Poll Comments :

• It''s about time and doesn''t go far enough!
  7/7/2010 11:48:37 PM

• In fairness, this publication FOR increasing leg length should include Pat Trotter''s well written article IN OPPOSITION to this change. As Paddy Magnuson indicated, the reason 50/50 wasn''t explicitly written in the standard until recently was likely because until then the judges knew the breed well enough to not have to be told. And of course the elegant Doberman has this 50/50 language as we have now, and it hasn''t turned their breed into Rotts or Neos as we are told is a danger if we don''t change the standard to push the Dane into a new frame. What is really going on here?
  7/8/2010 12:36:17 PM

• I''m not a current member of the gdca, however, I am concerned about our breed and the standard. I believe that these changes are very relevant to our breed both in the past and currently.
  7/8/2010 8:30:58 PM

• I''m not sure anything is "going on here". If you are referring to the article I think you''re referring to it was actually published in this very magazine several months ago (the December issue, I think) and it wasn''t by Pat Trotter, it was by Pat Hastings, two very different people. However, if you would like some good reading by Mrs. Trotter, I recommend an article she penned some time ago regarding good front assemblies. It can be found using the following link: http://www.akc.org/breeders/resp_breeding/Articles/puttingupagoodfront.cfm In that article she talks at length about the explicit difference between length of leg, overall height, and shoulder angle, something which seems to be at the heart of the debate here. By inference, one can conclude that the slightly longer legged Dane can indeed be square with correctly angled shoulders. Anyway, back to your reference regarding Mrs. Hastings'' article, in it she uses several pictures to illustrate her points about interference between the front and rear legs. The conclusions, however, are in my opinion erroneous since she neglects several important factors which influence stride length such as musculature, timing, length of upper arm and shoulder angle. Also, regarding your comparison with the Doberman, while I am a fan of the breed, I''m not sure that their proportions are something Great Danes should aspire to. Reading the Doberman Standard critically reveals that the Doberman is a "compact" (a quick check of the AKC Glossary confirmed that a synonym of "compact" is also the term "cobby") breed, and is referred to as such in its own standard. This fits perfectly with the 50/50 designation desired in Dobermans. However, these proportions do not fit with the overall theme of the regal, imposing Great Dane. I''ve never thought the Apollo of Dogs should be "compact" or "cobby". To my mind this only further substantiates why removing the 50/50 designation is imperative.
  7/9/2010 12:49:57 PM

• Having been scientifically proven that merle is a basic part of the harlequin colour, to vote "YES" is a no brainer. We saw many big classes of Beautiful Danes in the ''60''s - early 90''s - mediocrity was very limited. Today, this is reversed. The 50''50 clause was added in l990. I think it has turned out to be a case of "If it ain''t broke - why fix it" So remove it, and Revert to the orginal Standard.
  7/10/2010 11:47:32 AM

• Vote ''NO''; leave the line in. The proponents are stating ''''the danes of yore were longer legged in the front''''. And they know this HOW? From photos only , theories, opinion. No statistics were taken to prove this. And what are the statistics NOW to prove this: 80 Great Danes measured from the year 2009 ! When asked to measure mine...I did...they measured as per the 50/50 proportion SQUARE. Ask yourself this....what will we be asked to remove from the standard next to accomodate a mediocre quality great dane??
  7/12/2010 6:39:30 PM

• A hearty ''''Yes'''' for the long overdue merle patch on the harlequins. A harlequin without any merle is in all probability a piebald! a hearty ''''NO'''' for taking out the 50/50 proportion. allow the elegance & squareness of our danes to remain as the 50/50 guarantees .
  7/12/2010 6:43:56 PM

• There were Danes of excellent quality long before this change was made in 1990. Great Danes are NOT supposed to have the proportions of Dobermans, which are described as a "compact" breed. This line is obviously incosistent with our breed character. The 50/50 should be eliminated.
  7/13/2010 5:18:38 PM

• It would have presented a more professional appearance had this publication chosen to offer information on both sides to both issues rather than to ignore one & take sides on the other.
  7/14/2010 12:28:47 PM

• I take offense to the reference that this publication has taken a side or somehow has limited the access to opposing views. We have taken every effort to offer space on our website and within the pages of our magazine to all who have an opinion on these matters. If you look only at the article in favor of the 50/50 rule by Dr.Adam Protos you would see opposing views right along side of the article. This poll (you have anonymously taken part of) offers the chance for all to contribute to the argument for and against both changes. What more would you have this publication do? We are an open forum. Begging for contributors on all issues regarding Great Danes!
  7/14/2010 11:53:00 PM

• We should not be changing our standard for simple things like judges education...
  7/15/2010 7:42:56 AM

• Being a relatively new exhibitor, the question that comes to mind is why was the 50/50 proportion included in the standard back in 1990 in the first place when it was never there from the inception of the first written breed standard? Perhaps some old-timers who had a hand directly or indirectly with that change can chime in? Did they have this "same" discussion as we are having now 20 years ago? Was there an overwhelming majority that voted to include the 50/50? Did they include their reason/s why? I know people don''t want to re-invent the wheel, but I think the first thing that people should have done was review the events prior to 1990 that led to the 50/50 proportion being added on. Perhaps the "answer" is staring us all in the face already and we just need to do a little bit of back tracking to see the justification for such a statement in the standard. Just my humble opinion...
  7/16/2010 11:12:02 AM

• Our standard is the description of perfection, of the highest ideal for us to strive to produce. By the continued attempts to reword or reduce the ideal to what is currently being produced, we no longer require the very best from one another. We no longer have the improvement of our breed as the priority. IF IT WERE EASY, EVERYONE AND ANYONE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT.
  7/20/2010 1:17:59 PM

• I was a little conflicted about this at first. Then I measured all 5 of my danes, the oldest being 8 years old and the youngest at 12 months , they ALL measure out to have a slightly longer leg. My dogs are from some of the old time well respected breeders. So my ballot was checked...YES....
  7/24/2010 2:27:04 PM

• leg length issue should be tabled IMO...it is propaganda by only a few who have twisted the minds of the newcomers into believing theit ''''type of dane is correct.Heaven forbid. Its is the harle issue that is of the utmost importance to all harle breeders who respectfully have been dealt this sorrowful wrong from day one. It is difficult enough for them to get the conformation without ''''us'''' insisting they ''cannot have their God given merle spots !!!! Give them a break people , they deserve this correction finally... How can we even think of this absurd leg length anomaly in the same breath?
  7/26/2010 6:06:20 AM

• Did what they said: measured all my danes. Equal leg proportion.It''s a myth, an optical illusion propagated by : seeing what one wishes to see; believing what one wishes to believe. The ones who wish to change this maybe cannot breed a dane that conforms to type ????
  7/26/2010 7:18:01 AM

• I thought we already did this!!!!!!!!!! what is with do overs?
  7/26/2010 8:00:12 AM