new one more than once for saying the same thing about GWPs. Field Trialing was creating a totally diffrent sub species and the only thing that can account for it is the need to win. The game becomes more important than the breed...and breeds are adapted for games they were NEVER intended to play. AA Brittany is an expression that shouldn't exist. Seems like there are a whole lot of folks that can't take pride in a nice snappy 2-300 yard foot hunting dog....while a Britt in the marsh searching up ducks has bcome a rarity. It can be overdone...some care and too many don't. Disclaimer...I realize that there are a lot of proper DC in the breed...pretty impressive.

Saddle · Post by **Saddle** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:37 am

It's pretty narrow minded to think everyone should like the same kind of dog you do.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:11 am

,Saddle,

Are your really that dense or are you just having fun?

16.5 is about the upper limit for horses, you don't see any 20 hand horses anymore than you see 100 pound pointers.

Bigger is not better, just as smaller is not better, better is better.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 9:42 am

Saddle, I knew you would respond with this "If she's that nice get her qualified go run her at Ames. That's the only true way you'll know." Like I said, it won't ever happen. But your "facts" aren't any more true than the fact that hundreds of those "big" dogs have been beat by much smaller females. However, I too believe you/I have a much better chance of winning with a 55-60lb male and that's why they are the ones that the time and money are spent on.

Neil, that's the best quote so far "Better is better".

Steve

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:00 am

JKP wrote:
Here is the perfect example of why we have oversized Britts. So many put their own satisfaction ahead of the breed, in other words anything is alright if it wins
I was ripped a new one more than once for saying the same thing about GWPs. Field Trialing was creating a totally diffrent sub species and the only thing that can account for it is the need to win. The game becomes more important than the breed...and breeds are adapted for games they were NEVER intended to play. AA Brittany is an expression that shouldn't exist. Seems like there are a whole lot of folks that can't take pride in a nice snappy 2-300 yard foot hunting dog....while a Britt in the marsh searching up ducks has bcome a rarity. It can be overdone...some care and too many don't. Disclaimer...I realize that there are a lot of proper DC in the breed...pretty impressive.

I agree it is very impressive and a wonderful Ideal to shoot for. Would changing the standard be so horrible to include slightly bigger brittany's? What happened to the pointer standard that has kept the field and show dogs so separated?

Saddle · Post by **Saddle** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:32 am

Neil just some more fyi. Horses are measured in 16.1, 16.2 or 16.3 and then go to 17 then 17.1. And so on. There is no 16.5. Good try again though. I have a 4 year old walking horse gelding that is 16.3 right now. He'll finish over 17. Go look at some of Luke Eisenharts horses and tell me they're small. I'm done with this Neil. Come back with some knowledge next time please. Most thoroughbreds are in the neighborhood of 17 hands plus. My Amish farrier has standardbreds that are 17+ also. Please facts next time. Thanks.

Sct how many 45 pound birches are nominated for the National this year. How many even made the drawing for the Hobart Ames which is being run right now. You guys kill me keep coming up with the good info I'm learning something.

On a serious note I'm done posting here I've allowed it to get too far off the original posters idea and I'm sorry for that.

JKP · Post by **JKP** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:55 pm

Would changing the standard be so horrible to include slightly bigger brittany's?

Then why have standards?...and the next question after that is ... why have breeds? I'm betting that the great majority of Britts fall within the standard and that we are really discussing the exceptions. However, winning dogs can have a huge influence on a breed. Since many breeders sell on the basis of name and title value, its going to have an effect.

I have seen quite a few very large Britts. When Britts are as tall at the shoulder as my DD females, its pretty obvious the standard has become less important..at least for a few folks.

What % of breeders in any breed are truly prioritizing puttin the complete package together?? Its tough...lots of folks settle for their favorite activity....and the rest end up sifting through what's available to find what you want....so what's new?

If I owned Britts, I'd be more concerned about why we don't see more of them in the marsh searching up cripples. They were intended to be Vdogs, weren't they?

orbirdhunter · Post by **orbirdhunter** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:31 pm

Hmm....i would say that the vast majority of the britts that i have seen at our local field trials would fall within the standard, a few big males maybe a touch bigger but not much....I have seen pics of some extremely tall britts that don't seem to look alot like what i picture in a britt....

I have always pictured a britt as a dog quicker then fast, snappy ground coverage........A dog that goes about it differently then say a pointer or setter but a dog that gets it done......
I have a britt that is on the small side, possibly under breed standard but i have never weighed or measured her....Best compliment i have gotten was at a AKC Derby last year when one of the judges told me that she had great ground coverage and her quick snappy approach to covering the ground was hard to look away from, a fun contrast to the leggy, longer straight line approach to alot of alot of the other dogs...
I am just a newbie to the game, and i have no thoughts of grandjour...just having fun at weekend AKC trials, but i should be able to be competitive in gundog this year....

I like different breed standards from the standpoint that i like the fact that the different breeds can all in the end get the job done but they all do it a little differently...
I like watching pointers and setters seemingly glide across the country making huge casts, effortlessly covering ground with a speed and distance that is unrivaled...and locked up on point with those straight up tails is awesome...
But i also like watching the steely determination of a wirehair that just seems seems to be grinding its way around the course, obsessed with finding some kind of prey, a dog that never gives in, and one that will go fetch a duck out of the pond after the trial is over
And i like watching a gundog brittany that corkscrews and zig zags its way everywhere, seemingly never taking more then a few strides straight in any direction, while its bracemates has caught a line and burning along a edge the britt is zigging and zagging its way in front of you, always deciding that somewhere else might be better....the bright orange and white hard to take your eyes off....the determination to keep moving at full speed even though its legs are short and chest is small compared to others....

I like it that each breed leaves its own unique mark....I don't like as much to watch 8 braces with 5-6 different breeds and feel like i'm watching the exact same dog except for color and coat...But that may just be me personally...

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 1:52 pm

orbirdhunter wrote:Hmm....i would say that the vast majority of the britts that i have seen at our local field trials would fall within the standard, a few big males maybe a touch bigger but not much....I have seen pics of some extremely tall britts that don't seem to look alot like what i picture in a britt....

I have always pictured a britt as a dog quicker then fast, snappy ground coverage........A dog that goes about it differently then say a pointer or setter but a dog that gets it done......
I have a britt that is on the small side, possibly under breed standard but i have never weighed or measured her....Best compliment i have gotten was at a AKC Derby last year when one of the judges told me that she had great ground coverage and her quick snappy approach to covering the ground was hard to look away from, a fun contrast to the leggy, longer straight line approach to alot of alot of the other dogs...
I am just a newbie to the game, and i have no thoughts of grandjour...just having fun at weekend AKC trials, but i should be able to be competitive in gundog this year....

I like different breed standards from the standpoint that i like the fact that the different breeds can all in the end get the job done but they all do it a little differently...
I like watching pointers and setters seemingly glide across the country making huge casts, effortlessly covering ground with a speed and distance that is unrivaled...and locked up on point with those straight up tails is awesome...
But i also like watching the steely determination of a wirehair that just seems seems to be grinding its way around the course, obsessed with finding some kind of prey, a dog that never gives in, and one that will go fetch a duck out of the pond after the trial is over
And i like watching a gundog brittany that corkscrews and zig zags its way everywhere, seemingly never taking more then a few strides straight in any direction, while its bracemates has caught a line and burning along a edge the britt is zigging and zagging its way in front of you, always deciding that somewhere else might be better....the bright orange and white hard to take your eyes off....the determination to keep moving at full speed even though its legs are short and chest is small compared to others....

I like it that each breed leaves its own unique mark....I don't like as much to watch 8 braces with 5-6 different breeds and feel like i'm watching the exact same dog except for color and coat...But that may just be me personally...

I like it. One thing I have never understood is why the All age dog has been set up as the goal of field trials when it seems to me that the gun dog or shooting dog is much closer to what the hunting dog was bred for. Those are my pick of the of the gud dog games we play

Post by **slistoe** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:17 pm

Saddle wrote:I don't have any money Jet I'm poor. One of the finest Brits I ever saw a run was Jim de Bob's Spark's A Dan D and was no 30 pounder! He was a beast. I saw that dog make some casts that made me and everyone else there wonder if we were going to see him again.

That dog was not oversize. Nor did he throw oversize pups as a rule. At the time Jim John was campaigning him I spent time at his camp. Of some 35+ dogs on stakeouts there only one was actually oversize and it was an impressive string of true All Age Brittanys - some of the best the breed has known in recent history.

Post by **slistoe** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:21 pm

mask wrote:How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?

None. Same as any other breed.

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:53 pm

slistoe wrote:
mask wrote:How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?
None. Same as any other breed.

Since Brits came from Pointers, Setters, and Spaniels, they are going to have a heck of a lot more than "none". The question is, how far back do we want to go to find it?

The thing I think people forget is that dogs are really no different than people. How many Usain Bolts do you see winning the Boston Marathon? How many Kenyan long distance runners do you see winning sprints in the Olympics? The answer is none!! And dogs are no different. Typically the big 50+ lb Brits are built like sprinters. They are big and strong with lots of speed, but can't run for distance. On the other hand, take a short legged stocky Brittany of old and they can't run for speed, but can run 3 mph for hours on end. What we are looking for is the best possible combination of speed and stamina. And that's not necessarily found in a generic size. All things being equal, a bigger dog will typically be able to outrun a smaller dog, but all things aren't always equal. And when you get to the biggest sized dogs of certain breeds, they typically lose the middle ground. Big Brittany's are nothing new, and the 50+lb dogs will rarely win a trial, but show me a 40-50lb Brittany with long legs, a strong back end, and a good combination of speed and stamina, and I'll show you a dog that's going to win a lot of trials.

The thing is, the pointer people have been proving this for years without a "breed standard". That's why the physique of nearly every single Pointer that wins looks exactly the same. Some might be 45lbs, and some might be 55lbs. But they all have that perfect balance between speed and stamina. Grossly over and under sized dogs fall too far to either side. It's no different in the Brittany world, but I do think the "breed standard" stops us from breeding dogs with better physical aspects than we should be getting. When people won't breed to an amazing dog who can further the physical aspects of the breed just because its a little over standard, I think we've lost our way. Why handicap a breed, when nature can do it for us?

Post by **slistoe** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 5:44 pm

jetjockey wrote:
slistoe wrote:
mask wrote:How close up and how much setter and or pointer blood can a brit have and still be considered pure or regesterable?
None. Same as any other breed.
Since Brits came from Pointers, Setters, and Spaniels, they are going to have a heck of a lot more than "none".

You mean before the breed was defined and recognizable as such in a registry anywhere. Seems to me that at that time the Pointers and Setters were still evolving as distinct breeds of their own as well.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 8:12 pm

Congratulations to Larry and Earl on winning the Hobart Ames with Whipoorwill Wild Speck, which qualifies her for the NC to be ran next month on the same grounds.

Want to guess how big she is? She looks tiny compared to Randy's dog and her kennelmate, the 2nd & 3rd place dogs.

I couldn't have scripted this any better to prove my point.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sat Jan 19, 2013 10:24 pm

Don't think you needed to prove your point to most of us that have been around for a number of years. But it did work out well for sure.

Ezzy

joshlaugh · Post by **joshlaugh** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 8:49 am

I may be a little late to the discussion but my Brittany weighted in at 49 pounds yesterday at the vet. Overall, very healthy and the vet commented that he was obviously a working dog. For me, I simply hunt my dog, he has always been able to keep up with me and has not tired out even plowing through foot high snow drifts. I think the only thing I worry about-his health and ability to enjoy hunting with me.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:45 am

Thanks, Ezzy.

Do you think Saddle might be Russ Calloway under a new name? He is the only one I know that obtuse.

Fat fingers and a small Kindle key board led me to a typo and in his mind it proved his point.

Neil

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:14 pm

Nope not Ross but he was on here before under a different name till he was banned but we decided to let him stay as long as he can abide by the rules with common courtesy which seems to be a problem that is beginning to show again. Just hope he can get it under control.

Ezzy

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:53 pm

Please don't ban him on my account, until he got tedious, he was adding to the disscussion, and I don't recall him attacking anyone else, yet.

And there is the fact, thanks to nutrition, conditioning, and breeding, the dogs are getting some bigger, i.e. the OP.

rkappes · Post by **rkappes** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:04 am

Neil wrote:Congratulations to Larry and Earl on winning the Hobart Ames with Whipoorwill Wild Speck, which qualifies her for the NC to be ran next month on the same grounds.

Want to guess how big she is? She looks tiny compared to Randy's dog and her kennelmate, the 2nd & 3rd place dogs.

I couldn't have scripted this any better to prove my point.

Pic?

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:40 am

rkappes wrote:
Neil wrote:Congratulations to Larry and Earl on winning the Hobart Ames with Whipoorwill Wild Speck, which qualifies her for the NC to be ran next month on the same grounds.

Want to guess how big she is? She looks tiny compared to Randy's dog and her kennelmate, the 2nd & 3rd place dogs.

I couldn't have scripted this any better to prove my point.
Pic?

You need to friend Vera Courtney on Facebook. She does great photo essays on all the Mid-South trials, including the NC.

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 10:54 am

[img]

148972_4419365447171_1571767207_n.jpg

[/img]

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:22 pm

She looks several inches shorter at the shoulder than the other two dogs. Try and tell her she can't win it:-)

ben · Post by **ben** » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:25 pm

dougroch wrote:Just a curiosity question. What is the biggest size you have ever seen in a HEALTHY brittany? My 14 month old male britt is 55 lbs and still has his back ribs visible. Definitely out of AKC regs (and I dont care). Biggest britt I have seen other than him was at least 15lbs lighter.

I adopted a 2 yr old male Brittany a couple months ago. When I got Ranger, he was 60 pounds. Based on the pictures from Brittany Rescue we couldn't believe he was that big, but they weren't kidding. He was a little overweight, and now is fairly lean at 53 pounds(can't see ribs, but can feel them). Vet says he is perfectly healthy. Sounds like you just got a biggun'

Neil · Post by **Neil** » Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:56 pm

Back to the OP, it only matters if he pleases you.

Britguy1 · Post by **Britguy1** » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:06 pm

I had a big Brittany gun dog. He weighed 56 lbs in his prime. A real hunting machine that I htought could really cover ground. Now I have a smaller Brittany that weighs in at 40lbs. He'd run circles around my big dog.