# Breeding a Breed for Work



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Why is there such a disconnect between working dogs and show dogs? Is it the goal of the two groups that differ and the problem? If so, isnt there a breed standard that includes working ability that the showline people should be obliged to stick with?

We know working dog people care about breeds, or they wouldn't look to breed two malinois together and care so much about pedigree. they'd take two good working dogs and breed them, right?

i have seen some fantastic shepherd mal crosses that I assumed were the result of breeding two good dogs, not an accident or caring about pedigrees.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Why is there such a disconnect between working dogs and show dogs? Is it the goal of the two groups that differ and the problem? If so, isnt there a breed standard that includes working ability that the showline people should be obliged to stick with?
> 
> We know working dog people care about breeds, or they wouldn't look to breed two malinois together and care so much about pedigree. they'd take two good working dogs and breed them, right?
> 
> i have seen some fantastic shepherd mal crosses that I assumed were the result of breeding two good dogs, not an accident or caring about pedigrees.



You tell me..

look at breed standards, at the descriptions..especially for character and temperament..then read the hype...

then contact X amount of breeders from said breeds and exlain what you are looking for, and see if they will allow you to test the dogs, or show you something you might expect to see...

Most show breeders claim that the biggest thing that they are doing is breeding to the written standard.

YOU like Boxers... here is the written standard portion of the temperament and character section, what is bolded is what I find most intriguing and important, if I was looking for what I consider a worthy boxer.

FCI

_BEHAVIOUR / TEMPERAMENT : The Boxer should be fearless self-confident, calm and equable. Temperament is of the utmost importance and requires careful attention. Devotion and loyalty towards his master and his entire household, his watchfulness and *self-assured courage as a defender are famous.* He is harmless with his family but distrustful of strangers. Happy and friendly in play, *yet fearless in a serious situation*. Easy to train on account of his willingness to obey, his pluck and courage, natural keenness and scent capability. Undemanding and clean, he is just as agreeable and *appreciated in the family circle as he is as a guard, companion and working dog*. His character is trustworthy, with no guile or cunning, even in old age..._

AKC

_Character and Temperament
These are of paramount importance in the Boxer. Instinctively a hearing guard dog, his bearing is alert, dignified, and self-assured. In the show ring his behavior should exhibit constrained animation. With family and friends, his temperament is fundamentally playful, yet patient and stoical with children. *Deliberate and wary with strangers, he will exhibit curiosity, but, most importantly, fearless courage if threatened*. However, he responds promptly to friendly overtures honestly rendered. His intelligence, loyal affection, and tractability to discipline make him a highly desirable companion. Any evidence of shyness, or lack of dignity or alertness, should be severely penalized.
_

here is the problem. I have talked to more than 40 boxer breeders in the last 20 years, all claiming to breed to the standard strictly, what I have found is that they are breeding to the standard in some aspects, the physical, and some of the family and household temperament aspects, but not in the aspects that would lead me in the direction for what I might look for..the fearlessness and the perceived reaction of the dog to a threat.

of the 40 plus boxer breeders I have checked out, only 5 have let me test any of thier dogs, and only 3 have made it to the actual biting stages of testing. the rest will simply not show you anything or let you test thier dogs, they will tell you that the dogs are protective...but what does that mean?

it certainly does not mean FEARLESS if threatened, like the standard implies... fearless to me means, I threaten dog, it is fearless, it will bite if pushed, threatened or challenged....I understand the limitations of non-training and the 1% deal..but fearless to me, means biting if pushed in that direction...and one breeder out of 40+ provided a dog that would bite. Yet ALL claimed to be breeding to the standard...

seems pretty simple, but it IS NOT


----------



## Kevin Cyr (Dec 28, 2012)

Joby Becker said:


> You tell me..
> 
> look at breed standards, at the descriptions..especially for character and temperament..then read the hype...
> 
> ...


 
wow I didn't even know there were 40 breeders of boxers...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

OK. You illustrate what I was trying to say. The flip side is, if it bites and doesn't look like a boxer, then it isn't bred to standard either. Both sides are inherently flawed in what they do. Is there anyone that does both? Breed standard physcially while meeting all the temperament characteristics.

For all the working people who bitch about show dogs, why do they have a particular breed anyway if they don't care about looks? I know herders work better generally. Herders. not mals, gsds, etc...If workers truly didn't care about the looks, then they wouldn't breed for a breed.



Joby Becker said:


> You tell me..
> 
> look at breed standards, at the descriptions..especially for character and temperament..then read the hype...
> 
> ...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Kevin Cyr said:


> wow I didn't even know there were 40 breeders of boxers...


ther are 40 in a 50 mile radius of me

same goes for Dobies and .... Rotties which we have also discussed////


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

"of course working breeders breed for looks. otherwise there would just be dogs, not breeds."---this was from another thread but is relevant here.

This is a statement that has me baffled. 

It's stating that you can only get puppies to look like their parents by breeding dogs of similar genetics together. 

But somehow you can just breed random working dogs and you'll get the best of both? You can just breed dogs with different genetics together and viola! a hammer! it does not work out like that.... most of the time you just get a waterdown version of both breeds. yeah there are some hammers that come out. But they are few. 

If you breed two dogs from different breeds....what happens in looks? you get some puppies that look like one parent, some that look like the other, and some look like a water down version of both. Same thing will happen with behavior. You'll get some that act like one parent, some that act like the other....and some that act like water down versions of both. if you keep repeating this with those offspring....you soon will have so much genetic variance in the puppies, you'll just have shitty versions of the breeds you started out with.

Breeding dogs together that have Similar genetics gives you a much greater chance that the pups will behave like their parents do. It's by no means full proof. but there is value in using pedigrees to make breeding choices. It's not for vanity. I do not know one Malinois breeder that passed on using a good stud because his coat was not a certain color. or how high his tail set is. 

And even if they did break down all the registries and make it a free for all. People would find out that just breeding good working dog to good working dog and using no other tools would give them to much variance in genetics, and give a low success rate. so they would start breeding dogs back on each other once again to start fixing traits into lines, which would eventually turn into a breed again. 

Now that being said, it would be great if there were some leeway in breeding. Because after all, no matter what the breed....if you keep breeding dogs of similar genes together the gene pool would eventually get to tight and you will start having serious problems. 

And thats what breeds and pedigrees do. They have gotten the genetic code of the dog tight enough that you can with some degree of accuracy predict what your going to get for puppies. And I ain't talking about how they look.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Sometimes puppies looking like their parent is a by-product.... not the motivation.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I got a PM aking me about the numbers..

I live between Chicago and Milwaukee, a combined metro Population of over 11,000,000 people..


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

James a lot of this is gibberish to me, what I am writing. Not very eloquent, but hopefully you'll get the idea I am trying to convey. I am not wording this well so I understand that my post leaves a lot to be desired as far as asking a question or starting a debate. But...

I have seen a bunch of mal x gsd that were nice dogs. I* think* this is because two nice dogs were bred together and complimented each other. Of course this is opinion on my part and not science. Most of the dogs I have seen have been pre selected for a program or were already in the program for the military before I saw them. This weeds out a lot of crap dogs of all breeds. I do know that a great working pit bull wont sell to a police department, because it doesn't look like a working breed and moreso, it has negativity that goes along with its looks. Supports my ideas that people (consumer) are worried about looks more than the work, even people to whom work should be paramount.

What I think I know is, if people bred just for work, the breeds would look different for sure than they do. The British changed the German Shepherd Dogs name and tried to rewrite it's history because they didn't like the Germans. Everything has a back story that isn't geared towards the dogs working. But working dog people do it too, because to have a GSD it has to look a certain way, or it's not a GSD. too tall. too short. too heavy too light, coat color incorrect, ets. Doesn't meet the standard. I contend this encourages the breed to look a certain way, more than have a dog that works a certain way.

Joby illustrated what I was trying to say in part with his statement

"look at breed standards, at the descriptions..especially for character and temperament..then read the hype..."

Showline folks don't have to really show this, do they? Protective, stout courage, etc.

The working side of it is that no one is really required to prove anything, are they? Show line or working, all you have to do is get two dogs and let em bang away. But the dogs are supposed to have general looks, health meet breed standard, and everything else is subjective unless you title the dog. But you don't have to title a dog to breed it.








James Downey said:


> "of course working breeders breed for looks. otherwise there would just be dogs, not breeds."---this was from another thread but is relevant here.
> 
> This is a statement that has me baffled.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

After having spent 10-12 yrs in the breed ring I can tell you that the standards mean little. 
Terriers, for instance. Most all have size requirements. I showed Norwich, Borders, Kerrys, White Bull, and Am Staffs in the breed ring. Not one was correct aka the "standards" but that didn't stop me from taking most all the dogs I showed to their Championship and beyond. 
It was rare to see a correct size dog, aka the standard, in any of these breeds. It's all about the judges "interpretation" of correct. Also about how big of a name the breeder has.
That has a lot to do with who was the last big winner in each breed. Everyone wants to breed to the big winners inspite of any reasoning. I think we can also agree that this happens in the bite sport world also. It often doesn't matter if that #1 podium spot was the best dog in the trial, only that it won.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I look at a purebred dog for a certain mental package for sure. Yes, you can breed/select for a certain look and mental package--its just harder and maybe a step forward and step backward process over time but no breeder is an island. If you breed for work only I guess you go to the KNPV concept which I think has somewhat eroded in terms of whether or not you can compete with said dog at the national/world level because those systems are based on pedigrees. I've heard people say they don't want to list their dog as a "mix." I wouldn't care. But I don't really understand the rule format on this and haven't been able to find it when I looked. 

If a breeder doesn't work themselves then they have to partner with someone that does and LISTEN to them. I'm in a current conversation now with a breeder that is essentially along the lines of you don't condition evironmental nerve strength with tapes and what not. You breed and select for that and its obvious at 3 weeks of age. All that conditioning may get you a functiona pet but doesn't bode well for a competition or working dog. Mostly what gets in the way for the conformation breeder is that they don't want to cull the big potential conformation winner because he doesn't have the genetic mental package for work. Its a slippery slope from there. Then of course, they have to know and understand that the ability to get titles doesn't mean the dog has the correct mental package and that the title system doesn't test for the desired mental package. How many herding title champions do we have that can't load a trailer or protection dogs that won't protect outside of the trial field?

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> James a lot of this is gibberish to me, what I am writing. Not very eloquent, but hopefully you'll get the idea I am trying to convey. I am not wording this well so I understand that my post leaves a lot to be desired as far as asking a question or starting a debate. But...
> 
> I have seen a bunch of mal x gsd that were nice dogs. I* think* this is because two nice dogs were bred together and complimented each other. Of course this is opinion on my part and not science. Most of the dogs I have seen have been pre selected for a program or were already in the program for the military before I saw them. This weeds out a lot of crap dogs of all breeds. I do know that a great working pit bull wont sell to a police department, because it doesn't look like a working breed and moreso, it has negativity that goes along with its looks. Supports my ideas that people (consumer) are worried about looks more than the work, even people to whom work should be paramount.
> 
> ...


no one has to show anything to breed dogs.

In order to sell dogs, depending on who you sell them too, you might have to show something, you might not.

there are a couple pibull type dogs that I know have sold and worked as K9's, but I do get what you are saying for sure, the cahnces are almost NIL unless you would personally know the buyer..

one of my fav Pitbulls, that was trained and video'd anyhow ,was sold to a PD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX8zsueSc-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wliqpSnha-4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VhzOd6am7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdHYRIU8iXc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObKIclKnhgc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0zqMEJpGmE


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Do cops care about breed purity? Probably not. Looks and PR fuel the selection of detection-only dogs. There was a Mal that worked Ohare Airport all the time. I'm sure him carrying around his fluffy toy all time helped soften his look and the perception. But really, breed distinction isn't about just how they look, its how they work. Last count there were more than 20 different AKC herding breeds, each with its own unique history, job, mental/physical type. You might be considering 10 mental traits for the work instead of just 2-3 [bite, fight, sniff/hunt]. I think if you look at the numbers, the dog world is driven more by pet/sport than actual work.

I should also say amongst herders, physical type--feet/pasterns, angle, backline, length of leg has considerable importance in terms of physical ability to do the work over the dog's lifespan.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Do cops care about breed purity? Probably not. Looks and PR fuel the selection of detection-only dogs. There was a Mal that worked Ohare Airport all the time. I'm sure him carrying around his fluffy toy all time helped soften his look and the perception. But really, breed distinction isn't about just how they look, its how they work. Last count there were more than 20 different AKC herding breeds, each with its own unique history, job, mental/physical type. You might be considering 10 mental traits for the work instead of just 2-3 [bite, fight, sniff/hunt]. I think if you look at the numbers, the dog world is driven more by pet/sport than actual work.
> 
> I should also say amongst herders, physical type--feet/pasterns, angle, backline, length of leg has considerable importance in terms of physical ability to do the work over the dog's lifespan.
> 
> T


I have seen dogs that do not have perfect builds in the areas you describe, work long and full working lifes..

one thing that is funny is standards and how they describe all the aspects of the physical traits, and how beneficial they are to do the work, and then make a dog to fit that, without doing the work...form follows function, not the other way around..

I agree on some basic structural things, but the rest is just fluff..

cops and copd dog trainers may or may not care..many cops are only gsd for dual purpose, many are gsd, mali, DS, or mixes of those 3. single purpose dogs are more diverse. it is very rare that a Pitbull or pitbull type dog gets put on a a police force.


----------



## Robley Smith (Apr 20, 2012)

My peeve regarding working breeds, is that so many of them are losing both the "mental package" required to do what it was that made them a working breed, as well as some of the physical characteristics to do thier intended jobs. I ask every trial judge, seminar speaker, or trainer that I meet what they have seen out there as far as good "off breed" dogs, and most haven't seen much in years and years. Look at that recent thread where the guy was looking for a good doberman for sale. He might as well have been asking for a unicorn with that. (not to say there arent any, but what few there are sure arent for sale or are few and far between)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I have seen dogs that do not have perfect builds in the areas you describe, work long and full working lifes..
> 
> one thing that is funny is standards and how they describe all the aspects of the physical traits, and how beneficial they are to do the work, and then make a dog to fit that, without doing the work...form follows function, not the other way around..
> 
> ...


Its not uncommon to see the herding dogs working ages 10-12. Poor structure breaks down earlier. Its also more susceptible to injury. I like my male dog. I still wish he weren't so low to the ground and had more leg. I also wish he wasn't so upright in the shoulder. Has zero to do with the show ring--all about work. We talk about dogs that out work their structure all the time but its not ideal and it starts to break down earlier. One of my club members just got a working line BC pup. I immediately noticed the great feet/pasterns, nice rear angles and good topline. She said yeah, that's what she liked about her too. She particularly couldn't stand straight stifles. I've worked and lived with three breeds and I want good toplines, balanced rear/front angles and good feet/pasterns in all of them. I have some cosmetic likes. In GSDs I love a solid black and sable with a really dark black overlay is nice too. Next comes a bi-color. I'm also a sucker for a plush coat and hide the borderline long coats. In Pembrokes, head type and how long and low can you go rules in the show ring--neither of which have anything to do with and too long and low inhibits work. But look at the modern standard and it doesn't mention work. I think a lot of people working or not has certain aesthetic things they like in a dog. What's killed everything working and show is the extremes and more is better and everything gets out of balance. 

T


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Pretty is as pretty does. The most beautiful dog is the one that comes hard, bites hard and guards with power. 

For me I have owned Doberman's for 30 years. In the last 9 years that I have been in Schutzhund I have seen 50 GSD's for every Dobermann. When I look at a Show GSD, to me they look hideous. 

On the other hand I do like the look of a good Euro show line Doberman. Even though I don't think the disparity is as great between a Euro show and Euro working line Dobe, I would never own another one because it is so hard finding a good Dobermann, why would I want to decrease my chances by 90% or more by choosing a show line?

I also have an 11 month GSD female. Both parents are pretty amazing dogs. To me she is a very nice looking female. She would probably be very lucky to get an SG rating. 

I also agree that the function follows form argument is as empty as the dogs are, who are handled by people spouting that crap.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I am not very articulate about what I am trying to ask.

Both people that show and work dogs should be looking for the same thing. The breed standard. Why can't you have both a strong dog that works at something and one that meets the standard physically and with health?

Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> I am not very articulate about what I am trying to ask.
> 
> Both people that show and work dogs should be looking for the same thing. The breed standard. Why can't you have both a strong dog that works at something and one that meets the standard physically and with health?
> 
> Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?


In the perfect world--yes. There are AKC show people that have stepped into the working venue--amongst herders and field trialers. In terms of protection sports, maybe the closest comes to showline with working titles which most people here say are all fluff based on the breed survey standards and how the dogs are tested at the trial level. I think I've seen one working line GSD person mention structure/movement. Of course looking at his dog and consistency in type, I have a hard time believing its all a fluke. But I think there is backlash when you allude to what the dog should look like in the working world other than size and power--or so it seems. 

T


----------



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

One of the big reasons is society itself,no more need for the majority of breeds.
Maybe people still like the look of a breed but the character is not longer needed or acceptable in this day and age.
It would be fun to go to a show wearing a scary costume and a cap gun and chase all the courageous breeds
out of the ring but that would be mean to the dogs?
In KNPV most dogs do not have a pedigree from the kennel club but there is a lot of selective breeding going on,only suitability counts.Of course people would also like a nice looking dog and most of them are but a droopy ear or two is not considered a fault.
Also in the showring beginning judges look at the handler just as much as at the dog,a well known handler will not take on a substandard dog,yeah right.Show me the money honey.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Dave, if we take the working GSD breeders many do care that the dog have a structure that is suited for work, they don´t care so much about what a showjudge makes for interpretation of the breedstandard. They are already breeding dogs that is closer to the breedstandard in structure than what is winning in shows today, this is pretty obvious to me just by looking at the dogs. Then it´s also true that some of the so called workingbreeders are not following the standard when it comes to character and the pretty words about courage,hardness and fightingdrive to be able to function as a true servicedog. The breedstandrad doesn´t say the dogs should be breed as sportdogs only.

In the late 60s, a dog like this one could be both a showchampion and a police/workingchampion, does this dog not follow the breedstandrad anymore in structure, when did the beedstandrad change if this is not good enough anymore,
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/dog.html?id=128843

In the former times when breeds could vary quite a bit in type, then breedstandard had a purpose to weed out dogs that was to large,small or other anatomical serious faults. But the purpose was never to place perfection over function, or personal taste over what the breedstandard really says. Some would probably argue that the GSD should have a more long curved back and more angulation according to the breed standard, but if this does nothing for the health and function of the breed as a workingdog, then why follow a standard that is not a description of the most sound workingdog in structure?

For me it would be better to make sure the GSD had an enough sound structure for hard work first, then people could worry about beauty details like pigmention, more masculine heads and so on. If they could attain this without also sacrifcing the workingdrives of the dogs, then I see no problem with that. If a given country has more stricter rules what is a breedable conformation, then the dogs will change in that direction I suppose. If looking at some of the german workingline today it´s clear they are starting to look like their showcousins, much mass and pigmention and the showy structure to match it. Either people do this by purpose or they must for be able to breed. 

The downside, if there is any, to have less rules about conformation is there would be more dogs in the breed looking like this, probaly would be considered to ugly for many people in germany, but if his structure and character is better for work then that is still a small price to pay I think, 
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/dog.html?id=126369


----------



## Louise Jollyman (Jun 2, 2009)

I don't think anyone can say that "this" particular structure, angulation etc is better than another for work.

The only way you can say a structure is sound, is if the dog has worked or competed for a long time and is still sound. 

But I still hear people saying, this dog has great working structure, look at the lay of the shoulder, croup etc. NO, bring him back in 8 years having worked every day of his life, if he is sound, he has good structure....period

Too many people use imported stud dogs titled young, and then all they do when they get here is stud. How do I know that dog is sound for work?


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Correct, but mother nature prefer a structure like a wolf or dingo for function, that would imply that we shouldn´t drift to far away from that if we wan´t to eliminate backproblems and other things that take a dog out of service to early.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Dave, 

You said both show and working dog people should be striving for the standard.... No. That's been done. 

GSD
Dobie,
Rotti

All ruined. 

How about all the dogs they have been sparred heavy show ring influence

Malinois
Dutchie
Catahoula

All still very robust working dogs. 

Then there are some that have been split into two dogs. 

Border collies,
Labs
Heelers

The show dog version...sucks,
The dog that is the working dog version...still the shit.

That's not a coincidence


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> In the perfect world--yes. There are AKC show people that have stepped into the working venue--amongst herders and field trialers. In terms of protection sports, maybe the closest comes to showline with working titles which most people here say are all fluff based on the breed survey standards and how the dogs are tested at the trial level. *I think I've seen one working line GSD person mention structure/movement. * Of course looking at his dog and consistency in type, I have a hard time believing its all a fluke. *But I think there is backlash when you allude to what the dog should look like in the working world other than size and power*--or so it seems.
> 
> T


T.. the working dog people do not sit and talk about how the movement and structure is in the dogs, becuase that is a byproduct of breeding good working dogs, good structure. Of course a working dog person is concerned with the structure, a good healthy functional structure, no one is sitting around thinking about what exactly the perfect structure is on paper, do you think a person that runs their dog all the time, or people that do all types of different work with the dogs such as police work, sport work etc. is thinking hey my dogs feet are not perfect, it is a very good working dog, but his tailset is a little off, he just won the worlds for french ring, but ?

The problem with almost every working breed is this.

The dogs gain popularity, they eventually get breed recognition, in order to get breed recognition, the foundation of the breed is maintained by almost always one major breed organization, that organization maintains control over the standard of the dogs. That organization makes changes to that standard over time, tightening it, making it more specific in regards to physical appearance, and often for things have zero to do with working abilities. The changes are not made to include or maximize or promote better working dogs. Once a working breed gets recognized and becomes popular as a purebreed, it is then discovered that lots of people are interested in the dogs, the problem is that a very small percentage of those people actually do much with the dogs. The standards for most breeds are controlled by the organizations that promote the breed, usually as a show dog for the ring, and as pet dogs for the masses. SO you have the dogs morphing in appearance to fit the show trends and fads, being bred for ideal show and pet character and temperment. and you have the studbooks close, and once that happens the genepool is locked up tight, to maintain purity, and appearance.

Then theses people study the structure, analyze it, talk about it, breed for it, along with all the fancy point issues as well. They will sit and tell you all about the how and why this structure is the best for the work that is intended for the breed, all the while, never doing the work with the breed.

watch any dog show on TV, they always tell you everthing about the dogs, how they should be built and how they should look, what the dogs job is or was, but how many of those show dogs can actually do the work? how many of those breeders actually work the dogs?

The appearance becomes the focus, whether it is coat, head, topline, leg, feet, shoulder tail, type of chest, shape of rib cage, all of that...based basically on the hypothetical, this is better. The working dogs the ones that can and do the work are quite often viewed as non-desirable in appearance, or faulty.

the problem is that many of the breeding trends and issues that are added and tweaked become listed listed as faults, major faults ect, disqualifying faults have fukk all to do with actually working ability.

And all the while, while these people are trying to create the perfect working dog in appearance, on paper, they are also trying to breed the best show and family pet dog. They are paying very little attention to the character and temperament sections of the standards and the actual working functions of the dogs, and spending all thier time working on and talking about appearance, expression etc...

The standards themsleves usually go into great detail about every physical aspect of the dog, and the show people of course have the reasons behind this all on paper and in their head, and are thinking how it pertains to "the work" the dogs do. without ever doing the work with the dogs.

The standards themselves usually involve a storylike paragraph or two of the history and the "function" of the dog as a working breed. I call that the HYPE paragraph, because by now, those functions are hardly ever put to use, and even less so by show breeders. 

Then they usually have a *small* paragraph about the character and temperament, mostly talking about his poise, his expression, and his confident appearance. his vigilance loyatly, his companion qualtiies etc. etc, and some vague terms about the character traits that are needed for the dog to be functional as a working dog...usually including fearless confident etc. etc...

the dogs then are judged in the Ring, or judged on their owners, first and foremost by thier appearance and adherence to the written standards and the fads and fancy point issues.

as long as they do not fall apart in the show arena, remain confident there, are under good control, and dont bite a judge or anything, the temperament and character requirement is fullfilled, all without ever doing an ounce of the work described.

You like to talk about the GSD and like the GSD so....here it is,

The FCI breed standard for the GSD is just about 2000 words long.

here is FCI breed standard for the GSD on Temp. and Character, it contains 55 words.



> Character
> 
> The German Shepherd Dog must be well-balanced (with strong nerves) in terms of character, self-assured, absolutely natural and (except for a stimulated situation) good-natured as well as attentive and willing to please. *He must possess instinctive behaviour, resilience and self-assurance in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, protection, service and herding dog.*


It is all there right? on paper....WRONG..

the entire standard is quantifiable in every other aspect of the dog, borken down to the minutiae of every detail, except the 55 word section on character. There is no way to quantify it, it is vague. offering no ways to define it. to judge it.

the bolded parts I bolded, for reason.

Given what the GSD is supposed to be as a true working dog, how would one define strong nerves? without working it or testing it, in the work?

How does one evaluate the instinctive behaviour, resilience and self-assurance in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, protection, service and herding dog? without testing or working the dog in those areas?

I do not see one fault listed in the standard for not havign the mental capacity for the work intended.

I saw one eliminating fault regarding character:

*
a)	Dogs with weak character and weak nerves which bite
*

How can that be evaluted in working dog description, with dogs that are not working?

It should be very simple, take all the best working dogs, make a loose standard that keeps the breeds distinct and recognizable that the working dogs will fit into, both physically and mentally, and leave it alone. 

The % of people actually working dogs in any given" working group breed" is very very small...THAT IS THE PROBLEM

for me, the character and mentally required working traits are on the same level as or above as the structural traits, and certainly above many of the overal appearance traits, in a working breed, those are among the hardest to breed for, the easiest to lose, the hardest to regain, due to the heritability factors, and without them the dogs cannot do the work.

If someone wants to talk about structure, breed for good structure I have no issues with that, what I have a problem with is breeders of working breeds that analyze the structure and appearance of the dog, assign all kinds of value to that, assume that this struture is making a good working dog, and add very little to zero value to the mental aspects of what makes a good working dog.

An almost ideal functional character and temperament package in a healthy physically sound functional dog of suitable size, will overcome almost anything that someone may label it and percieve it as a dog that has physical faults according to most standards, and will also overcome what the percieved, often much to finite structural neccessities that humans place on dogs that we think makes them better at there jobs.

no dog is perfect...the problem with most working breeds and purebreeds in general is that the functions are mostly not necessary in society, or are now outlawed or discouraged, with very few people doing ANY work with them % wise, and the strive for perfection is heavily lopsised on appearance, when that fact is without the mental aspects even the best appearance is useless for the work.

look at todays athletes.. in fighting, in basketball, in baseball, in football. you will see people of all different shapes and sizes and structures, that are at the top of thier game, and those athletes will tell you that the job is almost all mental.


----------



## Louise Jollyman (Jun 2, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> for me, the character and mentally required working traits are on the same level as or above as the structural traits, and certainly above many of the overal appearance traits, in a working breed, those are among the hardest to breed for, the easiest to lose, the hardest to regain, due to the heritability factors, and without them the dogs cannot do the work.


+1

Time and again, more "pretty" versions of working dogs have gone thru my house and time and again, they don't work, they just don't have the nerve/temperament strength/resilience/courage.

Below, my fugly bitch, but you won't find many bitches with the hardness, courage, aggression and physical strength that she brings to the table.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Louise Jollyman said:


> +1
> 
> Time and again, more "pretty" versions of working dogs have gone thru my house and time and again, they don't work, they just don't have the nerve/temperament strength/resilience/courage.
> 
> Below, my fugly bitch, but you won't find many bitches with the hardness, courage, aggression and physical strength that she brings to the table.


beautiful dog


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> Why is there such a disconnect between working dogs and show dogs? Is it the goal of the two groups that differ and the problem? If so, isnt there a breed standard that includes working ability that the showline people should be obliged to stick with?
> 
> We know working dog people care about breeds, or they wouldn't look to breed two malinois together and care so much about pedigree. they'd take two good working dogs and breed them, right?
> 
> i have seen some fantastic shepherd mal crosses that I assumed were the result of breeding two good dogs, not an accident or caring about pedigrees.


 Ask the same question to the American Border Collie Association (ABCA) and the AKC. A long standing issue over looks and function!


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

If the dog's genetic drives over-ride the breed standard, let's say by an inch taller, then is that a big concern? I would rather have an animal that wants to work, is conformationally correct for the job and not the fluff and stuff circus. FORM FOLLOWS FUNCTION=;


----------



## Mike Di Rago (Jan 9, 2009)

Dave,
I think the financial aspect overrides the best interest of the breed.
I have always been a GSD person (professional and personal). I think the GSD has been victim of his popularity.The only people who are upset of the state the breed are the ones working the dogs, show people and pet people don't even know there is a problem! When you think of how difficult it is to find a good pup to work with and you think that the standard of this breed is to be a working dog, there is a problem.](*,)

I may look for a new pup in a few years and I am not really impressed with the options on the market even when we consider the prices we end paying.
Mike


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Mike Di Rago said:


> Dave,
> I think the financial aspect overrides the best interest of the breed.
> I have always been a GSD person (professional and personal). I think the GSD has been victim of his popularity.The only people who are upset of the state the breed are the ones working the dogs, show people and pet people don't even know there is a problem! When you think of how difficult it is to find a good pup to work with and you think that the standard of this breed is to be a working dog, there is a problem.](*,)
> 
> ...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SV7elIy_Aoo


Heres a video about the German Shepherd.... There is a Crufts Judge at the end. Hes plenty aware that people think there is a problem with show dogs not being able to work. He believes there structure is better suited for work....but not being able to work is irrelevant....Hes not in denial....he's insane.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

CRIMINAL...that's all I can say!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> T.. the working dog people do not sit and talk about how the movement and structure is in the dogs, becuase that is a byproduct of breeding good working dogs, good structure. Of course a working dog person is concerned with the structure, a good healthy functional structure, no one is sitting around thinking about what exactly the perfect structure is on paper, do you think a person that runs their dog all the time, or people that do all types of different work with the dogs such as police work, sport work etc. is thinking hey my dogs feet are not perfect, it is a very good working dog, but his tailset is a little off, he just won the worlds for french ring, but ?
> 
> The problem with almost every working breed is this.
> 
> ...


Joby,

You are wrong in terms structure being irrelevant or much less important than mentality. I've seen the injuries resulting from poor structure. #1 is insufficient angles and cruciates. #2 is straight shoulders. We work in all sorts of weather conditions. Dog does a funky twist/turn on the stock and you have a knee injury. I've also questioned dogs that had awesome mental capabilities but structure that wasn't going to hold up on the herding field--particularly on the front assembly and in some dogs, size without speed and agility. I tested a dog with a fantastic mental package. His pasterns were nearly on the ground and he was east/west on the front. Watch dogs do bite work and see what a beating their body takes. I may train a dog for an hour or two, even. I may work him throughout the entire day depending upon what I"m doing. I work a small breed. It needs the best structure--especially when you are working it out in open fields/pastures. I'm about to test this with my male. Like I said before, he has all the mental package in the world and I'm hoping those upright shoulders and lowness to the ground don't hurt him. He's sort of a clunker. Just about any structure might hold up to 5 sheep in a 100 x 200 arena; although I've seen sheep beat a badly structured dog in a 100 x 100. But that's sport. I sat in on one breed's standard debate and history with the people that were on the committee and how that dog could get through the pasture and rough terrain was part of the discussion. I recently went out with some AKC trackers. I did an 800 yard track through the woods and fields. You do that enough, structure and conditioning is quite handy and the handler had better be in shape also. I believe von Stephanitz put a pedometer on GSDs to clock how many miles a day they put in tending. My bouv was another gamble. She had the minimal angulation I will take. She started to break down about age 8. I watch the conditions I work her in and I don't like to break stock with her anymore because that's hard on her physically. She's at least balanced with a good topline. She will be 9 in a couple of months. It was similar for my last corgi bitch that wasn't well angulated. My male bouv that probably had the most perfect structure I've had on a dog was still flying up the stairs at 14 before he had the first stroke. He didn't start to slow down until age 12 or so--physically. Performance people are constantly debating and discussing structure and conditioning. Straighter shoulders=earlier arthritis. Better structure and you don't see the overuse arthritis syndromes and the injuries. The last thing you need for your working dog is for him to be benched due to injuries and you want to be able to work them as long as possible.

The breed/show ring has as much to do with politics and money as what the dogs so call look like. A lot of the standards haven't changed in 100 years, but the dogs have. That's fad and politics. There isn't an issue with breeding to the standard. Breeders wanting to play the looks competition game is the problem. A corgi should be 40% longer than tall. I promise you the how long and low can you go specialty dog is outside of that parameter. Its back to more is better extremes. The standard says oval bone. It doesn't say round bone and the look of a basset hound. But all you hear is more bone, more bone which translates to clunkers who can't get around the farm. So the standards aren't the issue. Go out and work a dog all day in all types of environmental conditions over the course of his lifetime and you'll see how it all plays out. 

As for BCs, its interesting how that has evolved. Back in the day, they didn't care what it looked like just as long it had that mental package. That included health issues. Then they noticed that a herding dog needed vision so suddenly they started eye testing at their nationals and finally considering things like CEA. Next, I started hearing about lines with hips and spine issues that turn into myelopathy. Now, there seems t obe some regard for structure. And this is amongst ABCA people, not AKC. Structure and health are paramount to working dogs. 


T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Louise Jollyman said:


> +1
> 
> Time and again, more "pretty" versions of working dogs have gone thru my house and time and again, they don't work, they just don't have the nerve/temperament strength/resilience/courage.
> 
> Below, my fugly bitch, but you won't find many bitches with the hardness, courage, aggression and physical strength that she brings to the table.


 
The pretty had nothing to do with whether the dogs could work and didn't prevent them from working.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> I am not very articulate about what I am trying to ask.
> 
> Both people that show and work dogs should be looking for the same thing. The breed standard. Why can't you have both a strong dog that works at something and one that meets the standard physically and with health?
> 
> Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?


 
Its both. Neither is really interested in those standards. For the most part, neither working or show do the work that theose standards address. You don't have a standard for bite work only. For the most part you have standards that addressed working herding dogs. If you declare the working function obsolete and irrelevant to your life, why do you care whether the dogs meet that standard. How many sport protection dogs meet the standard just because they can get through a trial bite work routine? How many have intinctive territoriality and guard that the standards discuss? The conformation people don't need that to win in the breed ring and the sport protection people don't need it to win on the trial field. Like Joby said, doggie just won the French Ring III championship. Who cares if his feet are correct. If Mr. French Ring champion were working livestock everyday throughout his life, you'd probably care if he had splayed fleet, weak pasterns or in a lot of cases, both.

T


----------



## Edward Weiss (Sep 19, 2011)

What I have noticed is hunt organizations out of Germany use rigorous testing and breeding criteria to maintain the usefulness of the breed while continuing to hold to a uniform appearance.
Drahthaars are the classic example ....check out stud registry testing etc. http://www.vdd-gna.org/stud-dogs/
Don't really see working breeds with this type of overall organizational direction or control.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Edward Weiss said:


> What I have noticed is hunt organizations out of Germany use rigorous testing and breeding criteria to maintain the usefulness of the breed while continuing to hold to a uniform appearance.
> Drahthaars are the classic example ....check out stud registry testing etc. http://www.vdd-gna.org/stud-dogs/
> Don't really see working breeds with this type of overall organizational direction or control.


I don't think organizational control has really benefitted the breeds in other venues but its still within the breeder's control. Everyone seeks AKC recognition. Why???? Sport brags; money; placement. Will German GSD breeders breed outside of the SV or RSV2000? Why? I think the key here is the type of testing and what is considered "rigorous."


T


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?


Yes pretty much. 

My dog would be considered a shitter in the show ring because he has a funny ear. Why would I want to go into a show with my dog any ways? It just doesn't interest me. Seeing a nice object guard or facing attack gets me all riled up though.  

I tried to organize a Ringsport trial at the Belgian Dog Specialty event as it was being held less than 80 miles from my place. The organizers were just not interested bordering on pompous rudeness. I basically smiled and just wished them well. It's to bad that there is such separation, but that's just the way it is Dave.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Y
> Most show breeders claim that the biggest thing that they are doing is breeding to the written standard.
> 
> YOU like Boxers... here is the written standard portion of the temperament and character section, what is bolded is what I find most intriguing and important, if I was looking for what I consider a worthy boxer.
> ...


Actually it is simple test for it. :-#\\/

That's the whole thing is why people are afraid to test their breeding stock over here and the AKC/CKC etc it is about losing money not being able to produce product even if it is sub standard.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

The difference between a breed like the GSD and some huntingdogs is that the huntingdogs have remained among hunters that are willing to improve the breed for a specific purpose. In the GSD the majority are not intressted in a functional structure or strong workingability, among those that are not all share the same goals either what is breedingmaterial or not.

But the question remains, what is a functional strucure then, any examples how a functional GSD should look if that is possible to see with the naked eye on a dog show.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

I like working line GSD but do not see how conformation ruined them since when I look at the pedigree there is no conformation blood there. I suppose a dog can excell at both conformation and work. The problem is it takes extreme dogs to win when the competition is fierce. So if the conformation starts producinng weird looking frog legged GSD they physically will not be able to do the bite work and all the running around. 

Simply use working line blood if you don't like conformation.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Ben Thompson said:


> I like working line GSD but do not see how conformation ruined them since when I look at the pedigree there is no conformation blood there. I suppose a dog can excell at both conformation and work. The problem is it takes extreme dogs to win when the competition is fierce. So if the conformation starts producinng weird looking frog legged GSD they physically will not be able to do the bite work and all the running around.
> 
> Simply use working line blood if you don't like conformation.


No conformation? What pedigrees? It's near impossible to find a dog with at least grandparents that weren't breed surveyed...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Erik Berg said:


> The difference between a breed like the GSD and some huntingdogs is that the huntingdogs have remained among hunters that are willing to improve the breed for a specific purpose. In the GSD the majority are not intressted in a functional structure or strong workingability, among those that are not all share the same goals either what is breedingmaterial or not.
> 
> But the question remains, what is a functional strucure then, any examples how a functional GSD should look if that is possible to see with the naked eye on a dog show.


 
I think its possible but in the end, I like to see them out in the pasture with a flock of sheep. I don't judge a dog until it matures and I've seen them with ewes during a lambing season or move rams. Ultimatley, I take them out on cattle. Then I'll decide how functional it is physically. I do like agility to look at agility. I want to see a good GSD do both--work stock and have protection, guard instinct and the drives for protection work. Structuraly, you know balance front to rear, a good back and croup line, good feet and pasterns, etc. That you can see standing or in motion otherwise. 

T


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> T.. the working dog people do not sit and talk about how the movement and structure is in the dogs, becuase that is a byproduct of breeding good working dogs, good structure.


Oh my god yes times one hundred million thousand billion.

This is why when you look at the working Malinois and Border Collies that have never seen a conformation show or breed survey in the history of the pedigree, dogs simply breed because they can work, THEY STILL FIT THE BREED STANDARD.

Why is this hard to understand?


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Katie,

It all comes down to "form follows function"

A dog that does the job will conform to the ideal of what a dog that does the job should look like, without ever having been to a conformation show ;-)


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby said:

*"the working dog people do not sit and talk about how the movement and structure is in the dogs, becuase that is a byproduct of breeding good working dogs, good structure. Of course a working dog person is concerned with the structure, a good healthy functional structure, no one is sitting around thinking about what exactly the perfect structure is on paper, do you think a person that runs their dog all the time, or people that do all types of different work with the dogs such as police work, sport work etc. is thinking hey my dogs feet are not perfect, it is a very good working dog, but his tailset is a little off, he just won the worlds for french ring, but ?"

"...for me, the character and mentally required working traits are on the same level as or above as the structural traits, and certainly above many of the overal appearance traits, in a working breed, those are among the hardest to breed for, the easiest to lose, the hardest to regain, due to the heritability factors, and without them the dogs cannot do the work."

"...An almost ideal functional character and temperament package in a healthy physically sound functional dog of suitable size, will overcome almost anything that someone may label it and percieve it as a dog that has physical faults according to most standards, and will also overcome what the percieved, often much to finite structural neccessities that humans place on dogs that we think makes them better at there jobs."*

Thank you Joby, right on right on right on!8)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I am not very articulate about what I am trying to ask.
> 
> Both people that show and work dogs should be looking for the same thing. The breed standard. Why can't you have both a strong dog that works at something and one that meets the standard physically and with health?
> 
> Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?




It boils down to how the standards are interpreted. In the show ring the run around the ring for a tiem is the only physical test and few in the show ring are interested beyond that. 
I stood outside the GSD show ring with my sable, who I believe has good balanced structure. 
Two different people walked up to me and asked me to leave the area because I would be giving visitors the wrong image of a GSD. The first one, a woman, I simply told her I was entered in obedience and I had every right to be there. The second, a man, I basically told him to get over it. Whe he started to get all bent out of shape I told him to call the show steward or ****off. That ended it!


----------



## Garland Whorley (Jun 5, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> ther are 40 in a 50 mile radius of me
> 
> same goes for Dobies and .... Rotties which we have also discussed////


 
Hey, I agree on the Rotties. I have been pretty blessed in producing some solid working Rotties. Always open to have tested. Really trying to impact bringing back the Rottwiler


----------



## John Dickinson (Apr 28, 2011)

I am a rotty guy and we have this discussion often at training when new people show up with a puppy. IMO it always boils down to puppy sales. Show people like the titles to help them sell puppies but are afraid to put a puppy with good/strong working temperament in a pet home, therefore they breed for a softer/gentler temperament.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its both. Neither is really interested in those standards. For the most part, neither working or show do the work that theose standards address. You don't have a standard for bite work only. For the most part you have standards that addressed working herding dogs. If you declare the working function obsolete and irrelevant to your life, why do you care whether the dogs meet that standard. How many sport protection dogs meet the standard just because they can get through a trial bite work routine? How many have intinctive territoriality and guard that the standards discuss? The conformation people don't need that to win in the breed ring and the sport protection people don't need it to win on the trial field. Like Joby said, doggie just won the French Ring III championship. Who cares if his feet are correct. If Mr. French Ring champion were working livestock everyday throughout his life, you'd probably care if he had splayed fleet, weak pasterns or in a lot of cases, both.
> 
> T


T...if they were working livestock everday of thier life, they would not choose a Malinois. and you can take it too the bank, a dog that wins a FR III championship, weak pasterns or other structural defects would be noticed, do you have any idea how much physical activity, running , jumping, climbing ,turning, stopping, a dog would go through in the training, to win an FR III championship? Far more than what you are doing with your herding I would bet.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Erik Berg said:


> Dave, if we take the working GSD breeders many do care that the dog have a structure that is suited for work, they don´t care so much about what a showjudge makes for interpretation of the breedstandard. They are already breeding dogs that is closer to the breedstandard in structure than what is winning in shows today, this is pretty obvious to me just by looking at the dogs. Then it´s also true that some of the so called workingbreeders are not following the standard when it comes to character and the pretty words about courage,hardness and fightingdrive to be able to function as a true servicedog. The breedstandrad doesn´t say the dogs should be breed as sportdogs only.
> 
> In the late 60s, a dog like this one could be both a showchampion and a police/workingchampion, does this dog not follow the breedstandrad anymore in structure, when did the beedstandrad change if this is not good enough anymore,
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/dog.html?id=128843
> ...


Erik that is a very good post


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

John Dickinson said:


> I am a rotty guy and we have this discussion often at training when new people show up with a puppy. IMO it always boils down to puppy sales. Show people like the titles to help them sell puppies but are afraid to put a puppy with good/strong working temperament in a pet home, therefore they breed for a softer/gentler temperament.


I have found this often to be very true. It makes me wonder how much of the way a dog turns out is environmental even if the genetics are there. If you have a puppy from working lines with hard drives, but never do anything to develop those drives- one may end up with a frustrated dog but a decent pet. 

On the flip side, so many buy "working" dogs just to have a big dog that brings on a sense of being "protected". Unfortunately if any of those hard drives present themselves and the owners have no clue what to do with it.....there goes another potentially great dog to the pound. It's a vicious cycle.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Joby,
> 
> You are wrong in terms structure being irrelevant or much less important than mentality.


YOU ARE WRONG, for putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
what I said was :



> Of course a working dog person is concerned with the structure, a good healthy functional structure, no one is sitting around thinking about what exactly the perfect structure is on paper...
> 
> *...for me, the character and mentally required working traits are on the same level as or above as the structural traits, and certainly above many of the overal appearance traits, in a working breed, those are among the hardest to breed for, the easiest to lose, the hardest to regain, due to the heritability factors, and without them the dogs cannot do the work.*
> 
> ...


and much of that was also addressing physical aspects of dogs that really have nothing to do with the dogs functionality, aside from the structural soundness that is required.. 

The point was that form follows function, not the other way around. Which is how many breeders look at it, my dog is xyz perfect in stuvxyz structure, because that is needed to be functional. yet the dog simply cannot do the work, becuase he lacks the fundamental mental requirements. My intention was not to say that people dont care about structure, it was addressing the people that put physical characteristics on a pedistal, and seem to care very little for functional working mental traits. No working breeder I know is looking to breed dogs with obvious structural faults for the work. Physical aspects are a facotr in choosing dogs for breeding for sure, but that usually comes behind the choosing of the mental traits, since those are much harder to manipulate. If you are talking greyounds or racing animals, that might be flipped on its head for sure..



> I've seen the injuries resulting from poor structure. #1 is insufficient angles and cruciates. #2 is straight shoulders. We work in all sorts of weather conditions. Dog does a funky twist/turn on the stock and you have a knee injury.


yes, we have all seen injured dogs, most work in inherent with danger to injuries, of various types. Even dogs with near perfect ideal structures suffer injuries..



> I've also questioned dogs that had awesome mental capabilities but structure that wasn't going to hold up on the herding field--particularly on the front assembly and in some dogs, size without speed and agility.


Yes those do not sound like they are not of very functional physical soundness, like I said, most people want physical soundness.




> I tested a dog with a fantastic mental package. His pasterns were nearly on the ground and he was east/west on the front.


sounds like a terrible structure indeed, that is too bad, dog should never be bred, maybe even should have been culled out to start with if his structure was that bad. nothing to do with what I am talking about though.



> Watch dogs do bite work and see what a beating their body takes. I may train a dog for an hour or two, even. I may work him throughout the entire day depending upon what I"m doing. I work a small breed. It needs the best structure--especially when you are working it out in open fields/pastures. I'm about to test this with my male. Like I said before, he has all the mental package in the world and I'm hoping those upright shoulders and lowness to the ground don't hurt him.


I know the beating sdogs bodies take, I have been inolved in some of those beatings for 20 yrs, My body is beat to hell, partly caused by that invovlement. 

Concerning your dog, are straight shoulders and lowness to the ground fairly common in the breed? Seems like the stature is, the straight shoulders sound like a glaring fault, since the shoulders probably are supposed to be well laid back. Is the dog bred from generations of good working dogs, that have been used for herding consistantly? did the ancestors have problems with the straight shoulder, and if so, did it cause them to break down in their long working careers?



> He's sort of a clunker. Just about any structure might hold up to 5 sheep in a 100 x 200 arena; although I've seen sheep beat a badly structured dog in a 100 x 100. But that's sport.


if the sheep are beating the dogs, due to physical structural faults, they do not sound like very sound functional animals to me.



> I sat in on one breed's standard debate and history with the people that were on the committee and how that dog could get through the pasture and rough terrain was part of the discussion. I recently went out with some AKC trackers. I did an 800 yard track through the woods and fields. You do that enough, structure and conditioning is quite handy and the handler had better be in shape also.


Of course this is a given...Dog must be sound to perform.




> I believe von Stephanitz put a pedometer on GSDs to clock how many miles a day they put in tending. My bouv was another gamble. She had the minimal angulation I will take. She started to break down about age 8. I watch the conditions I work her in and I don't like to break stock with her anymore because that's hard on her physically. She's at least balanced with a good topline. She will be 9 in a couple of months. It was similar for my last corgi bitch that wasn't well angulated.


If it was similar to the last one, why go for it again? just curious...




> My male bouv that probably had the most perfect structure I've had on a dog was still flying up the stairs at 14 before he had the first stroke. He didn't start to slow down until age 12 or so--physically.


sounds great, pick more dogs that are like him, in structure if you get more Bouvs.




> Performance people are constantly debating and discussing structure and conditioning. Straighter shoulders=earlier arthritis. Better structure and you don't see the overuse arthritis syndromes and the injuries. The last thing you need for your working dog is for him to be benched due to injuries and you want to be able to work them as long as possible.


Of course, depends on the work, both mental and physcial traits are important, no one wants a dog to break down due to poor structure. No where did I imply that people are not concerned about structure. 



> The breed/show ring has as much to do with politics and money as what the dogs so call look like. A lot of the standards haven't changed in 100 years, but the dogs have. That's fad and politics. There isn't an issue with breeding to the standard. Breeders wanting to play the looks competition game is the problem. A corgi should be 40% longer than tall. I promise you the how long and low can you go specialty dog is outside of that parameter. Its back to more is better extremes.


Thanks for illustrating my point, the breed club in charge of that standard, failed to word in in a fashion that would promote wrking functionality, If they cared they would change it to make that
make changes to that standard if they were concerned about functional form, they could ammend it, and list that as a serious fault, to prevent that from becoming a fad of the breed type.




> The standard says oval bone. It doesn't say round bone and the look of a basset hound. But all you hear is more bone, more bone which translates to clunkers who can't get around the farm.* So the standards aren't the issue.*


Again I disagree, the standard could be changed to make it a serious fault to have the undesirable bone which is making the clunkers, the people would stop talking about more bone, more bone, and would not be creating more clunkers...




> Go out and work a dog all day in all types of environmental conditions over the course of his lifetime and you'll see how it all plays out.


I am personally not that active. I try to buy physically sound dogs from families that do not have histories of physically breaking down due to structural faults. 



> As for BCs, its interesting how that has evolved. Back in the day, they didn't care what it looked like just as long it had that mental package. That included health issues. Then they noticed that a herding dog needed vision so suddenly they started eye testing at their nationals and finally considering things like CEA. Next, I started hearing about lines with hips and spine issues that turn into myelopathy. Now, there seems t obe some regard for structure. And this is amongst ABCA people, not AKC. Structure and health are paramount to working dogs.


Of course health issues are paramount to anyone who is serious.

Myelopathy is not caused by structural issues , it has been directly related to a certain geneotypical mutation, and is beleived to be caused by the sheath around the spinal cord being damaged by the dogs own immune system.

The OFA has a DNA based test for myelopathy.

I also remember when the BC standard was attempted to fiddled with to try to omit certain eye color, or make that type of eye color a serious fault, and when it was given a good hard look, most of the efficient working dogs were of the eye color type that they were thinking of tryign to get rid of. Not a BC person, so not totally knowledgable of what it was exactly, think it was having to do with the lighter eyes, as opposed to the darker eyes. AGAIN, nothing to do with working ability, and a direct threat to the working ability of the breed as a whole, in a closed genepool.

As far as the Corgi goes, the standard IS the key. I have read it, I do not see any type of requirements put into it account for the temperament packages that herding and farm work would require. 

Here is the mental aspects of the standard:

*Temperament 
Outlook bold, but kindly. Never shy or vicious. The judge shall dismiss from the ring any Pembroke Welsh Corgi that is excessively shy.*

You yourself have highlighted 2 glaring omissions in regards to the structure of the dog, that allow breeding trends to go further away from the ideal structure.

Without addressing those by changing the standard, the parent breed club obviously does not care a whole lot for functionality. They are in charge of the standard, if they cared, they would change it.

Instead they have chosen to include these various things in the standard, that I have plucked out in no particular order, to hopefully show you the hypocrisy, that I was trying to relay to you in that first post. The standard often IS the problem. they will put all this crap in there, but not add things that will punish glaring faults for wokrability, that you have pointed out.

_"A tail up to two inches in length is allowed,* but if carried high tends to spoil the contour of the topline.*"_

_"White is acceptable on legs, chest, neck (either in part or as a collar), muzzle, underparts *and as a narrow blaze on head*."_

*"Very Serious Faults:

...Mismarks--Self colors with any area of white on the back between withers and tail, on sides between elbows and back of hindquarters, or on ears. Black with white markings and no tan present."
*

_"Head 
The head should be foxy in shape and appearance. Expression--Intelligent and interested, but not sly. Skull--should be fairly wide and flat between the ears. Moderate amount of stop. Very slight rounding of cheek, not filled in below the eyes, as foreface should be nicely chiseled to give a somewhat tapered muzzle. Distance from occiput to center of stop to be greater than the distance from stop to nose tip, the proportion being five parts of total distance for the skull and three parts for the foreface. Muzzle should be neither dish-faced nor Roman-nosed. Eyes-Oval, medium in size, not round, nor protruding, nor deepset and piglike. Set somewhat obliquely. Variations of brown in harmony with coat color. Eye rims dark, preferably black. While dark eyes enhance the expression, true black eyes are most undesirable, as are yellow or bluish eyes. Ears-Erect, firm, and of medium size, tapering slightly to a rounded point. Ears are mobile, and react sensitively to sounds. A line drawn from the nose tip through the eyes to the ear tips, and across, should form an approximate equilateral triangle. Bat ears, small catlike ears, overly large weak ears, hooded ears, ears carried too high or too low, are undesirable. Button, rose or drop ears are very serious faults. Nose--Black and fully pigmented. Mouth--Scissors bite, the inner side of the upper incisors touching the outer side of the lower incisors. Level bite is acceptable. Overshot or undershot bite is a very serious fault. Lips--Black, tight with little or no fullness."_


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> I am not very articulate about what I am trying to ask.
> 
> Both people that show and work dogs should be looking for the same thing. The breed standard. Why can't you have both a strong dog that works at something and one that meets the standard physically and with health?
> 
> Are the show people hesitant to step into a working venue or vice versa?


IMO for dobermans its because much of the standard is a bag of shite and also because of this:







.

and the type of owner associated with it, in vast numbers.

In the UK believe it or not there is at least one staffordshire bull terrier working as a police patrol dog


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I know you are focused on herding, and are interested in possbily breeding GSD in the future.

I remember us talking about various testing, things I mentioned that I might test with a GSD that are outside of herding. Becuase you seemed to assume that you KNOW certain things about your dogs, and the GSD, without ever testing them. You have realted in aso many words that you feel that the herding aspect will promote and improve the other aspects on its own, or seemingly so.

You said that the dogs have to have courage to confront the stock, and seemed to think that immediately translates into courage confronting/fighting people...I said that courage to confront animals and people is a apples and oranges.
I said I might test the dog by having it hunt down and confront/fight someone in the dark in the woods, or a dark basement away from its handler...You said your dogs are not scared of the woods, basements or the dark, ans seemingly laughed off what I was trying to get through to you.

Just as you like to point out the lack of focus on the herding aspect, which is one of the least relevant functions of the working GSD currently in regards to functions of current working GSD's, you also seem to show a disdain for creating good sport and police type GSD, which are the most relevant functions in today's society for the GSD.

You also are not a huge fan of bitework, sport work, or police work, at least that without the herding requirements, as you want the "total package"or so it seems anyhow, so what would be your breed stock testing procedures look like, in regards to things outside of herding?


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> T...if they were working livestock everday of thier life, they would not choose a Malinois. and you can take it too the bank, a dog that wins a FR III championship, weak pasterns or other structural defects would be noticed, do you have any idea how much physical activity, running , jumping, climbing ,turning, stopping, a dog would go through in the training, to win an FR III championship? Far more than what you are doing with your herding I would bet.


This again.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Matt Vandart said:


> IMO for dobermans its because much of the standard is a bag of shite and also because of this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Matt,

If there is a docked tail and cropped ears under the Elmo costume, then it's OK. Nothing is more important then a nice docked tail and a nice long show crop to show a Dobermann can protect its owner :-(


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> YOU ARE WRONG, for putting words in my mouth. I never said that at all.
> what I said was :
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

It's cookie monster not elmo. Don't judge a dog by it's cookie monster outfit now... That's what this whole thread is about. 

Couldn't that be a nice working puppy under the cookie monster suit?



Thomas Barriano said:


> Matt,
> 
> If there is a docked tail and cropped ears under the Elmo costume, then it's OK. Nothing is more important then a nice docked tail and a nice long show crop to show a Dobermann can protect its owner :-(


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I know you are focused on herding, and are interested in possbily breeding GSD in the future.
> 
> I remember us talking about various testing, things I mentioned that I might test with a GSD that are outside of herding. Becuase you seemed to assume that you KNOW certain things about your dogs, and the GSD, without ever testing them. You have realted in aso many words that you feel that the herding aspect will promote and improve the other aspects on its own, or seemingly so.
> 
> ...


You keep wanting to revisit the same thing over and over and over again.

1. I don't really think in terms of breeding GSDs any more. That was something I discarded 25 years ago. After more than 10 years I have finally seen a line of dogs I think is exciting on a lot of levels. 

2. I didn't laugh off anything. I was surprised it was an issue based on the dogs I've lived with throughout my life and seen tested in those very situations. But from what I've seen even in the last year, traits I used to count on as a given have gone to hell and and hand basket. So test to your heart's content. 

3. Tell the truth if you want to discuss something. I don't disdain the working function of a GSD in any regard. I look more to LE to define that function than sport. I don't look to herding trialists/sport to define livestock work either. Sport is sport. Work is work. 

4. Did I say I would never test them. I told you I believe in the instinct of my dogs. Were I breeding dogs, I would test them but its not just as an artificial set up. I believe in my ability to read my personal dogs in terms of instinct and how they view situations. Personally from a sport point of view, I find PSA the most interesting. If I were into testing for breeding, I would study up on what LE does in terms of testing. Have tried to track that on the forum. Rather than sport, I would like to see LE/MWD certification process for breeding individuals--maybe along the lines of what Mike Suttle and David have described as their selection criteria. Get Howard Knauf involved in that as well. Given Stefan's background, I'm sure he has valuable input as well. I'm much more interested in what LE and Military have to say regarding what they need than the various sports or so called PPD. I'd love to see some of the police dog trials similar to what Gary Garner was participating in I think. What I consider necessary for a breeding program of guard/protection dogs is different from what I need for my personal pet herding dog. But that said, I think any breeder should know the character of their dogs and LIVE with them. Testing: livestock, LE type certification, instinct, and what they are like to live with. 

5. I have never said that stock courage translated to man courage. What I have said is that if its nervy or stock, chances are its nervy in bite work and vice versa. This is generally for dogs of a combined protection/herding heritage and the unconditioned/trained dog. As Bob has stated, I wanted to test Thunder on stock because of what I liked about his bitework. I also predicted how the other dogs would respond to stock based on how they presented in the bite work. What you know of fighting breeds doesn't begin to prepare you for what's involved in a stock dog. Fighting breed history and herding/guard breed history are apples and oranges in terms of selection and traits desired so this may be a hard concept for you. 

6. Sorry, herding isn't any more irrelevant than sport in terms of the mental package the breed is supposed to have. That's your conclusion and the conclusion of others who have the same bias who don't understand what the dog needs or needed for the herding function. I at least maintain that the GSD ought to have the ability to do both. 

7. I am a fan of bitework done a certain way and the protection aspects of the GSD must be maintained in the breed along with its herding function for the breed to be true to its heritage--or so I believe. I completely disagreed with eliminating the protection phase from the HGH and believe that Sch in practice has become too watered dog and isn't necessarily a good breed selection test as it was intended to be. I think the good breeders rely on their own testing to proof their breeding stock, not just the trial field. I think the LE/MWD function has changed since the inception of the breed and that's something one may have to accept. I'd be interested in hearing from someone like Stefan in terms of what he has seen of dogs of his breeding program who have served in those functions and has he modified his testing to address that. Doesn't mean I want to lose other aspects of the breed in favor of that. Again, before I decided on all that, I'd have to spend some time with LE to understand their needs and testing. It comes down to the life of the single purpose and dual purpose dog.

From the SV/FCI translation-- of which I completely agree with:

_*Character :* The German Shepherd Dog must be well-balanced (with strong nerves) in terms of character, self-assured, absolutely natural and (except for a stimulated situation) good-natured as well as attentive and willing to please. He must possess instinctive behaviour, resilience and self-assurance in order to be suitable as a companion, guard, protection, service and herding dog._

Just like Thunder caught my eye years ago, there's another protection sport GSD that I'd love to know more about and test on livestock--Joe Parks' PSA II dog Moses. I've only seem him at trials so would like to know and see more of him but he caught my eye the first time I watched him--just something about him. There's a couple of protection sport line bitches that I want to get around to testing on stock as soon as I can set it up. I'd like to also go down and observe their bite work training. And then there is that one in Minnesota. . .

I have argued in herding circles for years that a protection sport/line GSD with correct instinct and drives was just as correct for herding as any other dog. Thank you Bob for allowing me to prove that with Thunder who has fantastic herding, livestock containment and management INSTINCT as I thought he would, from observing the protection training. I have no doubt that the Triton dog, Doc could work just as well. Notice I picked out two out of the entire club as the ones with potential. A third looked to have some awesome stock potential but I seriously questioned the protection potential at the age and based on the history of his line didn't think you could really know until that dog was 3-5 years old--so not a complete dog for me and a gamble at that time. 

Now that boy wonder is off to college in a few months and I don't spend 3-4 days a week on the road, assuming the right dog and decoy come into my life, ideally I'd like to see the next GSD bitch in my life herding and protection sport titled. In preparation for that, I've spent a lot of time on this forum, seminars and observing trials to look at what I would prefer for that potential dog. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Thanks for selectively responding to me..its a start..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Terrasita Cuffie said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for selectively responding to me..its a start..
> ...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Joby Becker said:
> 
> 
> > Joby,
> ...


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

If we take the standard for breeds like dobe,GSDs etc they describe a workingdog in character, dogs that should be able to do servicework. This is all we need to know really, how breeders should make sure they maintain those qualities I suppose the breedstandard can´t decide, this is depending on the breedingrules,korungs and sports available in a certain country. Also the breeders themselves of course.

Terrasita, read you asked about the swedish system, this only means we don´t follow the german breedsurvey and conformation requirements. The basic rules all must follow is just a temperament test and HD/ED-free, then it´s up to the breeder if he breeds to a policedog,sportdog or whatever the titles the dog have or not have besides the basic. However the breeders into working will naturally breeds dogs that has what it takes to fullfill his goal, structurally and mentally. 

The difference I suppose is in germany they have tighter conformationrestrictions and most/all dogs are from SCH, no servicedogs or dogs from other venues, correct me if I´m wrong. Personnaly I think some of german dogs are a bit to "pretty" nowadays, some not so far from the showdogs in structure. 

Some titles here also demands showratings, the title workingchampion needs a certain showrating, the swedish körung involves a detailed description on structure and so on according to the breedstandard, but there is not so much personal taste, you are more bound to follow a protocoll and just check if the dog fulfills that. Most dogs are able to pass the conformation part on the korung, if they don´t it´s no big deal because you can still breed the dog and his results on the mental part of korung is still registred. A dog is still allowed to breed if he looks like the old school more malinois type of structure in other words.

As an example, this dog has an approved selectiontest by the police, also the korung but not approved in the conformation part for some reasons, but if a dog looks like this and have both endurance, explosivness and still healthy at an older age, is he to ugly to be breed, would he pass the german breedsurvey I wonder, or is his structure or other more less important things like pigment etc not good enough for a breedingdog, scroll down for pictures

http://www.krokasmeden.com/avelshanar/figo/figo.htm


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Erik Berg said:


> If we take the standard for breeds like dobe,GSDs etc they describe a workingdog in character, dogs that should be able to do servicework. This is all we need to know really, how breeders should make sure they maintain those qualities I suppose the breedstandard can´t decide, this is depending on the breedingrules,korungs and sports available in a certain country. Also the breeders themselves of course.
> 
> Terrasita, read you asked about the swedish system, this only means we don´t follow the german breedsurvey and conformation requirements. The basic rules all must follow is just a temperament test and HD/ED-free, then it´s up to the breeder if he breeds to a policedog,sportdog or whatever the titles the dog have or not have besides the basic. However the breeders into working will naturally breeds dogs that has what it takes to fullfill his goal, structurally and mentally.
> 
> ...


I'd still prefer to take conformation out of the picture, but I like this idea a lot if I'm understanding it correctly.

The point is still that no working breeders even give more than a second thought to structure, because good working dogs will always have good structure. We don't need to evaluate it if the dogs can continuously compete in any sport or working venue.

Also, I don't think being a police dog means that said dog is a good and/or breedable dog. And in that case, you're probably dealing with a ton of outcrossing, which no GSD breeder wants to do, so using that as a standard of temperament testing as opposed to sport seems highly flawed to me.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Katie Finlay said:


> I'd still prefer to take conformation out of the picture, but I like this idea a lot if I'm understanding it correctly.
> 
> The point is still that no working breeders even give more than a second thought to structure, because good working dogs will always have good structure. We don't need to evaluate it if the dogs can continuously compete in any sport or working venue.
> 
> Also, I don't think being a police dog means that said dog is a good and/or breedable dog. *And in that case, you're probably dealing with a ton of outcrossing, which no GSD breeder wants to do,* so using that as a standard of temperament testing as opposed to sport seems highly flawed to me.


Could you explain the bolded for me please?

Dave: there could be a really good working dog under there I hope it is TBH but it's unlikely because:

A: it's a doberman
B: what i am eluding to is the way the temperament in the majority has been tempered to the point of soft/nervy/cutsey/lazy etc by fat old ladies who seen to make up the majority of dobe breeders and the dogs are owned by college kids. But you probably already know this.

I have seen bollox like 'You don't need to train a doberman to bite, they are naturally protective' and similar on breeders webpages, because basically they are ignorant and or can't be bothered to attempt to title their breeding stock.

There are some good breeders though so I am not tarring them all with the same brush.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Katie, outcrossing or not is not depending on the work/titles a dog has. A high scoring sportdog can be just as unsuited for breeding as a random policedog. It´s in the end up to the breeder to evaluate a dog beyond the info a test or sporttitle gives you, if they can´t do that then no system is good enough. But often it´s the policedogs with good tests or reputations that is used in breedings, not just any random dog from unknown pedigree or littermates.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

A lot of police dogs are not "purebred" dogs. They've had other breeds mixed in at some point in the not-too-distant past. Especially if you're talking about the KNPV lines of the breeds.

Erik, Terrasita said that she'd rather see breeders using dogs from police departments than sport dogs because it's a better test of the dog. I disagree. And if we're talking about GSDs, I definitely do not think as many as we'd like are 100% GSD all the way back.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Yes, of course there are policedogs that aren´t purebred, but I´m talking about GSDs or other pedigreed breeds, not unregistred KNPV-dogs. Yes, I think a dog who has passed both selectiontests, certificationprogram and have worked the streets is more proven than a sportdog. But just as there are some sportdogs that are better than others(depending on your breedinggoals) there are police dogs that is less good, hence just because a dog has titles I still want to see the dog myself, or a as customer may feel a certain dog despite his titles is not what I like. 

Some very good producers have been policedogs or maybe just passed a selectiontest, or korung, some sportdogs are breed more for their titles or people think they are good according to their view. But all this is of course depending also what type of minimum testing we talk about, but sportdogs with titles and high scores doesn´t mean they always can pass a required selectiontest performed by the police.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> A lot of police dogs are not "purebred" dogs. They've had other breeds mixed in at some point in the not-too-distant past. Especially if you're talking about the KNPV lines of the breeds.
> 
> Erik, Terrasita said that she'd rather see breeders using dogs from police departments than sport dogs because it's a better test of the dog. I disagree. And if we're talking about GSDs, I definitely do not think as many as we'd like are 100% GSD all the way back.


 
First of all, that's not what I said. Geez. I said AS A BREEDER, I'd like to work with LE to determine suitability for police protection/detection work based on some type of uniform testing.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Erik Berg said:


> Yes, of course there are policedogs that aren´t purebred, but I´m talking about GSDs or other pedigreed breeds, not unregistred KNPV-dogs. Yes, I think a dog who has passed both selectiontests, certificationprogram and have worked the streets is more proven than a sportdog. But just as there are some sportdogs that are better than others(depending on your breedinggoals) there are police dogs that is less good, hence just because a dog has titles I still want to see the dog myself, or a as customer may feel a certain dog despite his titles is not what I like.
> 
> Some very good producers have been policedogs or maybe just passed a selectiontest, or korung, some sportdogs are breed more for their titles or people think they are good according to their view. But all this is of course depending also what type of minimum testing we talk about, but sportdogs with titles and high scores doesn´t mean they always can pass a required selectiontest performed by the police.


+1.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Erik Berg said:


> Yes, of course there are policedogs that aren´t purebred, but I´m talking about GSDs or other pedigreed breeds, not unregistred KNPV-dogs. Yes, I think a dog who has passed both selectiontests, certificationprogram and have worked the streets is more proven than a sportdog. But just as there are some sportdogs that are better than others(depending on your breedinggoals) there are police dogs that is less good, hence just because a dog has titles I still want to see the dog myself, or a as customer may feel a certain dog despite his titles is not what I like.
> 
> Some very good producers have been policedogs or maybe just passed a selectiontest, or korung, some sportdogs are breed more for their titles or people think they are good according to their view. But all this is of course depending also what type of minimum testing we talk about, but sportdogs with titles and high scores doesn´t mean they always can pass a required selectiontest performed by the police.


I get that. I guess then it goes down to what makes a good dog for each individual person. The police dogs I know and the people I've talked to who do the protection training on them for a living don't have very good things to say other than that the dogs bite. That's all they want to do is bite. Very nervy and very sharp. To me that's not a stable dog.

I think the precision required for IPO obedience says a lot about the temperament of the dog. Sometimes more than the protection work. 

Just like working titles don't mean it's a good dog, the PSD and MWD labels don't mean they're good dogs either.

Just my opinion.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You keep wanting to revisit the same thing over and over and over again.
> 
> 1. I don't really think in terms of breeding GSDs any more. That was something I discarded 25 years ago. After more than 10 years I have finally seen a line of dogs I think is exciting on a lot of levels.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

T, I enjoyed it as much as you did and will always respect your judgement. I didn't doubt it in the beginning but you DID make a believer out of me when it came to the requirements for Schutzhund is very similar to herding!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby,

I don't care what "line" you call it if the dog can work. I know you have your PPD sensitivities but really for LE function, I'd look to an LE people. How often is the PPD's training tested? I'm sure a good helper that can read a dog can help with scenario testing but I'd want LE to define the scenario since they encounter them. As I said, work is work and sport is sport. In herding, chores are easier to train than paw step obedience placement used in trials. Like I've said we have many herding trial champions that couldn't load a trailer or have the fight drive to deal with the ram that's trying to bash its brains in. Just had a long conversation with my buddy about his aussie. Its lambing season and the dog has shut down again. Can't handle the pressure and confrontation of the ewes. He could make a great AKC trial dog on sheep and ducks but in close contact with ewes and working rams, he's a liability. I have a dog here now that my husband found on the street with a leg broke in two places. I have no idea what "line" he came from and he is an awesome herding dog with great nerves and general temperament. Lines have relevance to breeding when you can find a true line. You missed that I based the decision to test the herding on the dog's performance in the bite work, not vice versa. I don't ever assume anything when it comes to breeding decisions. Once again, on my "personal pet herding dog," which has nothing to do with breeding, do I need a PPD or any other test to assure that it will guard/protect me with man? NO!!! I'll take my chances. I see no reason to train a PPD. I'll take my chances on instinct and I want the dog to have instinct. It either has it or it doesn't and if it does, it extends to man and beast. Like it or not or believe it or not, that's what I believe for protection guard herding breeds. I don't go through life thinking I need a body guard. If I really believed that, it does come down to an alert dog and a gun and the ability and knowledge to use it. If someone really wants me they know the dogs are here and they'll come prepared to deal with them. 

I have nothing against sport, protection or otherwise. I've participated in it. But the reality is that ability to do sport don't equal the ability to do work and vice versa. For me calling it working line means you strive for it to be able to do work---farm/ranch and everything implicit in that and LE, Military, service dog--GSD standard. To maintain those abilities, you must rigorously test. I think people like David Frost, Howard Knauf, Melody Greba, the Lydas, Will Fernandez and a couple of new guys that have joined the forum know what the LE dog faces in their working life. Mike Suttle seems to do MWD, LE, and Customs. The people who have their a** on the line know what they need and know what has been successful. I know what keeps me safe with what I do and I have zero tolerance for anything flaky in those situations. So I think the working line breeders should look to input from those people when they are evaluating their dogs for so called work. Now if you are just into sport, you may be breeding for a different type of dog and maybe you'll let the sport folks define what the dogs need. Different strokes for different folks.

T


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> I get that. I guess then it goes down to what makes a good dog for each individual person. The police dogs I know and the people I've talked to who do the protection training on them for a living don't have very good things to say other than that the dogs bite. That's all they want to do is bite. Very nervy and very sharp. To me that's not a stable dog.
> 
> I think the precision required for IPO obedience says a lot about the temperament of the dog. Sometimes more than the protection work.
> 
> ...


Yes, as I said no title says a dog is super for breeding, just look at all showlines with pedigrees full of SCH3, so in the end it´s also up to the breeder and customer what they think is a nice dog or not, and not just breed a dog because it have a certain title KNPV/SCH/police etc. Breeders choose the dogs they like regardless of the titles, this is true also if the dog has sporttitles and competes on a championship level. So if the dog is a policedog or working with his handler as a PP-dog for securitywork, this is less intressting to me, they both needs to pass the same selectiontest, the policedogs has more advanced certificationprogram, but you as the breeder must be able to see which dog has the qualities you like.

But I also talks about policedogs here, where the selectiontests is quite uniform and the certificationprogram is the same for all dogs, so yes a policedog may not mean the same in selection and certification depending where you live in the world. Very nervy and very sharp will not pass any selectiontest for policeuse here.

The certificationprogram is also only a minimun what a dog should be able to do, is more about seeing the handler has a level of training and controll on the dog. But just as an example, a policedog in his certification should be able to track in terrain for 2000 meters, hardsurface tracking for a few hundred meters, also building search and search outside in the terrain for people plus article search. So only that part comprehends much more than the nosework part in SCH3, then it´s obedience and bitework also.

In an ideal world every breedingdog should pass titles/test that says much about the working qualities of the dog, but this is not possible if there aren´t enough people intressted in training dogs to that level. So we can´t rely too much on titles. As it is today I don´t think a SCH-title demands enough for securing the structral soundness and workingability a dog needs to be able to work hard a long life. If this was true we wouldn´t see workinglines that more and more looks like a showdog, and not the structure that was common when the GSD was created and functional structure was a fact based on many generations of real work and no regard for structural details that is not so much about soundness rather than subjective opinions how a dog should look according to the standard.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

For GSD its hard to find a good measuring stick for rating a good dog. KNPV is not exportable
Service dogs of America is too rare,Ring sport are too sporty for me. PSA may be a good option but no GSD has ever gotten past PSA I that I am aware of...also there is no nose work to speak of..... so that really leaves Schtuzhund/IPO for most....rightly or wrongly thats just what is most practical for most GSD owners.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Why is there such a disconnect between working dogs and show dogs? Is it the goal of the two groups that differ and the problem? If so, isnt there a breed standard that includes working ability that the showline people should be obliged to stick with?
> 
> We know working dog people care about breeds, or they wouldn't look to breed two malinois together and care so much about pedigree. they'd take two good working dogs and breed them, right?
> 
> i have seen some fantastic shepherd mal crosses that I assumed were the result of breeding two good dogs, not an accident or caring about pedigrees.


Aren't these "fantastic" GSD - Mal crosses a "one-off" just like the lurcher in GB?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Ben Thompson said:


> For GSD its hard to find a good measuring stick for rating a good dog. KNPV is not exportable
> Service dogs of America is too rare,Ring sport are too sporty for me. PSA may be a good option but no GSD has ever gotten past PSA I that I am aware of...also there is no nose work to speak of..... so that really leaves Schtuzhund/IPO for most....rightly or wrongly thats just what is most practical for most GSD owners.


I met a retired police dude that was a dog handler/trainer and got talking to him about selection for them. (Wales, specifically dyfed powys police)
He said that they kept away from schutzhund generally and looked to working trials for their dogs.
He trains dogs for the blind now as a side note, lolz.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Erik,

Do you have a link to the Swedish police dog selection test?

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Erik,
> 
> Do you have a link to the Swedish police dog selection test?
> 
> T


might keep you entertained until Erik gets here..

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f23/swedish-protection-police-dog-tests-22815/

there are some of the non-police and police/security tests videos in that thread.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

See, in an ideal world I don't really think there should be breeding tests to determine suitability. That's what we have for the GSD and Rottweiler...not going so well.

As Joby and I said before, if you breed dogs that work well in real-world or sport venues, they're going to be structurally sound.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Terrasita, think the link joby linked to explained it pretty well, civilian tests and the selectiontests required for police and dogs working with securityhandlers. In short the selectiontest can only be judged by policehandlers educated for judging the test, the results on the traits tested, prey,hunt,environmental sensitivity etc combined with a a rather lenghty written review/conclusion is put on a document/protocoll that breeders that have dogs tested in such a test often have on their website. Think I posted this dog before, but he has no showtitles, don´t think this is his whole test and it was a few years ago now, but he was a working PSD and have been used in breedings quite much, especially thru his sons, so this is an example of a policedog that have produced better than more famous titled SCH-dogs, so being to stuck on titles and not on what a dog produce may not be so good,
http://www.bobbyochnikita.se/video/ltest_bosco_med6.wmv

For breeding I think a potential stud that has been tested on such a test and also has a some form of workingtitle like SCH/KNPV/security/police is as good as it get´s when speaking of titles and how to evaluate breedingdogs, the rest is up to the breeders to evaluate. It also gives the customers some form of proof a certain dog is quite good. Like this dog, works security and also is a good dog in the swedish program, as far as accomplishment this is good, but demands it on every breedingdog needs more people doing high level sport I suppose, a commercial for securiywork with dogs, the dog in question is the one between about the 2min-5.14 mark, same dog at the end of the film, very nice structure according to me,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq4OKXWrLW4

Katie, yes in theory titles and tests may not be necessary, if a breeder knows what a good workingdog is and has a good chance to evaluate his breedings, I see titles and tests more for the customer and also a way for he breeder to get some info on what he produces. To be able to do this I guess a breeder must have tools to evaluate the dogs, if he not in person are going to test and train most of what he produces. 

There are different options depending on where you live when it comes to sport and tests, SCH is avaliable for most in europe I suppose, but you also have other sports and tests besides that, KNPV in holland, french ring in france, swedish program I guess is the ones that have had some influence in their respective countries if talking about GSD breeding. So only SCH and the german breedsurvey is not so influential/required everywhere, being able to use "real" workingdogs is also good if there is some form of rather hard quality check on those. Speaking of SCH only I don´t think this necessary proof sound structure, if it did why are showlooking dogs creeping up in the working GSD from german lines , never see that in mals or GSD lines not so ruled by conformation regulations. A SCH dog that is healthy in many years and have a healthy sound structure is another deal, but it´s not to uncommon to title a dog and then it´s used for stud, or? Who knows if such dogs are healthy if they are worked regulary up to an older age.


----------

