Talk:Jack Russell Terrier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Dogs Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents 1 White JRTs 1.1 digressing to "who is Trump"? 1.2 more on same topic 2 Breed rename 3 Presumption that the AKC is the "real" registry 4 Jack Russell Terrier Club 5 News Flash 6 Opening paragraph 7 Stand-ins and stunt doubles 8 Double Coat 9 Pictures of JRTs? 10 Why, exactly, are we putting a picture of a Parson Russell Terrier on the JRT page? 11 Re. the new pics 12 A fun link that's probably not appropriate for the page 13 Pics of JRTs 14 Template for JRT lovers 15 Image problem 16 New Name 17 Decent from Russell's Dogs 18 Image:ChristmasJilly.jpg 19 Australian? 20 Rewrite 21 REPLY 22 REPLY 23 Brian Plummer on JRTs 24 Another Attempt to Simplify 25 Breed vs. Type

[edit] White JRTs

Does anybody know if an all white jack russell is worth more than a multi colored one?

I don't know why it would be. Everyone I know who has a JRT (or PRT) has gotten one because of the desireable traits of the parents, not because it does or doesn't have markings. According to breed standards, it shouldn't matter whether all-white; here are standards for some of the assorted Russel terriers (some clubs consider them the same breed, some don't):

• FCI, ANKC, KC, NZKC (Parson Russell): "Entirely white or predominantly white with tan, lemon or black markings, or any combination of these colours, preferably confined to head and/or root of tail."
• FCI (JRT): "White MUST predominate with black or tan markings. The tan markings can be from the lightest tan to the richest tan (chestnut)."
• AKC (Parson Russell): " White, white with black or tan markings, or a combination of these, tri-color. Colors are clear. As long as the terrier is predominantly white, moderate body markings are not to be faulted. Grizzle is acceptable and should not be confused with brindle. Disqualification: Brindle markings."
• UKC (Russell Terrier): "Solid white or predominantly white with any combination of black, tan, or brown markings are preferred, but an otherwise good specimen of the breed must not be penalized for heavy body color. Legs, chest and belly must be white. The back and sides of a dog with heavy body coloring must have a minimal amount of white. Any white area may be ticked providing that white predominates. Disqualifications: Any color, pattern, or markings other than listed above; albinism. " (In latter case, an all-white dog because it's albino is bad.)
• UKC (JRT): "Predominantly white with black, tan, black and tan, or no markings. Any white area may be ticked as long as white predominates. Disqualifications: Any color, pattern, or markings other than listed above; less than fifty percent white; albinism. "

Elf | Talk 11:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

thanks!

Truth is there's very little rationality about what dogs are "worth" more.

What people want or consider desirable is often rather silly.

Traditionally, JRTs were most commonly valued on their ability to work fox, less so on their ability to kill rats. These days ability at agility competitions or flyball may be more important. (I've had people who were very interested in my little Grizzly Bear because he's fast, agile, obsessive about chasing tennis balls, and short enough to compete against the lowest hurdle height in flyball competition.)

Pure white JRTs aren't unusual, or particularly valued. The standards are pretty wide as for JRT coloring, but if there's any particular coloring scheme that's considered preferable, it's most likely all-white with a full mask and trump spot. Simply because that was what Trump looked like.

--jdege 23:39, 2004 Dec 21 (UTC)

[edit] digressing to "who is Trump"?

OK, who was Trump? I have a friend whose JRT, an agility champion (coincidentally pictured in my bad jump photo in this article), is named Trump--but her other dogs are Spinner and Whist, so I didn't think to ask where the game-related name came from. Elf | Talk 00:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trump, my dear Elf, also referred to as 'the immortal Trump' by at least one JRT expert, was the terrier purchased by The Reverend Mr. Jack Russell while he was still a student at Oxford (but already a hunting enthusiast, evidently). She became the brood bitch at his kennels and the ancestress of his line of fox hunters...y'know the cute little guys we call JRTs today...or PRTs...or Shorties or Russells or.... Trump and her brood didn't look anything like show Fox Terriers, but a lot of people thought she was 'perfect'.

Apparently, after the good parson's death, everyone and his brother claimed to have 'Jack Russell's terriers' (read 'Trump's') whether or not it could be proven that the dogs came from Trump's lineage.

Quill 05:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, sometimes i just pretend not to know everything so the rest of you can have some fun at my expense. ;-) OK, really, honest to goodness I went to the article AND to the article on Parson Russell and did a search for Trump on both and didn't find it before asking the question, but she's sure there now. Either I've entered a different time-space continuum or I misspelled "trump". Either way, I guess it's time for some actual sleep. Nighty-night. Elf | Talk 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I believe you. I've gone to the Wikipedia Twilight Zone before, remember? 'Night John-Boy....Quill 07:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] more on same topic

Just removed this posted by anon:

"It has been said that the more white the dog is, the closer the bloodline is to being a pure Jack Russell. "

Who says these things? I haven't heard them said by people I know who own JRTs and it's not in any of the breed books that I have. Is this something that some breeder or other is promoting? Elf | Talk 30 June 2005 23:18 (UTC)

[edit] Breed rename

A dog show I saw on TV tonight says that this breed has been renamed the "Parson Russell terrier". Is this official? RickK

But why? That seems completely nonsensical. Tannin

I don't know. I'm assuming they felt it wasn't appropriate to call the parson "Jack", that's the only thing I can figure.

According to breed purists, no, the breed has not been renamed. I've always thought of the use of "Parson Russell Terrier" as a scheme to get JRT's into the kennel club circuit without causing a ruckus with the JRTCA. Jrossman 20:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

---

Jack Russell Terriers are not recognised by the Federation Cynologique Internationale (FCI), or by any major registry. -- Not true. The Parson Russell terrier is recognized by the AKC. RickK

Yes - but the Jack Russell isn't. I know this naming thing is a bit of a mess - but here's what I've found out in lots of reading around....

The AKC initially recognised the Parson under the name "Jack Russell Terrier". In the UK the recognised breed was the Parson, the unrecognised dogs were called Jacks. The AKC recently changed the name of their recognised breed to match this. So now everywhere recognises one breed under the same name.

But there are also dogs not part of the Parson breed - These are still known as Jack Russells

This is complicated by many people in England calling the short-legged variety Jack Russells (known in the US as shorty Jacks) and by Australia and other FCI members calling the Australian breed "Jack Russells" too.

So there are four types:

1. Parson Russell Terrier - Previously called Parson Jack Russell Terriers (in the UK) or Jack Russell Terriers (in the US). Name changed in 1999 in UK, 2003 in US. Recognised by all major registries .

2. Jack Russell Terrier - A working breed. Similar in formation to 1. but not necessarily fitting the standard - bred for function rather than form. Not recognised by the AKC, the FCI or the KC(UK)

3. Australian Jack Russell Terrier - A breed with a standard, recognised by the FCI, the Aus KC and many other registries (not UK or AKC)

4. Russell Terriers: AKA Shorty Jacks - stumpy little things not usually recognised (except the United Kennel Club etc.)

I'm working on an overall article to explain this, and on the four individual articles (I probably should have waited until they are all ready - sorry!) I'm not totally convinced that this is the right approach though. Maybe all the name changes are too new and confused to try and define the "Jack Russell" as type 2. Perhaps it would be better for this to be the general article and explain all the changes and controversies (if that's possible!). I would still leave Russell Terrier, Parson Russell Terrier and Australian Jack Russell Terrier as separate articles - but make this one more general. I think I'll sleep on this and look again in the morning

-- sannse 23:01, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

I went for option two. The article is more general now, and hopefully explains the naming confusion better. -- sannse 22:21, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

And because this article covers all 4 categories, I've gone ahead and created the other pages as redirects now anyway. Because Jack Russell Terrier is still a separate breed as well, though, perhaps someday we can come up with a way for this to be the generic page and also have something like Jack Russell Terrier (breed) for the specifics that apply only to that group. Although, talking to various JRT owners, there is still much dismay. "Yes, according to the AKC, my dog is now a Parsons Russell Terrier, but to me he'll always be my Jack Russell." What fun, huh? Elf 02:29, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Wait, it gets worse: rumour has it that the (Australian)Jack Russell folks have seceeded from the ANKC and owners are bringing their little dogs back under the auspices of the Australian Jack Russell Terrier Club of Australia (independent).

You do all realize that at some point we're going to have to attempt separate breed articles for these little guys again?

• I'd like to make the paragraphs relating to the JRTCA a little less editorial sounding, and create a separate JRTCA article. Any objections?
• I'm also going to add a bit on famous JRTs. If it's too much of a non-sequitur I may move it later--perhaps write a Screen Dogs article.... Quill 06:38, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Dang "breed people"! They should all just let those poor enslaved dogs interbreed with whomever they fall in love with. Ahem. Go for it. A thought on the last one: There is a List of historical dogs with a subsection of "Dogs famous in their own right"; you might want to add any famous JRTs to that page and then it's probably up to you whether you also want to add them to the JRT page or simply point out on the JRT page that there are several of them on the List of... page. I tend to go for the latter kind of solution because then no one has to maintain the list twice. (On the third hand, I'm not entirely sure whether famous = historical exactly... but I don't know that we want to add yet another similar list page...) Elf | Talk 15:32, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the JRTCA stuff - It is a direct copy from their site - and so probably a copyright problem (I should have seen that when it was added but missed it!) So that gives you a clean slate for writing about them if you want to Quill, either here or in a separate article as you think best. As for the rest - looks good, go for it :) -- sannse (talk) 19:06, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Presumption that the AKC is the "real" registry

Any discussion of the AKC as being the "real" registry for Jack Russells or other working breeds should begin with some context.

The AKC has a horrid record of destroying working breeds. They define standards that have strict requirements on appearance and refuse to allow any reference to behavior or performance in those standards.

Up until 1990, or so, they simply refused to recognize many working breeds. But beginning around 1990, they began "taking over" working breeds in a way that is almost guaranteed to be injurious to the dogs.

The Jack Russell is not the only breed that they recognized against the expressed intent of the breed owners.

The Border Collie and the Australian Shepherd have gone through the same debacle.

For background, see: [1]

I'm not up to trying to edit the entry to reflect these issues, but whoever does so should be aware of them.

--jdege 18:24, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

I'm with you 100% on this. The Australian Kelpie is no longer recognized by the AKC in large part, I think, because of active work by the kelpie breed club to dissociate themselves. More power to them. We tried to touch on these issues in the article, but since this article isn't about the AKC, it's about JRTs, it's not really the place to present the various facts and opinions about the AKC--but the AKC article would be. Elf | Talk 01:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take your point, but...1990, my Aunt Fanny--how about the poor German Shepherd? The breed standard hasn't changed all that much ostensibly, but the dog sure has. Some of those poor specimens in the show ring couldn't herd my grandmother, let alone a recalcitrant sheep.

I didn't realize Kelpies were out, Elf. Probably a good move. It's a problem, though, because in Australia BSL is threatening independent breed clubs.

Quill 07:22, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps an entry on the debate over AKC's forced recognition of rare breeds, and/or the debate over the destructive effects the AKC's appearance-only standards and closed stud books have on the breeds?

Which could then be cross-referenced from the entries for the breeds concerned - JRT, Border Collie, Australian Shepherd, et al.?

For completeness, perhaps entries on the other all-breed registries? NKC, UKC, and CKC in the US? And for the breed-specific registries? The JRTCGB/JRTCA/JRTCC for the Jack Russell, and the equivalents for the other debated breeds?

Which would naturally cross-reference the breed entries and the AKC-debate?

--jdege 18:24, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)

Yes, yes, no, definitely not, yes and yes. ;)

I think the first could be discussed in the AKC article and/or show dog to a lesser extent, breed standard as long as written from a NPOV. An emphatic NO from me over the lesser registries, we've been over this at the Dog Project and reached a consensus. Perhaps we can continue this discussion over there?

Quill 21:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the "Dog Project"? --jdege 02:50, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

That would be the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dog breeds and I think you've just become a de facto member. :-) Elf | Talk 03:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Russell Terrier Club

In all fairness, sometimes independent breed clubs are their own worst enemies.

I tried very hard to get info from the JRTCA directly--bubkas.

Some independent breed clubs put out literature and press releases that are dreadful--poor grammar, spelling, layout. Frightful.

It's not only the AKC that closes its studbooks; I've got a beautiful rescued border collie puppy I frankly don't know what to do with.

The large registries, whatever their faults, do at least provide a useful, visible, consistent lobby in defence of dogs and their owners.

Quill 21:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've been meaning to respond--what do you *want* to do with the rescued border collie? Here in CA, we have no problems whatsoever doing anything at all with them--agility, flyball, frisbee, herding, whatever. They don't have to be registered with any kennel club to participate in most events except AKC; for AKC, if it's an obvious Border Collie, AKC will "ILP" (indefinite listing privilege) a dog so that it can compete in AKC performance events. Can't register its pups or show it in the breed ring, but those are about the only limitations for an ILP. Where are you again? Elf | Talk 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where am I? Outer space, apparently, since I'm only just seeing this. What do I *want*...? I want to be 30 again. I want to be 6'1. I want a martini. What do I want to do with the little bruiser? Register him. My point was with regard to so-called open stud books. Border collies are only recently recognized and the working dog clubs are limiting the gene pool as well. I didn't know that about the AKC and ILP, but it doesn't help as I'm not in the US at the moment. This little fella's genes will be lost in any case, it seems....Quill 11:06, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, that sucks. Not being 30 anymore, I mean, or 6'1". :-) Also about truly fine dogs' genes being lost. On the other hand, you could do what everyone else does who has a dog that they think is special: breed it anyway. If you do it sensibly and document it well and have many successes with your dog and its offspring, the next new breed following the McNab could be the Quill.  :-) Elf | Talk 18:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] News Flash

Just heard from a reliable source that JRTs have been placed on the Foundation Stock Register of the AKC. Quill 05:30, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go figure, after all that to-do. Meanwhile, not listed on their FSS page yet. Elf | Talk 06:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well that's going to upset a few. And the question is which JRT? I'm guesing the long-legged, rather like the Parson, working dog type? -- sannse (talk) 16:11, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, should have specified: they've accepted the FCI (therefore the Australian) standard. Quill 20:59, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah - so that leaves the the working JRT and the short-legged version where they were - and just adds in the Australian JRT. Not quite the noses out of joint that I imagined (although there are always some upset with any change in the doggy world of course ;) -- sannse (talk) 23:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We've always had JRT's. My sister-in-law is a responsible breeder and breeds to the JRTCA standards. We are both concerned with kennel clubs because we feel they breed for features and ignore the skill sets of the working JRT dog. Jeri Jrossman 16:51, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening paragraph

I keep returning to the opening paragraph of this article because I find it ambiguous. I don't think we can open this, the main article on JRTs, by describing them as 'similar in form to Parson Russell Terriers'; we didn't have a Parson Russell article, I've written a bare bones one but it refers the reader back here. I think that may be a carry-over from an older version. Further, 'In England the name has been used to refer to the Parson Russell Terrier and to the short-legged type, the Russell Terrier.' which name--Parson or Jack? Quill 21:16, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We never did straighten all of this out. I just this week added all of the breed links to the only breed table we've got for all of these types, which is in Parson Russell Terrier, because most of the breed clubs recognize that variant name while not all of them recognize the others. I was also interested to see that one of the breed clubs for (I think) the AKC lists itself as the Parson Jack Russell Terrier club. How's that for confusing? Originally we *were* being ambiguous, but I think now we need to go ahead and just create one article for each separate breed, with probably a nearly identical paragraph in each one near the end listing all of the variants with a brief note about their close relationship(s). The "Russell Terrier" apparently is a separate breed also, so that's a correct breed name; it also needs an article rather than a redirect. Someone's going to have to sort out what all the diffs really are among them. Wahooo!! Elf | Talk 21:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right on all counts. The 'Russell Terrier' is a UKC breed but if I remember correctly, it's not a 'new' one, but rather the term the UKC uses for one of the variants, blowed if I know which. And...'someone'--who?  ;) nice try, Elf! Quill 22:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The fundamental confusion is inherent in what "Jack Russells" are. 100-150 years ago, there were three distinct groups of terriers referred to by the name of "Jack Russells".

First were the long-legged, small-chested dogs that the Parson and other terriermen bred for fox-hunting. There was considerable variation among these - some areas it was more important to have a dog that could run and keep up with the hounds, others to have a dog that could go down a narrow hole. It depended upon the terrain and the type of fox that was prevalent. Second were the thick-bodied, short-legged dogs - the result of crosses between foxing terriers and corgies/dachshunds. Usually kept by the horsey crowd to keep down vermin in the stables. There was, oddly enough, less variation among these than in the original foxing terriers. Thirdly, by 100 years ago "Jack Russells" had become a generic term for any small white terrier.

Truth is that of these only the shorties actually constitute a breed - in that they are a population that consistently breeds to type. John Russell's foxing terriers certainly never were. They were a type of terrier - a group of terriers selected from a larger population because of their suitability for particular tasks. And we do the real Jack Terriers a disservice if we try to pretend that they're pure-bred dogs. They aren't, and they'd be worse dogs than they are if they were.

--jdege 22:31, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

OK, this is all interesting (really), but the main questions are (a) how do we divide up the various articles--I assume by the currently used breed names, (2) in which of those articles (or in an article by a different name--what?--) do we do this whole discussion on the ancestry & divergence, and (iii) who IS "somebody" who will answer all of these questions? Ha! Elf | Talk 23:08, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is the question, isn't it? Create a page for each of the varieties? Or for each of the names? (Recognizing that there's not a one-to-one match between the varieties and the names?) Or lump them altogether, and include a description of the varieties, and the names the different clubs and registries use? That inevitably leads into the politics - why the different clubs and registries are using different names and different standards.

Personally, I'd do the latter. "Jack Russell Terriers", "Parson Russell Terriers", "Russell Terriers", "Parson Jack Russell Terriers", "English Jack Russell Terriers", etc., are - except for the first, the JRTCA is trying to retain the JRT as a heterogenous type rather than a pure breed - attempts to create purebred strains out of a heterogenous population of non-purebred dogs. It's the same process that most of the AKC breeds went through 120-150 years ago, and I think we'd be both more honest and more accurate if we reflected what is going on instead of trying to pretend we're talking about pure breeds that already exist.

--jdege 23:40, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

Well, one part of the above is already settled--we can't simply pretend that purebreds don't exist--not unless we want to dump a couple of hundred breed articles for no good reason. Didn't we already go over this with Schnauzer and Belgian Shepherd? Or did we simply throw up our hands there, too? Ha! Parson Russell Terriers and Jack Russell Terriers are recognized, and those two breed articles should exist, end of story. The question of how to include the variants still remains, as does the question of where to place the history and origin of the breed. I'm assuming that you're using 'heterogeneous' in the sense of 'varying', rather than 'dissimilar', Jdege? There's the rub, surely the JRTCA won't accept simply ANY little terrier mutt as a JRT? Sigh. It's still a question of conformation, just degree of conformation--and conformation to what? Seems to me that Jack Russell Terrier should be the repository of history, origin and development, with nods to the variants. PRT gets its own article, since it was recognized first, because otherwise you have PRT with a redirect to JRT, which is bound to get someone up in arms at some point. We COULD have an article at Jack Russell Terriers, I suppose, that explains it all, or just explains it some, with references to the separate breed articles, which would then not have the whole Jack Russell spiel. Did I just contradict myself? Quill 01:15, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By "heterogenous" I mean that the dogs carry varying genes that express themselves in differing appearances and behaviors. Parson Russell Terriers are not, yet, pure bred dogs. Not because there isn't a group of dogs called "Parson Russells", but because the dogs in that group don't breed true. Breed a purebred Dalmatian to a purebred Dalmatian, and every pup in the litter will look like a Dalmatian. That isn't true of Parson Russells, and won't be for a couple of decades. The AKC only closed the PRT studbook a couple of years ago, and it will take a fair number of generations to cull the nonconforming genes.

As for the JRTCA - they require that the dog conform to the breed standard, and that it have a four-generation pedigree. It does not require that the ancestors be JRTCA-registered. Any registration or none will do. Except, of course, for AKC. No AKC-registered PRT born after the AKC closed their stud books is allowed in the pedigree of a JRTCA-registered JRT.

Does this mean that the JRTCA will accept dogs that aren't pure-bred Jack Russells? The JRTCA doesn't believe that Jack Russells are pure-bred dogs. Will the JRTCA approach mean that litters of JRTCA-registered dogs will continue to throw off non-conforming dogs? Yes. Which is why the JRTCA doesn't register litters, but only individual dogs, and only after an individual examimation for conformance after they're a year old.

--jdege 16:09, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

[edit] Stand-ins and stunt doubles

Do we want to list the stand-ins and stunt doubles of the various "stars"?

If so, how complete do we want to be?

I'm biased on this issue, because my Bear has a couple of cousins who served in those roles for Enzo in "My Dog Skip". (Bear's dam came from Hines Hill Kennel).

Area dogs picked to appear in film

--jdege 19:52, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject of screen and stage, how about a reference to Max, who played Milo in Jim Carrey's "The Mask". Which is without a doubt the best film portrayal yet of a JRT. --jdege 20:07, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)

You're right; I'm reversing (I get so carried away) and leaving those details in the Soccer (dog actor) entry. Can you add details on your dog's relatives in the appropriate article? I'm unfamiliar with Max, otherwise I would have written about him. Is there enough material for a JRT actor piece? Which brings up something else I've been meaning to ask--over to the Dog Project I go.... Quill 21:16, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Almost nothing is available about Max. Aside from his credits in the film.

I may flesh out the entries on Moose and Enzo, some day when I have time. I have a copy of Moose's book "My Life as a Dog". I disagree with the current characterization of Enzo as being only Moose's stunt double. Moose was whelped in 1990 - he's getting to be an old dog and Enzo was the lead dog actor in "My Dog Skip" and has been the same on "Frasier" for a number of years.

And when I do, I'll make sure I drop a reference to Hines Hill's Sherman and Sweetie. (Sweetie was the young puppy at the beginning of "My Dog Skip". Moose was the old dog at the end. Pretty much everything else was Enzo, except for some distance shots where they used Sherman).

--jdege 16:03, 2005 Feb 10 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you about who did what on My Dog Skip--just going by what the available information says.

Certainly it's fair that Moose gets the main credit for Frasier; he was still the venerable old actor and originator of the role, regardless of not being a spring puppy any more. Sort of reminds me of the old credit in The Big Valley - "and starring Miss Barbara Stanwyck as Victoria Barclay"....

Long Live Moose!

Quill 20:45, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

p.s. when you're ready, you might want to add the notes to My Dog Skip 20:57, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Coat

I just noticed that the page uses "double coat" to describe the rough coats.

I'm no expert at this, but it was my impression that all of the JRT coat types, even the smooth coat, were "double coats".

Which would make this a misleading description at best.

--jdege 13:14, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures of JRTs?

If we're going to link to external pics of JRTs, wouldn't this be the best site?

JTRCA Gallery

--jdege July 7, 2005 01:35 (UTC)

Agreed. That would be a better source for the pics of a modern JRT. I put the link there for the history portion more than the pics. --Counsel 19:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why, exactly, are we putting a picture of a Parson Russell Terrier on the JRT page?

Either it's a picture of a JRT, in which case it should be captioned as a picture of a JRT, or it's a picture of a PRT, and it shouldn't be on the JRT page at all. --jdege 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Because the (bad) picture of a JRT that was there was removed by someone for not having enough source or licensing info, and because someone else moved the PRT picture into the breed box without bothering to note that it's a PRT, so I fixed the caption to match the breed, and because the JRT/PRT community is so miserably inconsistent about what is what, but in any event the PRT in the picture was a JRt just a couple of years ago (well, maybe longer ago than that) until AKC changed its naming, and we don't seem to have a better photo of an actual JRT (e.g., the others in the article) so I just left it. Suggestions? Elf | Talk 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I could upload one of the pictures I've taken of my own JRT, but he's towards the edge of the breed standard. I don't hold copyright to any photos of more representative JRTs.

rough-coat JRT

I'll ask over in the JRT Yahoo group if any of the members have decent pictures they're willing to release under the GFDL.

--jdege 21:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)::

OK. I'm not doing any dog agility for another 3 weeks, but when I do, I'll try to remember to get some shots that are at least as cute at this PRT one and much better than the one on the jump. Elf | Talk 23:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah and I like the shot of your dog running, even if it's not quite right for the breed box. I'd like to see bunches more action shots in all dog articles but I haven't entirely figured out how to do that well yet myself. For purposes of WP, maybe it could be cropped a bit? Elf | Talk 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. the new pics

We have a shortage of good pics of JRTs in their many variants. (I'm going to a fun-day in a couple of weeks - I'l try to remember to bring my camera.)

So I don't object to the addition of a couple of pictures of Aussie JRTs, even if they're more artistic than informational.

But I'm not sure that they're appropriately placed on the page, and I am certain that the one of them is far too large.

Anyone else have thoughts?

--jdege 14:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold and removed the top pic. It clearly unbalanced the page, and even if it is a nice pic of a dog it is not really a good illustration of a JR. The similar pic further down the article needs moving down a bit too IMMHO. Moriori 20:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A fun link that's probably not appropriate for the page

The Truth About: The Jack Russell Terrier

--jdege 16:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pics of JRTs

I was at a JRTCA Terrier Trial, today, and collected some pics of actual Jack Russells - as opposed to Parsons - in all of their variety.

I've uploaded them, and was wondering which of them people think might be appropriate for the Jack Russell page.

--jdege 19:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Jrt02 as the breed picture because it shows both the musculature and the narrow shoulders typical of the breed. --Dairymade 20:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good collection. Glad I stopped by WP today to see them; I haven't been on or watching my watchlist, so this was just coincidence.

I like the following

Even with leash over face, I think it's a nicer picture than the mostly-white one	Just a nice fun fairly clear shot showing proportions; maybe this for the main photo? Not sure.	For action, either this one or the other jumping one...	...are nice if cropped down; I can't decide which I prefer
A nice face shot

I wouldn't mind including more than just a couple, to show the variations in coat colorations. Elf | Talk 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Jrt06.jpg would be appropriate as the main photo, because it's a puddin, and not compliant with the breed standard.

Personally, I think that Jrt02.jpg would work well as the main photo, because it does show off the distinctive features of the breed well.--jdege 21:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but the face of Jrt02.jpg doesn't really look like a JRT. I think it's the angle, or coat. Of course, I don't know much; I just found out that my dog is a shorty, although, it doesn't look as short as Jrt10.jpg. — Soupisgoodfood 21:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of dogs who are called Jack Russell Terriers. But the ones who are winning conformation trials in the Jack Russell Terrier Clubs are as pictured - lean, well-muscled, small chest, narrow shoulders. You can see the judge checking the chest size in JRT18.jpg. I didn't get any pictures of their checking their flexibility, but it's all a part of breeding a dog that can squeeze into narrow spaces underground.

I've known Puddin's - Shorties - who were marvelous dogs. And some who have done wonderfully in racing, go-to-ground, or agility at JRTC trials. But they are never entered in conformation, and wouldn't have a hope of winning. --jdege 13:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great picture, but it's not one of mine, so I'm moving it outside of my collection.

PinkyJRT_wb2.jpg: Smooth Coat JRT

--jdege 18:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template for JRT lovers

Here is a new user template for your user page.

it is produced with:

{{User:UBX/Loves Jack Russells}}

[edit] Image problem

The image topping this article is used both on this page and the Parson Russell Terrier page. I can't believe the same dog qualifies as both breeds, so someone might want to fix this little problem. Badbilltucker 23:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Name

Did you know the Jack Russel's name was changed to Parson Russel!? Bulldawg399 23:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. The AKC changed the breed name of the dogs in their registry from JRT to PRT because they lost their lawsuit against the JRT clubs.

JRTs have never been pure-bred dogs. They're a strain of terriers selected for certain working characteristics. The AKC is trying to create a pure breed. They'll likely succeed with the PRT, but the result will not be JRTs, and they'll have nothing like the ability to go to ground that the JRT clubs are working so hard to preserve.

--jdege 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Decent from Russell's Dogs

This article states in different places that certain types of JRT's are decended from Mr. Russell's dogs. All of these statements are without citation with the exception of the statement that it is unlikely that any modern dogs are decended of Trump. Unless there is some sort of reliable backing for these claims, they should be removed.--Counsel 19:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ChristmasJilly.jpg

Where can I put this image? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Right here. It's a cute dog, but the picture doesn't teach us anything about the JRT.--jdege 21:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It has beady eyes and little feets. Dfrg.msc 05:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australian?

Since when did the Jack Russell Terrier become an Australian? this is like calling the American Pitbull an English Pitbull. The Australian breed description is not very forthcoming as to how they 'developed' the breed, development means that other breeds must have been used, so with all their history and pedigrees why isn't there more information about how this breed was developed? I am sure we on the outside would all like to know more. Evelyn.EvelynH1 13:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite

This page had become a complete mess, and I have done a major rewrite and consolidation with an eye towards putting in some badly needed structure while cutting out repetition, goofiness, confusion, etc. Most of the pictures on this page do NOT show the JRT (from any registry) in good light -- a problem that remains. - P

_ _ _ _ _

The UKC and AKC Russell Terrier folks need to write their own entry in Wikipedia under "Russell Terrier" as the Parson Russell Terrier folks have done for their breed. The point is that the Russell Terrier folks are promoting a new breed with a different name, a different standard, and even a different history than the Jack Russell. I think it is a useful thing, for now, to keep the JRT page as a "gateway" page to the "controversy" (which is really just a confustion at this point), but the new breeds need to create new pages and not try to hammer their new breed description and history into a dog description that is not their own. It's time to "go and grow" their own entry for their distinct breed(s). - P

I thank you for that. I'd been considering doing something of the sort myself - but I'd not have done as good a job. The JRT is not the PRT, or the RT, or the Aussie or Irish Jack, or any other breed. The JRT is not a breed - they are a strain of terriers selected for their ability to work. They do not breed pure - and they should not breed pure, if we're to keep them what they have always been.

--jdege 06:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although i don't agree with the name russell terrier i think your way off the mark and this is public property, you do not own the rights to the name JRT.EvelynH1 20:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After the lawsuits, and the name changes, I think it's pretty well settled that the Jack Russell Terrier Name is owned by the member organizations of the Jack Russell Terrier United World Federation - JRTCGB, JTRCA, JRTCC, etc.

That is, the name refers to those dogs who are bred to maintain their working ability, not primarily for conformation.

--jdege 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] REPLY

REWRITE

---I looked into the words "Jack Russell Terrier", both as trademarks and copyrights. The name JRT can be included and owned within a trademark or be part of a copy written product/article, etc... the name “Jack Russell Terrier” is not, has never been, and cannot be owned as private property by any organization or any person, If there was an individual who could have looked in to having the rights it would have been Rev. Russell. Refer yourself to the US copyright and US Trademark laws. These sites show exactly what is and is not owned and by whom.

1. http://tarr.uspto.gov/

2. http://www.copyright.gov/records/

If there were lawsuit’s that ruled on this subject matter they would have been made publicly accessible and published by now, simply not so. People need to start researching for themselves and not simply worship whatever is told to them, no matter how long somebody has been in the breed.

Opinions should not be included within the encyclopedia articles, hard facts with proof only, not heresy or wives tales passed on! Written books, unless written by Rev. Russell himself are merely just another opinion.

I'm not aware that John Russell wrote any books.

As for the lawsuit: http://www.terrier.com/notices/lawsuit.php3

Pay particular attention to the "Findings of Fact."

At this point, Jack Russell Terriers are what the Jack Russell Terrier Clubs say they are - not what the Parson Russell Terrier Clubs say they are, or the Russell Terrier Clubs say they are, or what have you.

All of these dogs share common origins and histories. They all have been selected out of a pool of dogs that were commonly called "Jack Russells". But this pool of dogs was notoriously diverse, and their owners and breeders had contradicting visions of what the dogs should be.

Hence the PRT, and the RT, and the IJRT, and the AJRT, etc., etc.

But at this point in time, the JRT is the JRTCGC/JRTCA/JRTCC JRT.

Discussion of the common ancestry of all these dogs is appropriate on the JRT page. But the specific history of variants other than the JRTCGC/JRTCA/JRTCC JRT should be placed on their own page.

We have a page for the PRT. We even have a page for the Plummer Terrier. There's no reason at all that someone who is familiar with the history of the Russell Terrier should not crate a page describing that variant and its history.

But it's not appropriate to turn the JRT page into a RT page - if for no other reason than the disparity in numbers. (The JRTCA is by far the largest of the breed clubs.)

And the attempts to include both histories on the same page haven't worked - the results have been confusing and self-contradictory.

I really think we'd do the readers a service by creating a separate page for the Russell Terrier.

"--jdege 18:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

---

[edit] REPLY

There is no place within these legal documents stating that the name or breed is owned solely by the JRTCGB or JRTCA and that the words or name Jack Russell Terrier may not be used by any individual either private or other?. Oh, and we did get the page done, YAY!!! Happy New Year. --HVJRT 07:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Plummer on JRTs

David Brian Plummer, the author of "The Complete Jack Russell", "The Working Terrier", etc., and the orginator of the Plummer Terrier, wrote about the JRT, in "Tales of a Rat-Hunting Man":

Most terriers will kill rats moderatly well. Even breeds like scotties, West Highland whites, cairns and Manchester terriers, whose ancestors have not seen hunting for a hundred years or so, will usually galvanize at the sight of a fleeing rat. The serious rat hunter (is there really such a beast?) would do well to consider going for any of the three breeds of terrier that are still worked regularly, namely the Lakeland, the border, and the multitude of canine sins lumped together and called collectively the Jack Russell Terrier. Today there is a tendency to call any white-bodited mongrel with a short tail a Jack Russell terrier, though, with the formation of the newly established Jack Russell Club of Great Britain, perhaps a more genuine article will be established in the not to far distant future. I make no bones about it, however. My best ratting terriers have been some of the assorted hotchpotch we call Jack Russells.

--jdege 06:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

ROFL & what the heck did Brian Plimmer know about terriers? please go play games elsewhere, the man bred dogs in puppy farm conditions crossbred bull terriers and all sorts of things together to create his own breed, yet no genuine terrieman in the UK will even own a plummer terrier. What he wrote in his books was knoweldge passed onto him from good terriermen who never did get the recogntion for it. By the way most of the pictures above of so called JRTs look like white lakeland fell terriers, pure indeed?????EvelynH1 20:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Plummer's dogs were bred for rat hunting - even those of his dogs who he called Jack Russells were too big and too hard for foxing.

JRTs aren't purebred. They never have been and if we're going to keep them what they were they never will be.

They look like white fells? Yes, a lot them do. There was an gent at the meet who had a patterdale - aside from color it looked very much like a lot of the JRTs. But nobody who'd seen that patterdale go to earth would confuse it with a Jack in any way. They have very different working styles.

--jdege 22:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another Attempt to Simplify

In less than a week all kinds of interesting things were added to this page, most of them by folks that -- from what I can tell -- have dogs that are registered as "Russell Terriers". The good news (yes, there is good news!) is that a Russell Terrier page was started and, to help things along, I have also added a page (which needs fleshing out]] on the Australian Jack Russell Terrier. Since these breeds have different registries, different descriptions, and different histories, I think they need their own entry. Have at it people! I have left a note about the FCI Jack Russell Terrier in the JRT description and links all over to the Russell Terrier and Parson Russell Terrier. Perhaps, with separate entries and some good-natured cross-links to each other, all the folks with small white scruffy dogs can find their breed, registry, breed description and history. I trust the Parson and Jack Russell people will let the Russell and FCI Australian Jack Russell Terrier folks do their thing and vice-versa. I think the recent histories of the Parson, Russell and FCI Russell really * DO * need to be put down before they are lost in the ether of mythology. - PBurns3711

[edit] Breed vs. Type

It is a stretch to claim the JRT is not a breed but a type... dogs such as feists represent a type, while the JRT is recognizable and breed true. Just because a breed is not 'pure bred' does not mean it is not a breed, many working terriers are still considered breeds by the general community even though not 'pure bred' and AKC/UKC recognized...

Recommend "breed" be reinstated in the introduction... furthermore there are currently inconsistencies in the article as the word "breed" appears several times. Macboots 18:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Jacks don't breed true. And the Jack Russell Terrier Clubs don't want them to breed true:

http://terrier.com/breed/history.php3

Jack Russell Terriers are a type, or strain, of working terrier; they are not pure bred in the sense that they have a broad genetic make-up, a broad standard, and do not breed true to type. This is a result of having been bred strictly for hunting since their beginning in the early 1800's, and their preservation as a working breed since. The broad standard, varied genetic background based on years of restricted inbreeding and wide outcrossing, and great variety of size and type, are the major characteristics that make this strain of terrier known as a Jack Russell (a.k.a. Parson Jack Russell Terrier®) such a unique, versatile working terrier.

Hence the JRTC's practice of not registering litters, of not registering individual dogs until they are one year old, and only after they've been individually examined for conformance. And, of course, their refusal to close their studbooks.

As for "breed" vs. "type" being used inconsistently, yes, it is. And that inconsistency is consistently present in all discussions of the JRT. E.g., the JRTC's website repeatedly refers to the JRT as being a breed, and having a breed standard, at the very time they say it's not a breed, but a type.

As for "reinstating" the use of "breed" vs. "type", the JRT page has used the word "type" since Aug 7th, 2003, in the very first edit that distinguished the JRTs from the PRTs.

--jdege 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)