# Interesting little article, working vs show lines genetics



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

http://sakury.weebly.com/uploads/1/...herd_lines_are_genetically_differen_final.pdf


----------



## Teemu Saarinen (Oct 27, 2011)

Yea that's Finnish professor who did that discovery. Everyone here should read this.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Interesting indeed, wish someone would do this for Dobermans......


----------



## Meg O'Donovan (Aug 20, 2012)

Also interesting was a future application suggested in the study-- genetic screening to enhance selection of dogs fit for the purpose intended.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

it is interesting.....

Is there a larger, in-depth publication on this study? Not really concerned about the science of DNA in the study, but more interested to take a look at the pedigrees of the small sample of 62 dogs.

As I read what is published in the article, it seems that the variations could be more influenced by familial genetic factors, as opposed to "type" of dog.

When the study says 3 lines of dogs, I am reading that as just that, possibly only a study of 3 lines of dogs, meaning 3 families of dogs.

If that is the case, this doesnt seem to groundbreaking to me.

Just as there are differences between breeds genetically, it only seems logical that there would be differences between families of dogs, if bred in certain ways, as many separate pure-breed dogs are formed initially from small breeding pools of familial relation...

It is interesting in the fact that "breeds" of dogs have a greater diversity in genetics than races of humans do, but what is this study really saying, if the previous statement is true? 

I would guess that similar results could possibly appear if looking at samples of just working line dogs in a study, or just show line dogs in a study, that have differing genetic backgrounds between sample groups, with little to no relation between eachother, but with each study group individually, possessing a related gene pool.

I am not a scientist, but does it address this possibility in the article anywhere? that the results may not just be from relation? and what do they really mean when they say 3 "lines" of dogs?

could the same results not be gotten by taking a look at the genomes from 3 different working line families, that have been bred differently, with no common ancestors being anywhere close in the pedigrees? I dont know....but sure seems like it could be...

anyone have a link to the list of dogs used? and the pedigrees?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

"genetics" can either be viewed scientifically at a molecular level or subjectively by human opinions based on a variety of physical and performance factors. both methods seem to have their strengths and weaknesses. seems to me, the more they can be combined, the better we can understand the subject. too much of either seems like a waste of time
- so far the scientific side has been lacking. glad to see that may be changing
- still trying to digest this study and i can't seem to get a clear take away yet
- i don't understand if a thousand owners participated, how come only 62 were measured ? i must be missing something.
- i would like to see a list of the breeders who participated too
- identification and isolation of genetic diseases seemed to be the original purpose and there seems to be a lot of progress in that area, but still very little that is definitive for the genetics of working performance

my basic problem with genetics is that temperaments seem to be harder to identify genetically than conformation and other physical characteristics.
- which might be why it seems to be easier to breed for color rather than character ?
- and why show dog breeders seem more genetically savvy than working dog breeders ?
- and why working breeders rarely discuss genetics from a scientific viewpoint ?

thanks for posting this. I gotta read it a few more times. hope it gets some discussion. seems like a lot more worthwhile topic than the "3000 looks at a banned user" thread //lol//


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

> - and why show dog breeders seem more genetically savvy than working dog breeders ?


I've never heard anyone say this before. Interesting.



> - and why working breeders rarely discuss genetics from a scientific viewpoint ?


Because they're all about the pragmatic results? What it takes to "gitter done", and worried less about politics, image, money. Consider the varied effectiveness of societal "types" of breeders, involving the _overall_ and _minor differences _in approach to breeding between the Belgians, Dutch, French, Czechs...


----------



## patricia powers (Nov 14, 2010)

i have a bit of a problem with this study. if we could assume that sl & wl actually originated from different lines, yet contained certain similar traits, the study would be more valuable. since we know this is not the case, that they did in fact originate from exactly the same dogs, all it indicates is that the differences in the lines have occurred because of selective breeding. a fact we are only too well aware of already. like, rick, i can't quite get a handle on what we are supposed to be getting from this. maybe i'm trying too hard or looking too deep. pjp


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

rick smith said:


> my basic problem with genetics is that temperaments seem to be harder to identify genetically than conformation and other physical characteristics.



now THAT would be cool! A study for genetic markers of behavioural traits, which for most of us of significance might be type of grip, level of drives, possessiveness, etc etc Ariel's nature vs nurture thread


----------



## vicki dickey (Jul 5, 2011)

I took a ton of heat on this forum because I choose my last puppy from champion show lines over "working" lines. I wanted a pup that could do it all from conformation to obedience,rally and agility so I checked out the show lines. The only difference I can see between the working lines and the show lines in my breed would be larger bones, broader head, just a prettier dog. Intelligence is there, disposition is great, attitude wonderful and even with the bigger bones and compact body this pup is unbelievably athletic and agile and can go all day and that gene that has that herding ability didn't miss her either. I didn't get much from this article at all but I will reread it again.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

vicki dickey said:


> I took a ton of heat on this forum because I choose my last puppy from champion show lines over "working" lines. I wanted a pup that could do it all from conformation to obedience,rally and agility so I checked out the show lines. The only difference I can see between the working lines and the show lines in my breed would be larger bones, broader head, just a prettier dog. Intelligence is there, disposition is great, attitude wonderful and even with the bigger bones and compact body this pup is unbelievably athletic and agile and can go all day and that gene that has that herding ability didn't miss her either. I didn't get much from this article at all but I will reread it again.


you dont see any differences aside from those, because what you are doing does not require the traits that might make a much more clear distinction if called upon for intensive use to what you are doing with the dogs.

conformation, obedience and agility can be done with dogs that are lacking in certain areas, whereas other jobs may require traits that your SL dog might be lacking..


----------



## vicki dickey (Jul 5, 2011)

She is a herding breed and yes I had her with sheep at Purina and that trait is present and working. Of course I do not know if her siblings have the herding trait. And I might point out that in this litter of two Grand Champion show dogs there were throw backs from the working lines that are way back in the pedigree. They did not have the bone structure or body of the show lines. Many years ago there wasn't anything like show or working lines-so they all come from the same beginning. From my understanding breeders who wanted to "improve" the breed would select dogs with the desired traits and breed those thus getting bigger bones, broader heads, etc. I don't see how this would necessarily breed out the herding trait. Of course we all hope breeders are selective enough to not only breed for looks, but also intelligence, disposition, health and the ability to perform the job they are intended to do. In my breed I thought the bigger boned dogs might not be able to work all day herding or have the agile movement needed to do the job. It certainly is not the case with the pup I have so I was wrong there. Honestly I really cant see any difference between her and my working bred dogs except in the look departments. And I have to say it is very nice to have a dog that is beautiful, moves like a dream and can do everything it was bred to do too.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

If I understood it correctly, they found 'markers' that were only in the show lines, markers that were only in the working lines and the bit of both dogs contained some of both.
I think the point they are making is that the characteristics required for working, including temperament may be something that can be found as 'markers' in the genome, essentially taking the guesswork out of it, even within a litter.


----------



## patricia powers (Nov 14, 2010)

vicki, we have had a few sl, a few wl sl cross, and a bunch of wl. some folks would like to think sl dogs cannot work, have bad nerves, etc etc etc. this is just as false as believing all wl dogs are suitable for work. anyone who really knows the breed, knows that each dog MUST be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses. i have seen and had some really nice dogs from both wl & sl. infact, i used to make jokes about our sl dog being the only real working dog on the place & that the wl dogs were all sport dogs.  i miss that fella so much. we lost him a yr & a half ago. no other dog will fill his paw prints. you would not have taken heat from me over your choice as i am honest enough to admit that both types of dogs have their fine points & both have liabilities. each of us have to decide for ourselves what type of dog meets our needs & what we can live with. others cannot/shouldnot decide what is good for us as individuals. 
pjp
***take a look at how many sl dogs are used as narc dogs or military dogs. i realize there are more wl dogs, mals & dutches, but if sl dogs were truly worthless, you wouldn't see any


----------



## vicki dickey (Jul 5, 2011)

patricia powers said:


> vicki, we have had a few sl, a few wl sl cross, and a bunch of wl. some folks would like to think sl dogs cannot work, have bad nerves, etc etc etc. this is just as false as believing all wl dogs are suitable for work. anyone who really knows the breed, knows that each dog MUST be evaluated on their own merits and weaknesses. i have seen and had some really nice dogs from both wl & sl. infact, i used to make jokes about our sl dog being the only real working dog on the place & that the wl dogs were all sport dogs.  i miss that fella so much. we lost him a yr & a half ago. no other dog will fill his paw prints. you would not have taken heat from me over your choice as i am honest enough to admit that both types of dogs have their fine points & both have liabilities. each of us have to decide for ourselves what type of dog meets our needs & what we can live with. others cannot/shouldnot decide what is good for us as individuals.
> pjp
> ***take a look at how many sl dogs are used as narc dogs or military dogs. i realize there are more wl dogs, mals & dutches, but if sl dogs were truly worthless, you wouldn't see any


*Exactly you just said it better than I could-thank you.*


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the topic of this thread is the study indicating there are genetic differences between working line GSDs and show line GSDs:

Anyway, I originally read this paper published on the RSV2000 website. The authors then provided further clarification regarding their study on the genetic difference between working and show line GSDs, which you can read here:

http://www.rsv2000.de/export/sites/...ifications-to-the-genetic-differentiation.pdf

I'm not surprised, nor are many of my friends. The lines have been split for many generations now, the dogs don't look the same, they don't move the same, they don't act the same and they most definitely don't have the same drives or abilities. This should not come as a shock to anyone, since the two factions have decidedly different goals for their respective preference. 

I would like to see the split formalized, as has been done in many other breeds.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the topic of this thread is the study indicating there are genetic differences between working line GSDs and show line GSDs:
> 
> Anyway, I originally read this paper published on the RSV2000 website. The authors then provided further clarification regarding their study on the genetic difference between working and show line GSDs, which you can read here:
> 
> ...


That's what I got out of it. Really interesting, and also not surprising. They really do look like different breeds for the most part.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

vicki dickey said:


> I took a ton of heat on this forum because I choose my last puppy from champion show lines over "working" lines. I wanted a pup that could do it all from conformation to obedience,rally and agility so I checked out the show lines. The only difference I can see between the working lines and the show lines in my breed would be larger bones, broader head, just a prettier dog. Intelligence is there, disposition is great, attitude wonderful and even with the bigger bones and compact body this pup is unbelievably athletic and agile and can go all day and that gene that has that herding ability didn't miss her either. I didn't get much from this article at all but I will reread it again.


Not directed at you particularly, but I'd like to see more show line Aussies on cattle. I feel like I only see working lines on cattle and it takes a much harder dog, so to speak. Granted, I only have an HT on my Corgi and have never personally worked cattle. I'm gonna have to look up some videos now!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I have seen some working line dogs that have gorgeous breed type and structure so I disagree with the don't look the same. I select dogs for the work I do out of show line pedigrees so I don't really get into the two different breeds distinctions either. That said, Vicky, the Purina sheep and instinct test will not tell you the entire story on your dog's working ability. Have seen my share of working and showline aussies and there are differences from a working standpoint. There is also a HUGE difference between what a dog sees in terms of AKC trial work and farm work. It takes several seasons and introductions to all facets of the work to determine the total herding package. It is getting tougher and tougher to find the right dogs in those show line pedigrees. Dogs are getting softer and softer and not up to dealing with ewes/lambs, evil rams or cattle that defy the dog. For me, until that dog has demonstrated his ability to stay in the game with that type of stock, I'm not ready to declare how strong his instinct and/or working abiities are. I watched some of the ASCA trials this weekend and yes, there was a difference between working and show line dogs in terms of certain working and herding traits. I've worked and trained both and there is a difference. I like a pretty dog and I love good movement but at the end of the day, I want the dog that can get the job done, put it on the ine and keep me safe. Talk to any farmer or rancher and they will tell you the same thing. I see negatives in both camps at the moment and at times decding between the two is damned if you do and damned if you don't. 

The article posted on the Finnish study didn't really say much as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to look at the the other link posted.

T


----------



## vicki dickey (Jul 5, 2011)

The Australian Shepherd has always been a "softer" herder than some of the herding breeds such as the border collie. But then that is one of the reasons I prefer the aussie since most of my work involves horses and I do not allow them to ever herd a horse. My SL dog was a lot more aggressive with the sheep than my working line boys but I thought perhaps it was because she was a girl. I was glad that she also listens well and bid my every command because of her aggression with them. There are going to be great workers and bad whether they are show line or working line-its just the way it works.


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I have seen some working line dogs that have gorgeous breed type and structure so I disagree with the don't look the same. I select dogs for the work I do out of show line pedigrees so I don't really get into the two different breeds distinctions either. That said, Vicky, the Purina sheep and instinct test will not tell you the entire story on your dog's working ability. Have seen my share of working and showline aussies and there are differences from a working standpoint. There is also a HUGE difference between what a dog sees in terms of AKC trial work and farm work. It takes several seasons and introductions to all facets of the work to determine the total herding package. It is getting tougher and tougher to find the right dogs in those show line pedigrees. Dogs are getting softer and softer and not up to dealing with ewes/lambs, evil rams or cattle that defy the dog. For me, until that dog has demonstrated his ability to stay in the game with that type of stock, I'm not ready to declare how strong his instinct and/or working abiities are. I watched some of the ASCA trials this weekend and yes, there was a difference between working and show line dogs in terms of certain working and herding traits. I've worked and trained both and there is a difference. I like a pretty dog and I love good movement but at the end of the day, I want the dog that can get the job done, put it on the ine and keep me safe. Talk to any farmer or rancher and they will tell you the same thing. I see negatives in both camps at the moment and at times decding between the two is damned if you do and damned if you don't.
> 
> The article posted on the Finnish study didn't really say much as far as I'm concerned. I'll have to look at the the other link posted.
> 
> T


I agree with all this


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

vicki dickey said:


> The Australian Shepherd has always been a "softer" herder than some of the herding breeds such as the border collie. QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Ive never seen or heard that before. Being raised with both Aussies and BC's (almost all working, a few show lines that couldnt work), who worked for real, daily. I can tell you from all I've seen, the Aussies are tough as friggin nails, moving the cattle. Between the two breeds, I would not say they are softer by any means.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Brian McQuain said:


> vicki dickey said:
> 
> 
> > The Australian Shepherd has always been a "softer" herder than some of the herding breeds such as the border collie. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

I agree that some working line GSDs have gorgeous heads and bodies but they look nothing like show line GSDs.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> I agree that some working line GSDs have gorgeous heads and bodies but they look nothing like show line GSDs.


Especially in the hindquarters. My girl has some really long stacking thighs but she still has a fairly straight spine. She's also freakishly large for a bitch. And she's a pretty dog, but a really ugly German Shepherd. She works though!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Katie Finlay said:


> Especially in the hindquarters. My girl has some really long stacking thighs but she still has a fairly straight spine. She's also freakishly large for a bitch. And she's a pretty dog, but a really ugly German Shepherd. She works though!


I think your girl is lovely, because pretty is as pretty does, as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

susan tuck said:


> I think your girl is lovely, because pretty is as pretty does, as far as I'm concerned.


Well thanks!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Brian McQuain said:


> vicki dickey said:
> 
> 
> > The Australian Shepherd has always been a "softer" herder than some of the herding breeds such as the border collie. QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> I agree that some working line GSDs have gorgeous heads and bodies but they look nothing like show line GSDs.


Depends on which showlines you are looking at--a lot of which I might add are incorrect. I've seen some working line Czech dogs that could clean up in a breed ring. Stefan has a dog on his website--Harras? that I think is drop dead breed type gorgeous. I'd love to see him move. There are some Europsport dogs [not the showline] that have breed type out the whazoo as well. This study says there are genetic differences. In the U.S. ALL American Showline dogs go back to Lance of Fran Jo. Take that pedigree and compare dogs of say Slovakia or Czechloslavakia. Bet you'd have tons of genetic variances--absolute total outcross for 10 generations or more. With this study before they designated show vs. work. How many in the pedigree had to be known show or work for it to be designated as one or the other. If anyone could figure that out, please let me know. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> With this study before they designated show vs. work. How many in the pedigree had to be known show or work for it to be designated as one or the other. If anyone could figure that out, please let me know.
> 
> T


stated as this...

"A dog was defined as a working-line dog 
if there were known working dogs in its five-generation pedigree. Similarly, if a dog’s 
pedigree contained known show dogs, the dog was defined as a show-line dog. If both lines 
were detectable from the pedigree, the dog was defined as being part of the mixed line"

sounds pretty weak all the way around... so one dog in a 5 gen ped makes it a work or show line.... 

what is the work or the show, any titled dog or dog that has trialed? or any dog that has been in the show ring? :-?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> stated as this...
> 
> "A dog was defined as a working-line dog
> if there were known working dogs in its five-generation pedigree. Similarly, if a dog’s
> ...


Joby there were 3 groups of dogs studied: 100% working lines vs 100% show lines vs mixed working and show lines. Not one dog in the pedigree, all the dogs for 5 generations. In my breed, working and show lines have had completely seperate blood lines for more than 5 generations now, with very little mixing of these lines.

Also no, a working line dog is not any dog titled or that has trialed and a show line dog is not any dog that has been shown, If that were the case there would not be a difference. The working lines are well established and understood within the breed, as are the show lines.

Terrasita: There are huge differences in conformation between "v" rated show line dogs and "v" rated working line dogs, it's a rarity to not be able to tell which is which at a single glance. I don't really think it has anything to do with which one is "gorgeous" or which one isn't, because that's subjective. For me, the fact that there are distinctive types, differences in conformation, drives, everything, now there are different genes just confirms what I have always thought, two completely separate types or varieties.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> Joby there were 3 groups of dogs studied: 100% working lines vs 100% show lines vs mixed working and show lines. Not one dog in the pedigree, all the dogs for 5 generations. In my breed, working and show lines have had completely seperate blood lines for more than 5 generations now, with very little mixing of these lines.
> 
> Also no, a working line dog is not any dog titled or that has trialed and a show line dog is not any dog that has been shown, If that were the case there would not be a difference. The working lines are well established and understood within the breed, as are the show lines.
> 
> Terrasita: There are huge differences in conformation between "v" rated show line dogs and "v" rated working line dogs, it's a rarity to not be able to tell which is which at a single glance. I don't really think it has anything to do with which one looks bett


thanks for clearing that up , the follow up article is written a little more clearly on that point. It definitely reads better than the first link on that aspect.

hopefully a larger study will be done, with more clarity on the genepool selection. since they aren't saying, the best anyone can do is assume that the people doing the study have the same definitions and standards of classifications that most people have, which may or may not be accurate, and I assume that they also get much of thier information from the breeders, as they are scientists doing various studies, not GSD experts.

I cant remember a show line GSD breeder ever telling me that their dogs are not working dogs, and they have a pedigree full of SCH titles to prove it. Call up any of them, the vast majority of them will tell you that the dogs will be capable working dogs, and will be glad to go over all the titled dogs in the peds. Could be the same in Finland...

interesting for sure..not doubting that there are differences at all, but it appears that this is really anecdotal stuff at this point with too many unknowns (not explained in detail) to really mean a whole lot when reading the articles.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> .....
> I cant remember a show line GSD breeder ever telling me that their dogs are not working dogs, and they have a pedigree full of SCH titles to prove it. Call up any of them, the vast majority of them will tell you that the dogs will be capable working dogs....


I know, I've seen them say it and it's a joke to most of us in working lines, it would be a gift to attribute this kind of statement to being kennel blind, because this statement is about as truthful as a working line breeder saying all the dogs he/she breeds will at the least, "v" in the conformation ring since they all are breed surveyed.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

susan tuck said:


> I know, I've seen them say it and it's a joke to most of us in working lines, it would be a gift to attribute this kind of statement to being kennel blind, because this statement is about as truthful as a working line breeder saying all the dogs he/she breeds will at the least, "v" in the conformation ring since they all are breed surveyed.


I agree..

guess my point was this, imagine this same study was done in the states


----------



## vicki dickey (Jul 5, 2011)

I didn't say an aussie couldn't herd as well as a border collie but I do think they are not as intense. I came across this online on herding breeds -well written-and takes breeding, types of herding etc into account in case anyone is interested. 
http://www.herdingontheweb.com/workingstyles.htm


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Joby there were 3 groups of dogs studied: 100% working lines vs 100% show lines vs mixed working and show lines. Not one dog in the pedigree, all the dogs for 5 generations. In my breed, working and show lines have had completely seperate blood lines for more than 5 generations now, with very little mixing of these lines.
> 
> Also no, a working line dog is not any dog titled or that has trialed and a show line dog is not any dog that has been shown, If that were the case there would not be a difference. The working lines are well established and understood within the breed, as are the show lines.
> 
> Terrasita: There are huge differences in conformation between "v" rated show line dogs and "v" rated working line dogs, it's a rarity to not be able to tell which is which at a single glance. I don't really think it has anything to do with which one is "gorgeous" or which one isn't, because that's subjective. For me, the fact that there are distinctive types, differences in conformation, drives, everything, now there are different genes just confirms what I have always thought, two completely separate types or varieties.


 
I don't really care about V rated. I know structure when I see it. Balanced front to rear, extension from the shoulder instead of the elbow, correct croups, follow through and correct back lines. The Martin brothers and the crappy roached backs ruined some lines. Now they've added monster size and overangulation in some. Funny how its the males that have the faults but you can still find some nice bitches amongst the WG showlines. Other than the B/R and roached backs, there isn't that much difference. Are the DDR dogs another breed genetically? Any of the lines have examples of ideal and less-than-idean structure. They all go back to the same orginal genetics. They just severely outcross at a certain point--i.e. genetic diversity. As for the study, I see it the same as Joby. Weak, at best based on the distinguishing factors mentioned and really not worth a whole lot from a breeding or genetic standpoint. Speaks more of a bought/paid for study that already had the conclusion in mine. Gotta love the scientific method. When the identify what genes that are relevant to what working traits, I'll be interested.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

vicki dickey said:


> I didn't say an aussie couldn't herd as well as a border collie but I do think they are not as intense. I came across this online on herding breeds -well written-and takes breeding, types of herding etc into account in case anyone is interested.
> http://www.herdingontheweb.com/workingstyles.htm


Aussies can be every bit as intense as a BC. 

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't really care about V rated. I know structure when I see it. Balanced front to rear, extension from the shoulder instead of the elbow, correct croups, follow through and correct back lines. The Martin brothers and the crappy roached backs ruined some lines. Now they've added monster size and overangulation in some. Funny how its the males that have the faults but you can still find some nice bitches amongst the WG showlines. Other than the B/R and roached backs, there isn't that much difference. Are the DDR dogs another breed genetically? Any of the lines have examples of ideal and less-than-idean structure. They all go back to the same orginal genetics. They just severely outcross at a certain point--i.e. genetic diversity. As for the study, I see it the same as Joby. Weak, at best based on the distinguishing factors mentioned and really not worth a whole lot from a breeding or genetic standpoint. Speaks more of a bought/paid for study that already had the conclusion in mine. Gotta love the scientific method. When the identify what genes that are relevant to what working traits, I'll be interested.
> 
> T


Again, the reason I originally brought up V ratings is because V rated show line dogs look nothing like V rated working line dogs, in fact they bear little resemblance to one another physically or any other way. This reminds me of many other breeds that started out as one, then split completely or became a different variety within the same breed. 

I've no doubt if/when the study is repeated with a bigger pool of dogs, the results will still be the same.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> Interesting indeed, wish someone would do this for Dobermans......


Why, none can work!


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Teemu Saarinen said:


> Yea that's Finnish professor who did that discovery. Everyone here should read this.


I am one of those who hasn't read this but I will do so in due course.

I am surprised at the reactions of some of the posters. We are writing the year *2013*

I started dog training with my Landseer in 1980 or thereabouts. I saw a number of GSDs, showline dogs which we call "Mantel" dogs in German, i.e. they are "yellow" and black with black overcoats (shaped like a harness), completely different from the "Graue" working dogs.

These dogs were "whipped" (metaphorically speaking) into "bad" dogs. This often because the dog didn't have what it took to be so.

It is a known fact that many of the protection tests in the "Wesensprüfung" were certified even though the dog had not left its kennel. Those who ventured forth can be seen on many a video, hanging like a wet sack on the helper's arm.

In general, the showline GSD has a sloping back and little drive, although there are obviously exceptions to the rule, not many, but they do exist.

The working dog line shows a sable, black or black with tan markings and were / are acknowledged as "ugly" by the showline judges. Not always but more often. These dogs are more athletic than their showline counterparts, the reason being that breeders were breeding for Schutzhund Sports. Even though this is smiled at by many on here, it was and is an incentive to GSD breeders to breed athletic dogs with sustainable drives.

DDR dogs - maybe it was a geographical issue at one time but after 1989 it was over - a short period.

For those who would like to learn more about the GSDs, please go to:

http://www.leistungshundeforum.de/

This is a very serious Working Dog Forum with an English Speaking Section.

For others - please stop yapping about the GSD unless you have experienced the two types.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I must just say why I bought my GSDs. 

The reason was, whilst working my Briard at a GSD Club, I saw the "greys" working. They were lithe, energetic dogs with strong nerves. 

They looked like lean wolves - to me a dog must not be "gorgeous" but it must be functionally built and these dogs were. To watch them running across a field at full pelt ws *gorgeous" [-o<

To say nothing of their temperaments - they were always ready to bite or track - obedience was something one had to drill into them.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Gillian Schuler said:


> I am one of those who hasn't read this but I will do so in due course.
> 
> I am surprised at the reactions of some of the posters. We are writing the year *2013*
> 
> ...


I so wish I could read that forum.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Gillian Schuler said:


> I must just say why I bought my GSDs.
> 
> The reason was, whilst working my Briard at a GSD Club, I saw the "greys" working. They were lithe, energetic dogs with strong nerves.
> 
> ...


 
See for me gorgeous means functionally built and to do the job that the dog was supposed to be able to do--tend livestock all day. When you watched one trot a border for a few hours or out in the pasture bringing in his stock, you understand the meaning of effortless gait and you don't get that without proper structure. This is a breed that is supposed to be a trotting machine, not a sight hound galloping machine. Bad structure [and that includes straight shoulders, roached backs and over/sloppy angulation] doesn't hold up 15 minutes in a small stock pen, let alone out in an unfenced pasture. So when I'm saying gorgeous, I'm envisioning a dog that can work all day and cover his livestock out in an open pasture.

T


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So when I'm saying gorgeous, I'm envisioning a dog that can work all day and cover his livestock out in an open pasture.
> 
> T


 
Yup.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> See for me gorgeous means functionally built and to do the job that the dog was supposed to be able to do--tend livestock all day. When you watched one trot a border for a few hours or out in the pasture bringing in his stock, you understand the meaning of effortless gait and you don't get that without proper structure. This is a breed that is supposed to be a trotting machine, not a sight hound galloping machine. Bad structure [and that includes straight shoulders, roached backs and over/sloppy angulation] doesn't hold up 15 minutes in a small stock pen, let alone out in an unfenced pasture. So when I'm saying gorgeous, I'm envisioning a dog that can work all day and cover his livestock out in an open pasture.
> 
> T


The founder of the breed soon realized the mechanization of Germany and shrinking of pasture land meant the need for a herding dog was in decline. He's the one who turned the breed towards working with the military and police. 

Nowadays, the only place you see large groups of GSDs trotting for hours on end is in the show ring. This is a good example of why the conformation prized in the show ring is basically useless for todays dogs, and why working line GSDs have working conformation, with more in common to Malinois and Dutchies, than to show line GSDs, because the work they do now does not require a dog who can trot for hours on end. Of course there are those show people who will recoil in horror at the idea of a GSD's conformation being more in line with a Malinois and a Dutchie, but those people aren't really interested in working dogs anyway, they just like to wax poetic about dogs who can do the flying trot.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> The founder of the breed soon realized the mechanization of Germany and shrinking of pasture land meant the need for a herding dog was in decline. He's the one who turned the breed towards working with the military and police.
> 
> Nowadays, the only place you see large groups of GSDs trotting for hours on end is in the show ring. This is a good example of why the conformation prized in the show ring is basically useless for todays dogs, and why working line GSDs have working conformation, with more in common to Malinois and Dutchies, than to show line GSDs, because the work they do now does not require a dog who can trot for hours on end. Of course there are those show people who will recoil in horror at the idea of a GSD's conformation being more in line with a Malinois and a Dutchie, but those people aren't really interested in working dogs anyway, they just like to wax poetic about dogs who can do the flying trot.


too late to edit wanted to add:

As a matter of fact, all the GSDs from The Captain's time up until the Martin Brothers influence looked just like the modern working line GSD, and nothing at all like the modern show line dog.

.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> The founder of the breed soon realized the mechanization of Germany and shrinking of pasture land meant the need for a herding dog was in decline. He's the one who turned the breed towards working with the military and police.
> 
> Nowadays, the only place you see large groups of GSDs trotting for hours on end is in the show ring. This is a good example of why the conformation prized in the show ring is basically useless for todays dogs, and why working line GSDs have working conformation, with more in common to Malinois and Dutchies, than to show line GSDs, because the work they do now does not require a dog who can trot for hours on end. Of course there are those show people who will recoil in horror at the idea of a GSD's conformation being more in line with a Malinois and a Dutchie, but those people aren't really interested in working dogs anyway, they just like to wax poetic about dogs who can do the flying trot.


The showline dogs can't trot any longer than workingline dogs. They are just built to look flashy trotting around for 20 minutes. I have seen too many bloody hocks and limping hunchbacks barely passing ADs.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> The founder of the breed soon realized the mechanization of Germany and shrinking of pasture land meant the need for a herding dog was in decline. He's the one who turned the breed towards working with the military and police.
> 
> Nowadays, the only place you see large groups of GSDs trotting for hours on end is in the show ring. This is a good example of why the conformation prized in the show ring is basically useless for todays dogs, and why working line GSDs have working conformation, with more in common to Malinois and Dutchies, than to show line GSDs, because the work they do now does not require a dog who can trot for hours on end. Of course there are those show people who will recoil in horror at the idea of a GSD's conformation being more in line with a Malinois and a Dutchie, but those people aren't really interested in working dogs anyway, they just like to wax poetic about dogs who can do the flying trot.


The founder of the breed didn't turn it into anything. He advocated that the breed could perform other functions but he also said first and foremost the breed's true vocation and what makes it what it is, is a herdsman's dog and with sheep. He was very emphatic about that. Throughout his reign with the SV when he considered temperament lacking in the dogs, he opened up the stud books for that herding dog infusion. There is no reason for the GSD's structure to mimic a dutchie or a Mal. I don't understand dutchie/mal envy anymore than what I understand BC envy. If that's what you want then work that breed. I don't care if I worked a Dutchie or Mal, I still want efficient movement with good angles, reach and follow-through and a level backline. The better, the structure, the better it holds up over time. 


T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> The showline dogs can't trot any longer than workingline dogs. They are just built to look flashy trotting around for 20 minutes. I have seen too many bloody hocks and limping hunchbacks barely passing ADs.


 
Agreed. You get them in the stock pen and even though they may have instinct and desire, the rear gives out within a few minutes and they get outrun by the stock. The desire for a certain conformation and correct conformation was first and foremost about work. Its unfortunate that the second someone menttions structure and movement it becomes the showline debate. There is a correct structure in GSDs that would have no issue holding up to an AD or work otherwise and doesn't have to look like a Mal or a Dutchie. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> too late to edit wanted to add:
> 
> As a matter of fact, all the GSDs from The Captain's time up until the Martin Brothers influence looked just like the modern working line GSD, and nothing at all like the modern show line dog.
> 
> .


Do you think ALL modern showline dogs look alike? Its a shame the direction some have taken but no way would I say they are another breed genetically. 

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Agreed. You get them in the stock pen and even though they may have instinct and desire, the rear gives out within a few minutes and they get outrun by the stock. The desire for a certain conformation and correct conformation was first and foremost about work. Its unfortunate that the second someone menttions structure and movement it becomes the showline debate. There is a correct structure in GSDs that would have no issue holding up to an AD or work otherwise and doesn't have to look like a Mal or a Dutchie.
> 
> T


Of course it becomes a show line vs working line debate since this thread was about the genetic differences between the two - and the only people in the GSD world who are really concerned that their dogs can do the flying trot for long periods of time are those who are involved with show line dogs. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you mentioned more than once, that back when you had GSDs they were show line dogs and American line dogs, and you haven't owned a working line GSD as of yet, and that you feel the working line dog has too much prey drive? Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else?

Actually GSDs, Malinois and Dutchies should have similar conformation since all 3 were designed to do very similar work. I don't know why someone would have a problem with the fact that a correctly put together GSD has much more in common with Mal and Dutch than show line GSDs.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Of course it becomes a show line vs working line debate since this thread was about the genetic differences between the two - and the only people in the GSD world who are really concerned that their dogs can do the flying trot for long periods of time are those who are involved with show line dogs.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you mentioned more than once, that back when you had GSDs they were show line dogs and American line dogs, and you haven't owned a working line GSD as of yet, and that you feel the working line dog has too much prey drive? Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else?
> 
> Actually GSDs, Malinois and Dutchies should have similar conformation since all 3 were designed to do very similar work. I don't know why someone would have a problem with the fact that a correctly put together GSD has much more in common with Mal and Dutch than show line GSDs.


 
No Susan, the only people who are concerned about sidegait aren't show people. I've worked three breeds and no matter which, I want to see a solid topline and balanced reach and drive. Its the structure that holds up over time and doesn't tire. I work my dogs well into the geriatric years so this is important to me. Lately I've been focused on trialing but even with that I might set stock in the pens for ten hour days. And you're right, when it all works there is a period of suspension when all four feet are off the ground. You rarely see that any more due to locked hocks and feet that drag the ground on the follow through. You also don't need all that ridiculous overangulation to get it. The follow through behind comes more from a correct croup angle than those silly elongated lower stifles that result in egg beater hock action. And yes you are wrong. I've owned two GSD bitches out of German working lines. I've since tested a few working line dogs and wouldn't fault them for "too much prey drive." Bob's dog Thunder is damn near perfect for what I want in a dog. I also very much liked a Triton dog--Doc. But he was more reactive and didn't have Thunder's better structure. However, that said, he had the intelligence, soundness and fight drive I like in a dog and when I worked him in the pen---sooo biddable and wanting to look out for me. According to his owner, he also didn't have Thunder's sense of territoriality and guard. It was splitting hairs between them. The reason I don't own a working line GSD is that I have no faith in the SV hip/elbow testing and I'm a tad worried that there has been too much emphasis on reactive prey drive with no sense of guard, territoriality and the intelligence and judgment I know the breed is capable of. Thankfully, a few people on the board are sharing their dogs with me through video so I can get a feel for a couple of families regarding those traits and I have a great breeder/friend that lives near me that is going to let me test her working line dogs. Mals, Dutchies and GSDs were not "designed" to do similar work historically. I also disagree that a correctly put together GSD has more in common with a Mal or Dutchie [as I have seen them] but if that works for you--fine. You say that as if there are no correctly put together showline GSDs. There are. Furthermore, if you ever look at their litters, they're not all constructed the same way and like working line, temperaments and drives vary. The show community may like the sloppy ones but they seem very difficult to get which always in the past opened up the door for me when I was looking. They wanted sloppy overangulation. I'm looking for ease of movement, balance, clean comin and going. Before it even gets to that, it has to pass my temperament test. I don't generalize hatred of one gene pool over another. As I said before, I see issues in both and I've had good from both. The last bitch I had was out of American show lines. Teva had two littermates that were sloppy overangulated, fearful and dumb as door nails. The mother wasn't the smartest cookie and the sire was a spook. Not for love of money would this have been a litter that I would have looked at and hadn't planned on a puppy at that time. By the time they were 8 weeks old, it was obvious that she pulled from one part of the pedigree [the good stuff] and the others resembled more of their mother's breeding. She reeked intelligence and biddability that I don't think my friends ever noticed. For them, she wasn't angulated enough--so a pet. She also had sound nerves. For me, she reminded me of my last bitch out of import lines--that human like intelligence and soundness. I hadn't seen that in a very lonnnnnggg time. The breeder brought her out to a herding instinct test when she was 16 weeks old. She saw me and ran to me, snatching the lead out of her hand. Watching how environmentally sound she was all day, I finally decided to take her in with the stock. She didn't disappoint--fetched them right to me. Okay, so you got intelligence, nerve, structure and stock sense. Still, I didn't need a dog. At 20 weeks, her breeder called me and said they had just done the preliminary x-rays and "mine" was a good. I laughed at that. But the next time I was out there evaluating litters I left home telling hubby I was taking a collar. I lost Teva to osteosarcoma when she was 9 1/2. It seems whenever I'm looking for a dog, there is a 10 year span and a lot happens to a breed in that time frame. Things I used to take for granted in the breed are no longer there or selected for. So I decided to be cautious and learn as much as I can about the current bloodlines/dogs and see my bouv into retirement. When I initially tested the RWDC dogs, I thought I'd figure out what I liked and find a puppy from those lines or types of breeding. I wasn't prepared for what I learned about the health of the dogs I liked and what was behind them health-wise. Khira-bouv will be 9 in May and its starting to get to me I don't have a "big" dog to assume the reins even though I'm very occupied with one of my client dogs. I guess its good for hubby's BC. I've worked him twice in the last couple of weeks. Desperation MUST be setting in. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

http://www.workingdogforum.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=5834&catid=member&imageuser=2773

Balance front to rear; reach and drive; level topline that you can sit a glass of water on. In a trot, she is thinking and using calm focus/eye to move the stock. At a dead run, she's thoughtless and just using motion and body. Same with my GSDs and bouv. A lot of times they will use the speed/gallop to get into position and then go into the trot as they hit the pressure bubble and assume control.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

anyone know why the "stack" (DISPLAY) position for the gsd is done in that messed up position in the first place?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

So you have never owned a working line GSD, your last dog was American Lines and before that you had a show line dog.

Terrisita I'm not going to have this conversation with you again because we come from such different places. When it comes to working line GSDs you aren't speaking from experience, so it becomes a little like talking to Alice through the looking glass. In my world the trotting dog really doesn't count for much, I don't give a shit about glasses of water sitting on a dogs back or any other useless analogies.

Like whatever kind of GSD you want, it makes no difference to me and will make no difference in the grand scheme of things when it comes to any lines of GSDs either. I know there are some breeders who breed specifically for herding dogs, perhaps you need to look to them for a dog.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> anyone know why the "stack" (DISPLAY) position for the gsd is done in that messed up position in the first place?


Because that's how Stephanitz did it so it must be right. Also, supposedly that is the dog's natural stance IF he has correct build.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

http://www.dutchshepherd.biz/history.html

In the 19th century, the Dutch Shepherd was developed from herding stock, originally to herd and protect the flocks, but by the end of the 19th century the need for a herding dog was disappearing because The Netherlands were becoming increasingly industrialized hence the the focus of the breed from that point forward became that of a police and military service dog.

http://www.sevenpineskennel.com/malinois_history.htm

In the 19th century, the Belgian Malinois was developed from herding stock, originally to herd and protect the flocks, but by the end of the 19th century the need for a herding dog was disappearing because Belgium was becoming increasingly industrialized, hence the the focus of the breed from that point forward became that of a police and military service dog.

http://www.nsgsdc.com/breedhistory.shtml

In the 19th century, the GSD was developed from herding stock originally to herd and protect the flocks, but by the end of the 19th century the need for a herding dog was disappearing because Germany was becoming increasingly industrialized, hence the the focus of the breed from that point forward became that of a police and military service dog.


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

susan tuck said:


> http://www.dutchshepherd.biz/history.html
> 
> In the 19th century, the Dutch Shepherd was developed from herding stock, originally to herd and protect the flocks, but by the end of the 19th century the need for a herding dog was disappearing because The Netherlands were becoming increasingly industrialized hence the the focus of the breed from that point forward became that of a police and military service dog.
> 
> ...


 
I think those three quotes, pretty much summarize what the dogs have been bred to do, for the past 100 years... :wink: 

If I really was into herding, I'd look for border collies and similar types, for they have always been bred for those purposes. 


Regards


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

T has spent many, many hours working and watching my working line dog Thunder. While we do have some differences she still has an excellent eye for what works. That was her reasoning for comming to a Schutzhund club to help her select a dog she liked for herding. Her likes for a show line dog aren't even close to what shows in the breed ring, IMHO. 
Early on she would tell me that the same attributes a good herding dog needs are pretty much the same a good Schutzund dog needs. That was strange to me but the more I did herding the more I understood it. 
Thunder and the other dog mentioned, Doc, are completely different in "type". Neither would make it in the AKC breed ring (thankfully) but both have excellent "functional" structure for any job you could put in front of them. 
Thunder has been a clear headed, thinking dog since he was a pup. I would go so far as to call him dignified. 
Doc is a power house but still clear headed and extremely biddable/trainable/whatever. He's a dog that doesn't hide his enthusiasm for life. His first time in a sheep pen was interesting. Sheep get a read on a dog the second they see it. Doc commanded the attention/respect of the sheep just walking up to the pen. The sheep would never even think about challenging him. Thunder was challenged by a billy goat that had a reputation for running dogs. That lasted with a simple walk up and a "look". No contact needed! 
Both dogs showed me amazing instinct for herding. Both did a natural gather the first time ever seeing sheep or stock of any sort. He kept them so tight to me with his containment circling that I couldn't move my feet.
The same thing with Thunder when I continued his herding training. Even with ducks he showed a sense of control that many show line people AND many schutzhund people said wouldn't or couldn't happen. 
This was all based off of what T saw in our working line Schutzhund dogs. She TOLD me before any of the dogs went in the pen what to expect from the individual dogs (even a Pit and a Presa) and she pretty much hit it all on the head.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> So you have never owned a working line GSD, your last dog was *American* Lines and before that you had a show line dog.
> 
> Terrisita I'm not going to have this conversation with you again because we come from such different places. When it comes to working line GSDs you aren't speaking from experience, so it becomes a little like talking to Alice through the looking glass. In my world the trotting dog really doesn't count for much, I don't give a shit about glasses of water sitting on a dogs back or any other useless analogies.
> 
> Like whatever kind of GSD you want, it makes no difference to me and will make no difference in the grand scheme of things when it comes to any lines of GSDs either. I know there are some breeders who breed specifically for herding dogs, perhaps you need to look to them for a dog.


 
People who only see what they want can't have objective conversations. *I'VE OWNED TWO BITCHES OUT OF WORKING LINE SCH III PEDIGREES. *

So what does it matter that I've owned and worked working line dogs? It doesn't mean that a showline and a working line dogs are two different breeds. I have a fairly extreme dog out of a show pedigree now. Does that make him a different breed than his littermates or the rest of his pedigree? 

As far as those that breed exclusively for herding, I still believe that the correct GSD should have the temperament, instinct and drives to do both herding and protection work. It shouldn't be a matter of just for this or just for that for a correct dog. But if all you care about is single purpose instead of what the breed is supposed to be about, then I guess that's the route you go including that they should look and act like Mals and Dutchies.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Tiago Fontes said:


> I think those three quotes, pretty much summarize what the dogs have been bred to do, for the past 100 years... :wink:
> 
> If I really was into herding, I'd look for border collies and similar types, for they have always been bred for those purposes.
> 
> ...


Actually none of those three general quotes do any of the breeds justice as far as history and purpose and quite frankly I've worked BCs and GSDs along with a couple of other breed and the GSD will always be my first choice. All you need is for 200 --1000 pounds gunning for you and you'll understand where a dog of protection breed history comes in handy. There are some that believe that industrialization justifies turning the breed into something else but that was never supposed to be the case for the GSD. A GSD was never supposed to be so out of balance in reactive prey drive that it was worthless for stock, being around children, or reliably being in public absent a threat. It should have instinctive territorialty, guard, intelligence and trainability. All this bemoaning of what the show people want to do and what the dog was before the Martin brothers but you don't want to acknowledge what the dog was before the fascination of prey/bite machines. The show people want one thing and the prey/bite machine folks want another when neither is what the breed was supposed to be. I find Manfred Heyne's letter to Helmut Reiser regarding the down fall of the breed due to selection for e-collars instead of trainability, especially interesting. But just like the show community, generally in a litter of GSDs, you're not going to have a whole litter of prey/bite machines because you are still breeding agains a 100+ years of genetics that are counter to that. I figure there is one with sense, trainability, sound nerves and instinct in there somewhere for me.

T


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Faisal Khan said:


> Why, none can work!


lol
:-({|=


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Actually none of those three general quotes do any of the breeds justice as far as history and purpose and quite frankly I've worked BCs and GSDs along with a couple of other breed and the GSD will always be my first choice. All you need is for 200 --1000 pounds gunning for you and you'll understand where a dog of protection breed history comes in handy. There are some that believe that industrialization justifies turning the breed into something else but that was never supposed to be the case for the GSD. A GSD was never supposed to be so out of balance in reactive prey drive that it was worthless for stock, being around children, or reliably being in public absent a threat. It should have instinctive territorialty, guard, intelligence and trainability. All this bemoaning of what the show people want to do and what the dog was before the Martin brothers but you don't want to acknowledge what the dog was before the fascination of prey/bite machines. The show people want one thing and the prey/bite machine folks want another when neither is what the breed was supposed to be. I find Manfred Heyne's letter to Helmut Reiser regarding the down fall of the breed due to selection for e-collars instead of trainability, especially interesting. But just like the show community, generally in a litter of GSDs, you're not going to have a whole litter of prey/bite machines because you are still breeding agains a 100+ years of genetics that are counter to that. I figure there is one with sense, trainability, sound nerves and instinct in there somewhere for me.
> 
> T


"That was never supposed to be the case" Says who......YOU???? History says otherwise. 

hahaha I love it when people who are clueless spew baseless myths about working line dogs being so spun up in prey drive they aren't safe around kids or the general public. Oh wait it must be true after all that's what the founder of the Shiloh Shepherd, the Show Line breeders and of course - the ASS (American Show Shepherd) breeders say....BAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You don't know shit about working lines if you believe that nonsense. As to the letter from Manfred Heyne...please - to say his logic is faulty is generous. 

Whether you like it or not the 3 breeds share a common history and modern purpose, and since the turn of the century it has next to nothing to do with herding. 

Whether you like it or not, the study shows there are genetic differences between working line and show line GSDs.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

You know what? Go ahead and have your last say, you and I are worlds apart and always will be when it comes to this issue. 

I'm tired of this and done with this trip down the rabbit hole.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> "That was never supposed to be the case" Says who......YOU???? History says otherwise.
> 
> hahaha I love it when people who are clueless spew baseless myths about working line dogs being so spun up in prey drive they aren't safe around kids or the general public. Oh wait it must be true after all that's what the founder of the Shiloh Shepherd, the Show Line breeders and of course - the ASS (American Show Shepherd) breeders say....BAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You don't know shit about working lines if you believe that nonsense. As to the letter from Manfred Heyne...please - to say his logic is faulty is generous.
> 
> ...


 
Susan, 

Of course there may be genetic differences with two open lines of dogs. WHAT genetic differences tied to what traits. Clueless--like bringing in white GSDs and Teresa Barber? These aren't baseless myths regarding spun up reactive prey drive and no, its not says me. That's the problem with the GSD. If you go with all the material that was written on the breed, it doesn't support disregarding the herding function and what the dog is supposed to be mentally. You brought up von Stephanitz. Try reading it.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

nevermind, nobody cares about this ridiculous argument.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> I so wish I could read that forum.


 
Katie, you can pose questions in the English section and you will certainly get an answer.

This question of showline or working line has long since been settled in Europe - USA is hinking in some areas by certain people. They have been two separate breeding groups for a number of years.

One of my GSDs "may" have had one showline in it but is an Aaron Granite Rose descendant, the other was a Sid Pixner son and I can't see Elmar Mannes using show lines and cannot find any showline in his pedigree.

One thing I read (and unfortunatlely cannot find at the moment) is a report from a German behaviourist who stated that in the hereditary scales, physically it was much easier and quicker to change than such items as temperament, sociability, etc., i.e. pairing a "super" acctive dog paired with another "super" active dog will not bring out a "SUPER" ACTIVE DOG.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Katie Finlay said:


> I so wish I could read that forum.


If I can help you, please shout - I would only be too glad to settle this problem which seems to have been settled in Europe for years.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Katie, you can pose questions in the English section and you will certainly get an answer.
> 
> This question of showline or working line has long since been settled in Europe - USA is hinking in some areas by certain people. They have been two separate breeding groups for a number of years.
> 
> ...


This is widely known, most traits dealing with the physical phenotypical expressions are fairly simple traits genetically, temperament and other traits are polygenic and much more difficult to ascertain and manipulate...


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Thank you for this info.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

I think this is weakly relevant to at least one of the conversations going on in this thread even if it is not to the OP:

http://siriusdog.com/anatomy-working-canine-dog-shoulder.htm


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Thanks Gillian! I actually would just love to read all the other stuff on there. The whole forum. Nothing specific. I'm just genuinely interested in the European German Shepherd people.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I disagree with the "flying Trot" pictured in 5a and 5b if that's supposed to demonstrate correct movement. When a dog over reaches like in the picture it will create a crabbiing movement simply because the front feet can't get out of the way of the rear feet. At trotting speed the GSD should be single tracking. One straight line of tracks on the ground. If the front feet can't get out of the way of the rear feet it's not a balanced movement. "Ideally" the rear foot should drop in the print left by the front foot. The front isn't bad because it doesn't reach out past the nose of the dog.
All that reach and drive looks good to show line people while the dog is in the flying trot. I'd like the judges to ask that the dogs be WALKED around the ring a few times. Then you can watch that over angulated rear wobble all over the place.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> I disagree with the "flying Trot" pictured in 5a and 5b if that's supposed to demonstrate correct movement. When a dog over reaches like in the picture it will create a crabbiing movement simply because the front feet can't get out of the way of the rear feet. At trotting speed the GSD should be single tracking. One straight line of tracks on the ground. If the front feet can't get out of the way of the rear feet it's not a balanced movement. "Ideally" the rear foot should drop in the print left by the front foot. The front isn't bad because it doesn't reach out past the nose of the dog.
> All that reach and drive looks good to show line people while the dog is in the flying trot. I'd like the judges to ask that the dogs be WALKED around the ring a few times. Then you can watch that over angulated rear wobble all over the place.


This has been a great debate. Pearl Wiseman used to walk and trot the dogs at different speeds. As for the flying trot, they will single track when they are correct. I used to test this in the snow. One thing though. You need to see the dogs off lead. Furthermore, Bob Vest used to use Asta to demonstrate movement in herding seminars. She wasn't even close to being what some people like in the show ring as far as rear angulation but she had a fantastic front assembly and pendulum swing balance and just floated. Bob always used her for demonstrating correct change of lead. My issue with the over rear angulation is that the foot on the follow through can't clear the ground due to the sifle length and drags. They can play leash tension games to get a certain "look" but see the dog free and over a period of time, and incorrect will fall apart.

T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Off lead in the show ring will never happen! Neither will my suggestion that I often gave in the terrier ring. Put a cage full of rats in the ring and show me the dog's response instead of "sparring" with another dog. ](*,)
Baiting with food for the judge?! Hell no! I used to keep a Qtip with mouse piss on it in a plastic zip lock bag in my jacket pocket. Ya shudda seen my terriers come up on their toes for the judge. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yea, I've heard it before. "You sick bastard"! :twisted: :lol:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Off lead in the show ring will never happen! Neither will my suggestion that I often gave in the terrier ring. Put a cage full of rats in the ring and show me the dog's response instead of "sparring" with another dog. ](*,)
> Baiting with food for the judge?! Hell no! I used to keep a Qtip with mouse piss on it in a plastic zip lock bag in my jacket pocket. Ya shudda seen my terriers come up on their toes for the judge. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> Yea, I've heard it before. "You sick bastard"! :twisted: :lol:


sounds good to me Bob...


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Off lead in the show ring will never happen! Neither will my suggestion that I often gave in the terrier ring. Put a cage full of rats in the ring and show me the dog's response instead of "sparring" with another dog. ](*,)
> Baiting with food for the judge?! Hell no! I used to keep a Qtip with mouse piss on it in a plastic zip lock bag in my jacket pocket. Ya shudda seen my terriers come up on their toes for the judge. :lol: :lol: :lol:
> Yea, I've heard it before. "You sick bastard"! :twisted: :lol:


As I'm sure you know, Bob, it is not uncommon for dogs to be gaited off lead in Sieger Shows, yet it hasn't made a difference with regards to the quality of dogs produced at all. Problem with show people is they get really caught up in the minutia of gait, shoulder assembly, hind end angulation, head piece, etc., but they fail to recognize the total dog. For all their supposed knowledge of all things dog, picking apart exact angles and what not, they are still producing cripples who can't work.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> As I'm sure you know, Bob, it is not uncommon for dogs to be gaited off lead in Sieger Shows, yet it hasn't made a difference with regards to the quality of dogs produced at all. Problem with show people is they get really caught up in the minutia of gait, shoulder assembly, hind end angulation, head piece, etc., but they fail to recognize the total dog. For all their supposed knowledge of all things dog, picking apart exact angles and what not, they are still producing cripples who can't work.


It's still only one gate. They may run the piss out of the handler in show ring but I would never consider it any sort of real challenge for the dog even with a less then "correct" gate. 
As T said there were a few judges that tested more then the "flying trot". That should be a requirement. 
This over angulation was never a problem befoer the 1960s. One big winning dog in the 70s is almost totally responsible for it. 
This is one of the last true show/working GSDs. http://leerburg.com/bernd.htm Absollutely nothing wrong with that angulation. 
This is not the same LB but I believe it had something to do with Ed's choice of names when he started his kennel.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> It's still only one gate. They may run the piss out of the handler in show ring but I would never consider it any sort of real challenge for the dog even with a less then "correct" gate.
> As T said there were a few judges that tested more then the "flying trot". That should be a requirement.
> This over angulation was never a problem befoer the 1960s. One big winning dog in the 70s is almost totally responsible for it.
> This is one of the last true show/working GSDs. http://leerburg.com/bernd.htm Absollutely nothing wrong with that angulation.
> This is not the same LB but I believe it had something to do with Ed's choice of names when he started his kennel.


It wouldn't matter if the dogs were gaited for days on end, walked and paced, in the end you would still have dogs who were only judged on running/walking/pacing one way in a circle, and the winners would still be the ones most extreme, who looked prettiest doing it, in short, a waste of time for a working breed.

The over angulation is what happens when "experts" who don't work dogs are the ones who decide what dog wins in the show ring and subesequently those dogs get the crap bred out of them.

Fashion and fad over substance.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

anyone bother to read that link?
Its from a conformation judge and deals with the stuff you are talking about pretty much.


----------



## Katie Finlay (Jan 31, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> This is not the same LB but I believe it had something to do with Ed's choice of names when he started his kennel.


Choice or direct rip-off? Lol


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt, I heard people in the show world "talk" about it for yrs. Until a dog comes along that starts a new fad it wont happen. That's how it got started in the 70s with the angulation bs. 
To much time and money would be lost to start all over with "correct" dogs. Of course then they would have to discredit all the present dogs. That's not going to happen.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Matt, I heard people in the show world "talk" about it for yrs. Until a dog comes along that starts a new fad it wont happen. That's how it got started in the 70s with the angulation bs.
> To much time and money would be lost to start all over with "correct" dogs. Of course then they would have to discredit all the present dogs. That's not going to happen.


It swings back and forth. There is also a difference between speciallty vs. all-breed judges. There are tons of variables depending upon who you show to. The angulation stuff started in the late 1950s as far as what type of dogs the Americans were importing from Germany and it was a German pedigree that produced Lance of Fran Jo who changed it all. Lance was the U.S Grand Victor in 1966 I believe. Its been the 'more is better' routine since for some. More often than not its more about who is at the end of the lead than the dog type.


T


----------



## Jeffrey Eggenberger (Jan 3, 2013)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> http://sakury.weebly.com/uploads/1/...herd_lines_are_genetically_differen_final.pdf


So if you took a line of show dogs, and kept them as working dogs for say 10 generations, would they approach genitically more similar to the Working dogs? This would be a good test huh?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Jeffrey Eggenberger said:


> So if you took a line of show dogs, and kept them as working dogs for say 10 generations, would they approach genitically more similar to the Working dogs? This would be a good test huh?


hahaha Is this question a test? :-\" 
They would still be show line dogs and work like show line dogs because their genetics would remain unchanged, so they would still be genetically different from working line dogs .


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> hahaha Is this question a test? :-\"
> They would still be show line dogs and work like show line dogs because their genetics would remain unchanged, so they would still be genetically different from working line dogs .


 
So how is that they all started as working line and we now have two different breeds that came from the same source?


T


----------



## Marta Wajngarten (Jul 30, 2006)

susan tuck said:


> hahaha Is this question a test? :-\"
> They would still be show line dogs and work like show line dogs because their genetics would remain unchanged, so they would still be genetically different from working line dogs .


Wouldn't that be like expecting to create a wolf if you bred enough Border Collie's together over a long enough time? Some times what's lost is lost for ever.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> Wouldn't that be like expecting to create a wolf if you bred enough Border Collie's together over a long enough time? Some times what's lost is lost for ever.


exactly!


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Marta Wajngarten said:


> Wouldn't that be like expecting to create a wolf if you bred enough Border Collie's together over a long enough time? Some times what's lost is lost for ever.


Or repeating the same mistake over and over again and expecting a different outcome?
:lol:


----------

