The Early German Shepherd - Page 5

Brady Bee wrote: Work is something that is done daily for a living, not for titles or trophies is it not?

Christopher writes: Schutzhund is sport to the handler; not the dog. When the dog hits the schutzhund field the dog is working. Does the dog know how many points he has? NO. He goes out there knowing that this is the task he has been trained to do and seeks to execute that task the same as any service dog. The stakes of his work are only diminished by the fact that we humans do not deem it crucial. But to the dog the work is as “real” as any other.

Brady Bar wrote: I too feel that every shepherd should have some job to do, but it's not always possible, and I would never criticise anyone who just wants a companion.

Christopher writes: Nor would I. But don’t breed a dog that is strictly a companion.

Well, there in lies our difference, BB.  I am very critical of someone who selfishly and arrogantly  buys a dog he is not able to handle just because he likes the idea of that dog,  and I feel the same of those who would knowingly sell to that person and those who breed that way, in fact I think it's the ruination of the breed. 

You are right about one thing, hopefully the working lines will NEVER "meet in the middle" to do so would be to compromise what's left of the  GSD as a working dog, and THAT would be a shame.

I'm through with this topic.  I probably never should have spoken on this thread.   In my opinion, there is something very wrong with taking an honest working dog and reducing him to nothing more than a  pretty, fluffy dog who's sole accomplishment  and ability is to run in a circle in one direction and who's only job is to act as a lawn ornament or a lap dog.  I will never understand how anyone could possibly see what has been done to this breed as a good thing.

it could also be the fix in the mix.i doubt all working lines would cease to exist .the working line people will work hard to preserve there lines . if you put a little thought into the breeding's over time some of the show line, cow hock, lame brains  could be repaired.if the show judges would say enough is enough and except the change,it could work.

Wazzup wrote:if the show judges would say enough is enough and except the change,it could work.

Christopher writes: Enough of what? Money? Power?

no dear, i meant the hind angulation and the no brain er.if the judges said no to it ,,the fad would stop . the money power could and would still be where it is' at. the dog would just have a different look ,,the money would look the same.over time things could change.a more healthy functioning show dog could and would win.people will then follow the money and power. ibelieave it can be done.

That's Utopia you're talking about wazzup!

I'd love to see it myself, but it's not likely.  There are too many extremists... on both sides!

It sad that the bar has dropped so low that ideals and goals that were once the norm have become extreme.

When was it ever the norm to have over angulated (rear) dogs?  When was it the norm to have manic high drive?

My "bar" is where it's always been and that's not low thank you!

Nothing wrong with a bit of reductionism! 

Exploiting the qualities of herding types, Max sought to produce a versatile working dog but his notions were visionary rather than cast in stone, and far from complete when he died. And before the arrival of twenties Klodo it was mainly square-formed, tall-legged and large, temperament problematic; looking very much the ugly duckling compared to more glamorous brands. Same era’s Utz displaced sable as well as marking the first point of divergence between show and working lines, thus leading to further change, as succeeded by Rolf and Alf in the fifties, Jalk the next decade, as quickly followed by more serious type uniformity through Quanto/Canto and Mutz, thence leading to Palme, Uran, Quando, Cello and Odin etc - and ever since? 

The upshot? Hochzucht strains largely merged into one and split away from working lines. In the main a softer, friendlier, better-looking dog with a more reliable temperament; one more suited as a companion animal but often lacking the better hardness and stamina appropriate to a versatile, multi-purpose working dogs, or that demanded by more specialized high performance tasks. Not to ignore the bundle of more recent problems inflicted by inbreeding and ill-based fashions. Does this mean that all or even most ‘show-animals’ can’t work, and all show line animals work superbly? - of course not. Other than that, inbreeding problems exist in working lines too, whereas many have difficulty achieving class one survey status.

I think far too much is made here of GSD herding skills. Max obviously figured that the herding dogs offered the best mental/physical starting point for shaping his vision but if he’d wanted a sheepdog he already had his pick from a range of proven natural breeds. 

Quote: “Do what ever you think is right for you and for the GSD.”

Reckon we might as well dump this forum, the Standard, show-ring and Sieger and the clubs while we’re at it, Christopher S.!?

Agree too that any human definition of what constitutes work doesn’t mean much to the dog. Think it vital though to convince doggie mind from the start that ‘work’ given is somehow ‘real’ or important – not something to be shirked - hard to explain. And as you say, they may be sold as pets but one doesn’t set out to breed as such – on the other hand, who knows? – some kennels probably do!

 A scientist’s view on inbreeding: -
 
“Inbreeding, here defined as inclusive of ‘incest’, line and back breeding, together with popular sire breeding and that aimed at producing elite ‘champions’, depletes a breed’s genetic heritage. 

It greatly furthers the risk of genetic defects and should therefore be deemed the kind of animal experiment only appropriate to scientific institutions for valid research purposes; certainly not as some justification toward producing a slightly better champion.

Although seen as a valuable tool in the initial establishment of a particular kind of canine, inbreeding looses its validity once a breed reaches a high degree of predictable uniformity and homogeneity, thence turning instead into a disastrous habit.

Legitimate breeding does not gamble with canine health, nor places the latter above any breed purity concerns. Overwhelming scientific and practical evidence conclusively proves that inbreeding amounts to abusive breeding and genetic mutilation. 

Dogs have the right to enjoy a life worth living, one with an adequate reserve of genetic diversity; and no less so than good care, feeding and freedom from abusive treatment

Breed clubs may well avow that breed health is their foremost concern, but this remains without credibility for as long as their code of ethics fail to prohibit inbreeding.”