CONSIDERATIONS COCERNING THE
EVOLUTION AND STANDARDS FOR
THE ROMANIAN SHEPHERD DOG
OF BUCOVINA
1. Acknowledgment
The material I hereby present is the point of view concerning the actual
standard phase of the RSDB of the followers:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Cristian Moroşanu, the president of A.Ch. Suceava,
Dorin Ghiuţă, “de Humor” breed owner
Macovei Stroe, “de Plai Vrâncean” breed owner
Vasile Vasiliu, “de Rădăşeni” breed owner
Aurel Giurgea, “de Varancha” breed owner
Marius Pop, www.bucovinadogs.ro – site owner
Rîznic Edward, “de Şapte Coline” breed owner
Pr. Vasile Furdui, proprietarul canisei “de Bârnova”
Sebastian Raţiu, “of Buffalo” breed owner
Cristian Beleca, “de Ariniş” breed owner
Gheorghe Hojbotă, Manastirea Humorului
Vunvulea Mihail, Focsani city, Vrancea county
Busca Catalin, Focsani city, Vrancea county
Catalin Chihaia, Gura Humorului.
• As you will conclude here our comments about
the RSDB standards, there are some things to
be done in order to take this breed where it’s
supposed to get, to the definitive homologation
phase.
• We say “definitive” because we reckon that, as
far as population, as number and aspect, is
concerned, this breed is ready and satisfies all
conditions in order to get the provisional
recognition.
• On 29.03.2002 the last report about Romanian Shepherd
Dog of Bucovina standard was elaborated. At that time,
this breed knew a indubitable evolution, concretized as
followed:
Reduction of the elements which do not fit the breed;
Adjustment of some typical flaws;
A significant homogeneity, including color and
character.
• The genetic enrichment of the existing lines which are
recognized by standards were also observed, bringing
up at the selection programs some breeds, adequate
typical dogs, used for guarding flocks of sheep, herds of
cattle, and properties, pursuing therefore from
descendants transmission of the features.
•
The breed area spread gradually, and today there are numerous
effective and valuable dogs in multiple places in Romania (certified
at dog shows):
•
•
Bucovina – the historic “cradle” f the breed;
Vrancea – where, along with with “de Plai Vrâncean” and “de
Varancha” breeds, there are many owners and breeders.
Bistrita – the place where Mr. Marius Pop develops a hard core of
the breed, having very god results;
Iaşi – the place where three RSDB breeds are involved: “Iaro”,
“Bârnova” and “Şapte Coline” breeds;
Bucureşti şi – “Brăduţ” breed;
Ploieşti
Arad;
Braşov;
Brăila – “Marianno” breed has got several valuable dogs.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Although the breed has count some important successes, numerically and
quality speaking, we reckon that there are many things to be done, for that
some elements constitute impediments for a genuine evolution of the breed:
1.
2.
the lack of a coherent selection program
Without an unitary strategy, each breeder has developed an individual
selection program, based on personal views upon the standards and
factual breed. Some have emphasized the basic accents of the
phenotype, which means the anatomic and morphologic features; some
others have selected the correct basic temperament as a priority,
equilibrated – a vital feature for a big size dog, as far as the urban actual
conditions are concerned; the third category of breeders have
emphasized the spectacular elements such as impressive size, gown
with plumes and developed crest, or impressively massive head.
These types of manifestation, similar to this symposium, are excellent to
show our interest, breeders and owners, to the evolution of the breed and
to justify the necessity of gathering people with experience in RSDB
breed communities which appreciate and coordinate dog activity
dedicated to this breed.
low interest for the breed
Because it is a breed without international recognition, the number of
people who aim to own or to raise a RSDB as a specific activity,
remained still very poor, the main interest of the owners being the
guarding abilities of RSDB.
We now present our opinion concerning some
RSDB standard elements, structured as following:
•
Our desiderate to keep the unitary character
of this breed, as it was selected through time and
adapted to dogs by changes brought by the
evolution of human society;
•
Our acknowledgments upon the field dogs
and the ones presented at dog show;,
•
Observing the actual tendencies which
constitute important arguments for the
appreciation of the breed dynamics.
ROMANIAN SHEPHERD DOG OF BUCOVINA
(Chien de berger roumain de Bucovine)
(black= standard assignation
blue= our assignations )
•
•
ORIGIN: Romania
This breed is originary from Romania and all people’s efforts implied along time to
clear and make standard this breed, attest all factors implied in the international
recognition to make all the efforts to make the Romanian Shepherd Dog of Bucovina
be recognized as a true value of Romania.
•
ORIGIN: Romania
•
UTILIZATION: shepherd dog for sheep and cattle herds, excellent guard dog.
•
CLASIFICATION F.C.I.: Group II: Pinscher-Schnauzer, Swiss Cattle Dog and other
breeds. Section 2.2 – Molossoide, mountain type.
•
BRIEF HISTORICAL SUMMARY: The Shepherd Dog of Bucovina was selected from a
natural breed of the Carpathian Mountains, in Bucovina, exactly in the North-East of
Romania. This breed has been the subject of a special attention as far as selection and
improvement is concerned, which led to the present type. In this region, dogs of this
breed are used successfully as dogs to guard sheep flocks, cattle herds, and for
properties. This dog is mostly known as "DULAU" or "CAPAU". The first standard was
drafted in 1982 and revised in 2001 by the Romanian Cynological Association. The
present standard, dated on 29.03.2002, was drafted and revised according to the F.C.I.
model established in Jerusalem.
•
GENERAL APPEARANCE: large dog, towering, audacious and proud. Sexual
dimorphism well emphasized.
•
IMPORTANT PROPORTIONS: The length between muzzle and head is 1:1. the length
of the body is easily longer than height at withers. The scalp-humeral angle is around
100-110°.
BEHAVIOUR/TEMPERAMENT
• Calm, balanced, very faithful and devoted to the owner, loves
children. Wary of strangers. Excellent herd dog, very brave and
efficiently fighter with possible animal prey (bear, wolf, lynx).
He owns a very strong barking. When strangers, man or animal,
approache its territory, he strongly barks, of a low tonality,
which can be heard over very long distance. At nighttime, he
patrols around the property or herds.
• Concerning the big size, imposing aspect and the goal
he was first created for (to guard flocks of sheep, herds
of cattle and properties), the temperament of RSDR, as
for the rest of shepherd dogs, must be treated with
maximum of seriousness. The equilibrated character,
loyalty to the owner, guarding instinct are compulsory
characteristics.
• We therefore support, as a future project, the
introduction of a TAN in the evaluation of the breed
reproducer temperament.
HEAD
CRANIUM REGION: Massive, position easily uplifted in relation with the back
line.
• SKULL: moderate width. The longitudinal axes of the skull and muzzle are
slightly convergent. The skull, seen from the front, is easily ball pointed; in
sectional view, the skull is almost flat; the skull width: male 16-18 cm,
female: 15-17 cm. The zygomatic arches are slightly defined. The occipital
protuberance is little emphasized. Stop: not too pronounced
FACIAL REGION:
• Nose: well developed and wide, black colored.
• Muzzle: tronconic, same length as the skull; well developed, tapering
progressively towards extremity, never pointed
• Lips: thick, tight, strongly pigmented.
• Jaws/teeth: powerful jaws; complete healthy dentition, very well imbedded,
white colored; scissor bite. Pincers bite allowed.
• Cheeks: not very prominent
• Eyes: small as compared to the head; almond and oblique, hazel or dark
brown colored or slightly lighter, never yellow. Eyelids well pigmented.
• Ears: relatively high set, triangular “V” shaped, tip easily rounded, fallen and
hanging close to cheeks. Cropping is forbidden.
• As it is described in the standards, the head of RSDR is
an element which precisely individualize the breed.
• The relations and dimensions are very well defined, all
elements have an exact description, and practically,
aiming for an exemplary whose head is exactly as
described and required by standards, is a
compulsory desiderate, in order to homogenize the
breed.
• The comparison of dogs displayed at dog shows and
reckoned as typical, points out a certain inequable head
shape.
• Today, there are mainly 2 types of head which got close
to standards, but still very different between themselves:
HEAD TYPE A
Positive aspects related to standards
•
•
•
•
•
The massive head is clearly expressed - as
required by standards
The skull width - as defined by standards
The convergence of the axis between muzzle and
skull is clearly regarded
Thick lips
The relation between skull and muzzle is correct.
Negative aspects related to standard
•
•
•
•
Stop is only marked without being emphasized
Thick fallen lips, “well applied” required by
standards are not just so.
Ears are clamped about to the same axis with eyes
or a bit upper; “relatively above” as required by
standards are not very clear.
To many dogs the ears shape is deflected from the
V shape required by standards; it looks more like a
wide or rounded ear lobe.
HEAD TYPE B
Positive aspects related to standards
• The stop reflects very clear the term “well
marked””
• The lips are well applied, rarely fallen
• Ears are clumped relatively up, sometimes
really up, and their shape is exactly as
required by standards, always a V shape with
rounded top.
Negative aspects related to standards
• Skull width is at the boundary or under the
values required by standards
• Skull and nasal axes are insignificantly
convergent, sometimes even parallel.
• The general aspect of the head does not
leave the impression of being massive.
RSDB. Head types
Head
type A
Head
type B
Common features:
• Both types have a correct pigmentation
• Both types have eyes correctly shaped
and colored
• Eyes are bond to cheeks
• Cheeks are not prominent.
RSDB.
Head types
Head
type A
Conclusions and considerations:
•
Head
type B
Head type A represents more likely the breed, as required and defined
both by standards and the molossoide breeds.
•
We propose that this type to be homogenized and also regarded as an
improvement subject of some elements:
1. To avoid promoting some dogs with an emphasized stop.
2. To homogenize the correct V easily rounded ears shape, above the eyes
or at least at the same level as eyes.
3. to put out the standard term as “well applied lips” or to complete
this term with “can be easily fallen” .
As we require the head to be promoted, here are some pictures of
dogs which get closer to the ideal type of RSDB breed we
proposed here.
• Fallen eyelids or emphasizing the third eyelid, is not
desirable, and must be penalized according to gravity.
Bite and teething
• The description of bite is correctly specified into the
standards and we support the reproduction of dogs
with clipper bite.
• It was noticed that many exemplary have, in the early
years, a compact scissors type of bite, which along the
years, when teeth get blunt, becomes a clipper bite. The
difference between the inherited clipper bite and the
attained clipper bite is hard to recognize today, and it is
too risky, considering this phase of breed development,
we don’t want valuable dogs to be excluded based just
on this criteria.
• It is more important to observe and control a complete
teething, with incisors on the same side of the jaw (both
superior and inferior jaw), perfectly aligned and
positioned (clipper or scissor) against the opposite side.
Today, the body aspect is well regarded
at the existing dogs. There are still
some elements which are insufficiently
regarded, which we hereby underline:
Avoid body unwieldiness. We wish the
following description to be regarded, without
making any extreme steps:
1.
Avoid dogs with no substance, too light,
with a narrow chest, and greyhound
aspect;
2.
avoid too massive dogs, which tend to
be very heavy, and which could lead to
slow movements of dog in the field.
Some dogs have the superior line easily
directed towards the tail, which denotes a
poor propulsion into the posterior line, and leads
to disharmonic aspect of the dog. Dogs with
uplifted croup must be penalized accordingly.
TAIL high set-on. At rest, it is carried
hanging, reaching or lower than the
hock; when the dog is alert or in action,
the tail is carried higher, slightly curved,
sometimes above the topline, in
reaping hook shape. Docking is
forbiedden.
• The standard regulation concerning
docking of the tail must pe regarded
closer and must be better applied.
• In this way, we wish to avoid dogs
which do not have a proper tail as
required by standards, rolled as a ring
tail or carried on the back incorectly.
LEGS
FORQUARTERS
• Total view: lateral section view and front view: upright
• Shoulder: shoulder blades are long, strong and oblique, much attached and very
muscular. The scapula-humerus angle is approximately 100-110°.
• Upper arm: moderate height, well muscled
• Elbow: close connected to body, very muscular, turning neither in or out
• Forearm: Strong, muscled, sufficiently long
• Carpal joint: firm
• Metacarpus (pastern): short, oblique, seen from the side,
• Feet: egg-shaped (oval), compact and very strong, black and ash-grey colored nails.
HINDQUARTERS
• Upper thigh: very muscular and strong, high self-confidence
• Stifle: the femur-tibial angle is around 110°.
• Lower thigh: sufficiently long, wide and very muscular
• Hocks: from lateral view, it is wide and equally angulated; seen from behind, it is
placed parallel with the median plan of the body.
• Metatarsus (rear pastern): not too long, hardy and neat, perfectly assured and
vertical. The presence of dewclaws shouldn’t be penalized.
• Feet: egg-shaped, compact and strong, black or ash-grey colored nails
BODY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NECK: moderate length, thick, strong, without dewlap.
BODY: massive, vigorous.
Topline: horizontal.
Withers: moderately defined
Back: well sustained and muscled
Loin: strong, very muscled
Croup: muscular and moderately beveled towards the tail
base
• Chest: wide and tall, touches the elbow level; the ribs well
arched
• Underline: slight tuck up
Related to legs, we underline the following
aspects:
• At dog shows there are still attended dogs having light
skeleton, not exactly according to the purpose for which
this breed was initially created. A bigger attention must
be paid to this aspect, because a strong frame and
skeleton is a defining aspect of the molossoide type of
dog.
• The muscular aspect of the forquarters and hindquarters
must be strongly signalized to owners. Substance free
legs bring a poor gait and a less vigor in the general
aspect of the dog
• The hock angle mustn’t be neither close, because it
leads to a oblique croup, nor open, because it leads to a
reduced propulsion of the underline.
MOVEMENT: equable and swing,
powerful and effortless; seen
from the front and back, legs
move in straight line. Medium
amplitude trot is preferred.
Crossed or high moves should be
penalized.
As total view, the forquarters get close to the median line, when they
accelerate the trot.
Movement is well described in the standards, the medium trot is easy and
breezy, and it’s exactly the required type of movement for the second group
section of this breed. We therefore require to referees to pay a big
attention to this movement in order to be correctly made when dog
applies for a long distance run endurance. In the field, attending herds and
flocks on large distance run, requires very hight endurance. If the movement is
negatively affected after several tours, must be penalized.
COAT
• SKIN: thick, tight, dark-grey colored
• HAIR: short on the head and anterior side of the legs. On the body, the
hair is abundant, harsh texture, from 6 to 9 cm long. Undercoat is shorter
and denser, lighter colored. On the neck, hair is longer and crest
shaped; on the posterior side of the legs, hair forms moderate size
fringes. Tail is brushy, with a longer and thicker hair, well furnished.
• The RSDR’s coat, along with the head, makes a spectacular
characteristics of the breed.
• The success at dog shows, competitions with other breeds, and also to
the public is largely determined by the coat aspect of the dog, the crest
presence, well furnised tail and the volume of the coat.
• We reckon that a big attention must be paid to the coat, and dogs which
do not have a crest, or whose crest is too short, or have not fringes on
limbs must be penalized.
COLOR
•
Classic colour : Well-defined spots of wolf-grey or black
colour appear against a white background colour. On the
limbs, spackles in black or other colours should be allowed.
•
Uniform colours (without markings) white or black are
allowed, but should not be followed.
•
As far as the colors of the breed are concerned, an
important aspect, which must be carefully approached, is
given by the overcoat.
If we translate the standards literally, overcoat is reckoned
as atypical, despite the fact that there are many valuable
dogs with this type of coat.
In our oppinion, excuding from the genetics of dog
population the overcoat is not desirable. The correct
solution would be to reckon this coat as a classic one.
Because is a combination of the same colors, accepting the
overcoat is not againt the homogenity aspect of the breed..
We reckon that rather the tricolored coats (tiger type), or
slightly marked coats, more yellow that the wolves coats, be
concidered against homogenity.
•
•
•
•
SIZE AND WEIGHT
• Height: male: 68-78 cm, ideal height 71-75 cm;
female: 64-72 cm, ideal height 66-68 cm
• Weight: in proportion to the size.
• We admit that the actual standard was approved when the breed,
measured and calibrated, was numerically poor, as it was known at
that time, so that when the height at withers was established, was
not according to all existing data.
• We remind you that, in that period of time, the standard was
elaborated according to the dogs coming from flocks, herds or
particular properties, where the nutritive diet was inadequate.
• Along with the breeding in specialized centers, one can notice a
increase in size, a correct diet approach and therefore a genetic
potential increase of the breed.
• Concerning everything above, we reckon that the size specified in
the standards are easily undersized. Our arguments are:
•
•
•
•
The purpose for which this breed was initially created was to guard flocks of
sheep, herds of cattle, at the outskirts of forests, which implies fighting with natural
big size preys. In Romania, the most frequent preys are wolves and bears. A dog
fighting with a wolf requires an adequate size and power. Statistically speaking, a
wolf has got a medium height at withers of 80 cm and a medium weight of 60 kg.
Consequently, RSDB size must be at least close to these medium measures.
Individualizing the breed in the balkan context must be emphasized. In both
situations which leads to international recognition of RSDB breed: as a distinct
variety of a Balkan breed or a proper breed, must have clear and précised
distinguishing arguments: imposing stature, set higher as standard, can be surely
one of the determined elements for this purpose.
RSDB is framed in the second group of FCI – Mountain Dogs section. In the
same group there are breeds as: Pirinei Shepherd Dog, Saint Bernard, Caucasian
Shepherd Dog, Mastiff of Pirinei, etc, breeds which have a superior stature and
robustness towards the actual standard or RSDB. We reckon that, with a similar
size and weight, the RSDB can compete successfully to the BOG title with the
breeds from its section, making a relevant and important argument to the breed
popularity.
The utility of dogs as a modern perspective is based on another criteria than
extreme aggressively. European civilization (which imposes also in Romania,
along with EU adherence of Romania) leads, as a main utility of the breed, to the
guarding of properties. The modern concept for security, more and more often in
all the activities is discouragement, attack preventing. Or, what could more
discourage a potential threat, but a impressively large dog, robust, with massive
head, strong barking, daring temperament, fear free, and confident with strangers,
totally devoted to his master?!
Based on what stated above, we ask for a future
amendment of the standards concerning height of this breed
in a similar manner to the other Romanian shepherd breeds,
through:
-
Excluding the superior limit of height
Establishing the ideal height at 76-80 cm for males and 71-75 cm for
females
Establishing the minimum height at 70 cm for males and 67 cm for
females,
Assignation expressly that, in order to evaluate the dog, the harmony
of proportions to be considered primary in the general aspect of the
dog, which must effuse massiveness and vigor in the same time.
Until the date of this new possible amendment of the
standards, we require that the arbitration to be made in this
spirit.
FAULTS: other features than the ones mentioned above are considered flaws and will be
penalized according to the gravity of the flaw.
•
- Overweight or weak subject
- Insufficiently marked sexual characteristics
- Absence of teeth except PM1
- Docked ears
- Docked tail
- Matted or short hair (shorter than 6 cm)
- Too long hair (longer than 9 cm)
- The absence of the mane or of fringes on the limbs
- Curled, ring-shaped tail
- Spreading feet, turned out or in
- Outward elbows
- Barging movement
SERIOUS FAULTS:
• - Atypical subject
- Round, protruding eyes
- Erect ears
- Sagging or too long topline
- Very short hair
- Curly coat, or of a texture other than described in the standard
- Eyes too light in colour
- Cow hocks
ELIMINATING FAULTS
- Aggressive or overly shy.
- Atypical subject
- Superior or inferior underhung
- Absence of incisives or canines
- Albinism
- Colours other than described in standards
- Absence of or atrophied tail
- Height under 65 cm or over 80 cm for males
- Height under 62 cm or over 75 cm for females
N.B.: Male must have two testicles, normal aspect, completely
down into the scotum. This standard was revised by the F.C.I ‘s
representative, Mr.Raymond Triquet and Mr. Bernard Denis, at
Gura Humorului city in 22nd of august 2004. The F.C.I. standard
and science commissions have approved this standard in the
frame of common reunion dated 18th and19th of September in
2004 at Sarlat - France. The F.C.I. General Committee has
approved this standard in the frame of the reunion dated 10th
and11th of November, Kyoto - Japan.
Thank you !