|
Post by ripley on Aug 7, 2004 20:47:34 GMT -5
I had a fun ( ) experience watching a debate between a show breeder and working breeder about what type of dog should be bred. Two different owners, one with two 6-year old Champion BIS German Shepherds, and one with a 5-year-old U.D. , A.D. & (I believe) SchH-1 titled German Shepherd. Both had a breeding program involving their own dogs. The showing woman made a comment on the lack of slope in the working GSD's back and the debate escalated from there, and I, seeing my favorite breed, walked over and joined their conversation. (I'm partial to working dogs, personally, but I'll be unbiased while I'm posting this) The show owner asked if the working dog was altered, and the man who owned it said "no" and that he planned to breed her. The show owner looked almost revolted and said that a poor example of the breed should not pass on its "poor genes". The man took offense to this, and pointed out that her dogs were nervous wrecks (which was correct... oops, I forgot.. unbiased, unbiased, unbiased...) and she shot back that his dog looked more like a Malinois than a GSD. She said that conformation is what was the most important in a possible stud because it shows the effort that has been put into breeding towards the standard, and that working dogs are bred regardless of their conformation, as long as they are healthy and have titles. He said that there was no test of character on the dog's part in conformation showing, and that a working animal is required to prove its good temperament and iron-strong nerves by doing well at its job. She said that if good show breeders didn't breed their dogs, there would be NO such thing as a purebred GSD and there would be no accurate breed standard because there would be so many variations of the breed. He said that if working breeders didn't breed their dogs, purebred GSD's would all eventually be born with fearful, corrupt temperaments and weak nerves, and the breed would be so unmanageable that it would be banned. That was where the vet came in and asked for the show owner to bring her dogs into the exam room, so the conversation ended there, but I'm interested in carrying it further.
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 7, 2004 23:40:51 GMT -5
Wow, I woulda loved to be in on that conversation....
I have a working class GSD from German lines...his back isn't sloaped and his nerves are sound (well, until the thunderstorms start than he's off to the basement ).
I have seen those show dogs and they just don't look right to me...there is no back end to them...it sloaps to nuthin'...I guess without getting into a debate about it, I'm pro working lines!
I know Laura's FIL is a nut about working line GSD's too...Laura, if he was in that room with those two, do you think the lady with the showline GSD woulda made it out alive?
To me, when I see a working GSD (Police Service Dogs come to mind), I like to see a GSD not too high off the ground (low centre of gravity) long and lean with a solid front to back end on him/her (yes there are female GSD police dogs now!).
I guess this doesn't sound like the AKC/CKC breed description but I've seen the German & Czech working lines up here used in police work and they to me, are the definitive type of GSD. Mentally, phsically and temperment-wise, they are leaps and bounds ahead of any show dog GSD.
-Richard
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 8, 2004 0:09:31 GMT -5
I'm also completely pro working lines (For ANY breed, really), if only for the reason that they aren't cowardly fear-biters, as much of the show/BYB AKC GSD's seem to be. I'm a fan of German lines, personally. I like a strong working drive. I also don't like it that almost all show owners criticize GSD's with relatively straight backs, while their dogs can barely limp around the ring. Looking at an exaggeratedly large GSD with a back that slopes nearly to the ground, I don't find it attractive, I just think "That dog must be in some pain". Dogs like that are so prone to hip dysplasia, it's scary. And. with their physical problems and mental issues, they could never serve the purpose that the breed was SUPPOSED to in the first place: WORK. I think that's what the AKC is losing sight of when they write these standards...
|
|
|
Post by Laura on Aug 8, 2004 15:43:49 GMT -5
Jeez, don't even get me started, what the AKC and the UKC have done to the GSD is a travesty . "Conformation" is so subjective, it borders on the ridiculous. When you have a group of overly pretentious people deciding what LOOKS good, not what IS good, that will be the downfall of a dog breed. Not a single BIS or BOB GSD couldn't possibly run long enough to herd anything, they couldn't hit a 3 ft. blind, never mind a regulation 6 ft., and they'd poop themselves at the slightest loud noise. Not to mention the "saggy back porch": as my FIL likes to say ;D. And that's an example of what the breed should be ? Horsesh*t. Are you kidding? He would have made her CRY by the time he was finished !
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 8, 2004 15:49:38 GMT -5
I guess in favor of giving the debate an equal side: Should the most excellent working animal, that is a poor example of the breed, be bred? Edit: By "poor example" I mean, very vaguely resembling a GSD.
|
|
|
Post by amyjo on Aug 8, 2004 19:24:39 GMT -5
Absolutely... The healthiest breeds are the ones that have a greater variation is physical standards...Look at the Aussie they range in size from 25 or so lbs to approx 60 lbs...they have a wide range of coat colors and acceptable marking patterns... they have coats that range from fluffy to silky - some are born with tails some with naturally bobbed tails and they all meet "standard"....Unless the GSD looks like a poodle (in which case it's prolly actually a poodle) - if it is of excellent working stock and dogs of his/her caliber are needed - than I say "yep!" Dogs are not cookie cutters and genetic variation is absolutely necessary for a healthy breed.
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Aug 8, 2004 20:20:57 GMT -5
Excellent and poor are extremely subjective terms. IMHO, an 'excellent' GSD is a strong working dog, who can perform the work the dog was bred and developed to do. A 'Poor' example is the typical sloped-back, weak-hipped, hyper-alergic, nervous show pony that only has AKC titles.No one can argue that the AKC standards pushing extreme looks have done anything to improve ANY breed of dog.
Working dogs should be judged on what they do, and their ability to pass along physical soundness and good health and working ability to their offspring. Following the AKC standards, and applying it to humans, only the Paris Hiltons of the world would be allowed to breed.
|
|
|
Post by Brooke on Aug 8, 2004 20:30:06 GMT -5
That is a VERY scary thought Aussie...
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 8, 2004 20:46:17 GMT -5
Why, yes it is...
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Aug 8, 2004 21:06:40 GMT -5
EEEEEwwwwuuuuuuuuu...then all her offspring would make stupid videos and even stupider TV shows....someone kick me, I need to wake up from this horrid dream I'm having. If the breeders of showline GSD's want to think their dogs are the "standard" then I guess they can have their way..afterall, they are the breeders, judges, supporters all rolled into one funky group (sorta like dating your sister eh?). Of course, their standard is the "accepted standard". Can you say tunnel vision? I also think that we will never loose the working GSD line. There are too many quality breeders out there doing the best they can to further this working line. There are those who will try to screw with the process but those dogs will not make the cut. I am just glad the line between the working and show line GSD's is a very very clear one....do I need to drawsya a picture?? -Richard
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 8, 2004 21:11:18 GMT -5
Yep, but if only the "Paris Hilton's of the world" were allowed to breed, we'd also be one VERY inbred society, and probably have more behavioral problems than any GSD ever could.
|
|
|
Post by Aussienot on Aug 9, 2004 18:04:18 GMT -5
Yep, look at the sorry state of the AKC and be very afraid. Most 'show standard' dogs are so far removed from the purpose for which they were bred that they no longer even faintly resemble the real dog, and are riddled with genetic faults and structural defects. . . . .
Have I mentioned lately that GSDs are a "controlled" breed in Queenland, which is just one class away from being banned. To my knowledge, no breed has ever been banned for having improper spot distribution, or an non-conforming eye distance to nose length ratio . . . that's all I'm saying.
Can anyone honestly argue that the pretty freaks of nature are the standard? That skin deep beauty all that matters? Should all dogs strive to be super models, and only the super models get bred?
Finn would say "bite me".
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Aug 9, 2004 20:21:25 GMT -5
They had a picture of Paris in the paper the other day out at dawn with NO makeup and messy hair. She was not at all attractive. Take away the window dressing (makeup) and all you have is a disturbed child. What a perfect analogy to show shepherds. BTW, her long hair is fake too...it is a weave. She really has very short hair. Her outsides are fake. And I should add that I personally think the working line shepherd is an amazingly spectacular looking dog!!
|
|
|
Post by ripley on Aug 9, 2004 20:39:30 GMT -5
It really is a good looking dog, because it looks strong and healthy. Even a slope-backed working GSD looks great, because it just has a healthier look to it.. Hard to explain..
|
|
|
Post by Nicole on Aug 10, 2004 5:57:08 GMT -5
They had bomb dogs here in Boston right before the convention (I am sure during too but I left town) and these animals were incredible looking. They looked nothing like the typical show shepherd. They were beautiful with massive heads and the bodies were all muscle. I walked by one and wanted to say good boy and give him a pat...NOT!!! ;D
|
|