# Revised GSD standard by the UKC



## Mike Ivancevic (Feb 8, 2012)

Good news!

http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Breeds/GermanShepherdDogRevisedMay12012


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Well done---especially if the judges follow it. 


Terrasita


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Isn't this just the "same dog, different fleas"? Something I learned a long time ago in business, is that paper audits don't mean much.

Paper audits mean some guy is checking a box, and some other guy (a stupervisor) is affirming that the box is checked. But nobody is ACTUALLY CHECKING if the damn break room is clean or consistently calibrating the standard by which "clean" is defined.

Meanwhile, this dog breed should "appear" to have "powerful hind quarters", short this, long that, etc etc. And nobody is seeing if those subjective judgements amount to a hill of beans. 

I mean, where's the attrition? Where does it say the "powerful hind quarters" actually have to achieve anything?

So, I retract my question and turn it into a statement. Same dog, different fleas.

Great job on perpetuating the "dog fancier" bastardization of working animals. 

Really.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

*Disqualifications: Unilateral or bilateral cryptorchid. Viciousness or extreme shyness. Undershot. Wry mouth. Nose not predominantly black. Cropped ears. Drop or tipped ears. Docked tail. Albinism.*


Wow. They're really aiming high.....


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

It's easy to say same old, same old, even popular. 

However it's a step in the wright direction. Now it's up to the judges, followed by the breeders.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Did you see one a single, concrete, objective word in there about minimum performance standards?

This isn't a step in ANY direction. This is called "spinning wheels".

Whether or not you like the averaged-out character of dogs bred to French Ring standards, at least it's a standard. It's sustainable. There are measurements in terms of seconds and meters which are the same anywhere in space or time. It's a factory making a product. The product has specs. Dogs which are out of spec don't make it.

I keep looking for the "specs" which the German Shepher is supposed to adhere to. The mold. Doesn't really seem like there is one. It's a fantasy-land of words like "courage" and "loyalty" and "intelligence" and "powerful" with no meaning to any of it. 

This UKC description is just the same dog with different fleas. YAWN.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Whatever Robert


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Listen to youself: "It's up to judges and breeders"....to do what? TO DO WHAT?? LOL.

I love it. The answers are so obvious that nobody seems to know.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

And your the Prophet?

Listen to yourself sir. You expect the standards to address everything at once, who would follow that?

The severe angulation and other physical traits that have been exaggerated apparently are finally being addressed. This may, if followed, at least allow the SL GSD to live without these extremes, thus it's better for the breed. I realize that the workability still needs to be addressed, but to achieve workability the dogs need to be physically sound first.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

"Everything all at once" isn't actually very much. That's the point you're missing.

One could take out 100% of the wording about how everything should look, and instead say:

The dog needs to DO X,Y,Z.

You know the funny thing about a narrow and demanding performance standard? You start eliminating the non-functional stuff, including the functional stuff and the LOOKS get in-bred as a logical consquence. The looks wind up being exactly what they need to be. You can't help but get uniformity in looks. It's inherent. Form follows function. 

This UKC thing (and everything like it) is all backwards. "This is how the dog should appear...now go forth and cross your fingers that it can still do something."

Backwards, backwards, backwards.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Robert Palmer said:


> "Everything all at once" isn't actually very much. That's the point you're missing.


You didn't answer my question. "And your the Prophet?"

"Everything" as in physical and workability. To *reverse* the trend of the SL croud and some WL breeders to breed these deformed dogs and call it a Seiger is making progress. If you don't see that then where done chatting.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Like defining the perfect shaped ear or the right shaped and coloured eye, judging that but not testing if the dog is deaf or blind.

Who cares, right shape and colour!!


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

But I can see how it would drive old women crazy if something as simple as tough sport compromised their ideas of what "noble" and "courageous" looked like. Courageous might look wiry and plebian, not "thick boned" and "properly pigmented".


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So what happens if this standardtakes off, do past /current show champions lose their title? Are they no longer GSD's because they are not fitting the standard?????

.........hmmmm, I hope so.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So what happens if this standardtakes off, do past /current show champions lose their title? Are they no longer GSD's because they are not fitting the standard?????
> 
> .........hmmmm, I hope so.


Ah, no they don't loose anything.


----------



## Derek Milliken (Apr 19, 2009)

As much as I'm not a fan of the kennel clubs and their "looks before function" mentality, I have to at least partially agree that this is excellent news! 
Hopefully they do address the "1/2 dog, 1/2 frog" problem. But, I can already see too many ifs and maybes. Afterall, the current judges, the current breeders and the current exhibitors of show bred shepherds, all claim that their dogs have perfect gait and strong back ends, so.....

And I have to agree in part with Robert. At the end of the day this is still a conformation only standard, with only minor changes in wording.
Just like the old standard, it pretty much fails to address anything significant relating to function, health, or temperament.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Peter is on the right track.

What the heck are you talking about with this prophet nonense? I call it like I see it. WL? SL? You're over my head here.

Artic sled dogs have fur to keep them sufficiently warm, and bodies and temperements to pull stuff. They are like-enough that you can characertize them as a "type", and nobody had to sit-down and figure this out in paragraph form. 

I saw some Kelpies on Animal Planet. If they go forth and do what's required, that's good enough. And look! There are a few differences in color...a flop ear here and there...but they all basically look alike. The demands of the work dictate the shape and structure. Amazing.

The hounds...the real-deal hounds...go figure. They all kinda look alike too, and nobody told them they first had to LOOK a certain way before they could ACT a certain way. Inbreeding the behavior in-bred whatever look was compatible with the task.

So now, with the UKC, we have some geekazoids explaining in fuzzy, meaningless terms, that the German Shepherd first has to look a certain way, and then it should be up for the (as yet) undefined demands?

That makes no sense.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Derek Milliken said:


> As much as I'm not a fan of the kennel clubs and their "looks before function" mentality, I have to at least partially agree that this is excellent news!
> Hopefully they do address the "1/2 dog, 1/2 frog" problem. But, I can already see too many ifs and maybes. Afterall, the current judges, the current breeders and the current exhibitors of show bred shepherds, all claim that their dogs have perfect gait and strong back ends, so.....
> 
> And I have to agree in part with Robert. At the end of the day this is still a conformation only standard, with only minor changes in wording.
> Just like the old standard, it pretty much fails to address anything significant relating to function, health, or temperament.


I'm not big on the show ring, I just can't stand to watch a bunch of deformed dogs trotting around the ring and everyone thinking these are top quaility GSD's. This standard does address some of the health issues.

Good night, sleep tight and don't let the show line bite!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

"IF" this is truely followed it means a lot of "top" breeders will have to start from scratch. Doubt that will happen!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

When are they going to pass this in the AKC? Even more importantly, are they going to do vet checks on certain breeds like they did at Crufts? Though it would be a great personal struggle, I think out of the goodness of my heart, I could donate a little of my time in this endeavor. O :twisted:


----------



## Mike Ivancevic (Feb 8, 2012)

My opinion of this is that this is good news, because finally someone higher up has admitted that what happened to the dogs was wrong.

Im not a show fancier, but damnit the dog should have to atleast look like the breed in order for it to be called said breed. There has to be both, the look and the working capabilities. When 1 is neglected, we end up with the AKC GSD and EB. It is time for the Working people and Show people to stop hating one another, because neither of them are suffering, the dogs are. It is time for the dog world to start working together. Dogs are being created to fit someones interpretation of a standard, and while they may look pretty, are crippled. On the other side of the coin, people are breeding some of these dogs to be SO driven they can't function in a normal life with a family because they are too hard wired and uptight to be able to handle daily stress of kids screaming, post men coming and going, hell, Ive seen dogs key in on their own owners for yelling at the TV during a football game, this is just as wrong as breeding only for looks. Middle ground is where it's at, the total package,without being too swayed to 1 side or the other. I won't hold my breath hoping and waiting for it, but it would be nice if this standard was only the beginning of the changes to come.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Wrong, noone is admitting anything, this is a response to manage public perception before they lose everything.




The problem has been solved.....by the Dutch.




BURN THE STANDARD


----------



## Mike Ivancevic (Feb 8, 2012)

Are you referring to the Dutch Shepherd when saying "solved by the dutch"?

If so, I don't agree. I think they are too different from the GSD to be the solution to the GSD owners problems with the breed.

If you're speaking of GSD bred from Holland, I can't say as I have no experience with them.


----------



## Derek Milliken (Apr 19, 2009)

Or maybe Mike, as I think Peter was alluding to, maybe a true working dog doesn't belong in just everyone's living room.
Burn the standard, burn the conformation ring.
Maybe the Malinois, the GSD, the DS were meant to be that driven. I'm pretty sure that a 100 years ago there weren't a whole lot of them expected to curl up beside the TV on a quiet tuesday night.

At this point I'm playing devil's advocate of course. I hope that the show ring becomes a place where truly healthy, happy, pain free dogs can be shown and become good representatives of the breed.

Just not sure that's going to happen.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I was referring to the direction of flow of proven working dogs, the arrows dont point toward holland, hmmmm is there a reason for. 

The traffic flow arrows point away from holland.


----------



## Derek Milliken (Apr 19, 2009)

And Peter, that's why my young dog was born in Holland.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Cool man, what u got?


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

I am glad to see this change. While it doesn't solve everything, maybe its a good start to improve conformation.

As far as having to be worded, if people had the common sense to breed what is usable (like the koolies) and stop breeding unhealthy extreme exaggerated features, then they wouldn't need someone to step in and tell them how screwed up it is.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Peter,

Since you seem to get what's going on here, where do you think the sticking point is for so many people?

It doesn't matter how many analogies are given, people keep sticking to the idea that changing visible asthetic features has something to do with performance. And they don't understand that no matter how exhaustive their list of feature is, it does not make a dog run, jump, or live without lameness to certain age. Fine...double the length of that list and add more buzz words like "health" and "working" ability without any specific minimum standards. It's equally DRECK.

It's like breeding tall people of a certain weight and calling them basketball players. No. Strength, endurance, coordination, injury resistance, vision, ability to work as a team, and the drive to excel at a sport does not come from either of those things. Furthermore, such a standard would rule out the fantastic shorter players, of which there are certainly some. 

So, changing the paper standard is EQUALLY AS POINTLESS as having a paper standard which you disagree with. 

You can have bad runners and jumpers with "angles "which look FINE. Hips are a point of contention with other breeds whose hip angulation HAS NEVER BEEN a topic of discussion.

This is treating toe fungus on someone with a knife the chest.

Now that I know SL means "show lines", I'm spitting up my coffee even wondering why that side of things is even MENTIONED here with a straight face. Who cares what THEY do?

Survival of the fittest created wild dogs with good hips. Why? because they had to chase stuff, run after stuff, and jump over stuff. Those who did that the longest passed on the most genes. 

An outside auditing agency didn't have to tell foxes and coyotes that their "angles" had to be just right before they could be expected to do any of their daily duties. Ability came first....what they looked like fell into place as happenstance.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

A+ but I bet you get some people who want to argue ! That can not be more clear!


Robert Palmer said:


> Peter,
> 
> Since you seem to get what's going on here, where do you think the sticking point is for so many people?
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> I was referring to the direction of flow of proven working dogs, the arrows dont point toward holland, hmmmm is there a reason for.
> 
> The traffic flow arrows point away from holland.


And the Czech republic. They have something resembling "German Shepherds", but they couldn't afford to be picky about looks and purity for many decades.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Sticking point;


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


It has never been about anything else.

I'm guessing you realise the work involved in selecting, training, owning and breeding a high level working dog.

absolutely anyone can just start showing and breeding show dogs and be successful.

No offence but confirmation showing are the bottom feeders. Talkin sense is not what keeps you at the bottom, hence the sticking point as you say.







Robert Palmer said:


> Peter,
> 
> Since you seem to get what's going on here, where do you think the sticking point is for so many people?
> 
> ...


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I think the C republic has been raped to death by US, not sure if its much more than a marketing scam now.

for whatever reason Holland can resist and drip feed the US without being raped by them, jmo.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

I don't think I have ever read any conformation standard for a GSD. It just doesn't interest me. I want to do the working thing so it really has no effect on me...at least none that I can see. 

I don't think having confromation dogs in existance ruins working dogs personally. All the kennels I looked at before purchasing a GSD pup did bite work and had nice straight backs. I just didn't see conformation having a effect on them or me. Its totally ignored. They do their thing I do mine. 

Sometimes I wish the working GSD's were a little more chew em up and spit em out. But thats nothing to do with conformation. Its up to the working kennels to breed good working abilitly.


----------



## Mario Fernandez (Jun 21, 2008)

People are getting excited about the UKC standard for GSD? Like it means something. UKC is a second tier registry in the USA that will take your money gladly. The only good thing about them as they still have some hunting trials and if you have a Dutchie or a X-Mal you can get papers. 

I was forced against my will (remember to always offer to drive when going to a dog show)to watch my friend's AB and Am Staff/APBT get their CH with no competition.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

So all breeds are being revised. Or at least all of the exaggerated breeds.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Mike Ivancevic said:


> On the other side of the coin, people are breeding some of these dogs to be SO driven they can't function in a normal life with a family because they are too hard wired and uptight to be able to handle daily stress of kids screaming, post men coming and going, hell, Ive seen dogs key in on their own owners for yelling at the TV during a football game, this is just as wrong as breeding only for looks. Middle ground is where it's at, the total package,without being too swayed to 1 side or the other. I won't hold my breath hoping and waiting for it, but it would be nice if this standard was only the beginning of the changes to come.


You lost me completely.

What does an extreme side of the bell curve have to do with what I've been talking about? I said performance STANDARDS, not breeding in the damn red zone of a few narrow temperment traits.

Plenty of N00b cops (to dogs in GENERAL) are placed with perfectly competent adult male police k9s and probably...I don't know 90%+ (?) live perfectly well in family environment, so I don't know WHAT the hell you're even going on about with those strange anecdotes about yelling at the TV. Dogs with a "drive" to work...sure...they need some extra attention and can be a handful. That's kinda the idea.

And no, what you call the middle ground is stupid. You don't understand selective breeding. Being able to predict what one produces, you have to find what you want then minimize the outlying genes which are NOT what you want. If one is doing that for temperment and performance, you can't help but homogenize the looks as well. It's a neccesary consequence whether your like it or not. THEY END UP LOOKING SIMILAR WHETHER YOU INTEND FOR IT OR NOT. How do you think "breeds" originated anyway? Some villlage in England had a cloistered group of terriers which performed well, so they bred on them. Those looked different than the next county over who had their own cloistered group of terriers which performed well, so they bred on them. Next thing you know, we have the _____terrier and the _____terrier described in the AKC manuals, telling you all about asthetic requirements and faults, without one word on fitting down a hole and tearing up rats. Funny how that works. 

Conformation stuff is bizarro world where the tail truly wags the dog.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Look dog shows suck Robert we all know that your beating a dead horse there but on a more interesting topic how many woman in your family are called Mrs Palmer?? :wink:


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

brad robert said:


> Look dog shows suck Robert we all know that your beating a dead horse there but on a more interesting topic how many woman in your family are called Mrs Palmer?? :wink:


That's why I kept asking him if he's the Prophet? LOL


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Yes, people glossed over that.

Very clever.

Did everyone hear that? He asked if I was a prophet.

Haha.

Anyway, this is as much about the significant _leakage of conformation-anxiety_ into the working German Shepherd people. You still see the working lines "stacked" when photographed etc. You never see that crap with the people of other breeds concerned with pure utility.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

You come on here spouting stuff as if it's new thinking or something. It's been hashed out about 50 times in the last year alone. Your words are not anything new. Try a search!


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

brad robert said:


> Look dog shows suck Robert we all know that your beating a dead horse there but on a more interesting topic how many woman in your family are called Mrs Palmer?? :wink:


You're going to have to face it, he's addicted to love.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Edward Egan said:


> You come on here spouting stuff as if it's new thinking or something. It's been hashed out about 50 times in the last year alone. Your words are not anything new. Try a search!


If it's nothing new, why do you STILL NOT GET IT? LOL


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Mario Fernandez said:


> People are getting excited about the UKC standard for GSD? Like it means something. UKC is a second tier registry in the USA that will take your money gladly. The only good thing about them as they still have some hunting trials and if you have a Dutchie or a X-Mal you can get papers.
> 
> I was forced against my will (remember to always offer to drive when going to a dog show)to watch my friend's AB and Am Staff/APBT get their CH with no competition.


I know, right??!!! UKC...........who cares????

Here's the thing: Like Chris said a while ago, leave the show folk alone. I have no love for the show line shitter, but nothing is going to change, they like their pretty dogs, they make a ton of money, and that's life.

As far as the working line GSD goes, it's hard enough to find a good breeder because unfortunately we have tons of so called working line breeder wanna bees that don't do SHIT with their dogs, if anything, they BRAG (gag) about how their dogs aren't "spun up high drive monsters" - (as if they know what that would look like anyway) and their other big selling point is straight backs, dark/black sable. So these losers are mucking up the water in the United States. Don't even get me started on the so called "czech breeders" oh yeah - they breed REAL dogs - just ask them - but don't expect to ever see the dogs do a damn thing because every dog they sell is to nothing but another pet home looking for an impressive looking lawn ornament.

There are some really good working line breeders, and I'm grateful to them for their continuing efforts at swimming upstream, but there are a LOT more shysters who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground and just think they are going to make some money.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Robert Palmer said:


> If it's nothing new, why do you STILL NOT GET IT? LOL


If you can say that, then you can tell me what I don't get! So what don't I get?#-o


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

If you think enforcing asthetic features has direct bearing on performance or health, then you don't "get it".

There is so much remedial explanation that would be neccesary to show you why that's flawed, it's not even worth it. It's quicker to say you simply don't get it.

That's what I mean.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Gee, thats leaving the show folks alone.





susan tuck said:


> I know, right??!!! UKC...........who cares????
> 
> Here's the thing: Like Chris said a while ago, leave the show folk alone. I have no love for the show line shitter, but nothing is going to change, they like their pretty dogs, they make a ton of money, and that's life.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Robert Palmer said:


> If you think enforcing aesthetic features has direct bearing on performance or health, then you don't "get it".
> 
> There is so much remedial explanation that would be neccesary to show you why that's flawed, it's not even worth it. It's quicker to say you simply don't get it.
> 
> That's what I mean.


You base your assumptions one one or two post, man your good. All I'm saying is you can't expect a frog shaped dog to tend sheep all day, or do a FH track without fatigue. So if such a dog had the mentality and temperament it couldn't do the job, SL or WL. That all, my only real point. This is why I simply stated it a step in the right direction. You read way to much into my simple point to your own liking. There I've spent way more time on your parroted comments than intended.

Do you even own a GSD? Or are you one of our many secret admirers.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Edward had to chuckle when u start accusing people of reading more into a post than what was intended. Thats pretty funny.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Edward had to chuckle when u start accusing people of reading more into a post than what was intended. Thats pretty funny.


Coming from you that's really meaningful, Peter butt out, you know nothing!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Man I could read too much into that.....lol 

I will butt out when u remove yr head out of your own butt.

How childish are you.


----------



## Edward Egan (Mar 4, 2009)

OK, you win, I'm childish. =D>


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Gee, thats leaving the show folks alone.


I DID leave the show folks alone, Peter, I consider their dogs to be shitters and that's straight shooting my opinion, but I give them their rights to consider their dogs NOT to be shitters, I understand they think the dogs I like are insane and have no place in the world, and I now leave it at that. On the other hand, if you expect some kind of political bullshitting asskissing lying statement about how earth shakingly great it is that an insignificant organization (as far as the GSD breed is concerned) changed their beauty pageant standard then you would be mistaking me for an ass kisser. This is my opinion, no more, no less, you don't like it - tough.

And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go out and do something fun for the 4th time today with my 2 chandelier swinging, coyote looking, wild ass, non-EVER drive extinguishing, crazed out the yingyang 5 month old pups. And guess what - I think this is EXACTLTY what a GSD is supposed to be and more fun than a barrel of monkeys.

SEE ya!!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Relax man 





Edward Egan said:


> OK, you win, I'm childish. =D>


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I would not be game to not like it, u are one intense chick.





susan tuck said:


> I DID leave the show folks alone, Peter, I consider their dogs to be shitters and that's straight shooting my opinion, but I give them their rights to consider their dogs NOT to be shitters, I understand they think the dogs I like are insane and have no place in the world, and I now leave it at that. On the other hand, if you expect some kind of political bullshitting asskissing lying statement about how earth shakingly great it is that an insignificant organization (as far as the GSD breed is concerned) changed their beauty pageant standard then you would be mistaking me for an ass kisser. This is my opinion, no more, no less, you don't like it - tough.
> 
> And now if you'll excuse me, I have to go out and do something fun for the 4th time today with my 2 chandelier swinging, coyote looking, wild ass, non-EVER drive extinguishing, crazed out the yingyang 5 month old pups. And guess what - I think this is EXACTLTY what a GSD is supposed to be and more fun than a barrel of monkeys.
> 
> SEE ya!!


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Intense is right. That's hot.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I want her in my team.


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Ok, but you get seconds.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Aaaawright dog.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Edward Egan said:


> You base your assumptions one one or two post, man your good. All I'm saying is you can't expect a frog shaped dog to tend sheep all day, or do a FH track without fatigue. So if such a dog had the mentality and temperament it couldn't do the job, SL or WL. That all, my only real point. This is why I simply stated it a step in the right direction. You read way to much into my simple point to your own liking. There I've spent way more time on your parroted comments than intended.
> 
> Do you even own a GSD? Or are you one of our many secret admirers.


When I think of the GSDs I've tested over the years, this is what stands out. And its the same in working line as well as show, but for different reasons. You can have the mentality, drives whatever for the work but not the body to do it with that will hold up over time--even for sport herding. So like you, I think its a step in the right direction to say that yes, there is no function when you have incorrect forms.

Terrasita


----------



## Robert Palmer (Oct 17, 2011)

Unbelievable.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

ahahaha you guys are too funny for words. I am just saying that this is the kind of GSD I like and I'm not EVER going to change my mind, but people who feel differently are just as passionate about what they think a GSD is supposed to be. Live and let live, support the breeders who share your vision and forget about the rest because frankly hitting your head against that stone wall is painful and gets you nothing but a headache. Took me a long time to learn this lesson.


----------

