# Would you continue to work/title a dog with grave/disqualifying conformation faults?



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

At what point do you consider faults in conformation to preclude you from wasting your time with a working dog?

It has been previously discussed on a number of occasions concerning dogs whose temperaments make them less than suitable for bitework and therefore the protection sports such as Schutzhund, French Ring, or police service work and the like.

Occasionally people unwittingly acquire a show-line GSD and then decide to try Schutzhund. Perhaps some are not mere beginners but expect a competitive dog and find themselves with a puppy that grew up to be a dog wanting in drive. 

There are those who try to make the most of what they have, and those whose seriousness doesn't allow them to waste their time with an unsuitable dog. Certainly nobody would expect a police department to waste it's resources on a dog that is useless for the work.

My question is for those whose working bloodline dogs show substantial aptitude for their chosen work. What would you do if the young dog was coming along fine in training and showing good drive and intensity, ample willingness to work and a temperament entirely suitable for competition, but it became evident the dog has a serious, grave or even disqualifying fault in conformation?

My question is particularly for those seeking sport titles as opposed to PSD's as the sport titles like Schutzhund were originally intended as breeding suitability tests.

So let's say you have this young dog that looks like he's going to title in Schutzhund and go on to be competitive, win club trials and more, if you continue to do the required work, which is not a little, but he shows a grave or disqualifying fault like a swayback or an undershot jaw, or cow-hocked with a spotted nose?

Do you quit the puppy right there at 9 or 10 months or whatever, wash him out and start over or do you title him out even though he'll never be bred? If he was competitive at the national level, would you even consider putting him out to stud with the fault?

I don't think many people try to achieve at the high levels of conformation shows with their working dogs, so it's fair to say we don't ask for a conformation championship before we try to do something with a dog, but unless our singular goal is competitive temperament and drive, we have to at least consider the most grave faults in conformation before we breed a dog. Even if we're not breeding to a standard with registered dogs, as in the dutchies for example, we still have to think twice about an undershot jaw.

It's safe to say that most of us do not have "stud" dogs and it may very well be that we will never breed them. So in that case, what do you think of grave faults? Could you care less or would you wash a puppy out and rehome him as a pet?


----------



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

Any dog that can do the work is worth keeping,easy!
Thats why they call them working dogs.


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Depends on which kind of fault.
I need a healthy dog to work with, so if the fault concerns health issues like displasia or eye sight issues then the answer is no.
If it's only exterior (beauty faults), then I'd train him and compete.
If the beauty fault is serious (like for instance blue colour for a mal) then the dog doesn't get papers so can't be bred. But I'd never consider taking a blue mal anyway.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

'Utility is the true criterion of beauty'.

Assuming none of these faults affect the health and ability of the dog to work, who cares?

Breeding is an entirely different matter.....


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Healthissues would be the only reason for me...

floppy ears, ugly dog, crosseyed !!!! who cares...an ugly dog only becomes more beautiful the better it works in my eyes....

one reason to get rid of a dog is a dog that will not bite...hes outta here quicker then he can blink.


----------



## Carmen van de Kamp (Apr 2, 2006)

Just titled a floppy-eared, big sized (too big) papered Malinois 
No health issues no problem for me...


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Alice Bezemer said:


> an ugly dog only becomes more beautiful the better it works in my eyes....


Agree!
But I do look at the pup's exterior too when I pick one. Floppy ears you can't predict, but I'd never take one with a lot of "white" or a blue one. First I look at the character and from the ones I like, I select the most handsome one.

I like a goodlooking dog and also it's always easier to place a beautiful dog then an ugly one in case it wouldn't be suitable for the work :wink:

I have a big problem with floppy ears too but this is something you can't predict in the litter (although most of our pups have their ears upright at 6 weeks) and I wouldn't get rid of a good dog because of floppy ears. In that case I guess I'd have them fixed.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

The ONLY Dobermanns I have are ones with floppy ears and long tails (if possible). Try going into the Conformation ring in the US with one of them  I think two (maybe three) floppy ears have finished and ZERO dogs with tails. The only important thing in working dogs, is the ability to work.


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)




----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Harry Keely said:


>



Harry,

There's one main reason guys put bags over "dogs" heads.
Are you wanting to share something with us? ;-)


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Conformation faults that are by definition structural faults can affect a dogs ability to work. In that situation, if they were severe I would look for a different dog. Conformation faults that are cosmetic such as to much white, floppy ear, etc aren't a big deal even if they are serious or a DQ in the show ring. Not only would I work/continue to work the dog, but I'd also consider breeding it. Dogs with to much white can produce pups with little to none, dogs with a floppy ear can produce dogs with upright ears. Just like dogs without much white can produce dogs with tons, and dogs with erect ears can produce a floppy ear. Look at some of the bigger name stud dogs in the Malinois gene pool. Elgos was known for the amount of white he produced. And Stoned had a floppy ear. And if you want to talk structure, have you ever seen a photo of Turcodos mother?

Personally I don't like blue Malinois, and don't think I'd ever have one or breed to one. I won't say NEVER, but I don't think I ever would. But that has nothing to do with my opinion of their ability as workers, although I have concerns about their skin/coat health. I've seen some very nice blue Malinois who worked, I just hate the color.

I'm using this male (Enzo - FRIII) for a breeding later this year
















These are a few of his pups, very normal looking, with minimal white (some do have more, 1 even more then Enzo, but many have minimal)
















If the dog is that good, really worth breeding in terms of character, drives, grips, etc many faults can be bred away from.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

most disqualifying faults (aside from bite alignment) are in areas that have nothing to do with a dogs ability to work.

If you are not going to breed the dog, who cares, work him...imho.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Conformation faults that are by definition structural faults can affect a dogs ability to work. In that situation, if they were severe I would look for a different dog. Conformation faults that are cosmetic such as to much white, floppy ear, etc aren't a big deal even if they are serious or a DQ in the show ring. Not only would I work/continue to work the dog, but I'd also consider breeding it.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> If the dog is that good, really worth breeding in terms of character, drives, grips, etc many faults can be bred away from.


That seems to be a really great way to look at it.

I think the OP did have a legit question if you are considering sport to be a breeding test ala. Schutzhund as a BST. I do get the feeling lots of people participate in Sport for reasons other than strictly to test their dog because they intend to breed it. Also, serious health/structural issues aside, in a dog whose sole purpose is to work, it seems like a dog that can achieve greatness in their work and is overall touted as a great dog has sort of passed the test for breeding. Specifically if you know the dog and have some idea genetically how to breed away from faults (with the right dog) that could become exaggerated in the dogs' offspring.

The confirmation guidelines might be a nice blueprint kind of like the Greek philosophy if ideals and a hypothetical perfection, and there are confirmation things that would impact the dogs' ability and longevity to do its expressed work. However, for a dog that literally exists to perform a job, it just seems like (excluding some medical, genetic, or structural fault) a dog that has the aptitude to perform said job at a high level over the duration of its life and is a great example of the breed barring some cosmetic guidelines would seem to have the right confirmation for its expressed purpose for being. If said confirmation faults are excluding said (otherwise-amazing) "flawed" dogs one would have to ask what's the point?

-Cheers


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Harry,
> 
> There's one main reason guys put bags over "dogs" heads.
> Are you wanting to share something with us? ;-)


 
This one time in band camp, actually None to my knowledge, although if you are aware of any please do share your experiences and I might have a toll free number for both of us to call. Maybe you can enlighten me :lol:


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Harry,
> 
> There's one main reason guys put bags over "dogs" heads.
> Are you wanting to share something with us? ;-)



and how would you know what that reason was hmmm :-s

Lucyyyy you got some splainin to dooooo :razz:


----------



## Mike Lauer (Jul 26, 2009)

> "The most striking feature of the correctly bred German Shepherd are firmness of nerves, attentiveness, unshockability, tractability, watchfulness, reliability and incorruptibility together with courage, fighting tenacity, and hardness."
> 
> ~Captain Max von Stephanitz


no mention of looks


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Alice Bezemer said:


> and how would you know what that reason was hmmm :-s
> 
> >Well after a few drinks but not so many where I was "blind drunk I met "Lucy"
> 
> ...


----------



## Shade Whitesel (Aug 18, 2010)

One of the best working dogs I ever had never had his testicles decend. I knew when I took him at 8 weeks it was a posibility and took him anyway because I am a trainer, not a breeder. I learned tons off that dog. Unfortunately, because in his case there were serious health issues not connected to his lack of testicles, he died suddenly at 3.5 years old, 3 weeks after earning his sch 3 with a 291. Would I do it again? Totally. If I were a breeder and wanted to breed to one of his siblings or relatives, I would pick my partner dog very carefully, with an eye toward the health problems in that line. But, it's a package deal, you are dealing with genetics, and you do the best you can. 
As far as other disqualifying faults, I think breeders of working lines should look more carefully at conformation. In my experience, drive can overcome alot of pain, and a dog that works through it's titles and competes at a young age, but breaks down after 6 years, might not have the best conformation for the work. I'm not saying I would disqualify it from breeding but I again would certainly pick the partner with an eye towards the conformation faults. 
But hey, I'm not a breeder and don't want to make those decisions!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I guess it depends on who set the conformation standards. The airedale standard was set by "conformation people. If I stayed with what was considered "conformationally correct", the dogs would be worthless in many areas of hunting, yet they are supposed to be hunters.. You have to go with what works.


----------



## Jenna Lea (Jul 25, 2010)

Since I do confo and performance events with my Amstaffs there probably would be a dog I wouldn't keep b/c of faults. I don't have space to have alot of dogs so every dog has to count, for me it needs to be able to show in the confo ring and perform in Obed, pack dog and carting which are the performance events I do now. If it has major show ring faults I'd probably let it go, if it has faults that might not be major show ring faults but are faults I personally have issue with like a stick straight rear and jacked front assembly I'd probably let it go. However, that's my Amstaffs which I do show in confo and breed. If I got a dog of some sort, which I recently did with a Mal just for working/performance events, no confo and no breeding to hell with what it looks like. I won't lie and will admit to some shallowness, having a pretty that works good is twice as nice though.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I guess it depends on who set the conformation standards. The airedale standard was set by "conformation people. *If I stayed with what was considered "conformationally correct", the dogs would be worthless in many areas of hunting, yet they are supposed to be hunters.. You have to go with what works.*


That's kind of the thing though. One really nice aspect of hunting dogs is I never hear any of this stuff. It seems to pretty much revolve around them getting it done, and if they do they are kept, if not they are gotten rid of. Any conformation or standard would kind of revolve around whatever works. I think when we get specific standards that are not really representative of what actually works (e.g. Don's Airedale Terriers that actually work while being outside the standard). Granted that is probably an oversimplification, and I am not a breeder so it is not like I have to worry about this stuff, but when you have people who have a legit job to do and don't give two craps about conformation, it is nice to see they can just focus on the results and let that determine the course of the breed.

-Cheers


----------



## Margaret Wheeler (May 29, 2010)

A dog that works to the highest standard is a true treasure, and to me one of the saddest situations that working breeders find themselves in is to identify such a dog and then to find that it passes on a serious genetic defect like juvenile cataracts, retinitis pigmentosa, hemophellia or one of the other truly dangerous conditions that can spread like wildfire when a carrier iis widely bred to and it's talented offspring bred widely as well.

Real working breeders, breed for the work. That's it. If the dog is so cow-hocked that it's forward motion is inhibited or it's shoulder is so straight that it can't walk and run throughout the long days of it's working career without coming up lame then the "fault" drifts toward a defect imo. The same is true of coat. Beeding "for" coat is total nonsense in my book, but breeding a working terrier or a border collie that can't stay warm on a bitter day is foolish too.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I think a standard has value, it is a written description of what the breed is supposed to look like, hopefully based on what the breed did look like at the time it was written. At the time the standard was written for each breed, it was based on the dogs who existed at that time that were good at what they were doing (ie their work). So it should also be a description of the best type of physique for that job. I am also talking about the written standard though, not the current show ring fad. I think many people confuse the two. And I'm not taking into account that over time jobs change, and the environment the jobs are performed in change. If a standard isn't updated, it can become outdated.

For example the Malinois standard reminds us that the breed was historically not a 100 lb dog, but a more moderately sized dog. If there were no written record we might have dogs from 30-120 lbs, fawn with black masks (or any color at all since we have no standard) who bite being called Malinois. Granted we do have that LOL And there is some need for it. But the standard gives a basic description of what the ideal dog for the breed would look like. Doesn't mean having dogs outside of standard is bad, different areas have different requirements for their dogs. And in a working dog, they are going to need to conform to the requirements of the area they live in. IE a Malinois used for riot control may need to have a different physique then a Malinois used for detection work in tight spaces. A BC who works in open spaces in cold temperatures may have a different coat then a BC who works in a very hot dry climate through thick brush with lots of brambles. 

But the concept of a breed is a group of dogs that perform the same function who look alike. Without something telling us what they should look like (a standard), we would just have groups of dogs. IE "police dogs" or "hunting dogs" and any dog that performed the function would fall into the category. With standards at least we have an idea of the physical characteristics of the dogs, and an idea of how they might work. IE not all herding dogs herd alike, even if they are herding dogs. Or hunting dogs. etc.

So IMO a standard has some value, but a written description of what a dog should look like shouldn't be the end all be all when making breeding decisions.


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Margaret Wheeler said:


> A dog that works to the highest standard is a true treasure, and to me one of the saddest situations that working breeders find themselves in is to identify such a dog and then to find that it passes on a serious genetic defect like juvenile cataracts, retinitis pigmentosa, hemophellia or one of the other truly dangerous conditions that can spread like wildfire when a carrier iis widely bred to and it's talented offspring bred widely as well.
> 
> Real working breeders, breed for the work. That's it. *If the dog is so cow-hocked that it's forward motion is inhibited or it's shoulder is so straight that it can't walk and run throughout the long days of it's working career without coming up lame then the "fault" drifts toward a defect imo. The same is true of coat. Beeding "for" coat is total nonsense in my book, but breeding a working terrier or a border collie that can't stay warm on a bitter day is foolish too.*


Good point. I would say that is not so much the business of a conformation judge to dictate in the show ring so much as a good breeder to acknowledge and then either make a decision to use a dog or not as well as how to use said dog (or not) based on breeding away from faults to avoid them being defects. It would seem to be a matter of those guidelines sort of being there as a rough blueprint reminding us that traits X, Y, and Z are good to strive for because they are useful for situations I, II, or III. As opposed to this strict cosmetic conformation will kill you because it will cost you X amount of points despite the fact the dog is amazing and has very minor faults that nobody would care about unless said standards told them to and even if they did could easily be controlled by breeding to the proper readily available dogs.

I just find it annoying that breeders of working dogs have to actually cater to some extent to looks and have basically admitted some will overlook a better match (as far as working ability and just overall compatibility to the handlers/family, job, situation, goals, etc.) because another dog (which they know is inferior to their needs) looks prettier or better fits some written standard. Obviously these dogs developed just fine based on a pragmatic approach to them getting certain jobs done. I do not understand enforcing some strict written conformation standard to a working breed or group (e.g. Malinois, German Shepherd, APBT, American Bulldog, Husky, Border Collie, Australian Cattle Dog, Airedale, etc.) when getting the job done and good breeders who bred toward those goals are essentially what created this breed we are trying to preserve in the first place.

-Cheers


----------



## David Ruby (Jul 21, 2009)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I think a standard has value, it is a written description of what the breed is supposed to look like, hopefully based on what the breed did look like at the time it was written. At the time the standard was written for each breed, it was based on the dogs who existed at that time that were good at what they were doing (ie their work). So it should also be a description of the best type of physique for that job. I am also talking about the written standard though, not the current show ring fad. I think many people confuse the two. And I'm not taking into account that over time jobs change, and the environment the jobs are performed in change. If a standard isn't updated, it can become outdated.
> 
> For example the Malinois standard reminds us that the breed was historically not a 100 lb dog, but a more moderately sized dog. If there were no written record we might have dogs from 30-120 lbs, fawn with black masks (or any color at all since we have no standard) who bite being called Malinois. Granted we do have that LOL And there is some need for it. But the standard gives a basic description of what the ideal dog for the breed would look like. Doesn't mean having dogs outside of standard is bad, different areas have different requirements for their dogs. And in a working dog, they are going to need to conform to the requirements of the area they live in. IE a Malinois used for riot control may need to have a different physique then a Malinois used for detection work in tight spaces. A BC who works in open spaces in cold temperatures may have a different coat then a BC who works in a very hot dry climate through thick brush with lots of brambles.
> 
> ...


I'll agree to that. However, I think we try to make things too formulaic and left-brained in how we evaluate things. That is not just a dog thing either, but often we look at factors we can easily quantify without taking into consideration the intangibles. Each has their weight in the equation, so it is not even that people tend to look at things as a math problem so much as they are only taking into consideration the more obvious and easily calculable variables.

-Cheers


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Mike Lauer said:


> no mention of looks


No mention in that quote. 

But the SV had conformation shows before it ever had a working trial.

And I'll give $50 to a charity of your choice if you can find any proof that von Stephanitz EVER worked a dog.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Standards were lagely made by people with ideas of what looked good to them, they they coinvinced everyone that it was a working standard. Leaving oputs such oddly built dogs like doxies, basset hounds and many of the bull breeds and pet dogs, dogs would be built very similarily from bred to breed. You wouldn't see flat square backs, high tail sets because they are not conducive to working fast or without injury. All breeds would have rolling toplines lower tailsets and the skeletal structure would be strikingly similar. All standards are someones idea of what the breed should look like. As Kadi said, they should "look" like the breed they are. Not what actually works the best. Let's face it, all dogs shpould be agile and able to run. If you used the same criteria for each and forgot about the standard, they would all be built much alike within a few generations. It is that easy to change.


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

Unless it's a physically disabling fault (cow hocked, etc) then no, who cares? My male GSD had a white spot on his chest, and a flopped ear. I had him neutered - so he's obviously not going to be in the puppy-making way ever. Doesn't mean I'm just going to quit working with him. He's my official "if I screw it up, I don't care" dog. Kind of like a first car, you put some dents and scratches on it, hell you might even blow up the engine, but it was a learning experience.


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

Christopher Smith said:


> But the SV had conformation shows before it ever had a working trial.
> 
> And I'll give $50 to a charity of your choice if you can find any proof that von Stephanitz EVER worked a dog.


He personally courage tested his 1930 and 1931 Sieger something something Von Nieder Ausitz. Harland? Horand? Hornburg...? Something Von NiederAusitz.

He and his pal tested the dog's nerve by galloping on the horses around his, maybe charged towards him while the dog was in the down-stay position.

If you want me to find the article, I would try. No need for donations, of course if you want to donate on your own, please feel free to do so.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

If the "fault" doesn't hinder physical ability then it doesn't matter one bit.
When I was really active in the show ring  8-[ with terriers I was once asked to judge a fun match.
I judged the dogs on what I knew was correct working conformation.  WOW! did I ever piss of some folks.  I never was asked to judge conformation again but to this day there is a kid out there (adult now) that probably still has a huge grin from getting a group win with a scrawny little Westie. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Adi Ibrahimbegovic said:


> He personally courage tested his 1930 and 1931 Sieger something something Von Nieder Ausitz. Harland? Horand? Hornburg...? Something Von NiederAusitz.
> 
> He and his pal tested the dog's nerve by galloping on the horses around his, maybe charged towards him while the dog was in the down-stay position.
> 
> If you want me to find the article, I would try. No need for donations, of course if you want to donate on your own, please feel free to do so.


I think the story goes that the dog was in a down, and he and another guy circled the dog on horses and then they both charged the dog, and then at the last minute the dog jumped up and latched onto his horse, he then beat it off with his crop....he hit the dog with a crop, that might count as working a dog


----------



## Jenna Lea (Jul 25, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> If the "fault" doesn't hinder physical ability then it doesn't matter one bit.
> When I was really active in the show ring  8-[ with terriers I was once asked to judge a fun match.
> I judged the dogs on what I knew was correct working conformation.  WOW! did I ever piss of some folks.  I never was asked to judge conformation again but to this day there is a kid out there (adult now) that probably still has a huge grin from getting a group win with a scrawny little Westie. :lol::lol::lol:


hehehe love it


----------



## Kirstyn Kerbo (Apr 3, 2010)

Mike Lauer said:


> no mention of looks


Reading that quote, and thinking about what has become beautiful in the eyes of the american show ring makes me sick to my stomach. I saw some pics today of dogs...who seriously had a FOOT of difference between their withers and their rump. *shiver*

But honestly, in regard to the original topic...If it does not affect health or the dogs ability to work, then go for it. Think twice about breeding maybe, but crap like a flop ear or too much white or whatever is just...whatever.


----------

